Author Topic: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?  (Read 10482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline georgiapeach

  • Amazing Race Admin
  • RFF Administrator
  • I Live at RFF
  • *****
  • Posts: 54196
  • TAR Detective
TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« on: December 10, 2020, 06:39:41 AM »
DIscussion of the ALLIANCE.


Throughout the race...was this an incrediible decision? Or did it hurt the race itself?


 I did find it AMAZING that Phil took the time to instruct racers about not helping each other at the start. That alone tells me that production was NOT happy with this alliance. Just IMO.

If anyone wants to do a summary of the Alliance and its effects on each leg...I will add it to the  space below!

Talk away...your thoughts always AMAZE me!
RFF's Golden Rule:
Have RESPECT for each other, regardless of opinion. This of course includes no flaming/insulting other users and/or their posts.

Offline georgiapeach

  • Amazing Race Admin
  • RFF Administrator
  • I Live at RFF
  • *****
  • Posts: 54196
  • TAR Detective
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2020, 06:40:21 AM »
saved
RFF's Golden Rule:
Have RESPECT for each other, regardless of opinion. This of course includes no flaming/insulting other users and/or their posts.


Offline georgiapeach

  • Amazing Race Admin
  • RFF Administrator
  • I Live at RFF
  • *****
  • Posts: 54196
  • TAR Detective
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2020, 06:40:29 AM »
saved
RFF's Golden Rule:
Have RESPECT for each other, regardless of opinion. This of course includes no flaming/insulting other users and/or their posts.

Offline Bookworm

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1763
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2020, 07:40:46 AM »
I don't want to read too much into this, because it could be a factor of there simply being fewer teams, but to me it seemed like the editing picked up in terms of alliance content around Leg 6 after the elimination of Michelle and Victoria.
Of course, the Sauerkraut RB was one of the most egregious examples of answer-sharing, but I think the alliance's massive displays of comfort in answer-sharing was at least partially result of Mich & Vic's elimination. As the duo displayed in Paraguay, they had a knack for quickly knocking tasks out, but struggled with transportation. For this reason, the two introduced a level of unpredictability that is present in most seasons of the show, where the "tiers" of teams isn't nearly as stratified as we saw this season. They were the single biggest risk, seemingly, to the Mine 4+1 waiting on each other.
Starting in Leg 6, the top 4 could reasonably assume that, especially with the legs focusing on self-driving, they had a much more comfortable lead over Leo & Alana/Eswar & Aparna/Hayley & Kaylynn (specifically the latter). None of the other three teams had, at the time, demonstrated the ability to get tasks as quickly as Mich & Vic. I know this sounds like a stan post, but, coincidental or not, Leg 6 really galvanized the shift in the race narrative and opened the door for absolute domination on the alliance's behalf. Answer-sharing was common across all teams in the Manaus Market and Paraguayan orchestra, but in the second half of the race it was completely one-sided and increasingly common, as the Mine 5 realized just how easily they could get away with it.
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better; it's not" - The Lorax

Offline TARUSAFan

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1240
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2020, 08:15:50 AM »
I don't want to read too much into this, because it could be a factor of there simply being fewer teams, but to me it seemed like the editing picked up in terms of alliance content around Leg 6 after the elimination of Michelle and Victoria.
Of course, the Sauerkraut RB was one of the most egregious examples of answer-sharing, but I think the alliance's massive displays of comfort in answer-sharing was at least partially result of Mich & Vic's elimination. As the duo displayed in Paraguay, they had a knack for quickly knocking tasks out, but struggled with transportation. For this reason, the two introduced a level of unpredictability that is present in most seasons of the show, where the "tiers" of teams isn't nearly as stratified as we saw this season. They were the single biggest risk, seemingly, to the Mine 4+1 waiting on each other.
Starting in Leg 6, the top 4 could reasonably assume that, especially with the legs focusing on self-driving, they had a much more comfortable lead over Leo & Alana/Eswar & Aparna/Hayley & Kaylynn (specifically the latter). None of the other three teams had, at the time, demonstrated the ability to get tasks as quickly as Mich & Vic. I know this sounds like a stan post, but, coincidental or not, Leg 6 really galvanized the shift in the race narrative and opened the door for absolute domination on the alliance's behalf. Answer-sharing was common across all teams in the Manaus Market and Paraguayan orchestra, but in the second half of the race it was completely one-sided and increasingly common, as the Mine 5 realized just how easily they could get away with it.

