An idea to improve Survivor so that weaklings dont comprise the finals

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
oh ehm gee		#161	[-]
Posts: 605 (05/06/08 10:44 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Just for clarification, is there a merge in this scenario? I couldn't quite catch it between the calling of people retards/lemurs/etc. when they bring about valid criticism. Also, your response basically reinforces my biggest issue which I know I posted here (you might not have caught it between the calling of people retards/lemurs/etc. when they bring about valid criticism): casting fucking sucks. Shitty twists can be made good with decent casts (Amazon, EI) and vice versa (Vanuatu). And why the fuck did you even post here? We clearly don't have any affiliation with the production of Survivor (Amanda as a favorite? Would not have happened, even though the Lividmanda thread is like, the best thread in Sucks proper). You could easily mail it to CBS/EPMB from that wonderful comment link on CBS or the forums there where they will be sure to listen more than they do here (BB8 is a perfect example of this, but I digress). Were you just looking for affirmation that you're some strategic god who will save Survivor. Because it looks like it's not yet happened. Good luck with that though* *not really
ArtieeLange1		#162	[-]
Posts: 43 (05/06/08 12:43 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	oh ehm gee wrote: (you might not have caught it between the calling of people retards/lemurs/etc. Going to make another example out of you, once again, someone who doesn't understand my system is the type who can read these 8 pages and claim that I am the who started the name-calling. LOL Back to the subject. Next.
oh ehm gee		#163	[-]
Posts: 610 (05/06/08 12:49 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange1 wrote: oh ehm gee wrote: (you might not have caught it between the calling of people retards/lemurs/etc. Going to make another example out of you, once again, someone who doesn't understand my system is the type who can read these 8 pages and claim that I am the who started the name-calling. LOL Back to the subject. Next. The irony of this, of course, is that by focusing on one thing you miss a valid question.* *and I never said anything in my post about who started the name calling. I just said that you did in fact call people retarded and lemurs. If that's not true, then call me Livid(manda). New questions, because in hindsight, "Is there a merge" might not be the best question because the tribes are constantly changing. Are the two groups living on separate beaches? Will there be a point where people compete for individual immunity? Is Exile/HII involved? Could all of these problems you bring up be solved with better casting? Could you kindly answer all of these questions? kthxgenuinelycurious EDIT: And could someone move this to LTS? Because it sticks out like a sore thumb between all the posts about Jeff Probst's nephew, soap, and Amandapwnage.
m0t0 maj1		#164	[-]
Posts: 398 (05/06/08 1:16 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Artiee if you ever get some form of compensation for submitting this stuff, can I have a commission? Yes, I'm also interested with the same questions as merge, etc. Can you please provide us with a scenario wherein your system is flawless? Like, make a fanfic, that'll be good. And, if this gets moved to LTS, then 2 of my most favorite threads will now be there, including reduced caffeine's thread requesting for the cauldron girls...
ArtieeLange1		#165	[-]
Posts: 44 (05/06/08 5:04 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	m0t0 maj1 wrote: Can you please provide us with a scenario wherein your system is flawless? The flaw is the team-advantage/disadvantage, my system always guarantees that flaw is removed. My system guarantees that every person voted off will have failed, twice, on their own. My system guarantees that every person not voted off will have earned their place, making every aspect of the show more competitive and therefore more entertaining. Those who don't understand the game say it will encourage challenge-throwing. They are wrong, for the reasons I already listed. But even if they arent, so what? That could be even MORE entertaining, a miserable group of losers in the loser-camp vs. the victorious challenge champions from the champ-camp. Eventually they will have to eat their own anyway, and thats if one of them doesn't flip (which always happens). It adds a whole new dimension to the game, and could add a new dimension to the challenge as well, since players could cooperate (if they align).
