Oh no no no, Mister. We're not talking about DESERVING. We're talking about the BEST player.
0 Kudo
- Survivor Sucks
- Lions, Tigers, Survivors - Oh My!
- Survivor Spoilers
- MESS Hall Tribal Council
- MESS Hall Archive
- Survivor Speculation
- Survivor 20+
- The Amazing Race
- Big Brother
- Big Brother - PAST SEASONS
- The Apprentice
- American Idol
- American Idol PAST SEASONS
- The Mole
- Lost
- Other Shows That Suck
- Off Topic
- Clubs That Suck. No, Really.
- The Dump
- Monster Island
- Purgatory
- FAQ
- In Memory, 9/11/01
Official "Worst.Winner.Ever" Thread also, what makes the best player best?
| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Will |
|||
|
Posts: 29904 (08/14/08 4:34 PM) Not a Registered User anymore |
|
||
 Screerider |
|||
|
Posts: 22476 (08/14/08 4:35 PM) Registered user |
Actually, it sounds like we're talking about the LUCKIEST Player.
Could be they all sucked. Someone has to win. |
||
|
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
Posts: 4379 (08/14/08 4:38 PM) Registered user |
Yes, whoever doesn't win made some sort of mistake.
Jedi Janie LOST the f3 HOH both times. She deserved to lose Cirie was a victim of circumstance(Terrys idol, the final 2). It may seem unfair, but she deserved to lose. Fairplay lost immunity to Lill, he deserved to lose. Steven tricked Jim,he deserved to lose. Whats so hard to understand? Please tell me where I'm wrong, I truly don't understand where you're coming from Will. |
||
|
Dictatorship |
|||
|
Posts: 3198 (08/14/08 4:40 PM) |
But, see, you can be second-worst on every single quiz and still win (that's basically what Mark did). You also can be given exemptions because you do word
puzzles at your house. Or you can have pegged the Mole on every quiz and cause distractions for other players, thus getting them eliminated (Paul). I'd
also like to add that Paul most likely tied in a perfect 10 quiz against Nicole.
NTA (by the way, love the avatar), You can't say that just because Mark won a quizzing game, then he is the best. He only quizzed for Craig on the final quiz. It shows how fucking clueless and LUCKY he was the entire time. There's always someone who makes endgame while not knowing the Mole: Kate, Bribs, Al (who stupidly split answers in the final 3), Dorothy, Michael, Erik, and Kathy (all three :P), and don't know about Celeb 2. ETA for speeling.
Last Edited By: Dictatorship
08/14/08 4:45 PM.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
Dictatorship |
|||
|
Posts: 3199 (08/14/08 4:43 PM) |
Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: Steven tricked Jim? Fucking when??? Of course there's a reason for everyone's elimination in a voting game. I mean, a two-year old could tell us that, so I don't see what your post accomplished except randomly talking about Fairplay and Ciretard. It doesn't mean the winner deserved to win. I mean, you can't honestly agree that Amber pwned everyone in Survivor All-Stars and deserved the win over all the others.
|
||
|
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
Posts: 4381 (08/14/08 4:54 PM) Registered user |
"To own", is very subjective. Will Kirby certainly didn't own Kaysar in All Stars, Kaysar was removed due to circumstance. There are dozens of examples of this. It is a romantic idea that one person could single handedly rule an entire season, but MANY different factors come into account. If Brian made ONE slip up, he culd f lost Thailand.
Steven tricked Jim into taking his final quiz so fast that he flubbed on some of the questions. Total jedi mind trick, he had Jim convinced he knew the game
just as well as he did. He didn't, but he had a good ace up his sleeve.
|
||
|
Will |
|||
|
Posts: 29906 (08/14/08 4:58 PM) Not a Registered User anymore |
Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: You've switched to DESERVED now. We are not talking about DESERVING. We're talking about BEST player. I couldn't careless about your opinions on who deserved what. You're arguing on why the winner is the better player, stop talking about DESERVE. |
||
|
NiceToAnimals |
|||
|
Posts: 10629 (08/14/08 4:58 PM) Registered User |
I guess I'm really not seeing the problem or the point of this discussion. He did what he needed to do to win. He won exemptions when he needed them, he
was fast enough to get by when had the lowest score, he took copious notes which obviously helped him with the quiz, and he kicked ass on the final quiz.
Nicole may have known who the Mole was before him, but if anything that should have made it much easier for her, and she still couldn't win. Maybe being
shifty and devious distracted her and made her lose focus, I don't know. And of course, she was also lucky.
