S-17 Edgic (editing and logic) Gabon

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
TheLurkerSpeaks		#4761	[-]
Posts: 1470 (12/15/08 12:08 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	DH, This isn't science, despite some people's claims to the opposite. So yes, sometimes it works when the editors edit according to the reasonable assumptions that have underlined most seasons. When the editors go off script, we'll be wrong unless GC's proposal of creating a Type B Edgic argument can work. Regardless, what do you care if some of us want to continue to use an admittedly imperfect system? Kirblar, Adding "theme" discussions isn't an evolution of Edgic - it is a complete changing of what Edgic is (and not for the better). If everything is based upon some simplistic theme that doesn't even show up every episode, then what is the basis for discussion? "Here's the theme." "No, that's stupid. This is the theme." "No way! Clearly, such and such disproves that aspect." There is no guideline to follow on theme, and even the most consistent posters on theme are making it up as they go. In Edgic, we may not always agree, but at least there is an attempt to use the same framework. Show me a workable framework for theme analysis!
Kitty Pryde1		#4762	[-]
Posts: 7322 (12/15/08 12:10 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	chaperone wrote: Edgic failed to pick Bob. However, it's not on point to argue that edgic should've "picked Susie more than they did" "because she received 3 votes at FTC". Edgic was never intended to pick 2nd place. We've had 2nd place folks who have been INV, ignored in long stretches, etc. Of course, now we've had a winner ignored in long stretches... We had that already, chap. Her name was Danni. And her edit for the first six episodes was worse than Bob's, I'd say. At least Bob had his boy-scout builder storyline.
getting real		#4763	[-]
Posts: 1449 (12/15/08 12:11 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Sceptic said: What evidence to we have that the editors of Survivor, from the very first episode, know who the winner is? I think all the evidence points to the clues being there; it's just a matter for us to find them. MDN's and OTH's approach of working back from the FTC has always been sound. So is the approach of assuming the editors lay the groundwork for the season in the first episode. So it was with this one. It's clear that the first episode challenge manipulation strongly suggested that teamwork and the good guys were likely to have the upper hand in the season over selfishness and arrogance. I thought it was Matty who benefited by helping his team-mates up the hill. But, when I pointed it out I also said that, "interestingly, Bob was also shown to be doing the same thing." It was clear the editing disapproved of the selfishness shown by GC and Marcus and, as this editing emphasis continued, it was clear that Marcus was in trouble. Edgic fundamentals are fine; however, what we really need to do is take greater note of editing irregularities; scenes with a high degree of manipulation. A great example this season was the irregularity of, for the first time ever, not only showing the discussions that went into choosing new tribes but sub-titling them as well. Although I highlighted that anomaly immediately it happened, I drew the wrong conclusion from it: I thought it foretold a conflict between Matty and Kenny when, in fact, the subtitled scene was all about Bob being overlooked. Additionally, given the unusual nature of Probst commenting on players' choices, we should have paid far greater atttention to the fact that Bob, Sugar and Susie were the last picked (or not picked at all). In fact, this thread had its pay-off at the FTC with Charlie's question to the two women. (The fact that Charlie was not shown to be making references to Bob being in the same boat should have told us he was the winner, if we didn't already know). Another editing choice which should have raised red flags was the the way in which the Jacquie boot was treated. I said all along, even after Kota appeared likely to be pagonged, that it made no sense at all for the Jacquie boot to have been edited in the way that it was if someone from Fang had won. Booting Jacquie over Kelly was crucial to Fang subsequently turning the tables. I've said all along that had the winner been from Fang they would have portrayed that move positively instead of labelling it a death wish. The editing surrounding Kenny's lie to Sugar and Matty's revelation of the lie to her had made me think that this might be the most significant scene of the entire season. I was wrong. Althought the payoff I envisaged did occur when Sugar sacrificed her idol for Matty, it wasn't the key scene of the season. That honor went to Sugar convincing Bob to give Randy the fake idol. "I have ..... (break) ... your interests in mind", she told him. And she did. I don't know that it makes up for not having an earlier scene together on Kota, CL, but the final shot was of Bob reminding her that she owed him something. I rememberr Oowatanite sarcastically poured scorn on Bob's move at the time with the immortal words, "Enjoy 6th place, Bob".. Hmm..... How's that sarco-meter going, OO? A couple of days ago I wrote that a win by Bob, although affirming the overwhelming evidence that, in this season, a 'good' person (ie. a P-toned person) would win, it would be signal a defeat for Edgic fundamentals. I said that, even with my laissez faire attitudes, I would be saddened by this. The editing was borne out (look at the identity of the top 3 in the poll for the million as proof of that success) but I feel there's a lot of work to be done in picking up useful manipulation in the editing as well as relying on just the maths. And it doesn't mean that we can't also have a bit of fun on the side. Congratulations, Scep with your semi-facetious tree of knowledge analogy. Though to see Bob on top of the emountain in that helicopter shot reminds me more of the Almighty himself. Perhaps that was the real theme of Eden, after all. Thinking of you, Michael.
