S-17 Edgic (editing and logic) Gabon

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
Phoenix1269		#2981	[-]
Posts: 302 (11/17/08 3:29 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I just reread TLS's post on the Arrogance of Kota and i must say... an excellent summation and excellent observations and i agree 100% It's difficult to edit a "winning tribe" negatively, especially when they generally get along and are happy. When you are winning, there is nothing pushing those dysfunction buttons which flare up so quickly when a team is losing. Yet, the editing team did take great pains to do just that.... so the question we must ask ourselves is why. Perhaps it's to make sure that we see that Kota isn't all that heroic or likeable (like the Aitu 4, for example)....
TheLurkerSpeaks		#2982	[-]
Posts: 1404 (11/17/08 3:34 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	DH, Of course, we know the editors' intent. It is to entertain the audience while keeping them invested in the story up until the final episode. The guidelines of Edgic were all based upon that premise and the application of logic - hence the term "editing logic" or Edgic. No, it isn't science - it is more of an art. After all, we generally don't eliminate everyone based upon Edgic - we just narrow the field and choose whoever looks best based upon the logic behind the edit as shown. The process works nearly every time - we as individuals just don't always make the right pick. (The exception was Danni as we weren't anticipating the main storyline being about the loser instead of the winner, but even there she fit some criteria better than given credit for at the time.) I still believe that if Marcus had won, his edit through the early portion of the game would not have changed much. If he had won against Kotas in the F5, I do think their edits would have been substantially different. This was the basis of the old "complex tribe" theory, which was shot down when Chris and Danni won amongst endgame players from the opposing tribe. Perhaps it still has some merit as long as it is kept in perspective. Nonetheless, was Marcus' edit a hint that the editors are actively trying to fool us or just an accident? We may not know unless it happens again. Even if the editors were trying to deceive us, that doesn't change the purpose of Edgic, particularly if Ken (or Matty) wins - it just makes it more challenging going forward, which is overall a good thing.
scepticA		#2983	[-]
Posts: 1426 (11/17/08 3:37 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	DarkHelmet, if the rules for editing survivor were strictly random, if they did anything they wanted (to get into your "laws of science" jag - if the edtiors played dice with the editing), then tell us that Susie is going to win, for she is as likely as anyone else because editors do whatever they want. Tell us the editors are indifferent to audience reaction to the winner, that there is no story to tell, that the effort they put into each person is identical, or that anyone could win and they are indifferent to how they edited any previous episodes when they start in on the next one. Because that's the logical conclusion of your post. Truth be told, they want a good story, an accessible story to the public. They don't make the winners appear to be total assholes, or completely invisible, because the millions of fans of the show might get pissed and check out Ugly Betty instead. It seems pretty clear after watching all 16+ seasons that the editors love stories, love heroes and villains and sweethearts, appreciate good strategy, and want winners that the public can accept. A lot of really negative crap about winners (and heroes and sweethearts) is left on the cutting room floor -- but that's because they're story tellers. If this was just a "reality" version of Jerry springer they'd have rants from heroes and whining from sweethearts. They don't. They want to make the story as compelling as the terrain and the game itself. The trick in edgic is to figure out their story-telling tricks. For instance, you say we're dogmatically clinging to the INV rule. Well, except for Tina all the way back in S2 (an editing strategy that MB himself acknowledged - a statement, BTW, that indicates they DO have strategic decisions in editing) there hasn't been a winner with an INV. That's not dogmatic, but simple observation. The truth is someplace between "they do whatever they feel like at any moment," and "they have unalterable rules to which they must adhere." It's closer to the latter, simply because the 'rules' of story telling aren't random and haphazard. Our goal isn't just to plug in each person's edit into the edgic-o-matic and see who wins, but something a lot more fun - use our 'rules' to try and figure out the story, to get into the noggins of story-tellers. Look at it that way. It's more fun. Assuming you have any interest in this at all. I like to think you do, otherwise you're just wasting your time here.
