| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Warrior |
|||
|
Awesome. Congrats Chaperone.
|
|||
Kitty Pryde1 |
|||
|
Congrats Chap! (although you should've named him Ed, short for Edgic)
|
|||
fat little fingers |
|||
|
Congrats to you and your family, John! Life looks full to overflowing for you these days!
|
|||
chaperone |
|||
|
Thanks everyone for your kind wishes.
For once the Survivor offseason was exciting and fun! Back to Survivor...Did you all see the Survivor promo? (It's a CBS aired teaser...mostly stock footage but one contestant is pictured...non spoiler stuff ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs1URIX4qUI) |
|||
JaMalle |
|||
|
chap <3
|
|||
SurvivorLost |
Welcome to our Baby ISAIAH | ||
|
Congratulations to both of you, he is such a beautiful son. He already lights up the world. Enjoy, "hint" always free to babysit.
|
|||
fat little fingers |
|||
|
It's late in the Tween Season and Club Edgic is deserted...
But, in a few weeks, the hard-core gang will return.
Getting up to all their groovy highjinks! ...(I have no idea how a baby Mary-Kate ... or is that
Ashley?.. got in there. All those recent new Edgic parents I guess. We're a lusty and fertile crowd.)
Of course, there will be the usual complainers: "This season sucks! (Again.)",..."Edgic sucks! (Again.)", ..."No, this is not a wig! (It's my real hair.)"...etc., etc...
But, by mid-season, Edgic beach will be hopping. Sure, a few will drink a little too much and the occasional fist fight'll break out...
...but all-in-all it's gonna be another groovy trip! Don't forget the coco butter!
|
|||
chaperone |
|||
|
Thanks, FLF for a fun post. :)
|
|||
MasterDarkNinja |
|||
|
Congrats Chap.
Since it's the off season I thought I'd take another look at some of the strategy charts for the 6 seasons I've done with it and examine it again.
If you take a look at the 6 winners, you'll see a few things in common. -They have no more then two S3's (I know only one winner has 2, but Earl & Yul had at least one very borderline S3 episode in the merge that's listed as an S2) -They have no more then 4 S0's. -They are generally a mix of S1's and S2's, with a few S0's, and maybe 1 or 2 S3's. -They're either neutral, or + overall, never too -. Unfortunately though, that's about where the similarities end. Winners tend to have some very different strategy edits, I mean Parvati got four S0's, five S1's, and only one S3, while Todd got no S0's, only three S1's, and two S3's. That's about as different as you can get. These two aren't just anomalies either, Earl was almost as big of a player as Todd, and Danni had about the same amount of strategy talk as Parvati, though probably a little bit more then her based on the numbers on the chart. It seems to me like it's very hard to eliminate people based on strategy ratings, unless they had zero strategy talk, or several -'s. But if you have a bunch of -'s then chances are you're getting an edit of the stupid villain and we already know you won't win. And if you have like six or more S0's chances are we already know that you're getting a too UTR/bland static neutral MOR edit and aren't winning. When it comes to identifying an early winner strategy edit, that's also very difficult. I mean some had 3 S0's in the first 6 episodes, Parvati was just a mix of S1's and S0's, with just a single S2 in the first episode for the first 7 episodes. But Todd was four S2's an S3 (though in a very important episode in the midseason), and two S1's. It seems like there's almost no limit to how much strategy is too much strategy, unless you get three or more S3's. Too little strategy though can be defined as an S0 after the merge, or getting five or more S0's. But basically, I don't know if I want to do strategy ratings for another season if there's only a little bit of information to be learned from it, and that information that can be learned is stuff that we should have already known. |
|||
Riliss |
|||
|
We have very different ideas about what constitutes a "hard-core gang."
|
|||
OnlyTheHunter |
|||
|
At least you go ridin' with Vyxsin!
Michael |
|||
wallduck |
|||
I don't know if I want to do strategy ratings for another season if there's only a little bit of information to be learned from it, and that information that can be learned is stuff that we should have already known.You deserve a lot of credit for collecting so much data to test your strategy theory. But, yeah, seems like it's time to let it go and move on to greener pastures. |
|||
fat little fingers |
|||
|
You've been a trooper, MDN. I think the strategy stats have been just as worthwhile for what they disprove as much
as what they might prove.
Along with scepticA's SPV tallies, what seems to stand out isn't the categorical tallies, but the quality surrounding the comments. With strategy, my question is, "Is the strategy comment aimed at the immediate game or further ahead in the story?" (Preferably, the end game.) And for SPV, "Does the SPV comment tell us more about who the player is and their place in the overall story?" (Again, we look for SPV that speaks to the longer story and not just the immediate one.) As for strategy, a character who has episode after episode that's full of strategy statements will be too much a part of the immediate story, rather than "hidden in the midst of the action" until the end game. (One might argue Earl, but he was so miserably obvious from the start.) *eta: Todd is someone who goes against this idea, but some have argued that the theme for China was strategy. The same for SPV: SPV is essential to developing a character's place in the scheme of things. A potential winner's SPV needs to give us the other players' (and, therefore the story's) view of that character's worthiness to win in some way. No SPV means no winner, no matter how well-placed they might be otherwise (Amanda in China.)
