Yuku free message boards

ArtieeLange wrote:

---

Kitty Pryde1 wrote:

---

three out of the four positive players (Spencer, Sydney, Taj)

Whooaaa, slow down Nelly!!!

Check the first post which is updated after every episode, Spencer and Sydney were carrying over a negative 10 from last week.

Only in my system rules do the players start anew with each challenge. Since the current system does not test penalize or reward players fairly, that is the whole point of these ranking points and this thread. The points shows where they rank, and what they deserve.

Most deserving to be safe: Brendan, Taj, Erin, Tyson, Steven, JT, Joe
Most deserving to be vulnerable: Sierra, Spencer, Sydney, Sandy, Candace, Jerry, Coach

Actually safe: Joe, JT, Sandy, Spencer (F), Steven, Syndey (F), Taj
Actually vulnerable: Candace, Brendan (F), Coach, Debbie, Erin (F), Jerry, Sierra, Tyson (F)

F means FAIL. or FLAW, or how the game FUCKs players.

Candace deserved to be voted off because was vulnerable, but Brendan, Erin, and Tyson didn't.
Spencer and Sydney did, but they were kept safe (AGAIN).

Kitty Pryde1 wrote:

---

Current System:
Weak Player On An Immune Tribe: Safe

And with my awesome new point system, I can determine who deserves to be vulnerable, and who got screwed by this lame artificially selected team system.

If you really want to judge Survivor based on your own system, then you have to clear the scores after each new week. This week, Spencer, Sydney, Taj & Tyson had +5, Candace, Coach, Jerry & Sierra had -5 (Erinn is potentially -5 as well, given that her team lost once, and the time her team won, she did nothing but be restrained by Sandy). No "weak" players were safe based on the challenge and only one "strong" player was unsafe.

ArtieeLange wrote:

---

Kitty Pryde1 wrote:

---

If you really want to judge Survivor based on your own system, then you have to clear the scores after each new week.

No you're confused, really confused. You are mixing up the rules and the rankings of two systems. The flaw of the current system is that the players are kept on an artificially selected team, so weak players can be kept safe, or strong players can go to tribal, as you stated. The only way to know who is kept safe, and therefore didn't get what they deserve, is for them to accumulate points on their performances. There is no reason to "clear the scores" since that would be letting the artificial teams determine everything, which is the flaw, which is the point, and which is why my system rules are superior because it ranks players properly because there are no teams to hide behind.

Even so, you gave Spencer and Sydney -10s right off the bat, rather than the -5s you gave to Erinn & Sierra, and the fact that you completely ignored the first part of the challenge. That's a subjective scoring system which puts more weight on one portion of the challenge than on others. If you had a set score for each portion of the challenge, then Sydney and Spencer's +5 from this week and -5 from last week would balance out and they would've proved themselves stronger and made up for a poor showing in the previous week.

Furthermore, since you're the one who's complaining about people being kept safe by artificial teams and saying that certain players being safe due to immunity is unfair, you're essentially using a point system that effectively plots YOUR system to map out the CURRENT system. Your system has everyone's scores wiped out on an episodic basis so it doesn't matter if you get +5 every week for 6 weeks, if you get a -5 on the seventh week, you deserve to be voted out. So if you want to judge the players on an individual basis, rather than on an artificial tribal basis, you would have to apply the same rules to both systems. Either the scores get wiped in each episode, and the performance in a single episode is enough to determine safety or unsafety, OR you keep the scores cumulative so that a player who does consistently poorly and has one good day is still considered weak (or vice versa).

You're setting up the current system to fail in comparison to your system no matter what, by using two different point systems. You can't compare two systems if you aren't even going to be grading them on the same scale. That would be like giving one one person a test with one hundred questions and another person a test with twenty questions. They both need to get all questions correct in order to get a perfect score, but at the same time, the person with only 20 questions can only miss ONE in order to get 96%, while the person with 100 questions can miss FOUR to get the same grade.

Either apply an episodic point system to the current system, like you would do with your own system, or apply a cumulative point system to your own system. Doing otherwise only means that you're going to bash the current system and praise your own system REGARDLESS of what the evidence suggests.

ArtieeLange wrote:

---

Because my system is based on those scores. In my system, the lower scores are automatically vulnerable, and automatically sent to loser-camp. So everyone is already ranked exactly where they belong. Spencer and Syndey were never vulnerable, despite deserving it. Twice. This their points accumulative to reflect their overall performance.

Kitty Pryde1 wrote:

---

you would have to apply the same rules to both systems.

Again, no, my system doesn't need cumulative scores because the lower half automatically get punished at loser-camp, and are automatically vulnerable. They are already punished so they (and their score) can start from zero. My system puts the players were they deserve to go. The current one doesn't, which is the exact reason they players need to ranked separately based on their performance.

How do Spencer & Sydney deserve to be vulnerable TWICE for bad performances in ONE challenge? Why should they deserve to be vulnerable for the most recent episode when they we two of the four players with the BEST performances? Using your own logic for your OWN system, YOU are punishing Sydney and Spencer for a single bad performance based on the fact that they are in a tribal system, rather than an individual system. Your logic is unfair to the current system and puts it in a position where it is impossible to be right, while your system is impossible to be wrong. If you want to judge the efforts of people under the current system in a cumulative way, that's fine. But you need to apply the same standards to your own system, because BOTH systems are judging people individually, and there's no difference between whether you're judging someone individually for their performance solo or on a tribe. You apply these rules to the CURRENT system because you no that cumulatively, it's easy to pile on a bunch of negative points to one player and take away from their successes, as you're currently doing. You don't apply these to YOUR system, because it would be far too easy to get into a position, after the first challenge, where someone with either a zero or a positive score gets voted out and proves the faults in your system.

If you want to be fair, then start everyone from scratch EVERY episode, so that the performance in EACH individual challenge is what matters. You can still bitch about the fact that Tyson was unsafe, but the reason you apply a different standard to the current system than to your own is because cumulative makes YOUR system look absolutely stupid, and singular means you're bitching about ONE person who wasn't even CLOSE to being voted out this week, which just makes YOU look stupider than you already do.