S-17 Edgic (editing and logic) Gabon

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
fat little fingers		#3421	[-]
Posts: 5754 (11/24/08 8:05 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Okay, it's obvious the Sugar thing will not be settled. There's just too much open-ended stuff that requires the viewer's personal subjective take. I gave her an M, she got a majority N, and her real Edgic problem is that she rated OTT. But, for those who want to keep saying that she wished Randy would die, I offer her vote speech: "You are a disgusting, hot-headed, chauvinistic, alcoholic, bigot and you need to grow up before you die alone. ... lose-ah!" And Randy's vote statement: "This vote is not strategic. It's strictly personal."
Oowatanite		#3422	[-]
Posts: 6406 (11/24/08 8:09 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Yeah, what Trix said !
getting real		#3423	[-]
Posts: 1379 (11/24/08 8:40 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Trix said: The difference between Randy's negativity and Sugar's negativity is pretty much (for me) that I have been made almost immune to Randy's negativity - that was who he was throughout the show; an ass! Sometimes there was basis for it, other times he was just a jerk but when was the other night different than the norm? But Sugar??? I don't know; I think it seemed pretty clear to me that there was a overhaul to her and not in a good way despite the cutsey package it came in. Well put, Trix. Although individual reactions to what we saw are necessarily predicated on people's own idiosyncrasies and personal buttons, there is sufficient universal 'uncomfortable' reaction to Sugar this episode to accept that the intent of the edit was to strip Sugar of some of her aura of goodness. It's not at all unlike the story of the original Eve. She also went progressively from a frollicking innocent, to acquiring a darker hue, to ultimate disaster.
Green Coffee		#3424	[-]
Posts: 103 (11/24/08 8:41 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	scepticA wrote: The challenge with determining "intent" is that the only realistic way to measure it is in the reactions of the viewers - and the most important viewer is you (or me, or that other guy over there.) If you think Randy was funny, accurate, but losing it in the last few episodes you'll think worse of Sugar than someone who thinks Randy was scum of the Earth who deserved that TC disembowling he got. I'm not going to weigh in on the argument itself because I think individual episode tone ratings are largely pointless. Nonetheless, this statement brings up an important issue that I feel MUST be addressed. The bolded text is, in my opinion, an area in which concepts of statistics are misinterpreted in Edgic. On the surface, this sentiment IS accurate. The reactions of viewers would be an accurate proxy for intent. Fandom and systematic biases in tone interpretation are likely to be lost in the variability and noise that occurs in the POPULATION of Survivor viewers. I have faith that the editors are capable of manipulating the tone impressions of the average viewer (Poopert, Stephame, etc.). Thus, again, this is accurate in theory. However, I highlighted the term POPULATION because this is the context in which I feel this argument is applicable: given we measure every single survivor viewer's personal opinions, the true signal will stand out from the static. Of course, in inferential statistics, this is rarely done. We instead draw a SAMPLE from that population and use it to make inferences about what the true characteristics of the population are. However, this inference is only valid insofar as the sample is REPRESENTATIVE of the population. That is, there is no systematic bias in the way we draw our sample - it represents the true population well. Okay, concrete terms of Edgic now: -If we measure every single viewer's opinion of tone, viewer opinion is a perfectly valid proxy for tone. -However, tone is instead estimated by taking a sample of survivor viewers (edgic participants). In theory, if everyone in Edgic gives their opinion, it will be just as good as every single viewer giving their opinions. -Therefore, for this policy to be statistically valid, Edgic itself must be a representative sample of Survivor viewers. However, this third statement is most likely NOT the case! In fact, many would argue that Edgic viewers are