|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
"Spoiling the Spoilers"
Krautboy 2750 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest"
|
01-19-04, 05:21 PM (EST)
|
"Spoiling the Spoilers" |
LAST EDITED ON 01-19-04 AT 05:27 PM (EST)This thread is intended as a place to share your philosophy and strategy for “Spoiling the Spoilers”. As All-Star Survivor approaches, and we begin to assemble our spoiling tools, we are again faced with the difficult task of sorting out “spoilers” from, speculation, rumors, and in some cases, misinformation. In addition to our traditional tools of vidcap analysis, weight loss reports, post game interviews and articles, we will also need to try and spoil the spoilers. Over the last several seasons, we have had The ChillOne, SNN Scorecard, TDT Survivometer, Survivor Phoenix, and Snewser’s “checkmark”. For some of us, these spoiling sites, become the framework upon which speculation and predictions are built. For others, they become a way of checking the conclusions we arrive at by more conventional means. But regardless of how they are used, they have become so pervasive, they are all but impossible to ignore. Analyzing the “tips” and rumors, and comparing those of one site against the other, has added another layer of spoiling to the puzzle… another riddle to be solved. Last season, if you recall, we watched the scorecard change and we heard the birdy “chirp”, only to be wrong. “Tips” confirmed by more than one site, proved to be incorrect, and many of us kicked ourselves for becoming lazy about our spoiling, or for not trusting our gut. We also had conflicting spoilers from “reliable” sources without a good way to determine which was more “reliable”. In the end most of us were pleasantly surprised by the outcome, but also determined not to make the same mistakes again… So, as we prepare for S8, we have already been tempted, by Snewser’s scorecard, by a new ChillOne Spoiler, and by new sites attracting “Tips” from unknown sources. (While TDT and Phoenix have decided to take a hiatus, SurvivorHerald and Markopolo’s Survivometer are trying to take their place.) Wezzie and Quartzeye have visited Panama during the filming and have provided both first and second-hand information. The Wingedmonkeys and ChillOne also have on-site information from their sources. In addition, we have the “friend of a friend” posts. While most are easily debunked, some appear to be legitimate and survive the scrutiny to become “reliable” spoilers. The Patagonia Spoiler is just one example. The challenge for us is to assess each one, and assign the appropriate importance to them as we go through the spoiling process. While publicly posted spoilers give us an opportunity to assess their validity, “tips” are much more difficult to deal with. Because the spoiler sites guarantee their source’s anonymity, we must leave it up to the webmasters to assess credibility and confirm the sources, before claiming them to be “reliable”. All we have to use in making a decision about a “tip” is the credibility of the site and their past track record, but no one has proven infallible. The other aspect of all these spoilers is the issue of cross contamination…the tendency for one spoiler to gleen information from another until the spoiler’s origin is lost. Is ChillOne’s information a blending of on-site observations and Snewser’s scorecard? Is Snewser’s scorecard the result of “information” he got earlier from ChillOne? In other words, does one spoiler confirm the other, or is one spoiler just a mutation of the other? The only consistently reliable information has been the “inside information” that Snewser seems to get on Thursdays, before the show. His green checkmark appears to be his confirmation and his scorecard will frequently change shortly before the checkmark appears. So, in the end, each of us spoilers must decide, what to consider and what to ignore; who to believe and who to doubt; what is confirmed and what is merely repeated… spoiler or speculation? Like it or not, Spoiling the Spoilers has become an integral part of spoiling Survivor… Krautboy
|
|
Top |
| |
mavsfan 693 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
01-20-04, 01:10 AM (EST)
|
1. "We need Devils Advocates" |
It seems to me, too often we as spoilers rely on "Tips", "Intel" or "sources" as long as it appears on more than one well established website.We have to keep in mind that even well established websites can be the victum of phony intel. (Either from CBS or just someone with too much time on their hands). If a couple of the well established websites believe the intel and posts it, the intel or some variation of it tends to become gospel. This is further complicated when one spoiler site (snewser) decides to flex there muscle with bogus info to show how many of us are lemmings. While I think Spoiling the spoilers is a worthy effort, ALL of the info we get should be examined with intellectual rigor. ie. Does the intel make sense in the general scheme of the game? Does MB's editting of the game support the intel? Are alternate scenario's more plausible? We need those in the spoiler community to make a genuine effort to play Devils Advocate and argue AGAINST the intel we get from other sites. Hopefully this will spark a genuine consideration of legitamacy (or lack there of) of the information we get and lead to a better quality of spoiling.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
Bebo 21083 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
01-20-04, 10:18 AM (EST)
|
4. "Presentation, presentation, presentation" |
As someone who's enjoyed playing Devil's Advocate (just in case one of those wild-ass guesses I come up with is actually right one of these days), I've learned the easiest way to avoid a flame is to present your argument the right way.Most of the flames I've seen have been when people say stuff like "Rupert is going to make the final 4 because I like him too much for him to go before then!" (usually with more exclamation points and spelling errors) Is this a logical argument? Is this based on any sort of evidence? No. Not surprisingly, these are the types that I've seen get skewered. But when people say stuff like, "I think A is going to make the final 4 because the dominant alliance of B, C, and D would target IC threat E first", then the flames are nowhere to be seen. People might say stuff like, "I disagree, because..." or "Have you taken this vidcap into consideration?", but they're less likely to flame. It seems like the more recent flames have been a) new posters starting a brand new post about something that's been debated since the first episode and b) people arguing that so-and-so isn't going anywhere because the poster likes him too much. Snarky, smart, S7 Anti-Bootee Champ
|
|
Top |
| |
|
|
|
mavsfan 693 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"
|
01-21-04, 01:11 AM (EST)
|
7. "RE: We need Devils Advocates" |
My apologies Pepe if i offended you.No, you didn't say anything in your post at all about flaming and I didn't intend to imply that you did. Maybe it's just me, but I associate S2 with both the Golden age of spoiling and the darker days of flaming. There were a lot of spoilers in S2 and the pro's and con's of the spoilers were exhaustively debated. But I felt during S2 that way too often people felt it wasn't just enought to disagree with a post but that the poster had to be flamed. And the harsher the flame the better. I view flaming as destructive to intellectual debate. My post to you where I tried to discourage flaming was simply an attempt to preempt any casual reader skimming these threads from using the call for more Devils Advocates as an excuse to start flaming like S2. Again, I apologize to you Pepe. I probably should have started a seperate post regarding flaming rather than including it in my post with you.
|
|
Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|