Official "Worst.Winner.Ever" Thread also, what makes the best player best?

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Started By

Comment

Screerider

[-]

Posts: 22485

(08/15/08 4:01 PM)

Registered user

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote:
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.

Um, without enough data to properly analyze, leaping to the conclusion "winner = best" is the very last thing you should do. No conclusions can be drawn from inadequate data. But feel free to make leaps of logic.

And, if you understood my position, from any particular season of Survivor, there's no way to determine who's "better", so I can't point to a Player who's "better" than the "winner". That does not equal "winner = best", however.

For repeaters, though, we typically have a whopping TWO data points. Again, I'm reluctant to suggest these have much value in determining who's "better". Compare with poker players, where we often have a dozen data points each year to draw conclusions from. One could suggest that Dustin and Kandace are exceptional TAR players having finished 2nd and 4th, in their two attempts (better than Danielle who got 8th and 1st?). Or Survivor's Amanda for getting 3rd and 2nd on her two tries (better than Parvati who got 6th and 1st? Or Tina Wesson who got 16th and 1st?).

Not having enough info to draw a conclusion does not compel me to pull a conclusion out of my ass. But I suppose I can have opinions on the matter, perhaps conjecturing how a particular Player's strategy would measure against others in hypothetical bouts. I just don't see Mark having to rely on getting by on several close calls all that repeatably successful. Sure he took notes, but had a terrible nose for the Mole. A Player who doesn't take notes, but has a nose for the Mole, will likely last longer on a consistent basis.

Dr Will Hatch two point oh

[-]

Posts: 4409

(08/15/08 4:11 PM)

Registered user

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

How is it a "leap of logic"? These contests require you to navigate numerous variables. The person who does that, wins. As you said, we don't have enough data to judge who is truly "better", and thus, the only thing we have to rely on is the rankings of the players. You could say Nicole was a better player, but how do you know that? She knew who the Mole was, but the game requires you to do more then that. The Quiz might seem arbitrary, but it's the best system we have. No matter what the criteria is for judging winners, there will be times where we must sacrifice accuracy for expediancy. This is because there is no objective way to determine a winner through clairvoyance. That is what you want, a Platonic council of enlightened folk who determines the winner. They don't exist. As I aid, if you have a better way of judging the players, tell me.

Screerider

[-]

Posts: 22487

(08/15/08 4:20 PM)

Registered user

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

Your need to be able to assign the "better" label to any Player based on a single data point is perplexing. Have it at. I cannot.

I've already mentioned how I feel a Player can reasonably be considered "better" than another (hint: It requires many data points).

Dr Will Hatch two point oh

[-]

Posts: 4410

(08/15/08 4:41 PM)

Registered user

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

Well thats what we are talking about right? Based on current data, winners are "best"

Screerider

[-]

Posts: 22490

(08/15/08 4:42 PM)

Registered user

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

Based on insufficient data, "best" is undetermined.

Dr Will Hatch two point oh

[-]

Posts: 4411

(08/15/08 5:18 PM)

Registered user

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

Thats just what I said, but we DO need a placeholder in the meanwhile. How can a winner NOT be the best player in the current circumstance?

Screerider

[-]

Posts: 22492

(08/15/08 6:18 PM)

Registered user

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

Because even the best can lose? If the best can't lose, it's not worth calling it a "game".

Dr Will Hatch two point oh

[-]

Posts: 4412

(08/15/08 6:49 PM)

Registered user

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

at best, we can only judge a persons game play ability by the two times they were on. You see, what I'm protesting against is the idea that a person who failed to win a game is really "the better player" because you interpreted them to be. By the games rules, whoever won IS the best player of that season. What you are talking about is something all together, you are thinking long term,which is fine, but no survivor contestent is going to play 100 times in their life. If they did, you would be the winner of this argument. At best, someone wins 2 games, and we can say those who the particular season was the "best" of their season. If we do a cross section of all the winners, like in the Winners Analysis thread in LTS, we can compare two people like Parvati and Yul, who both won. However, even that is unfair since Yul hasn't played twice. I never said "the best can't lose", since "the best" is subjective to our individual analysis. The colsest we can get to an objective analysis is who won, and the other players rankings. I don't get it, where the hell am I wrong?

omgwtfbbq

[-]

Posts: 1

(08/15/08 6:55 PM)

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

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.

