Newsvine Survivor, Week Three - I may forfeit, but...

I thought Noah did a great job with his interview. 10 questions would have been better, but I don't think he should be penalized. It was one of the best interviews there, IMHO. Besides, that's Noah's style: being creative.

Right, but I also said I could choose a point deduction, rather than disqualification. And, I'm asking my hosts to chime in whether or not I should deduct points from Noah. And, I also said "may" result in.

At this point, it seems like you probably ought to post "whatever" you have. I'm not sure why you didn't do that anyway. You could have requested a loophole about adding questions as you get them.

If you post something, and earn some points, that may be enough, based on whatever we decide about Noah.

And, again -- I'm not penalizing Celestina, because I already made the disclaimer, and I made it in the thread where contestants are supposed to watch. I've been lenient in the past with both sides -- probably TOO lenient.

So: Noah is elligible for point deductions, based on my hosts thoughts. (Due to missing the 10 question rule.) I suspect Eric will be in favor, based on his dislike of the fiction loophole. So, I'll wait until I hear from him, then we'll decide on points.

In the meantime, you probably ought to consider posting something. You've made it pretty clear that you tried to get an interview with a real person, so I'll obviously cut you the same slack I cut Celestina. Adam then claims he'll be posting something as well. (He's waiting for you, for some reason.) Still, team Jive has to drop the two lowest scores. And, you can earn points all night until I tally the votes.

For what it's worth: I'm leaning towards a 5-10 vote penalty for Noah: Eric?

Scratch that -- I didn't say "may result in" -- so, I think I'm definitely docking Noah some points. I'll let Eric and TJG help choose between 5-10 points.

And with open arms, I receive my ten point penalty.

Thank you, and good night.

*bows*

Such a gentleman.

;)

To be totally fair, Brian, your stipulation also said this:

10 questions is encouraged, more is better -- less will probably be acceptable so long as the hosts don't look at an entry and feel as though it was phoned-in.

Did you look at the entry initially and get the instant impression it was phoned in or half-assed? Just a question to consider, as per your own guidelines. It seems odd that you didn't have any issue with the number of questions or quality of the article until now.

It may not end up mattering (as of now we only have a 1-point lead by my figuring, even without a deduction for Noah), but I've felt this round has been a bit slanted from the judges. I'm sure this will sound like whining, but multiple attempts to tip the vote back in favor of Entropy have been made. First with OKing the loophole and then suggesting deductions be made on it, then with floating out the idea of an extension based entirely on one member of Entropy, then with the head judge practically daring Mykola to "make us regret" coming up with the loophole. Now a member of Entropy suggests a penalty and the judges happen to follow through? I'm not saying you aren't being impartial and fair, but this week felt a bit like we were the big boys getting knocked around.

I know stronger competition makes for better TV, as they say, but I don't think Entropy really needed the help in this round. Heck, they probably still don't need the help. Chances are looking strong that they'll win without any deduction of Noah at all. So maybe if we take this hit the judges will be less inclined to make attempts to counter-balance.

Well, seeing as you said "judges" plural, I feel I have to chime in and say I think I've made my own position about the loophole perfectly clear from the beginning.

Did you look at the entry initially and get the instant impression it was phoned in or half-assed?

Since the challenge was to interview somone who is not a Newsvine user, I certainly think writing fewer questions than were required and then answering them yourself is half-assed. If this were a satire or fiction challenge I would give him full props, and I will still say he wrote a really good article, but not in terms of the rules of this challenge.

then with floating out the idea of an extension based entirely on one member of Entropy

As soon as I read this I came out clearly against it. The first words in my response were "No to extension."

So maybe if we take this hit the judges will be less inclined to make attempts to counter-balance.

I haven't been trying to counter-balance a single thing this round, or any other round, nor do I plan to do it in future rounds. Looking at this and previous challenges, I really have to take exception to the implication that I'm trying to tip the balance in favor of anybody.

