An idea to improve Survivor so that weaklings dont comprise the finals

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#2121	[-]
Posts: 6201 (12/01/08 9:45 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: No, where is the data that shows this would increase ratings. No, where is your memory? 1) I have designed a superior system based on the removal of artificial teams and their impact on a game called Survivor. To date, there are no effective arguments against my system. 2) I have also admitted that my fair game will not be popular with current couch-whales who identify with weak players that need lucky advantages. 3) I also believe that the steady decline in ratings is due to the original Survivor viewers getting tired of weaklings making the finals due to the lucky advantages outlined. This point has no relation to point 1), which is the subject of this thread. Your beliefs mean nothing in the face of no data. Show me people complaining against the current system.
ArtieeLange		#2122	[-]
Posts: 415 (12/01/08 9:45 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Under the current system, the weak are voted out because they're weak. You are so pathetically and easily owned that I should get bored with it...and yet I'm not. Every post you make proves not only that there are no arguments against my system, but that those trying to argue against it are absolute fools. Ready? Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Current System: Weak Player On An Immune Tribe: Safe Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Under the current system, the weak are voted out because they're weak. Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Current System: Weak Player On An Immune Tribe: Safe Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Under the current system, the weak are voted out because they're weak.
Kitty Pryde1		#2123	[-]
Posts: 6840 (12/01/08 9:48 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: No, where is the data that shows this would increase ratings. No, where is your memory? 1) I have designed a superior system based on the removal of artificial teams and their impact on a game called Survivor. To date, there are no effective arguments against my system. 2) I have also admitted that my fair game will not be popular with current couch-whales who identify with weak players that need lucky advantages. 3) I also believe that the steady decline in ratings is due to the original Survivor viewers getting tired of weaklings making the finals due to the lucky advantages outlined. This point has no relation to point 1), which is the subject of this thread. There are plenty of effective arguments. You just ignore them because you don't believe it's possible for you to be wrong. Also, if you alienate the hardcore fanbase by changing the game entirely, whether they're "couch whales" or not, that would further decrease the ratings and lead to the show getting cancelled. Hell, look at Pirate Master. It had dynamic teams and only three players were really safe each round, meaning everyone else was fair game. But guess what happened? The strong were targetted for fear of them winning challenges and causing the other players to lose, and thus those stronger players stuck around. You know what else happened? Pirate Master was cancelled halfway through the season. As a result, your system has already been basically proven to be a complete failure and would never work. There's no argument against this.
ArtieeLange		#2124	[-]
Posts: 416 (12/01/08 9:50 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Last Edited By: ArtieeLange 12/01/08 9:52 AM. Edited 1 times.
ArtieeLange		#2125	[-]
Posts: 417 (12/01/08 9:51 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: Your beliefs mean nothing Yet you keep focusing on my beliefs because you have been rendered impotent when attempting to refute my system, further proving there are no arguments against my system. Again.
Kitty Pryde1		#2126	[-]
Posts: 6841 (12/01/08 9:54 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Under the current system, the weak are voted out because they're weak. You are so pathetically and easily owned that I should get bored with it...and yet I'm not. Every post you make proves not only that there are no arguments against my system, but that those trying to argue against it are absolute fools. Ready? Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Current System: Weak Player On An Immune Tribe: Safe Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Under the current system, the weak are voted out because they're weak. Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Current System: Weak Player On An Immune Tribe: Safe Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Under the current system, the weak are voted out because they're weak. You just don't get it, do you? You quote one tiny fragment of one post and base your entire argument on that. A weak player on a strong team is still a weak player, and if that team loses, that weak player is a target. You ignore this by saying that that weak player should ALWAYS be a target because that weak player should NEVER be immune. However, by putting the weak player in your system, you're basically giving that player immunity because no one in their right mind would vote that player out. Your arguments have basically been that the weak don't deserve to be immune under the current tribal system, but there's no difference between that and your system, given that in both situations, the weak player is going home. The difference is that under the CURRENT system, if that weak player isn't immune, then that weak player is in trouble, as opposed to your system where it's the exact opposite. So I'll repeat: Weak Player in the Current System: Has to work hard to survive Strong Player in the Current System: Can get by on his or her strength Weak Player in Your System: Can get by on his or her weakness Strong Player in Your System: Has to work hard to survive Given that the whole point of your system is to improve competition and benefit the strong, you've failed.