STILL missing the point, I see.

There's a reason why quiz results don't carry over. The objective of a player in the Mole is to do the following:

1.) Get to the Final Quiz

2.) Kick ass in the Final Quiz

3.) ???

4.) Profit

Only of the 11 players this season did that, and that's why he's the best. You can apply any barometer you want, but it doesn't mean anything. I could say Paul is the "best player" because he was the first to pick up the mole. I could say Alex is the 'best player,' because he demonstrated the best Spanish. I could say Ali is the 'best player,' because she looked the best in booty shorts. All of that is irrelevant. At the end of the game, the best player wins.

Your definition of 'best player' seems more like, "suck horribly on every challenge so others suspect you, and then get a lucky guess and pick out the mole" to me. As for me, if I were a player, I would much rather win the money. Why you are even comparing this to 'vote-off'' reality TV shows like Survivor or Big Brother is beyond me. There's an empirical means of eliminating the worst player each week, and Mark never got red thumbed.

In the end, you can't fake 17 out of 20, the highest score on a final quiz in mole history.

Take poker, for example. Every season, there are rank amateurs who show up and end up winning a tournament. Then they flail for seasons after that. Then there are the Pros, who, though they may not win every match, do make it deep on a consistant basis. I'd say the Pros are BETTER Players than the Amateur that just happens to win. WINNER <> BEST.

Repeatability is the key. These TV shows typically just allow us one game view of a particular Player. We can't really say whether that Player's skills would consistantly make them a later Eliminatee, consistantly an early Eliminatee, or something all over the map. But any Player could win, no matter if they're Good, Bad, or Mediocre. Luck is always a factor. Producer intervention can also be a factor.

So you have a Winner. Were they the "BEST Player"? With just one data set, no real way of knowing.

Again, irrelevant.

They may not be the 'better poker player,' because we're expanding 'best poker player' as a barometer to attempt to project how well they would perform in any given situation. Presumably, the better they project on a consistent basis, the better poker player they are.

However, that doesn't change the fact that, in that one particular subset, they were the BETTER player. Furthermore, Poker isn't a great analogy because even if you play a perfect game, it's still possible to get screwed by luck of the draw. In The Mole, the only way you can go home is if you score the lowest on the quiz with the slowest time. Mark never did that, so he never went home. It's not a hard concept to understand.

Dr Will Hatch two point oh

[-]

Posts: 4414

(08/15/08 6:58 PM)

Registered user

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

^Yes, that was my fault comparing The Mole t vote off games. I did,however, ask people for a better way to quantify results, and never got an answer.

Will

[-]

Posts: 29927

(08/16/08 8:43 AM)

Not a Registered User anymore

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

omgwtfbbq wrote:
Your definition of 'best player' seems more like, "suck horribly on every challenge so others suspect you, and then get a lucky guess and pick out the mole" to me.

So your definition of best player is suck on the quizzes only barely surviving by tying four times, completely thrown by one of the players despite the overrall obvious nature of it, getting the last exemption handed to you, and only win the final quiz because somebody TOLD you the mole??

omgwtfbbq wrote:
However, that doesn't change the fact that, in that one particular subset, they were the BETTER player. Furthermore, Poker isn't a great analogy because even if you play a perfect game, it's still possible to get screwed by luck of the draw. In The Mole, the only way you can go home is if you score the lowest on the quiz with the slowest time. Mark never did that, so he never went home. It's not a hard concept to understand.

But you just proved the point that it's a great analogy. Even with a perfect game you could get screwed by luck. That's what happened in the Mole to Paul. Both Nicole and Paul had the same quiz with more than likely 100% right and Nicole was faster.