Well, seeing as you said "judges" plural

Well, that was nicer than saying "Brian." ;-)

Did you look at the entry initially and get the instant impression it was phoned in or half-assed? Just a question to consider, as per your own guidelines. It seems odd that you didn't have any issue with the number of questions or quality of the article until now.

Yeah, I did. I don't know if you recall, but not long after Noah posted his entry, I started to express reservations about the loophole. You then told me that I had to live with it based on having allowed it.

Those reservations were due to the fact that I was worried about how Noah's light-hearted review would be perceived next to Chasing's effort, and Celestina's effort.

Also:

I don't want to hear about the fact that I considered Mykola's extension. If you're going to complain about that, i'd just prefer that NO ONE request loopholes any more. Or, are you forgetting that I allowed YOUR loophole, one which proved to be wildly unpopular with the other judges, and which may result in another win for your team.

I gave Celestina a bit of leeway on her article too -- based on an email she sent me some time ago.

So, again: Unless you want to get rid of the loophole altogether -- and start with some more serious point penalties, let's not talk about who gets better treatment. Here's what I said to Mykola when he first requested the extension:

I guess the issue i have is that if i extend it by a week, it would pretty much "only" be for you. Adam claims to be done and simply waiting for you to publish.

I wasn't a huge fan of the fictional interviews either, but that's all been covered.

I'm kind of in a bind. Obviously the other team is going to vote against the idea, because your entry could put an end to their win streak.

I posted the suggestion to the NS challenge three group thread.

I don't know if you recall, but not long after Noah posted his entry, I started to express reservations about the loophole. You then told me that I had to live with it based on having allowed it.

Actually, I said I didn't think it would be fair to penalize for use of a loophole that you approved. That's a bit different from saying "tough, live with it," but I'm sorry if that's how I came off. For the record, I think it's unfair to penalize any team for making use of any loophole that you've already approved - so if the question comes up next time regarding Entropy, that's my official line on the subject. If penalties will be incurred for making use of a loophole, that needs to be made clear when the loophole is approved to start with.

I don't want to hear about the fact that I considered Mykola's extension.

And you dealt with it in a way that was fair. I'm not claiming that you've been trying to effect the outcome, Brian, I'm simply saying that it seems fairly obvious who you were rooting for.

Heck, when Rapp and Noah had published their fictional articles, you said you would be rooting for whoever publishes real articles from everyone in their team. You said this after we had already failed that criteria. So you, a judge, were saying very clearly to everyone in the Group that you were rooting for one team over the other. You also encouraged Myk to "make us regret" a loophole. I'm sorry, man, that just didn't strike me as objective.

If you want to hang loopholes over our head, that's fine - if not a bit unsporting. Entropy spotted the first loophole of the competition, and since then it's become an event for both teams to do. We found one that some judges didn't like (i.e., you didn't consult with your judges). But you approved it, and now you seem angry we made use of it.

It's not as if it really matters - Myk's last-minute victory (and great interview, of course) won it without a penalty incurred. That's how the competition goes, and I'm fine with that. I suppose it was just a bit grating to see a judge seeming (note: seeming) to be openly hoping for us to lose. Again, I apologize for stepping on toes, but I do ask you to look at it from my eyes and see how perhaps some things you've said and done this week seemed a little off.

Oh, I'll admit that I was hoping for a closer match-up on this round. Beyond that, I didn't really care who won, one way or the other.

And, I didn't penalize Noah for using the loophole -- I penalized him for failing to come in at ten questions after posting an article that (I suspect) wasn't researched nor did it provide links to information about Satan from a scholarly perspective. I didn't even think about the 10 question thing until it was pointed out, most likely because I was focused on regretting that I ever let the loophole through. And, I didn't penalize the other person who utilized it, because 1) he got 10 questions and 2) I'm sure he could argue that he was tying Reagan's likely opinions to current events. I do wish he had provided a bit more reasearch, though. Still, I feel he went farther than Noah. And, I had mentioned that I wanted something more than a "silly" fake interview, which -- I think -- Noah's tended to be. I agreed to the loophole with some stipulations.

