| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Kitty Pryde1 |
|||
|
Posts: 5942 (10/23/08 7:11 AM) |
Warrior wrote: And with sarcasm, Warrior proves my point nicely. |
||
|
9RedWing19 |
|||
|
Posts: 2253 (10/23/08 7:32 AM) Registered User |
If people are going to push for a CP for the Catfish based on SPV, then I reserve the right to change the rating for "my" elephant from OTT to CP.
|
||
|
TheLurkerSpeaks |
|||
|
Posts: 1340 (10/23/08 8:26 AM) |
fat little fingers wrote:FLF, Your impression is wrong. Look just a few of my posts above this observation of yours, and you'll see I specifically state that whether someone is likely to win has absolutely no bearing on whether they are CP. I objected to this standard when you raised it an episode ago to decide on OTT for Sugar, and I object again in this discussion. I can't speak for others, but I know my opinions on current ratings are not based at all upon Marcus being the likely winner. My analysis is, but my ratings are not. As I've been saying for awhile now, rate first, analyze afterwards. I don't know what you mean by "CP winner quotes". Winner quotes don't make a player CP. I discussed this with CL a few pages back, but ties with foreshadowing to the endgame may be complex editing, but it isn't CP editing if the personality inolved is not developed. |
||
|
TheLurkerSpeaks |
|||
|
Posts: 1341 (10/23/08 8:33 AM) |
unduli clone wrote: Are we supposed to be rooting for ratings? I prefer accurate ratings to ones that improve or worsen a particular player's Edgic profile. Crystal did not have an OTTN edit this episode, and comparing her edit to OTTN's of the past shows just how ridiculous this is. I get the strong feeling many voted that way because they personally do not like her and wanted to eliminate her from Edgic consideration. That kind of thinking distorts the Edgic process, and I don't see it as something to be cheered. I suspect many of you believe I do the same (or the reverse in this case). I don't. I'm not particularly fond of Crystal as she's been portrayed, and I've said from the beginning that she's more or less the Gary Hogeboom of the season so probably does not win. I've kept her as Edgically viable because she should be, but I don't believe she wins. |
||
|
Oowatanite |
|||
|
Posts: 6090 (10/23/08 9:19 AM) Registered User |
9RedWing19 wrote: Ah, but Amanda the elephant was very OTT when she blatantly knocked over that tree, showing off to the Fangs.
Last Edited By: Oowatanite
10/23/08 9:21 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Oowatanite |
|||
|
Posts: 6091 (10/23/08 9:34 AM) Registered User |
unduli clone wrote:Unduli !! 
flf's argument is that the Susie millisecond of SPV develops Marcus, not Susie. We must remember that this should never have been a close call in the first place. The close call was caused by a number of edgicers still refusing to use the INV rating.
Last Edited By: Oowatanite
10/23/08 9:38 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
fat little fingers |
|||
|
Posts: 5673 (10/23/08 11:13 AM) Registered User |
Geez, talk about Bitter Bettys. So shoot me, Susie had her behavior on the new
tribe described in a negative way and played a part in two major characters' stories. If you got a problem with my acknowledging that as not fitting our
guideline for INV, then change the guideline, don't shoot the messanger.
Oh, and Warrior, you may be onto something with the catfish's electric performance. I notice that it got enough screen time and attention that another poster asked you if you knew what kind of fish it was. Maybe not all that INV after all, hm? |
||
|
OnlyTheHunter |
|||
|
Posts: 1736 (10/23/08 11:23 AM) Edgician |
As the asker of said question ... :-)
Michael |
||
|
Cassidy666 |
|||
|
Posts: 9015 (10/23/08 12:46 PM) Registered User |
Electric catfish and elephant for F2! I can see a clear development for them, a story with legs to the endgame.
|
||
|
cindidindi76 |
|||
|
Posts: 12925 (10/23/08 12:49 PM) Registered User |
Countdown to Amanda the elephant plowing her way onto winners lists.....