Luck played a BIG part in Mark's win. He couldn't have made it to the end to score 17 out of 20 if the mole didn't give him the exemption.

And here, you could say that final exemption was rigged for a certain player, DWH2.0 ;)

Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote:
Thats not outright rigging, but that crosses a line in my eyes.

But does it violate the rules of the game? No.

Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote:

Thats just what I said, but we DO need a placeholder in the meanwhile. How can a winner NOT be the best player in the current circumstance?

And this here is the issue. Because there is a need for a better system, you can't have a placeholder! That's like saying I can't prove the Earth is round so I'm going to go with the idea that the Earth is flat because it was already recognized.

Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote:
I never said "the best can't lose", since "the best" is subjective to our individual analysis. The colsest we can get to an objective analysis is who won, and the other players rankings. I don't get it, where the hell am I wrong?

You are saying that the best always wins (subjective) despite claiming objectivity.

I'm not saying the winner can't be the best (Kathy was the best of her season), but I am saying the winner isn't automatically the best (and I've given numerous examples) .

BTW Nice southpark reference Omg. I just hope you're not a 2.0 ghostie.

Last Edited By: Will 08/16/08 9:16 AM. Edited 1 times.

omgwtfbbq

[-]

Posts: 2

(08/16/08 4:53 PM)

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

Will said:

So your definition of best player is suck on the quizzes only barely surviving by tying four times, completely thrown by one of the players despite the overrall obvious nature of it, getting the last exemption handed to you, and only win the final quiz because somebody TOLD you the mole??

First off, who handed him the exemption? He solved the puzzle the fastest and had to gun down two players to get it. Who TOLD him Craig was the mole?

And evidently, your reading comprehension isn't the best thing in the world, because I already outlined, in a nice numbered list, what the "best player" has to do.

I said:

There's a reason why quiz results don't carry over. The objective of a player in the Mole is to do the following:

1.) Get to the Final Quiz

2.) Kick ass in the Final Quiz

3.) ???

4.) Profit

Mark did that. Nicole didn't. Mark > Nicole. It's not a tough deal to follow. Throwing the argument that, "well, Nicole had more right answers than Mark on the second quiz" is bunk. Survive and advance, just like March Madness.

If quiz scores were cumulative, you may have a point. Otherwise, you are factoring in things that are IRRELEVANT to the game in determining who the 'best player' is. This is just like me saying that Alex was the best player because he was the cutest. In layman's terms: bullshit.

Will said:

But you just proved the point that it's a great analogy. Even with a perfect game you could get screwed by luck. That's what happened in the Mole to Paul. Both Nicole and Paul had the same quiz with more than likely 100% right and Nicole was faster.

That's not "luck." Being faster on the quiz is not lucky. It's not getting runner-runner on the turn and river luck (which is absolutely impossible for anyone to anticipate or prepare for). You take the quiz as best you can, and as fast as you can.

Craig even said in the interview that he didn't fear Paul as much because he knew that people would outpace him on the quizzes once they knew who the mole was. In other words, Paul is SLOW and that's what cost him the game. The criteria for the quiz is not just to have more correct answers, but to have them in the fastest time in the event of a tie. Therefore, by doing the first, but not the second, Paul is inferior to Nicole and was not the best player. Both of them were inferior to Mark, because Mark did the smart thing and grabbed the exemption and removed all doubt.

Furthermore, we don't know if Mark would have been eliminated had he not had the exemption. He said he would trust Clay one more time (which more than likely would push him to Craig), and we know he's very observant.

Will said:

Luck played a BIG part in Mark's win. He couldn't have made it to the end to score 17 out of 20 if the mole didn't give him the exemption.

And here, you could say that final exemption was rigged for a certain player, DWH2.0 ;)

Yes. It was rigged for Craig.

Mark just outpaced him. He's a history teacher, not a professional doublet player. If the final exemption was a game of chess, and one of the contestants was a chess grandmaster, that could count as 'rigged.' But last I checked, none of them were professional doublet solvers, they all went into the same room, had the same puzzle, one of them even had the answer beforehand, and only one of them came out the quickest.

