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

0 Points

S-19 Edgic (editing and logic)

Started By	Comment
cindidindi76		#5781	[-]
Posts: 21018 (12/21/09 04:03 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Ads no more Remove this ad garyw wrote: Either way this season was now amazing due to the ending that fat arrogant prick got put in his place and most likely will do again in s20 if he continues to act the way he did tonight. Not enough X's in the world. I actually felt bad for him for a second because he was obviously on the verge of t.ears, but then he acted like such a fucking tool at the reunion that my extreme dislike came roaring back. And for quite a while I've been saying he wouldn't win because he doesn't understand the meaning of the words "social game", and it turned out he literally doesn't understand what the term "social game" means, lol. cindi, astro: I agree, Russell has been a contender since ep1. I said even then, "Could this be the season of the big OTTN winner?" He'll blow new holes in Edgic stats, but we've seen how he has a quality edit, which can trump the high-Vis, OTTN tone thing. I NEVER thought he was a contender. I eliminated him after episode 1 and never once thought it may have been a mistake. Blake <3
TheLurkerSpeaks		#5782	[-]
Posts: 1491 (12/21/09 04:24 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Hi, all. With another Survivor in the books, I decided to venture back here to see how the Edgic community saw the season. I haven't been around since the end of S17. That season had just so disappointing an ending and was such a bad one for Edgic principles that I wasn't in a rush to follow along during S18, and with other things going on in my life, I was pretty much the typical "casual viewer" that season. I thought Stephen would win, for what it is worth. This season, I decided to follow the season more closely, but not to come here. Part of that was to avoid any chance of spoilers, but partly I'll admit to being tired of trying to keep Edgic a distinct separate type of analysis, especially when S17 proved that under certain circumstances, Edgic just wouldn't work. Anyway, although I didn't go through and rate the players after every episode, I was pretty sure the winner was not on Galu early on. I was also pretty sure Russell was going to be out around the time of the merge or lose in the finale. When a character dominates the screen that much, those are the two likely results. Going the distance seemed more likely given that no Galu was likely to win. Putting the two together, it stood to reason that an ally of Russell would win the game, and I leaned toward Natalie. I certainly wouldn't have eliminated Mick or Jaison, but they didn't have great edits in my opinion. Mick seemed more like a narrator than anything, and we rarely got insight early on as to his position in the game. Jaison, on the other hand, got a significant negative edit, when it was portrayed that he might be close to quitting, and that isn't the type of CPN edit that can be good for winning chances. Perhaps the key for me was that we kept hearing Russell talk about how he had Natalie in particular as his pawn while Natalie would comment it was in her interest to stick with Russell. That just looked like the sort of thing that was inserted to come back ironically on Russell, and it was unnecessary attention for Natalie if she didn't win. Of course, I'll readily admit I can't prove I had picked Natalie so feel free to discount my prediction as you see fit. I haven't read more than the last page or so of this thread, but I've read enough to know that there were spoilers and that some Edgicers are having to defend picking Mick to win in light of those spoilers. Hey, Mick's edit wasn't terrible. Then again, the narrator's edit generally isn't - the problem is that there just isn't much there there. Anyway, I'm glad Edgic is still around, and hopefully, it isn't too diluted with the psuedo Edgic analysis that is really based on totally unEdgic theories. I am curious to know whether the Type B edit analysis discussed in the aftermath of S17 has been developed in Edgic terms, meaning with objective criteria to determine when it might be applicable.
