Yuku free message boards

Let me get this straight. Mark was not a good player because he didn't figure out who the Mole was quick enough? People are saying he was successful because he worked on word games at home and did well on games designed for him? Mark was too lucky because he survived ties?

You're not the best player if you figured out who the Mole is on the first day. If you can't beat everyone on the quizzes or secure an exemption so you don't have to, you. deserve. to. lose. Mark, Paul and Nicole each played brilliant games, all in different ways (Nicole, by getting in people's heads and Paul by reading Craig and distracting people). But Mark played the best game. His test taking skills were fantastic. His game playing skills, whether physical or mental, were just as good. He used a coalition in the absolute best way (aside from Jim and Steve in Season 1) that one can.

And what difference does it make how many times he tied with other players? He finished the quiz faster, so he was better than they were that day. If you don't know who the Mole is (and it seems clear that only Paul knew for most of the show), then you're not a better player if you get 8 questions right on a quiz. You don't know who it is any more than Mark, if he got 3 questions right. That's how the questions are designed. The fact is, until you are absolutely certain (or until there are very few players remaining), the best strategy for quizzes is to answer the questions with more than one possibility, covering as many people as possible. At some point you need to refine this strategy, but if it gets you through, it gets you through.

I also don't get this, "Mark did well on games designed for him" theory. He earned each of those exemptions using a combination of his brains and athletic ability. I thought he was a fantastic player, with the sharpest mind for Mole games. I don't understand what all the complaining is about.

So, if Mark didn't "deserve" to win, who is exactly does? Someone like Paul who can read people really well and sniffs the Mole out on day one? Perhaps. But if he truly deserved to win, shouldn't he have beaten everyone on every quiz? Wouldn't he have had an advantage because he could steer people away from Craig and would answer the quizzes perfectly every week? Is it Nicole, because she made so many players think she was the Mole and figured out that it was Craig before Mark? Perhaps. Wouldn't she have an advantage because almost everyone else would be answering quiz questions with her in mind? Surely, once it was down to the final two, the better player wins based on how well and how quickly they answer the quiz questions.

The whole argument is pointless, really. Everyone looks at the game differently. If you think a certain set of skills is more impressive, then you will think that anyone who wins who has not used that specific skill set sucks. I thought Mark was very impressive.

One quick word on ties. Just because Jon or Anderson or Ahmad has announced that there was a tie, does not mean that those were the only times players tied. They announce it because, in the producer's opinion, it adds to that show's execution or adds to the players' and viewers' shock during the finale. In season 2 there were many ties that were not announced and I'm sure there were many this past season that weren't announced.

As for the actual Mole, judging Craig based on how impressed you were with him as a Mole is very strange. He should be judged on how difficult it was for the players on the show to determine if he was the Mole. Each and every one of you has admitted that only one player really sniffed him out. Everyone else was wrong for almost the entire show. Even though the nature of the show is to make people question themselves about every little thing anyone does, I would say that he did a pretty good job of sabotaging while keeping people off his trail.

The thing that makes this show so great is that no matter how big your personality, no matter how popular you are with other players or the fans, whether you win or lose is based entirely on your own performance. You have no one to blame if you lost, but yourself. This is why these types of threads are so puzzling. If you're a player and you beat someone in week six because they missed a question they should have gotten or you tied with them, but they were slower, you didn't get lucky. You were better. You may not have been the best that week, but you were good enough to stay to put some more clues together and try again. The only time luck comes into play is when the game randomly selects someone to have the chance to win an exemption. But that's what makes the game fun! Hell, when Paul earned his exemption during the pigs fly game, it was lucky that he was in a position to have the exemption pig in his hand. (And he couldn't have been so sure he knew it was Craig at that point because he was very excited to not have to face execution.) But even considering random exemptions, if you end up on top, you have the right to call yourself the best.

TM