Yuku free message boards

I got ya, and see we've just been looking at things from different perspectives. I shake your hand.

But I was looking at this thread as who of the runner-ups were good players, so that's how I was addressing Colby -whom I have no strong personal fondness or hatred for either way.

Yea, and I was commenting on how his end-game blunder WAS 1 of the biggest mistakes from a winning perspective despite being a decent outlaster. Conscious decision or not, it meant he wasn't equipped with the right mental fortitude to win whether that be lack of strategic ability, emotions, or both. In comparison to other runner-ups then, he is not 1 of the obvious stronger ones from that a winning POV as it seemed some were saying, and which I strongly disagree with. Although quite frankly, most or all the runner-ups were pretty deficient in that area hence their losses

The way I see it, Colby made it to the end on his strategy and got to the point where he could make a choice- just him, not dependent on anyone else.

Well even then, it's never JUST strategy. Obviously there was a lot of luck involved (although that goes for all outlasters). In ASS he didn't prove that Outback wasn't just a fluke. I can say he is a decent outlaster, but I'm not so sure I can say he is a great one. And I do not believe reputation primarily killed him in ASS at all. i saw him make multiple non-optimal and flat out poor strategic decisions

He knew he could beat Keith, and wasn't sure if he could win against Tina. So, it's irrelevant at that point. He made a choice.

I disagree. How is it "irrelvant"? Because he consciously chose to make the worst move of his available options? That somehow makes the decision justified? I know what you're getting at. You're saying because he was "aware" of his potential losing, somehow that makes his actual losing better. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way. ANYONE then gets a free pass to say, "Oh, I knew I might get voted out that round, but I did what I did knowing that". That excuse fails both in terms of action executing on winning plan, and in terms of game focus and desire which is necessary to be a good player in Survivor. If Colby consciously made a non-optimal move, that is just as bad or worse than unconsciously making a non-optimal move like with Romber at F5. In those particular examples, Romber's decision was far less costly than Colby's, and their decision required a significant amount more complexity to evaluate the situation and project the future outcome than Colby's

And he wasn't stupid to not know Keith would be the easier win. So it was basically at that point, "yeah, I showed them I can win, I have the power -but here's my personal choice based on how I think outside the game." It doesn't affect his strategic mind and planning.

Oh no, I see what you're saying even more clearly now. I totally disagree with that kind of thinking. You don't "show people you can win" unless you win. There is only proof in the pudding. We ALL have the potential to win. We ALL have the potential to become millionaires, to get straight As, to get that 6 pack, etc. But unless you actually tangibly achieve the goal, then you do not get credit for it--bottom line. Close to winning and potentially winning is NOT winning. You have to finish, you must close the deal, and you must not choke in crunch-time. I do not think Colby is stupid by any means, but his decision based on a "personal choice" lead to a loss. It doesn't not affect his planning, but it does affect the ability to execute his strategies (which also involves tactics). In this case, what good is an ivory tower chess player? Part of what makes a Survivor winner is having the edge and the ability to commodify your emotions and come up with a logical justification system in your mind that allows you to make the tough moves in the game. That is just as important as strategy. It's intrapersonal maturity--and it's a big reason a lot of the winners are older. Part of managing others is managing yourself, managing your emotions, having confidence in yourself and decisions, and having an established set of ethics that allow you to be prepared for tough emotional situations during the game which make you question your beliefs and re-evaluate your own worldviews and ideas. The game involves more than just numbers strategy and social manipulation. The reason why so many effective social strategists are good at being deceitful is that they have a fully worked out logical system in their minds that allow them to be at peace with their decisions. It's why someone like Todd could give the amazing jury speech that he gave easily or Vecepia could turn on people at the blink of an eye and win the game. Game focus is something that basically all the winners have had. And if Colby was missing that attribute in his arsenal, then while he may get a pass for his planning abilities, he doesn't get a bye in terms of self-management

The whole idea that Colby's "choice based on how [he thinks] outside the game" justifies a loss is just hypocritical colleenlover. First off, he said he wanted to win multiple times during the show, so in terms of "documentation" as you put it (for Rob), the facts are not on his side when it comes to the "conscious losing decision" excuse. 2nd, there are 2 outside of the game choices you've mentioned--neither of which are really excusable due to their moralizing nature:

(1) Colby wanted to go to the end against a strong opponent/competitor and win against the best

The reason why this is crap is that the "best competitor" is decided by the result itself. It's based on innumerable luck factors and contingencies including the jury's final decision. It was never Colby's place to judge who is the strongest competitor, which obviously would be based entirely on his biases. He played the game like a juror (loser), and got that result. To be a winner, you must play like one--focused on the W--not losing. It was his decision which basically determined who "the best" was, so it becomes a self-fulfilling logic. Obviously, the jurors would not like the implication of this, because that would suggest they are all unworthy which is a bunch of crap seeing how much luck plays a role in people's fate. Nick said it best mentioning how Mike's accident changed the face of the game and was something neither Colby or Tina had influenced

(2) Colby wanted to preserve his integrity by keeping his promise with his #1 ally Tina

While an understandable approach, it's hardly a justification that excuses weak mental fortitude due to the hypocrisy and selective nature of it all. Clearly, Colby has no problems compromising his integrity in some aspects. He lied, he deceived, and he played the game. He obviously had to have been deceptive on some level to basically all of the Outback castaways. Tina is not special. She is not his mother. She started off as a stranger just like anyone else. Everyone in Outback was human and from a moral perspective are equal and should be treated with respect and integrity. The "I was loyal to at least 1 person" justification is not a good one, because all that says is that, "I am a biased individual who chooses favorites based on random luck factors that none of you can possibly control. Integrity means nothing to me except for that person". That is moralizing and while he is entitled to pick favorites, it hardly makes for an admirable excuse for being unable to execute a strategic million dollar move. Especially because, if those individuals are so close, then wouldn't Tina understand it if he made a decision for himself? Tina even thought he wouldn't take her to the end as she said on the TV show! That's how obvious that decision was to everyone even back in the naive days. By not making that strategic decision, it was inadvertently a slap in the face of each and every juror. It was the equivalent of saying, "I was willing to lie to you to your face and trample on your feelings, but not to Tina". Obviously then the, "It's a game" or "It's not personal" justifications go out the window, because it becomes, "It's personal". "I voted Tina out because I like her better than you". That is why it's far better to own your moves and say you were playing the game hard rather than be apologetic, because it makes things MORE personal and more unethical when you try to talk about integrity or deservingness based on morality or a hierarchy of preference at final TC. It's way more insulting. The problem is that immature folk who aren't mentally prepared for that aspect of the game haven't already thought out the implications of their actions and the meaning of the logical lines and justifications they use until it's too late. You need to have all those issues worked out ahead of time, not be worrying about that during the game and learning about yourself. If you aren't equipped with the winning mindset to begin with, you're playing to lose. When you get to the end of the rainbow, you're not going to know how to finish

Like with Amanda, separate emotion from logic or life from game separates the winners from the losers

True, but then we're just left with a list of statistics of who placed where and who won what challenges, and I'm not really interested in that. Instead, I am more understanding and dissecting the pyschology of the players and whether they maximized their luck.

You say that, but then you excuse Colby for not maximizing his luck with the F3 boot. Maximizing his luck or strategy was selecting Keith as his F2 opponent--not Tina

So, that's why I said I would be weary about receiving investment advice -but if you were offended by that how could you be if you don't look at the ways of maximizing your scope with these variables that we will never know? Does that make sense? It's late and I should go to sleep.