Trixiego		#5783	[-]
Posts: 19093 (12/21/09 04:28 PM) Kiss me, I'm Adminish Reply Quote More Recent Posts	BlakeB717 wrote: cr said Mick was spoiled after Episode 4. Let's take a look: Mick's winner percentages (at this point you had to fill in 3 slots): E1: 45% E2: 61% E3: 73% E4: 98% < spoilers hit, interesting surge.. but it doesn't mean everyone was his top pick, only that he was in 98% of Edgic's top 3 contenders (which, based on the first few episodes, is pretty fair since everyone else had at least an INV at this point.. we had just lost Ashley and Liz, so only 5 people left didn't have an INV: Russ, Sham, Jaison, Mick, and Monica) Sham: Just got her OTTN episode Jaison: Got his quit episode Monica: 3 UTR1s and now an N episode at TC Russ: Self-explanitory So spoilers could have "confirmed" people's suspicious, but as of E4, Mick was our best pick, so I'm not sure we can really attribute spoilers to him. His stock slowly dropped form there, and Jaison's slowly grew. I think the real problem isn't the Mick supporters, rather the Russ and Natalie votes being the same as Jaison and Mick.. that, to me, comes across more spoiler-y than any Mick votes. I'd like to see how people viewed Natalie up until episode four and then suddenly she appeared to be someone who could be at the end. Read around, there are some notable changes. Note that while the final three was spoiled when you indicate, it was noted which particular FF made it past the merge along with Russell's evacuation (automatically putting him out of contention) so that did help certain people (and I'm not pointing at you Blake; your post was the best to respond - that's all) I have no issue with certain people and their selections and Edgic certainly is a Sucks tradition that is something to enjoy.
FallenTorch.fantasygamescen...		#5784	[-]
Posts: 242 (12/21/09 04:29 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	BlakeB717 wrote: Thanks Fallen Torch :) I just want to point out that there was never a "sudden interest in Mick" for me. He was my one and only pick after 20 minutes into the first episode, before any spoilers were out. I don't read spoilers. It's the same people every season who say this because they hate the way I "treat" people in here, and want to get rid of me (it all started back in China, even though my pick was Peih-Gee and none of the spoiled F3). Can we really be surprised? Agreed. Some people seem to believe that though, so I was just commenting for their sake. I don't have an opinion on whether or not you read spoilers, but the fact of the matter is, even though you were wrong, I always found your reasoning to have some support. Although Mick's string of UTR episodes postmerge and his lack of a story were flaws, whose edit WASN'T flawed this season? As long as someone had evidence that supported their point, I read it. And although some people had a problem with you this season, I see nothing wrong with someone sticking to their guns and backing up someone they believe in. I do think there's a point where everyone gets a bit passionate when it comes to defending their point, and it can come off as "treating" someone poorly, but as long as we avoid incessant personal attacks (I'm not saying this in regards to you, or anyone in particular) then we'll be fine. As for people wanting you out, if they don't want to read your posts, that's fine, but otherwise, there's no reason why anyone should not be allowed to participate in Edgic if they are civil and constructive.
BlakeB717		#5785	[-]
Posts: 2788 (12/21/09 04:42 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Double post
BlakeB717		#5786	[-]
Posts: 2788 (12/21/09 04:42 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Trixiego wrote: BlakeB717 wrote: cr said Mick was spoiled after Episode 4. Let's take a look: Mick's winner percentages (at this point you had to fill in 3 slots): E1: 45% E2: 61% E3: 73% E4: 98% < spoilers hit, interesting surge.. but it doesn't mean everyone was his top pick, only that he was in 98% of Edgic's top 3 contenders (which, based on the first few episodes, is pretty fair since everyone else had at least an INV at this point.. we had just lost Ashley and Liz, so only 5 people left didn't have an INV: Russ, Sham, Jaison, Mick, and Monica) Sham: Just got her OTTN episode Jaison: Got his quit episode Monica: 3 UTR1s and now an N episode at TC Russ: Self-explanitory So spoilers could have "confirmed" people's suspicious, but as of E4, Mick was our best pick, so I'm not sure we can really attribute spoilers to him. His stock slowly dropped form there, and Jaison's slowly grew. I think the real problem isn't the Mick supporters, rather the Russ and Natalie