Yuku free message boards

I've been a very minor presence in Edgic this season but have been a lurker since Gabon and if not for my inability to rewatch episodes I would've been giving ratings with the rest of you. When I have posted here I generally supported Jaison but played Devil's Advocate towards Natalie. And now she won and Edgic is not reacting all that well.

Fact of the matter is Edgic has been completely misapplied since the beginning of Fiji, which had lead to Edgic missing Todd, Bob, JT and now Natalie. Edgic is a combination of Editing and Logic, essentially attempted to understand the logic behind a player's edit and how to relate that into their winning chances. This idea has been almost absent since Fiji began.

Let's consider Natalie's first three episodes: UTR1, INV1, UTR2. Prior to Fiji, edgicers would've asked the following: "Why has Natalie been edited this way?" and evaluated her winning chances from there.

But this is not what happened in Samoa. Instead edgicers asked "How does Natalie shape up against former winners?" This to me is absolutely the wrong approach, because using this we do not consider Natalie as a personality, Natalie as a player, Natalie's position in the game or the positions of players surrounding Natalie. We compare her to other people with whom she had virtually nothing in common, instead of treating Natalie as an individual case. And that's why Edgic missed her, because it has become too infiltrated by statistics and comparisons which actually hold very little weight.

Getting Real is the only person who recognised this. He was able to create an Edgic case for Natalie after considering the rationale behind her UTR's, her P's, her early CP and the position she was in at the time. Getting Real was the only person to really edgically explain why Natalie got the edit she did and what it might mean. This doesn't work for Mick. His lack of tone considering his position couldn't be logically explained if he won. His UTRs during his alliances most visible time could not be explained. Natalie's could, and that's why Getting Real found her to be the best candidate.

KittyPride1 used this exact same reasoning in Gabon. She examined Bob's individual edit based upon the uniqueness of his season and correctly deduced that he was the best fit. Not Ken or Matty who like Mick were unsucessfully matched to past winners compared to whom little made sense.

For Edgic to have any future sucess it needs to drop the idea of a winner's edit for good. It needs to instead analyse each player's edit from that player's position and attempt to rationalise their winning chances based on that. This would mean few players are eliminated early, but surely that can only be a good thing?

If Edgic asked "Why is Player X being edited this way?" instead of "How does Player X compare to past winners?' like it did prior to Fiji than it would have got Todd, Bob, JT and Natalie. Because that's what led Edgic to Tom, Aras Yul and Sandra prior to that. Those arguments were once what made up the Edgic thread, such as with Pastordice and GodIsAnAthiest to name a few in Cook Islands. Even the much maligned Craig used this line of thinking to support Parvati, and other edgicers correctly eliminated her with that line of thinking.

I would have loved to use this rationale during season 20 with you all, but I have been spoiled about the entire season and it would be unappropiate for me to do so. Wherever Edgic goes next season, hopefully it will go back to what it once was: An analysis of individual player's edits in individual seasons, not an analysis of matches up with former winners the best.