And then he still needs to hit the target for him to grab an exemption.

Will said:

You are saying that the best always wins (subjective) despite claiming objectivity.

I'm not saying the winner can't be the best (Kathy was the best of her season), but I am saying the winner isn't automatically the best (and I've given numerous examples) .

You just shot yourself in the foot, because Kathy tied for the lowest score too. She also had no idea who the mole was until the final three.

The point of this post that you seem to consistentlymiss is really pretty simple. The Mole is an OBJECTIVE game. There is no way you can fake right answers on the quiz, and there is no way you can fake your quiz time. The objective of the player is to get to the final quiz and win it. It doesn't matter if you look good doing it, become a media darling, or get every prior question right. All that matters is getting to the final quiz, and when that final quiz comes on the screen, score higher than the guy in second place.

Last Edited By: omgwtfbbq 08/16/08 4:56 PM. Edited 1 times.

Dr Will Hatch two point oh

[-]

Posts: 4421

(08/16/08 5:51 PM)

Registered user

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

Will wrote:
You are saying that the best always wins (subjective) despite claiming objectivity.

I'm not saying the winner can't be the best (Kathy was the best of her season), but I am saying the winner isn't automatically the best (and I've given numerous examples) .

BTW Nice southpark reference Omg. I just hope you're not a 2.0 ghostie.

You haven't given ANY examples Will. I understand your point, it is duly noted, but my my analysis, the winners outstrip their rivals. Name ONE player who lost who was a better player then the winner of that season.

Will

[-]

Posts: 29929

(08/16/08 6:36 PM)

Not a Registered User anymore

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

omgwtfbbq wrote:
First off, who handed him the exemption? He solved the puzzle the fastest and had to gun down two players to get it. Who TOLD him Craig was the mole?

Craig walked out and let himself be shot and knew he had the exemption. Craig gave him the exemption. Clay told Mark, Mark alluded to such in the finale.

omgwtfbbq wrote:
And evidently, your reading comprehension isn't the best thing in the world, because I already outlined, in a nice numbered list, what the "best player" has to do.

I said:

There's a reason why quiz results don't carry over. The objective of a player in the Mole is to do the following:

1.) Get to the Final Quiz

2.) Kick ass in the Final Quiz

3.) ???

4.) Profit

Mark did that. Nicole didn't. Mark > Nicole. It's not a tough deal to follow. Throwing the argument that, "well, Nicole had more right answers than Mark on the second quiz" is bunk. Survive and advance, just like March Madness.

If quiz scores were cumulative, you may have a point. Otherwise, you are factoring in things that are IRRELEVANT to the game in determining who the 'best player' is. This is just like me saying that Alex was the best player because he was the cutest. In layman's terms: bullshit.

I simply disagree. I include how (not just how well) a player played the game as part of figuring out who I think the best player is and I don't think that's irrelevant which is where we seem to disagree at. Obviously I will NOT be able to sway you and you won't be able to sway me (nor do I think we're going to get anywhere with this) but I simply do not believe that completing that list (although I now realize the joke is kinda ruined since by winning = profit...) and this is where we are just going to continue to argue over and I accept this and am willing to move on.

omgwtfbbq wrote:
That's not "luck." Being faster on the quiz is not lucky. It's not getting runner-runner on the turn and river luck (which is absolutely impossible for anyone to anticipate or prepare for). You take the quiz as best you can, and as fast as you can.

Craig even said in the interview that he didn't fear Paul as much because he knew that people would outpace him on the quizzes once they knew who the mole was. In other words, Paul is SLOW and that's what cost him the game. The criteria for the quiz is not just to have more correct answers, but to have them in the fastest time in the event of a tie. Therefore, by doing the first, but not the second, Paul is inferior to Nicole and was not the best player. Both of them were inferior to Mark, because Mark did the smart thing and grabbed the exemption and removed all doubt.

