Yuku free message boards

Category Watchdogs

Overseer: Phoenix1269
Rating watchdogs:  RedCoffee, BlakeB717
Tone watchdogs: Kaiasian, Lexxan
Visibility watchdogs: Warrior, CTOAN




The Structure...
to facilitate comparing apples to apples each RATING was restructured in the same way, as follows:

Definition of how that edit would appear in an EPISODE.


Definition of terms:



RATINGS

INV - Invisible

Definition: A character, within the episode, that is edited to be irrelevant or insignificant to any of the stories. In terms of story... they don't have one.

The character...

1.     had no confessionals or tribal council questions.
2.     was ignored, lacking even in screen/face time; receives NO SPECIAL FOCUS during group exchanges such as intros, pick-ems and challenges
3.     was portrayed as irrelevant to the episode or story and/or is lacking in any character development.
4.     received NO SPV that refer exclusively to them (usually meaning by name). SPV's about a character's alliance or tribe don't count.
5.     there is no complexity, no development

Note: 
- The character's visibility is functionally 0.
- A character who gets a confessional, recap focus, story development, or tribal council question is never INV.
- The character's accumulated VF, if there is any, comes from mostly background noise, group discussion, etc.
-  INV is used to convey an extreme sense of absence in the episode

---

UTR - Under the Radar (Under Developed, Low-level Complexity)

Definition: A character, within the episode, that is edited to be either under-utilized or deliberately hidden (the trick is figuring out which). In story terms, they may have a role in the story but are being kept out of focus.

The character...

1. receives little or no significant game relevant development. Zero to a few confessionals or TCQs.
2. may have received significant screen time, but personal character development is of low quality and not particularly extreme. Isn't seen doing or saying anything special or of major significance; may receive UNUSUAL or extensive focus during group exchanges like pick'ems, intros, or (possibly) challenges (ie. where verbal exchanges are subtitled; actions are "replayed" for the audience; or the scene is overly-emphasized by Probst)
3. may have had some sort of "role" or part in the episode, but will generally be void of direct conflicts and/or character insight.
4. may have received SPV from another player(s).
5. narrates the game (i.e., tells the audience about basic goings-on in the tribe). Narration is uncomplex and can be talking about camp life, things others are doing, upcoming game events like challenges, or even talking about the very basic plans of a larger group they are a part of (e.g., "our tribe wants to focus on beating the other one in challenges" or "our alliance wants to eliminate the people in the minority").
6. does not answer any questions of why or how (and rarely any of the other Ws for that matter). ie. Jim: I think Frank is in an alliance.   
   

Note:
- UTR characters may get nothing to make them stand out as a person or may get little bits of who they are. However, it will not be the primary focus of their footage (see OTT).

- Because most low visibility characters fail to accumulate significant game or personal character development in their brief time onscreen, many of them are UTR. However, assignment of the UTR rating itself should have nothing to do with visibility. A low visibility character may qualify for MOR, OTT, or even CP at times when their brief content is particularly dense. A high visibility character may still lack any significant personal development or game-related insight.

- Game-relevant events that relate to this character, but are not spoken about by this character, do not increase their level of personal development (e.g., if Joe says "My alliance consists of Jimmy, Jack, and Jill," Jimmy, Jack, and Jill are not considered to develop significantly unless they get to comment on the development in some way themselves).

- When the episode ends, the character's overall development is virtually unchanged. We learned little to nothing about their game play from them.

--

MOR - Middle of the Road (Mid-level Complexity)

Definition: A character, within the episode, that says and does more than a UTR edit, but is lacking in character development (ie. we still don't know anything about them or what makes them tick). MOR edits are not oversimplified into OTT nor are they well-rounded into CP. In terms of story, these characters tend towards being a supporting character. This edit may contain "very strategic" moments, but without the emotional and intellectual insights necessary for a complex edit.

The character...