Interesting analysis Bookworm. I do wonder how could it play out if Michelle & Victoria made it further than France.
They had the goods & prowess of being good Racers except for them being directionally-challenged.


Offline Bookworm

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1763
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2020, 08:27:08 AM »
I'll look at the variance of placements later, after work, but I assume that Mich & Vic had one of the higher variances in placement, compared to the likes of Eswar & Aparna, who are one of the most consistent teams ever. Variance is a close proxy for unpredictability; accordingly, consistent placements lead to the predictability that plagued the latter half of the race. With predictability comes safety, and with safety, the Mine 5 teams can wait for each other and share answers with little risk.

My post was not meant to be overly complimentary of Michelle & Victoria (though I totally am), but to notice a shift in race dynamics starting in Leg 6. Thanks for your kind words!
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better; it's not" - The Lorax

Offline elthemagnifico

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Previously as rafael02
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2020, 08:29:09 AM »
I always appreciate good gameplay and good strategy, and this alliance is one of the instance that ppl behind it are solid keeping the promises for the goal, and play it strong. It was kinda off putting that the fact the alliance basically consisted of stronger teams on this season but it worked out for them, they went to the F5, and also final leg. Sure the answer exchanging are bit annoying, especially in Berlin and Manila, but then again the alliance made them go so far, and it's not only because the exchange answer only

Now the funny thing is, they (the mine five) didnt actually control the boot order. Most of them eliminated because of their own mistake/factor. Like for instance, M/V lost in Paris for like couple hours. I watched in Justin's recap that L/A was behind for like 3 hours from the other team after the detour. Even without the yield, they would still be out from the race (they managed to cut out the gap to 45 minutes tho).

Now what might be debatable was the blonde bandits, but In Justin's recap and parade exit interview, they were lost in taxi for like hours when they were supposed to go to the place for swiggy detour task. The were arrived at the plaza when Hung and Chee left the task. And to add, they spent two hours to complete the swiggy task detour. Even hadn't they been yielded, let alone twice, they would still be out from the race.

The only thing that alliance could control for the boot order was when the mine five alliance was broken and the three musketeers were born (yes I made the name  :lol: ), starting with E/A (with the u-turn burning) and now the nfl teams.  In short, the mine five didn't actually control the boot order, but the three musketeers did.

Now ppl wondering, why would you ally with the stronger teams when you supposed to get out the stronger teams from the race? It's because they want to get the guarantee into F3. The goal of the three musketeers, and the mine five was to get into F5 and F3. Ally with the stronger teams would give you a bigger chance to get into F3 rather than ally with the weaker team(s), and only F3 or final leg would be matter to get your chance closer to win the race.

Now there is a question, does they ruin their chance to win for the finale leg? Yes, there is no denying of that. But then
, every move or game has it own risk(s), has its own pros and cons, and this is what they understood, and to get you closer to win the money and the race, you gotta have to survive on regular legs, and get your spot into final leg. And in the final leg, anything can happen, and most instances, anything did happen. Their performances before the final leg also show that they aren't inevitable either, so this is anyone games now. Their strategy worked and they are now into F3.

Now the tricky part is the answer exchanging. Sure the answer exchanging is the factor of why the race was less of fun, i think I can understand why most ppl despise it, but while ppl blame the alliance for what they did, i would go point my finger to the producers and the loop holes. The answer exchanging could have been avoided if they prevent the loop holes, like how they manage to make other can't easily vise the answer to other, or they ban the answer exchanging on some tasks (like they did in Genghis' spy detour in Kazakhstan). I believe ppl will do whatever they do to get out and finish the task as soon as possible, as long it isn't against the rules, and it's up to the producers and/or designer thinking about how to not only to polish their leg design, but also to reduce the loop holes small as possible.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2020, 08:40:04 AM by elthemagnifico »
what might have been

Offline Platrium

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 3101
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2020, 10:36:07 AM »
Hi, I don't usually post here anymore, but I come back once in a while to peek, and I think this discussion is very interesting.