DarkHelmet		#2984	[-]
Posts: 5 (11/17/08 4:32 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think you raise some good points, and I agree that there may be editing patterns that emerge over time (I can't agree or disagree, as this is the first season I've watched). However, while the editors are vested in creating heroes, villians and sweethearts to boost ratings, I would argue they're even more interested in creating a plotline that's not predictable. As a result, every clue could have two meanings. For example, when Randy said, "I am the King of Gabon," one could reasonably argue that was the "winner's shot" (just like most thought that Marcus' "Hands-over-head-on-a-cliff" was his winner's shot). However, it would also be reasonable to argue that the shot is meant only to set Randy up for a fall. My point is, when a single clue can mean two completely opposite things, it has zero predictive value. In reality, I think Edgic is often just a big Rorshach test, in which what people see says more about them, than about reality. There seems to be lots of wishful thinking, self-reinforcing interpretations, and a lot of revisionist history. I'm not trying to trash Edgic. It seems like a bunch of nice people, who are pretty bright. I guess that's why it's distressing for me to see people spending a lot of energy on a treasure hunt, with no map.
scepticA		#2985	[-]
Posts: 1427 (11/17/08 5:28 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	DH, your comment about Randy and his "king of Gabon" statement rdemonstrates one of the issues I raised. I truly doubt the editors want unpredictability when you view the season as a whole. They want coherent story lines, and in the case of Survivor a story line encompasses a season. A person like Randy, who is drawn bigger than life in the editing, is a great example. I would be surprised if more than a tiny percentage of fans (not just edgic'rs but those faithful 12ish million people every week) thought that was a "good sign" for Randy. Why? Because he has been a loudmouth and opinionated. View it within the context of his entire edit and it was a very bad sign for him. At this point in the game, and for a player like Randy, there is really no such thing as a "single clue." Here's another example of the lack of unpredictability. In the last episode we saw the two sides compete for Sugar's vote, and the Crystal faction was going to vote Charlie, the Corrine side was voting Crystal. Where would Sugar go? It turned out she voted out Charlie. There was tension, suspense. But it was not "unpredictable." That would have been Bob being voted out, or Susie, or Ken. The audience likes blindsides. They like surprises, but they must be within the context of the plot, the story. If you've watched the show for any length of time you know of the false boot suspense about a Pagong not occurring. X is the obvious choice for the boot, and there is some talk after the ICof Y going home. And inevitably it is X. When it's Y, there is more than the usual tension. The editors want the viewers to say, "Wow!" Think of the wonderful blindsides in Palau. The fans were on the edge of their seats. Think of Cirie's brilliant 3-2-1 strategy. It was not anticipated, but it was explained so well that the viwers not only understood the gamble she was taking, but reveled in its success. The editors made us part of the show by giving us a sense of the tenion - and cleverness - behind her ploy. They don't want the viewer to ever say, WTF???" Boots need to be explained. The explanation might be brilliant play, or terrible play, or a grand snookering, or a basic pagong. But if, for instance, Bob was dispatched in the last episode, or Susie, it would have made no sense to the story the editors were giving us up to that point. Unpredictable to me is almost synonymous with "random." And that's anethma for a show like Survivor. It's always the story. It's the need for the editors to give the viewers a good Survivor show. What comes out of left field is not the WTF boot, but the switch, the fake switch, the changes in the game. And ironically, we sort of expect those as well. What fans don't want is a sense of utter exasperation that they have no idea what's going on. That's where the story comes in. I like your idea of a treasure map, but it's not that the map is blank, it's that there is too much information on it. To me, the editing of Survivor is more like a medieval palimpsest, in which the truth, the clues, are really there, but they're blurred behind other stories, fake=outs, and occasional misdirections. To think otherwise is to imagine the editors not caring about a story of the winner, or not caring making each episode dramatic and consistent within the season as a whole. I give the editors more credit than that. And if the ponit of it all is "the story" then there is something behind edgic. No, it ain't perfect (it's more like art, as someone said). Even art has its rules, though. Not paint-by-number inevitablity, but certain not Jackson Pollock.
cindidindi76		#2986	[-]
Posts: 13401 (11/17/08 5:42 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dark Helmet, how can you say this: That flawed premise, of course, is that Survivor editing principles are constant. and then say this: and I agree that there may be editing patterns that emerge over time (I can't agree or disagree, as this is the first season I've watched). There are definitely constants in Survivoe editing principles, and I don't know how you can say there aren't (or are, for that metter) of you've only ever watched this season. Yes, any one thing could mean two completely opposite things, but we aren't just looking at any one thing, we're looking at everything.