Last Edited By: fat little fingers
08/22/08 3:46 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
astroline |
|||
fat little fingers wrote:Not true. =) Remember how little SPV that Earl had? His was really, really low and I constantly brought that up, but most people didn't consider that as an eliminating factor for him as a winner. So I don't think SPV matters in the winners scheme of things, because there are some winners with a ton of SPV (Tom, Todd, Yul) and others like Earl with close to none. |
|||
scepticA |
|||
|
astroline, it was Earl's win - like a lot of us, I suspect, I thought he was going to win about halfway through the first episode - that made me wonder
about the raw SPV tallies. I just don't think they're all that critical. But like flf alluded, there are SPVs of "quality" and those that
are of almost no meat.
I still am of the opinion that contradicted N SPVs are a killer. Someone says something bad about another player that is contradicted by the edit and the speaker is toast. Period. Reinforced SPVs, whether N or P, are purposefully designed to emphasize two things: The speaker is astute, and the content of the SPV is important. Both reinforce each other, and the speaker comes across quite well. (And what I have found most interesting is that SPVs matter as much - if not more! - to the speaker rather than the second person!) I'm tempted to delete Earl's poor SPV count just because it was such an overall crappy season. (No knock on Earl. Great player, crappy season.) |
|||
OnlyTheHunter |
|||
|
That makes great sense Sceptic. The only warning sign is when it is a wait and see. Jonathan had his warning to Parvati and being tied around Cirie's
finger, he was sorry for her for siding with Cirie as it would lead to her doom. Seemed straightforward, in fact. It took a long while to be certain that in
fact, Jonathon was wrong. It sounded like an N SPV for Parvati at the time, and Jonathan always seemed astute. I mostly agree with you, but sometimes
deciphering immediate judgement on the SPV in question can lead some astray.
But then so can anything I suppose. Michael |
|||
AllMenAreIslands |
|||
|
Congratulations on the baby, Chap!
|
|||
scepticA |
|||
|
OTH, it wasn't exactly an N SPV for Parv. It was astute strategic talk, based on Jonathan's position in the game and his understanding of Cire,
Amanda, and Parv. But it was neither Contradicted or Reinforced, which to me are the more critical components of SPVs. I suppose it was N, because that is
granted based on the tone of the person offering the SPV. The fact that much later it was clear that Parv was more in charge than Jonathan realized
doesn't make it a contradicted SPV. By my standards (and the standards are MINE cuz I thought of them!!!) of C and R SPVs, the images that contradict the
SPV- or reinforce them - are immediate and obvious and are part of the segment that includes the SPV. There have been a few times when these images come a bit
later (or earlier) in an episode, but not several episodes later.
As best as I recall from that interesting time of the game, I perceived it as Jonathan, who was already a big miffed at Cirie, trying his best to "warn" others about Cirie's duplicity. What impressed me about that SPV and the surrounding segment was that it was very clinical, even though I felt Jonathan was seething inside. Parv's involvement was secondary at best, and the N-ness of it didn't rub off on her. |
|||
craig |
|||
Someone says something bad about another player that is contradicted by the edit and the speaker is toast. Period. Another example is Parvati calling Jason a loser in ep.8 where he aced the immunity challenge. Anti-Parvati folks saw that as grounds for rating her N for
the remarks. But Jason's edit showed him a loser before and after that episode.
Another example: Amazon Ep.5 was edited so it seemed that Dave totally outwitted Jenna the winner in picking new teams, but what happened at the merge showed that she got the better of the deal. |
|||
OnlyTheHunter |
|||
|
sceptic said
the images that contradict the SPV- or reinforce them - are immediate and obvious and are part of the segment that includes the SPV. There have been a few times when these images come a bit later (or earlier) in an episode, but not several episodes later.Actually, I'm about 100% agreement with you there, I was just posing that if you want to feel a certain way about one or more players, you can try to use things like the scene I mentioned and use them in the wrong context and use pre-judged notions to explain it away too. But overall, absolutlely I'm with you. I just finished watching Thailand. Seeing Helen completely trusting Brian, followed immediately by him indicating how he has her loyalty and is using her, said a lot about them both. Rubbed her off as too trusting, rubbed him off as smart, even if slimy. Easy to add those together to give him weight. (As a fan, I actually rooted for Clay. God help me, I like the dude. Answering Penny's question had me smiling. So close to dethroning the "mastermind" who isn't nearly the great player I had heard about. Brian was just good enough, not all that.) Michael |
|||