You are right Ravu that ranking systems do focus on differnt things. I think the main difference between our systems is that I look at what happened in the winners game and take it one step at a time. I feel in some of your analysis that you argue they ended up winning so it was the right move. I don't believe in that at all.

Why?

I think your logic operates under and implicit assumption of what the "right" or optimal move is (like GT) and you count that anything short of that as a "mistake"--correct? However, given that Survivor is an ever shifting game dependent on various luck factors including twists, those kind of assumptions can be damaging and hence, we shouldn't knock winners for making their correct moves in that particular context even if it was lucky. You don't have to give them extra credit, but it doesn't make sense to call their move a "mistake" if it won them the game or advanced their position

While my system does not focus on luck as nearly as much as your's does it does analyse how players you were given luck or an oppurtunity played it out. Except for analysing Amber's game I don't look at how the other winners performed in All Stars.

Okay. I think that is indeed where we disagree. Thanks for addressing that evaluation difference

How they performed there is irrelevant because they did not win and didn't have a chance to win.

I find that illogical. We were able to gleam the extent and limits of their abilities from watching their gameplay in that season regardless of a victory or a loss. In terms of not having a chance to win, that is not what led to Tina and Hatch's lower ranking at all. In fact, against popular misconception Ethan's ranking was raised by All-Stars since he proved that he could do decently without riding the coattails of a male alliance

Finally, my system does take into factor the skill of the opposition faced by the winner. Winners like Hatch and Brian are lower in the rankings because the opposition did not make the correct moves on them and let them have complete control of the game.

You could say the same about Tina though

It's why his "analysis" isn't that at all. A poker player in a heads up match who calls an all-in bet on the first hand with 2/7 off is not a good player and did not make a good move. They made a bad move and got rewarded for it because they lucked out.

Exactly Kirblar that's a good metaphor to use for it.

Absolutely not. That is a horrible metaphor. I already explained why it was wrong in my thread, and he never responded to it, because he knows he's wrong. As I said before, in your analogy, the poker player who wins with the 2/7 made a "bad move" in terms of rational statistical calculations, but because he did manage his luck, you can't say he made the "wrong move". If it really was "bad" then I'll take a billion such "bad moves" that lead to victories any day over "good moves" which fail due to bad luck. "It's better lucky than good". No one is saying that poker player is a better player or smarter player than the others who lost that round, but you can't say he made a "bad move" in that particular instance

Who defines what a "bad move" is? Doesn't results show us when a person made a good move or bad move based on victory? You guys are basing your ideas of what constitutes "good move" and "mistake" on a similar type of criteria. You have constructed a set of informal Survivor laws and set of movements that tend to result in better odds based on the results of the early Survivor seasons. Where my issue with the system is that it has largely become invalidated by the results which demonstrate that the Survivor winners are definitely produced by certain luck factors (though you may not like that fact) and also optimal moves that aren't appreciated or recognized by GT enthusiasts

For example, let's take Sandra. You might say she is a bad winner, because she didn't take overt control and had to rely on Lill to bring her to F2. However, if she didn't make that "mistake" and did try to take overt control in that situation, I think it's fair to assume and speculate that she probably wouldn't have won. If she loses by doing that "optimal move" as proposed by GT, we're supposed to commend her for losing? We're supposed to knock her for making a move that led to her victory and call that "bad" because in other cases that aren't Pearl Islands, those would be the right move? That's completely illogical. Results or scientific facts (i.e. a victory instead of a loss) should be our compass, not this religious faith-based idea of what constitutes good gameplay on Survivor. You can't evaluate Sandra and Chris's performance based on Outback or Africa optimal strategy. You have to evaluate them based on Pearl Islands and Vanuatu strategy, and in those seasons, what they did was near-optimal, hence their victories.

Also, it doesn't make sense to lower Chris or Sandra's ranking, because they got lucky because ALL the winners were lucky. And Sandra and Chris were hardly the luckiest ones

That is why Chris and Sandra are much higher in his list then mine. They made mistakes that should have been game-ending which is why they don't belong anywere near the top of any winners rankings.

What were their "mistakes"? I can point to every winner who made potentially "game ending" mistakes including Tina who left the door open for a Kucha/Amber comeback after ousting Jerri before all the Kucha were marginalized. To apply Kirblar's criticism and POV, one could say Tina "lucked out" just like Sandra and Chris, and relied on the luck of having competitors not being as intense or cutthroat as the other seasons. She had no real competition to go against. No Fairplays, Rob Mariano, Dreamz--heck even Katie or Sundra's to go up against. If you're factoring in competitive level as you say you are, your ranking doesn't make sense to me, and I'd like you to explain how you incorporated this in your evaluation so I can see what you see

OMG.

