| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 ArtieeLange |
|||
|
Posts: 4 (05/20/08 3:28 PM) |
oh ehm gee wrote: Not if they are outnumbered, stupid. Do you think the first, second, third, fourth players voted off really had a chance to prove themselves? Let the
players have an equal opportunity to succeed, then weakest go first. Anything that will take out weak players is better for the resulting finals, regardless of
what happens when 10 players are left.
|
||
|
PrinceOfSucks |
|||
|
Posts: 346 (05/20/08 3:44 PM) Registered user |
How about this:
Have immunity challange, the losing team has individual immunity and whoever come sin last is out. No voting you are just gone. do that for say 5 iterations, and then let people vote after that. And for the record, I fucking hat Hatch for bringing "alliances" to the "social part" of the game. That fat fucking f.ag set the tone for every show that followed. |
||
|
oh ehm gee |
|||
|
Posts: 902 (05/20/08 4:12 PM) |
ArtieeLange wrote:And if you would continue quoting the paragraph, then you would find this: The fact is that if a person is voted out as of now, then, as you say, they've failed at both a challenge and at strategy. Good players can and have produced numbers despite being in a minority. Danni won despite being at a 5-1 disadvantage at F6. Chris won despite having a penis. Tracy managed to get Mary and Mikey out despite the old people being a clear minority. Also, how are you to determine who is strong so that the weakest go first? Let me guess - challenges? Way to give retarded challenge whores a leg up (see: Terry, Ozzy, James). In conclusion, Survivor was meant to be a form of entertainment, not a way for people to get rich. Considering that there are still lots of people entertained (like I've explained, 12 million viewers given its age, competition and promotion is great) then it's a sign that, on the whole, it's successful the way it is, hence there's no need to change it (granted, TPTB have put twists in in an effort to boost ratings, but all TV shows strive to do that). Just because you're pissed at it is no reason to change it for everyone who isn't. And this is the main reason why your plan sucks donkey balls, you stupid bitter bitch. kthxbye. |
||
|
mattg591971 |
|||
|
Posts: 17 (05/20/08 5:34 PM) |
PrinceOfSucks wrote: If Hatch hadn't thought of it, someone would have by the end of the first season. It's human nature to band together with others, especially if they become friends quickly. The thing I would like to see at the F4/F3 is Jeff bringing out rewards to quit the challenge or trying to manipulate people to cut last minute deals that show how strong a person thinks their alliance is/how quickly they'll break it for a shot at the money. |
||
|
victalac |
|||
|
Posts: 971 (05/20/08 6:09 PM) Registered user |
Good idea.
With the final four, Jeffy should bring out the big money. "I have here a check for three hundred thousand for the person, or persons, who will bow out of the game RIGHT NOW!" |
||
|
oh ehm gee |
|||
|
Posts: 911 (05/20/08 6:34 PM) |
victalac wrote: It should be person - if the endurance comp is at F3 then there's no need for FTC. Additionally, you may want to stipulate that the person who takes
the money won't be a juror (but they can still ask questions and "vote"), though that might be too extreme. I think that if used at a F4
endurance comp, that would be epic.
|
||
|
ArtieeLange |
|||
|
Posts: 5 (05/20/08 9:52 PM) |
oh ehm gee wrote: omg u retard, the way she "managed" that was to bond with other weaklings, and outnumber the threats.
Viewers have had enough dimwits, bimbos are other losers winning a game called "Survivor", its a played out joke because of the way the system is set up. |
||
|
TW After Life |
|||
|
Posts: 767 (05/20/08 10:02 PM) |
You are incredibly stupid, Artiee.oh ehm gee wrote:omg u retard, the way she "managed" that was to bond with other weaklings, and outnumber the threats. |
||
|
m0t0 maj1 |
|||
|
Posts: 507 (05/20/08 10:14 PM) |
ArtieeLange wrote:Tracy bonded with Chet and Kathy, that makes them three. How did they outnumber 7 others. You sir, and this idea of yours: FAIL. |
||
|
SW5SkittlesBrownfield |
|||
|
Posts: 17 (05/20/08 10:22 PM) |
This system actually encourages throwing challenges. The first group to do so would have 100% control of the game... and I'd bet my left nut they
wouldn't go after the weakest...they'd take out the strongest they could get.