ArtieeLange		#2127	[-]
Posts: 418 (12/01/08 9:55 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Kitty Pryde1 wrote: There are plenty of effective arguments. Every post you make that states "There are plenty of effective arguments" without providing one, let alone plenty, is further proof that there are not plenty of effective arguments against my system, let alone one.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#2128	[-]
Posts: 6204 (12/01/08 9:59 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: Your beliefs mean nothing Yet you keep focusing on my beliefs because you have been rendered impotent when attempting to refute my system, further proving there are no arguments against my system. Again. How can one argue against them when you yourself say they are perfect? Therefore, the debate rests on whether anyone actually would like your system. Suppose someone was as physically fit and mentally astute as I'm sure you are( , see what I just did there), and that person still said you were full of shit, what would you say to them?
ArtieeLange		#2129	[-]
Posts: 419 (12/01/08 10:00 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Kitty Pryde1 wrote: there's no difference between that and your system, given that in both situations, the weak player is going home. With my system, only the weak are vulnerable, so only the weak are going home. With the current system, they can't go home because.............................................................................. Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Current System: Weak Player On An Immune Tribe: Safe Correct!
ArtieeLange		#2130	[-]
Posts: 420 (12/01/08 10:01 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: How can one argue against them when you yourself say they are perfect? Didn't you just say my beliefs mean nothing? You gonna get catch up with Kitty Wyde1 on the amount of times owned if you don't wake up.
pjadedd		#2131	[-]
Posts: 7767 (12/01/08 11:22 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I don't care about a "weak" player getting to the end. I just want a "weak" player to actually have a good jury argument. All we ever hear is "no, I didn't ride coattails." I want a physically weaker player to say that it was their plan all along, they were aligning with strong players to protect themselves, physicality isn't everything, I made moves, etc. Just throw something out there. Fucking prepare yourself for the "you're weak" comments from the jury.
Kitty Pryde1		#2132	[-]
Posts: 6842 (12/01/08 11:25 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Kitty Pryde1 wrote: there's no difference between that and your system, given that in both situations, the weak player is going home. With my system, only the weak are vulnerable, so only the weak are going home. With the current system, they can't go home because.............................................................................. Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Current System: Weak Player On An Immune Tribe: Safe Correct! Except, as you conveniently neglect EVERY time you post that same little snippet... Current System: Weak Player On A Non-Immune Tribe: Extremely Vulnerable Your System: Weak Player Under ANY Circumstances: Not Vulnerable
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#2133	[-]
Posts: 6205 (12/01/08 11:35 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: How can one argue against them when you yourself say they are perfect? Didn't you just say my beliefs mean nothing? You gonna get catch up with Kitty Wyde1 on the amount of times owned if you don't wake up. Do you know how fucking stupid you sound? There are only two or three people arguing with you on a regular basis because you take peoples posts out of context. Eat shit and die. Come back when you have proper data.
SwineForkbeard		#2134	[-]
Posts: 1916 (12/01/08 12:03 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: Do you know how fucking stupid ~~you sound~~ I am for thinking this is a real debate? There are only two or three people ~~arguing with~~ stupid enough to keep feeding you on a regular basis because you take peoples posts out of context. Fixed.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#2135	[-]
Posts: 6206 (12/01/08 12:06 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	SwineForkbeard wrote: Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: Do you know how fucking stupid ~~you sound~~ I am for thinking this is a real debate? There are only two or three people ~~arguing with~~ stupid enough to keep feeding you on a regular basis because you take peoples posts out of context. Fixed. Just so Art isn't confused, SFBs post wasn't in praise of you.