fat little fingers		#2987	[-]
Posts: 5731 (11/17/08 6:00 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	What we've done right. What we've done wrong. And a basic mistake we might have made: INV and the Ep1 opening credits are probably still very good ways to narrow the field. (So far, so good.) But, where we went wrong was in accepting the story and comments about Fang as reason to discount them. Could we have seen any of their story otherwise? I'm not sure. But the guideline has always been that the winner will be hidden in the midst of the action, thru the pre-merge. Well, there certainly was a lot of action at Fang. It was dismissed as "short story" versus, supposedly, the Onion Alliance's long story. Maybe in the future we should allow action to be action, without these qualitative choices. And maybe what we should also note is that Corinne and Charley practically disappeared as of ep3. Instead of disappearing, Marcus stood out from them. That's the opposite of what the guidelines predict.
9RedWing19		#2988	[-]
Posts: 2296 (11/17/08 6:13 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	fat little fingers wrote: I'm not sure. But the guideline has always been that the winner will be hidden in the midst of the action, thru the pre-merge. Well, there certainly was a lot of action at Fang. It was dismissed as "short story" versus, supposedly, the Onion Alliance's long story. Maybe in the future we should allow action to be action, without these qualitative choices. I for one was expecting an S10 type season where one tribe gets the majority of the air-time pre-merge because it is always going to TC, and the other tribes story takes off after the merge (so what we see of the dominant tribe pre-merge provides important clues as to who will be important in the end-game). Didn't happen that way. We didn't anticipate the second twist and how it would cost Kota its numbers. While I need to "mea culpa" about Marcus as much as anyone in these parts, I can't feel totally guilty about it; rather I see it as a good job done by the editors (even in the 17th season they can still fool hard-core viewers). That being said, I still prefer to wait until the end of the season before doing too much soul-searching about the guidelines. Matty and Ken are not bad fits - they just didn't look as good as Earl part 2 (aka Marcus), except Earl 2 was on the dominant tribe who would Pagong those Fang-losers once the merge happened, which just made his win that much more obvious.
colleenlover		#2989	[-]
Posts: 8783 (11/17/08 6:23 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	dark helmet, there are definitely story editors for this show -and their job is to make coherent storylines out a jumbled mess of reality -probably why I spend just as much time figuring out what everyone's role will be, not just the winner. And in terms of the treasure hunt without a map -well, sure. I can see that. but is it any different than being in a book club or watching a soap opera and speculating in a group what certain things mean? In terms of Marcus, come on -no one could really eliminate him. And I think that's great. A perfect season would be not to be able to eliminate anyone (Borneo was almost like that). But I think some of us (I know I did) had Marcus' win coming with a different endgame. At first, I thought it would be wrapped up in Charlie and Corrine and then started shifting to people like Sugar and Kenny, Randy -with the speculation that maybe Marcus' team falls and he gets there another way.
ncassaro		#2990	[-]
Posts: 285 (11/17/08 6:40 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	fat little fingers wrote: What we've done right. What we've done wrong. And a basic mistake we might have made: INV and the Ep1 opening credits are probably still very good ways to narrow the field. (So far, so good.) But, where we went wrong was in accepting the story and comments about Fang as reason to discount them. Could we have seen any of their story otherwise? I'm not sure. But the guideline has always been that the winner will be hidden in the midst of the action, thru the pre-merge. Well, there certainly was a lot of action at Fang. It was dismissed as "short story" versus, supposedly, the Onion Alliance's long story. Maybe in the future we should allow action to be action, without these qualitative choices. And maybe what we should also note is that Corinne and Charley practically disappeared as of ep3. Instead of disappearing, Marcus stood out from them. That's the opposite of what the guidelines predict. I think the assumption that was made is that Corinne and Charlie had their stories on hold whereas Fang was doomed and needed their stories told immediately. This WAS supported though by the increasing negativity in Crystal/Matty's edits (although the fact that Corinne and Charlie weren't fleshed out and THEN put on hold should have set off an alarm.) It wasn't until the "clean slate" scene was broadcast that I even considered Fang had a shot at the game. That scene was obviously very important.
