Yuku free message boards

SurvivorNinja wrote:

---

survivorisdabest wrote:

---

O_O @ the entire "the best player is the one who wins" argument

It's wrong because of the simple fact that LUCK is a factor in the outcome of a season and to say that the winner was the best player would suggest that they were somehow masterfully behind all the luck-based factors that contributed to their win. Someone who is a worse player can easily win a season, they just need the better players to have worse luck.

edit: lol @ LACK

You clearly need to propertly read all of that again. The argument is that "The winner played the best game"..NOT that they are "the best player". If two people play a game of chess, one is a chess master and the other is a total new, I think it's safe to say the chessmaster is a better player but if the newbie wins then he played a better game (whether it was totally lucky or not). The same goes for Survivor..I think most people can agree that Cirie is a much better strategic/social player than Aras. That being said Aras played the better game in Panama by actually winning the game. Cirie did something wrong that lost her the game...but again...this does not make Aras a better player (which will always be opinion and nothing more really).

By definition, you can not be a good player and not have good luck. If someone exhibits traits that are considered to be those of a good player but lost through bad luck, those traits are totally irrelevent. The entire point of Survivor, and the only proper way to measure a good player, is to determine who is most fit in particular circumstances. These circumstances included elements which sometimes are beyond a players control, and those who suffer from bad luck, regardless of whatever skillset they may have, were unfit to survive. The winner is the person who was most fit, and thus "survived" their physical/political environment the best and is thus the best player.

Therefore, it's logically impossible for a loser to be better than a winner.

SkyDreamer wrote:

---

Just because someone had a better luck doesn't make him a better player. Good players are the ones who controlled their destiny and were able to influence others to make moves for their benefit. Let's take Cirie for example. In Micronesia she was the swing vote. She made the best move for her which was siding with the showmances, and went from being 5 to controlling their vote. Cirie clearly initiated all the great blindsides who eliminated her competetion. In the end, Parvati won simply because of luck. I'm not saying she didn't have a game, but her winining was only due to Amanda's final vote and James' avacuation. That doesn't mean that Parvati was a better player.

How do you think Cirie came into that position? She was lucky to have appeared on a tribe with two opposing squads, and was also lucky that Jon had quit. Had he not, or had he been replaced by someone else, or if the tribe was configured in some other way than it was, Cirie would not have been as lucky. Furthermore, the idea that she controlled anything post merge doesn't exactly hold up to scrutiny. It's possible, but there is strong evidence against it.

Do you really think it's possible to win or do well without luck? It's impossible.

No, but you can't win with bad luck. You can only win with good luck, and to deny it is foolhardy. When we talk about luck, we sometimes confuse it with other skills and coping/survival processes that are automatic enough to be taken for granted. These are skills are usually very subtle and go unnoticed because they are so ingrained in a more fit speciman. Things like noticing someone's speech, posture, things like that, are very important.

Social skills in Survivor require the asessment of ones environment(Mostly analyzing everyone's psychology and motivations), which is a conscious survival mechanism opposed to the unconcious mechanisms I just mentioned as being taken for granted. One could argue that conscious survival skills make you more qualified as a player, but the ultimate goal in Survivor is to win. I think, therefore, that someone not necessarily as conscious of their decisions can be more fit and thus, more deserving, than someone totally conscious of their decisions.

So for example, you have Cirie who is totally conscious of her social game. However, Parvati was in the proverbial "right place at the right time", with a sufficiently well played game to place her in the final 2 and to recieve the juries votes. Therefore, she was more fit to win.

survivorisdabest wrote:

---

Well no Dr Will that whole argument doesn't work because the best player can be one who doesn't win. Just like how the fastest runner in a race can end up not winning if they have bad luck (eg. a rogue hippogriff mauls them mid race), the only difference is that in a race it is made sure that luck is minimised as a factor whereas in survivor all the contestants are vulnerable to any bad luck that might come their way.

You just assume that the best player must have certain qualities to win. That's a fallacy. The only requirement to be considered a good player is how close you were to actually winning. If a good player was determined by something else, like who is the best social player or who had objective control over the game, that would require a numerous amount of factors, and the viewing of actual unedited footage and serious studies. Logically, it doesn't make sense to say that because a player did x, y and z, they are a better player than someone who won.