ArtieeLange1		#166	[-]
Posts: 45 (05/06/08 5:26 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	oh ehm gee wrote: Are the two groups living on separate beaches? Absolutely, and the winning group will get all the benefits that the losing camp lacks, like food, shelter, etc. The losing group will suffer, and it will be their own fault (no more team-blaming) which will be a nice incentive to strive a little harder at the challenge. oh ehm gee wrote: Will there be a point where people compete for individual immunity? I'm open to suggestions. I don't think they need to change the way the final 4 is handled. oh ehm gee wrote: Is Exile/HII involved? Sure, why not. oh ehm gee wrote: Could all of these problems you bring up be solved with better casting? Yeah no. oh ehm gee wrote: Could you kindly answer all of these questions? kthxgenuinelycurious Certainly, since you kindly asked (though it took nine pages for you to behave).
oh ehm gee		#167	[-]
Posts: 623 (05/06/08 7:36 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	And, if this gets moved to LTS, then 2 of my most favorite threads will now be there, including reduced caffeine's thread requesting for the cauldron girls... Agreed. In fact the whole point is for me to visit Sucks proper as little as possibly because...duh. Though Lividmanda will probably get to MI after the season ends, so it may be a while. Absolutely, and the winning group will get all the benefits that the losing camp lacks, like food, shelter, etc. The losing group will suffer, and it will be their own fault (no more team-blaming) which will be a nice incentive to strive a little harder at the challenge. Unfortunately I get the feeling the only way to do this would be like Fiji, and the less re-used from that season the better. Certainly, since you kindly asked (though it took nine pages for you to behave). I think you're being a little hyperbolic here. It couldn't have been more than 5 pages. And how would ties get resolved? I'm assuming none of that purple rock business. I think that by improving the casting and the challenge design, that there wouldn't be as many casting mistakes making it far (I shudder to use the term "weakling" because Courtney Y made it to second place (and a near win) without being strategic or strong in challenges and Courtney was the shit. Sandra won and was the same way.) and that there would be no need for this. Still, it is an interesting theory.
ArtieeLange1		#168	[-]
Posts: 46 (05/07/08 6:48 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	oh ehm gee wrote: I think that by improving the casting and the challenge design, that there wouldn't be as many casting mistakes making it far (I shudder to use the term "weakling" because Courtney Y made it to second place (and a near win) without being strategic or strong in challenges and Courtney was the shit. Sandra won and was the same way.) and that there would be no need for this. Courtney won a major challenge (barrel balance), which just confirms that they are varied. Improving the casting isn't the point, even if it were possible. There is another reality show, Ultimate Fighter, which unlike Survivor is on the way up in the ratings instead of down. The producer Dana White was so sick of punks quitting that instead of starting with 16, he started with 32, and made them fight (and win) just to earn their place on the show. The real flaw of Survivor is not about defining players who are weak and eliminating them, its the fact that these players are not tested, because they can hide behind teams. The show should reflect its title more; Survivor. The whole "losers are strong because they have numbers" is a concept that is over and done. oh ehm gee wrote: it is an interesting theory. Yeah. Another one that combines my system and the current one: my rules apply, half the players are winners who get immunity, but they ALSO get to vote. Either one is better than whats on now.
ArtieeLange1		#169	[-]
Posts: 47 (05/10/08 3:57 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dan Down Under wrote: you're talking about ranking individual performances in a team challenge. So pretty much the winning TEAM (i.e. the one that achieves the goal/crosses the finish line first) avoids tribal council. Wait, that sounds oddly familiar to the current concept Another example that proves those who lack the capacity to understand my system are those that disagree with it
ArtieeLange1		#170	[-]
Posts: 49 (05/11/08 4:18 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	m0t0 maj1 wrote: Artiee should provide examples, please simulate this theory for us. Examples? Have you ever watched Survivor? Every season is an example of the weakest losers in the finals. The "Alpha" of the top 5 is Erik (barely) and he never made a dent compared to the true competitors. It's a joke. And for those who keep bitching about a "loser-mob" voting off stronger players should they fall into the bottom half, if they actually had a functioning brain they could have easily theorized solutions: 1) Have the winning half vote. 2a ) Have the one player who just misses the top half be immune (like the winners) but go to tribal and to the loser camp (to suffer like the losers). 2b ) Have the one player who just misses getting on the winning team go to exile island and avoid everything. The result? Any alliance will be forced to vote off themselves, and therefore there will be no alliance. "Problem" (unlikely as it is [if it even is a problem at all]) solved.
m0t0 maj1		#171	[-]
Posts: 444 (05/11/08 6:00 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	...just like Big Brother.