1. receives moderate levels of game relevant development. Few to several confessionals and/or TCQs. They may speak about the game, alliances, plans, etc., but the statements appear incomplete or shallow. We are given a sense of where the character's mind is, but many elaborative questions are left unanswered.
2. received low to significant screen time and may have done something notable, but overall, there was a lack in quality and depth. May receive any type of personal character development — from no personal development to very high personal development.
3. will likely have had some sort of "role" or part in the episode, but it was as a secondary or supporting role. May have received UNUSUAL FOCUS during group encounters, BUT this focus was likely linked to someone else and was used as a tool to shine light elsewhere.
4. may or may not have received SPV from another player(s).
5. mid-level of complexity, CP-lite, When a character receives enough complexity that UTR seems inappropriate, but not enough complexity to warrant a full-blown CP.
6. tells us his/her needs, wants, strategies but fails to tell us the whys and hows. (ie. Jim: I want to be in an alliance with Frank.)

Note:

Winners are often portrayed as MOR at some point in the story due to the necessity of cooling down, story-wise. However, a consistently MOR edit is not always good thing either, because these characters more often than not, end up being kind of "blah" and "just kind of there". It's important with heavily MOR players to ensure that a closer look is taken with regard to their content - are they consistent? are they carving out some sort of story? etc.

Pure narrators are no longer MOR as of Survivor 24. A character with all narration and no complexity is UTR. A character with some narration and some complexity is MOR.

--

CP - Complex Personality (High-level Complexity)

Definition: A character, within the episode, that emerges as a "personality" that is well-rounded and well-developed (intellectually, emotionally, personally and strategic/game-wise). The editing has depth, we see their strengths and weaknesses, and their choices are presented to the audience so that we get an insight into their thinking. In terms of story, these characters usually end up being major players in the story (game) and their choices end up shaping the overall, long-term story.

The character...

1. receives a high amount of game relevant complexity. Few-to-several QUALITY confessionals and/or TC questions and/or camp discussions. Their thoughts, motivations, and plans are laid out in detail. The viewer knows exactly what a character intends to do and why.    
2. received moderate to significant QUALITY screen/face time, does something notable or important, and was given the opportunity to talk about it.  Receives any amount of personal development from very low to very high. (Strategy, game, and complex emotions like remorse, loneliness, guilt, etc or an internal conflict over a situation are shared with the audience. Their thinking process and how these feelings/thoughts/events are affecting them and their game are expressed intelligently and maturely).
3. had a fairly significant "role" or part in the episode, and that role is part of the driving force of the story. The story for the episode "revolved" around this character, at least partially.
4. may have received SPV from another player(s).
5. Highly complex, may have moments of OTT (or even UTR) within a single episode since being well-rounded and complex would, by definition, include being obtuse, one-note or single-minded. 
6. answers the questions Why and How. (Jim: I want to be in an alliance with Frank because Frank is stronger than me and will take some of the attention from me come the merge)

Note:

Winners are usually portrayed as CP at several points in the overall story since the story needs to be about them. However, this may not be the case in the early episodes if the winner starts out with a purposeful strategy of UTR. CPs after the merge are common / expected for the winner.

Strategy alone does not equal CP; there needs to be something to back up the strategy.

Some CP characters are all about the game. Some CP characters also have a personal side. Some CP characters even have extreme personalities

CP footage typically (but not always) is delivered in confessional form. Thus, many CP characters are also high visibility. As is the case with other ratings, visibility should not influence the decision about whether or not to give a CP rating. Many characters need a ton of footage to give very elaborative thoughts but rarely a character will say something incredibly detailed and complex in a short window of time.

CP is generally the most “dominant” rating available. If a character meets criteria for CP, whether they meet criteria for another type of rating is largely irrelevant – CP is typically the correct score to assign.

CP refers to a well-developed character that plays a large role in the game structure. We see the game through the eyes of CP individuals and are often asked to take their perspective on situations. Though these characters are often big “strategists,” anyone who offers significant and detailed thoughts on the game and how they approach it may receive this rating.

--

OTT - Over the Top

Definition: A character, within the episode, that is over-simplified or presented as a one-dimensional, one-note caricature. In terms of story, these characters are usually used to create drama and to distract us from the winner. They are the ones we love to love (the hero, the sweetheart) or the ones we love to hate (the villain, the buffoon, the arrogant jerk, the right-royal-beyotch).

The character...