votes being the same as Jaison and Mick.. that, to me, comes across more spoiler-y than any Mick votes. I'd like to see how people viewed Natalie up until episode four and then suddenly she appeared to be someone who could be at the end. Read around, there are some notable changes. Note that while the final three was spoiled when you indicate, it was noted which particular FF made it past the merge along with Russell's evacuation (automatically putting him out of contention) so that did help certain people (and I'm not pointing at you Blake; your post was the best to respond - that's all) I have no issue with certain people and their selections and Edgic certainly is a Sucks tradition that is something to enjoy. Yeah, the sudden Natalie support was questionable, but it didn't really amount into anything until the merge when Mick fell flat and Natalie suddenly looked awesome. I just don't see how people picked Natalie as their winner, when before Ep4 no one was saying anything about her (especially in Episode 2 when every Foa Foa was a 4 or 5 visibility, and she got 1 lousy sentence and was on-par with Galu). After Episode 4, when Natalie got her first confessional which was about beating Russell in the Finals, I remember some people (including myself, actually) suggesting that Natalie probably faced the jury. I'd say it's pretty unlucky (and unprovable) that the episode spoilers for Natalie came out was the same episode Natalie actually got her first confessional--and it was a loaded one. Susie appeared in Episode 4 and outlined her entire strategy, so the similarities were pretty uncany. I can't blame people for suddenly thinking Natalie would be in the finals, because everything in her edit suggest it would. I can, however, be a little suspicious of thinking she wins. I definitely agree that Edgic shouldn't be disposed of. People who wish it to retire can just not bother to post next season. I'm not sure exactly what I'm going to do next season, whether its limited or no participation from the threat of another attack (although hopefully the attacks have been IP banned and it won't happen again... and stricter moderation in light of the heavily spoiled Spring season). I'll have to make that call, I guess, but I'd hate to see Edgic disappear. It's a tradition that has proved awesome in the early seasons, with getting winners like Jenna and Sandra when spoilers/popular opinion said otherwise. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't next season with winner picks.
unduli clone		#5787	[-]
Posts: 8062 (12/21/09 04:43 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Jedijake wrote: Edgic is like a religious denomination, with the guidelines as our bible. Trying to reform them would be messy. They haven't changed in ages, despite many good criticisms.. People go on interpreting them selectiively and calling out others as heretics. "That's not edgic" - even if it helped you pick the winner. "We're proud to say our Mick pick was based on sound orthodox principles, even if it was wrong." If you disagree, you're an unbeleiver, biased, or a spoiler cheat. Boundaries get more rigid, more dogmatic . "That's story or thematic analysis - get out of here!" We quantify visibility by sentences spoken - and act like this is ALL there is to visibility. But even Atheists should know that while they are in church, the guidelines of religion are what need to be followed. ilu, Jedijake. (: Now that the initial drive-by's have dwindled down, this rather frank discussion is exactly what we need. I don't know that we have time to pin down changes to our observed guidelines before Feb. 11th, but I would love to see an expansion of what we know in order to encompass some more of the recent trends and especially this fabled "type b" winner. I'd also love to see a call-out of the "un"spoiled along with a new Spoiled Edgic Thread next season. Oh, and for the record I picked Ashley from the get-go with Mick as my main #2 for the second and third episode. In EP04 Mick took the head spot and I kept on with him the rest of the game. I read a spoiler that Natalie made F3 sometime around then (near the fifth or sixth episode, maybe?) and quit putting in winners/elimination votes after that. I continued to support Mick publicly acknowledging that I had read one spoiler but was sticking to Mick who I had picked before. I also got a little more spoiled later when S20 spoilers started to trickle in and people were announcing that Russell lost in the F3, but as I had him eliminated from the premiere, nothing was affected. Never knew that Mick was spoiled to win, though! I thought the spoiled winner was Nat and the spoiled F3 was Nat/Russ/Shambo.
