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

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
tdugan333		#2041	[-]
Posts: 8762 (11/30/08 9:26 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	PeachessandCreeams wrote: This is still going on... . Hush gorgeous. We are all enjoying ourselves.
tdugan333		#2042	[-]
Posts: 8763 (11/30/08 9:27 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: tdugan333 wrote: Who in their right mind would keep strong people who ended up for whatever reason (bad luck maybe? double ssts) on the loser tribe? Are you senile? Since the challenges vary, there generally won't be "strong" or "weak". But I can easily give an example to counter your mindless query. I have made friends with my fellow winners, on the winning camp. The next challenge I lose, as do a few of my friends. We vote your sorry old loser ass out. Next. WAIT??? THAT is your response??? OK since that was too hard go two up and answer the other one.
ArtieeLange		#2043	[-]
Posts: 395 (11/30/08 10:16 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	tdugan333 wrote: ArtieeLange wrote: tdugan333 wrote: Who in their right mind would keep strong people who ended up for whatever reason (bad luck maybe? double ssts) on the loser tribe? Are you senile? Since the challenges vary, there generally won't be "strong" or "weak". But I can easily give an example to counter your mindless query. I have made friends with my fellow winners, on the winning camp. The next challenge I lose, as do a few of my friends. We vote your sorry old loser ass out. Next. WAIT??? THAT is your response??? OK since that was too hard go two up and answer the other one. WAIT??? THAT is your response??? You ask a stupid question which gets immediately and embarrassingly refuted, and THAT is your response??? Of course that's your response: There are no valid arguments against my system.
Kitty Pryde1		#2044	[-]
Posts: 6810 (11/30/08 10:19 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	No Artiee, just no. Leave the debating to someone who people can still take seriously, aka Olmec.
tdugan333		#2045	[-]
Posts: 8771 (11/30/08 10:21 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Oh my gosh my darling. I mean I get you making fun and ignoring my one question, but seriously. HAS ANYONE ASKED YOU ABOUT SABOTAGE? Come on you cuddly barrel of love fur. Talk to me about sabotage.
Dan Down Under		#2046	[-]
Posts: 3947 (11/30/08 1:49 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Question: how long was Artiee's mum pregnant with him before she fell down the stairs?
lemurwrench		#2047	[-]
Posts: 332 (11/30/08 2:59 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: lemurwrench wrote: your arguments occur in both systems Incorrect . My system fixes the flaws of the current system. My system removes the luck-based team-selection and the artificial advantages and disadvantages that result from it. My system adds the ability and requirement of every player to earn what they achieve, or suffer when they fail. My system is better precisely because it differs from the current system, regardless of any possible outcome. In fact, the only thing these 2000+ posts have done is further my system, thanks to those ingenious posters who have added elements and twists to it. Those against my system have failed for over 100 pages, except in being a source of amusement for the rest of us. stop talking ab0out things that have nothing to with what i posted nowbut hey, lets use this post for a little recap since you seem to not be keeping up as an arguement against what you are claiming here, we have provided you with the argument that at any time, an alliance can be formed on the winners camp and can systematically throw challenges to boot the others not in the alliance, and while the others can try and stop it, that basically devolves the game into a challenge throwing competition. you presented arguements claiming why it wouldnt work, and i refuted those arguements below. (until you are able to refute my refutions) lemurwrench wrote: ArtieeLange wrote: That alliance would not only have to start immediately, actually no, at any given time any given half of the players on the winning tribe can form an alliance and they'r already up one member. also, even though the winning tribe gets smaller as the game goes on, so does th losing tribe, so the winning tribe alliance need less people to control the vote. but it would also have to start eating itself once there are 10 players left. this is the same in the current system, irrelevant!!!!!!!!!!!! This would be obvious to the players, not only preventing it from forming in the first place, but it would encourage players to flip since the less players trying, the easier it is get into the top half. ZOMG!!! false assumptions! and there are plenty of motivations for players to flip in the current system, more irrelevancy!!!!! Also, the same players on the losing team also results in the same players on the winning team. Post-merge, you end up with two alliances; one well-fed, well-rested, strong as possible, and the other weakened to a state of near-exhaustion If that's the strategy they want, let them try it. umz, if its the original winning tribe of ten that made the alliance in the first place, and they switch who's on the winning tribe, then when the merge comes its that same original alliance of ten that is there (if merge isnt at ten, correct me) and if the alliance is formed later in the game, then thats still an alliance that consist of half the total player at that point in the game, so if the alliance is formed pre-merge and continue to be successful in thier strategy and vote non-alliance players out until merge, than they have majority at merge the only exception to that being if a winning tribe of five when there are eleven people left form an alliance one round before the merge, and thats only if the winning tribe in your system is smaller than the losing tribe when there are an odd number of players (is it?) but even if that happened, since they were the last winning tribe, THEY would be the well fed tribe and in all other cases, the alliance has the majority assuming they are succesful pre-merge, and just as it is in the current system, 4 ~~morons~~ malnourished players can vote off 3 ~~rocket-scientists~~ well fed players. so being well fed does nothing for you if your in the minority. except a possible immunity run, but then that player better hope all the post-merge IC's are endurance wait, you said the challenges would be varied, scratch that, it doesnt help at all. Under my system the players can do whatever they want, you know you need to stop being a hypocrite artiee, because you keep on being irrelevant and the winner will always be the best, not the luckiest. i am currently preparing undeniable proof that your system is in fact designed so that it is easier to be lucky, lemurowage coming soon to a 100+ page thread near you soon. although it would only being adding insult to injury, as i've owned the rest of your points already, with the exception of one loophole ive provided you with myself, but even with that after you try to use il be ready to re-own you again, so I'l be waiting. now, one of the refutions i used was to your argument that the alliance would have to eat eachother at 10, when i said "this is the same in the current system, irrelevant!!!!!!!!!!!!" i was simply pointing out that all alliances must eat themselves alive when it comes down to only them. all alliances realize this, and yet alliances survive in the current system. the same would happen in your system. i also point out the irrelevancy when you say that players can flip in your system, this is also true in the current system so it bears no weight. our argument holds. you can continue and try to refute it though.
