BobBob77 wrote:Yes, and my answer is no thanks, I am heterosexual.
Hey Artiee did you get my message?
| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
ArtieeLange |
|||
BobBob77 wrote:Yes, and my answer is no thanks, I am heterosexual. |
|||
BobBob77 |
|||
|
Guess you didn't get the message. |
|||
ArtieeLange |
|||
BobBob77 wrote:Stop stalking me, thanks, if you have anything to say, say it here. |
|||
Kitty Pryde1 |
|||
ArtieeLange wrote: PRONOUNS ARE FOR THE WEAK, YOU FAT COUCH POTATO! |
|||
ArtieeLange |
|||
Kitty Pryde1 wrote:Not necessarily, Rosie. What I want, what is most entertaining, is to see them all struggle, and then the ones who did the best get rewarded, and the ones who failed, get punished. What you have now is players that do nothing, get rewarded, and players that do everything, get voted out. But you like seeing losers get the lucky advantages you never had, we get it. |
|||
Kitty Pryde1 |
|||
ArtieeLange wrote: You see, for all your retarded arguments and feeble insults, you've never exactly proven how your system is any different. Your system rewards the worst players, the ones that could never win a challenge to save their life and couldn't strategize their way out of a paper bag. You know WHY they're rewarded? Because your system makes it so that there's no real benefit to alliances, and as such, the logical mindset would be to vote out the biggest threat whenever possible. As a result, a lot of midcarders, who under the current system could go far, would be voted out early while people who would be complete failures, the ones you consistently point to as an example of how the current system fails, would survive week after week. Meanwhile, the strong aren't rewarded for their strength at all under your system, because the second someone strong find him or herself in a challenge that's not his or her forte, the other losers will vote him or her out. Your system simplifies strategy to the point where the challenges are the only focus of the game, and thus you've turned Survivor into a mindless MTV program. Congratulations. |
|||
ArtieeLange |
|||
Kitty Pryde1 wrote:For all your retarded arguments and feeble insults, you've never exactly proven anything. Do you know why? Because under my system, only the bottom half can get voted out. Thats why. There are no "mid-carders". There are winners, and losers. Should there be a challenge with 10 players ranked, the last place had no chance, but number 6 should have taken out number 5. Number 6 is the true failure, and therefore number 6 deserves to be voted out as much as number 7,8,9 or 10. Again, there are no "mid-carders" (wtf) Under the current system, players who kick ass like Michelle and Jackie (and thats just in the first 3 episodes) get voted out, while weaklings like Kelly and that old hag and the numbered up mob of losers remain. Each time this happens it changes the course of the game, for the worse. |
|||
BobBob77 |
|||
|
See, if Michelle and Jacquie made it to the final two, then they would be weak. Anything to prove your point.
|
|||
Kitty Pryde1 |
|||
|
Apparently the term "mid-carder" is too much for your muscle-filled head to comprehend. A midcarder under your system would be anyone from the 7th
to the 12th place finishers in the challenge. They're not the strongest players, however, they are still much stronger than the worst players. These
midcarders are the ones who your system screws over the most, even more than the strong, because they're just weak enough not to ensure their safety, but
they're strong enough that the other losers will look at them and target them as threats. You think viewers complain about the way it is now, where a
negative bitch like Michelle is a first boot, and then two weak bitches are the next ones after her? They'll be bitching a whole lot more when they see
people trying their hardest and pushing themselves to their limits, only to just miss out on safety and get eliminated because of it.
|
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
Posts: 5393 (10/12/08 8:13 PM) Registered user |
ArtieeLange wrote: The ratings have been improving. Slowly, but have been improving. Your theory holds little water. |
||
Drboboosh2 |
|||
|
Alright Artiee, you sold me. My cousin's friend's mom is Mark Burnett's hairstylist. I'm gonna forward your idea to her, and it should be
implemented by Season 19. I think you may have saved Survivor. Never again, will kickass players like Michelle get the shaft!! Never again will weaklings
comprise the finals.