Kitty Pryde1		#4764	[-]
Posts: 7323 (12/15/08 12:11 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	The themes for this season were OBVIOUSLY good vs. evil with good being the only option that could win, underdogs, with Bob being the biggest underdog of all, strategy = bad, with all the strategists being voted out and the only strategist in the final 3 getting no votes.
scepticA		#4765	[-]
Posts: 1462 (12/15/08 12:14 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	DH, is edgic's record better than roulette? Yes. As best I can figure, 6 of 9 since ASS. That's pretty impressive. It doesn't change the fact that edgic blew chunks in S17. You're demanding perfection from a hypothesis and thread where you don't even participate. Besides, as TLS said, it's fun. Clearly it isn't for you, so why bother even posting snide comments? To those who want huge changes to edgic, like the inclusion of themes or animal imagery or whatever, I think it's a distinction between catastrophism and gradualism. I'm in the latter camp. To include huge changes into edgic does, IMO, require the person proposing the change to provide us with the changes they want to see in a defined and orderly manner, so that people unfamiliar with the concept can grasp the basics, and also to see how they make sense within the edgic framework. As of now I've seen nothing like that, and instead only the vague concept of theme, which even in the case of S17 was quite malleable. I know there were several people here who were enamored of themes, so why not get your heads together somewhere and hash out a defined measurement or definition of themes - what they are, how they are shown, when they are shown, how they're hidden or changed, and how the blend in with the basics of edgic. That way we can all see if they make sense in the edgic thread. Are those who think that themes should be part of edgic up to the challenge of writing down their edgic theme guidelines? I'd enjoy reading their efforts.
Casey333		#4766	[-]
Posts: 604 (12/15/08 12:15 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	The themes for this season were OBVIOUSLY good vs. evil with good being the only option that could win, underdogs, with Bob being the biggest underdog of all, strategy = bad, with all the strategists being voted out and the only strategist in the final 3 getting no votes. I agree. Sometimes the themes of a season will be hard to pin down, but not this time. We were hammered over the head with good vs evil, and told over and over again that good will prevail in the end. What good does it do to plug your ears and say "LA, LA, LA, I'M NOT LISTENING!!!" just because it's not mathematical edgic? The winner was obviously going to be someone "good". Why not use that thematic information and then apply edgic to pinpoint the winner? Although in this case it still would have led us to Matty instead of Bob, so either way edgic was screwed.
Kitty Pryde1		#4767	[-]
Posts: 7324 (12/15/08 12:20 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Casey333 wrote: The themes for this season were OBVIOUSLY good vs. evil with good being the only option that could win, underdogs, with Bob being the biggest underdog of all, strategy = bad, with all the strategists being voted out and the only strategist in the final 3 getting no votes. I agree. Sometimes the themes of a season will be hard to pin down, but not this time. We were hammered over the head with good vs evil, and told over and over again that good will prevail in the end. What good does it do to plug your ears and say "LA, LA, LA, I'M NOT LISTENING!!!" just because it's not mathematical edgic? The winner was obviously going to be someone "good". Why not use that thematic information and then apply edgic to pinpoint the winner? Although in this case it still would have led us to Matty instead of Bob, so either way edgic was screwed. See, that's where I disagree. I mean, looking at Matty, he was part of the problem on Fang. He joined Ace for no reason and betrayed his allies to go with the snake, and that was his fall from grace. Plus he had the moment where he said things were hopeless. Sugar and Bob were from complex Kota and they were the REAL good guys.