How fun! Instead of pagonging post-merge...you can have an alliance pick off the other 14 people from Day 1!!! WEEE! |
||
|
ArtieeLange |
|||
|
Posts: 6 (05/20/08 11:26 PM) |
SW5SkittlesBrownfield wrote: Same thing could happen now, tard, with much less effort or risk. It doesnt, and it won't, because they would have to vote off themselves.
Next. |
||
|
SFC |
|||
|
Posts: 331 (05/21/08 12:22 AM) Registered user |
ArtieeLange wrote: The way it is right now, you are stuck with the people on the same tribe, so the numbers dwindle. In your system, throw a Challenge; boot a threat, Next time; throw a Challenge and get rid of the person that fell to the back of the pack. You still haven't answered my question: How does your Ideal Scenario for this format go if it was in Micronesia. If you know please answer, if not...Next. |
||
 Kitty Pryde1 |
|||
|
Posts: 4246 (05/21/08 12:37 AM) |
m0t0 maj1 wrote: I noticed that you skipped this post when making your witty reply to Skittles. In short, you continue to ignore any post that proves you wrong and pick and choose what you want to agree with. You also seem to ignore the fact that typically, the first four boots under the current system ARE the weakest players in the game. Let's look back (And note that I'm not including quits or the pick 'em boots from Palau): Borneo: Sonja (Oldest woman in the cast), B.B. (Oldest player on his tribe), Stacey (Not exactly strong), Ramona (Sick for the first week or so) Australia: Debb (Not necessarily weak, but Kucha was a physically strong tribe), Kel (Strong player), Maralyn (Oldest woman in the game), Mitchell (Weakest man in the game) Africa: Diane (Older woman and sick early on), Jessie (Sick early on), Carl (Wasn't anything special), Linda (Weakest older woman on Samburu) Marquesas: Peter (Strong player), Patricia (Old and fat), Hunter (Strong player), Sarah (Weak and lazy) Thailand: John (Strong player), Tanya (Sick early on), Jed (Strong player), Ghandia (Weak and mentally unstable) Amazon: Ryan (Nothing special), Janet (Old and sick), Daniel (Nothing special), JoAnna (Nothing special) Pearl Islands: Nicole (Nothing special), Ryan S. (Weak male), Lill (Weak older woman), Burton (Strong player) All-Stars: Tina (Weak older woman), Rudy (Oldest man in the game), Rob C. (Physically weak man), Richard (Strong Player) Vanuatu: Brook (Tribe of strong men, doesn't make a difference), Dolly (Nothing special), John P. (Tribe of strong men, doesn't make a difference), Mia (Nothing special) Palau: Jolanda (Strong player), Ashlee (Weak quitter), Jeff (Strong player), Kim (Weak player) Guatemala: Jim (Old and injured), Morgan (Nothing special), Brianna (Lazy and uncaring), Brooke (Nothing special) Exile Island: Tina (Strong player), Melinda (Out-of-shape), Misty (Nothing special), Ruth Marie (Oldest woman in the game) Cook Islands: Sekou (Strong player), Billy (Physical liability), Cecilia (Nothing special), JP (Strong player) Fiji: Jessica (Nothing special), Erika (Nothing special), Sylvia (Weak and old), Liliana (Strong player) China: Chicken (Nothing special), Ashley (Sick early on, but a strong player), Leslie (Weak older woman), Dave (Nothing special) Micronesia: Jon (Weak and injured quitter), Mary (Nothing special), Yau-Man (Nothing special), Mikey (Strong player) First off, that's 64 players in total. Of those 64, only 15 could really be considered strong players that shouldn't have been voted out. That's less than one fourth. Interesting to note is what happened to the tribes that booted those fifteen players. Ogakor booted Kel and went on a three-round losing streak for immunity. Maraamu booted Peter and Hunter and they never won a single challenge. Chuay Ghan booted John and took four episodes before they were able to come back. Sook Jai booted Jed and wound up blowing a massive numbers advantage. Drake booted Burton and didn't win a single immunity challenge from that point on. Mogo Mogo booted Richard and didn't win a single immunity challenge from that point on. Ulong booted Jolanda and Jeff and never won a single immunity challenge at all. Tina was an exception as her original tribe was dissolved shortly after she was booted, but without her, Casaya never would've won any challenges. Hiki booted Sekou and