| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 tropical rain |
|||
|
Posts: 183 (10/09/08 6:29 AM) |
Ah jeez.... 
I read it twice... Thanks flf for the post, that really made me understand edgic even more. :) |
||
 unduli clone |
|||
|
Posts: 3043 (10/09/08 7:13 AM) Registered User |
Yay! I definitely think OTT was the right choice. I have to say that I found your argument a bit odd, though. I would've just stuck with "she's more OTT than CP, suckas" instead of "Face it guys, she won't win and is completely unimportant." But that's why I'm not Grand Poobah. cantthinkofaname wrote:I didn't get to Edgic Guatemala (damn schools with censored Internet and no TV!) so I'm not familiar with your example, but there have often been "mistakes" made in Edgic. I think we can all go over season charts and discover that there are plenty of ratings we disagree with, which is why many people (myself included) keep personal charts of what they think the ratings should have been. |
||
|
Warrior |
|||
|
Posts: 2666 (10/09/08 7:16 AM) Registered User |
Hit refresh if you don't see week 3.
Wasn't it great watching flf squirm all week long? 
|
||
|
pastordice |
|||
|
Posts: 743 (10/09/08 7:43 AM) |
Great job, FLF, completely agree. If only CC were here to rip you a new one :)
Check out Marcus and Charlie on that chart, think their stories are tied together? The question is who is Waldo and who is fake Waldo? (Note: I'm not discounting other winner contenders, just intrigued at a possible Tom/Ian part 2.) |
||
|
fat little fingers |
|||
|
Posts: 5641 (10/09/08 9:55 AM) Registered User |
unduli: Ah, but you wouldn't have if this were the first, rather than the third ep. It would have been seen as an important edit. That's my point. The rating definition, (like the INV arguments), is affected by where it falls in the season. Warrior: Me? Squirm? Never. :)P |
||
|
TheLurkerSpeaks |
|||
|
Posts: 1309 (10/09/08 10:14 AM) |
Not to be a wet blanket, flf, but I really hate your new line of reasoning. In a sense, you've got the Edgic process backwards. We rate the players to
give a framework for analysis of their winner chances, not analyze a player's winner chances in order to give them a rating.
As the one who wrote that paragraph that you are quoting in support of your argument, I can confidently say you are trying to use as a rule what was intended as a general tendency. Even clearly insignificant players over the course of the season can be CP within a given episode if it is their perspective and choices that shape that episode. And under your argument, who determines when a player no longer qualifies to be CP? After all, a slow start may bode poorly for Sugar winning this game, but that doesn't mean she's irrelevant to the outcome or to the story being presented. All that said, I am not criticizing your actual decision, just the support given for it. She's arguably CP given the attention given to her perspective this episode, but the clear tone bias and the lack of any real internal conflict make OTT perhaps the better choice. |
||
|
guatemala fanfic |
|||
|
Posts: 3840 (10/09/08 10:40 AM) |
Yeah, I'm definitely fine with the OTTP, but I didn't really like the reasoning behind it either. Maybe I understood the point you were trying to make
wrong, but I thought you were saying that Sugar couldn't or shouldn't be CP because we already knew she didn't win. People like Becky were still
rightly given a CP at the end of the season, even though she'd been ignored most of the season and we knew she didn't win - so by that logic, those CPs
should have only been MOR?
Anyway, I don't want to beat a dead horse or drag this on any longer but I disagreed with what was said as well (also the point that the guidelines should be considered differently or ratings would be different depending on what episode we're looking at. That shouldn't change it. To me, INV1 in Episode 1 is still INV1 in Episode 12 and vice versa). Oowatanite: I'm sure this was not your intent, but I found this to be slightly insulting not just for me but for the other 50% who voted CP. Anyway, on a lighter note, good discussion and points brought up by everyone, and I'm looking forward to tonight's episode! :) |
||
|
Phoenix1269 |
|||
|
Posts: 203 (10/09/08 10:48 AM) Registered User |
i will forever disagree with an OTT for Sugar for this episode... regardless if she is winning or not. She may be OTT-leaning in real life, but she was edited
complex. I also disagree with the reasonings. I agree with TLS...it seems a bit of a backwards way of looking at it. (a small part of me hopes she comes from
behind a la Danni and wins tis thing!) ;)
|
||
|
getting real |
|||
|
Posts: 1280 (10/09/08 10:49 AM) Registered User |
Sugar is OTT because she cannot win.... She now cannot win because she has been OTT (as well as INV) .... Therefore she must be OTT ... Therefore she cannot
win....Therefore she must be OTT .... Therefore she cannot win....
