Yuku free message boards

Warrior, could you also put in your "Edgic Guidelines" post Phoenix's proposed ratings that he put on Page 1 of THIS thread, and completely wipe out the old guidelines for ratings which are less specific. Here are Phoenix's proposed ratings guideline and I think we can all agree they're spot on:

The Structure...
to facilitate comparing apples to apples each RATING was restructured in the same way, as follows:


--

Definition of terms:





--


RATINGS

INV - Invisible

Definition: A character, within the episode, that is edited to be irrelevant or insignificant to any of the stories. In terms of story... they don't have one.

The character...

Note: If the character received even one confessional, recap focus or TCQ at any point in the episode, they are "saved" from an INV.

---

UTR - Under the Radar

Definition: A character, within the episode, that is edited to be either under-utilized or deliberately hidden (the trick is figuring out which). In story terms, they have a role in the story but are being kept out of focus.

The character...

1. had low speaking time and / or low content; they may have had a confessional and/or a TC question and/or was involved in camp discussions
2. may have received significant face time / screen time, but isn't seen doing or saying anything special or of major significance; may have had limited screen and little-to-no speaking time BUT receives UNUSUAL or extensive focus during group exchanges like pick'ems, intros, or (possibly) challenges (ie. where verbal exchanges are subtitled; actions are "replayed" for the audience; or the scene is overly-emphasized by Probst)
3. will likely have had some sort of "role" or part in the episode, but will generally be void of direct conflicts and/or character insight.
4. may have had limited screen and little-to-no speaking time BUT received SPV from another player(s)

Note: Since showcasing players who do nothing isn't very entertaining, UTR edits do tend toward low visibility, but that isn't a rule, only a generalization.

--

CP - Complex Personality

Definition: A character, within the episode, that emerges as a "personality" that is well-rounded and well-developed (intellectually, emotionally, personally and strategic/game-wise). The editing has depth, we see their strengths and weaknesses, and their choices are presented to the audience so that we get an insight into their thinking. In terms of story, these characters usually end up being major players in the story (game) and their choices end up shaping the overall, long-term story.

The character...

1. had a few-to-several QUALITY confessionals and/or TC questions and/or camp discussions; Confessionals and other discussions showed awareness and a complexity of thought about the game and strategic maneuvering AS WELL AS other complex emotions (like remorse, loneliness, guilt or betrayal) or an internal conflict over a situation. Their thinking process and how these feelings/thoughts/events are affecting them and their game (ie. positively or negatively, successful or not, etc) are expressed intelligently and maturely, as opposed to an irrational outburst ("You're a Liar, T!").
2. received moderate to significant QUALITY screen/face time, does something notable or important, and was given the opportunity to "talk" about it and showed their thinking process, choices, etc. (ie someone demonstrates a complex strategy or bold strategic move and we see their reasoning for it); may have had UNUSUAL FOCUS during group encounters AND they got to comment on it later.
3. had a fairly significant "role" or part in the episode, and that role is part of the driving force of the story. The story for the episode "revolved" around this character, at least partially.
4. most likely received SPV from another player(s).
5. may very well have moments of OTT (or even UTR) within a single episode since being well-rounded and complex would, by definition, include being obtuse, one-note or single-minded

Note: Winners are usually portrayed as CP at several points in the overall story since the story needs to be about them. However, this may not be the case in the early episodes if the winner starts out with a purposeful strategy of UTR. CPs after the merge are common / expected for the winner.

A second note: Strategy alone does not equal CP; there needs to be something to back up the strategy.

--

MOR - Middle of the Road

Definition: A character, within the episode, that says and does more than a UTR edit, but is lacking in character development (ie. we still don't know anything about them or what makes them tick). MOR edits are not oversimplified into OTT nor are they well-rounded into CP. In terms of story, these characters tend towards being a supporting character, the "narrator" or the "survivor is great" commentator. They can be described as being somewhat "bland" or "just sort of there". This edit may contain "very strategic" moments, but without the emotional and intellectual insights necessary for a complex edit.

The character...

1. had some confessionals and/or TC questions and/or camp discussions; Confessionals and other discussions generally appear to be reporting or "fluffy" in nature; may have some strategy, but without the necessary thought processes / choices / internal conflict
2. received moderate to significant screen/face time and may have done something notable, but overall, there was a lack in quality... ie. no obvious commentary on the action, no relevant background info, and/or no internal thought processes; May have received UNUSUAL FOCUS during group encounters, BUT this focus was likely linked to someone else and was used as a tool to shine light elsewhere.
3. will likely have had some sort of "role" or part in the episode, but it was as a secondary or supporting role. ie. the immediate story DIDN'T particularly involve them, so they were just there; or the immediate story DID involve them, but this character couldn't "escape" inclusion in the story and we heard very little on their feelings/thoughts on the event; they feel like they are "on hold"
4. may or may not have received SPV from another player(s).