1. receives a very low amount of game-relevant footage, if any at all. Had a few-to-several confessionals and/or TC questions; confessionals and other discussions were generally one-sided, emotional and repetitive, without depth of thought or rationality expressed, lacked in strategy or strategy not expressed with much internal conflict (but probably had lots and lots of conflict with other people);  OTT characters rarely, if ever, explain their motivations in the context of the game.
2. received moderate to significant screen time; receives an extreme amount of personal character development. Their personality is highlighted strongly and is the central focus of their footage. Often they are a “caricature” of a real person. Confessionals were used to "paint" the character into a certain type of cartoon-like role (like the evil villain twirling their moustache, etc) or other extreme behaviour such as no remorse for hurtful actions, focusing only on loyalty or saving one's own skin, an absence of "evil" strategizing when there should be, etc.
3. had a moderate to significant "role" or part in the episode. OTT characters are entertaining and are often the "scene-stealer" or the "drama-maker" for the episode. The story for the episode "revolved" around this character, at least partially.
4. most likely received SPV from other players; SPV was used to reinforce the OTTness and the SPV was extreme or underscored the actions of the player in question.
5. has very little complexity and will likely not have moments of depth or a "range of complexity" within a single episode. This is a one-dimension edit, and if the edit contains significant  moments of "CP" then it is not OTT. If the edit is overwhelmingly OTT with only a few, minor moments of CP, and accompanied by OTT music, etc, then OTT may still be a better fit.
6. may tell us about their wants and needs, but fails to tell us the hows and whys. In addition, will probably express those needs irrationally, and may blame or finger-point or display other extreme reactions to the situation.

Note:

OTT players are not exclusively the "in your face" high vis player. It is also possible for a minor character to receive footage that conveys an extreme amount of character development. An OTT edit can also be one where the focus of the screen-time was used to show the character repeating the same actions over and over (for example, someone who is being portrayed as a blabber mouth, will have several repeated scenes of them talking over and over, or close ups of their mouth talking, etc).

OTT Characters rarely receive an opportunity to talk about a situation or to express themselves rationally about it.

OTT characters often have tone, as well, because their antics are frequently spun a certain way for the audience. However, an OTT character does not require tone. A character can have a personality-defined, extreme edit without the edit taking a particular side on their behaviour.

OTT could be thought of as a special case of UTR. While the character still receives low game complexity, their footage highlights their personality instead. OTT characters are often (but not always) the focal point of an episode and are often (but not always) polarizing forces within the game.

Not all OTT players stay this way, and often an OTT player will go UTR for awhile if the editors want to bring them back to the main storyline as a more well-rounded character.

--

General Considerations

- The goal for the current coding structure is to emphasize the construct of game-relevant complexity in coding. As Survivor has become a more game-focused show, the extent to which characters fit into this construct is generally of great interest to ALL Edgic participants. Thus, the main focus of the Rating scale is the UTR – MOR – CP sequence, which represents a continuum of game-relevant complexity for characters. INV provides extra clarity for extreme lack of visibility and OTT provides an indication that a character is being defined by their personality and not their game.

- The titles for the different ratings have remained the same over the many years of Edgic’s existence but their definitions are in a constant state of flux. Do not read so highly into the names of each rating so as to circumvent their current purpose. For example, one might identify a character who is highly complex, but has low character development as a person. Though the current coding system would identify them as CP (“Complex Personality”) it might be tempting to argue that CP cannot be appropriate because their “personality,” defined literally, was not complex. Similarly, you might suggest that a character with no speaking roles or significance to the episode appeared in the background and thus were not literally “invisible.” In short, general convention is to use current coding procedures instead of literal applications of the code names.

Common Contrasts

- UTR vs. INV. The key difference between UTR and INV is the amount of visibility. If a character has significant and appreciable visibility such that 1-5 seems appropriate, they are UTR. If a character is so absent that 0 seems appropriate, they are INV.

- UTR vs. MOR. The key difference between UTR and MOR is now the amount of complexity being displayed. A character with no personal game-relevant complexity is now UTR regardless of visibility. A character with some appreciable and significant game-relevant complexity is either MOR or CP.