systematically different from random viewership in several ways: -Extensive attention paid to editing beyond surface level. -Extensive discussion with other viewers online -Aware of manipulative intent of tone Now, the general survivor viewership will have SOME people with these characteristics. However, in our sample, EVERY person who fits these descriptions. Further, this sample of 20ish people is unlikely to be representative of a viewership of millions in many other ways, even disregarding the above characteristics. Of course, it is still possible that the sample will match the population. But if any of the above three (or any other characteristic I ommitted) systematically influences perception of tone (which I would argue all three do) then tone ratings will undoubtably lose validity. So I would strongly disagree that the important aspect of tone is our own personal opinions. Each personal opinion is prone to bias. These biases become less and less important as the sample gets larger and more representative. Unless it is, our personal opinions are individually probably very unreliable measures of tone. The alternative? Use our extensive attention to editing and manipulations of character to determine editorial intent. This is imperfect as well. We cannot be sure that our hunches are accurate. However, I would argue that this technique will lead to better accuracy than assuming representativeness of a CLEARLY unrepresentative sample. Even if one rejects the idea of attempting to determine intent, it is impossible to ignore the statistical flaws of the alternative. Of course, because I think individual episode tone ratings create debate that does not contribute to Edgic's goals, you could just revamp the system to examine tone more holistically and avoid the problem altogether. Very few disagree on the overall tones of Sugar, Randy, Corinne, etc. What people disagree on is whether or not someone is M or N, N or NN, P or PP, Neutral or P or N, none of which ever really lead anywhere helpful.
Oowatanite		#3425	[-]
Posts: 6407 (11/24/08 8:46 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	^^^^^^^ In other words, Sugar is N.
ncassaro		#3426	[-]
Posts: 337 (11/24/08 8:49 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	That was a really good point, Green Coffee. This debate overall doesn't really matter to the overall tone of Sugar's edit. For example, what would people categorize Natalie's season-long tone as? Probably N. Yet the vast majority of episodes she was either INV1 or UTR1 and always toneless.
Green Coffee		#3427	[-]
Posts: 104 (11/24/08 8:55 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Well I guess I should clarify my position anyway, just to give context to what I said. Personally: Liked Randy most of the season but loved the trick played on him. He was a jackass this episode and most episodes. No issue with Sugar personally, but thought she was being a bitch on purpose. Randy: N, Sugar: Neutral My Editorial Intent Interpretation: Want us to think Randy is a scumbag. Want us to think Sugar was being petty and childish. Randy: N, Sugar: N In Randy's case, match between opinion and what I think the intent is. In Sugar's case, no match. It's not the "fault" of anyone (editor/viewer) that there is a mismatch. People have different tastes and opinions - variability is inevitable. Viewers are not blank slate robots. However, the big point is to recognize that our own opinions are not any more insightful than others' are and that our personal opinions are not necessarily representative of what the editors intended.
getting real		#3428	[-]
Posts: 1380 (11/24/08 10:01 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	GC said: However, this third statement is most likely NOT the case! In fact, many would argue that Edgic viewers are systematically different from random viewership in several ways: -Extensive attention paid to editing beyond surface level. -Extensive discussion with other viewers online -Aware of manipulative intent of tone Good points, GC. However, precisely because of the differences you list as setting edgic viewers apart from the normal Survivor population, I would hope that edgicians are in a better position to be aware of what is intended and what is likely to affect them as individuals. Heightened awareness of what happens at an emotional level is something that sets this community apart, I feel.