Furthermore, we don't know if Mark would have been eliminated had he not had the exemption. He said he would trust Clay one more time (which more than likely would push him to Craig), and we know he's very observant.

Being faster on a quiz and staying despite having the worst score IS luck. Because you have no idea how fast anybody else is, you have to hope you were lucky enough to be faster.

Considering Nicole barely beat Paul, I think it's safe to conclude that Mark would have left. But I'll agree that we won't know for sure all we know is that Mark was still waffling when he was in the finale by his own confession.

omgwtfbbq wrote:
Yes. It was rigged for Craig.

Mark just outpaced him. He's a history teacher, not a professional doublet player. If the final exemption was a game of chess, and one of the contestants was a chess grandmaster, that could count as 'rigged.' But last I checked, none of them were professional doublet solvers, they all went into the same room, had the same puzzle, one of them even had the answer beforehand, and only one of them came out the quickest.

And then he still needs to hit the target for him to grab an exemption.

If you had been reading my conversation with Dr I'm sure you would have gotten this but then again maybe you just want to argue with me. This was a joke rigging like how "America's Player" was specifically rigged for Dick.

omgwtfbbq wrote:
You just shot yourself in the foot, because Kathy tied for the lowest score too. She also had no idea who the mole was until the final three.

The difference between Mark and Kathy is that he was pointed at the mole and it was Kathy studying her notes + quizzes where she realized who the mole is. She figured out the mole by herself. That is why I consider her the best player. You might ask what if Erik had won, would I still consider Kathy the best, I don't know. We know more about Kathy from extra footage and interviews, I'd have to gauge it on what we find out about how Erik played the game.

omgwtfbbq wrote:
The point of this post that you seem to consistently miss is really pretty simple. The Mole is an OBJECTIVE game. There is no way you can fake right answers on the quiz, and there is no way you can fake your quiz time. The objective of the player is to get to the final quiz and win it. It doesn't matter if you look good doing it, become a media darling, or get every prior question right. All that matters is getting to the final quiz, and when that final quiz comes on the screen, score higher than the guy in second place.

I simply disagree. That completely oversimplify the entire game into two steps and I agree that while that determines the winner, I don't think that's enough to determine the best player. Nor do I feel the mole is entirely objective. The goal of the game is to get to the final quiz and win but there are more objectives. The objectives of the game is to figure out the mole, interact with players, do the challenges, and take the quizzes. You can't just not do them, they are requirements. If it was just to do the quiz, there would be nothing but the quiz. The challenges are subjective, the players are subjective, how to take the quiz is subjective. Yes, grading the quiz is objective as is eliminating somebody based on it but I don't think the entire game is objective. But I think we'll just continue to disagree on this too.

You have your reasons, I have mine.

I'm not saying Nicole was the best player but I do think she was better than many. I am simply saying that I don't think Mark was the best and I don't think the winner is automatically the best player.

Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote:

Will wrote:
You are saying that the best always wins (subjective) despite claiming objectivity.

I'm not saying the winner can't be the best (Kathy was the best of her season), but I am saying the winner isn't automatically the best (and I've given numerous examples) .

BTW Nice southpark reference Omg. I just hope you're not a 2.0 ghostie.

You haven't given ANY examples Will. I understand your point, it is duly noted, but my my analysis, the winners outstrip their rivals. Name ONE player who lost who was a better player then the winner of that season.

I did give examples, you just wrote them off as "NOPE DOESN'T COUNT"

Please, tell me how Vecepia was better than Kathy when Kathy organized more with the alliance, won more challenges, was more involved with the players, and was going to win the game if it weren't for Neleh and Kathy's boob and this is a simplification of Kathy's game. I'm sure somebody who has actively studied the game could argue this better.

Or tell me how Silvia was a better player than Jessica in Fiji islands when the only reason she survived the first boot was because she was on exile island? You seem to be under the impression that if you outlast a player (unless you happen to be Dick Donato then it doesn't count) you were better than them so I have to ask.