lemurwrench		#2048	[-]
Posts: 333 (11/30/08 3:06 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: tdugan333 wrote: Who in their right mind would keep strong people who ended up for whatever reason (bad luck maybe? double ssts) on the loser tribe? Are you senile? Since the challenges vary, there generally won't be "strong" or "weak". But I can easily give an example to counter your mindless query. I have made friends with my fellow winners, on the winning camp. The next challenge I lose, as do a few of my friends. We vote your sorry old loser ass out. Next. if there are no "weak", then how is that a flaw that you can fix? how can you fix a flaw that doesnt exist? also, in your example, you just lost, so doesnt that make you a loser? how do you know that the "loser" you vote out wasnt going to win the next eight pre-merge challenges? wouldnt that make him an overall "winner" since he was going to win a majority of challenges?
ArtieeLange		#2049	[-]
Posts: 396 (11/30/08 4:58 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	lemurwrench wrote: an alliance can be formed on the winners camp and can systematically throw challenges to boot the others not in the alliance Which can also happen under the current system, so your argument automatically fails. However your "own arguments reinforce my theory. I'd like to see a player that is forced to eat maggot-rice at loser camp, and sleep on dirty leaves, decide to stay there. I'd like to see if that player can convince anyone else to do so willingly, or would there be no one to convince since the challenges vary so much that the winning and losing camps vary as well. I'd like to see if they remain loyal, or if one, two, three of them, finds a challenge to flip, for luxury and for guaranteed immunity. I'd like to see if alliances can cross between winner and loser camp. I'd even like to see the unlikely merge of two alliances, one the well-fed, well-rested group of challenge winners, and then the losers, starving, suffering half-dead zombies. What matters is they decide their own fate, and they determined their outcome. Not luck. Whatever happens, they have earned it." Also, using the additional twists, it is not only unlikely, but impossible: "Now we don't only have an overall better designed system, but additional twists for that system as well. You can start the game with my system, then a few challenges in, add this aspect of not allowing the players to see each others progress during the challenges like the "Prisoner's Dilemma", another psychological twist the current game has been completely missing. Then later during a certain challenge let all players vote, not just the losing camp. This, plus any immunity island / immunity idol, and you have a game where challenge throwing is no longer a valid likely strategy (but still, let em try if they want, it would end up like Lord of the Flies at the merge )"
Fizzmix		#2050	[-]
Posts: 193 (11/30/08 5:05 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Olmec Donald wrote: Fizzmix wrote: Fizzmix wrote: Essentially, Survivor would never change the format to one that made throwing every challenge a viable strategy. Whether you think it would be implemented or not is irrelevant. It would be a flaw in the game design, it would be exploited in some capacity at least once, and it would ruin the show. Again, I'll say it, you're making a lot of assumptions here. Is there a possibility that this situation could occur? I guess so, but Artie can give you a better response, I'm sure. What's the possibility of it occuring? Very small. I'd say less than 10%. Again, I'll say it. It would be a flaw in the game design, it would be exploited in some capacity at least once, and it would ruin the show. Flaw. In the game design. There is no way you can say with any authority that it has less than 10% chance of happening. Let's say it doesn't happen though, for your argument's sake. Let's see why else this system is garbage. You'd like to think that after 8 people had been voted out, the 10 strongest would be there. But no. With episode 2, there would be 9 people coming from the strong tribe, 8 people coming from the weak tribe. I'd bet that the majority of people from the weak tribe will lose the immunity challenge. Let's say that all of them do. If we're evening out the tribe numbers every second episode (so in the second episode, the top 8 people in the challenge are safe and the bottom 9 are in danger) that means that every second episode, a person who is likely stronger than the rest of the weak tribe will end up on the weak tribe and be voted out. Like, the 8 people that were at tribal council the week before, and the 1 person who was on the strong camp in the first episode would be on the weak tribe in episode 2. They're OBVIOUSLY going to vote out the strong person. So literally every second episode, someone stronger than most or all of the weak tribe from the previous episode will be voted out. Even if not ALL of the weak members lose the challenge, the majority will almost certainly. They are the weaker people. This will become more and more true with each episode of the same people getting the luxury treatment, and the same people eating maggoty rice. And even in the episodes where the tribes are equal, and no member that has historically been on the strong tribe finds themselves on the losing tribe (provided the strongest people from episode one win every challenge), the weak tribe will just vote out the strongest player each time so that the rest can try to move up to the stronger tribe. You know, provided camp life at the loser tribe is as awful as you say it would be. What you'll be left with at the Final 10 is roughly the 5 strongest players and the 5 weakest players in the whole game. The 5 strongest players are the ones who did not lose challenges at all, and the 5 