As far as other winners, I don't think it's really fair to compare them, but I'm sure they all had moments of luck. Kathy tied at least twice and didn't know until the end. In games like Big Brother, you can do nothing right and still manage to win. That's not the case with a game like the Mole. You have to do a lot of things right to get to the end. Some seem to think that Mark winning exemptions is a bad thing, but that's what people are supposed to do. Not only was he a good quiz taker, but he was excellent in the physical AND mental challenges. And thanks about the avatar. |
||
|
Will |
|||
|
Posts: 29907 (08/14/08 5:01 PM) Not a Registered User anymore |
NTA, I believe we're currently arguing on how the winner is the best player. Not specifically Mark at this point (except for the opinion that Mark was the
best player because he won).
|
||
|
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
Posts: 4384 (08/14/08 5:06 PM) Registered user |
Will wrote: Are they not the same thing? Why should someone recieve accolades for being more theatrical with their gameplay? In voting based games, there is no excuse for this. Who wins, wins, and is thus, and at the same time,most deserving. In a game like The Mole, I can see your point, but is there a better system of judgement? I haven't heard one, and if I did, I bet the flaws in that system are worse then the ones in the current ranking system. As for TAR, there are far too many factors to judge a "best" team except for those who cross the finish line first,and so on. |
||
|
Will |
|||
|
Posts: 29909 (08/14/08 6:00 PM) Not a Registered User anymore |
No. Not the same thing. For instance, let's say Nicole won. After World Peace spreads and we find a cure for Cancer, Azhelmers, Diabetes, Various Mental
Conditions, and AIDs as a direct result (
), some people would say that Mark deserved to win because he wanted it for selfless reasons and for his family
while Nicole is single and a Doctor and doesn't NEED the money.
Deserve is such a word that I don't think you can singly apply to WINNER=DESERVED TO WIN=BEST PLAYER. You YOURSELF say that Dick didn't DESERVE to win even though you say that winners deserved to win because they won. By your original statement, Dick was the BEST player and DESERVED to win. All games have a type of grayness so I just disagree with any notion that somebody who won was the best (the American Idol was not always the best singer. The Top Model was not always the best model. The Survivor was not always the best at surviving. The Mole Winner was not always the best at the quizzes. The Amazing Racers were not always the best racers. I could go on and so forth) . Somebody could have an AMAZING game and suddenly a twist or a bullshit challenge could pop up and get them out but that doesn't mean they DESERVED to lose. And... back to the mole. I don't think Kathy Griffin was the best mole winner because she won. I think she's the best mole winner for being the fastest on the quizzes (well not anymore. ;) Nicole), keeping focus on her surroundings, awesome to watch, and in the end figuring out the mole by herself. I don't even think she got 17 questions right. I think she had 14 to Erik's 12. Clearly winning reality shows is sriuz bizness. I think I've said FAR too much about this. I've gone over my post quota. I'm tired arguing over this. Now that I've said my piece, let's just agree to disagree.
|
||
|
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
Posts: 4394 (08/14/08 8:08 PM) Registered user |
Agreed, but just a few more things. I said Dick didn't deserve to win because the show was rigged. Grodner went above her own rules, and thus the results
were tainted. Every other winner DOES deserve to win. What you are talking about is subjective analysis. American Idols voting system is too corrupt to say
that the winner is "the best",since there is so much producer input and manipulation. If, by some miracle, the vting was not corrupt an the
commericals and judges reactions were 100% objective and unbiased, the winner WOULD be the best, as they were the winner of the contest. ANTM(I don't watch
so I'm only speculating here) is fair since the judges decision is the be all and end all of the contest. I heard one of the ANTM winners was a good friend
of Tyra Banks. If the show is entirly run by the judges, that may have been unethical, but totally acceptable by the rules, and thus she DESERVED to win.
Furthur more, there is no way to interpret who is the bes tplayer of Survivor except for WHO WON. We only get a limited view of the peoples actions, and thus
the "big plays" of "great players" is up to speculation and a lot of guesswork. The only fair way to say who the best player is is by who
won. Who cares if Jon was more active then Sandra in stratagy or Cirie was more "appealing" stratagy wise then Aras or Parvati, Jon and Cirie both
lost. As for the Mole, i said before, do you have an alternative way to determine the winner? If so,lets hear it.
|
||
|
Will |
|||
|
Posts: 29918 (08/14/08 8:23 PM) Not a Registered User anymore |
Logically
If, every winner deserved to win and is the best player Then, Dick deserved to win and is the best player Otherwise, not every winner deserved to win and is the best player. You can't have it both ways. And I feel I should point out that Grodner was fully within her power on the show. It was within the rules and therefore totally acceptable by the rules. Every game has judge/producer manipulation even if you can't see it. Unethical, yes but illegal and against the rules, no.
Last Edited By: Will
08/14/08 8:30 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
Posts: 4399 (08/15/08 9:06 AM) Registered user |
Theres no point in having one of these shows if the show is rigged. As far as I know, BB8 was only one of 3 reality shows ever(barring American Idol) that was
rigged. Survivors are influenced by producer maninulation, but not like BB. On BB8, Eric was forced against his will to not use the veto, don't tell me
that the producers didn't use the AMericas Player twist for a desired outcome. Dick didn't deserve it because the show was rigged. Because you
didn't criticize the rest of my reply, you are either sick of rebutting, or agree with me. I hope it's the latter(
).
|
||
|
Will |
|||
|
Posts: 29921 (08/15/08 9:35 AM) Not a Registered User anymore |
I'm sick of rebutting, I do not agree with any of your points.