I mean, we have gotten all those shots of her for no real reason. |
||
|
dennydoylelives |
|||
|
Posts: 2697 (10/23/08 1:11 PM) Registered User |
Cassidy666 wrote: The elephant, I can see, but the electric catfish is dead in the water, so to speak. |
||
|
unduli clone |
|||
|
Posts: 3154 (10/23/08 1:13 PM) Registered User |
TheLurkerSpeaks wrote:Oh, I actually really like Crystal. I think she has no current story, and that her original setup for a story of athleticism was just a mean irony that almost single-handedly eliminated her from contention. I don't care if she got a CPP this episode, an OTTN, or an INV. She would still remain on my eliminated list and on my characters-I-like list. Whether you look at how much I dis/like her or how much I want her to win/eliminate her, it has nothing to do with the OTTN I gave her. There are different "levels" of OTTN, just as there are different "levels" of UTR1, INV1, etc (close calls this season have illustrated that point). Crystal was not as clear-cut as some OTTN players we've seen this season, or even in this game, but I thought that she had all of the crafting and caricaturization that indicates an OTT edit, even if her one-note wasn't as strong as GC's, or Dan's, or whomever else. Oowatanite wrote:Hahaha. I have a record for agreeing with flf's ratings this season but completely disagreeing with his reasoning.
I don't even know what I think of Susie. I pegged her as UTR1 initially because I thought that SPV specific to her present and future role in Kota was enough to knock her out of INV1, but when I got to the website I couldn't help but put INV1 as my vote. Honestly, Susie really doesn't matter to me. She's eliminated it and pointless either way, and INV1 and UTR1 are becoming to be the same thing, almost. I used to be a major advocate of using INV1 as an easy terms of elimination, and I think it is useful to some degree, but the blur between it and UTR1 over the past seasons has been rather ridiculous.
This another reason that INV1 is causing more trouble than it's worth. I think it was initially a helpful tool, but with some rather bad editing over the course of the past few seasons where some people are almost completely ignored sometimes (including the winners), INV1 has just provided a source of vehement arguments with no real solution. Some people don't use it, which screws up the ratings when it comes to close calls, some people overuse it, and most people don't even eliminate people with one INV1 anyway. I guess it's an off-season discussion, but I think that Gabon has illustrated that INV1 is just a source of division in Edgic and really isn't all that useful. Can we get rid of it? PLEASE? |
||
|
Warrior |
|||
|
Posts: 2695 (10/23/08 1:17 PM) Registered User |
|
||
|
unduli clone |
|||
|
Posts: 3158 (10/23/08 1:30 PM) Registered User |
Oh, FYI, Marcus only reported on the catfish without elaboration. When he talked about Susie it was to develop her! Or him. Something like that. I'm really not quite sure. Electric catfish = INV1. |
||
|
dennydoylelives |
|||
|
Posts: 2699 (10/23/08 1:32 PM) Registered User |
Did the catfish yawn? That might boost it up to a UTR1.
|
||
|
Cassidy666 |
|||
|
Posts: 9019 (10/23/08 1:56 PM) Registered User |
I still maintain the electric catfish was UTR this week. Compare it to last week where it was inarguably INV.
|
||
|
TheLurkerSpeaks |
|||
|
Posts: 1342 (10/23/08 2:13 PM) |
unduli,
First, regarding Crystal, I can accept that you actually believe the editing was OTT. While I strongly disagree, I can accept that your vote was not just to weaken Crystal's Edgic profile (as if that would really matter whether she won or not). I do not think that holds true for many of those who voted OTT. I did think your post I referenced was a bit of unnecessary OTT cheerleading itself, but I'll forgive it based upon your apparent conversion to the "Let's dump the INV rating" club. By the way, since I don't actually vote on the other web site, the fact that I personally don't use INV doesn't impact anything except to the extent that I convince actual voters to share my opinion. I'm not going to apologize for that, however. |
||
|
Oowatanite |
|||
|
Posts: 6092 (10/23/08 2:34 PM) Registered User |
unduli clone wrote: NO !! The INV rating is NOT causing the problems. The stubborn refusal to use the INV rating can/is causing some problems. Similarily, we have had more close
call "fights" about CP vs. OTT, but the solution is not to get rid of the OTT rating.
P.S. Most posters DO eliminate players (correctly) after one INV, so INV is a very valuable addition to Edgic.
|
||
|
Francois40 |
|||
|
Posts: 2560 (10/23/08 2:45 PM) Registered user |
Countdown to Amanda the elephant plowing her way onto winners lists.....You joke, but I DID wonder WTF that long LONG scene--with no game in it at all--was shown. I don't recall that much footage EVER for something that was neither challenge nor TC nor someone leaving the game nor strategy talk. |
||
|
OnlyTheHunter |
|||
|
Posts: 1737 (10/23/08 2:50 PM) Edgician |
I can see your point, Oo, but the most vocal opponents of INV are not voting officially, so it's not as skewed as you'd think.
Michael |
||