weakest would be the ones that lost all of the challenges and allied together to vote out all of the stronger members in hopes of moving up. So finally, you're left with this: Every second vote is absolutely predictable. Every other vote is probably quite predictable. Every single episode, the very strongest members must win the challenge, or they go home. The Final 10 will be completely inequal in terms of strength and competitiveness. If we're merging at 10 and the game plays out like a normal game of Survivor would, we're evenly split, and the strong member better damn well hope that they can beat the weak member in a firebuilding contest. If they can't, guess what we have. The five weakest players in the entire game as the final 5. Huh. Of course, this is assuming that the 5 weakest players ally. But, isn't this likely, since they will be the recurring people on the weak tribe and will bond, and would ally because they know that they can count on each others votes every episode? The reason we don't see more "weakest member" alliances in Survivor as it is now (and we do see quite a few of these anyway), is because people don't want to go to the merge with fewer numbers, so they want to preserve strength. In your iteration, there is NO reason to preserve strength.
JaniTholeMyDolly		#2051	[-]
Posts: 4420 (11/30/08 5:09 PM) Dicked....by Evel that is Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I abhore this thread.
Fizzmix		#2052	[-]
Posts: 194 (11/30/08 5:09 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: lemurwrench wrote: an alliance can be formed on the winners camp and can systematically throw challenges to boot the others not in the alliance Which can also happen under the current system, so your argument automatically fails. Not to the degree that it can happen to in your system. They can only do it a few times before their tribe numbers dwindle beyond sustainability in the game. In your system, they can throw upwards of 9 challenges to benefit themselves.
ArtieeLange		#2053	[-]
Posts: 397 (11/30/08 5:16 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	lemurwrench wrote: if there are no "weak", then how is that a flaw that you can fix? I know I'm repeating what others have said, but you just don't get it. The problem with the current system is it does not find the "weak" or the "strong", because it does not test the players equally, because it allows for artificial advantages and disadvantages, because it introduces the static team-system, because teams are decided by an anonymous CBS employee, or random rock-picking. My system removes the cause, resulting in removing the flaw, resulting in testing all players equally, resulting in accurate rankings after each challenge, after every challenge, and after all challenges. Guaranteed.
ArtieeLange		#2054	[-]
Posts: 398 (11/30/08 5:22 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Fizzmix wrote: It would be a flaw in the game design, it would be exploited in some capacity at least once, and it would ruin the show. It can happen under the current system (yes my system also has a merge) so your argument automatically fails. I already proved your other points false here: http://survivorsucks.yuku...finals.html#reply-3762955
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#2055	[-]
Posts: 6164 (11/30/08 6:06 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: lemurwrench wrote: if there are no "weak", then how is that a flaw that you can fix? I know I'm repeating what others have said, but you just don't get it. The problem with the current system is it does not find the "weak" or the "strong", because it does not test the players equally, because it allows for artificial advantages and disadvantages, because it introduces the static team-system, because teams are decided by an anonymous CBS employee, or random rock-picking. My system removes the cause, resulting in removing the flaw, resulting in testing all players equally, resulting in accurate rankings after each challenge, after every challenge, and after all challenges. Guaranteed. It allows four or five people to take control of the game in its entirty. It places an extrodinarily large emphasis on challenge order. It is arbitrary because "the strong" already have control. It doesn't remove luck.
JaniTholeMyDolly		#2056	[-]
Posts: 4428 (11/30/08 6:10 PM) Dicked....by Evel that is Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I am completely shocked that: This thread was started in 07' Artie started it with his first post and is now on post 398 it's always on page one and nothing has been solved or resolved.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#2057	[-]
Posts: 6166 (11/30/08 6:17 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Because he starts with the premise: "I am right. I cannot be wrong. Discuss."
emjoi		#2058	[-]
Posts: 1108 (11/30/08 6:21 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Hey it's a tactic that's worked in Religious Flamebait threads in forums everywhere since the Internet began.
ArtieeLange		#2059	[-]
Posts: 399 (11/30/08 6:37 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	JaniTholeMyDolly wrote: I am completely shocked that: This thread was started in 07' Artie started it with his first post and is now on post 398 it's always on page one and nothing has been solved or resolved. Yeah, maybe around page 500 or post 5000 someone will figure out a valid argument against my system. But it's not likely.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#2060	[-]
Posts: 6169 (11/30/08 6:40 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	And what would you consider a valid argument? This system is your baby, you must understand it more than anyone?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

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

Quick Reply