getting real		#4768	[-]
Posts: 1450 (12/15/08 12:26 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	TLS said: Adding "theme" discussions isn't an evolution of Edgic - it is a complete changing of what Edgic is (and not for the better). If everything is based upon some simplistic theme that doesn't even show up every episode, then what is the basis for discussion? "Here's the theme." "No, that's stupid. This is the theme." "No way! Clearly, such and such disproves that aspect." There is no guideline to follow on theme, and even the most consistent posters on theme are making it up as they go. In Edgic, we may not always agree, but at least there is an attempt to use the same framework. Show me a workable framework for theme analysis! The key issue isn't so much identifying themes, TLS. It's about being more sensitive to manipulation. Having the antennae up for anything out of the ordinary, anything outside of the merely reported. And then trying to connect the dots, see what the evolving story might be, hopefully one likely to have its payoff at the FTC. And what is it about wanting to lay down everything in watertight guidelines? I think having less prescriptive guidelines rather than more of them might be a better way to go. Decide on a few core fundamentals and then have fruitful discussion on everything else, within reason. Let me put it another way: Say Marcus had won. Most people 's Edgic pick would then have been vindicated because he ticked all the boxes, met all the criteria, had the spreadsheet figures to end all spreadsheet figures. A momentous victory for Edgic. Now be honest: Would this season have been more satisfying to you that the one we actually watched? Is this the kind of journey Wallduck has in mind when he says the end result doesn't matter, only the journey?
AndreSurvivor		#4769	[-]
Posts: 293 (12/15/08 12:26 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I don't think Bob is a complete edgic anomaly. I think, for one reason or another, he was rejected because he was too positive and because other players fit better with recent Yul, Earl, Todd and Parv levels of visibility and strategy seemed to overpower him. For a bizarre season, he had the fundamentals of opening confessional, a good first episode, good switch and merge confessionals and no INV. If we had treated the Fang negativity as a taint on Matty and Kenny, then Bob would have at the very least not been eliminated and a contender at the merge.
Green Coffee		#4770	[-]
Posts: 135 (12/15/08 12:28 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	AndreSurvivor wrote: I don't think Bob is a complete edgic anomaly. I think, for one reason or another, he was rejected because he was too positive and because other players fit better with recent Yul, Earl, Todd and Parv levels of visibility and strategy seemed to overpower him. For a bizarre season, he had the fundamentals of opening confessional, a good first episode, good switch and merge confessionals and no INV. If we had treated the Fang negativity as a taint on Matty and Kenny, then Bob would have at the very least not been eliminated and a contender at the merge. Only one of those is clearly defined in the Edgic guidelines (no INV). The others are used often, but have never been formalized.
Werwanderflugen		#4771	[-]
Posts: 183 (12/15/08 12:46 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Green Coffee wrote: I think watchdogs should return, but with a different purpose. Making sure each players has "the right rating" is admirable in the short term, but it does not keep a bad Edgic edit in the running. Bob's watchdog would not have done much, as I assume they would have abandoned him partway through the season for having no chance. Instead, I think watchdogs should exist to play devil's advocate for each player left in contention. They should make an argument for how this player could possibly win the game given their editing and express that to everyone. This does not need to mirror their actual winner pick! Arguments for the Corinnes and the Susies out there should be made, but with the caveat that their chances for being right are understood to be low. The purpose of watchdogs is to prevent groupthink and gravitation toward one single explanation and answer (Marcus). I think having each player get at least one post per episode dedicated to how their editing might fit a win would reduce the risk of future Marcus flops. However, this would increase the likelihood of dissention in Edgic and a lack of consensus. I think as long as everyone recognizes that the arguments made are purely devil's advocate type arguments, this would not be as big of a problem. Here's how I would hypothetically put one of these together: First, examine Player X's fit with traditional, Type A editing guidelines. Second, examine Player X's fit with Type B (Danni/Bob) editing guidelines (which should be created this offseason - it's happened twice now and we need to recognize who fits these types of winner edits). Third, if applicable, postulate on how Player X might be a Type C winner edit. This would only be done if the player clearly does not fit Types A or B. In terms of winner chances, those who fit Type A typically have the highest chances, with Type B right behind, followed by Type C. If a player is being argued to have a "Type C" edit, they are all but eliminated. If the player fits Type B the best, they are not eliminated completely, but it is recognized that they are unlikely to win unless situational constraints created the edit. If a person fits Type A the best, they have good winner chances, as this is the most common winner prototype thus far. I think doing watchdog analyses in these ways we accomplish a few things: - Avoid groupthink and premature conclusions - Recognize and systematically identify non Type A winner edits and keep them viable for longer - Still maintain that Type As are very likely to win, while recognizing the possibility for Type Bs (or even Type Cs) and being prepared for it. Given what we now know, it may be extremely difficult to ever have a single, unanimous, dominant winner pick in Edgic again. There are clearly multiple prototypes for winner edits to be considered. While there is more "umph" to making a single winner pick, it is the riskier manuever. By recognizing multiple types and keeping both viable, we don't have a simple pick anymore, but we don't misfire nearly as often. Just food for thought on the whole issue. Nothing drastic being recommended. I think this is a fantastic post, GC, and it should definitely be taken into consideration before next season starts. I hope this one doesn't get lost over the next two months. * Edgic still works for a "typically edited" season. In a season where the OTTP "Forever Boy Scout" eschews strategy and lucks his way into the final three, when the runner-up is a complete non-entity all season, and the no-votes finalst is the universally praised season sweetheart, we couldn't have expected Edgic to work. Had Marcus, Charlie, Jacquie, Randy, or Corinne won-- I believe the editing would have been more 'normal,' and Edgic would have had much greater success. The whole foundations of Edgic rely on a season where "Outwitting" and "Outplaying" are just as important as "Outlasting." Parvati, Todd, Yul, Earl, Aras, etc-- all of these Outwitted and Outplayed. Bob (and Susie, and Sugar) merely Outlasted. Last Edited By: Werwanderflugen 12/15/08 12:48 PM. Edited 1 times.