Yes, because we're all the Scarlet Witch and have the ability to manipulate probability and have the ability to "manage luck".

I don't know if the guy in your example went all in because he was:

(1) a total idiot; which I guess would be what you meant
(2) taking a calculated risk, because he's sized up all the opponents at his table and felt it was the optimal play given those conditions despite the bad hand looking at things from a raw numbers POV
(3) bluffing

Apparently, even if he's the idiot, he's the idiot who won that hand, so he didn't make the "wrong" move. The optimal move for that particular scenario in retrospect is clearly what he did, assuming someone called him. Then, he won the maximum amount of money for that particular hand. You can't say that was a "bad move". You could say, "Normally, that'd be a bad move". You could say, "I regularly would not advise you do what this guy did". But you can't say, "You made a bad move winning that hand and eliminating the other player(s) while taking all his chips". To use your own words:

"You understand nothing"





Do we say the guy got lucky? Absolutely and obviously. So I'm not going, OMG, this guy made the winning move, I'm ranking him higher than other people who made less risky winning moves. I'm just not going, "I'm going to rank him low because he made a move that is usually a mistake in other contexts, and I feel like applying Outback standards on Vanuatu, because I have this idea that all the seasons are the same and there is 1 best way to play the game, even though the data clearly shows there are multiple way and methods of doing well in Survivor". So until you grasp this idea of inherent format luck and throw your simplistic10-year old ideas of what constitutes real and fair Survivor with supposedly equal opportunities STFU

It's the wrong move, a bad move, and terrible play. It's a heads up match, the first hand and they have equal chips. Just because he won does not justify the move. That's why I don't try and debate you, it's like debating a hardcore scientologist on whether Xenu exists. I simply point out that you're a moron with faulty logic and reasoning because there's no point in getting into a debate with someone who doesn't understand basic game principles like "Bad move with accidental good outcome still = bad move."

Too bad you don't argue with sound logic, because you're using a self-fulfilling or redundant logical sentence:

Bad move + Accidental good outcome = Bad move

You've already defined the move as bad from the start, so lo and behold 1 + 0 = 1

You're the fucking douche for not explaining how it's a "bad move". What constitutes a bad move? Results dumbass. Losing. Winning = good and losing = bad. I shouldn't have to explain this





What I'm saying is:

Bad move based on statistics + Good outcome based on luck = Good move based on luck and results/bad move based on statistics

So yes, we can say it's a "bad move" in the sense of not advising people to make that same type of move in any and all circumstances, but no we wouldn't say it's a bad move in that we'd advise that person to do that same move in the exact same circumstance they were in with the same good luck, because obviously, it ended up with a good result. In other words, it is BOTH a good move and a bad move at the same time (I know, that must boggle your little black-and-white ideas of how the world works), depending on what particular perspective you want to adopt. From a results perspective (which DEFINES what a winner is), then it makes sense to call those winning moves "good". Yeah, you can say the move was bad based on what normally you might do or based on whether Vanuatu or Pearl Islands were more like Outback or Africa. But that's a stupid analogy and the statistical cut and paste method which you so criticize. Why should we be evaluating Sandra and Chris based on the optimal strategy for previous seasons and making less relevant generalizations of what usually constitutes good gameplay when we should be evaluating them based on their specific context and what would best lead to a victory on their season based on that format and luck factors?

Unlike poker, there is no specific set of rules that help define good statistical strategy. Survivor seasons are all different, so there are less constants and more variables and luck, which is why I criticize GT, which largely operates under the implict assumption that each season of Survivor and each winner has played under the same exact conditions and non-social situations. I mean, if you have the Bible on what makes a "good move" or "bad move" in Survivor, by all means share. Until then, you're just talking smack and not contributing at all to any worthwhile discussion. You just take mean-spirited jabs and then take the whole, "I'm so right, I don't even have to argue with you" stance, which anyone can see through. Obviously you're just bitching, because I've never seen a kirblar win a Survivor nor have I even heard of him winning a simulation like an online Survivor game while I have. So excuse me if I doubt your credibility and grasp on Survivor strategy








And by the way, no winner on Survivor has made a move anywhere near as bad as your analogy, and that's why it sucks

Ravu: I don't want to derail this thread too much with theoretical mumbo-jumbo, since it seems unfair to the original poster, who put a lot of thought and energy into his post and deserves to have it discussed. But I appreciate your kind words and want to answer a few of your questions.

