Quote:
Originally Posted by K.O.S.
I don't even get what you're arguing. You're saying it's better if we just have totally random tribe swaps, and great players will always figure out a way to wiggle out of it? Come on. You're telling me Aaron from China had a totally fair shake?
Lol, so at first I was simply "missing [your] point" but now you "don't even get what [I'm] arguing"?? Ok...
I figured you'd try and deflect by completely reframing the argument or ignoring my main point.
You claimed that from a "game theory perspective" starting with 3 tribes is bad for certain players because the 3-into-2 tribe merge creates "a ridiculously high-variance crapshoot", which would suggest that you believe this scenario is quantifiably
more of a variance-fest than the standard method of swaps between two tribes (it would have to be for you to contend that 2 tribes is better than 3). My argument, quite simply, is that you have nothing definite to back up this viewpoint and you don't really know what you're talking about.
What I'm saying is that whether we like it or not, random tribe swaps are part of the game. If you were saying that Survivor should do away with any and all tribe reconfigurations (aka: swaps and/or consolidations) from the minute the tribes are first created to the point where everyone merges into one single tribe, then your argument might make sense.
What happened to Aaron was incredibly unfortunate but it wasn't a traditional swap by any means. Aaron's fate was
not decided by random chance, the players on the other side were the ones responsible for picking him and sealing his fate. This type of "swap" could be ok, but only if the balance of new/old players on each tribe was equal. In this scenario,
only a max of 2 players from each tribe were even eligible to change tribes (only time this has ever happened). This left the poached players completely vulnerable to be plucked from their tribe by other players (not chance), immediately enter their new tribe as the minority, then voted off like Aaron and Sherea were. It's not a surprise that Survivor has never implemented this type of poaching in any other season.
Ok, now for Kim. Your basic premise is that the 2 tribe system better enabled her to get all her ducks in a line and increase her chances of survival post-swap. I'm going to throw out a few scenarios that--in a two tribe system--could have drastically altered the game for Kim and
potentially sealed her fate, regardless of all her planning and alliances.
A) Colton and the guys don't vote of Bill and instead the girls lose another tribe member and enter the swap at an 8-6 disadvantage. Assuming the swap is done to ensure balance, then the guys would have a 4-3 advantage in both tribes and Kim and the girls would be screwed. Remember that the focal point of the theory you put forward is that at least initially old tribemates would stick together, so you can't introduce new post-swap machinations (i.e. the guys would flip).
Now, let's even say that that is farfetched and LOL Men and go back to the scenario where we have 7 men and 7 women:
B) Kim is the one to go with Christina and Alicia and at the first tribal she's the one voted off instead of Monica
C) Colton doesn't leave the game and instead his tribe loses the immunity challenge and they dump christina or alicia, leaving Kim at a numbers deficit entering the merge.
My point in all this is simply to show that even in a two tribe system there is a ton of potential variance, but there is no way to use game theory to argue that going from 3 tribes to 2 produces
a greater number of proportional outcomes that would hurt a certain player than just simply swapping two tribes. So yea...
cliffs: KOS, that is not what I'm saying at all.
You don't really know what you're talking about.
Last edited by swag_check; 08-21-2012 at 08:01 PM.