I'll start by answering the question: The Mine 5 and Secret 3 were BAD for the show itself. For the racers involved, it was good because it got them into the F5 and F3 respectively. I call this good strategy but bad TV.

However, not all alliances are bad TV. The short-term alliance between Leo & Alana and Kaylynn & Haley was great to watch, imho. We see Leo & Alana helping Kaylynn & Haley in Leg 2, then Kaylynn & Haley returned the favor on Leg 3 involving the U-turn. I think that was nice.

Let me detail all alliance impacts per leg:

Leg 2: Short-term alliance by Leo & Alana with Kaylynn & Haley. It wasn't that bad yet. I think Will & James saw this as a turning point when they struggled with the horn in Colombia. It was a reaction for them to solidify an alliance to get help from other top-running teams, and in exchange, they're willing to help other teams as well to make it far into the race.

Leg 3: The Mine 5 is put into action. The teams within the alliance helped each other locate where to buy the items within the market. The purpose of the Mine 5 was to go into the F5, and not sabotage the teams not in it, thus the U-turn by Will & James was part of the reaction in struggling with the horn in Colombia, and Hung & Chee didn't burn the board to not give Leo & Alana a chance. Both sides of the detour didn't need teams to help one another, so I thought the task was designed really well while also including the Amazon lifestyle into it.

Leg 4: The switchbacks were also well-designed in the sense that teams can't help one another. Maybe the strategy with the watermelons is share-able? Nobody did anyway, but there was some subtle helping in the cello roadblock. It was guiding someone else and giving them tips rather than outright answers, so it wasn't that bad yet.

Leg 5: The first roadblock was great in the sense that every racer doing the roadblock can't use the same person from the same artwork. While they can help someone else find another answer for... let's say Aparna, they risk themselves taking more time helping out another team. The second roadblock was very individual. No problem with that either. The pie task only took out the suspense for Will & James and Hung & Chee, and from a production standpoint, it is disappointing, but only 2 teams got away with it for allies helping them. It didn't help either team advance anyway, but it did prevent them more from dropping it and having to do it all over.

Leg 6: Ah, the turning point for production. There's a difference between giving tips or guiding fellow racers with the task, and outright sharing answers. Like a lot of people thought, the task had potential to not be linear, but it was ruined by so much answer-sharing. I read exit interviews of Leo & Alana and listened to Justin's (TAR27) recap also with Leo & Alana as guests, and it's easy to tell that production didn't like the answer-sharing that they had to reprint the clues to prevent teams from sharing answers on the Kazakh detour. This was a NEL, so the answer-sharing only made it bad to watch, but it wouldn't affect who gets eliminated.

Leg 7: As mentioned on the paragraph above, production didn't want teams to share answers for the Kazakh detour. Among the Mine 5, only Hung & Chee picked that side of the detour anyway, so it doesn't really matter, but at least production made the extra measure to stop teams from sharing answers to advance together. They can easily give away answers, and that looks really bad on TV compared to just guiding allies. The alliance made more of an impact with peer pressuring Kaylynn & Haley  to yield Leo & Alana. Without the Mine 5, Kaylynn & Haley wouldn't have yielded Leo & Alana, but it didn't really matter in the end, because Leo & Alana's mistake took themselves out.

Leg 8: After it was mentioned in the previous clue that this is the last leg to use the yields, Will & James and Riley & Maddison took this opportunity to yield the only team not in the Mine 5. Again, it didn't affect Kaylynn & Haley's cause of elimination, but without the Mine 5, there might've been a good opportunity to put someone like Hung & Chee behind, as I heard from Justin's recap for the episode. There was potential for answer-sharing at the number trap detour, but I'm glad nobody did, maybe because it was also stated in the clue that it's not allowed(?) or maybe because it was just too easy with the cheat sheet. The first roadblock prevented teams from sharing answers, but the second roadblock gave teams the opportunity to guide one another. This allowed James to get the roadblock done in his first try, and it also allowed Hung to pass Aparna in finishing the task. It was more of guiding allies rather than outright giving them answers, which isn't possible for the task, so it didn't seem as bad. From a viewer's perspective though, we see the Secret Final 3 alliance forming.