cindidindi76		#5788	[-]
Posts: 21019 (12/21/09 04:47 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Natalie winning means the INV rule can officially be bounced No it doesn't, lol. I said a few weeks ago that if she won (and even if she didn't) the INV rule needs to be modified. Meaning that the definition for what makes someone INV needs to be tweaked. Because while Natalie didn't have confessionals and all that crap that one is "supposed to have" in episode two, she was in that scene with Betsy that pretty much everyone remembers. If everyone remembers it, (even though she wasn't the main focus of the scene) it shouldn't be considered an INV, especially not that early in the game. For me personally, no one that I have considered INV has ever won. I still think it's a very good rule, it's just one of the many that could use some adjustments. Granted, I eliminated Natalie anyways because it was still a crappy first three episodes, but that's not the point. ;-)
Oowatanite		#5789	[-]
Posts: 9845 (12/21/09 04:49 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	unduli clone wrote: I'd also love to see a call-out of the "un"spoiled along with a new Spoiled Edgic Thread next season. An "Edgic Thread with Spoilers" is useless. It was tried several years ago and was abandoned quickly due to lack of interest. The same thing WILL happen in S20. An unspoiled Edgic site with restricted access seems to be the only real alternative.
guatemala fanfic	Reply to Blake	#5790	[-]
Posts: 5539 (12/21/09 04:57 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Ads no more Remove this ad After Episode 4, when Natalie got her first confessional which was about beating Russell in the Finals, I remember some people (including myself, actually) suggesting that Natalie probably faced the jury. I'd say it's pretty unlucky (and unprovable) that the episode spoilers for Natalie came out was the same episode Natalie actually got her first confessional--and it was a loaded one. Susie appeared in Episode 4 and outlined her entire strategy, so the similarities were pretty uncany. I can't blame people for suddenly thinking Natalie would be in the finals, because everything in her edit suggest it would. I can, however, be a little suspicious of thinking she wins. I agree with this. If the timing of the spoilers happened to coincide with the episode where Natalie got one of the most important confessionals of the season and the key relationship was highlighted, that's not anybody's fault. I was one of the people, like Blake, who noted it immediately (right after the episode finished, if not during it) and said that this indicates Natalie and Russell probably face the jury. But to me, that was the extent of it because Natalie was already not a viable Edgic choice. I remember a few people miraculously saying she was the winner after this episode, but not an overwhelming number. Was the spoiler before or after Episode 4 aired.
Oowatanite		#5791	[-]
Posts: 9846 (12/21/09 05:02 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	cindidindi76 wrote: Natalie winning means the INV rule can officially be bounced No it doesn't, lol. I said a few weeks ago that if she won (and even if she didn't) the INV rule needs to be modified. Meaning that the definition for what makes someone INV needs to be tweaked. Because while Natalie didn't have confessionals and all that crap that one is "supposed to have" in episode two, she was in that scene with Betsy that pretty much everyone remembers. If everyone remembers it, (even though she wasn't the main focus of the scene) it shouldn't be considered an INV, especially not that early in the game. For me personally, no one that I have considered INV has ever won. I still think it's a very good rule, it's just one of the many that could use some adjustments. Granted, I eliminated Natalie anyways because it was still a crappy first three episodes, but that's not the point. ;-) I respectfully disagree. The INV guideline / rule-of-thumb is D.U.N. If Natalie, who really should have had three INVs this season, is gonna be "saved" by a severely water-downed INV guideline, then whats the point of having it ? If no one is "invisible" when they are simply "present" during an "important" scene, then what's the point of having it ? The INV rating should be retired. And this is coming from one of its biggest supporters (me ) who loved when it could be used to eliminate people with otherwise good edits (Rafe comes to mind) back in the good old days when Survivor editing was not a big pile of horseshit like it is today. In the good old days, the winner was never completely disregarded except in noted special circumstances (Tina, Amber). Now the editing is catered to big "characters" who play to the cameras (Russhole, Coachebag, Splenda) with no intention of actually trying to win the game. So the winner is often unjustly ignored (Natalie, Bob) by the editors.
