S-19 Edgic (editing and logic)

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
SurvivorGuy24		#2701	[-]
Posts: 1079 (11/08/09 1:23 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	There is at least one player this season who fits the guidelines. It's just that people don't like that player and find him boring, so they're looking for any possible reason to eliminate him.
chapera rocks		#2702	[-]
Posts: 11911 (11/08/09 1:35 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	SurvivorGuy24 wrote: There is at least one player this season who fits the guidelines. It's just that people don't like that player and find him boring, so they're looking for any possible reason to eliminate him. No one fits the guidelines. Mick fit the guidelines until this past episode. No matter how good his edit was before the merge, having a bad merge episode has been just as damning as having a bad first episode. And actually, it's been more damning than having an INV1 (assuming you agree Amber had an INV1 in episode 2, and she did; it was very clear cut). Jaison is probably the only person who hasn't broken any patterns.
unduli clone		#2703	[-]
Posts: 7724 (11/08/09 1:36 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	It's about finding the person who best fits the Edgic guidelines. Anomalies can't be predicted because they are ANOMALIES. Until Mick goes on an INV1 string, followed by Jaison getting multiple OTTNN's, Russell getting even more 6 visibilities, and Shambo joining Mick for an INV1 stroll, they all fit the guidelines better than Natalie does.
getting real		#2704	[-]
Posts: 1862 (11/08/09 1:37 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	SurvivorGuy24 wrote: There is at least one player this season who fits the guidelines. It's just that people don't like that player and find him boring, so they're looking for any possible reason to eliminate him. I'll just copy the second-last paragraph of my previous post for your uncomplicated convenience: If those who see themselves as the keepers of what they perceive as holy edgic dogma take their arguments to their logical conclusion, they don't really have a lot of choice now. Should the thread that Mick is hanging by gives way, they really have no option than to give up on the season and either leave the thread for the season or spend the rest of their time lamenting how reality doesn't match their dogma.
BlakeB717		#2705	[-]
Posts: 2158 (11/08/09 1:40 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Thank you for that excellent post gff :) I agree with everything. Astro, I think it's annoying that you're saying that "We have to look at other possibilities because Mick's edit is too perfect". Thus, you're saying we should eliminate Mick but consider everyone else. Where is the logic to that? Why eliminate Mick over a UTR1 merge but not Natalie over a UTR1-INV1 start? I think there has to be some bias skewing there, because you're being a lot more harsh on any faults Mick has, and substantially more lenient on the blunders in edit of Natalie, Russell H, etc. Let's call a spade a spade: this is Edgic, and to eliminate someone because they are "Edgically perfect" makes little to no sense. Brett is edgically imperfect, so should I suddenly put him into contention? It just makes zero sense. Marcus' edit wasn't perfect: there was constant reiteration from practically every player that Marcus was an awesome guy over and over. They beat us over the head that Marcus was perfect. We don't have that with Mick. Rather, he's been a lot more hidden that Marcus (Mick only has 1 CP, Marcus had at least 5) and a lot of "casual viewers" here have even said they felt that Mick is UTR. The editors are hiding him well--that bodes well for him. I understand looking at other possibilities, but like gff said, throwing its very foundation out the window because of predictions of an edgically inviable winner isn't edgic. What hints have there been that the winner is going to be edgically inviable? Until we actually have a season where someone with an edit like Russell H or Natalie wins (which we haven't yet) then we aren't following Edgic, which based on the front page, means following past winner patterns. Why is Natalie suddenly being resurrected from the Edgic dead? Everyone had her eliminated within the first 3 episodes. Then suddenly around Episode 4 or 5 she got some airtime about her strategy, which (unfortunately) blatanly told us that she's going to be in the end against Russell or have some battle with him which results in her beating him (unless she actually is as stupid as RussH thinks and he beats her instead). Winners have gotten a 2 visibility in E1. Winners have never been ignore for the first 3 episodes of a season. If she wins, I can see the story there, but I'm 90% sure that since the editors have always gone out of their way to give a winner something in the first episode (and at least in