Yuku free message boards

astroline wrote:

---

I totally agree with Panurge's post, and for the record, TLS, the two examples that Panurge brought up as "bad players" were not N in their boot episodes, Willard was P actually and Spencer was M if I remember correctly. Not all "bad players" are edited negatively like my poor Kimberly Mullen. Panurge is telling us to look at the general picture more and the actual intents, themes, patterns of the season instead of ratings on the chart, especially young males with no INV's.

Am I the only one that thinks it's funny/sad that Edgic is approaching Season 20 and we're still disagreeing over basics and getting winner picks wrong for the majority of the recent seasons? If Edgic really worked, wouldn't it have a stable pattern by NOW?

Next season, I'm just going to be posting episode ratings in here and that's it. Otherwise, you can find me in Panurge's thread because his ideas actually make a lot of sense and he's not afraid to think outside the box and look at things more creative, instead of just hopping on the next Stephen/Amanda/Marcus/MICK bandwagon. I honestly don't think Edgic will ever change because there is a majority of "veteran Edgicers" in here that are not capable of adapting to the new types of editing that Survivor has. Survivor doesn't give a shit about Edgic, it's about pulling in ratings and getting people to still talk about the show. They don't care about winners like Bob and Natalie, they care about their "big characters" like Sugar, Coach & Russell, and everyone else is an afterthought, including winners. And Edgic only cares about MOR young males with no INV's. If there's an attractive young male with a good career that gets a MOR3 in the premiere of S20, expect him to be the #1 pick.

I don't think Edgic is obsolete, but I think using Edgic to find the winner is, because the guidelines will never change (we've been saying this for multiple seasons but the same old guidelines still remain on the front page) and the same people keep making the same mistakes again. I learned from my mistakes and picked Russell this season, but all of us that picked Russell or Natalie were consistently told, "Those picks aren't Edgic. You're not using Edgic". Yet those were the 2 that got votes in the finals.

First, if a "bad player" doesn't connote negative tone, then it really is no different than a "neutral", defined as someone who just needs to go. Why should we care whether someone needs to go because they are weak or a threat? There's still nothing in the characterization that adds anything to the discussion.

I'm sure panurge will be glad to have you over in his thread. Panurge is a very imaginative poster who occasionally has interesting ideas, but there is no real framework for what he does, and thus there isn't any basis for discussion. That's why his thread is much shorter than this one.

S11 and even more S17 showed that there may be occasions where Edgic doesn't work, but in most seasons where the story actually includes the winner, it does (or could). The perception of Edgic is harmed by three things. First, there's the two seasons I already mentioned, where it just didn't work. Second, there's the over-emphasis by outsiders on "the choice" when Edgic was never meant to be an all or nothing method. Finally, there's the recent tendency to miss the forest for the trees by over-emphasizing the rating details over the analysis of the significance of what we are seeing. I don't think the community here would have missed Natalie with a more flexible viewpoint, for instance.

As for the Russell pick, it was still a bad one from an Edgic perspective regardless of how many votes he got. Sorry.