Hatchism

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
Chiaroscuro		#41	[-]
Posts: 113 (06/09/09 5:08 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	panurge46 wrote: I'll say that, by its very definition, a twist is unfair. It's producers interfering into the game. It's as if, during a baseball game, the umpires suddenly decide that there will be 4 outs in the next inning or, in a football game, the referee says that the team that just scored a touchdown gets to keep the ball. Twists are TV stunts to keep the audience interested and the players on their toes. I'm not saying they should ban twists but I recognize that it can kill the game of a good player and help that of a poor one. Twists affect results and are thus unfair. That's a major reason why you can't say that the winner is always the best player. I think I might agree in season 3 but after 14 seasons of twists I think people should expect them by now and that it's a part of the game.
panurge46		#42	[-]
Posts: 1368 (06/09/09 6:01 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I agree with you about the tribe switch in general but there's always the manner. Take China's tribe switch for example or the double switch in Gabon. It gets ridiculous when you have to call a tribe NunuFang. Then there are all the other twists that Probst takes out of his ass... sorry, I meant out of a bottle, or a sealed envelop or whatever.
PrettyGoodYear1988		#43	[-]
Posts: 2500 (06/09/09 6:10 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	It all depends on the type of twist. I don't think a tribe switch is necessarily unfair. It shakes up the standings, but a good player can adapt. Now, a tribe switch that is then followed by a challenge, and is then followed by a silent boat ride to Tribal with no time to talk strategy, that's unfair. Michelle.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#44	[-]
Posts: 8628 (07/20/09 6:25 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Kirblar wrote: Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: I'm not talking about game theory, I'm talking about justifiable behavior. The actions needed to win have already been expoused in theorums, I am setting up the philosophy. The best player will not always win due because it is a game. There will be random elements. The random elements being the other players, the games, the tribes and any twists. That is the playing field and thus not random. You can not say that, for example, a winning Football team is not best because they had home field advantage.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#45	[-]
Posts: 8629 (07/20/09 6:29 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	panurge46 wrote: "According to my definition obtained from reason..." That is yet to be determined! "the entire point of Survivor is to win, which means the only justified way to act is in accordance with how one wins. Therefore, the game itself is completely separate from what we think of as reality. To be amoral is to recognize that acting with morals is not the proper way to play and interact in the game, and that every action you or anyone makes must only be to further your game." I see you have played too many on-line games. Guess what? Almost every player enters the game thinking that way. They won't make friends and will do anything to win that million for their family. Then, reality happens: You get cold and you need someone to keep you warm and build a shelter. You get hungry and you need someone to provide. That's the reality of Survivor and not the robotic, unemotional game you are imagining. "Acting in ones own self interest, and realizing that everyone is equally entitled to winning, will lead people to rationally believe that egoism is the only truly moral way to play the game. Therefore, voting someone out based on ethical principles, or a juror voting against someone for acting in their own interests, is not only mistaking Survivor for the actual world, but is actually acting immoral in Survivor. You are betraying the principles on which the game lie." The principles on which the game lie certainly include Sue Hatch's emotional, vindictive jury speech. It's called entertainment. You would eliminate that. Emotions are part of the game. You should adapt to it. This is all true, but irrational ways of playing the game. Would you say that murder is an inherent trait in human beings because certain people commit murder?
Survivor Boy		#46	[-]
Posts: 6775 (07/20/09 7:56 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Twists are unfair and that is why Cirie lost. Damn you Mark Burnett!!!!!
panurge46		#47	[-]
Posts: 1408 (07/20/09 8:02 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	"This is all true, but irrational ways of playing the game. Would you say that murder is an inherent trait in human beings because certain people commit murder?" What a non sequitur! I'm writing that emotions will always come into play because, guess what? Everyone has emotions. As far as I know, not everyone commits murder. Anyway, if we go by the saying that man is a wolf to man, then maybe we can say that murder is an inherent trait in certain people. What does that have to do with Survivor strategy? It's completely irrational to think that emotions would not come into play. Anyway, you say that you like character development. To develop a character, one has to show their emotions. Why are you even considering this robotic way of playing the game? (Funny that, with the thread called Hatchism, I wrote Sue Hatch instead of Sue Hawk. She'd kill me, proving my point about murder!!!!!)
