Yuku free message boards

In other words, if the season seems to be edited 'normally', characters could still be eliminated by usual methods- the criterea for a 'Type B' winner are more of a contingency plan- IF the Type A players all have flawed edits, and IF one or more of these type A players seems to be shaping the game but being set up for a loss at the very end, THEN we can consider alternative 'Type B' options all the way down to Danni and Bob.

So using the second set of 'B' guidelines would not necessarily complicate edgic too much in a case where a Yul or an Earl (or a Marcus) could conceivably win. Rather, they would act as a backup, i.e. If a Marcus gets voted out and no other edit suggests a comfortable win, we bring Type B players such as Bob back into winner contention.

In a sense, this is what I mean, yes.

The way I see it, though, it is extremely difficult to say with much certainty that we know whether or not an A or a B wins. I'm sure everyone would do it differently but I personally would be pitting the frontrunners against each other (regardless of type). While As have a better chance of winning, I wouldn't be waiting until they fall apart to look at the Bs. Again, this would be different for everyone. I'm personally a bit more conservative about it than some and am in no major hurry to ID the winner if I honestly don't know.

But yeah I'm with you on what you're saying.

The biggest problem with the type A and type B edits is that both in S11 and S17 edgics #1 choices (Brandon & Marcus) werent voted out until the traditional merge episode with 10 people left. It will be next to impossible to rule out all the type A edits by the merge episode, there will always be one type A edit that will look better than all the type B edits.

The type B stuff doesnt start looking good until around F7 when the Garys, Stephs, Kennys and Mattys just dont feel right anymore

This is all 100% true. It's an issue. However, I have always felt that the absolute cutoff of "by the merge" is a messy measure of success anyway and the truth of the matter is that if we are to zero in on Type B winners with any accuracy, it probably will be something that occurs after the merge. That's unpalatable of course, but I don't think it can be helped at this point. There are going to be some seasons where we won't meet that original goal. However, when that goal was set out there, I don't think multiple winner patterns were predicted.

The stuff about Type A and B seasons is really an admission that edgic works better in pagoning season were editing tells the story of how the mastermind wins and his endgame competition is with him all season so we can compare edits.

Yes, I think the best way to characterize this is that it is a formalized admission that the traditional Edgic guidelines (targeting what I call Type A edits) will not always work. If we stick with a "Single Type" paradigm and try to fit all winners into it, the number of universal guidelines that will always work (in my eyes) becomes very small. By admitting that the traditional ones don't always work, we can try to split the theory into two different observed types and retain a lot of guidelines that almost always work.

But I don't think the Pagonging is the key issue. I think there have been non-pagong seasons (Pearl Islands) where Edgic worked beautifully.

Reforms won't necessarily ensure we get the next Danni or Bob. But perhaps they will prevent people from embarassing edgic by domatically backing pics like Kenny in future.

Well said and very important. Doing this by no means ensures that we become correct more often (and it still might). What it does do for sure is help prevent misfires. I honestly think it is better to say "We couldn't figure it out completely but we narrowed it down to these 2 people" than "We narrowed it down a bit, took a guess, and got it wrong." That's just me, though.


I agree that players who are generally INV (not just low vis) or consistently negative but not well developed are almost never going to be winner candidates. These would represent lurking Type C edits, but I personally cannot think of a set of constraints that would lead to editors making the decision to edit a person that way if they won. The constraints would need to be enormous to have them logically conclude that such edits would be their best story.

I may expand this later to compare winners data with some other set of contestants (eg F6) but I wanted to start by comparing average visibility per episode for the post ASS winners.

Here's the data:
Chris 3.3; Tom 3.6; Danni 2.3; Aras 3.1; Yul 3.3; Earl 3.6; Todd 3.6; Parvati 2.8; Bob 2.3

We "blamed" Danni's low-visibility edit on Steph (ie S11 was edited as why Steph lost, rather than why Danni won). It will be difficult to use the same excuse in S17. The data does reinforce how atypical Bob's edit was compared to recent winners.

I don't see what you're saying, actually. Both Danni and Bob had the same averages and they are a full point lower than everyone else on the list except Aras and Parvati (is that statistically significant, though? I honestly don't know). The fact that both Parvati and Bob are below 3 may suggest an interesting trend though. In any case, I think this will make more sense when you expand it.

--------------------------------------

Other topics:

1 New guidelines referring to tribal editing. The winning in unlikely to come from a tribe or alliance that receives strongly negative editing early or at a crucial point in the game.

This is true but can we get citations of other seasons where this happened? Even tribes like Ulong got negative editing somewhat but nothing like what Fang got.

2. Some measure of visibility that is fairer to tribes not going to TC premerge. Of course Matty gets more screen time than Bob if he goes to TC 6/7 times and Bob only 1/7 times. or Cirie more if she goes 6/8 an Parvati 2/8. We need a fairer and mosre balanced measure, as edgic arouse in the days before Ulonging became so commonplace.

I still don't think this is an issue of measurement. If one tribe goes to TC and the other doesn't, they spend more time on screen. They do more stuff. They have more strategy. They are literally more visible than those who do not go to tribal council.

It is true that some players may have their early game visibility constrained by this, but the problem is in the interpretation of the data and not the measurement. When we see a string of low-vis episodes, we need to stop and say "wait but they didn't go to tribal so that's to be expected." If we start giving players more visibility than they actually had, thats misleading data. You could have two people with 3s, one of them an actual 3 and one of them an actual 1. Looking back, that will impact the way we remember things and it will become extremely confusing. Maybe an asterisk for people who didn't go to tribal? Lowercase letters? Something to aid in data interpretation that does not modify the actual data.

In response to Themes

I agree with scepticA's post. I don't see the common thread that makes picking and applying the theme consistent or somewhat objective