Let me clarify. All shows are rigged. By rigging do I mean breaking rules? No, they're smarter than that. By rigging do I mean manipulation the results, the contestants, and the audience within their rules, yes. While you may not like it, CBS (and many other companies/shows/whatever) can do what they want as they write the rules with as many loop holes as they need BEFORE the contestants sign up and by signing the contract they agree that shit may hit the fan. They count the votes and can pull and throw out votes as they see fit (Idol does the same). Eric had to do what the producers said and follow America's wishes. Nobody put a gun to his head. He could have said no and risk getting eliminated. I do not feel bad for him as he signed up for it and being a fan of the show should have realized they weren't going to make it easy for him. Trying to say that it was rigged because Eric was forced to do something he didn't want to do is SUBJECTIVE, remember? You have to be object and the only way to do that is to go by who won. ;) So being fully within the rules of the game, Dick deserved to win as per your reasoning. You may try to argue that there's no point in having a rigged show but that's not true. Producers love to edit a story and show growth and get the audience to keep watching. That's why they do it. They can't have a story building up how AHMAZING Ruben is on American Idol is if he leaves in the final five. That's why Idol has in their contract that they can eliminate who they want and when and edit the votes and declare a non-winner should they need to. |
||
|
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
Posts: 4404 (08/15/08 9:47 AM) Registered user |
I'm sorry for wasting your time, I'm sure you're at work or something and you are just fooling around.
I agree with you, but theres a difference between what they did on BB8 and what they do on Survivor,and what they do on AI. On AI, of COURSE they're going to manipulate things, the winner and whoever else is popular are going to be major recrding stars. AI is a money making machine, it's not a real contest, and anyone wh thinks otherwise is naive. On Survivor, there are no twists like "americas player" that is dubious and ambiguous. The show MAY be rigged, and if it is, I will agree with you in total. I also would never watch the show again, but that would entail that the show is entirely manipulated. I'm aware of the fact that the production staff trys to coerce people ALL THE TIME on the show and also design challenges/twists around certain players. Honestly, it is actually impossible to NOT haqve some kind of producer interference on Survivor, how could the challenges POSSIBLY be neutral? How could the producers possibly pass up an opportunity to keep an interesting player such as Rudy when they can get people to boot Stacey? The difference between the manipulation on reality shows in general and what happened on BB8 was that THE AMERICAS PLAYER TWIST WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR A CERTAIN PLAYER(DICK) TO BENIFIT FROM. Thats not outright rigging, but that crosses a line in my eyes. |
||
|
Screerider |
|||
|
Posts: 22477 (08/15/08 10:49 AM) Registered user |
I'll step in and have to agree with Will, that the "Winner" is not always the "Best Player."
|
||
|
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
Posts: 4405 (08/15/08 2:43 PM) Registered user |
But Poker doesn't have a finate timeframe. Major tournaments only mean as much from that current year. With all these tournaments, of course we get a more
valid description of who are the pros and who are the losers. With The Mole, Survivor,etc, we don't have that. It is only fair to say that the winner is
best.
|
||
|
Screerider |
|||
|
Posts: 22484 (08/15/08 3:01 PM) Registered user |
A tournament ends when there's a sole survivor. A tournament cannot last infinitely.
If you're talking "poker is infinite", meaning it will be played for eons to come, well, I suppose we'll see about Survivor and TAR. The Mole, maybe not. Still, even in reality competitions, we've seen Players play multiple tournaments. "All-Stars" being a common example. So you can get that repeatability needed to gather enough data points to see whose skills could be considered "better" than others'. |
||
|
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
Posts: 4406 (08/15/08 3:23 PM) Registered user |
Yes, and until we get enough data to properly analyze, the winners are the best. Enlighten me, tell me about a player who lost on Survivor who was better then
the winner. Provide evidence. I agree with you, Will and Dictatorship as far as the Mole goes that the quiz is flawed in design. However, is there a better way
to determine a winner? If so,tell me.
|
||
- Survivor Sucks
- Lions, Tigers, Survivors - Oh My!
- Survivor Spoilers
- MESS Hall Tribal Council
- MESS Hall Archive
- Survivor Speculation
- Survivor 20+
- The Amazing Race
- Big Brother
- Big Brother - PAST SEASONS
- The Apprentice
- American Idol
- American Idol PAST SEASONS
- The Mole
- Lost
- Other Shows That Suck
- Off Topic
- Clubs That Suck. No, Really.
- The Dump
- Monster Island
- Purgatory
- FAQ
- In Memory, 9/11/01
