Yuku free message boards

BlakeB717 wrote:

---

I just told him to stop on the other page, gff. I've brought it to PM and he's continued to put it in public. I'm trying my best to diffuse it, here.

I know. Thank you. And it doesn't matter who starts but you both have to realize that it's the same thing every single season.

chapera rocks wrote:

---

Everyone has their own interpretations of the guidelines and I chose to stick with Mick even after the merge, despite him lacking in story, tone, personality, not doing anything to earn a win, and questioning whether or not he could actually win. Maybe I am too much of a traditionalist, but I couldn't in good conscious have supported Natalie - based on Edgic. Yes, her win could be explained using other arguments, ie. story, and I think if Edgic is too succeed, we have to maybe incorporate a little bit more of that.

Hey guatemala fanfic, I agree with your post for the most part. This is what I have to disagree with.

My issue is that many Mick supporters would discount his bad post-merge (when we know UTR post-merge winners happen even more rarely than UTR pre-merge winners) because he had a great start.

It's like, they couldn't let go of his early edit even when it went down the shitter, and took any sort of rationalization to justify it. Now I'm not pointing the finger at you nor Blake specifically, but just the general tone I got.

Now, that's not to say Nat supporters weren't equally hypocritical (not referring to GR etc). Because while Mick's post-merge UTR's were bad, Nat's initial UTR's weren't.

Mick had a good start, but if his post-merge wasn't edgically viable, he shouldn't have been picked. It's no different then people who eliminated Natalie; her bad edit came at the start.

What you said makes perfect sense, chapera rocks. I would say a few things in response: 1) The goal has typically been to try to determine the winner by the merge and up until the merge, Mick's edit was definitely viable (though obviously bland). I guess for me personally I try to stick with that and not sway on the pick because it's supposed to be determined up to a certain point.

As far as not letting go of his early edit and trying to justify it, I totally agree. I was guilty of coming up with arguments like "he was boring" and stuff like that. But, for myself, I know that had I decided to abandon Mick, I still would have felt like there was no good choice. I had already eliminated Shambo, Natalie, Jaison, and Brett, and the only reason I didn't eliminate Russell was just because his edit was so unprecedented. So, again, everyone sees it differently. I felt like I was stuck with the 'best' of a bunch of bad choices, but I always think I'm one of the more objective people here who can look at a situation without putting personal feelings into it. Like you said, Natalie had a storyline whereas Mick didn't. So my point now is that we have to somehow incorportate that into the guidelines because had that been there, then Natalie would have been a more viable choice by EDGIC.

The reason I'd go Natalie over Mick was simply, storyline. While I think both were bad picks, at least she had tone. She had a good merge. She had a story. She fit the theme. Mick didn't do any of those things, which is what puts Natalie > Mick in this instance.

Right. This is exactly what I was saying. She had a story, but she also violated a lot of guidelines. Mick did too. Completely valid. That's where the personal interpretation comes in because I felt like I acknowledged his obvious weaknesses, but still, Natalie wasn't a viable Edgic option, to me anyway. It's like the arguments for Monica at the beginning. They made sense, but it was definitely a HUGE stretch to fit it to Edgic. Same for Natalie.

2) Natalie also had three post-merge UTRs, all of which I believe were UTR1s (or maybe one 2) and 2/3 of which she had no confessionals at all. The same people that criticized Mick for having 3 post-merge UTRs and said this had never happened before seemingly ignored it when it happened to Natalie right afterwards and to a more severe degree.