- MOR vs. CP. Here, we are focused on the depth and fullness of a character’s perspective – not merely the frequency of it. A MOR character will talk about the game, but it’s lacking in impact. Someone can have 4 game-relevant confessionals but gloss over the issue in each one while another characters gets one very well put together and coherent thought. Imagine it as if you were a teacher grading a character on how complex they were and needed to give someone “partial credit.” MOR would be a character that gets “partial credit” for being complex.

- CP vs. OTT. Sometimes a character with an extreme amount of personal development will also be game complex. Despite the high level of character development present in an OTT edit, OTT characters are not complex. An OTT does not explain his/her actions or motivations – he/she is defined by those actions. CP characters, on the other hand, are more flexibly defined – many types of characters can be high in complexity, as it is the complexity that defines them.

- MOR vs. OTT. The jury is still out on how to best handle this issue. While some might argue that the complexity present in an MOR edit should take precedence over whatever character development the character has, others might say that an extreme level of character development supercedes the moderate level of complex development. Until further consensus can be reached, it might be best to evaluate this on a case-by-case basis.
Tone

Edgic rates characters based on the editorial slant of the episode, or Tone. Tone can be neutral, positive (P), negative (N), or mixed (M). Extreme versions of both P and N are also used.

Neutral
The majority of edits in Survivor are editorially neutral. The edit pairs the character’s words/actions with no special musical cues, other characters and Jeff do not comment on the character in an evaluative way, and the overall narrative of the episode does not convey anything about the character that is inherently good or bad.

Positive (P)
There is significant evidence of editorial manipulation for the character in the positive direction. This can take many forms including:

• Positive (e.g., sympathetic) music paired with a character’s words/actions.
• Other characters or Jeff speaking about the character in a clearly and unambiguously positive way, especially if surrounding footage emphasizes or confirms these evaluations.
• The exception to the above is when positive evaluations from others are refuted by surrounding footage. If someone calls Jessica a fantastic person because she is so modest, followed immediately by Jessica taking all of her clothes off and dancing around the fire, the positive evaluation is being deliberately shown as faulty/misinformed.
• The overall narrative of the episode is clearly set up so that a character is a positive force. This is very tricky to identify and should be used extremely sparingly, if ever. A good example is Mike's evacuation in Australia. There’s no positive music, other characters don’t necessarily evaluate him positively, but his exit is handled in a pretty unambiguously positive fashion.

Common “Positive” traits include things like being hard working, intelligent, kind, sympathetic, skillful, a good leader, etc. This is neither a complete nor an exclusive list.

Note - T.ears and crying are NOT automatically P. Look beyond the visuals to see if the music is sympathetic, if others are saying or doing something to indicate that the t.ears are meant as a P or not.

Super Positive (PP)
The character is so unbelievably and overtly positive that it deserves special recognition. The character may get special, rare, heroic, soaring music. Other characters may refer to them in terms that make them seem saintly, heroic, near-omnipotent, or extremely sympathetic. Notable examples:

• Holly in Nicaragua gave up her reward so that the rest of their tribe could eat.
• Jenna quits in All Stars so she can rush to her dying mother’s side.
• Astronaut Dan in Exile Island is routinely voted out and gets a hero’s goodbye for some reason.
• Penner's evac in Fans Vs. Favorites where he doesn't want to go but is forced to by the doctors, and Jeff lavishing him with compliments and the boat ride with the soaring music playing...
  

Negative (N)
There is significant evidence of editorial manipulation for the character in the negative direction. This can take many forms including:

• Negative (e.g., “dopey” or "evil") music (or sound effects) paired with a character’s words/actions.
• Other characters or Jeff speaking about the character in a clearly and unambiguously negative way, especially if surrounding footage emphasizes or confirms these evaluations.
• The exception to the above is when negative evaluations from others are refuted by surrounding footage. If someone calls Larry lazy followed by footage of Larry working his ass off, the negative evaluation is being deliberately shown as faulty/misinformed.
• The overall narrative of the episode is clearly set up so that a character is a negative force. This is very tricky to identify and should be used extremely sparingly, if ever. Good example pending.
• If a character offers a comment about another character that the footage refutes, this is generally negative for the commenter. If Vince calls Larry lazy and then Larry is shown working hard, Vince looks a bit foolish for making his original comment.

