S-19 Edgic (editing and logic) in Survivor Speculation Forum

0 Points

S-19 Edgic (editing and logic)

Started By	Comment
chapera rocks		#4801	[-]
Posts: 12218 (12/13/09 01:53 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Click here to break the ad gravity rule. Remove this ad getting real wrote: Kitty Pryde1 wrote: I hardly think Russell has been obvious. He has gotten constant "We gotta blindside Russell" scenes, implying that he won't make it to the end. And he's also gotten constant "I hate this guy" stuff from the jury, implying that he won't win a jury vote. He's got plenty of doubt and it's not like he's a lock if he makes it to the end, so you can't use that argument to eliminate him, gr. By 'obvious', KP, in this context, I meant, 'in-your-face' and utterly dominant. Everyone is acutely aware that it's Russell's season, one way or the other. DK, perhaps Russell is, as you say, his own distraction. However, that is not what Edgic's philosophy is founded upon. If he wins, it will require more serious re-thinking than has ever been required in Edgic.. That is the point I made a few weeks ago; Russell could be his own distraction because the edit has left us to believe that he'll never win a jury vote, which was reinforced last episode and now he once again has doubt about making the end game. Natalie's story is weak, it would be an edgic travesty if she won. As would Mick. He doesn't have substance, and his substance came very late in the season this past episode. Jaison is edgic's best hope, IMO. He wanted to quit yes, but it's hard to ignore that storyline. He's getting a redemption arc, strategy, how to win the jury, etc.
getting real		#4802	[-]
Posts: 1968 (12/13/09 02:11 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	JaimeCat22 wrote: getting real wrote: That is why, Edgic will be fine no matter who wins, unless it happens to be Russell or a Galuan. Considering edgic has failed to pick 3 of the past 4 winners (and 4 out of 5 if Mick doesn't win), I'd hardly say edgic is "fine". More like it's in need of some serious fine-tuning. Edgic works best as a tool used to eliminate people who don't fit into its basic philosophy. It eliminates the great majority of players, allowing users to use logic and their own interpretative skills to proactively choose a winner. It is not an inflexible formula for picking winners so it does not lead to universal, across-the-board picks that it lives or dies by. Edgic helps you get to a certain point. The rest is up to you. No Survivor winner would have been eliminated using the basic Edgic philosophy. _______________________ MDN and DN, good discussion on jury ties. Re. Natalie, Probst's words, emphasized more than once, were that she was 'working' the Galu women. She was also shown in three different segments bonding with Dave at the merge. John has also expressed admiration, sayin that she has graduated cum laude. The most important aspect of jury ties this season is that it has been emphasized that Russell was shown to be delegating social interaction, actively encouraging the other Foa Foans to bond. Natalie was emphasized more than once as being most effective at this. To me it appears that the editing is suggesting that Russell will pay for not paying attention to the cultivation of relationships. His ties are mostly poisonous, while Natalie's are constructive. The irony is that he has 'allowed' this to happen with his blessings.
JaimeCat22		#4803	[-]
Posts: 183 (12/13/09 02:13 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	getting real wrote: No Survivor winner would have been eliminated using the basic Edgic philosophy. And yet everyone eliminated Danni Boatwright for some reason.
cindidindi76		#4804	[-]
Posts: 20914 (12/13/09 02:39 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	getting real wrote: JPOz wrote: darknight wrote: Since Blake mentioned 'patterns', well i have watched all past 18 seasons of Survivor more than once and no winner has ever talked up their rivals or spoken about having thoughts of wanting to leave the game. No to be argumentative, or pedantic, but Jenna M. almost quit game near the end. Think it was before F4 IC. It was at F5 (after Christy left), and the implication was that she did it to appear weak, thereby convincing the men to take her to F4 instead of Heidi. There was no such implication. Maybe later there was some revisionist history going on, but in that episode there was no implication that Jenna was faking. She was sick and miserable, and was visibly upset when she wasn't the one voted out. The guys had no intention of voting out "weak sorority girl" Jenna over "athletic" Heidi anyways, so there was no need to "appear" weak. But yeah, not only have we seen at least one winner wanting out, but we've seen plenty of them talking up their competition.