Casey333		#4772	[-]
Posts: 606 (12/15/08 12:50 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	But it does show that there really is no such thing as a "universal winner's edit". I think it's time we finally admit that. Bob and Danni will not be edited the same way as Todd and Yul.
Werwanderflugen		#4773	[-]
Posts: 184 (12/15/08 12:57 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Casey333 wrote: But it does show that there really is no such thing as a "universal winner's edit". I think it's time we finally admit that. Bob and Danni will not be edited the same way as Todd and Yul. True. There isn't such a thing. But Bob and Danni (and perhaps Vee, and mayyyybeee Chris) aren't "typical" winners. I'm not sure there's any way for Edgic to reconcile Bob's victory. I don't think, however, that it invalidates Edgic altogether. For every other season, edgic could be very successfully applied, and therefore it does indeed have merit. Whatever we decide over the next two months, I know as soon as S18 starts, I'll have my notepad out, jotting down confessional counts, noting P/N & CP/OTT moments, remembering interesting editing decisions and images... and when Ep1 ends, I'll head back to my excel chart and start filling in the numbers. It's just too much fun. Last Edited By: Werwanderflugen 12/15/08 1:00 PM. Edited 2 times.
getting real		#4774	[-]
Posts: 1451 (12/15/08 1:00 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	WF said: Edgic still works for a "typically edited" season. In a season where the OTTP "Forever Boy Scout" eschews strategy and lucks his way into the final three, when the runner-up is a complete non-entity all season, and the no-votes finalst is the universally praised season sweetheart, we couldn't have expected Edgic to work. Had Marcus, Charlie, Jacquie, Randy, or Corinne won-- I believe the editing would have been more 'normal,' and Edgic would have had much greater success. The whole foundations of Edgic rely on a season where "Outwitting" and "Outplaying" are just as important as "Outlasting." Parvati, Todd, Yul, Earl, Aras, etc-- all of these Outwitted and Outplayed. Bob (and Susie, and Sugar) merely Outlasted. The type of person who wins ought not to matter. Editing principles are about creating good stories, themes to be revisted, long-term storylines, drama, keeping the winner hidden. In short, anyone could be edited as anything. The trick is identifying mis-matches with reported reality. On a non-Edgic point, is this the first time in history a non-medivacced player has not had a vote their way for the entirety of their game? Last Edited By: getting real 12/15/08 1:03 PM. Edited 1 times.
craig		#4775	[-]
Posts: 14549 (12/15/08 1:06 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	The themes for this season were OBVIOUSLY good vs. evil with good being the only option that could win, underdogs, with Bob being the biggest underdog of all, strategy = bad, with all the strategists being voted out and the only strategist in the final 3 getting no votes. That only became OBVIOUS at F6. Yeas we had Probst interviews discussing that theme, but it wasa long time before it was clear who good or bad, and which would prevail. Kota = good in beginning in sense of smart, competent, stategic survialists with positive attitude. Versus Fang who sucked in most of all of those respects. Bob was never demarcated from Kota the way Matty was from Fang. Arund the middle many wrongly equatyed Fang (especially Kenny) with underdog = good. In endgame, it became clear that good - those who play from their heart, not stategically (and those males that remind Sugar or her brother and deceased father).
TheLurkerSpeaks		#4776	[-]
Posts: 1471 (12/15/08 1:13 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Paschal.
TheLurkerSpeaks		#4777	[-]
Posts: 1472 (12/15/08 1:20 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Craig, Ken was the good underdog in the middle portion of the game. Deny it however much you wish, but the audience was always meant to side against the Onions. (And yes, Bob was demarcated from the Onions!) For what it is worth, the good v. evil dynamic only really played a role in one episode when Sugar decided to go to the end with Bob and Matty instead of Ken and Crystal. It is one episode, not a season long theme. People are still overrating the Jacquie boot. It was irrelevant to the story except in terms of the immediate losing streak that followed it. Else, point to how it resulted in the demise of Ken and Crystal, even indirectly. It didn't.