Common “Negative” traits include things like being lazy, stupid, naïve, cruel, bigoted, etc. This is neither a complete nor an exclusive list.

Super Negative (NN)

The character is so incredibly vile that it deserves special recognition. The character may get special, rare, evil music. Other characters may refer to them in terms that make them seem incredibly terrible to coexist with. Notable examples:

• Natalie in Fans Vs. Favorites talks at length about destroying Erik, ripping him apart, and “flossing with his jugular.”
• Russell Hantz in Samoa’s premiere spends the entire episode talking up his own evil, destructive nature.
• NaOnka in Nicaragua has decided to quit, but refuses to give up her food reward for the good of the tribe with only hours left in the game.
• Philip in Redemption Island goes on a racially charged rant about how merely calling him crazy is equivalent to calling him an *n-word.*

Mixed (M)

This is a special Tone designation. It technically is a type of Neutral Toned edit, but where the player has equal amounts of notable negative and positive scenes in the same episode.

This rating helps differentiate from the "nothing" (neutral) tone of a neglected character or the static neutral of a middle of the road or complex character. It shows ACTIVE manipulation of a character, rather than a passive or neglected edit.

The key point here is that the P and N manipulation should be roughly EQUAL.

For Example:
An edit contains minor P manipulation but a lot of N manipulation, then the rating is not Mixed, but Negative, as the N manipulation overwhelms the P (and vice versa).


Lastly, there should be a notable amount of P and N manipulation. If the majority of the edit in that episode has zero tone manipulation, but with one small P and one small N, it would be better rated as a Neutral. The Mixed tone should be used to record situations where there is OBVIOUS tone (the same way we would record an OBVIOUS P or an OBVIOUS N). We don't record for slight P or slight N, nor should we record slight Mixed.



General Considerations

- The purpose of Tone ratings is to capture the editors’ intentions about how the audience will react to a character. In all cases of tone voting, one should be able to cite exactly why they believe there is evidence that the editors advocate a certain perspective. “I got a feeling…” may be a persuasive argument at times, but will not be as effective as an evidence-based argument.

- Actual audience reaction (on any scale) to a character may or may not match the editorial emphases their tone ratings imply. For this reason, it is recommended that Edgic participants do NOT rate based on personal preferences for a character or personal evaluations of a character’s behavior.


Maintaining neutrality in these cases is difficult and extra effort should be taken so as not to imbue one’s own personal values on the decision. As an extreme and contrived example, a sommelier might react in horror to the way the Survivors open up wine at a feast and drink straight from the bottle (rather than a proper vessel). This does not make the wine-drinking Survivors in question N – there’s no reason to believe that improper wine drinking behavior is being highlighted with a particular interpretation in mind. A more realistic example might be a character who states on air that she got an abortion. It is not appropriate for pro-life participants to automatically give her an N, while pro-choice participants give her a P. The focus should be on how the editors handle this revelation, not the revelation itself. Tone ratings should not be a barometer of Edgic participants’ morality.

- To expand on the above, it should be mentioned that within the game of Survivor, some otherwise unsavory behaviors may be portrayed as more neutral-to-positive. In the real world, lying is generally bad. In Survivor, lying can be presented as a necessity or even as a positive thing (depending on who’s doing it and how). In reality, taking a valuable item and planting a decoy in its place would be illegal and generally bad – in Survivor, creating or planting a fake immunity idol can be portrayed as a clever and “positive” trick.

- PP and NN are very rare, used only in the most extreme circumstances.

- Tone should be seen as conceptually independent from Rating and Visibility. While it is pretty much impossible to be INV and have tone (because you need to be in the episode in some appreciable way for the editors to manipulate something about you), any other combination is plausible. Obviously, some combinations are more frequent than others.