Green Coffee		#2991	[-]
Posts: 98 (11/17/08 8:12 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I'm glad to see the responses to my comments were thoughtful ones. OTH: Except that in lieu of a three way debate, most centered on the same one person. The wrong one. Throw the baby with the bathwater, etc.? I won't. I see exactly where you are coming from with most of your comments. However, this is the point where people should look for improvements. There will ALWAYS be players that cannot be edgically eliminated based on current guidelines. I think this is an area where the logical deductions people often make informally to determine which one to pick could take shape in the form of new guidelines (IN ADDITION to the ones that already exist). There is no denying that the current guidelines work in narrowing the field to 3 or 4 people at most. However, people DO narrow the field each season to 1 in their own ways using a myriad of methods. The question is: what new guidelines can we add to make the transition from 3 or 4 to 1 more accurate? How can we differentiate the Cirie's from the Parvati's? Maybe there IS no consistent form for this part of the equation. However, we will never know if we don't try! There are methods out there, but they are all informal and individualized. Why not look at them analytically? So I disagree that I am advocating that we throw the bathwater out in the first place. The baby and its bathwater are good to stay, but maybe we should add some soap to clean things up? Small distinction, I know, but I really want to make sure my suggestion is not misconstrued. flf: *To the posters who want to either tease, trash, or "help improve" Edgic:* Why the quotes on "help improve?" Do you honestly believe this is some form of mocking behavior on my part? Is criticism of any kind, constructive or not, disallowed here? I would argue there is a difference between "HAHAH YOU SUCK" and "Is this behavior the most beneficial course of action for the construct as a whole? I don't think so." If you want to start another spec thread and come at spec some other way, then please go for it. It's a great big Forum out there just waiting for someone to post outside of little ol Edgic. If you're in here for the audience, then that is pretty sad, isn't it? See if you can get posters to discuss new ideas in a non-Edgic thread. There's certainly other ways to come at deciphering the winner. Is this basically a declaration akin to "Do it our way and if you have any input that isn't praise, start your own thread!"? What would be the point of that? Is Edgic so dogmatic in what guidelines are used that any suggestion for changes or improvements is reason for competing threads? My how things change! Please refer to the earliest Edgic post I could find on Sucks (S5 Edgic): KQ: The main point is that this is a work-in-progress and anyone and everyone is encouraged to contribute. The goal is to try to be able to pick a couple early boots, the people most likely to make the merge, the final four and with any luck, the eventual winner. So in 2002, Edgic was open to discussion and acknowledged as a work in progress. In 2008, if you think there is a problem with the guidelines or think we might be missing a piece, you should not be posting in Edgic. Why? Please reconsider this position. skof: I think many Corinne advocates ( myself included ) believe she will make the final 3, but lose the game. It's my impression that this is often lost in the back and forth between posters though. If that is the case, in terms of Edgic, she should probably be eliminated and should definitely not be a winner pick. I wouldn't doubt that she goes far, but I strongly doubt she is the winner. Also, and I don't mean this sarcastically, but do you have a single example of Corinne's "strategic ineptitude"? ( As a flaw independent from her "lack of social skills". ) My biggest point here was the admission by either her or Charlie that "Marcus did most of the thinking for us." This is an indication that any previous strategic success they had was not a result of their own skills. Now, in the new environment on their own, she believes that her strategy to get Sugar on their side was successful and that it was so "easy" to convince her despite being mean to her for so long. Not surprisingly, this strategy does not work out. The overall implication is that she is not strategically skilled, as the first and only solo move she has done failed miserably and it was edited as such that she didn't even see it coming. getting real: Firstly, for the technical reasons that a merge pick has always been, in my experience, the forum's collective pick. I take your points about a merge theoretically occurring very late but this hasn't been a factor in 17 seasons so we can discount the possibility until we actually need to consider it. But this is, in my opinion, the first time merge timing has been a necessity to consider. To my knowledge (and please correct me if I'm wrong), there has never been a season for Edgic when both of the following has occurred: 1) General unclarity or mid-game switching of "official" winner pick 2) Unusual merge timing In any case where merge timing was an issue, it is my recollection that Edgic had a solid pick by then anyway. If it has not been considered as an issue yet, then I think we have a case for considering it now. If people, formally or informally are going to declare an "official edgic pick," the criteria for when this pick arrives should not be sensitive to in-game twists that are occurring with relatively greater frequency. Make it F10 or F9 if needed (which are essentially the same thing in most cases). Secondly, because one of most important Edgic functions, as I see it, is to determine who can't win, not having one's first choice win is not such a big deal provided none of the Edgic impossibilities ends up as the winner. Others may see this differently. I agree with this in principle, but not in practice. If the goal of Edgic is to eliminate losers and not to choose winners, why is the practice of making and evaluating the group consensus pick for the winner so common? Nonetheless, I think we agree with the same ideas but different terminology. Official pick does not win but Edgically viable person does: Not a big