I know but when I DO speculate and analyze the variables, I STILL think YOU are the one missing all the key points. You're only focused on part of the equation (planning for the outlasting stage) but missing all the critical parts of the game like OUTPLAY which involve mental fortitude and execution of plans. You're trying to justify in-game moves with out-of-game excuses which don't even do the job well (morality)









I have an analogy which I think captures our respective positions. You can correct me if you think I misunderstand your perspective:


We have 2 students. Let's give them random names, and call them Colby and Rob . We will be measuring their "intelligence"


Intelligence
Learning curve = The rate at which the individual learns material when presented with the same subject matter; defined by nature
Knowledge = The total amount of knowledge the individual has at their disposal at a current moment; influenced by nurture
Potential = The total capacity of total knowledge the individual can have at their optimal point of intelligence and learning; defined by nature


Here, learning curve and learning potential are defined by biology or how big the brain is and how it utilizes its body components to allow for memory retention, processing, and learning. Intelligence, however, is more based on nurture or environment. Nurture imposes the limits and potential, while learning and experience increases the individual's knowledge. In this case, intelligence is largely defined by all 3 aspects: learning curve, knowledge, and potential. Learning curve sets the rate at which one accumulates knowledge and reaches their potential







The following are biological facts that no one necessarily knows about these 2 boys, but are true for the sake of argument, and because I'm making this up because it is my world:

Colby
Learning Curve = 10
Potential = 100

Rob
Learning Curve = 5
Potential = 50


colleenlover assumes that Colby is automatically smarter than Rob. On paper, not only does Colby learn things at a faster rate than Rob (and for argument's sake, we're saying it's all the forms of intelligence like musical, spatial, physical, social, etc.) the total amount of things he can learn in his lifetime is x2 as much as what Rob can possibly grasp just based on biological limits. In this case, colleenlover does not know either Colby or Rob's biological values, but he can see that Colby seems to pick up things faster than Rob and magically knows that Colby has a bigger tank to fill up


Analogy: In this case, colleenlover is looking at the potential and learning curve and saying that Colby IS smarter than Rob, because of what Colby can POSSIBLY do IF he applies himself
Survivor: Rob's intellectual potential (winning) is limited to begin with thanks to worse luck/biology (All-Stars game format and twists)




RavuRules wants to compare Colby and Rob's intelligence, so he judges them on their knowledge. Colby has CONSCIOUSLY squandered his years playing video games, smoking pot, and not studying because he does well in school without having to work all that hard. As a result, his knowledge at 20 at the end of high school which is 20% of his potential (not taking Tina to the end with him). Rob on the other hand, has worked multiple jobs, had a hard life which made him grow up faster and gave him unique life experiences, and studied extremely hard. On the way, he too made mistakes. He got involved in a gang without really realizing the long-term consequences of his actions (voting Tom out at F5). Fortunately, he is not killed during that time, but he could've been in which case he'd never have gotten 20 knowledge points like Colby. At the end of college, Rob has ended up with the same amount of knowledge as Colby--20 (both were 4-3 runner-ups). However, we know that while they have the same amount of knowledge, Rob had achieved 40% of his potentials, whereas Colby had only achieved 20% of his despite better physical gifts (game luck)

colleenlover concludes that Colby is more intelligent than Rob, because he didn't have to try as hard and could have won more accolades had he applied himself better. What is important is the POTENTIAL not the actual achievement. RavuRules sees things differently. While they have the same amount of knowledge (2nd place) at the end of college, Rob applied himself much better and achieved way more of his potential than Colby did (less blunders). While neither Ravu or colleenlover can say for sure who is smarter since neither knows their biological stats nor knows how much knowledge they will accumulate in the future, both have strong opinions on who was the more intelligent individual and for what reasons based on how they define intelligence)


Both have their biases. colleenlover is a stickler for potential, whereas RavuRules is anal-retentive about the historical track record. However, 1 thing that Ravu notes is that Colby's highest known knowledge score was 20 at the end of high school. At the end of college, Colby's knowledge was at 15. Rob's knowledge score at the end of high school was a 10. colleenlover has faith that the high school Colby is the real Colby and demonstrates his superior intelligence over an inferior Rob who was below him in their high school days. RavuRules however notes that while Rob was behind Colby back in high school, he now has more knowledge than Colby by the end of college. While Rob has steadily improved and applied himself over time, Colby has not demonstrated consistency and seems to be on a downward spiral. colleenlover holds faith that the spark of talent he saw in Rob back in high school is enough to suggest that Colby is the more intelligent individual despite a lack of application of his talents. RavuRules however feels that Rob is the more intelligent individual, because what the guy lacks in talent or luck, he makes up for with tenacity, effort, and application. RavuRules thinks Colby's blunder (smoking pot) indicated that Colby was less intelligent than Rob. Colby definitely killed his brain cells, while Rob never was killed by his time in the gang. colleenlover thinks that joining a gang with its death hazards indicates that Rob is less intelligent than Colby, because he could've been killed by being in the gang but wasn't and excuses pot smoking as a conscious choice made by Colby. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the pot smoking brought down Colby's potential from 100 to 90, and his knowledge from 30 to 20, but colleenlover still thinks asserts that since Colby's knew the risks of pot smoking it didn't make him less intelligent