ETA: added Tone (Thanks RC!)
ETA2: Updates to ratings definitions. (Thank you RC & FLF)
ETA3: corrections

Middle of Road Differential (MORD)

I did this for a few seasons when i was first doing the stats. Interestingly... Since S17, the MORds have been very accurate in predicting the winner (especially S18 & S19, S21, S22... and even S23!!) There is a knack to reading it, which we are still working out, but there have been some really consistent observations that have come out of the MORd.

So what exactly IS the MORD?

The MORD (Middle of Range Differential) is a range of numbers. This range is unique for each season and the range is generated by your edgic rating votes. Every vote that is cast for each of Rating, Tone & Visibility is averaged and then compressed into a single number for each player. Then these numbers are compared to each other. The idea being that the winner should fall somewhere in the middle of their own season's unique range.


The MORd numbers are calculated as follows:



An additional note… This final scale does not go below zero. Both OTT & Inv/UTR players end up towards the top of the scale, where very CP, very neutral, mid-vis players end up closer to zero. Think of it like an upside down parabola… zero is the peak (or in this case the valley) and the INV players and the HIGH VIS/ OTT players are at the top of each side of the arc.  

The original idea was that the winner should trend towards zero… in practice however this has not held true, and in actuality, the winner ends up somewhere in the middle of the range of numbers (ie as if we were looking at it as a straight line), somewhere around the mid-scale and/or median values. I am not sure why this is… I suspect it has to do with the human element in terms of how/why people vote as they do and also the variances in the players themselves.


 

Trends and Observations
(UPDATED to include S23)


Click here to see the past charts.

Note, these charts are a little out of date. I'll make and post new ones soon. But i gotta get to bed - up early tomorrow.
I have updated everything to reflect the penultimate episode (not the final episode). The reason being that  as i was going through and updating, i realized that i did not have final episode info for all of the seasons. In addition, i decided that if this is to be used as a check, then it is better to have only to the episode just before the finale to help identify the winner.

FINAL MORDIFF WINNERS RANKINGS
S10 to S23
from highest to lowest; to penultimate episode.   

1.69 - Rob A  (no switch)
1.56 - Tom C  (no switch)
1.56 - Natalie B  (no switch)
1.55 - Bob C  (more than 1 switch)
1.50 - JT C  (no switch)
1.24 - Sophie (C no switch)
1.22 - Todd A  (mid premerge switch)
1.14 - Danni B  (mid premerge switch)
1.05 - Fabio C  (mid premerge switch)
0.97 - Earl A  (mid premerge switch)
0.79 - Sandra20 C  (no switch)
0.75 - Parvati AB  (mid premerge switch)
0.63 - Yul A  (more than 1 switch)
0.38 - Aras C (more than 1 switch)

Winner's Median: 1.14    
Winner's Average: 1.13


Observations
(assuming that the Target of the MORD is closest to Zero)

Winner's Observations
A. 100% (14/14) winners BELOW the mid-range value (yellow line) & the mid-scale value (orange line) for their season.

B. 100% (14/14) winners not in the top 4 the HIGHEST MORDs of their season.

C. 86% (12/14) Winners are NOT in the bottom 4 LOWEST MORD in their season. (Yul & Aras)

D. 64% (9 / 14) Winners OVER 1.0 MORD

E. The RANGE for a Winner's MORD is typically around 0.38 on the low end (Aras) and 1.69 on the high end (Rob)

F1. Type B winners typically fall within a small range defined by the  Median - Mid-range values (green & yellow lines), B's are not at the low end of the scale (below 1).
F2. Type C winners typically falls below the midscale point (orange) AND either
F3. Type AB winners typically fall below the median-mid range values, and fall at the low end of the scale.
F4. Type A Winners typically fall below the median-mid range values, but may fall at the low, middle or mid-high range of the their scale.

G. Swaps & Switches
• No switches = a higher MORD winner (5 / 6 times Rob, Tom, JT, Natalie, Sophie. Sandra HvV is the exception).
• A very EARLY switch (within the first 3 episodes) = a LOW MORD winner (2 /2 Aras, Yul).
• A swap that occurs in the mid-preseason = a Mid-range winner (Danni E4, Earl E6, Todd E5).
The only exception to this is Parvati who at 0.75 I would consider to be a LOW MORD winner, but her swap was E5....which means her MORD should have been a bit higher (closer to 1.0).  Bob's season was unique in that there were multiple switches and also a "merge" swap.