BlakeB717		#5792	[-]
Posts: 2790 (12/21/09 05:06 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I've been looking at the first few episodes and I guess the only logical explanation for Natalie's non-existance in the first two was that they were Russell's most negative episodes. Her association with him would have looked pretty bad, so by shafting her she was spared of any insight which praised someone so NN. In Episode 4, something we should have picked up on, was how damn tan she was. That confessional was actually from Episode 12, and was manipulated to have been said earlier. It made Natalie look like she knew Russell's game way earlier than she probably did. After that, she disappeared again with UTR2s because she was the boot target and they probably didn't want to make Natalie look bad. The editors seemed to try very hard to keep Natalie away from Russell's negativity. Here's the problem: This could be anybody. Anyone who gets a 1 in Episode 1, or an INV, or a bunch of UTRs in the merge with no confessionals or TCQs, isn't going to be eliminated. I, personally, don't think a season like this will happen again, but we all know there will be many saying "Don't discount Sucks fan favorite, remember Natalie?" After our redo right now in the S8 thread, Amber was officially INV in Episode 2 (though I humbly disagree with it). I think 1 INV, if it's early on, is OK I guess under the condition that they have a direct tie to someone of high visibility (i.e. We were reminded that Amber was working with Rob in the recap, and Rob got lots of visibility... same with Natalie--reminded in the recap and Russ was highly visible). The good news? This makes things super tough, and who doesn't love a challenge? I do agree now is the time to start making guidelines. Editing patterns evolve, and we're still relying on rules that were made about 4 or 5 years ago. Last Edited By: BlakeB717 12/21/09 05:08 PM. Edited 1 times.
TheLurkerSpeaks		#5793	[-]
Posts: 1492 (12/21/09 05:08 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Heh. I just read how Natalie was not Edgically viable because she got an early INV! I had argued for many seasons that that was a bad rule, particularly due to the subjective nature of INV, and it seems we may finally have the proof. And of course, once she had the "eliminating" INV rating, her subsequent ratings were downgraded because she "obviously" wasn't winning. I know I got into arguments with the "theme analysis" advocates back in S17, but I have no objections to using "theme analysis" to supplement Edgic. The problem I had back then was that people were making arguments without any reference to Edgic principles for people in direct opposition to Edgic principles (Corinne being the most absurd example), and basing their arguments against others without any reference to Edgic. The other problem I have is that "theme analysis" has no backbone without something like Edgic to support it. The editing can support any number of stories, and we don't know which one is the right one until it comes to pass. This same malleability works in its advantage for someone predicting because they can change their basic storyline easily enough when their old one goes haywire. It is interesting to read, but there isn't much to discuss. No one can prove or disprove anything about a purported theme until it either comes to pass or doesn't.
Oowatanite		#5794	[-]
Posts: 9848 (12/21/09 05:25 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	TLS, you disagree that Natalie was INV in episode 2, an episode dominated by her tribe as they went to TC ?
unduli clone		#5795	[-]
Posts: 8068 (12/21/09 05:32 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I've actually been a huge supporter of the INV rating since its inception, but I agree that killing it off wouldn't be a bad idea. We already have the issue that some people refuse to vote INV even if it's entirely "obvious," which creates close calls (another issue, since many feel that a close call between INV and UTR1 ought to mean a clear-cut UTR1, while others don't), which has become far more problematic than the fringe group that doesn't vote for PP or NN. We've also had such a high number of close calls, with Yul and Parvati and even Natalie that result more in conflict than in constructive discussion. The one time it was useful was in Guatemala, as Oo said, but other than that it's pretty much been a non-factor in eliminating players who were golden otherwise.
