Yuku free message boards

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.