H. The MORd seems to have clusters of where the winners fall (with a mix of types):
1. Low (between 0.38     and  0.79)
2. Middle (.97 to 1.25)
3. High (1.50 to 1.70)

I. The winners who fall between the small range marked by the mid-range, mid-scale, and median values all have something in common. They were all "classified" as TOO MUCH of an Edgic Component in the extreme:
    •    Natalie W (Too UTR, Too Low Vis)
    •    JT (Too P)
    •    Bob (Too OTT, Too P)
    •    Danni (Too UTR, Too Low Vis)
    •    Tom (Too P)
    •    Rob (too High Vis, Too CP)
    •    Sophie (too MOR, too Neutral, Too lo vis)




MORD Scale Observations
The average range of scale is 2.88.

Since S10,  have had very narrow scales and very wide scales and some that hover around the middle. The scales may give us clues as to who the winner most likely will be.

A. The Wide Scale

Past MORD data scales
4.39    S19    NAT    B   
3.39    S21    JUD    E   
3.37    S15    TODD    A   
3.24    S10    TOM    C   
3.22    S17    BOB    E   
3.14    S13    YUL    A   
3.00    S20    SANDRA    C    all stars
2.92    S14    EARL    A   
2.87    S22    ROB    A    rpw
2.63    S18    JT    C   
2.49    S12    ARAS    C   
2.15    S16    PARVATI    AB    rpw
2.04    S11    DANNI    B    rpl
1.65    S23    SOPHIE    C    rpl

The widest MORD scale that we have is S19, followed by S21, S15, S10 & S17.

3 of 5 of the wide MORD contain low visibility winners (S19, S21 and S17). If we expand to include mid-high range of S13 & S20, both Sandra20, also a lower vis winner, and Yul. the lowest VF of the Type A winners (including a near INV in the pre merge), fit this observation.

Nat, Jud, Bob & Sandra could all be classified as WTF winners… winners who won without being in charge of the game. Todd, Tom & Yul did have more control over the game, although each had a uniqueness about their win (Tom immunitied himself to the end, Yul was immunitied to the end by the HII before the rules were changed, Todd's F3 is the only one where everyone received a vote.)

A large proportion of the wide MORD scale winners ended up in the end not by strategy or alliance, but by other means (i.e. through immunities or being dragged to the end). A large number of these winners won from an "anti-X" vote. (Nat, Jud, Tom, Bob, Sandra - Only the Type A's - Yul & Todd -  won on their own merits)

Type E's always have a wider MORD scale; Type A's often have a wider MORD scale. A wider MORD scale favours male winners. Low vis pre merge winners tend towards the "extreme" ends of the scale - either wide or narrow.


B. The Narrow Scale

Past MORD data scales
4.39    S19    NAT    B   
3.39    S21    JUD    E   
3.37    S15    TODD    A   
3.24    S10    TOM    C   
3.22    S17    BOB    E   
3.14    S13    YUL    A   
3.00    S20    SANDRA    C    all stars
2.92    S14    EARL    A   
2.87    S22    ROB    A    rpw
2.63    S18    JT    C   
2.49    S12    ARAS    C   
2.15    S16    PARVATI    AB    rpw
2.04    S11    DANNI    B    rpl
1.65    S23    SOPHIE    C    rpl

S11, S16 & S23 all have very narrow MORD Scales. In addition, they also were returning player seasons mixed with regular players. In each case, the winner was a female, with a low vis, mostly neutral tone, pre merge, and a lower vis cumulative VF.

A narrow scale appears to favour a returning player in the finals.  An extremely narrow scale seems to favour female winners. The narrow scale also seems to favour winners with unusual vis patterns.


C. This season's scale pattern  is similar to 4 other seasons: S19, S17, S15, S21. The pattern ( Midrange-Midscale-Median ) is identified by the Midrange & Midscale values being side by side, with no players in between in a WIDE scale pattern. 2 other seasons have this same clustering, but the scale is very narrow so i have not included them here.