I don't think SS will mind. If he does, we can just move the discussion. If anything, our discussion is bumping this thread and giving it more exposure

Sorry, I must not have been clear. In general, you're absolutely right. In life and in real decisions, objective decision-making is definitely better than subjective. I was referring specifically to the discussion Survivor strategy, where I feel like subjective discussion is better suited to exploring the many variables and nuances of the game. Which does not mean that objectivity should be totally thrown out - in fact, I feel like discussion can be subjective and objective, as long as we try to distance ourselves from emotion and really try to examine strategy. It still obviously leaves room for differences in opinions and approaches, but that's what makes the game so fascinating and discussing it so fun.

Oh yeah, I have no problem using subjective POVs to discuss issues, but I just shy away from favoring them over something more objective and fact-based. Not always of course, but as a general guideline

No, but I think you put too much emphasis on the results as especially meaningful. No one is saying flat-out ignore the facts, just that there are much more important aspects of the process to discuss. And as I said in my previous post, there are facts beyond the results that even those who don't care about the results do (or should) consider when forming their opinions.

Of course. In my experience though, examining results actually leads to some more meaningful discussion and accuracy regarding the mentality of the players out there that we don't see. For instance, I had some theories regarding the thought-process behind some players like Sandra, Jenna, and Adam contrary to Sucks speculation but based on the results. I did not know for sure if I was right or not, but based on the results of their actions contrasting greatly from speculated ideas of their true intentions (most due to bad or incomplete editing), I decided those were avenues of thought to pursue. When Jenna and Adam posted in my thread, they confirmed that they indeed think of the topics that I thought they might've considered. Unless they're lying just to look better, which I don't think they were, it confirmed to me that you can sort of figure out some of the more subjective and ambiguous nuances of the game by examining the results much more effectively than wild guesses not based on anything substantial. With the Sandra taking Tijuana argument, I initially thought she did it on purpose, and ranked her #2. Later, after a bunch of haters tore her down and re-watching the season, it did seem she didn't really have strategic reasons for getting rid of her and perhaps followed Fairplay like a puppet, so I dropped her ranking. Then, I investigated for myself to figure out what happened:


http://www.realitynewsonline.com/cgi-bin/ae.pl?mode=1&article=article3924.art&page=1

RNO: Why did you vote off Tijuana after working so hard and so successfully to convince her that Burton and Jon had targeted her?

Sandra: Tijuana all of the sudden became too comfortable and outspoken once she had this so called tight alliance with Jon, Lill, Burton and Darrah. Once Burton's immunity was taken she decided to let him know he was getting voted off. Later in the day she told Christa that she knew she had hidden a lighter and that she had seconds to come up with it or she was actually the one going home. Then Jon swore on grandma that Christa and I were final four with himself and Burton. Tijuana didn't offer us anything but to stay in the game three more days, Jon's offer at the time was better. Tijuana also mentioned an alliance of Darrah, Lill, and herself before leaving the Morgan tribe forever, so we decided it was best to just separate them and hopefully have Darrah join us and Lill could stay with the guys and it would be even 3-3. Then convince Lill to do an all women alliance.

Here, Sandra demonstrates that she had a definite plan and strategy in mind, and things worked out exactly as she had anticipated. In other words, she figured out a creative solution to her problem that many didn't anticipate and proactively positioned herself to F3 with excellent well thought-out strategy, with the results supporting and proving both her abilities and the ambiguity of her assessment abilities out there. This is completely contrary to the perhaps popular and not-so-accurate idea of a Sandra with no long-term strategy in her head who just wants to survive each round with no regard to her long-term position in the game. Looking at the facts, you could've figured out that the misconception was just that, but most people don't go that far with their thought process. It's usually a lot easier to give people less credit and assume they are dumb. Most people are pretty complex and quite intelligent in my experience

That's just the only way that makes sense to me. I can't look at a strategic decision that I feel was a mistake but worked out and say that the move was "good." To me, in a strategic game, be it Survivor or poker or Risk, mistake=bad move. It can end up being an effective move, or a helpful move, but I can't see it as a "good" move (so this might just be an issue of semantics).