(I'm done arguing, I just want to hear your reasonings)

Oh before the conversation ends I gotta finish the sucks requirements for long threads about players, MARK IS THAT YOU?

Last Edited By: Will 08/16/08 6:44 PM. Edited 2 times.

Dictatorship

[-]

Posts: 3228

(08/16/08 6:50 PM)

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

I haven't read the whole conversation because I'm not going to argue with another stubborn Ravu Rules impersonator, but Kathy was definitely a much better winner than Mark. She may have tied for lowest, but she didn't randomly beat out players who outplayed her and had the mole pegged early on. Her first quiz for Frederique was the entire series' first quiz for Frederique, which proves that she was the most observant. If I remember correctly, she also played impeccably into tricking players into believe that she was the Mole. I'm pretty sure Michael and probably a few others quizzed her as well.

In Mark's case, his first quiz for Craig as the Mole was about five rounds after Nicole's and about 10 rounds after Paul's. On top of that, several other eliminated players had also quizzed for Craig, but were just eliminated due to unlucky splitting of answers and misclicks (Victoria).

Mark fucking sucked and only won because he was a paranoid as shit freak who the producers handed the win. Someone said that having the final challenge as a chess challenge would be rigged if there was a chess grandmaster. But WHAT THE FUCK that's what happened in the last exemption! Mark even said that he does puzzles like that daily (while the others don't do them at all!).

Will

[-]

Posts: 29930

(08/16/08 6:55 PM)

Not a Registered User anymore

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

Hmm he did say that, I forgot about that.

Dr Will Hatch two point oh

[-]

Posts: 4425

(08/16/08 7:36 PM)

Registered user

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

I could also answer OMGs answers, but I'll leave that to him.

Why was Vecepia a better player? Simple, SHE WON! You are under the mistaken impression that I think that the boot order is representitive of game game playing skill. Of course not! Perhaps on The Mole since the quiz empirically states who knows about the Mole and who doesn't, but certainly not on Survivor or vote off games. To answer the question more fully, Vecepia made every move she was supposed to, she was in no position to be a more active player such as Kathy. Kathy was a power broker through the sheer dynamics of the game, not of her own skill. If she was less personable or charismatic, she wouldn't have been sucessful,but she was,so I give her credit there. In the merge,she made all the right moves, and would have been a deserving winner. However,since she didn't win the final IC,she went home as a 3rd placer. Are you suggesting that IC results are arbitrary and not important to the game? It doesn't matter if she was in the final 2,she wasn't. She lost legitimantly. Vecepia, through virtue of her sound decision making and awareness of her placement in the tribal structures, as well as her sound assessment of the jury not to mention her luck in having Neleh implode won the game. If Vecepia is for some reason inferior to Kathy in game dynamics is irrelevent, and this discussion comes down to one simple question: are you omnipotent? I assume you aren't, so you can not judge better then I. Again, I agree with you that a loser theoretically could be a better player, but you are imposing your own standards which have not been scruntinized properly. My assessment seems to be transparent as far as winners most likely being "better"(which means, most deserving),and I think it has held up. I think you believe that a person who makes "agressive" and flashy moves are the best players, but they are not necessarily.

omgwtfbbq

[-]

Posts: 3

(08/16/08 8:07 PM)

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

Will said:

Craig walked out and let himself be shot and knew he had the exemption. Craig gave him the exemption. Clay told Mark, Mark alluded to such in the finale.

You really think Craig could have made it all the way through the course and not gotten shot?

Mark tagged everybody. He got unlucky with Paul because the paintball didn't break.

Will said:

I simply disagree. I include how (not just how well) a player played the game as part of figuring out who I think the best player is and I don't think that's irrelevant which is where we seem to disagree at. Obviously I will NOT be able to sway you and you won't be able to sway me (nor do I think we're going to get anywhere with this) but I simply do not believe that completing that list (although I now realize the joke is kinda ruined since by winning = profit...) and this is where we are just going to continue to argue over and I accept this and am willing to move on.

