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

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
Olmec Donald		#2021	[-]
Posts: 77 (11/29/08 10:36 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	lemurwrench wrote: This would be obvious to the players, not only preventing it from forming in the first place, but it would encourage players to flip since the less players trying, the easier it is get into the top half. ZOMG!!! false assumptions! No, Artie's point is perfectly valid. It's called thinking ahead, or strategizing. Besides, If this is a false assumption, so is the theory that an alliance of the 9 strongest people will form and systematically tank in challenges, with no inner friction or power struggles for the first 27 days. No double standards here thanks. lemurwrench wrote: i am currently preparing undeniable proof that your system is in fact designed so that it is easier to be lucky, lemurowage coming soon to a 100+ page thread near you soon. I look forward to reading your arguments. Hopefully it's not as illogical and false as the junk you've been spewing until now. Keep up the good work Artie.
Olmec Donald		#2022	[-]
Posts: 78 (11/29/08 10:45 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	lemurwrench wrote: Olmec Donald wrote: None of the contestants you mentioned played shitty social and political games. And Colby didn't win. FAIL Fail bonus: You call Colby a smart player, and yet he made the second-dumbest move in history, per AnomyBC. you just proved his point, minus colby, all those STRONG contestants won because they had good social games aka, they didnt get voted out at the tribal stage even though they were strong like you said. dont know why he said colby won though, but thats beside the point, he still got final 2, as have EVEN MORE At worst, I misunderstood the context of token's statement. It doesn't matter though, because Artie's system is designed to help even more of these deserving contestants progress past the stage where many strong competitors are booted in favour of the worthless players. Note that most of these contestants won against those same worthless players.
lemurwrench		#2023	[-]
Posts: 322 (11/29/08 10:57 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	worthless is subjective
Olmec Donald		#2024	[-]
Posts: 79 (11/29/08 11:33 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	lemurwrench wrote: Olmec Donald wrote: lemurwrench wrote: my opinion on when people need social strategy IS when people need social strategy I'm sorry, Survivor God. I must have missed your coronation ceremony. lolz, key words : unless you prove me wrong. SOMEONE'S opinion has to be right. so if you dont agree with my opinion, offer me a better one, otherwise i have no choice but to assume that im right Very well. I'll play your game. lemurwrench wrote: a player is immune if they win the challenge, and thus are not vulnerable to be voted. therefore, it seems to me that they wouldnt need to have "social strategy" This is just foolish. Strategizing occurs even when people win challenges. They realise that they cannot remain immune for the whole game, and so they will strategize to save their ass at a later date. Not even Tom Westman has been immune the entire time he was out there. Everyone needs social strategy, and they will need it to a greater extent under Artie's system, where challenges are varied, making it more likely that potential immunity whores won't remain immune throughout. Your theory is simply not correct, and Artie is quite right to believe that it is irrelevant. lemurwrench wrote: Olmec Donald wrote: Fizzmix wrote: Let me further show your why your suggestion is trash. What if the first episode challenge was completed, and the 9 players of the winning tribe made an alliance. Why not have 5 to 8 of the alliance members tank the next challenge? Hell, what if they just sat out, or immediately gave up. That's the easiest way to get to the loser camp. Have the 3 alliance members most well suited to the challenge perform well. Well they don't even have to perform that well, they just have to beat out 3 members of the "loser tribe" that episode. The alliance tanks on purpose so that they have the advantage on the loser tribe for numbers. They always make sure that at least a majority of the loser tribe consists of their alliance. They vote off one of the people not in their alliance. They continue this strategy until the 9 of them have made the Final 9. That sounds fine in theory, but it is unlikely to work in practice. For a start, all the strong players are not necessarily going to align. They could see one another as threats. You want examples? JP got voted of in Cook Islands because Adam realised that he was a threat to his own power. Ditto for Joel and Mikey B in Micro. They also might just not get along on a personal level. Cirie refused to ally