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#48	[-]
Posts: 8632 (07/20/09 8:09 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	When did I say you can't have emotions? People in the game can laugh, joke around, have arguments and do everything they do, and they always will regardless of what frame of mind they are in. This thread is called "Hatchism", which has a double meaning. Not only is it how I view morality in the game, apparently it is how Hatch himself views the game. He was always going on about inter personal dynamics, and when you combine that with his pragmatic views on how to treat people in the game, you will more likely than not come to my conclusion. Everyone has an equal chance of winning, and there is no such thing as an inherently more deserving player.
SwineForkbeard		#49	[-]
Posts: 2286 (07/20/09 8:26 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Why did you wait almost two months to resuscitate this argument, that was pretty retarded to begin with? I agree more with panurge, in that part of what makes Survivor interesting to watch is that people are flawed and those flaws affect their actions in all sorts of unpredictable ways. If everybody thought and played the same way, every season would be the same, and probably not worth bothering with. For one thing, it would make the jurors boring to watch at the end, and those explosive emotional outbursts are what I look forward to the most.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#50	[-]
Posts: 8634 (07/20/09 8:33 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	SwineForkbeard wrote: Why did you wait almost two months to resuscitate this argument, that was pretty retarded to begin with? I agree more with panurge, in that part of what makes Survivor interesting to watch is that people are flawed and those flaws affect their actions in all sorts of unpredictable ways. If everybody thought and played the same way, every season would be the same, and probably not worth bothering with. For one thing, it would make the jurors boring to watch at the end, and those explosive emotional outbursts are what I look forward to the most. No reason. I'm bad with time management sometimes and can get lazy when I'm not preoccupied. It's a slow day today, and I thought I might as well post some rebuttals. This has nothing to do with peoples personalities, it's an attempt to reign in unwarrented ideas about the game. Of course you are going to say "People will vote however they want", but that's, well, bullshit. Using that argument, you can justify almost anything and we just go into infinite regress. Based on the rules of Survivor, and the fact that someone will always be voted out, there is no fair way to play the game other than selfishly. If we follow through on this, we see that the only justified way to play Survivor is as an ethical egoist.
SwineForkbeard		#51	[-]
Posts: 2287 (07/20/09 8:56 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: Of course you are going to say "People will vote however they want", but that's, well, bullshit. You can call it bullshit all you want when people don't do what you think they should, but it's as pointless as complaining about the weather. Unless you want them to cast 16 Richard Hatches and not have any variety at all, it's something you would have to anticipate and deal with. If you're the cold-blooded strategist you seem to hold up as the norm, you need to know how to deal with different types of people on their terms instead of expecting them to deal with you on your terms and crying about it if they don't. Based on the rules of Survivor, and the fact that someone will always be voted out, there is no fair way to play the game other than selfishly. If we follow through on this, we see that the only justified way to play Survivor is as an ethical egoist. Like panurge said, it's easy to look at it that way from your couch, but there are many factors that don't come across on TV. Being out in the wilderness with people is a galvanizing experience in which, if you're a normally adjusted human being, you tend to bond with those other people in ways you wouldn't in the outside world. This will lead some to take it personally when somebody betrays their trust. You can judge and reproach them all you want, but it's part of the game and many of the most dramatic and memorable moments have resulted from it, so I wouldn't want that to change.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#52	[-]
Posts: 8636 (07/20/09 9:09 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Survivor revolves around the idea that there can only be a Sole Survivor left at the end of the game. Therefore, each round, someone will always end up going home. When someone is playing the game irrationally or based on an ethical idea other than egoism, they are ruining the game for everyone, including themselves. When someone plays the game rationally, they have the opportunity to reign in threats to their winning, and inadvertently give other people the chance to have a chance at winning themselves if they are clever enough. It's like real life, even though it is also seperate. Concepts such as "appeasing the jury" and various ideas about "loyalty" or whatever are coercion and blackmail.