scepticA		#5796	[-]
Posts: 1869 (12/21/09 05:43 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	RIP INV. Unless.... I distinctly recall Rafe's INV, and almost groaned. To me he was by far the most edgically viable person up to that INV, and then poof! He was off my list. The only thing to me that could possilby redeem it - not necessarily to KOD (Kiss Of Death) level, but to a warning sign - is situational. This season it was so skewed towards Russell that the huge number of INVs so quickly made me extremely nervous, as I assume it did to many others here. Rafe's was different - deep into the season, and then he simply disappeared. And in a sense we've already had a "situational" INV that almost everyone acknowledges: Tina, a deliberate, purposeful INV by the editors to throw viewers off. Well, we should just accept the fact that the barn door has been opened by Tina, and Amber as well. Now Nat. Messr. Oo wrote, "An unspoiled Edgic site with restricted access seems to be the only real alternative." Yep. If you build it I will come.
TheLurkerSpeaks		#5797	[-]
Posts: 1494 (12/21/09 05:47 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Oo, You should know I don't care if she was because I never held INV to be a valid rating in the first place. There should have been no functional difference between INV and UTR so no additional rating was needed. I know we've discussed this enough in the past that you should have known my position on INV.
Oowatanite		#5798	[-]
Posts: 9850 (12/21/09 06:07 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	TheLurkerSpeaks wrote: Oo, You should know I don't care if she was because I never held INV to be a valid rating in the first place. There should have been no functional difference between INV and UTR so no additional rating was needed. I know we've discussed this enough in the past that you should have known my position on INV. I know that. But you said you "leaned" toward Natalie instead of Mick or Jaison or another FF. I find that interesting since Natalie started off the season with UTR1, UTR1, UTR2 (since you don't use INV) and you felt that was just fine edgically. That doesn't make sense at all.
getting real		#5799	[-]
Posts: 2008 (12/21/09 06:16 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Jedi said: One more thing needs to be added to that list. What Probst says in recaps are very important. But he also said this: But even Atheists should know that while they are in church, the guidelines of religion are what need to be followed. Jedi, what you are suggesting in your first quote is to be mindful of editing manipulation. However, your second statement also suggests that you would not be willing to consider examining this manipulation unless it's ensconsed and precisely worded in the guidelines. Inflexible dogma is never a very good tool as far as progress is concerned. In any framework, including edgic. Edgic told us that Natalie, as an individual, wasn't viable until episode four. Up until then, the logic in the editing told us that someone like her, (ie. a Foa Foan who wasn't Russell and probably a woman) had the best chance. Her showing in episodes 4 and 5 mandated a closer look. After missing out on Bob, I resolved not to miss out again on someone who didn't meet all the guidelines exactly, provided their edit fit within the overall Edgic philosophy. Yes, the first episode is important, but it doesn't have to be so formulaic that it has to work exactly the same way every time. This religious adherence to requiring a confessional before the first break in order to win was always fraught with danger. However, going back through the first episode revealed the heavily manipulated intuition scene with Betsy. I wrote back then that it was the kind of scene that could lead to a light bulb moment at the FTC, as it turned out when Natalie mentioned intuition and Betsy in the same answer at that FTC. I don't really get all the Edgic gloom and doom. Colleeenlover combined fundamental Edgic principles with a detective novel, puzzle-solving approach which culminated at FTC - yet I never saw anyone accuse his work as being unrelated to Edgic. TLC, as one of your sparring partners in S17 that you referred to, welcome back. Glad to see your evolved approach and look forward to more discussions.
cindidindi76		#5800	[-]
Posts: 21020 (12/21/09 06:18 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Ads no more Remove this ad The one time it was useful was in Guatemala, as Oo said, but other than that it's pretty much been a non-factor in eliminating players who were golden otherwise. It was pretty useful for me in Gabon when Kenny was INV but of course avoided an actual INV rating for obvious reasons. Not that I personally ever thought he was golden, but a lot of people were staunchly behind him. But go ahead and get rid of the INV rule. I don't really follow all the extraneous edgic "rules" anyways, lol.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

S-19 Edgic (editing and logic)