darknight		#4805	[-]
Posts: 24 (12/13/09 02:43 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	getting real wrote: JaimeCat22 wrote: getting real wrote: That is why, Edgic will be fine no matter who wins, unless it happens to be Russell or a Galuan. Considering edgic has failed to pick 3 of the past 4 winners (and 4 out of 5 if Mick doesn't win), I'd hardly say edgic is "fine". More like it's in need of some serious fine-tuning. MDN and DN, good discussion on jury ties. Re. Natalie, Probst's words, emphasized more than once, were that she was 'working' the Galu women. She was also shown in three different segments bonding with Dave at the merge. John has also expressed admiration, sayin that she has graduated cum laude. The most important aspect of jury ties this season is that it has been emphasized that Russell was shown to be delegating social interaction, actively encouraging the other Foa Foans to bond. Natalie was emphasized more than once as being most effective at this. To me it appears that the editing is suggesting that Russell will pay for not paying attention to the cultivation of relationships. His ties are mostly poisonous, while Natalie's are constructive. The irony is that he has 'allowed' this to happen with his blessings. Got to disagree about the 'most important aspects' of jury ties. Maybe to you it is the social interaction but we are talking Edgic guideline 7) here which you say is perfectly fine at its basic philosophy. So basic guildeline is that the jury members wil have comments/insight about the winner. Follwoing this strictly then Russell is 6/6 and the rest are 1/6 except maybe give nat 2/6 given the john quote you mentioned. Really cannot go by Jeffs comments as speaking on behalf on the survivors themselves or who is sitting with who or appeared to bond with who is not a jury connection on Edgic guidelines. Yes Dave appeared to bond with Nat but there was no comments or insight just like John and Jaison. It specifically states comments/insight. So we can therefore proactively eliminate all FoaFoa this point except for Russell and maybe Natalie. Last Edited By: darknight 12/13/09 02:46 PM. Edited 1 times.
getting real		#4806	[-]
Posts: 1969 (12/13/09 02:49 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	JaimeCat22 wrote: getting real wrote: No Survivor winner would have been eliminated using the basic Edgic philosophy. And yet everyone eliminated Danni Boatwright for some reason. Not everyone, JC, not everyone.....
cindidindi76		#4807	[-]
Posts: 20915 (12/13/09 02:51 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Yes, but we can also eliminate Russell going by some other guidelines. As has been said, not every winner will fit every guideline perfectly. Obviously, different people put more stock in other guidelines than others, but to point out one guideline and say "See, Judith wins because I think she's the only one who fits that one" probably isn't going to convince a lot of people. DK, perhaps Russell is, as you say, his own distraction. However, that is not what Edgic's philosophy is founded upon. If he wins, it will require more serious re-thinking than has ever been required in Edgic.. I disagree. Russell's edit isn't a regular thing. It's not something we've seen before, and I doubt it's something we'll be seeing again, at least for a long time. I hope. If Russell wins, then yes, there should be some guidelines addressing someone with the crazy high visibility he's had, but I don't neccesarily think a win by him should change the way edgic is done every season, because the Russell Edit isn't something that happens all that often. If Natalie wins, I think maybe the INV "rule" should be looked at. Not so much in a "get rid of it" sort of way, but in a "what constitutes invisible" way. The edgic guidelines for what makes someone INV is probably the one I most disagree with. It's something I think should be looked at whether she wins or not, but I don't see a whole lot of people wanting to consider it if she loses.