almost lost the next immunity to a team that was throwing it. Raro booted JP and down the line, they got owned by Aitu. Fiji is another exception, as the haves/have-nots twist basically meant the haves would always win (and they did, aside from one challenge). Zhan Hu booted Ashley and to a lesser extent, Chicken, and got owned. Mikey is the third exception, given that a swap happened just after he was booted. So basically, the way the game is set up now, it's smarter to keep the stronger players until the merge and boot the weaker players early on. Just because someone like Courtney or Chet made it past the first four boots doesn't mean that's how the game always works. You're just being a troll by ignoring large chunks of Survivor history AND ignoring intelligent arguments that prove you wrong. Under the current system, the "strong" as you put it, are beneficial to the weak to keep around, and the only reason a strong player may be voted off under this system is in the event that they cause conflict in the tribe, or they simply don't bother forming bonds with people. Under your system, there are absolutely no benefits to keeping the strong in the game, since the strong to nothing to help out the weak. Thus, if a "strong" player happens to have the misfortune of falling into the "weak" group, then it's a no-brainer that the strong player will be voted out. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand. Unless you give a good reason as to why the strong would NOT be voted out upon losing a challenge under your system (aside from changing the rules to make it even less fair), then you have absolutely no rational argument. |
||
|
Dan Down Under |
|||
|
Posts: 2460 (05/21/08 1:51 AM) Registered user |
ArtieeLange wrote:I hate Joel, but calling him "weak" while calling Mary a "threat" really emphasises how retarded you are. |
||
|
SucksSucks |
|||
|
Posts: 154 (05/21/08 2:07 AM) |
Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Anyone actually read through all this? |
||
|
pinoyako |
|||
|
Posts: 1218 (05/21/08 2:08 AM) Registered user |
Of course I would read it. Don't you know KittyPryde?
|
||
|
oh ehm gee |
|||
|
Posts: 914 (05/21/08 9:54 AM) |
I did, and it's a fairly well-reasoned argument that he probably won't pay attention to.
Srsly? "Survivor" is an ambiguous term; whether it means surviving the elements, surviving your tribemates or surviving until the end depends on the person watching. As I said before, Survivor is not a fucking scholarship; it's sole purpose isn't to give people cash for hanging out on some hole for 39 days. It. Is. A. Show. For. Entertainment. Sure people bitch, but that's always going to happen; there really hasn't been a universally loved winner. If viewers had enough of it, then the ratings would've dropped a lot more than what they had (the decay that I've twice explained as not simply black and white), so please do not presume that you represent the average viewer since A) you troll a message board, which means you're a lot more invested in the show and B) look at the responses to the thread. But just out of clarification, which dimwits/bimbos/losers actually won Survivor? If you're referencing Jenna/Amber/Parv, that's something to take to LTS AND NOT HERE. In conclusion, this plan is gay and retarded, just like you. The fact that you assume that detractors are just stupid shows that you don't care nearly enough about the audience of the show to even consider pitching ideas just so that you can actually watch the show because you like it*. Jackass. * rather than to make fun of their stupidity on Sucks, which I've found to be the more enjoyable experience |
||
|
m0t0 maj1 |
|||
|
Posts: 509 (05/21/08 11:13 AM) |
m0t0 maj1 wrote:I'm still waiting for my answer to this scenario. And for you to boardcide. |
||
|
mattg591971 |
|||
|
Posts: 19 (05/21/08 1:59 PM) |
victalac wrote: Thanks. It would definitely be interesting to see who takes the bait and how that affects the end game. |
||
|
Quiddity |
|||
|
Posts: 2589 (05/21/08 4:32 PM) Registered User |
Anyone actually read through all this? I did! KP was spot on in all aspects, as usual. As for Artie, I think there's little doubt that he'll act like KP never posted it. Boardicide already you turd! |
||