Okay that took way too long and some smart ass is going to mention this

I moved the ASS discussion from the Jenna love thread to here Panurge46. By the way, everyone does realize this is a fanofcoils thread right? lol

I only joined Sucks after Guatemala but I'm a veteran of other boards since Amazon and we went over every post game interview and that's how we found out about the Tom - Lex - Kathy - Rob alliance. Lex and Kathy both said that the only reason they kept Amber was to do a favor for their dear friend. Lex even added things like "he had never lied to me before". Other posters had pointed out that those 4 were amongst the most frequent attendees of survivor functions and were close friends. There was plenty of evidence to convince US, not only me.

The number of people who believe something and assert it as fact does not necessarily impress me as there are a lot of things the Sucks "group" thinks that I've completely disagreed with. It's more intimidating for sure, but not necessarily more credible. I'm not saying you guys can't be right on this, but an "But everyone says..." argument doesn't really legitimize the opinion

Do you really think the All-African-American alliance in Fiji is speculation?

Um...hello? I was like the 1st person to vocally bring this up like in my WA thread. The difference is that I did read post-game interviews alluding to it, whereas I've unfortunately not found any post-game interviews for ASS talking about any out-of-game-alliance. Out-of-game friendship? Absolutely. That was talked about in the show. But official alliance made between the 4? Not so much

The proof, BACK THEN of the T/K/L/R alliance was as solid as for Fiji but Burnett restricts what can be talked about. I'm not wasting time over finding those old links. You want to know, you do the work.

I looked. I saw nothing. As far as I'm concerned, the "alliance" did not exist

As far as strategy is concerned, a Tom - Lex - Kathy only alliance doesn't even make sense. I know Oowatanite desperately wants to believe Rob and his darling Amber couldn't possibly have done something dirty (Really?? Rob wouldn't pull off anything dirty?!!!) but think of it: If Lex and Kathy boot Amber, they merge at 9 so Tom jumps over ==> Tom, Lex, Kathy, Shii Ann and Jerri have control over Rob, Jenna, Rupert and Alicia. They didn't boot Amber because they wanted Rob to jump over with Tom.

Yea, because they didn't want a potential Shii Ann or someone rounding up all the Chapera people and doing her own thing. No mention of a Tom, Lex, Kathy, Rob thing was ever brought up until AMBER was the one to propose such an alliance. Which would be common sense, since Lex, Kathy, Tom, and Rob were out of game friends. That is different from an official alliance. For argument's sake though, let's assume there was a pre-game alliance between the 4. Then his big flaw was allying with WAY too many people, and of course an out-of-game alliance that he shouldn't have made both for ethical reasons and because you can't realistically expect to honor those alliances when you have no idea what the game dynamic will be. Ethics aside, allying with too many people, playing too hard, and planning for the future too much, is STILL a lesser sin than what Colby did at F2

Until you take the time to educate yourself over what happened in Outback, it is pointless to argue with you over it. It's like talking to someone who believes the sun revolves around the earth and refuses to see anything else.

You can't expect me to "educate myself" when I can't find the Outback stuff anymore, because the season is old. I also don't "refuse to see anything else," since I've been open to the idea before, speculated about both scenarios, and am open to the idea that I'm missing information. You can't really get upset at me for thinking the sun revolves around the earth when you haven't taken the time to prove why it's the opposite. At this point, I have seen you make all kinds of cases like Zhan Hu lost due to teamwork, and be weirdly emotional about certain topics, so to me it might also be a simple case of panurge46 campaigning and making up things because he loves Outback Tina