Note: Winners are often portrayed as MOR at some point in the story due to the necessity of cooling down, story-wise. However, a consistently MOR edit is not a good thing either, because these characters end up being "just kind of there".

--

OTT - Over the Top

Definition: A character, within the episode, that is over-simplified or presented as a one-dimensional, one-note caricature. In terms of story, these characters are usually used to create drama and to distract us from the winner. They are the ones we love to love (the hero, the sweetheart) or the ones we love to hate (the villain, the buffoon, the arrogant jerk, the right-royal-beyotch).

The character...

1. had a few-to-several confessionals and/or TC questions and/or camp discussions; confessionals and other discussions were generally one-sided, emotional and repetitive, without depth of thought or rationality expressed, lacked in strategy or strategy not expressed with much internal conflict (but probably had lots and lots of conflict with other people); Confessionals were used to "paint" the character into a certain type of cartoon-like role (like the evil villain twirling their mustache, etc) or other extreme behaviour such as no remorse for hurtful actions, focusing only on loyalty or saving one's own skin, an absence of "evil" strategizing when there should be, etc.
2. received moderate to significant screen/face time and/or received a disproportionate amount of time during one or two events, where the focus of the screen-time was used to show the character repeating the same actions over and over; may have had UNUSUAL FOCUS during group encounters, BUT it was used to highlight the extremeness of the person or situation and the character didn't receive an opportunity to talk about it or to express themselves rationally.
3. had a fairly moderate to significant "role" or part in the episode, often the "scene-stealer" or the "drama-maker" for the episode. The story for the episode "revolved" around this character, at least partially.
4. most likely received SPV from other players; SPV was used to reinforce the OTTness and the SPV was extreme or underscored the actions of the player in question.
5. WILL NOT have moments of depth or a "range of complexity" within a single episode. This is a one-dimension edit, and if the edit contains moments of "CP" then it is not OTT.

Note: not all OTT players stay this way, and often an OTT player will go UTR for awhile if the editors want to bring them back to the main storyline as a more well-rounded character. Contrasting OTT edits in the same player (OTTN v. OTTP) generally mean a more complex edit over the course of the show.

---

***I added recap focus to the INV rule. I'm not sure if everyone is cool with it or not, but I think being in the recap at the start of the episode should save a person from being INV from now on--it should be a rather rare rating to give out, and both Natalie and Amber's INVs wouldn't have counted, nor those 'debatable' ones--we included 'special focus' like Parvati's fat lip to the definition, so I think recap focus should be included as well. I think this is the only way we can keep the INV rule alive: redefine it's meaning (by including recap focus as part of its use), or completely take out the rating, because then there's no use in having it over UTR if INV isn't going to be used as an elimination tool.

Also, I think we should include master KQ's opening spiel that he always posted in his first post of the season in the new thread:

[this was copied from the S7 thread to get an idea of how the data can be used to predict the winner – or just as important to discount the losers!]

Now as you can see, Sandra was a Middle of the Road player and had Medium Visibility. I'm guessing her final rating was probably CPP. That's good. Being OTT or UTR is not as good, although we have had two UTR winners in Tina and Ethan (UTRP). Although they had much meaningful editing as apposed to a Darrah or a Butch. Sandra came from the tribe that was edited as more strategic. Sandra was never ignored in the editing, but she was also not the 'front stage' kinda player (like ruppert or Jon)

Basically, we chart these players editing from week to week. Early on we can rule out players like Osten, Jon, Ruppert etc. because they are too OTT or too Negative or even too positive. Then the players in the background - with little or no story. After 4-5 weeks, you only have a handfull of players. Apply the logic - alliances - secret pairs etc. Then it’s all an educated guess. Keep in mind these 'similarities' have been in all six survivors since the first on. We usually don't count S1 editing as heavily, because MB was just getting started. The concept is easy, but applying it is tricky. That is why if anyone can come up with other 'similarities', then we will add it to edgic. If you look past to all past winners, you can logically satisfy all the elements of this theory. Obviously some fit better than others. As a definition clarafication, when I say Middle of the Road, I mean not too OTT or not too INV - I hope that makes sense, because Sandra being CPP is still considered Middle of the Road editing. I hope that helps people understand the concept. I'd be happy to answer any specific questions.

KQ

I'll make any "mandatory" changes to Amber's edgic after we finalize those ratings, but I'm pretty sure she'll end up CPP4 in the finale and MORP overall. I'll see what happens I guess when you guys get your ratings in... :)