most episodes) that Natalie would be less of a secondary character if she won. She doesn't have an identity--her character is too closely tied to Russell and lacks any legs of her own. Susie was ignore the first 3 episodes (UTR1-UTR2-INV1) and then in Episode 4 got a couple confessionals outlining her strategy of keeping her head down and working hard. Why was Susie not considered but Natalie is? Susie made a big move around the time that Natalie did, and kept talking about the F3. Why didn't we consider Susie? Something is not sitting right with me on these "Natalie wins" arguments. There is something else at work and it definitely pisses me off. I'm not going to touch the "RussH wins" arguments all that much. Those who believe RussH has the best edit are welcome to be disappointed in the end. I'm sticking with Mick and only Mick. Whether I want him to win or not, that's what Edgic patterns have told me--and this being Edgic--that is what I'm going to stick with. For the sake of refuting: -- Bob was the most UTR male winner ever, with only a strong premiere and then disappeared until the merge. First male winner like that, and we all missed it (except for Kitty at the end) because we were trying to see which edit converted to Marcus's the best. -- Danni was the most UTR winner ever period when she won. Vecepia was close, but she had 2 strong episodes in Episode 2 & 3 and THEN disappeared, when Danni never had strong episodes like that until WAY after the merge. First time a winner had been so neglected and undeveloped before the merge. You guys were too busy trying to see which edit converted to Gary's the best. So, just like Bob & Danni, we're looking a situation where the winner WILL be the first of its kind. There's no other option. Bob had a strong E1. Danni had a strong E2 and 3. Neither were neglected in the first episode (they both were above a 2 visibility). So something so remains common: getting something within the first 3 episodes is important, and every winner has had at least a MOR in their first 3 episodes. That should edgically eliminate Natalie. Also, I think it's interesting that you say "There's no other option". You can say that I'm the one being close-minded, but you've written Mick off for more ambigious reasons than why I've written off those who would be "edgic anomalies". There are still people who are edgically viable left, so I'm not sure why we're already throwing in the towel and looking at the ignored.
getting real		#2706	[-]
Posts: 1863 (11/08/09 1:42 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	It's about finding the person who best fits the Edgic guidelines. Ohhh... I see.. Dogma has relativity built into it. So, if one person has 10 INVs and another only has 5, then the latter wins the Edgic nomination hands down. And if one person kills ten people and another only kills five, the latter best fits the Ten Commandments. I see where you're coming from...
Kitty Pryde1		#2707	[-]
Posts: 10874 (11/08/09 1:50 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Susie was ignored and Natalie isn't because we hadn't gone through a season like Gabon back when Susie was playing. We've seen Marcus fall from perfection and how a random winner can occur, and hell, someone like Susie can score 3/7 of the final votes.
astroline		#2708	[-]
Posts: 2740 (11/08/09 1:52 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Blake, whatever. I'm done with this. I'm done with you making me feel stupid and like I don't belong in here when I try my hardest to prove my points and make reasonable, insightful posts. It's like I'm a student and you're the professor just giving me D's whenever you see my name at the top of a paper. Have fun when Mick wins, I'm sure it'll be as good as when Marcus won.
BlakeB717		#2709	[-]
Posts: 2159 (11/08/09 1:58 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	astroline wrote: Blake, whatever. I'm done with this. I'm done with you making me feel stupid and like I don't belong in here when I try my hardest to prove my points and make reasonable, insightful posts. It's like I'm a student and you're the professor just giving me D's whenever you see my name at the top of a paper. Have fun when Mick wins, I'm sure it'll be as good as when Marcus won. Hmmm, I think my post was fairly logical and fair. I didn't call anybody stupid or use any cuss words. I simply explained where I was confused and why I was confused. It's responses like these that tell me that my arguments have validity because they can't be refuted. It's like when someone says "Whatever" in an argument: they're wrong and out of points. Oh, and keep in mind everyone, I tried very, very hard not to laugh in Erinn-supporters faces (then again, there weren't that many) after the finale last season. I intend to keep and post everything you say about Natalie or RussellH winning and me being dumbfounded over a Mick win. :) It should be fun!!