deal vs. Failure to make correct pick Edgically dead person wins: Edgic Failure vs. Edgic catastrophe and possible death of current paradigm (Note that I seriously doubt this will ever happen given the current editing team) We agree on the meat of things, but I think the terminology is the issue. Hopefully this helps clarify where I'm coming from. That last sentence segues nicely to my third point. As satisfying as it is to feel part of a community that has makes a collective choice, I don't think the objective is to get everyone to conform to exactly the same viewpoints. As Cl says, editing and its interpretation is more of an art than a science. Consequently, the process can't help but be subjective. My aim is to put ideas out there, cast an eye over those of others and have some fun bantering. If the majority of Edgic gets it right, well and good but this has not much to do with me as an individual. That's why I was pretty sure the sun would come up last season when the entire forum except me picked Paravati to win. Edgic is to some degree an individual journey, yes. Still, there is this extremely common practice of group evaluation. This hearkens back to my comments about not being able to have it both ways. If Edgic is to claim group victory when the consensus is correct, lauding the success of the Edgic system (please see S16 for a recent example), it is seen as unfair, and rightfully so, by outsiders to switch things up and emphasize the individualistic side of Edgic when things go wrong. If the groups shares victory, it stands to logic that they would share defeat. If group mistakes are irrelevant, then group victories should be as well. Evidence, however, suggests that this is not what happens in practice. There are others who see it differently and think the season has been a waste if Marcus (or any Marcus) for that matter doesn't win. Fine, but I sincerely hope that believing that to be the case doesn't detract from your enjoyment. Because it's been a ripper of a season. I don't think this season is a waste because Marcus lost AT ALL. The true waste, however, would be if people debating Edgic in Survivor 22 look back and remember this season as an Edgic "victory" (given that Ken wins) in the pure sense that guidelines are not discussed after the season. Nothing is learned and Edgic remains susceptible to another Marcus in the future. Allowing that to happen with no effort to rectify it is a waste. Again, the true value of this season is in determining what makes future iterations of Marcus non-winners. If survivor continues, we will see this type of edit again and Edgic should prepare itself. ncassaro: I feel like people are a bit threatened by my posts when I'm really not trying to have that tone. I must say I feel the same and just wanted to quickly add that I feel like it is unnecessary. Agree or disagree. Hell, skip my posts if you want. But please do not treat them as if they are the enemy at the gates, signaling an attempt to destroy Edgic. Nothing could be further from the truth. Phoenix: In this moment... I don't care about revising the guidelines RIGHT NOW. We are just over half way through the season, and we have been keeping stats based on a certain set of guidelines. To change those guidelines and definitions NOW will actually MAKE IT HARDER to figure out what went awry. When the season is FINISHED, then the idea of re-evaluating any guidelines, and looking at WHY Marcus's winning decoy edit was so successful can (and most likely) will happen. I am not opposed to looking back... BUT ONLY WHEN WE HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION AT OUR DISPOSAL. Hindsight is 20/20 WHEN you have ALL of the information. We DON'T have all the infomration....we still have 4 or 5 episodes to go. Once we know the outcome, we can look back and see where we - collectively and as individuals - went wrong. I agree with this wholeheartedly and I hope that my comments were not construed as an attempt to initiate change mid-stream. I am more concerned with the framing of this season when it comes time to do that evaluation and to consider those possible changes. Change when neccessary is a good thing. Change just for the sake of change is craziness... Until the season is over, we won't know which is which. I think the argument being made is primarily that we are at a point where, if the overwhelming majority misfires to this magnitude, CONSIDERING revision will be beneficial no matter who wins. It's just a matter of degree. If Ken/Matty wins, we should consider minor changes and additions to refine guidelines such that a "Marcus" does not foil Edgic again. If Susie wins (unlikely), holy shit we need to re-evaluate a LOT! While I COMPLETELY agree that we don't need change yet, my main goal, again, is to argue against framing the Marcus pick as insignificant blip on the Edgic radar. As soon as the kinks are worked out of my point or when it seems like my point is detrimental to actual discussion of the season at hand, I will also take your advice to back off until the off season. Of course, however, if flf does indeed let me know that suggestions of change are no longer welcome in Edgic, I'll take his advice and leave the topic, discussing any future ideas in a separate spec topic (although I still hold that this would be detrimental and pointless). scepticA: Post: 2969 Not quoting the entire post in order to save space I agree with every word of this! My sentiments exactly! In re: DarkHelmet I disagree. Edgic gets it right significantly more often than would be expected by random chance. It's impossible to get a perfect scientific system together that is infallible. However, there is no denying that Edgic has something here. Overall, Edgic is a highly productive thread. Much is discussed and accomplished. Given the relatively long offseason on the horizon, as well as the amazing amount of discussion generated here, I see absolutely no harm in taking some of that time and devoting it to an evaluation of how to avoid future Marcus situations. If someone could argue for why evaluating and discussing guidelines is a BAD thing, I would like to hear it. Enough said for now. Sorry for the length, but if anything interesting comes out of it, it will be worth it. Thanks for reading if you got this far!