You seem like a mental guy. I'm sure you are able to compartmentalize facts into different categories in your mind and see things from multiple POVs. I mean, if you don't want to call it "good" out of planning principle, I understand that. But you CLEARLY understand how it CAN be seen as a "good move" given the "good result" based on a results perspective, and you know what I think, so I don't know why you would have a problem with the semantics. You know what I mean. I'm not making any broader generalizations about that particular move. I'm not saying, "Hey guys. Repeat that same move" in a different context. I'm not even necessarily calling it a "good move". I'm just saying, "Hey, it wasn't bad," because clearly, it was a "good" one from an isolated, contextual standpoint. "Good" as in, if you had to do it all over again with the exact same factors--you would

And when we're discussing a player as a strategist, why shouldn't we take credit away for strategic mistakes, even if they worked? To me, that's the very first thing I consider when comparing players as strategists.

That's why I said, my ranking evaluates "winningness" not "best strategist". That thread was not even about the best player necessarily. It was, who do I think would win over and over again. And winning in Survivor involves more than strategy. It involves a lot of luck and a variety of other skills and factors. For instance, someone like Terry would likely make it very far in the game over and over again, even though he wouldn't necessarily be the smartest player. He's smart enough, and his physical skills can take him the rest of the way. Tina, Cirie, Lydia, Sandra, etc. inherent strength is a combination of their physical stature and mental abilities. They are all smart enough to survive early rounds with strategy and intellect AND they fit a demographic that will often go all the way to the end if they make it past the pre-merge phase

There are many qualities that make a good Survivor BESIDES strategy and that's what I'm trying to make people aware of. One's demographic position wouldn't be considered a "skill" but it DEFINITELY impacts their winning probability and thus is 1 of many factors to be considered that doesn't necessarily fall under luck but not skill either. For the sake of simplicity, I explained how I slotted it under "skill" but it's not really "skill" in the sense of strategic or physical ability honed by that contestant over life experience or training

In terms of what you were saying, we can take credit away from a strategist who makes a "strategic mistake" but usually, it's countered or mitigated by some other factor that made the "mistake" work in their favor anyway. For instance, with Sandra, ASSUMING the T boot was a mistake (which personally I think is up for great debate and is far from a verified "mistake"), 1 thing we know as FACT was that the move worked out for her. And why did it work out for her? Because Sandra was well positioned at that point given her non-threat UTR status as a "weak female" who made the merge. So assuming, didn't specifically boot T knowing all that (which again, is not really supported at all) and as conscious strategy, we still wouldn't be able to knock her too significantly, because she'd "luck" out similarly in various other scenarios, assuming this "mistake" happened at the merge again. That is why I favor results over even "strategy". Strategy is a means to an end (results or winning). Strategy is not the end itself, despite what many people think and mistakenly believe. My winners ranking doesn't judged best strategy only, because that only gives us an incomplete picture. Strategy is only the Outwit part of Outwit, Outplay, and Outlast. All are very important and significant, although Outwit is often hailed as the best and respected the most by the fans

In short, if Survivor were like chess, it'd be 1 thing. It's not even like poker, because of its physical nature. It might resemble a sport more, since sports involve strategy as well. Sometimes, to me, it seems like you're saying Shaq isn't as good of a player as Van Exel, because he's not as much of a planner or strategist. Disclaimer: I know, it wasn't a perfect analogy. From my POV, it's like, "Okay yeah, but it doesn't matter. Shaq is better based on results and in this case, his physical ability or inherent demographic stature which makes him better in a game like basketball which favors height". In this case, Ethan is sort of like a Shaq. Not necessarily the best strategist, but quite frankly, he doesn't have to be. He's smart enough to go far each time as he proved in ASS over a better strategist like Tina. His inherent demographic makes him more suited to win this game more often, due to the nature and luck of the game

Yes, you are technically "right," but we're arguing parallel issues. This gets to the bottom of our differences: In a game like poker especially, when having these discussions, I don't care about any viewpoints other than what is correct strategically. When I say "good move" I am referring exclusively to the strategic value of that move. A million dollar hand is important to the winner/loser of the money, but I don't care about the emotional importance of a decision, or about the luck of that decision. When you say "if you're talking about best player or best strategist," I wonder, "what else could you be talking about?" Biggest winner? Most successful player in that one hand, or that one game? In those contexts, sure, okay, it was a "good" move to achieve that result. But those contexts are meaningless to me.