|
|||
ArtieeLange |
|||
Kitty Pryde1 wrote: Did you not read what I already wrote? I will number the points so you don't have to strain your over-taxed brain. 1) Under my system there are no "mid-carders" (wtf). There are two teams, winners, and losers. Should there be a challenge with 10 players ranked, the last place had no chance, but number 6 should have taken out number 5. Number 5 strived, number 6 failed, and therefore number 6 deserves to be voted out as much as number 7,8,9 or 10. The other great aspects of my system are that: 2) The players are ranked anew after every varied challenge, a player will be forced to outplay in every aspect of the game - physical, puzzles, memory, knowing other players, eating gross shit, etc. 3) The teams are not permanent, but completely depend on every players last performance. |
|||
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
Posts: 5399 (10/12/08 9:48 PM) Registered user |
BTW ARTIEE, THERE IS AN OUTCAST TWIST TOMORROW AT 8. CHANCE AT REDEMPTION.
|
||
finishthemoff |
|||
|
Why don't you just follow the system that you will have to play for immunities with a separate twists that you have to play for the rights to vote?
|
|||
terryfan |
|||
|
your system puts too much importance on challenges, that's only one small part of the Outwit, Outplay, Outlast. Some of the best players in the game were
terrible at challenges and never won a challenge. The biggest part of the game is forming alliances and being able to talk people into thinking that the best
move for them is to keep you in the game, and switching tribes every week is unnecesary and would be way to confusing
|
|||
survivorisdabest |
|||
|
if someone named "terryfan" thinks you are wrong, then you are wrong.
|
|||
Kitty Pryde1 |
|||
ArtieeLange wrote: 1. So basically, for all your bitching about the weak outlasting the strong, you don't mind if someone like Kelly, who winds up in last place, beats someone like Jacquie for the sole reason that Jacquie was maybe a few seconds slower than Corinne in the challenge. In my opinion, that isn't fair, because it screws Jacquie based on the random luck of a challenge win, wherea it doesn't really harm Kelly in any way. Hell, under your system, it's entirely possible for the final 2 to be two players who won one challenge between them. All it takes is for the strongest player to fail once, and suddenly you've got a final 2 of Chet and Kathy. But I guess you think that's fair, right? The current system, you have to prove yourself and earn a win, first by doing well in the tribal portion of the game so that your tribe has the majority, and then strategizing and occasionally winning challenges after the merge. 2. Knowing other players? Seems a bit unfair since players are going to be switched up every episode, and odds are there are certain players that would never meet due to the simple nature of your system. Also, challenges are as lucky, if not moreso than the current random tribal assortments, so I don't get why you think changing the challenges every episode would prove who's deserving of winning. It'd just screw players over who otherwise might've won the game. 3. In other words, take out the social aspect of the game. You can be as lazy and as much of an asshole as you want. It doesn't matter how nice you are because you're either going to win the challenge, or you're going to fall within the losers, and even then, it doesn't matter what your personality is, so long as you aren't the biggest threat. Then, take out the strategic aspect as well. No need to form alliances because there's no set tribes. No reason to vote strategically, just get rid of the player who's the biggest threat to win immunity to give yourself a better chance at getting it. So now we've eliminated two thirds of Survivor as it is, leaving us with just challenges, catering to the lowest common denominator of retarded people who can't hold their attention unless some big muscular guy is pushing something heavy. Congratulations, you've ruined Survivor, Artiee. |
|||
BobBob77 |
|||
|
Seriously Artiee, has anyone in all 60+ pages ever agreed with you?
|
|||
ArtieeLange |
|||
Kitty Pryde1 wrote:There are plenty of cunty people in this thread who "mind" when one player defeats another, and I am happy that they hate my system. I am not one of them. If a player defeats a another player, then they deserve to be rewarded. If you disagree, then you are one of them. Kitty Pryde1 wrote:True, but that's because you have very low reading comprehension. Changing the challenges would change the skill-set required to win the challenges, physical, intellectual, mental, emotional, so that the ultimate Survivor winner is well-rounded and truly deserving of the title Survivor. Kitty Pryde1 wrote: That's like saying it doesn't matter what your personality is under the current system, after the merge. You didn't realize that because you are borderline retarded. I just refuted every one of your "points", as I always do. There is no valid argument against my system, as I just proved again. |
|||
Bobby Jon goes apeshit |
|||
|
This is even better then winner analysis back at LTS.
|
|||