OnlyTheHunter		#3429	[-]
Posts: 1863 (11/24/08 10:37 PM) Edgician Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Few quick thoughts on a busy night. GC said So I would strongly disagree that the important aspect of tone is our own personal opinions. Each personal opinion is prone to bias. These biases become less and less important as the sample gets larger and more representative. Unless it is, our personal opinions are individually probably very unreliable measures of tone. You can substitute "rating" or "visibility" for "tone" can't you? Right? Personal opinion may be open to bias. Every person here should (accent on should) try to rate without bias. In all facets. I can only speak for me, I certainly try. I won't knock on doors to poll samples so I have to trust in the ratings of the people here. And those here are experienced, know what to look for, and that's the best it can be. I get the point, but it's like asking Springsteen about playing in front of a crowd of 50,000 and asking me the same thing. His answer may be influenced by his bias, but I give it weight over me. I can't make sure every Edgician rates impartially, but I have to trust they try. Note, how few close calls has tone gotten this season? Very, very few. As getting real said gr I love how probably the most heated debates over ratings for the whole season have occurred in the only instance where there haven't been any close calls! And he's right. I think some, not necessarily GC, but some, complain about debates. For newer edgicians, or non regular posters, ratings may be hard to grasp, but everyone can get positive or negative, and can comment on it. I just ignore debates, like the Sugar stuff, until I see the results. Guess what? No close call, a majority decision, what is the debate? Let it go. I wouldn't overhaul anything. episodic content of Tone is important, although with an eye on seasonal use as well. A Mixed in episodes 1-5 has proven absolute death to being a winner. Otherwise, winners have been N early and late, P early and late. Lack of any Tone is bad when it is the norm. I think, however, fans of a player want that player "positive" when they don't grasp edgic. It's wrong, but you have to point it out and understand it. You can't force a fav to be a winner. Corrine isn't winning, and trying to take her side all the time is as useless. (Insert any player left save Kenny or Matty, same difference.) craig said PS: Much like OTH's Alexis pick last season, I'm parking my vote after I've ceased really having faith in it. Rather do that than flip around based on what I've read in interviews or the Insider. Fair enough. But I also acknowledged that Parvati was always right there, just as I said I know it's Aras, but I knew it two episodes too damn late. But stick to Edgic, quit using interviews and Insider. They aren't the show. And I concur completely with flf about the intent. Randy's the bad guy, good riddance. Who cares what Probst thinks? Really. Who cares? That's the reality. Not the edited show. Probst liked Julie more than most fans. Didn't mean anything. Well, except for him, huh? Michael Last Edited By: OnlyTheHunter 11/24/08 10:40 PM. Edited 1 times.
SwineForkbeard		#3430	[-]
Posts: 1885 (11/25/08 12:23 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Probst is a killjoy. He should have appreciated it as a great moment for the show, as he eventually did with Fairplay's dead grandmother prank. Sugar was the star of that episode, whether she was PP or NN or whatever other gibberish label you can come up with.
Green Coffee		#3431	[-]
Posts: 105 (11/25/08 12:26 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I actually agree with both of you, gr & OTH (although there IS still some amount of cheerleading that goes on in Edgic, as has been dicussed this season). Obviously, biases in our opinions exist and working to combat them is beneficial. What I was arguing against is taking our own personal opinions of players and making the assumption that we can transfer them directly and have them be a valid measure of editor intent. I liked Randy, but my personal opinion does not reflect his edit at all and I should adjust my ratings accordingly. This is in contrast to (what I interpreted) scepticA's argument, which seemed to be that we should all rate on our personal feelings because they will directly reflect the editor's intentions (if I was off, let me know). My post was more of a discussion of the generalizability issues this introduces. In fact, I would suspect that people who do combat their own biases are a bit more accurate than those who go with their gut feelings on players. So the three of us are on the same page after all, I think.
BlakeB717		#3432	[-]
Posts: 1137 (11/25/08 1:14 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I want to point out, as one of the biggest Crystal haters, I have never given nor felt she has been editted as OTTN in any episode. I've had her as UTR the last 2 episodes.