Yeah, that's what I've always said about my ranking. I'm ranking the most SUCCESSFUL player or the one who seems like the most likely to win Survivor over and over again in a variety of circumstances due to their skill set (which is not limited to JUST strategy which people tend to favor). That context (RESULTS) is more important to me than the gross weighting of strategy that people use in their evaluations to determine who the best players are in Survivor

I remember this from your original thread, and it's still one of the areas where I most strongly disagree with you. I understand your position of "perfection bias" and I agree to some extent, as what I said above shows (I think Rafe is a "better" player than Heidik, for example, even if he didn't play as "perfectly"), but I just can't comprehend the thinking that mistakes don't matter - or that we get too hung up on them.

I do NOT think Rafe is a better player than Heidik. Heidik's strength was Rafe's weakness--cold hard rationality, game focus, and the ability to make the tough decisions when it counts. Game focus is 1 of the biggest factors that all the winners have in common for the most part

When comparing players, I don't see what else could be the driving comparison: who made the most mistakes. If someone made mistakes but got lucky to win, I don't see how they can be seen as a "better" player than one who didn't. It doesn't necessarily make them a "worse" player, but with the short-term information we have, I feel like the player who made a lot of mistakes has to be ranked lower than the one who didn't.

Put another way, my 3 main issues with "perfection bias" is:

(1) The identifying of what constitutes a "mistake" and "perfection". A lot of times, a move is very ambiguous in nature based on contradictory "common sense" and a "result" that flies right in the face of it. So then, I ask that we re-examine the "common sense" and really see if that person make a "mistake" or not

(2) "Perfection" favors winners who had easier competition who never really challenged their position in the game or who had so much luck on their side that they had complete control the entire game with minimal hiccups. There is a tendency for people to give too much benefit-of-the-doubt to that person that they are a genius with manipulative magic powers that can completely make puppets out of all those people, when data like ASS flies right in the face of that kind of conclusion and idealization process

(3) "Perfection bias" is another way of saying "strategic bias" in a sense. Usually, "mistakes" are the result of some "strategic" mistake. But as I already noted, Survivor is not a glorified chess game. It involves a lot more Survivor winning factors than just strategy. So, those who made mistakes and usually did well, likely have some compensatory quality or skill that allowed them to survive, despite a mistake, which if anything, shows how powerful they truly are as a player to be able to make mistakes and get away with it. It might be physical skill like Terry, Ozzy, and even Heidik. Or it might be demographic like Sandra

Of course the best/most skilled player doesn't always win, and that random twists, etc. can influence the game quite a bit; I don't think I've seen anyone argue otherwise. I'm not sure I see your point with this, though. What does this have to do with analyzing a player's skill as a strategist, unless you are going to argue that luck is some sort of unquantifiable skill.

As Kirblar put it, I'm not saying people have the ability to affect probability fields in their favor with magic powers Scarlet Witch. However, by virtue of their demographic position and the luck of the game format, there are times when someone's inherent qualities gives them greater advantages than others, so it sort of is an unquantifiable skill. This goes beyond their ability as a strategist, and is a key luck factor, which is why you can't necessarily separate luck and skill. For instance, Tina was able to leverage her motherly powers, because of the specific conditions that were Outback. That season occurred right after "villain" Hatch won his game. People wanted a more opposite winner, and Tina fit that mold. She was female and she was sweet, and that likely factored into the final jury decision as well on some level. Now, I'm not saying that's why Tina won or was necessarily key to her victory. We don't know. But it's certainly a luck factor that needs to be examined and considered and would be relevant to the game. I can totally see how format luck like that could have increased her strategic options and malleability of her competitors. It can't just be separated from Tina's strategy either, since her planning was informed by the previous season Borneo, her life experience as a mother and sweet person, and the specific context she was dealing with out there in Outback. I mean, theoretically, we COULD separate luck and skill, but most times, it's not so easily distinguished and separated in practice due to the overlap

Luck up to the point of the decision-making affects strategy in that it influences the information that is processed by the player. But I don't consider the results caused by a strategic decision luck unless the results were not what was expected, in which case I don't consider them in examining the decision. This is how I think luck, if not eliminated, can be pushed aside to some extent when discussing strategy/skill: by analyzing a player's decision in the context of what happened up to that point, and by comparing a player's reason for making the move with the expected result.

