At risk of taking this into a tangent, what do you see as a good alternative approach? I don't expect any player to play perfectly, but I'm not sure how I'm supposed to judge a player's performance except on some scale of how "well" they did, whatever that means to me.In post 99, Klick wrote:That's really tough to argue your way out of in an FTC, especially the way they're laid out in LSGs. If site culture really is the underlying issue with returnees on MS, then I'm wondering if the solution lies in our collective approach to the endgame. We have a lot of focus on who played 'perfectly', who can sell that they made all the right choices, when frankly that's not an accurate way of viewing any game of Survivor. There are VERY few perfect games, and it's possible we'd be better off if we ditched the obsession with them. Obviously finalists are incentivized to sell their game in the best possible light, but maybe juries should be a bit more skeptical about that. It might help with the returnee problem, amongst other potential benefits.
Is it just a sense of emphasis that overly punishes "mistakes"?