getting real		#2710	[-]
Posts: 1864 (11/08/09 2:12 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Why is Natalie suddenly being resurrected from the Edgic dead? Everyone had her eliminated within the first 3 episodes. Natalie was not 'suddenly resurrected'. At least not by me. Many, many weeks ago, I posted this: Like a few of us are doing, I went back to the first episode. I paid particular attention to Russell's scenes because, although he is a distraction, he is the season's major story. I found one of the scenes particularly intriguing. After Russell is shown to whip the tribe into a demonic frenzy, eager to do his bidding in booting Marissa, we cut to to a manipulated scene at the beach between Betsy telling Natalie that she doesn't trust Russell. Natalie asks why and there is a weird overlay of the two women observing Russell. I originally thought the scene, which concludes with a pregnant pause and Betsy telling Natalie that her mistrust has to do with 'women's intuition', was about Betsy and how she would eventually bring Russell undone. Now that I know it wasn't about Betsy, I think it fits perfectly into this being a season about 'somebody else'. To which FLF responded: Interesting scene to look at again, gr. I'd add the confessionals from eps 1 to 4 in which Russel crows about the incredibly stupid women that he's leading around by the nose. It's a probable set-up for one of the "stupid blondes" to hoist him on his own petard, to misquote The Bard. But, that doesn't necessarily involve the win. One of Russel's "pieces of trash" knocking him out of the game doesn't equal winning. But it certainly does make Natalie someone to watch. Interestingly, around that time, FLF also said: Officially, an INV makes winning very unlikely. We've stayed clear of any inflexible guidelines. Therefore, someone with an INV is still Edgically viable to be considered or, at least, can't be ruled out for an INV alone. But, Natalie also received that last part of the guideline, an Ep1 UTR1. Those two combined makes her winner chances extremely small. I personally rule her out for it, but the guideline gives, (they all give), a tiny amount of wiggle room for someone to still consider the edit. Personally, I wouldn't be too surprised to see a future winner with one INV. I aknowledge that Parvati's win has a very contentious UTR1. INV's weakness is that we've allowed the tolerance level to move around. A player's visibility in one INV may be more or less than another's. The subjectivity will always leave us open to an INV in a winner's edit. But... If this makes you want to go back and reevaluate a player, you should take a long, hard look at the rest of their edit. So, if any of the self-designated Keepers Of The Faith have a problem with people taking a holistic approach to someone's edit, take it up with the Grand Poobah. Don't let 'em get you down, Astro.
astroline		#2711	[-]
Posts: 2741 (11/08/09 2:13 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	No, you were being bitchy when you firstly stated, "Thank you for that excellent post gff :) I agree with everything." And then, right after, "Astro, I think it's annoying that you're saying..." and going on to completely tear my post apart. There are only a handful of us here that actually make long, insightful posts, so it'd be nice if you could at least appreciate that. You were saying to everyone that GF's post was much better than mine when I think we both made good points. Because you think so inside the box, anyone that doesn't agree with you is immediately an idiot. Tina had an INV1 in the premiere, the only winner ever to have that, and so because of that, everyone automatically writes off anyone who has an INV1 in the premiere as well. Yet one season later, Ethan was the only winner with an UTR1 at the merge, and that was 16 seasons ago. If we're eliminating people as winners with an INV1 premiere, we need to be eliminating people with UTR1's at the merge as well, because each has only happened ONCE to a winner and they were both 16-17 seasons ago and most likely deliberate choices. Why do you keep bringing up Natalie when "refuting" every point I've ever made in my life (ever)? She's not even on my fucking winner's list, she was barely #4 for 2 weeks and I never voted for her and I still won't. MY PICK IS RUSSELL H. Leave the Natalie shit for others who think she's going to win. We can't predict Edgic anomalies. Before Danni, there was no Danni. Before Bob, there was no Bob. You're not prepared to say something like "Before Russell/Natalie/Jaison/Shambo, there was no Russell/Natalie/Jaison/Shambo." You're prepared to say, "It's Mick, you dumb fucks. Listen to me or else you're wrong and I'm going to rip you apart at every chance I get, just like how when Marcus won! DUH!" Your thinking is so inside the box that you can't even begin to anticipate a winner that is unprecedented, and that's what I was trying to explain. You can "follow Edgic" and the "past patterns on the front page" and pick Marcus again with 98% of the votes, when we missed Bob because we were too busy looking for an edit similar to other winners. You're following everything completely literally and it's going to be the same thing that happened with Marcus, Stephen, Amanda. I'll repeat those 3 names as much as I want because I totally expect Mick to be the 4th, but you won't listen to me, so why bother?