with Jonathan in Micro for both these reasons. they could, but its the easiest way to get to the final 10, and what are they threats in? challenges? big whoop at merge only one person wins immunity, and depending on how early you form the alliance, you could dispose of any one challenge god (which by the way would be very hard to predict who it is seeing as how the challenges are going to vary) when you have a good enough majority. and also, there will be multiple opportunities to start the alliance, as i explained to artiee. There are threats in all capacities, not just physical but strategical and social. Yes, people can be threats in challenges, as you have noted. However, since this alliance you are mooting is an alliance of the strong, there will be many threats after the merge. This lessens the chance of any alliance of the strong lasting for nine tribal councils. People will not want to deal with that many threats (in all capacities). The strong are required to constantly adapt to their situation, and if they have the capacity to think of an alliance of the strong making it as far as possible without splitting, they can think of backstabbing, switching alliances and blindsides. However, there will be significantly more strong players (in all capacities) than there are currently, and less weak players. I'm afraid your logic is flawed, lemurwrench. if they're smart, they will decide together. and it really doesnt matter what the challenge is, all they have to do is throw it, not that hard. and whats stopping them from deciding it before the challenge? if they can control the vote it doesnt matter how conspicuous they are. Yes, throwing a challenge is easy. Winning a challenge may be harder than you anticipate, however. They can work out who will succeed beforehand, but even the best-laid plans can go awry. They may get a totally different challenge than what they were expecting based on treemail, landing the entire strong alliance at tribal council, where they are forced to vote out one of their own. Even if they guess right as to what the challenge will be and whose strength the challenge will serve, shocks occur all the time. Let's say Gabon is run by Artie's plan, and Crystal is part of this alliance of the strong. The running up the hill challenge is discovered to be their first IC. Crystal's profession makes her an easy choice for one of the people who will succeed. And yet she gets stuffed because she doesn't run fast enough up hills. Throwing challenges tends to give people more than they bargained for. also lolz at what you are saying, you are basically admitting that people will vote out the strong because they are threats in artiee's system. isnt that what artiee's system is supposed to prevent? No, I'm not admitting that people will vote out the strong. I'm saying that all the strong people forming an inseperable, unbreakable alliance for 27 days that involves systematic tanking and no foresight for post-merge strategy is unlikely to occur, for the reasons I have previously given. Artie's system, however, is likely to have a greater number of strong competitors making the endgame than the current system. It is supposed to prevent weaklings from making the endgame by being dragged along by stronger contestants. There is less chance, not more, that the strong will be voted out early as threats. i tonly takes one non-alliance member to fail, that will happen alot more often then none of them failing, and they will still make merge with majority. Assuming this alliance will form and hold in the first place, which as I have demonstrated is unlikely. same thing applies in the current system. irrelevant!!!!!!!! You really don't get this, do you? Just because something occurs in the current system and will also occur in Artie's plan, does not render it irrelevant. I presume Artie has observed the current system, and worked out which parts of it he enjoys and which he doesn't. I can't speak for him, but I'd imagine that he has constructed this system to reflect the parts of Survivor he does like. I don't believe his plan is an idea for an entirely new show, it's just a plan to revitalize Survivor, and therefore it is allowed to include some features of the current system without it being irrelevant. Besides, I brought this point up as a response to Fizzmix. Granted, I believe (s)he is incorrect, but (s)he's making far more logical and persuasive arguments than you are. You appear to just be blindly going along with his theory that an alliance of the strong will form and hold for 27 days. um lolz at yul having the best diplomacy of any survivor If you want to dispute that, that's alright. I may have got this dead wrong, but I don't clearly remember all past seasons. Since you don't like my statement, would you care to offer an alternative? Last Edited By: Olmec Donald 11/29/08 11:38 PM. Edited 1 times.