ArtieeLange1		#172	[-]
Posts: 53 (05/11/08 10:07 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	GrenadeJumper85 wrote: Penalizing people because they suck at a challenge Is one-third of the game, tard. "Outplay". Thats the difference between Survivor and Big Brother and a dozen other "reality game shows". Do you watch the show? The challenges are well-rounded to test all aspects of the individual, from endurance to knowledge of other players, puzzles, etc. If you suck at challenges you must really suck at life. And if you suck a life, you bond with other losers, and you vote out winners, until theres nothing but losers in the finals. Kinda like what you're about to see tonight, on the season finale. Last Edited By: ArtieeLange1 05/11/08 10:10 AM. Edited 1 times.
GrenadeJumper85		#173	[-]
Posts: 4706 (05/11/08 12:48 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Outplay is not just "challenges specific". You are various ways to Outplay anyone in a game, not just physical tard. This game is not about winning challenges, if it was, we'd have boring seasons with dumbass Terry clones at the end. What makes Survivor so great is the fact that ANYONE can get far, that's what makes good a Survivor player, someone that doesn't NEED to win challenge, but never comes up as a boot option pre-merge or post merge. We've had plenty of strong players that have made it far because they were GOOD in challenges and GOOD strategic players. Your system is flawed because WEAK is such a subjective term. You can be weak physically but the best player mentally. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Kitty Pryde1		#174	[-]
Posts: 4058 (05/11/08 3:33 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange1 wrote: m0t0 maj1 wrote: Artiee should provide examples, please simulate this theory for us. Examples? Have you ever watched Survivor? Every season is an example of the weakest losers in the finals. The "Alpha" of the top 5 is Erik (barely) and he never made a dent compared to the true competitors. It's a joke. And for those who keep bitching about a "loser-mob" voting off stronger players should they fall into the bottom half, if they actually had a functioning brain they could have easily theorized solutions: 1) Have the winning half vote. 2a ) Have the one player who just misses the top half be immune (like the winners) but go to tribal and to the loser camp (to suffer like the losers). 2b ) Have the one player who just misses getting on the winning team go to exile island and avoid everything. The result? Any alliance will be forced to vote off themselves, and therefore there will be no alliance. "Problem" (unlikely as it is [if it even is a problem at all]) solved. 1. First, let's disregard the fact that your solution basically means that the players who tried their best and just didn't do as well because the challenge didn't suit their strengths have no chance of controlling their own fate. Second, do you think this solution would honestly eliminate someone like Chet from the game? Your format basically ensures that someone like Chet will DEFINITELY make the merge as the weakest player in the cast. By giving the power to the winning "team," you're basically giving them the free reign to vote out the strongest "loser" who, as I said, has no control over their fate because the teams are kept on seperate camps, thus making strategizing to save themselves harder and eliminating the "they fail twice" idea you've been pushing. The same thing will happen in ANY game should that sort of event occur. The winning team will ALWAYS vote out the strongest loser to keep themselves strong and the weaker losers will advance further in the game. I was in a game just like that recently. The winning team ended up voting out my team's strongest player and there was nothing we could do about it because they had complete control. As a result, their team went on to dominate us because we had absolutely no chance of beating them because they would vote out our strong. 2a & 2b. Then the second strongest loser would be voted out. With the format you've suggested, it makes more sense to vote out the players stronger than yourself so that you can ensure you have a better chance of making it further in the game. There's less strategizing and alliance formation, which means strong, all-around threats like Ozzy are even bigger targets because there's no logical reason to keep them around. At least with pre-determined tribes, you keep the strong in order to keep the tribe strong. You seriously don't understand your own concept. First, you say that by making the top challenge performers immune, that will weed out the weak. Fine. I can understand that logic at least. But then you say that the type of challenge would have to be switched up. So basically, if there were challenges that someone like Chet is good at, he'd win those challenges. The same logic applies to anyone, and if there's challenges that anyone can do well in compared to others, then there's really no "weak" players anymore, making the whole point of your idea moot, because the weak won't be voted out. Only the weak FOR THAT PARTICULAR CHALLENGE will be voted out. Second, you say that the people voted out will fail twice in order to be voted out, and those that stay will have earned it. Well again, I'll use Chet and Kathy as an example. They're both weak and their tribe went to tribal council twice (three times in the case of Chet) without them being voted out. Now granted, Kathy was immune at the first tribal council, but still, the fact remains that they survived those tribal councils. Now, it had absolutely nothing to do with them being strong, and in fact, they SHOULD have been voted out for being weak (as has happened in past seasons). And it had nothing to do with them doing a damn thing to secure themselves further in the game. Chet & Kathy were basically do-nothings, yet survived as long as they did because Joel and Tracy could use them as free votes. The same thing would happen in your system, which rewards the biggest failures in the cast: the people who suck at challenges and don't do a damn thing strategically. Now, you created this "brilliant" idea, so tell me: What logical reason would ANYONE have to vote out a weak and pathetic player like Chet over ANYONE else?
