Yuku free message boards

scepticA wrote:

---

The numbers are not arbitrary, and you state so in your second sentence: It gives a nice objective comparions of strict oral expression from each character.

I'd argue the methods for determining strict visibility numbers in themselves are arbitrary in two ways, actually. One, lending five times the weight of an unnamed confessional to a named confessional is pretty ridiculous and quite unjustified in any logical sense. There's no objective way to determine how a confessional should be weighted against another form of spoken sentence, nor is there an objective way to determine the impact of slapping a player's name at the bottom of the screen. Second, I think the whole process used to convert sentence counts into visibility ratings isn't perfect, but discussion of that would require mathematical debate, and as I've said time and time again, math really has no place in Edgic.

scepticA wrote:

---

They are not calculating context. That's what the MOR/UTR P/N is for. It's why there is more to a rating than "3," and why UTR2 and MOR2 are different things. [...] But to eliminate the objective standard of visibility and replace it with some murky "significant sentence" meter is unneccessary. Use the ratings for that.

If that's the case, what's the point of a visibility portion of a rating? Surely you don't think the editors count sentences or compare the mathematical (and thus objective) presences of their characters? So if they don't do that, why should we? Edgic is about finding what the editors are providing us. We can't find something that's not there. Counting sentences is never going to result in some sort of useful method for determining a winner because the editors don't count the sentences either. What they do aim for is an attempt to give each character a different impact level, and that's what we need to find because that's what might hint at a winning edit. I'm sorry it's subjective, but that's what it is.
Furthermore, I'd like to distinguish the difference between my differentiations of visibility levels and rating classifications. UTR and MOR can distinguish between degrees of meaningfulness of content, agreed. But the difference between a 1 or 2 is a different matter entirely. Visibility boils down to the impact they have on the viewer. An UTR character can be a 3 in Visibility, just as a MOR character can be a 1. In the former case, the player was shown frequently enough and carried enough impact that the audience will remember them as a mid-level character, someone worth noting but not someone who grabbed their attention over the bigger personalities. However, that player also was given no substantial content and their airtime must have been pretty simple and not served any purpose in character development, hence the UTR. In the latter case, the player must not have been shown much at all, but received some sort of development in the small amount of time they were shown. They don't have any impact on the audience, and a casual viewer probably won't remember their screen time. But the little content they had was substantial. There's a subtle difference there between the standards of visibility I'm trying to apply and what you're suggesting.

chapera rocks wrote:

---

That being said, I have to lean towards UTR2 for Amber. I had her as UTR1 initially, but she was featured in three scenes, no matter how small it was:

1. Alliance with Rob.
2. Fighting with Alicia, where she was mentioned by name, and argued with her.
3. Confessional about treemail.

Count on CR for a productive response. <3
You're right, she was "featured" in three scenes. But is it really fair to say she was at all noticeable in the Alicia fight? I'll admit Alicia naming her really made me consider bumping her up to a 2. I'm just not sure if the audience really comes away remembering anything about her after that fight. It was all Rob and Alicia, I felt. And she was conspicuously left out of the alliance proposal, only giving brief affirmation of her acceptance. Rob initiates, narrates, and analyzes the whole deal. Amber...is almost ignored.

Amber's edit is certainly debatable. I can see a 2, which is why I'm not fighting harder to prevent the UTR2 rating she's about to get. I'm just trying to establish a precedent for productive discussion rather than allowing landslide votes and a quashing of minority opinion to become the standard for the rest of this season's analysis.