Oowatanite		#4778	[-]
Posts: 6576 (12/15/08 1:23 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	TheLurkerSpeaks wrote: AndreSurvivor wrote: Kitty Pryde1 wrote: I also REALLY think we need to bring back watchdogs. I mean, we all focused so much on Marcus that no one was really paying attention to anyone else, and watchdogs help prevent that. Wow... great minds, as they say. I agree with that. A postmortem on "top picks" of Kenny and Matty and winner Bob might also be beneficial. Watchdogs would have been irrelevant. Sorry, but no amount of attention would have made Bob fit Edgic. X We don't need watchdogs anymore. And we don't have nearly enough qualified (and season-long) edgicers to cover the players anyway. Kirblar, when Bob beats Susie and Sugar 4-3-0, where Susie is IGNORED for most of the season and Bob is IGNORED for much of the season and Sugar is built up into this manufactured "sweetheart" who receives ZERO votes in the end, the problem IS with the story editors. They did a brutal job this season.
Oowatanite		#4779	[-]
Posts: 6577 (12/15/08 1:38 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	getting real wrote: I remember Oowatanite sarcastically poured scorn on Bob's move at the time with the immortal words, "Enjoy 6th place, Bob".. Hmm..... How's that sarco-meter going, OO? Yeah, ya got me. I should have realized that Sugar was not playing to win and was, in fact, playing for Bob to win. I was right in that it was a foolish move by Bob that almost cost him Randy's vote in the end. So there !
TheLurkerSpeaks		#4780	[-]
Posts: 1473 (12/15/08 1:41 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	getting real wrote: TLS said: Adding "theme" discussions isn't an evolution of Edgic - it is a complete changing of what Edgic is (and not for the better). If everything is based upon some simplistic theme that doesn't even show up every episode, then what is the basis for discussion? "Here's the theme." "No, that's stupid. This is the theme." "No way! Clearly, such and such disproves that aspect." There is no guideline to follow on theme, and even the most consistent posters on theme are making it up as they go. In Edgic, we may not always agree, but at least there is an attempt to use the same framework. Show me a workable framework for theme analysis! The key issue isn't so much identifying themes, TLS. It's about being more sensitive to manipulation. Having the antennae up for anything out of the ordinary, anything outside of the merely reported. And then trying to connect the dots, see what the evolving story might be, hopefully one likely to have its payoff at the FTC. And what is it about wanting to lay down everything in watertight guidelines? I think having less prescriptive guidelines rather than more of them might be a better way to go. Decide on a few core fundamentals and then have fruitful discussion on everything else, within reason. Let me put it another way: Say Marcus had won. Most people 's Edgic pick would then have been vindicated because he ticked all the boxes, met all the criteria, had the spreadsheet figures to end all spreadsheet figures. A momentous victory for Edgic. Now be honest: Would this season have been more satisfying to you that the one we actually watched? Is this the kind of journey Wallduck has in mind when he says the end result doesn't matter, only the journey? I'm fine with noting editing manipulation with respect to a player's edit as long as it is discussed with respect to what it means under Edgic principles, not some theme that the poster thinks might be being used. The biggest problem is when a theme theorist starts bending the edits to fit their preconceived theme. Even in retrospect, we still have people arguing that their interpretation of theme was correct, thus justifying ratings that are just wrong based upon the edit as presented. Guidelines are the only means of forming a framework for discussion. Without them, there is nothing solid with which to discuss anything since each theme is subject to each poster's interpretation with no underlying basis for argument. If everyone's opinion is valid, then none is invalid, and the whole exercise becomes rather pointless. In other words, such lack of constraints may make it easier to have somebody nail the winner, but big deal when such analysis could be used to justify any particular person winning, especially when you adjust your theme as you go. You found this season satisfying? The journey was interesting, but the final result was pretty ugly (and not just in Edgic terms). The jury could barely hide their contempt and disrespect for all three finalists. Normally, we get a winner we can respect even if we don't like them. This season, we got a winner we can disrespect even if we do like them. I think it shows sloppy editing on the part of the editors to have ignored the winner and runner up all season. I actually don't mind a good decoy edit like Marcus or Ken because that shows care being given to the show, but to just neglect the story of the finalists is grossly negligent.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

S-17 Edgic (editing and logic) Gabon

Quick Reply