Yeah, we'll just have to disagree there.

You evidently believe that you should include extraneous factors in determining who the 'best' player is. The Mole has its own, objective barometer of what the mole is.

Will said:

Being faster on a quiz and staying despite having the worst score IS luck. Because you have no idea how fast anybody else is, you have to hope you were lucky enough to be faster.
Considering Nicole barely beat Paul, I think it's safe to conclude that Mark would have left. But I'll agree that we won't know for sure all we know is that Mark was still waffling when he was in the finale by his own confession.

By this logic, unless you get a perfect score on every quiz, you got lucky, because you have no idea how good everyone else is, and they could have all gotten perfect scores.

Will said:

The difference between Mark and Kathy is that he was pointed at the mole and it was Kathy studying her notes + quizzes where she realized who the mole is. She figured out the mole by herself. That is why I consider her the best player. You might ask what if Erik had won, would I still consider Kathy the best, I don't know. We know more about Kathy from extra footage and interviews, I'd have to gauge it on what we find out about how Erik played the game.

Mark got to Craig because he saw Clay get eliminated while voting for Nicole. He trusted Clay on last time and deduced Craig is the mole in time for the final quiz.

Kathy was in a coalition with the only remaining contestant. She trusted him one last time and deduced the mole was Frederique in time for the final quiz.

Point out how that is different again? Where was Mark "given" the mole? I must have missed the conversation where the producers came up to Mark and gave him the answer key to the final quiz.

Kathy also had a lot of factors go her way. She had Corbin vote wrong. She had Erik get an exemption, thus saving him and sending Michael home. If Michael didn't go home, Kathy would have still been gunning for him. At least Mark's second suspect (Nicole) never went home and thus 'giving him' the answer.

Will said:

I simply disagree. That completely oversimplify the entire game into two steps and I agree that while that determines the winner, I don't think that's enough to determine the best player. Nor do I feel the mole is entirely objective. The goal of the game is to get to the final quiz and win but there are more objectives. The objectives of the game is to figure out the mole, interact with players, do the challenges, and take the quizzes. You can't just not do them, they are requirements. If it was just to do the quiz, there would be nothing but the quiz. The challenges are subjective, the players are subjective, how to take the quiz is subjective. Yes, grading the quiz is objective as is eliminating somebody based on it but I don't think the entire game is objective. But I think we'll just continue to disagree on this too.

ob·jec·tive

� �Audio Help� �[uh

b-jek-tiv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -noun

1.	something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.

If being the first to find the mole, or interacting with the players, dong the challenges, etc were objectives, then the game would have been tailored to eliminate people who did not accomplish them.

As far as your barometers:
1.) Figure out the mole: Mark did this in time before he was eliminated. Check.
2.) Interact with the players. The players seemed genuinely happy that he won the money. Nicole was pretty much universally disliked. Mark > Nicole. Check.
3.) Do the challenges. Mark did well on the challenges. Nicole sucked at them in a lame attempt to look molish. Check.
4.) Take the quizzes. Mark took them all, never got eliminated, and kicked ass on the final quiz to the tune of 17 out of 20. Check.

Looks like your gauge needs recalibrating.

Will said:

I'm not saying Nicole was the best player but I do think she was better than many. I am simply saying that I don't think Mark was the best and I don't think the winner is automatically the best player.

Well, that's the thing. You can have an opinion on who you like or don't like all you want. You clearly don't like Mark and prefer Nicole. I don't really care. But in the end, it's hard not to say that Mark wasn't the best player in this case. Everyone that got to the final needed luck. Nicole needed Alex and Kristen to knock themselves out of the game. Mark needed players who were slower than him. Paul didn't need anybody, and I guess that should make him the 'best' player by such an index.

Will said:

I did give examples, you just wrote them off as "NOPE DOESN'T COUNT"

The fact that you even claim this indicates that clearly aren't picking up on the point.