It is interesting to note that 3 of the 4 winners of the Wide Scale YO cluster are what i call WTF winners. Winner's that we do not expect… NatW was extremely UTR and the season was really structured as a Russell should have won season. Fabio and Bob both immunities their way to the end with out having any real alliance to support them. I am not sure how Todd fits here with the others, but he was an unusual winner at the time - much more "OTT" in personality than previous winners… something Fabio, Bob and even Nat W (to an extent) have also.



D. Every season, except S16 & S23, the Midrange-Midscale-Median values run in that order from top to bottom (the pattern is yellow, orange, green).

S16 & S23 is different, the midscale mark is actually LOWER than the median mark (the pattern is yellow, green, orange). Initially, I didn't think it was anything worth noting, But now that it has happened a 2 times, i think that there may be something to it. I have noted that this is the only instance where the winner does not fit Observation G (how a swap/no swap affects the season's MORD)

It seems to indicate a female winner in a mixed-newbie season with a returning player in the Finals.

Past Edgic Links
I've gone through and found as many of the past Edgic Threads as I could. Some of the early threads are missing - partly due to Edgic being in it's infancy, but also i think in part due to the big board crash a number of years ago. I could find nothing at all for  S3, S4 and S6. (If anyone stumbles across something in an obscure area of the boards, please let me know)

S-23 South Pacific

S-22 Redemption Island

S-21 Nicaragua

S-20 H v V

S-19 Samoa

S-18 Tocantins

S-17 Gabon

S-16 F v F

S-15 China

S-14 Fiji

S-13 Cook Islands

S-12 Exile Island

S-11 Guatamala

S-10 Palau

S-9 Vanuatu

S-8 All Stars

S-8 All Stars (Revised)

S-7 Pearl Islands

S-6 Amazon (missing)

S-5 Thailand

S-4 Marquesas (missing)

S-3 Africa (missing)

S-2 Australia

S-1 Borneo Edgic

S-1 Borneo Source Material



Other Links

Other links worth checking out. This list may be added to through out the season as other interesting threads become available (like panurge's great story thread, previously on's, etc)

Edgic Stats Thread

Panurge's Story Analysis S-24 (coming soon)

Family Final 4

previously on... (coming soon)


IMPORTANT EDGIC POSTS

EPISODE 1 CONFESSIONALS

EPISODE 2 CONFESSIONALS

EPISODE 3 CONFESSIONALS

EPISODE 4 CONFESSIONALS

EPISODE 5 CONFESSIONALS

EPISODE 6 CONFESSIONALS

EPISODE 7 CONFESSIONALS (MERGE)


ETA1: fix S2 link. Thanks Avery!

ETA: 2+  Special Thanks to Kitty P for her awesomeness in transcribing confessionals!!!!

Edgic Ratings Voting

Voting takes place within this thread. You have until Monday evening, around 8pm MST to submit your votes. Please review the points below to ensure that your votes will be properly captured and counted:

1. Please post reasons for your ratings… the discussion is important
2. You can use tribe names, colours, etc with your REASONING post
3. Post a separate voting list using the template below
4. If you post a chart, you must include a separate, text-based list or your votes will not be counted
5. Please follow these guidelines, by doing so you are helping to ensure both speed and accuracy of the vote. If i don't have to transcribe everything, or do a lot of editing to the votes, then the votes are more accurate and results will be posted in a timely fashion
6. Please do not use nick names in your submitted votes. It messes up the my spreadsheet ;) thanks

(Template for the Premerge votes)

Bill -
Colton -
Greg -
Jay -
Jonas -
Leif -
Matt -
Michael -
Troy -

Alicia -
Chelsea -
Christina -
Kat -
Kim -
Kourtney -
Monica -
Nina -
Sabrina -


--


(Template for the post-merge votes)

Please alphabetize


--

Close calls

Please post your close call arguments following the posting of the final episode votes. Arguments are important here!!

Close calls will be resolved Wednesday around 12 noon MST.

Close calls will be settled first by the 2 watchdogs for the appropriate category.  In the event that the 2 watchdogs disagree, then the overseer will consider based on the reasons and close call arguements presented.