| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 solesurvivor01 |
|||
|
Posts: 3733 (11/26/08 6:24 PM) Registered user |
What Dr Will means is YOU FAIL, MISERABLY.
Every little thing makes the show completely different. To use an analogy (kind of), your idea would just make it BB instead of Survivor with different results. |
||
|
tdugan333 |
|||
|
Posts: 8530 (11/26/08 6:27 PM) |
ArtieeLange wrote:OK cool. So you are saying that you're basing your definitions of strong and weak solely based on their physical prowess? |
||
|
FourDozenEggs |
|||
|
Posts: 82 (11/26/08 7:17 PM) |
ignore this post
Last Edited By: FourDozenEggs
11/26/08 7:38 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
PrettyGoodYear1988 |
|||
|
Posts: 1256 (11/26/08 7:47 PM) Registered user |
Artiee, your idea is so great. You really, really need to call EPMB and get this done! I mean, what's the point of discussing it here? It's so
perfect and viewers will surely love it!
|
||
|
Dan Down Under |
|||
|
Posts: 3831 (11/26/08 9:46 PM) Registered user |
tdugan333 wrote:Exactly. Artiee, when you define Michelle and Jacqui stronger than Gillian and Kelly, you're pretty much saying they're physically stronger than them. But, here's the concept you don't seem to grasp, they also have to be socially stronger (making friends, ties, alliances whatever) to progress further. Sure you can be a total challenge beast (which those first 2 girls weren't even), but if you suck as a person (i.e. socially), you get your arse handed to you. Which is what's happening to you now. ETA: One more page guys! |
||
|
tdugan333 |
|||
|
Posts: 8560 (11/26/08 11:17 PM) |
What Artiee has never realized (other than the meaning of luck of course ssts) is that his "strong" people would all be voted out tout de suite under
his version. Who in their right mind would keep strong people who ended up for whatever reason (bad luck maybe? double ssts) on the loser tribe? What idiot
other than Artiee would actually vote to keep someone around stronger than they are who might beat them in the next challenge forever keeping them from the
winning tribe?
Just doing my part to get this to whatever page number you want. I'm still at page 27, but I have huge post counts per page so..... |
||
|
emjoi |
|||
|
Posts: 1096 (11/26/08 11:29 PM) Registered User |
I think the only way Survivor can become fair, with the weakest and least interesting voted out first, is the open it up to a Public Vote. Like Idol and UK Big
Brother.
Of course that means the show becomes live and contestants have to starve for 3 months, rather than 39 days. But it's worth it for the show to become fair. |
||
|
ArtieeLange |
|||
|
Posts: 375 (11/27/08 12:03 AM) |
Delusional wrote: Good question, delusional. Those shows don't need improvement, for example American Idol is split into two segments: The cast of judges first separate the contestants, and then everything else is up to the callers. There is no ambiguity, it is designed to pick the American Idol, and the system guarantees the winners of the first segment is who the judges select, and the winner of the second segment is the one who consistently avoids getting the least amount of votes. Guaranteed. "Survivor" is a show designed to find the "Survivor", which the second segment does**. However, the first "team" segment is more like "Team Survivor", or more accurately "Team Survivor Based On Luck". It's flawed, and everything resulting is based on those flaws. My system corrects those flaws. Guaranteed. |
||
|
ArtieeLange |
|||
|
Posts: 376 (11/27/08 12:09 AM) |
Dan Down Under wrote:Arse-hole, even Jeff Probst stated on national TV that Jacqui was a better overall player than Kelly, and was shocked that Kelly wasn't deservedly voted off first. Even Ken stated he didn't want to vote off Jacqui, but the loser mob forced his hand. It's not about "socially stronger", its about being subject to those with numbers, the losers, instead of having the opportunity to compete, and defeat. Even Randy stated the problem with Survivor is 4 morons could vote out 3 rocket-scientists. |
||
|
emjoi |
|||
|
Posts: 1098 (11/27/08 12:25 AM) Registered User |
3 people who thought they were rocket scientists.
Considering yourself to be smart is not the same as being smart. Onion failed the social game. |
||
|
oh ehm gee |
|||
|
Posts: 1789 (11/27/08 12:31 AM) |
Lolz at even suggesting that AI has a fair system of judging. |
||
|
Dan Down Under |
|||
|
Posts: 3840 (11/27/08 12:59 AM) Registered user |
ArtieeLange wrote: Right so pretty much you're just taking 3 random opinions (one of them being Randy for Christ's sake, who was a social retard and played a false HII because he's an idiot) and saying that they actually mean something. OMG JUST COS JEFF PROBST SAID IT IT MUST BE TRUE!? No. Fail. Next. Also, loser mob? What the fuck? How are they a loser mob? Oh, because they actually bothered making alliances with one another (i.e. being socially stronger) and voted out some random blonde whore that you jerked off to? Boo hoo Artard. |
||
|
ArtieeLange |
|||
|
Posts: 377 (11/27/08 1:53 AM) |
oh ehm gee wrote:Lolz at confusing fair with best. American Idol is about finding the most popular, its system is by definition perfectly suited for its stated goal. |
||
|
ArtieeLange |
|||
|
Posts: 378 (11/27/08 1:57 AM) |
Dan Down Under wrote:Random? 
Two players and the host, arse-hole. Thanks for reminding me, now when I get the time I will find the exact quotes of Ken, Jeff, and Randy, and add them to the first post in this thread. |
||
|
UnemployedSpaceBum |
|||
|
Posts: 397 (11/27/08 2:29 AM) Registered User |
ArtieeLange wrote: If 3 rocket-scientists cannot manage to get together and convince one of the 4 morons to join them, then what you have is seven morons. |
||
|
Dan Down Under |
|||
|
Posts: 3845 (11/27/08 3:07 AM) Registered user |
ArtieeLange wrote:And I still love how you attempt to justify just because 3 people said so, it should be law. How abouts we ask the opinions of Susie? Sugar? Crystal? Matty? Oh that's right, because that would totally ruin Artard's point. Also: gj at not quoting the rest of my post because you have no valid defense against it. |
||
|
tdugan333 |
|||
|
Posts: 8572 (11/27/08 3:28 AM) |
Artiee didn't respond inanely to my post.
 I was expecting lots of
blue laughy fuckers and irrefutable proof that I'm an idiot and he is a genius.
::kicks rocks with hands in pockets and head down:: |
||
|
UnemployedSpaceBum |
|||
|
Posts: 398 (11/27/08 4:05 AM) Registered User |
tdugan333 wrote: I'm sure that Artiee will be along any minute to quote three random words from your post, say something about how his idea is guaranteed and then call you fat.
He just needs a minute to gather his thoughts. Oops, sorry - make that "He just needs a minute to gather his thought".
|
||
|
ArtieeLange |
|||
|
Posts: 379 (11/27/08 4:38 AM) |
tdugan333 wrote:Under my system, current challenge winners won't end up on the losing tribe. Under my system, the challenges vary, so everyone eventually ends up on the losing tribe. Therefore, everyone has an equal level chance at social strategy, just like they have an equal level chance at challenges. Unlike the current system, which has artificial teams based on luck, and therefore artificial forced "alliances". |
||
|
Dan Down Under |
|||
|
Posts: 3852 (11/27/08 6:04 AM) Registered user |
ArtieeLange wrote:OMG! Varying challenges? Isn't that what they already have on that Survivor show? |
||
