Kitty Pryde1 wrote:
Forgive me MDN, but I thought I'd try my hand at doing strategy ratings. There's no real guidelines for the differences between one and twos, but I just felt like adding my opinion.

image
That's alright, I don't mind. Unfortunately I really don't think I'm going to have the time to do strategy ratings on these first episodes anytime soon, like I said I really don't have enough freetime to rewatch the episodes before the next one will air.

Just a few things about what I think of the S# ratings though.

S0 = none, or at times very little (like maybe just standing around during a strategy talk and mumbling "oh I agree" once or twice. Later on into the season having a little bit of strategy that's easy to miss could also qualify for this)

S1 = Some strategy talk, like maybe a few small scenes, or a few big scenes that they played a more minor role in while others did more of the talking. Also maybe a confessional or two explaining their plan

S2 = The difference between this and an S1 is hard to say, with an S1 while you may sometimes forget that they had strategy airtime, especially casual viewers, casual viewers should almost certainly remember strategy talk from an S2 person, or at least that they were strategizing. I'd say it's kind of rare for someone to get an S2 and not at least a 3 visibility, especially early in the season. Very late in the game though you may be able to get away with a 2 visibility and S2, like in the finale. You could possibly earn an S2 for being in just one huge strategy scene with some confessionals about it, in which you dominate the strategy talk there. Usually though you need more then just one conversation with someone to get an S2 though. By 'scene' I mean counting different talks as different scenes, like someone speaks to three people. Then things jump to the same person talking to a completely different person about strategy.

When I did strategy ratings I often wrote up notes on every strategy scenes for each character, trying to do it roughly word for word (though I changed the wording around a little bit at times saying basically the same thing). Looking back at a few solid S2's from last season (no debate S1 or debate S3's that ended up as S2's) their strategy talk was like two paragraphs long. I eventually after a few seasons of doing strategy ratings got sick and tired of notes that specific at times (often at the halfway point of the season) and would just kind of get an idea watching the episode how much people had spoken, and keep track of it in the strategy chart, updating it after each scene (I wrote stuff like "S0/1" to keep a running tally of how much strategy talk they had so far).

S3 = This is usually reserved for HUGE off the charts players always talking game and getting like a 5 visibility in the episode, or at least a 4, otherwise they probably weren't visible enough to earn this rating. Looking at your chart I think GC very well could have earned an S3 in part 2, as he was all over the place, and even his leadership scenes reflected on what a poor game he was playing, though he could possibly be very on the borderline of an S2 as well.Michelle in part 1, while she was a 5, I'm not as sure about, honestly maybe part of why I'm saying this is because she didn't feel like a 5 visibility to me, and early in the season it's almost impossible to get an S3 without a 5 visibility. GC was like 20 sentences more visible in part 2 then Michelle in part 1 however. Your rating for Michelle though matters little as she's already been voted out, so don't worry about it.

---

I have gotten more loose with counting some not technically strategy talk things as strategy scenes, like I've counted people being really stupid around camp and pissing a lot of others off as strategy talk to have an excuse to give them a - (as you can't be S0-), Stacy is a good example of this, I don't think she said anything game related the episode she refused to tell Dre how to make the coffee (other then not recognizing from Alex why they have to be nice to Dre/Cassandra). I've done the same for those who have gotten S2-'s and S3-'s I think. While I'm sure such scenes that somewhat touch on strategy from what others say about it have/can happened, I don't recall ever boosting someone's S# rating over it for reasons that didn't mean they got a - (or a --).

Just a quick note on the visibilty numbers I associated with strategy numbers, there is no maximum visibility number you can be with any strategy rating. You could be a 5 visibility guy dominating the episode, yet never even hinted at thinking about the game (I know, in reality the editors would never do that, but in theory they could). You could even be an S1 with a 5 visibility.

As for your ratings on the chart, most of them seem reasonable to me without actually doing it, though a few of them make me wonder if they're rated too high. I cannot remmeber what Susie did in episode #1, what was her strategy talk, just standing around not saying anything during a strategy talk? If so I'd probably list that as an S0 that's a debatable S1, but I could be forgetting something else she did.

Ace, while he certainly got a decent sized scene about himself, is another one I'm not quite sure about. I would have guessed he was an S1-.

Also what did Crystal and Matty do to deserve their -'s? For the second episode does it have to do with them wrongly suspecting Dan of having the HII? I would have thought it was more Dan's fault then theirs for that happening from Dan acting suspicious when he got back and having a poor explanation. Maybe others would have a different opinion then me on that though for who looked dumber in that scene. What was Crystal's - in episode #1 for? I can't think of anything dumb she did there, other then picking Susie, I guess I could sort of understand that one, no one's ever flat out said before "that person's pick was dumb" at a pick em, so yeah I guess she does deserve a - for that now that I think about it.