Archibald C		#2712	[-]
Posts: 127 (11/08/09 2:14 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Blake, I think the point that astroline is making is that you're treating this discussion like it has some sort of bearing on whether or not you think someone is an intelligent human being. We're discussing who we think will win a reality TV show, if we're wrong, like many people on this forum frequently are, it doesn't matter. Saying that you plan on rubbing it in our faces, or bringing up Erinn supporters from last season, isn't helpful to the discussion. You're talking to people as if picking someone other than Mick as the winner makes them stupid or naive, not overtly, just in the little things you say. I think that's the issue people are having. We're all just here to have fun. And your accusations about people bringing in spoilers is a little concerning. I think that the Natalie bandwagon started, like you said, after her small spike in visibility in episode 4, because she said something that was completely contradictory to what we'd been given before (that she's not stupid, and that Russell might have been wrong for the entire game so far). When her edit started taking off, and she became probably the most rational and grounded character and player in a season full of over the top freaks, and invisible nobodies, people started taking notice. She sure wasn't on my radar until Ep 4. And whether or not she wins, I think we can all agree that she's getting a classic finals edit, in fact she's the only person who I would almost bet my life on the fact that she's at least going to be in the finals. On top of that, logically, she's appearing more and more like one of the only people who could actually win in a final vote. This all didn't just come out of no where.
Kitty Pryde1		#2713	[-]
Posts: 10875 (11/08/09 2:41 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Also, Edgically, like going based on the same rules Blake is talking about, I don't get why Jaison was eliminated by so many. I mean, if you want to say "He's a quitter" that's fine, but he never actually said he wanted to quit. He said that the game was tough and RUSSELL called him a quitter. His numbers are pretty good, and again, I think he should've gotten an MOR in episode 1, not a UTR. Comparing his content to Mick's, I remember a helluvalot more about Jaison from Jaison's perspective. I just remember Marisa's comment about Mick. So yeah, I hardly think Jaison should've been eliminated (although the OTTN hurt him, he had TC commentary that gave him some complexity.) It's not like we've never had a winner that was P AND N before the merge (Aras, anyone?) And he has a longterm story now, it seems. Like, I could definitely see all those scenes of weakness being brought up in the FTC.
SurvivorGuy24		#2714	[-]
Posts: 1080 (11/08/09 2:47 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Archibald C wrote: This all didn't just come out of no where. Yeah, it kinda did.
Archibald C		#2715	[-]
Posts: 128 (11/08/09 2:54 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	SurvivorGuy24 wrote: Archibald C wrote: This all didn't just come out of no where. Yeah, it kinda did. I think people have stated enough evidence to at least support a case of why Natalie might be considered a person of interest, especially by those who believe edgic leaves wiggle room. And if you feel so strongly about the issue, can you elaborate more? I've noticed you making a lot of declarative statements without expanding on it in any sort of helpful way. If you think that Natalie-Gate came out of no where, I'd like to hear why.
Oowatanite		#2716	[-]
Posts: 9266 (11/08/09 2:54 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Time to count up everyone's winner picks. EvilRuss - Astro, Mick - Blake, OTH, Natalie - gr, Jaison - Kitty, Monica - Shambo - Anyone else wishing to state their winner pick, please do so in this thread, and I will add them to the tally.
