Yuku free message boards

After finally catching up on the last 20 pages, I wanted to make a few comments...mostly on tone.

There was a discussion about whether or not Edgic needs to add ratings to differentiate between good P and bad P, or good N or bad N. I would say those already exist. Bad P and bad N are covered with the OTTP and OTTN ratings. These rating cover the happy/sappy positive characters as well as the horrible negative characters. The good P and good N ratings are covered by the CP and MOR ratings. The reason that the good N and bad N ratings gave some people trouble this season lead into my next point...

Many people around here were using their own value judgments for P and N rather than using the editing intent. Many people were arguing against Courtney being N because she was still entertaining in her sarcastically bitchy attitude. The editing intent showed her to be truly negative with her mocking of the culture and her persistent whining about JR. Many have also been arguing for an N-rating for Todd. He was shown to be cold, calculating, and strategic, but his editing was always shown to be complex. Some of his negative light came from his paranoia and discussions of using heavy strategy, but he had plenty of positive light from his friendly relationships in the tribe and the fact that he was using smart and successful strategy. He may have been doing things that were more negative, but they were all shown in a positive (or at least mixed) light.

I think that people using their own value judgments and ignoring editorial intent kept Courtney as a winner possibility for far too long and kept Todd from getting more deserved attention. It is easy to look at these items in hindsight, but of the 5 people quickly identified as the only potential winners, Todd was the only one to fit the Edgic guidelines. Amanda was INV in the first episode, Courtney was OTTN, Denise was INV, and PG was on the non-complex tribe. Edgic worked, but people out-thought themselves.

TheLurkerSpeaks wrote:

---

Using successful strategy is not a P attribute, briand, although it does make them a more worthy winner, and having people like a player that we see plotting against them is downright negative in most cases (though I won't say all). (Personally, your arguments in support of a mixed tone for Todd strike me as doing the same thing you are indicating those who disagree with you do, but that isn't something I want to keep debating ad infinitum.)

Using a successful strategy is neither a P attribute nor an N attribute. That was my whole point. What matters is how the editing is done. Todd was scheming and very strategic, but the editing was showing this in a non-negative light. He was playing the game but was edited as doing it in a nice way (generally). It is pretty much the same as the challenge throwing edit for Jamie and PG. It was edited to be very negative for Jamie while only a little negative for PG. The actions themselves are not what is important, it is the editorial commentary that is important. Sometimes the edit is very heavy-handed (like for Jamie). Other times it is more subtle. Many of the tone arguments from this season were on whether or not an action was positive or negative. Those arguments often included at least one party giving personal interpretations of the actions rather than observing the editing intent.