scepticA		#3433	[-]
Posts: 1448 (11/25/08 1:17 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Green Coffee, if that's the impression I gave, my bad. ranting tends to get me a bit off topic. Back when I used to do ratings I made a point of contrasting my personal likes/dislikes for the actual ratings. Sometimes I'd chat about why the person got the MORP or whatever, and other times I'd just rant or pay homage. The latter had no effect on the rating, and many times the rants were specifically about the editing tricks/nuances I observed. I'm trying to recall the last time I actually had a "favorite" - somebody I wanted to win. I really wanted Ethan to win, and Kathy in S4. Since then... not really. I remember cheering when Ethan won and feeling devastated when Kathy had the wardrobe malfunction and wasn't in the F2. A couple days later I realized this was nuts. Since then there are players I enjoy, which is not at all the same as rooting to win: Rob C., Helen, Sandra - hey, she won!, Nobody in ASS, Chris (hey he won!), Cirie... maybe a few others. Some players, like Judd and Margaret, irked me no end and weren't even of entertainment value. I simply loathed them. Randy is somewhere in the middle. An incredible grouch, probably a hugely unsocial human being (sorry there, Randy, if you're reading this - as if you give a f$$k what a chick on edgic thinks). But he was interesting for quite a few episodes. And when he actually turned off the bile machine and talked game he was pretty perceptive. But then his OTT meter went to 11. His edit sure had an arc! I never had much of a "favorite" i wanted to win. Marcus was dull, Corrine tried too hard to be the bitch. Bob was interesting but too quiet. Crystal too manic depressive, Randy too too... Oh, I liked those last four as characters, as people who add spice to the show, but not as cheerleader. You can hope interesting people hang around a long time, lest you end up with a disaster like ASS when all the interesting people were gone way before the end. Others, like Matty and Ken - the two edgic faves! - were just not that interesting to me in their edits. Yet they're my edgic choices. Edgic is edgic. Faves are faves. They might occasionally be the same, but that's the result of two mutually independent calculations. I wanted Cirie to win both seasons, but chose Aras and Parv way before the merge in both cuz of edgic. It's kind of a bummer when someone like Cirie you know won't win, but edgic is edgic. My point about personal feelings goes to who to root for, not edgic ratings. The editors (oh, crap, back to them) give us 42+ minutes each week, and that's all. Some of the people I mentioned above were beloved or despised herein (Parv, for instance). I was not a personal fan, but didn't hesitate in selecting her the best choice for edgic. Clearly, some people liked Randy more or less than I did, so too anyone else that's left. But except for a few outliers, the consensus on the edgic pick is pretty close to mine: Ken, Matty. Some reverse that, and I respect but disagree. The remaining survivors have their fans but people here must ignore aspects of edgic in order to justify those picks. I'm not that much a fan of either of the two consensus people, but can see how the edit makes Ken's a story of growth and Matty's overcoming obstacles and never turning into a bitter person. Summary - root the hell for whoever you want. But if that sways your edgic ratings you'll be mislead in your winner's pick. If you ever choose to not give a person a rating you know they deserve because it will destroy their edgic chances for victory you need to talk to your therapist. It's a frigging game show. GC - does that make more sense? And I'd rather not go more into editor's intent right now - there are about four of my rants in the last few pages about that. [okay, okay... one little thing... Susie's edit. Think about it. She played an absolutely pivotal part in the biggest moment in the season. She's been a point of ire since by Randy and Corrine. She's clearly someone who is significant to the game. And her edit is absolutely dreadful. I know nothing about her. She's a cut-out, something the prop department hauls out to say a couple of sentences or provide a trivial confession on occasion. There have been other players with nearly INV (Darrah!) edits in the past, but none match the combination of importance to the game and such a vacuum-like edit. Because of this, does she qualify so far as haveing the shabbiest edit in Survivor history? And what do we possibly make of the intent of the editors? Did she say stuff that was boring, un-insightful, stupid? Does she have zero personality? Did she run over Jeff Probst's cat after the series wrapped up?] My out of left field / edgic blew chunks / that would be incredibly entertaining / pick for winner is Bob. At-fay Ance-chay. Last Edited By: scepticA 11/25/08 1:20 AM. Edited 1 times.