BlakeB717		#4808	[-]
Posts: 2585 (12/13/09 02:52 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Regarding the jury ties business, it's not vital to Edgic that the winner have connections with the most jurors. Sugar had ties to every juror but she didn't win. We can't necessarily predict how people will vote because one stupid comment at the FTC can shatter a person's chances (i.e. Amanda). The editors try to explain the win more-so than the juror's votes. We're supposed to be surprised with the outcome (whether it's a blow-out win or a surprise winner). Mick had ties with both Erik (leadership, "we welcome it" in addition SPV in Erik's boot TC) and Monica. He also has ties with every single person left in the Final 6. Since 2 of those 5 will be be in the Final 3, Mick would have 3 more ties, for a total of 5. That's enough for a win, anyways. However, you can have no tie to someone and still get their vote. Ties can be used as anti-votes, ala Steph in Guatemala. Mick also got a brief comment by Monica this episode saying that him and Russell are jury-vote threats, which is enough to put him on the radar. I highly doubt that a Mick win would require any revamping of Edgic rules. Just because the majority of Edgic picks someone wrong, that does not mean that there is something wrong with Edgic. Why? Because the edgic guidelines have worked for some people. The winner has to fit the guidelines, they don't necessarily always end up being the best fit, because a lot of the show is interpretive (which is why we have close calls for ratings, everyone sees things differently). We have people supporting JT half the season, we had a penultimate-episode vote for Bob, we had season-long support for Todd... to say the rules aren't working can't be true because it's working for some people, just not everyone. Edgic got All-Stars, Vanuatu and Guatemala wrong, but you didn't see a need to revise the guidelines. You just wait and hope you're better the next time. Edgic is a tool to narrow down people who break rules, then assess the remaining players, and based on content go with who fits the winner's mold. Mick had a great E1 (whether it was because of the twist or not, it was still great), a solid pre-merge with consistent airtime hidden by our big Russell distraction, then he went under the radar when Galu was going crazy at the merge and Russell and Shambo were hogging up airtime, but he still never went INV and never got 0 confessionals, and was involved (whether it TCQs or SPV at TC) in every TC in the merger so far, so the editors haven't let us forget about him (whether you have or not is a matter of personality, not editing manipulation). His edit has slowly built up since the merge, now that Galu has died off and the focus is back to FoaFoa, and he's overall been neutral with some positivity (no negativity at all, which is good) and has been in the middle (best MOR differential in a 20-person season, haven't had 20 people since Micronesia, and Parvati's MOR-Diff was great). We've never had a merge at 12, and Mick's edit got out of UTR territory at the Final 9 (F10 by my chart, which is when the merge usually starts). I would rather him have been UTR than MOR in those opening merge episodes anyways, because then he'd have 8 MORs in a row, which winners never are. Winners always have a mix of UTRs in their MOR streaks if they have them. Always! Last Edited By: BlakeB717 12/13/09 02:57 PM. Edited 1 times.
MasterDarkNinja		#4809	[-]
Posts: 2953 (12/13/09 03:09 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	BlakeB717 wrote: I highly doubt that a Mick win would require any revamping of Edgic rules. Just because the majority of Edgic picks someone wrong, that does not mean that there is something wrong with Edgic. Why? Because the edgic guidelines have worked for some people. The winner has to fit the guidelines, they don't necessarily always end up being the best fit, because a lot of the show is interpretive (which is why we have close calls for ratings, everyone sees things differently). We have people supporting JT half the season, we had a penultimate-episode vote for Bob, we had season-long support for Todd... to say the rules aren't working can't be true because it's working for some people, just not everyone. Edgic got All-Stars, Vanuatu and Guatemala wrong, but you didn't see a need to revise the guidelines. You just wait and hope you're better the next time. Edgic is a tool to narrow down people who break rules, then assess the remaining players, and based on content go with who fits the winner's mold. But that's the point, edgic isn't good at spotting some types of winners, such as those UTRish ones who usually win a season where the story is "why X lost" and not "why Y won". People at the extreme ends of visibility (either end) tend to be missed. The people edgic almost always gets right are moderate visibility CPish winners, not the UTRish ones, or MORish ones with a good CPish edgic distraction.
BlakeB717		#4810	[-]
Posts: 2586 (12/13/09 03:17 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Click here to break the ad gravity rule. Remove this ad I guess that's a matter of opinion. I think there is only one "type" of winner edit--a winner edit. :) Whether they're UTR, MOR, or CP overall, they follow a large chunk of the guidelines. The trick then, after eliminating those who break too many rules, is to look at the content and see if they're fitting the winner mold. You win some you lose some. We aren't going to be punished for getting it wrong. Edgic is for fun.
