Yuku free message boards

Explanation for negative aspects doesn't make a player positive, it makes them CPN. Although the edit may make you respect a person's gameplay, that doesn't make N actions neutral. The fact that Parvati was neutral in the episodes that she was relatively ignored doesn't make up for the fact that she was negative in most of the episodes in which she was featured. (And considering she was only neutral in many of the episodes by voters using the same faulty logic you are using now, the fact that she had so few official N's isn't that impressive.)

Too much negative tone means OTTN tone, and that is generally bad. With OTTN, we're meant to dislike the player, and we aren't shown their reasoning so they come off even worse. With CPN, we're still meant to dislike or at least be wary of the player, but we see where they are coming from so we at least respect them. That doesn't mean we're supposed to like what they do. Yes, Parvati's "they're dead to me" is pure CPN when backed up with why they are dead to her. It is still "nasty" play, but we can respect her as a dangerous player. On the other hand, calling Jason a loser just before he nearly singlehandedly wins a challenge is pretty much just being nasty. The word "strategically" hints at the CP portion of the rating, but it doesn't really lessen the negativity of the comment.

Allegiance to her girls' alliance might have been shown as positive, but it really wasn't because the girls' alliance as a whole was shown to be rather negative. Natalie's comments set the tone, but none of the other girls (with the exception of Amanda) were shown to have any contrary feelings. (Most, including Parvati, said similar things though not quite as vicious.) Even Jason came off looking good in comparison (in terms of tone, not as a player). Competence should not be a factor in tone. Really good players sometimes say and do distasteful things in their pursuit of victory, and really bad players can still have editing that will draw fans to root for them (especially among those not as obsessed as we all are).

There is a difference in what you are discussing, but it is the difference between OTT and CP, not N and neutral.

You didn't hear it from me - I thought Cirie came off negatively there as well. That doesn't make Parvati less negative however.

None of your examples were examples where editing took place. The bravado was celebrated among fans and likely criticized among others. Babe Ruth was already an icon when the "called shot" took place, and there's still some dispute it actually occurred. In a sense, the story's appeal dates back to the tall tales of the prior century - Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill and such. The view of Muhammad Ali was actually much more controversial among his contemporaries than the view we generally have of him today. He benefited greatly from his relationship with Howard Cosell in that regard. As for Namath, the guarantee resonated because the Jets were such overwhelming underdogs, which is hardly a parallel to the situation existing in S16.

It doesn't really matter why the women may have done what they were doing. What matters is how it was portrayed, and how it was portrayed was the women revelling in their dominance and in their evilness. (Sure, you can say the latter was just Natalie except that it was not contradicted by any of the others. There was no effort to separate Natalie's comments from those of the whole alliance.) Again, neither Jason nor Erik were portrayed as deserving the women's scorn. Sure, they were portrayed as over their heads, but that means they were the underdogs. Erik's edit set us up to be amazed as his naivety, but also to feel bad for him that he fell for the women's trick.

Sure, nobody roots for the Washington Generals, but then the audience there is entirely different. They go to see the Globetrotters, not the Generals. The landscape is already tilted toward the Globetrotters. And they don't trash talk in any real sense - they are clowns, and the Generals are just the straight men they play off of. It isn't like the advertising builds up sympathy for the Washington Generals only for the Globetrotters to then humiliate them. That is what happened in S16, particularly with Erik. You can only justify the behavior as edited if you went into it on that unlevel playing field that the Globetrotters enjoy, namely you were rooting for the women before the show began.