ArtieeLange		#2025	[-]
Posts: 391 (11/30/08 12:22 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Olmec Donald wrote: Just because something occurs in the current system and will also occur in Artie's plan, does not render it irrelevant. I presume Artie has observed the current system, and worked out which parts of it he enjoys and which he doesn't. I can't speak for him, but I'd imagine that he has constructed this system to reflect the parts of Survivor he does like. I don't believe his plan is an idea for an entirely new show, it's just a plan to revitalize Survivor, and therefore it is allowed to include some features of the current system without it being irrelevant. Good work, Olmec D, it smells like burnt lemurs and kittys around here. What made lemurs and other lower life forms arguments irrelevant was that they also exist in the current system (challenge order, the need for social-strategy for immune players, etc). Drboboosh2 wrote: plus they could just not let the players see each others' progress during the challenges, that would make coordinating a big challenge throwing fest harder to do. Like the "Prisoner's Dilemma", excellent idea, another psychological twist the current game has been completely missing. Now we don't only have an overall better designed system, but additional twists for that system as well. You can start the game with my system, then a few challenges in, add this aspect of not allowing the players to see each others progress during the challenges, and then later during a certain challenge let all players vote, not just the losing camp. This, plus any immunity island / immunity idol, and you have a game where challenge throwing is no longer a valid likely strategy (but still, let em try if they want, it will end up like Lord of the Flies at the merge )
lemurwrench		#2026	[-]
Posts: 325 (11/30/08 12:41 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Olmec Donald wrote: lemurwrench wrote: a player is immune if they win the challenge, and thus are not vulnerable to be voted. therefore, it seems to me that they wouldnt need to have "social strategy" This is just foolish. Strategizing occurs even when people win challenges. They realise that they cannot remain immune for the whole game, and so they will strategize to save their ass at a later date. Not even Tom Westman has been immune the entire time he was out there. Everyone needs social strategy, and they will need it to a greater extent under Artie's system, where challenges are varied, making it more likely that potential immunity whores won't remain immune throughout. Your theory is simply not correct, and Artie is quite right to believe that it is irrelevant. okay, this whole thing involves alot of my questions with artiee that you missed. so il strat over with you. what makes a strong player strong? what makes a weak player weak? There are threats in all capacities, not just physical but strategical and social. Yes, people can be threats in challenges, as you have noted. However, since this alliance you are mooting is an alliance of the strong, there will be many threats after the merge. This lessens the chance of any alliance of the strong lasting for nine tribal councils. People will not want to deal with that many threats (in all capacities). The strong are required to constantly adapt to their situation, and if they have the capacity to think of an alliance of the strong making it as far as possible without splitting, they can think of backstabbing, switching alliances and blindsides. However, there will be significantly more strong players (in all capacities) than there are currently, and less weak players. I'm afraid your logic is flawed, lemurwrench. your forgetting that this "alliance of the strong" is an alliance of people who won a challenge. aka thats what makes them strong. so to say that this "alliance of the strong" will be full of threats in other capactities is illogical because theres no way to know that. its possible for sure. but these threats can be taken care of during the few times tribal council is made up solely of thier alliance also, physical threats get to be immune. other threats do not. thats the difference Yes, throwing a challenge is easy. Winning a challenge may be harder than you anticipate, however. They can work out who will succeed beforehand, but even the best-laid plans can go awry. They may get a totally different challenge than what they were expecting based on treemail, landing the entire strong alliance at tribal council, where they are forced to vote out one of their own. Even if they guess right as to what the challenge will be and whose strength the challenge will serve, shocks occur all the time. Let's say Gabon is run by Artie's plan, and Crystal is part of this alliance of the strong. The running up the hill challenge is discovered to be their first IC. Crystal's profession makes her an easy choice for one of the people who will succeed. And yet she gets stuffed because she doesn't run fast enough up hills. Throwing challenges tends to give people more than they bargained for. I refer back to my statement that it only takes one non alliance member to fail for them toi succeed. this will happen more often. and as for the unlikelyhood that it will form and hold, well i refer back to this statement (lolz) as well as the my previous statement No, I'm not admitting that people will vote out the strong. I'm saying that all the strong people forming an inseperable, unbreakable alliance for 27 days that involves systematic tanking and no foresight for post-merge strategy is unlikely to occur, for the reasons I have previously given. Artie's system, however, is likely to have a greater number of strong competitors making the endgame than the current system. It is supposed to prevent weaklings from making the endgame by being dragged along by stronger contestants. There is less chance, not more, that the strong will be voted out early as threats. in order to argue this statement, i need the awnsers to the questions i asked in my first response You really don't get this, do you? Just because something occurs in the current system and will also occur in Artie's plan, does not render it irrelevant. I presume Artie has observed the current system, and worked out which parts of it he enjoys