AbbyGirl		#3434	[-]
Posts: 14 (11/25/08 1:33 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	All I can say is I think Sugar was negative, the whole thing was too much for me to watch....too many smug faces, too many annoying laughs, just too much of her! Let me put it this way: If Corinne had done and said all of the things Sugar did this last episode, what rating would she have? I'm pretty sure it would not be neutral or just CP. I was uncomfortable with the whole episode, especially TC. No one deserves to be treated like that, no one that is decent or mature in any way acts like Sugar did....or to a lesser extent Crystal. I think the look on Bob's face at TC says it all, he was totally uncomfortable and hated what was going on. My sister, my friends, even the person that cuts my hair, said Sugar was a little witch (only with a B) and even though Randy was a jerk, we understood his jerkiness, hers was just way out there and completely for her own amusement. I think we are starting to see why Sugar loses in the end, I mentioned that even before the last episode. I really hope Matty wins, otherwise we are going to get a negative tinged winner. Ken is just on the verge of it (being negative) and then they try to hide him so we don't think he's as bad as some of the others. I get the feeling Ken was a pretty big jerk at times once he gained power, and yes I know that isn't edigic! I was really hoping for a positive winner this time but no way is that happening. Oh yes, and Sugar was "N", and she will be the LOSER. :)
getting real		#3435	[-]
Posts: 1381 (11/25/08 3:08 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ScepticA said: Susie's edit. Think about it. She played an absolutely pivotal part in the biggest moment in the season. She's been a point of ire since by Randy and Corrine. She's clearly someone who is significant to the game. And her edit is absolutely dreadful. I know nothing about her. She's a cut-out, something the prop department hauls out to say a couple of sentences or provide a trivial confession on occasion. There have been other players with nearly INV (Darrah!) edits in the past, but none match the combination of importance to the game and such a vacuum-like edit. Because of this, does she qualify so far as haveing the shabbiest edit in Survivor history? And what do we possibly make of the intent of the editors? Did she say stuff that was boring, un-insightful, stupid? Does she have zero personality? Did she run over Jeff Probst's cat after the series wrapped up?] Great call about Susie, Scep. I can't recall anyone so obviously involved in reality treated so shabbily in the story being told. I'm guessing the resons for this will be revealed at the Final TC. She was probably disrespected in a way that the editors decided merited the edit she's getting; kind of opposite to needing to explain Earl's 7-0 win. In thinking about things like Susie, whose edit is, as you say, a complete mystery, I think of the ancient story of Solon and Croesus. Croesus was a very vain Lydian King and laughed when Solon, a visitor, told him to never admire anyone before waiting to see how things turned out at the end. Then, when Croesus fell on more difficult times and was being burned at the stake by the Medes, Croesus remembered Solon's advice and burst out laughing. When the Medes found out what on earth he was laughing about, they were so impressed they spared his life. What does this all have to do with Edgic? Well, as OTH likes to say, wait till we see how the Final TC turns out. It's there that we'll all find out who's laughing and why - or not!
craig		#3436	[-]
Posts: 14370 (11/25/08 5:17 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	And I concur completely with flf about the intent. Randy's the bad guy, good riddance. Who cares what Probst thinks? Really. Who cares? That's the reality. Not the edited show. Probst liked Julie more than most fans. Didn't mean anything. Well, except for him, huh? Probst is a senior editor, so if he hates the winner or thinks they are boring, they may end up more N or more UTR than edgic expects. I don't think he was happy with Vee, Brian, Jenna beating Matt, or Danni beating Steph, so those results are harder to predict using edgic. And Chris was punished somewhat for booting Probst's girlfriend. My main premis is that the Editors hated Fang ep.1-6. One conclusion from that could be a Randy or Corinne comeback winner. I'm moving away from that. Another could be Fang finalists and a winner that the editors think unworthy. Maybe Crystal. I know, I know, if we just go with quantiftaive stiff like MOR differential Ken should win. He should be the orthodox edgic pic. Just like Rafe or Steph at the end of S11. But if he wins, he should be more of a hero. All that Fang negativity ep.1-6 was stupid storytelling. And Randy echoed Probst and the edit regarding Fang. Maybe the editors ultimately agree with the Kota jurors who hate the finalists.