SurvivorGuy24		#2717	[-]
Posts: 1081 (11/08/09 2:56 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	So why is there no "wiggle room" for Jaison? Why only Natalie?
CrystalOwnage		#2718	[-]
Posts: 5329 (11/08/09 3:00 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I'm just gonna say this again... It's very obvious who here has read the spoilers
unduli clone		#2719	[-]
Posts: 7726 (11/08/09 3:08 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	getting real wrote: It's about finding the person who best fits the Edgic guidelines. Ohhh... I see.. Dogma has relativity built into it. So, if one person has 10 INVs and another only has 5, then the latter wins the Edgic nomination hands down. And if one person kills ten people and another only kills five, the latter best fits the Ten Commandments. I see where you're coming from... I don't think we've had a winner who fits every single guideline perfectly to a tee. Those who edit the episodes don't come back to the Edgic guidelines and check off to make sure that their edited episodes fit our observed guidelines, they edit they way they see fit and we attempt to determine a pattern from it, based on years of observation. Since we rarely (if ever) have a winner that fits perfectly, we are attempting to find the best edit, that fits the most guidelines. If you have to boil that down to ludicrous comparisons to understand that, have at it. Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Susie was ignored and Natalie isn't because we hadn't gone through a season like Gabon back when Susie was playing. We've seen Marcus fall from perfection and how a random winner can occur, and hell, someone like Susie can score 3/7 of the final votes. But again, Susie didn't win, despite coming so close. Natalie could go to the FTC and almost win, sure, but predicting that isn't part of Edgic proper. And again, in retrospect we've seen how Marcus really wasn't so perfect - he had no distractions around him, whereas Mick has the solid distraction of Russell. Perhaps next season we'll be discussing how Mick wasn't truly a winner's edit, and that's all and well, but it really doesn't make sense to go ahead and eliminate him on the basis that he fits too many guidelines. astroline wrote: Why do you keep bringing up Natalie when "refuting" every point I've ever made in my life (ever)? She's not even on my fucking winner's list, she was barely #4 for 2 weeks and I never voted for her and I still won't. MY PICK IS RUSSELL H. Leave the Natalie shit for others who think she's going to win. We can't predict Edgic anomalies. Before Danni, there was no Danni. Before Bob, there was no Bob. You're not prepared to say something like "Before Russell/Natalie/Jaison/Shambo, there was no Russell/Natalie/Jaison/Shambo." You're prepared to say, "It's Mick, you dumb fucks. Listen to me or else you're wrong and I'm going to rip you apart at every chance I get, just like how when Marcus won! DUH!" Your thinking is so inside the box that you can't even begin to anticipate a winner that is unprecedented, and that's what I was trying to explain. You can "follow Edgic" and the "past patterns on the front page" and pick Marcus again with 98% of the votes, when we missed Bob because we were too busy looking for an edit similar to other winners. You're following everything completely literally and it's going to be the same thing that happened with Marcus, Stephen, Amanda. I'll repeat those 3 names as much as I want because I totally expect Mick to be the 4th, but you won't listen to me, so why bother? Honestly, why do we even have guidelines on the front page if not to help ourselves find winners that compare to past editing patterns? The point of Edgic is to use observed and created guidelines in an attempt to predict a winner that fits with what we've seen before. Even if Gabon re-aired I hope that we wouldn't pick him using the guidelines we used to predict Earl, Yul, and Parvati, since he doesn't fit them. The point of Edgic, in the seasons that I've been doing it, is to predict the winner using the observed patterns we've seen. Mick fits most all of those up to this point, so why are we attempting to find the winner using new patterns? It just doesn't make sense to me on an Edgic basis. Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Also, Edgically, like going based on the same rules Blake is talking about, I don't get why Jaison was eliminated by so many. I mean, if you want to say "He's a quitter" that's fine, but he never actually said he wanted to quit. He said that the game was tough and RUSSELL called him a quitter. His numbers are pretty good, and again, I think he should've gotten an MOR in episode 1, not a UTR. Comparing his content to Mick's, I remember a helluvalot more about Jaison from Jaison's perspective. I just remember Marisa's comment about Mick. So yeah, I hardly think Jaison should've been eliminated (although the OTTN hurt him, he had TC commentary that gave him some complexity.) It's not like we've never had a winner that was P AND N before the merge (Aras, anyone?) And he has a longterm story now, it seems. Like, I could definitely see all those scenes of weakness being brought up in the FTC. I'm scared of his UTR premiere because he really was ignored throughout a good chunk of the episode, and the pre-merge tone is really odd and mostly unprecedented for a winner, but I haven't eliminated him either. I think at this point that Mick is a better fit for the guidelines than Jaison, but I agree that a solid Edgic argument could be made for Jaison. getting real wrote: Interestingly, around that time, FLF also said: Officially, an INV makes winning very unlikely. We've stayed clear of any inflexible guidelines. Therefore, someone with an INV is still Edgically viable to be considered or, at least, can't be ruled out for an INV alone. But, Natalie also received that last part of the guideline, an Ep1 UTR1. Those two combined makes her winner chances extremely small. I personally rule her out for it, but the guideline gives, (they all give), a tiny amount of wiggle room for someone to still consider the edit. Personally, I wouldn't be too surprised to see a future winner with one INV. I aknowledge that Parvati's win has a very contentious UTR1. INV's weakness is that we've allowed the tolerance level to move around. A player's visibility in one INV may be more or less than another's. The subjectivity will always leave us open to an INV in a winner's edit. But... If this makes you want to go back and reevaluate a player, you should take a long, hard look at the rest of their edit. So, if any of the self-designated Keepers Of The Faith have a problem with people taking a holistic approach to someone's edit, take it up with the Grand Poobah. Just like the rest of us, FLF and the other Edgician greats are hardly infallible, so I'm sure that none of us here do have a problem "taking it up" with him or the others. While quoting posts you also may want to pay attention to that last part though: If this makes you want to go back and reevaluate a player, you should take a long, hard look at the rest of their edit. Again, give Natalie an UTR1 for the second episode and discuss her one-word sentences all day long, but her entire, encompassing edit does not fit any winner we've seen and does not make her a more viable Edgic pick than Mick or Jaison, to name two.
Archibald C		#2720	[-]
Posts: 129 (11/08/09 3:12 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	SurvivorGuy24 wrote: So why is there no "wiggle room" for Jaison? Why only Natalie? Well, first, I don't think that Jaison is someone who was ever eliminated edgically, but because he was getting a loser's edit (loser both in life, and the game). I didn't think he had a shot in the dark until his strong merge episode, but I've reopened his file so to speak. I think he'd have to have an incredible edit all the end, but we've seen stranger things. I guess to answer directly the question I think you're asking, I'm more willing to say Natalie is the winner after a crummy first three episodes over Jaison and his off and on loser edit because even though it's totally unprecedented to have a winner that was very UTR in the first three episodes, it's much more likely that the editors would do that than give us a winner that is shown saying he wants to quit, that being on Survivor is the dumbest decision he ever made, and completely giving up in a crucial immunity challenge. And Natalie has a story arch, while Jaison seems to have a story wavelength, going from highs (telling Ben off, helping overturn the Galu majority at the merge, standing up to Erik), to bitter lows (the examples I gave before). And to address why I'm throwing my weight behind Natalie, it is because she's the only person who is even slightly edgically viable (meaning, not Brett or Kelly, or Shambo to a certain extent) who has a story arch, and one that is all about over coming some obstacle to win. Everyone is is pretty flat, even Russell. Think about how many times we've gotten the almost exact same confessional from him; even at the merge he hasn't changed his game one bit. Natalie on the other hand, we can see evolving from riding Russell's coattails, to taking the game into her own hands. Does that make sense, or do you want me to explain more?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

S-19 Edgic (editing and logic)

Quick Reply