BlakeB717		#4811	[-]
Posts: 2587 (12/13/09 03:25 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	There's a reason we have guidelines: it's an overall trend of the patterns we've recorded. If we made criteria for every single type of winner (why someone loses, UTR, MOR, CP), then Edgic would be extremely confusing and it would take a ridiculous amount of time to even make those types of rules. That's what the guidelines do: they combine all these winner edits into one super guideline that winners, for the most part, meet. That's why there is a lot of wiggle room in the guideline, because not every winner is the same... but they do have editing traits in common, which is what the guidelines do. Make sense? Last Edited By: BlakeB717 12/13/09 03:58 PM. Edited 2 times.
FallenTorch.fantasygamescen...		#4812	[-]
Posts: 236 (12/13/09 03:28 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	BlakeB717 wrote: I guess that's a matter of opinion. I think there is only one "type" of winner edit--a winner edit. :) Whether they're UTR, MOR, or CP overall, they follow a large chunk of the guidelines. The trick then, after eliminating those who break too many rules, is to look at the content and see if they're fitting the winner mold. You win some you lose some. We aren't going to be punished for getting it wrong. Edgic is for fun. I've been reading along, and this is one big red X
getting real		#4813	[-]
Posts: 1970 (12/13/09 03:34 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	^^^ As long as winners follow the overall philosophy of trending away from extremes on all indicators. That's why a win by Russell would be a major blow. ETA: I have to applaud you, Blake. It's almost like you've grown this season, as if through trial by fire. I hope this doesn't come off as condescending but now that you've lost your absolutism and your ad hominem attacks, you're a pleasure to read. Last Edited By: getting real 12/13/09 03:38 PM. Edited 1 times.
JaimeCat22		#4814	[-]
Posts: 187 (12/13/09 03:48 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Of course the winner is going to tend to fall somewhere in the middle. That's just common sense. But it still didn't help pick Danni, Bob, or JT as winners. I get what you're saying, but totally disagree with your claim that as long as a Rupert or Darrah doesn't win it's somehow a victory for edgic. A victory for edgic is when the winner is correctly identified by the merge. Which has happened several times (Earl, Aras, Yul) but hasn't happened much in recent seasons.
getting real		#4815	[-]
Posts: 1971 (12/13/09 03:51 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	JaimeCat22 wrote: Of course the winner is going to tend to fall somewhere in the middle. That's just common sense. But it still didn't help pick Danni, Bob, or JT as winners. I get what you're saying, but totally disagree with your claim that as long as a Rupert or Darrah doesn't win it's somehow a victory for edgic. A victory for edgic is when the winner is correctly identified by the merge. Which has happened several times (Earl, Aras, Yul) but hasn't happened much in recent seasons. I think the most we can hope for, beyond Edgic's continuing success in eliminating non-winners, are 'victories' by the individuals who use all the interpretative tools at their disposal to determine the winner. That's the fun of it.
BlakeB717		#4816	[-]
Posts: 2588 (12/13/09 04:00 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Natalie, Brett, Russell, and Shambo are all anomalies unlike Bob or Danni. Bob and Danni still fit a large number of guidelines, they just didn't appear to be the best fit (although the best fits, in both of their seasons, were too "obvious", so their wins fit the "surprise outcome" guideline). A win for any of those 4 would severely damage Edgic. "Mick had 3 UTRs in a row at the merge! Unprecedented! Anomaly!" I think is a bit of a stretch to compare to the faults of the other 4. A 12-person merger was unprecedented, too, as was a visibility hog like Russell, so we can't be all that surprised if a bore like Mick wasn't in the centre of the action mid-season/early merge. Jaison, too. The quitting thing sucks, but it could be a redemption kind of thing like Jenna M. My main problem is "plateau edit" which I want to discuss more if he doesn't win. E1 UTRs followed by high-visibility. toned CPs or OTTs, proceeded by MORs in the premerge is bad. I made a line graph, I'm in a rush, off the top of my head, how trends go for a winner: Yellow=Jaison (so similar to Cirie and Brendan) Blue=Winner trends (I focused more on the Parvati/Chris/Bob MOR/UTR late CP trend) Gold=Mick
getting real		#4817	[-]
Posts: 1972 (12/13/09 04:04 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Darknight said: Got to disagree about the 'most important aspects' of jury ties. Maybe to you it is the social interaction but we are talking Edgic guideline 7) here which you say is perfectly fine at its basic philosophy. So basic guildeline is that the jury members wil have comments/insight about the winner. Follwoing this strictly then Russell is 6/6 and the rest are 1/6 except maybe give nat 2/6 given the john quote you mentioned. Really cannot go by Jeffs comments as speaking on behalf on the survivors themselves or who is sitting with who or appeared to bond with who is not a jury connection on Edgic guidelines. Yes Dave appeared to bond with Nat but there was no comments or insight just like John and Jaison. It specifically states comments/insight. So we can therefore proactively eliminate all FoaFoa this point except for Russell and maybe Natalie. We can disagree on this, DN; however, I'm not inclined to ignore, in the right circumstances, comments/insight that establish jury ties just because these comments/insight come from Probst rather than the jurors themselves. This is what I have been cautioning about regarding an inflexible application of the guidelines. In this case, the frequency and placement of these comments at crucial times (including previously segments) throw up red flags and demand to be taken into account.