TheLurkerSpeaks		#3437	[-]
Posts: 1421 (11/25/08 10:21 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	scepticA wrote: A marvelous TLS quote: I disagree that Sugar's edit was intended to show pettiness (even if it did come through). The whole episode was a big "feel good" boot. Was it overdone? In my opinion, yes, but that's a failure of editing, not a success. Why assume that the editors always intend the reaction you experience? Isn't that a bit presumptuous.. Interesting! Sugar's pettiness came through (like I said), and the boot was overdone (like I said). Nevertheless, it was supposed to be a feel good boot! But it wasn't. Sugar was petty, the boot overdone. There are either two possibilities: It really wasn't a total feel-good boot, or: The editors failed. They intended this to be a feel-good boot, but it didn't turn out that way. I guess the primary difference between TLS and myself is that I too saw Sugar as petty and the boot overdone, and (silly me!) assumed that's what the editors wanted to show - because (as TLS acknowledges) that's what was shown. I draw intent from the edit. Instead, TLS determined that these things were not correctly shown - the editors failed. His desire of a "feel good" boot was thus thwarted by poor editing. He draws intent from what should have been. And he calls the other POV presumptuous... If we begin to attribute our ratings based on a presumed failure of editing is, then edgic becomes speculation on what should have been seen rather than what was seen. To restate: Why assume that the editors always intend the reaction you experience? No, the logical question to you is: why assume that the editors didn't intend to show what was shown. Scep, You claim you want civility, and you respond with this condescending piece of garbage? No, a feel good boot was what the editors attempted to show, but they can only work with what actually occurred. The ugly reality shows through the edit if you look at all beyond face value. You claim that the ugliness was shown intentionally - I disagree. Your argument, which perhaps you are backing off from now in your most recent post, is that if you felt it, it must be what the editors intended. That's the point of view I called presumptuous, and it is. The only thing you've raised as an indication that we're meant to see Sugar badly is her extended laughing scenes at TC. That could be except that we see nearly everyone else laughing too, including the jury members. The edit doesn't condemn Sugar for her actions. People are surmising that Bob was uncomfortable. Perhaps he was, but his confessionals don't explore the dark side of the prank at all, which they would if that was the intent at TC (and such were available) and would have made an intriguing CP edit for him. You say I draw intent from what should have been, but that's false. I draw intent from what is shown in the editing, not the reality. The reality is what it is, and to some extent it has to be shown. The editing crafts that reality to present it in the manner desired. But to borrow the saying from the presidential campaign, "You can put lipstick on a pig, and it is still a pig." That's how this episode comes across to me - it isn't the result of any unrequited desire for a feel good boot. Your assumption above is false, and thus your conclusion is also false. My approach is not based upon what should have been, but on the juxtaposition of what actually occurred and how it was presented. You refuse to separate the two, leading to the confusion of what actually was shown.
round peg		#3438	[-]
Posts: 97 (11/25/08 10:26 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	craig you're a moron
unduli clone		#3439	[-]
Posts: 3350 (11/25/08 11:45 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Just watched the episode. It was EPIC. The TC was the most amazing thing ever made. As much as I love Sugar, she was N. I don't know if OTT was the right fit, though. Randy was not NN, at all. Crystal was NOT N. OMG. Edgic has serious Crystal hatred. Overall, good episode. Kenny seems a lock, but WTH was up with the recap going on about him being the obvious winner? Odd stuff.
astroline		#3440	[-]
Posts: 1660 (11/25/08 12:27 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	THANK YOU U.C. =) Seriously, all these N ratings for Crystal are so inaccurate. I have Crystal for 2 N's on my chart. The official chart has her with like 50,000 N's. And this episode was not one of them. Nobody ever really even says why the vote for Crystal as N, they just do it because they don't like her. It makes no sense at all. There's been a LOT of inaccurate ratings this season.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

S-17 Edgic (editing and logic) Gabon

Quick Reply