You can push luck to the side for trying to separate it from planning and to a lesser extent strategy, but not from winning, which I think should be the main goal of all WINNER rankings. If you want a STRATEGY ranking, then that's different. You have to look at the proper attributes and evaluative markers when discussing these topics, and that's my main disagreement with a ranking like SS's as well as others, especially when the throw ASS out as relevant data

I think you are right in that results can be useful. The difference is that I use it as supplemental information, and you use it as primary information. For instance: Lex booting Kelly in Africa. There is no reason that that should not have ended his game in spectacular fashion. If not for other people fucking up - which he had nothing to do with - he would have been out next, and yet it didn't hurt his game at all. In that spot, I couldn't care less about what the actual result was, since his play was so obviously bad. (Maybe you agree with me on this, I don't know; but it's the biggest example I can think of where the expected and actual results are so different as to render the actual result meaningless in the discussion of strategic ability.)

Results would still be the primary information here. But in this case, we're using the well-known fact or result that Brandon did not want to work with Frank as our main guiding evaluation, NOT Lex survived over Kelly G. so he is better. I have always said context is important for informing results. I have constantly said that I am not just going with a 1-dimensional, "Results pwn all explanations" theory. Kirblar likes to say that I rank people based on: 1 > 2 > 3 > 4, and I actually have never stated such a thing at all. I DO think that people tend to disregard finishing placement and other such results as significant indicators of skill though. But yeah, context definitely matters most

Basically, I agree with you on this the Lex fiasco, but I still don't think that invalidates the use of "results" are our primary driver, because I've already stated multiple times that results are informed by context, and both need to be considered in tandem. When in doubt and dealing with ambiguity though, results are often better at giving us a more accurate picture of what possibly might've happened though

And example of where the result provides information that is useful would be Tina booting Jerri in Outback. At the time, I thought it was unecessarily risky; the result, however, along with subsequent interviews and commentaries, show me that Tina had such a firm grasp on every single person in the game that the actual expected outcome of her decision was different from what it seemed to be on television. I now think the decision to boot Jerri is one of the best plays Tina made. In this case, however, I don't think of it as "It worked, so it wasn't a mistake" - I think of it as "It wasn't a mistake, which is why it worked." It's totally different from the Lex example.

I agree with you on that distinction, and see--you use "results" too. I think you use it too selectively though, which indicates a bias

You articulated it well. Basically, while some of you (especially that asshat Kirblar) THINK I've been saying, "It worked, so it wasn't a mistake". I've really been saying, "It wasn't a mistake, which is why it worked"

However, just to be clear, both Lex and Tina's moves operated on certain assumptions, each of which involved "risk". In Tina's case, her "risk" and "assumption" was reasonable, but it was still a risk. Had she been playing with loose cannons, which you can't possibly predict with 100% certainty, it could've ended her game. Now, I wouldn't fault her for playing with those kind of irrational individuals who'd kill their own game, because that would be "bad luck". In Lex's case, he was helped by a "loose cannon". Basically, each and every person is not necessarily going to be a self-interested rational player, and there are times when you have no way of predicting who is going to be what type of player until it's too late. I don't fault players for making that assumption though--hoping that others will be rational and predicting their moves based on that. I think that is a reasonable management of risk. If there is no way of identifying a loose cannon or irrational player, then I do not knock someone who made the mistake of allying with that kind of player and having their game tanked in that way. However, to be clear, they did take a risk and to a very minor extent, you can blame their loss on their assumptions. This is why some people blame Yul for trusting Candice for instance, but he actually took an even smaller risk than Tina took in trusting someone like Liz who came from an entirely different tribe. So basically, those who knock Yul (or anyone for that matter) for a reasonable assumption need to apply that same kind of criticism to all players. And each and every player who has made an alliance and relied on someone else to any extent has taken similar types of risk, made certain types of assumptions, and trusted people to a limited but significant degree

It's possible, but in your original thread I did argue with you on Tina and Richard. Of course, so did everyone else, so I'm not sure how significant that is.

Oh sorry. Yeah, it's kinda like, "Join the club" lol . There was a lot of criticism in the earlier days, and everyone was an indistinguishable mass to me at the time, so sorry that I didn't remember you






BTW SS, just so you know, I still have problems seeing the rest of the thread, so please re-post it or something, so I can see it! Thanks. I only see a weird black line for the re-posts you did. I don't know if it's working for other people though