OnlyTheHunter		#2992	[-]
Posts: 1843 (11/17/08 8:48 PM) Edgician Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	cindi said but we aren't just looking at any one thing, we're looking at everything. You said "we", cindi. Welcome to the party. I'm glad I kept you on my invitation list since China! :-) I am mad mad mad fuckin' mad. My job is now restricting any Yuku site so I can not post from work during my day. Not fair! Just so it is on the records, here's the tone calls from me this week. I won't try ratings. I have a few general thoughts on ratings but a little late to the party. Bob - P - easy. That idol is better looking than the real one. He fights on. Crystal - neutral - yeah, there was an outburst at TC. My mom, who has hated Crystal from the beginning, said about TC "At least I saw her point." The scene to me was Randy reveling in his hatred of her and her never actually shown cutting him down. If you hate her, fine. But that was a setup of upstaging Randy, I think. He's wrong, he is going back to camp with her tonight. Charlie - neutral - he was a pawn, a sidekick with Corrine and targeted by Kenny in place of the more out there Corrine or Randy. Randy - N - it is his attitude that is the downfall. He was actually right about dropping the ball in. But he is becoming the very un-unifying force that he saw about others in Fang. And yet he thinks he's helping make it tight. All the dancing at the reward can't help that. Sugar - neutral - maybe woman of the hour, but not forced into a tone. She's got a mind of her own but it's simply seeing if Ken/Crystal are going to outdo Corrine/Charlie or vice versa. Ken - P - the growth is an easy story to present. When the mean spirited Randy gives effusive praise, Ken earns it from all. Corrine - N - they managed to trash even her good moments at the reward, and she got the "clueless" N, where we wait to see her mistaken thoughts about seeing Marcus to her incorrect summation of Sugar, etc. She comes off boorish. Again. (on a separate note, she's the hottest cheerleader I've seen in a while.) Matty - neutral - Charlie had to calm him down too. But he was just there. He would not listen. But worse, nothing personalized. All needing the reward, fluff. Not what you want here. Susie - I don't know - I'd say neutral. She won a challenge. Great. It happened. Nothing from her, nothing about noting her new position in the game. Etc. The recap gave Kenny equal credit for recruiting Susie. And so much about his "growth." Susie says "Coming out of your shell." He said "I have to stand up for myself." The wink with Matty. Randy mentioning his growth. On the boat he learns "I know what to do" and he provides as the little guy. It is about him growing into his place. And at the same time, Matty got nothing. Nothing like that. Kenny had to learn how to lead, and it took time. His tribe suffered, as Fang didn't want a leader. They now have one. All the difference. As Charlie said, no one thinks for "them" at the old Kota once their leader was deposed. Michael
OnlyTheHunter		#2993	[-]
Posts: 1844 (11/17/08 9:02 PM) Edgician Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	GCoffee said The question is: what new guidelines can we add to make the transition from 3 or 4 to 1 more accurate? How can we differentiate the Cirie's from the Parvati's? Maybe there IS no consistent form for this part of the equation. However, we will never know if we don't try! There are methods out there, but they are all informal and individualized. Why not look at them analytically? So I disagree that I am advocating that we throw the bathwater out in the first place. The baby and its bathwater are good to stay, but maybe we should add some soap to clean things up? Small distinction, I know, but I really want to make sure my suggestion is not misconstrued. Oh, I knew you weren't trashing the whole thing, didn't mean to even appear to imply it. I am too beat right now to give a better response. I hate being on the sidelines, but after seeing my kids over the weekend and then seeing Quantum of Solace tonight, I need some sleep. But I'll consider trying to give some opinion on what you said. I am all for looking and re-looking. The bathwater comment I made was actually constrained to the idea that you can always narrow it down to one, else throw it out. So let me think about that as it wasn't meant to be a criticism. Michael
fat little fingers		#2994	[-]
Posts: 5732 (11/17/08 9:15 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	gc, my annoyance comes from someone showing up to fix Edgic. Thanks, but I prefer my fixing suggestions done by posters who actually participate in the season.