and which he doesn't. I can't speak for him, but I'd imagine that he has constructed this system to reflect the parts of Survivor he does like. I don't believe his plan is an idea for an entirely new show, it's just a plan to revitalize Survivor, and therefore it is allowed to include some features of the current system without it being irrelevant. okay heres the deal artiee sais that he can get rid of a flaw in survivor. (weaklings getting far) we present the "alliance of the strong" argument to explain why the flaw would still remain artiee makes a claim as to why the possibility of the "alliance of the strong" would be neutralized what i am saying is that the same reason that could neutralize the "alliance of the strong" is also a reason that the flaw he claims to get rid of can be neutralized in the current system. this makes his reasoning irrelevant. Besides, I brought this point up as a response to Fizzmix. Granted, I believe (s)he is incorrect, but (s)he's making far more logical and persuasive arguments than you are. You appear to just be blindly going along with his theory that an alliance of the strong will form and hold for 27 days. no this is my main reason as to why i disagree with srtiee's system. it was suggested by a lot of people at the beginning of the thread but artiee ignored them. im jumping in because it was actually brought up again and artiee actually responded. believe me. these are my actual opinions. If you want to dispute that, that's alright. I may have got this dead wrong, but I don't clearly remember all past seasons. Since you don't like my statement, would you care to offer an alternative? well all im saying about that is there have been plenty of people with great diplomacy and yul didnt really show anything that great to be considered higher than anyone else. and like you said, he ahd the idol to help him
lemurwrench		#2027	[-]
Posts: 326 (11/30/08 12:46 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: Olmec Donald wrote: Just because something occurs in the current system and will also occur in Artie's plan, does not render it irrelevant. I presume Artie has observed the current system, and worked out which parts of it he enjoys and which he doesn't. I can't speak for him, but I'd imagine that he has constructed this system to reflect the parts of Survivor he does like. I don't believe his plan is an idea for an entirely new show, it's just a plan to revitalize Survivor, and therefore it is allowed to include some features of the current system without it being irrelevant. Good work, Olmec D, it smells like burnt lemurs and kittys around here. What made lemurs and other lower life forms arguments irrelevant was that they also exist in the current system (challenge order, the need for social-strategy for immune players, etc). Drboboosh2 wrote: plus they could just not let the players see each others' progress during the challenges, that would make coordinating a big challenge throwing fest harder to do. Like the "Prisoner's Dilemma", excellent idea, another psychological twist the current game has been completely missing. Now we don't only have an overall better designed system, but additional twists for that system as well. You can start the game with my system, then a few challenges in, add this aspect of not allowing the players to see each others progress during the challenges, and then later during a certain challenge let all players vote, not just the losing camp. This, plus any immunity island / immunity idol, and you have a game where challenge throwing is no longer a valid likely strategy (but still, let em try if they want, it will end up like Lord of the Flies at the merge ) so, wait, if our argument occur in both systems then that makes them irrelevant, but just because yours does that doesnt mean anything?? what. the. heck. yo. ?????????
Fizzmix		#2028	[-]
Posts: 192 (11/30/08 1:08 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Fizzmix wrote: Essentially, Survivor would never change the format to one that made throwing every challenge a viable strategy. Whether you think it would be implemented or not is irrelevant. It would be a flaw in the game design, it would be exploited in some capacity at least once, and it would ruin the show.
Olmec Donald		#2029	[-]
Posts: 80 (11/30/08 4:33 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Fizzmix wrote: Fizzmix wrote: Essentially, Survivor would never change the format to one that made throwing every challenge a viable strategy. Whether you think it would be implemented or not is irrelevant. It would be a flaw in the game design, it would be exploited in some capacity at least once, and it would ruin the show. Again, I'll say it, you're making a lot of assumptions here. Is there a possibility that this situation could occur? I guess so, but Artie can give you a better response, I'm sure. What's the possibility of it occuring? Very small. I'd say less than 10%.
Olmec Donald		#2030	[-]
Posts: 81 (11/30/08 4:37 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	lemurwrench wrote: okay, this whole thing involves alot of my questions with artiee that you missed. so il strat over with you. what makes a strong player strong? what makes a weak player weak? As I see it: A strong player is one who performs to a decent level in challenges (ability and effort), or makes the necessary strategic moves to stay around (by themselves, without being carried along), or is a good social player who manipulates and drives wedges between alliance members. Weak players do not perform to decent levels in challenges (ability and effort), do not make the necessary strategic moves to stay around (by themselves, without being carried along), and are not good social players who manipulate and drive wedges between alliance members.
ArtieeLange		#2031	[-]
Posts: 392 (11/30/08 7:17 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	lemurwrench wrote: if our argument occur in both systems then that makes them irrelevant Correct. Although the word you want is "arguments". If your arguments are about an aspect that occurs in both systems, then its obviously irrelevant as an argument against only my system. Why do these irrelevant generalized arguments keep cropping up? Because there are no valid arguments specifically against my system.