Dan Down Under		#175	[-]
Posts: 2401 (05/11/08 4:35 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange1 wrote: Do you watch the show? The challenges are well-rounded to test all aspects of the individual, from endurance to knowledge of other players, puzzles, etc. If you suck at challenges you must really suck at life. And if you suck a life, you bond with other losers, and you vote out winners, until theres nothing but losers in the finals. Exactly. You just pointed out the flaw in your system (for the umpteenth time). Fair enough, if you suck at a challenge, you bond with other losers who also sucked at the challenge. But what happens if a person who has played a very strong game up until this point doesn't do so well in this challenge? You can so easily turn to your fellow losers and logically say - "Oh look, here's another loser of that particular challenge who has played a strong game up until this point. They're too strong. Let's vote him/her out!" And pretty much by the time F6 rolls around, you have a season full of Chets.
NatalieCunialLulz		#176	[-]
Posts: 770 (05/11/08 4:37 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ugh you would think this thread would be pretty epic at this point, but it's actually not at all colorful and it never m.orphs. I AM OFFENDED. t.ears?
survivorisdabest		#177	[-]
Posts: 1929 (07/06/59 2:10 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I don't get how ANYONE could think this "solution" is smart. You are essentially putting all of the importance on challenge performance, so that when people are voting out they do it based on challenge performance (aka the challenge threat alpha males which you so desperately want to win).
ArtieeLange1		#178	[-]
Posts: 54 (05/11/08 10:39 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	GrenadeJumper85 wrote: You can be weak physically but the best player mentally. Again, the challenges are not only "physical". They involve puzzles, knowledge of other players, memory, etc. If you suck at challenges, you suck at everything, and the only way you can move forward in the game is if you hide behind team-loser-bonding (ie Chet, Kathy, loser-mob) which my system eliminates. GrenadeJumper85 wrote: What makes Survivor so great is the fact that ANYONE can get far, Including losers like Chet and Kathy who are used to vote off better players and then give up. Thats not what makes Survivor great, its what makes Survivor FAIL, boring, with lowered ratings every single season. Thanks for proving my point again, as if any more evidence is needed.
ArtieeLange1		#179	[-]
Posts: 55 (05/11/08 10:57 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Kitty Pryde1 wrote: let's disregard the fact that your solution basically means that the players who tried their best and just didn't do as well because the challenge didn't suit their strengths have no chance of controlling their own fate. I'll get to the rest of your post later, but I wanted to focus on this, and why your type of thinking fails. You basically just said that it is wrong to have an equal playing field where all players have an equal opportunity to succeed....because they might fail. LMAO! Pay attention: What the current game does is run a team-based competition at first, and then an individual competition. Since the team-players are AWARE of this, they will not focus on winning as a team. The weak will target the better players to vote off, because they are thinking of the merge and the individual challenge. If the game remained team-based throughout, they would keep their better players. If the game was always an individual based game, as my system illustrates, the better players would have the chance to save themselves. But having it both ways favors the mobbed up weaklings, and results in a final of weaklings, which you have in every single season, including this one. It has nothing to do with "outplay, outwit, outlast", it is simply "outluck, outnumber". For those who still don't get it, if you put 15 crippled fat chicks in Survivor, with one genius Olympic athlete, and under the current system, a crippled fat chick will win Survivor. Its a joke. Notice in nine pages the only person to have figured this out is Kitty Frog. Everyone else is just oblivious.
Kitty Pryde1		#180	[-]
Posts: 4072 (05/12/08 2:41 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Except that you're probably legally retarded. You do realize that the weak ARE the first ones voted off the majority of the time, right? Sure, sometimes the weak switch things up, but things generally work so that the weakest players go early and the strongest players are voted out just after the merge. Sonja and B.B. were first gone, but under your system, they've last a long time. Diane and Jessie were first gone, but again, under your system, they'd last a long time.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

An idea to improve Survivor so that weaklings dont comprise the finals

Quick Reply