cindidindi76		#2995	[-]
Posts: 13424 (11/17/08 9:35 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I keep forgetting to ask, how do you determine what is a "close call"? I noticed that one of them was 50% and 27%, which doesn't look very close at all, but I have no idea what makes it a close call.
Green Coffee		#2996	[-]
Posts: 99 (11/17/08 9:49 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	fat little fingers wrote: gc, my annoyance comes from someone showing up to fix Edgic. Thanks, but I prefer my fixing suggestions done by posters who actually participate in the season. I see what you're saying. But please don't get the impression that I have just "showed up" to Edgic. I have been reading regularly since Survivor 7. I have sporadically posted comments throughout this season and others, but they do not take the form of ratings. I personally think my own eye for ratings probably isn't that good. I tried my hand at it during a previous season and was even part of a voting site for a while (under an old username). However, I was rebuffed and told that I was off target when I posted in the thread (not always, of course, but enough that it seemed more harmful than helpful). With this in mind, I prefer not to make ratings posts. I would rather offer comments here and there about the editing, my opinions, the big picture, etc. (poor man's colleenlover, maybe?). I just don't do it that often because it is rare that I have time to write up my thoughts (I do get longwinded, I guess!) and even rarer that I would have time to adequately clarify/defend them. Unfortunately, this leaves me mostly commenting on the issues I feel most strongly about (which are usually related to the status of Edgic and its more global directions). These are, perhaps not by coincidence, the types of posts that garner the most negative attention. Therefore, I can see why you are annoyed by my commentary. However, please do not get the impression that it is given from an antagonistic or "outsider" perspective. I've been a reader for years and I like Edgic a lot. I don't feel that my lack of regular participation should exclude me from commenting. On the other hand, I can see where one would disagree. Thanks for clarifying.
fat little fingers		#2997	[-]
Posts: 5733 (11/17/08 10:12 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	gc, to clarify. you weren't necessarily the poster(s) I was thinking of when I made that initial comment about "fixing". btw: Nice to see KQ's old post regarding the intent of Edgic. It has a lot of humility and like this season, humility is usually served up to us on a regular basis. The emphasis since that early Kernel Q comment has been on the winner. Of course we'll toss out guesses and predictions on all sorts of boots, F-6s, 4s, Final 3s, etc. But as our detractors like to jump in and gleefully point out, we are after the prize of picking the winner. Every season's a gamble, because outside of some very broad guidelines, each season is unique. The closer we get to the Finale, the easier it is to be accurate. So, the juice is in picking the winner asap. Gamble and get burned. As they say in hang gliding, "Don't go higher than you're willing to fall." P.S.: I just got an email asking if I'm okay. I guess I need to lighten up this week. Lol.
cindidindi76		#2998	[-]
Posts: 13428 (11/17/08 10:15 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I guess I'll never go hang gliding.
fat little fingers		#2999	[-]
Posts: 5734 (11/17/08 10:38 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I just took a closer look at the Close Calls. You've got a point, cindi. Phoenix, do we usually push the close calls, when they're divided 3- ways? Close Calls Rating Bob Crowley INV (0%), UTR (0%), CP (16.7%), MOR (50%), OTT (33.3%) Corinne Kaplan INV (0%), UTR (0%), CP (22.2%), MOR (50%), OTT (27.8%) Crystal Cox INV (0%), UTR (16.7%), CP (0%), MOR (38.9%), OTT (44.4%) I would consider the only close call to be Crystal, but I also suck at doing stats, so what 'cha think?
Kitty Pryde1		#3000	[-]
Posts: 6481 (11/17/08 11:32 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	3000 POSTS OF GABON EDGIC!

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

S-17 Edgic (editing and logic) Gabon

Quick Reply