SwineForkbeard		#53	[-]
Posts: 2288 (07/20/09 9:32 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: When someone is playing the game irrationally or based on an ethical idea other than egoism, they are ruining the game for everyone, including themselves. Not to be too condescending, but do you at least understand that people have minds of their own? Whether the game is ruined for somebody is up to them, not you. If that ruins it for you, too bad. Concepts such as "appeasing the jury" and various ideas about "loyalty" or whatever are coercion and blackmail. It's also smart. A perfect example is Rudy in the first season. He kept his allies in line by threatening bodily harm if they ever betrayed him. And your hero, Hatch, had to adjust his strategy at the end to maneuver around Rudy's non-negotiable code of conduct. He knew he couldn't beat him, and also knew Rudy would hold it against him if he voted him out, so he had to let Kelly take the heat for it. If you demand loyalty from other people and make them think you'll be a vindictive juror, they will be more likely to fear the consequences of betraying you. So even if you're judgmental about that kind of thing and consider it wicked and evil, you should at least plan on faking it if you're the mastermind you think you are.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#54	[-]
Posts: 8637 (07/20/09 9:52 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Playing irrationally ruins the game for everyone. There are numerous examples. To name probably the most notorious instance, I have three chilling syllables: Twatwaffle. He is the total antithesis of how one should play Survivor, not only coercing people to fuck themselves over, but fucking himself over and fucking the objective best player over in the final 2. If he had found Amber the better player, his vote would be valid, but since it was based on maliciousness, it is not valid and thus an immoral vote. Threatening people with jury votes is a legitimate strategy, so long as the spite vote is considered a betrayal of a binding contract between two or more people and not based on any moral ideas outside of selfish pursuits. If people agree to see the game as appeasing the jury, it is perfectly fine and not a betrayal of egoist principles.
panurge46		#55	[-]
Posts: 1409 (07/20/09 10:08 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	"When did I say you can't have emotions? People in the game can laugh, joke around, have arguments and do everything they do..." Emotions aren't things that can be turned off by a switch. If you allow emotions in the group, it will influence its dynamics. Courtney couldn't help how she felt about Jean Robert and that could have cost her the game if Todd wanted JR in his alliance. Anyway, Swine's arguments are spot on and you still can't see it so I'm probably talking to a wall. "Not only is it how I view morality in the game, apparently it is how Hatch himself views the game. He was always going on about inter personal dynamics, and when you combine that with his pragmatic views on how to treat people in the game, you will more likely than not come to my conclusion... Based on the rules of Survivor, and the fact that someone will always be voted out, there is no fair way to play the game other than selfishly. If we follow through on this, we see that the only justified way to play Survivor is as an ethical egoist." Now you are being presumptuous. Hatch considered himself a very moral person. In addition to what Swine gave you as example, consider that Hatch revealed his homosexuality which could have ended his alliance with Rudy. He couldn't lie about that, he couldn't be so immoral to pretend to be anyone but himself. Also, Hatch's way of playing the game was by making alliances which, at its core, is the opposite of being an "ethical egoist" (whatever that beast looks like). A true "ethical egoist" would be first voted out more often than not. "When someone is playing the game irrationally or based on an ethical idea other than egoism, they are ruining the game for everyone, including themselves." Now, you sound more like John Carroll talking about Gabe than Hatch. There was a guy who knew how to play the game!!! You should change the title of the thread to "Carolling". Last Edited By: panurge46 07/20/09 10:13 PM. Edited 3 times.
SwineForkbeard		#56	[-]
Posts: 2289 (07/20/09 10:11 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: Playing irrationally ruins the game for everyone. There are numerous examples. To name probably the most notorious instance, I have three chilling syllables: Twatwaffle. He is the total antithesis of how one should play Survivor, not only coercing people to fuck themselves over, but fucking himself over and fucking the objective best player over in the final 2. I couldn't agree any less. Lex didn't fuck himself over intentionally, he thought voting out Jerri was the right move. He was playing precisely the way you think everybody should. Your point about his jury vote is also off base. To suggest that the person YOU deem to be the better player is somehow entitled to somebody's jury vote is the opposite of "objective." It's bias. If he had found Amber the better player, his vote would be valid, but since it was based on maliciousness, it is not valid and thus an immoral vote. Ok, Your Highness. I'm sure Morono appreciates that vote of confidence.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#57	[-]