Kitty Pryde1		#2032	[-]
Posts: 6808 (11/30/08 7:45 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	From now on, I'm only going to debate this subject with Olmec because he actually has some idea of what the fuck he's talking about. Congrats Olmec, you've successfully taken over this topic for a failure. You're like Dick Cheney to Artiee's George W.
tdugan333		#2033	[-]
Posts: 8748 (11/30/08 7:50 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: tdugan333 wrote: Who in their right mind would keep strong people ... Under my system, current challenge winners won't end up on the losing tribe. Under my system, the challenges vary, so everyone eventually ends up on the losing tribe. Therefore, everyone has an equal level chance at social strategy, just like they have an equal level chance at challenges. Unlike the current system, which has artificial teams based on luck, and therefore artificial forced "alliances". What Artiee has never realized (other than the meaning of luck of course ssts) is that his "strong" people would all be voted out tout de suite under his version. Who in their right mind would keep strong people who ended up for whatever reason (bad luck maybe? double ssts) on the loser tribe? What idiot other than Artiee would actually vote to keep someone around stronger than they are who might beat them in the next challenge forever keeping them from the winning tribe?
tdugan333		#2034	[-]
Posts: 8749 (11/30/08 8:08 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	OK I've got one for my beloved. How do you factor in sabotage? Me and Artiee sittin' in a tree....
lemurwrench		#2035	[-]
Posts: 329 (11/30/08 8:39 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ArtieeLange wrote: lemurwrench wrote: if our argument occur in both systems then that makes them irrelevant Correct. Although the word you want is "arguments". If your arguments are about an aspect that occurs in both systems, then its obviously irrelevant as an argument against only my system. Why do these irrelevant generalized arguments keep cropping up? Because there are no valid arguments specifically against my system. yes, but you ignored the rest of that question why is it not irrelevant if your arguments occur in both systems dont get me wrong i agree with what you said in this post of yours, but this is just a double standard and for the record the "irrelevant" arguments i am arguing are proving that they in fact arent in both systems, but thats beside the point. oh and artiee dont even think you can insult my grammar. im very familliar with how to pluralize a word. thats what you get when you're lazy and dont pay attention to what you type.
lemurwrench		#2036	[-]
Posts: 330 (11/30/08 8:40 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Olmec Donald wrote: lemurwrench wrote: okay, this whole thing involves alot of my questions with artiee that you missed. so il strat over with you. what makes a strong player strong? what makes a weak player weak? As I see it: A strong player is one who performs to a decent level in challenges (ability and effort), or makes the necessary strategic moves to stay around (by themselves, without being carried along), or is a good social player who manipulates and drives wedges between alliance members. Weak players do not perform to decent levels in challenges (ability and effort), do not make the necessary strategic moves to stay around (by themselves, without being carried along), and are not good social players who manipulate and drive wedges between alliance members. thank you, now, why will these strong players not be voted out because they are threats?
ArtieeLange		#2037	[-]
Posts: 393 (11/30/08 8:54 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	lemurwrench wrote: your arguments occur in both systems Incorrect . My system fixes the flaws of the current system. My system removes the luck-based team-selection and the artificial advantages and disadvantages that result from it. My system adds the ability and requirement of every player to earn what they achieve, or suffer when they fail. My system is better precisely because it differs from the current system, regardless of any possible outcome. In fact, the only thing these 2000+ posts have done is further my system, thanks to those ingenious posters who have added elements and twists to it. Those against my system have failed for over 100 pages, except in being a source of amusement for the rest of us.
ArtieeLange		#2038	[-]
Posts: 394 (11/30/08 9:00 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	tdugan333 wrote: Who in their right mind would keep strong people who ended up for whatever reason (bad luck maybe? double ssts) on the loser tribe? Are you senile? Since the challenges vary, there generally won't be "strong" or "weak". But I can easily give an example to counter your mindless query. I have made friends with my fellow winners, on the winning camp. The next challenge I lose, as do a few of my friends. We vote your sorry old loser ass out. Next.
PeachessandCreeams		#2039	[-]
Posts: 9693 (11/30/08 9:17 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	This is still going on... .
tdugan333		#2040	[-]
Posts: 8761 (11/30/08 9:25 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	tdugan333 wrote: OK I've got one for my beloved. How do you factor in sabotage? Me and Artiee sittin' in a tree....

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

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

Quick Reply