I think I'll go and lie down... |
||
|
wallduck |
|||
|
Posts: 447 (10/09/08 10:55 AM) Registered User |
I thought you were saying that Sugar couldn't or shouldn't be CP because we already knew she didn't win.Don't mean to interpret the words of the almighty, but I took Him to mean that most have us have concluded that Sugar can't win because her edit in this episode was so OTTP. I'm sure this was not your intent, but I found this to be slightly insultingfixed |
||
|
guatemala fanfic |
|||
|
Posts: 3841 (10/09/08 10:57 AM) |
Don't mean to interpret the words of the almighty, but I took Him to mean that most have us have concluded that Sugar can't win because her edit in this episode was so OTTP.I think most of us concluded it because of her UTR2-INV1 premiere episode. |
||
|
wallduck |
|||
|
Posts: 448 (10/09/08 11:04 AM) Registered User |
I took Him to mean that most have us have concluded that Sugar can't win because her edit in this episode was so OTTP.Oops, now that I've reread the post, I realize I missed its allusion to INV. Sorry, I was engaging in wishful reading. |
||
|
OnlyTheHunter |
|||
|
Posts: 1690 (10/09/08 11:21 AM) Edgician |
Hey gf, considering I voted CP and wasn't included with you, I took no insult. Who listens to Oo anyway.
Oh, if needed.... :-) Michael |
||
|
Oowatanite |
|||
|
Posts: 5973 (10/09/08 11:36 AM) Registered User |
^^^ and you are ?????
And gf, I was just joking, no matter what wallduck apparently thinks. |
||
|
astroline |
|||
|
Posts: 1457 (10/09/08 11:44 AM) Registered user |
Am I in the minority here (I know GF feels the same, but who else?) that every single rating for every single player should all be exactly equal. Every edit is
important for every episode for every player, not just for Corinne or Marcus. Even if it's a boot episode for the player, I hate when people say, "Oh,
who cares, they're gone now anyway?", but that doesn't mean their edit should be ignored and they end up with whatever people feel like giving
them because they don't care (Rita is a huge example of this). Regardless of Sugar is winning or not, that doesn't affect the rating from this past
episode. Like TLS said too, the ratings affect the winner chances, not the winner chances affecting the ratings.
|
||
|
OnlyTheHunter |
|||
|
Posts: 1691 (10/09/08 11:51 AM) Edgician |
I as always try to see all sides. I get FLF's intent. The slippery slope against it is that, "Chris is not on the complex tribe, it's an UTR not
CP, who cares, he can't win anyway" mistake that leads to trouble. For the Sug, I think the first two eps are sufficient to kill any hope of her
winning, and the reasoning was well thought out and won't be forgotten regardless of opinion, so that's that.
We do slide the scale on certain things. Saying two lines at camp in episode 12 can merit an INV discussion, when only 5-6 players remain and that's all you get. That's fair and different than episode 2. If FLF was some half assed, unconcerned burned out oaf who now prefers watching Project Runway, I'd be concerned. Since instead he's the loving father figure who spends more time reading the newsgroup than he does on his family, I'm not concerned. His family might be. But not me. Michael PS - astro, Jeff's back huh? Hate Ace already?
Last Edited By: OnlyTheHunter
10/09/08 11:58 AM.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
pastordice |
|||
|
Posts: 744 (10/09/08 12:07 PM) |
Not sure why I'm dipping my toe in the water on this, but I think there is a bit of misunderstanding on what FLF was saying. My understanding (and FLF you
can clarify) is that the idea isn't that Sugar was OTT because she can't win, it was because it fits a pattern of editing that began in earlier
episodes. I caught FLF's reasoning to be as an addendum to the already done work of identifying the edit. In other words, the edit itself is OTT, and this
is emphasized by how an OTT fits her overall editing pattern. A conclusion I whole heartedly agree with. Make sense?
|
||
|
crackr0ck |
|||
|
Posts: 66 (10/09/08 12:21 PM) |
Stupid question but where do you actually vote!?
|
||
|
OnlyTheHunter |
|||
|
Posts: 1692 (10/09/08 12:44 PM) Edgician |
pd, please keep stopping by. And I understand the point exactly, even if I say to be cautious when following it.
|
||
|
cantthinkofaname |
|||
|
Posts: 1214 (10/09/08 12:50 PM) Registered User |
I didn't get to Edgic Guatemala (damn schools with censored Internet and no TV!) so I'm not familiar with your example, but there have often been "mistakes" made in Edgic. I think we can all go over season charts and discover that there are plenty of ratings we disagree with, which is why many people (myself included) keep personal charts of what they think the ratings should have been.Yeah, a lot of my disagreements came in Guatemala, mostly with Stephenie. If the mailbox on here wasn't all screwy when I was PMed the voting site, I could've voted. That would've changed a few things, like her getting the N she deserved in episode 5. Also, I did consider OTT for Sugar, because there were good reasons for it, but because she's been eliminated was NOT one of them. Would her getting voted out changed anything? And didn't we have a rating change in EI? Shane was originally CP is ep. 1 but later we changed it to OTT. |
||