Posts: 8638 (07/20/09 10:28 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	panurge46 wrote: "When did I say you can't have emotions? People in the game can laugh, joke around, have arguments and do everything they do..." Emotions aren't things that can be turned off by a switch. If you allow emotions in the group, it will influence its dynamics. Courtney couldn't help how she felt about Jean Robert and that could have cost her the game if Todd wanted JR in his alliance. Anyway, Swine's arguments are spot on and you still can't see it so I'm probably talking to a wall. "Not only is it how I view morality in the game, apparently it is how Hatch himself views the game. He was always going on about inter personal dynamics, and when you combine that with his pragmatic views on how to treat people in the game, you will more likely than not come to my conclusion... Based on the rules of Survivor, and the fact that someone will always be voted out, there is no fair way to play the game other than selfishly. If we follow through on this, we see that the only justified way to play Survivor is as an ethical egoist." Now you are being presumptuous. Hatch considered himself a very moral person. In addition to what Swine gave you as example, consider that Hatch revealed his homosexuality which could have ended his alliance with Rudy. He couldn't lie about that, he couldn't be so immoral to pretend to be anyone but himself. Also, Hatch's way of playing the game was by making alliances which, at its core, is the opposite of being an "ethical egoist" (whatever that beast looks like). A true "ethical egoist" would be first voted out more often than not. "When someone is playing the game irrationally or based on an ethical idea other than egoism, they are ruining the game for everyone, including themselves." Now, you sound more like John Carroll talking about Gabe than Hatch. There was a guy who knew how to play the game!!! You should change the title of the thread to "Carolling". Emotions and preferances are totally compatible with the idea of being an ethical egost, or a "Hatchist". Survivor's game play, for lack of a better term, revolves around relationships and expediancy. You vote people out based on how they will further your goal of winning the game. This in fact is not robotic, and requires the social graces and manuevering that you see on the show. To undermine your very own example, Richard did not reveal his homosexuality until he proved to everyone that he was a competent leader. If Rudy had remained hostile afterwards, which he did not, he would be an irrational player and thus undeserving of the win. Everyone in the game is an egoist, if they are in fact interested in winning the game. What seperates an ethical egoist from an incorrect or immoral egoist is the level of credit or slack you are willing to give the other players. Lex sees the game, for example, through rose colored glasses. He assumes that the only way to play the game is to build coercive relationships based on blackmail and a cult of personality. An ethical egoist would do the same thing theoretically, but would not believe it or base his votes on this ideological premise. Last Edited By: Dr Will Hatch two point oh 07/20/09 10:48 PM. Edited 1 times.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#58	[-]
Posts: 8639 (07/20/09 10:33 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	SwineForkbeard wrote: Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: Playing irrationally ruins the game for everyone. There are numerous examples. To name probably the most notorious instance, I have three chilling syllables: Twatwaffle. He is the total antithesis of how one should play Survivor, not only coercing people to fuck themselves over, but fucking himself over and fucking the objective best player over in the final 2. I couldn't agree any less. Lex didn't fuck himself over intentionally, he thought voting out Jerri was the right move. He was playing precisely the way you think everybody should. Your point about his jury vote is also off base. To suggest that the person YOU deem to be the better player is somehow entitled to somebody's jury vote is the opposite of "objective." It's bias. If he had found Amber the better player, his vote would be valid, but since it was based on maliciousness, it is not valid and thus an immoral vote. Ok, Your Highness. I'm sure Morono appreciates that vote of confidence. Lex had already fucked himself over by voting out Colby and Ethan. If he had wanted to make deals with Chapera, he would have had an easier time with the two men as sacrifical shows of good faith. I didn't say Rob was the best player. Amber was, by the virtue of her winning, was the best player of that season. I am saying that Lex voted immorally and irrationally based on the games premise. It would be like a chess player demanding his opponent to forfeit.
SwineForkbeard		#59	[-]
Posts: 2290 (07/20/09 11:05 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: He is the total antithesis of how one should play Survivor, not only coercing people to fuck themselves over, but fucking himself over and fucking the objective best player over in the final 2. I didn't say Rob was the best player. You make it too easy. I am saying that Lex voted immorally and irrationally based on the games premise. It would be like a chess player demanding his opponent to forfeit. Your criteria are not everybody's criteria. Until you're able to accept that, and let go of this inside-the-box, Survivor101, "everybody must play the way I think the game should be played, and anybody who doesn't is evil" narrowmindedness, you'll never be satisfied.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#60	[-]
Posts: 8640 (07/20/09 11:19 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Lex basically admitted that it was a spite vote. So we can only assume that he believed Rob to be the better player. If he had voted rationally, Rob would have won and had been the objective best player. If I'm wrong SFB, than doesn't that mean that everyone is wrong? Doesn't it mean that when anyone votes any way possible in Survivor, they are contradicting the principle of nihilism, which you are apparently propose? Everyone in the game is trying to win, and it's not narrowminded to apply judgement on peoples actions. In fact, it's impossible not to enact judgement on peoples actions in Survivor because the entire point of Survivor is to justify why you are the best player. It's like a lifeboat scenario. You have the option of either choosing not to participate in the ruthless game of survival and opt out, or you use logical judgement to determine that you have the right to survive over others.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Hatchism

Quick Reply