SURVIVOR Marathon

[Silverclaw]

Actually, I messed up the Hectic vote. That should have been a stable vote. So everyone but Skelda should get a 4 and Skelda should have a three - I'll post the updated table on the bottom of the post.

In regards to the GerogeBailey vote, however, is where you're entirely incorrect. In order to determine whether a vote is stable or not you need to pass the Landslide Test AND the Pagong Test:



and the votes are scored as such:



However, this is a general guide - Survivor is a game that this system never has and never fully will be able to perfectly give you how to call EVERY scenario. Nothing can, and here's where the problem arrives. The GeorgeBailey vote is classified as a dynamic vote - it passes both tests. Intent

doesn't matter

until you get to calling scores that don't quite fit. So I either have to give xof a 2 and penalize her for strategically voting against the group, despite having the information that would allow them to vote in the majority or I have to give them a 5 and pay homage to the fact that xof was fully aware of the vote and who was leaving.

I can't give them a 3, they received no votes. Likewise, I can't give them a 4. The only option remaining is to go against the core of the system and call the vote stable, at which point why am I bothering with the system at all?

[Silverclaw]

And the fixed table:

[Skelda]

Wait I wasn't talking about whether a vote was dynamic or stable.

I think it's just a flaw in the system tbh. I agree with your choice, but I also think many many people historically have voted in the minority knowing it was the minority for various reasons and I don't think their scores have usually accounted for that, especially if they voted for the person they actually did want to go home after failing to make it happen.

[Silverclaw]

I can guarantee that I talked to xof about the GeorgeBailey and Hectic votes and they were jury management votes, not "I'm looking to eliminate skelda" votes. And this logic has been used in the past for when people split the vote due to idol fears despite knowing the target, so I'm using the same logic and applying it here.

I'll fully admit to not being Crazy and not being able to make the same calls he'd make, but I'm going off past judgement calls so future ones make sense.

[xofelf]

The reason we score a lot of these as the games are ongoing is so that we can ask the people who voted in the minority whether it was intentional or not, or use confessionals to weigh that out. It's not always perfect, but attempts get made to reflect that in scores as much as possible.

[panthaleon]

Ultimately attempts to understand or rationalize a jury in any empirical way are doomed to failure. It's a toss up on whether the members of the jury thought of themselves as players of a game who were outplayed, or victims of a nefarious villain.

Like the ethics of pagonging is probably the most infuriating aspect of attempting to play survivor on MS. There is so much lip service paid to "pagong bad" until you are in the majority at a merge. At that point, people come to appreciate the value of the pagong.

It is annoying how irrational and fickle juries tend to be, but perhaps that is their charm. I am curious if it's better to view survivor in the tradition of magic or poker, where it is accepted that the wrong player will win and that's just part of the fun.

[panthaleon]

This is, of course, no disrespect to xof who has probably the strongest social game of anyone in MS history, and thus should win any jury that values that over strategic play