Up until now, all of my commentary was in the private thread, so my comments couldn't affect the contest one way or another. With that said: If you watch Survivor, Jeff Probst never even ATTEMPTS to hid his dislike of certain contestants. (Or his favorites.) I don't dislike anyone -- but I wasn't a fan of the way this challenge was handled by a couple of people.

I'll be honest -- the constant complaints on this round annoyed me -- and they seemed to be coming MOST from the team that had (so far) dominated the contest. I don't feel I should have ever even HAD to consider the loophole, based on the reasons that were asked. I don't think the challenge should have been all that difficult and I think everyone should have been able to present a real interview.

So, I'm not hanging the loophole over your heads -- I'm saying: If you're going to use a loophole which makes the challenge easier -- AT LEAST blow us away with your interview. I think my hesitation about Noah's entry have been noted.

Fair enough.

I wasn't saying you penalized Noah for the loophole - simply that as a general rule, loopholes with penalties (like you considered, but didn't do) should be stated up front. That brings an element of strategery to it, making a team decide if they want to use a loophole while also knowing its risks to hurt them. Presenting a loophole and asking about penalties (or benefits for the other team, which is just as well) doesn't really give the team the ability to weigh their options.

I think the penalty on Noah was fair, all in all. I mean heck, he did too. It was just other comments like who you would be rooting for or the "make them regret it" one that hit a chord with me. But oh well. If Probst does it, I suppose I can't fault you for it either. I'm just asking that you keep in mind how things might be coming off in the future.

As a side note, I need to pay more attention to the rules. I figured this one would be based on votes and comments again, so I was keeping from commenting on anyone's - I discovered too late that it's votes only, or I would've been complimenting the Entropy players on a job well done (while staying away from the "Post Comment and Vote" button).

Well, you have to be careful with that too, though. If you comment on someone's article, you fire up your friend tracker -- lending exposure and (possibly) votes.

If I were playing, I'd just play it safe and visit articles after the challenge ends.

Cool image...

Hahah, that's awesome!

I don't want to hear it -- most of the griping about rules has come from your team.

:P

Yes, my team. Not me. And most of the griping occurs before I (or we) find a loophole.

I love loopholes.

Now, now, Myk, let's try not to stoop to such a level as to throw personal insults left and right (though mostly in my direction). I won't lie -- interviewing is hardly my forte, though I dare say that you may be rather skilled in that field, even if you almost failed to pull one through. You have relied on your strengths, and I on mine. Forgive me if my strengths lie in fiction, or humor, or satire, for they are truly not as grand as yours; and I'm being sincere.

And now, to move on to my joyfully received vote-penalty.

Score.

P.S. I actually did land a real interview, and am in the process of it now, though I secured the interview before I knew of the "no Newsvine staff" rule, so it ruled out posting it.

I'm not making a stink, just saying.

Oh, of course you were. This would be very poor contestant scheming if you weren't making a stink ;)

I'm glad someone finally got around to trying something like this. I just hope the next person doesn't do basically the same thing. That would be boring.

11. Contestants may not link to the entries of teammates at any point.

Hm, looks like a loophole.

Awesome. Next round, I'm spamming that photo everywhere, ha ha.

(assuming I'm here, of course)

Awesome. Next round, I'm spamming that photo everywhere, ha ha.

Well, I also say: "Don't beg for votes" and "No CoH violations."

So far as I can see, Mykola managed to post the link once, in an article related to the contest -- and related to his post. So, the circumstances are a bit different than "spamming the photo everywhere."

I welcome you to see if you can manage to do it without breaking the rules.

Lighten up, boss, the laughter clearly indicated a joke.

It's hard to tell these days.

Criticism was pretty widespread on the last round.