craig wrote:All of whom lost, so what's the issue?
The issue concerns "one INV episode with otherwise decent editing" and there hasn't been many of those in Survivor history.
Rafe is the best example, then Danielle (close call INV at merge), now Corinne. That's about it.
Aside from the one notable (and well explained) exception VERY early in the show's history, INV = death. It is by far the best guideline Edgic currently has because it effectively reduces winning chances to 0 with near 100% accuracy (hell, because we have an explanation for Tina, it may as well be). Until we have solid evidence that proves otherwise, as in a player gets an INV and WINS THE GAME (not just "looks good near the end") this should not be a debateable guideline. It may as well be a "law" of Edgic. If it is disproven, great. Until it actually happens, it should not be argued so that every single person with "just one" (or even two) of them is still viable.
In fact, I am curious: does Warrior keep records of all visibility charts ever done? What is the lowest "visibility factor" a player has had at any point and still won the game?

