BlakeB717		#4818	[-]
Posts: 2589 (12/13/09 06:05 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Chart using actual data: red, Russell Hantz yellow, Jaison green, Mick pink, Natalie
panurge46	Importance of Episode #1	#4819	[-]
Posts: 1584 (12/13/09 06:10 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Traditionally, episode #1 has set up the story but, looking back, we know one confessional was completely wrong: Brett: "This lady with the mullet, she's probably a super outdoors woman that will naturally set forth as our leader." Shambutch has been the cause of Galu's demise so she led them the wrong way. We can also say that the next confessional was wrong: Shannon: "Dude, I'm a people magnet. People have gravitated to me my entire life. It's like: "This chick rocks, we love her." Sorry Shambitch, but most players hate you. The next ones applied to Russell and those were useful but we saw that it was better to stick with Russell than oppose him or distrust him. This brings me to: Mick: "I do have leadership qualities. In the operating room, you have to make snap decisions." Where I ask a question: What if episode #1 was done to lead us the wrong way? Mick's confessional has been constantly proven wrong. Even in the latest episode, we saw Mick unable to act when he considered Russell was a snake. The way his story is going, it seems he would win if and only if he gets rid of Russell. That's his plan. Like Gregg's plan was to get rid of Tom. How succesful was he? To stay in edgic: Wasn't Gregg a MOR-type of edit?!!!! Mick's numbers are good but his content seems all wrong to me. It looks like Burnett is telling Mick that he may be good in an operating room but that Survivor is a different animal. Men are still shown talking too much: Jaison revealing too much info to Monica and Brett. Mick talking but not acting, Russell always revealing more than he should... Natalie stays quietly on course. It seems like a pattern.
scepticA		#4820	[-]
Posts: 1849 (12/13/09 06:53 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Click here to break the ad gravity rule. Remove this ad I'm not sure about those graphs as they relate to edgic, but they do concern me if they're about global warming. So what is the Y-axis? BTW, there is a difference betweed edgic eliminating someone and a person not getting the maximum number of winner votes. Danni was never eliminated - at least by me - but her edit - at least to me - wasn't strong. So too JT and Todd (who I would have picked if I'd made up my mine a week later.) Bob was close. He wasn't completely eliminated, but was in that limbo between edgic winners and edgic losers. Someone mentioned Chris. I and a few others (pastordice comes to mind) insisted that his low-vis eps were quite CP, and shouldn't be eliminated, and we picked him. But that was the Year of the Complex Tribe, which led so many astray. Russell was eliminated by me because his high vis wasn't merely not near the median; it set a new gold standard for insanely high vis. Natalie was close to eliminated because of her UTR INV UTR start, but I was forgiving of that to a lot more players this season (especially INVs) because of the Russell VIS dominance. I can see why people say that a Jaison/Mick/Nat win would be far more in keeping with edgic than Russell. And if he wins, I would love JP to turn to the camera and say, "bite me, edgic."

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

S-19 Edgic (editing and logic)