I'm saying they don't count because... drumroll here... the GAME doesn't count them!

Therefore, they are no more relevant than saying Ali looks the best in booty shorts, Victoria was the best at acting fake, Kristen has the highest university degree, Alex having the best singing voice, or Liz being the oldest. Your qualifiers, and all the aforementioned things I've listed only can sway your opinion of who you like. It has nothing to do with how good of a player you are in a game that eliminates people completely objectively.

If your unrelated to the game argument counts, then saying Alex has the best singing voice counts too for who was the best player. They both have about as much relevance.

Dictatorship said:

I haven't read the whole conversation because I'm not going to argue with another stubborn Ravu Rules impersonator, but Kathy was definitely a much better winner than Mark. She may have tied for lowest, but she didn't randomly beat out players who outplayed her and had the mole pegged early on. Her first quiz for Frederique was the entire series' first quiz for Frederique, which proves that she was the most observant. If I remember correctly, she also played impeccably into tricking players into believe that she was the Mole. I'm pretty sure Michael and probably a few others quizzed her as well.

She wasn't the "first." Both Erik and Kathy quizzed for Frederique. Furthermore, Kathy only got to Frederique because every other player fell out of the race. Frederique literally FELL INTO HER LAP. At least Mark had to make the connection that if Clay was eliminated, the mole couldn't have been Nicole, and the next possibility is Craig.

If we were playing the "first" game, neither Jim or Steven played the best game in Season 1, because the two old guys both targeted Kathryn!

Dictatorship said:

Mark fucking sucked and only won because he was a paranoid as shit freak who the producers handed the win. Someone said that having the final challenge as a chess challenge would be rigged if there was a chess grandmaster. But WHAT THE FUCK that's what happened in the last exemption! Mark even said that he does puzzles like that daily (while the others don't do them at all!).

Because the producers must have known that Mark plays doublets in his spare time, and that makes him the world champ at the event! I mean, Dorothy got an exemption for solving all 5 puzzles. They must have rigged it because they knew Dorothy was a smart cookie.

Oh Em Gee, the exemption in Race to the Summit required people who were fit. It was RIGGED for Kristen and Mark!

The exemption in When Pigs Fly required someone who was an asshole. It was RIGGED for Paul!

Did you forget that solving the doublet doesn't do shit for Mark? He had to gun down the other players, and he has no experience with paintball. What the fuck are you smoking? Craig even HAD THE ANSWER and admitted that Mark did it faster. That means that the producers INTENDED for Craig to win; not Mark. But, of course, since Mark happens to do doublets, the producers gave him the exemption. That's a Guinness commercial worthy, "Brilliant!"

I get it. You dislike all alpha males and love to root for the unassuming girls. But at least try not to let your bias blind your better judgment. If Mark didn't try as hard as he did, his pot would have been a whole lot smaller.

Looks like you're a hell of a lot more stubborn than I am, because you aren't even willing to listen to a valid logical argument for the sake of sticking to your preconceived biases. Nicely done.

Last Edited By: omgwtfbbq 08/16/08 8:15 PM. Edited 2 times.

Dictatorship

[-]

Posts: 3229

(08/16/08 9:17 PM)

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

So I just realized you are whoever is behind the fanofcoils account, so now I'm just gonna ignore ya, FOC. :)

Dr Will Hatch two point oh

[-]

Posts: 4429

(08/16/08 9:47 PM)

Registered user

Reply
Quote
More
- Recent Posts
- Message
- Connection
- Block
- Invite

You know what, fuck you Ace. That was one of the most immature responses I've heard, even for this site. Omgwtfbbq is making legimate rebuttals(and so am I for that matter) and you choose to answer stupidly. A simple flame would have been more worthy.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Official "Worst.Winner.Ever" Thread also, what makes the best player best?

Will said:

I said:

Will said:

Will said:

Will said:

I said:

Will said:

Will said:

Will said:

Will said:

Will said:

Will said:

Will said:

Dictatorship said:

Dictatorship said:

Quick Reply