Yuku free message boards

Are you telling me that the production staff was stupid enough not to know that they couldn't poll the audience on whether Eric should use the veto on people the audience didn't even know was nominated? It was impossible for the audience to vote on whether Eric shuld use the veto, and we can only assume that this meant they did it delibertly, especially after strong evidence that they manipulated people into voting a certain way previously

Which means they were trying to keep the present course. Americas Player has a right to win HOH or veto, but since its impossible to relay the results to the audience ahead of schedule, they needed to make some sort of adjustment. Eithe rlet him make his own decision,or let the live feed viewers decide.

I've been saying all along that since Mark won, he is the best player. If he lost 9 out of 10 times, he would not be. It is a simple concept and logically sound, dare I say infallible?

"Best player" to me is probably very similar if not identical to what you have in mind, I just find your him hawing to be biased. You say we "need more data". Why? There likely won't be multiple games witht he same players, so we won't get that data,ever. Mark won through virtue of the rules, whoever wins the game played the game best, it makes no difference on whether you were impressed by it. You and your call for data have shown that you don't care about data unless it fits into your biased frame of reference. It has already been demonstrated that discovering the Moles identity is only one part of the game. I've said it a mILLION times before, if you have a problem with the quiz, give us a better way to judge the players.

And how do you suppose we get it?Actually, I am a Mark "fan", but not obsessive. I just don't see how the loser could be better then the winner in an individual game.

You just come off as so pretentious and full of shit, no disrespect intended. You know and I know that you can't compare The Mole to a poker tournament. It's silly to even make such a comparison. Anyway, I'm still interested in you trying to refute Marks game.

You don't count luck as a factor in ones placement? Without good luck , a person CAN'T win,or go far. Paul was not observent, for example, he made an educated guess, as did Mark in the final quiz and as did Nicole several times.

Yes, and if they all played subsequent games, we can assume they would all get progressivly better at it. Mark would get better, Nicole would, etc. There might be different Moles if were dealing with the identical cast, and who knows what different factors will come into play. This isn't speculation, you are guessing, GUESSING that Nicole would be a better long term player. Based on nothing but an educated guess, you have no data. We do have data that Mark managed to win. You're being a baby because you don't like the guy.

Best player=winner. If there is more then one game, then a crossexamination is needed. It is that simple. Luck is a major factor for everyone, and Marks good luck should be counted as an attribute of himself, as well as his test taking skills.