ArtieeLange		#2136	[-]
Posts: 421 (12/01/08 8:50 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: Just so Art isn't confused, SFBs post wasn't in praise of you. I am all for any post that calls you stupid, for either not admitting that you have no argument against my system, or lacking the balls to give one. Are you afraid of humiliating yourself the way Kitty Wyde1 does when she desperately tries, but constantly fails? You should be.
PrettyGoodYear1988		#2137	[-]
Posts: 1267 (12/01/08 9:01 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I don't care about a "weak" player getting to the end. I just want a "weak" player to actually have a good jury argument. All we ever hear is "no, I didn't ride coattails." I want a physically weaker player to say that it was their plan all along, they were aligning with strong players to protect themselves, physicality isn't everything, I made moves, etc. Just throw something out there. Fucking prepare yourself for the "you're weak" comments from the jury. Courtney made a good argument, and it probably was the difference between second and third for her. Granted, I don't think a physically weak player will get far without good strategy (Tina, Vecepia, Sandra, Danni). I think Artiee's system would support the weak more than the strong, though. Consistently weak players would band together and vote out strong players who happened to fall into the bottom group each week. It's a pretty obvious thing to predict, and Artiee's a douchebag for not responding to it. Plenty of people have demolished Artiee's system. The only person who hasn't realized it is Artiee himself. But really, why try to change his mind anymore? If he's not a ghostie (and I'm pretty sure he is) then he's a jerk. His shtick isn't funny and it deserves to be locked now that everyone's had their fun and gotten it to 100 pages. Last Edited By: PrettyGoodYear1988 12/01/08 9:04 PM. Edited 1 times.
ArtieeLange		#2138	[-]
Posts: 422 (12/01/08 10:31 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	PrettyGoodYear1988 wrote: weak players would band together and vote out strong players who happened to fall into the bottom group each week. Look everyone ^ A statement so dumb that I don't even feel like explaining how dumb. But I will correct it. "fall into the bottom" = lose. Lose = "weak". Only the "weak" get voted out in my system, guaranteed. With my system "weak" or any other label is based on a players last performance, as it should be, since they are continually tested. Under the current system, everyone already knows weak players are safe if they are on a strong team, so the current system automatically fails.
PrettyGoodYear1988		#2139	[-]
Posts: 1268 (12/01/08 10:57 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	With my system "weak" or any other label is based on a players last performance, as it should be, since they are continually tested. So you're basing "weak" and "strong" based only on the immediately preceding performance in a challenge, not on overall strength or weakness. I get you now. Under the current system, everyone already knows weak players are safe if they are on a strong team, so the current system automatically fails. If your definitions of "strong" and "weak" apply to teams as well as individuals (and there's no reason why they shouldn't), then a "strong team" would be the team that won the immediately preceding challenge. Any member of that team would be "strong" by extension. The "weak team" would be the team that lost the challenge. Any member of that team would be "weak" by extension. Thus, a weak player is always voted out. Guaranteed.
ArtieeLange		#2140	[-]
Posts: 423 (12/01/08 11:04 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	PrettyGoodYear1988 wrote: With my system "weak" or any other label is based on a players last performance, as it should be, since they are continually tested. So you're basing "weak" and "strong" based only on the immediately preceding performance in a challenge, not on overall strength or weakness. I get you now. The point is that labels are irrelevant under my system, which tests all players who end up rewarded, or suffering, depending on their performance. Those who advance, are the better players. Those who don't, are not. Quite the opposite under the current system. PrettyGoodYear1988 wrote: a "strong team" would be the team that won the immediately preceding challenge. Any member of that team would be "strong" by extension. Look everyone ^ a statement so dumb that I'm not even going to bother explaining how dumb, or correcting it. But I will say that this is the level of those who attempt to argue against my system. Lets all read it again: PrettyGoodYear1988 wrote: a "strong team" would be the team that won the immediately preceding challenge. Any member of that team would be "strong" by extension.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

An idea to improve Survivor so that weaklings dont comprise the finals

Quick Reply