Leg 9: The Mine 5 made it to the F5! The Mine 5 may have swayed the yields to their favor, but none of the eliminations of the non-Mine 5 teams were directly caused by the Mine 5. The Mine 5 didn't really do any harm on the non-Mine 5 teams as their purpose was just to help one another get to the F5. As others have mentioned, (1) Jerry & Frank screwed themselves by leaving their bags behind, (2) Mich & Vic struggled with navigation themselves, (3) Leo & Alana did poorly at the detour, and (4) Kaylynn & Haley's awful cab luck put them behind. Even though Eswar & Aparna benefited the least from the alliance, it protected them from getting yielded in the previous leg. Now that the Mine 5 fulfilled its purpose, it's gone, and Gary & DeAngelo U-turned Eswar & Aparna fair and square. However, it felt so sour to me though that the actual sabotaging begins here, in the form of a defensive play too. I get why Riley & Maddison used it. It was to prevent Will & James or Hung & Chee from getting U-turned by Eswar & Aparna. Riley & Maddison didn't need to burn the board, but because of the Secret 3 alliance, they did and they screwed Eswar & Aparna in the process. I thought Eswar & Aparna were robbed for this reason, as burning the board didn't give them a chance to catch up. There was no answer to share in the tasks this leg, but the defensive U-turn play by Riley & Maddison was a nail to the coffin for Eswar & Aparna.

Leg 10: Teams could've helped each other at the kalesa task, but I'm glad they didn't. The music and memory task was so challenging though. After watching the episode twice, the France and Paraguay musics were so hard to match to their rock versions. On one hand, that made the task really tough to finish. On the other hand, teams didn't really read their clues until they got stuck, so guessing was possible if they at least read their clues. If the producers had been more strict, maybe they would've mentioned in the clue that sharing answers isn't allowed. It's one thing for Hung & Chee and Will & James to tell Riley & Maddison about what's on the clue. It's another thing to be directly given the answers from Riley & Maddison. Obviously, telling another team what's on the clue isn't the smartest move on the penultimate leg, but the teams were able to get past this loophole since it wasn't mentioned on the clue. I guess production just wasn't expecting teams to share answers on the penultimate leg, so they weren't as strict about it. Well, maybe it would've been better for them to just not take chances next time.

Addendum: Forgot to add that this F3 alliance screwed Gary & DeAngelo brutally. While Eswar & Aparna didn't know about the Secret 3 causing them to not be able to use the 2nd U-turn slot last leg, Gary & DeAngelo saw with their own eyes the F3 alliance helping each other on the music memory challenge, icing out Gary & DeAngelo and causing them to be frustrated enough to just take the penalty, even though they were so close to the correct answers twice. They were the first to ask for help, and while I don't think they deserved help because this is the penultimate leg, the other teams didn't deserve it too and yet they got help for being in the F3 alliance, which made them advance themselves to the finale.

Because of the strong alliances this season, I think production will be more strict about answer-sharing in future seasons. If they're even more strict about it, they'll even prevent teams from talking to other teams. That way, they can't even tell another team to read the clue or guide them in tasks. But then, we'd miss the opportunity for good short-term alliances like that of Leo & Alana and Kaylynn & Haley. Perhaps having teams talk to one another should be prevented more towards the end. Answer sharing should be strictly prohibited in the future, although I think production has learned enough from all the answer sharing this season.

This season was themed a bit on back to basics, and I thought this was a missed opportunity for an intersection. I know why it hasn't returned: It's not that good, and in all instances of its appearance since TAR10, all the intersected tasks could've been done by one team. The intersection would've been interesting to see on the mega leg though. That could've screwed Hung & Chee like how the potential lack of an alliance could've screwed them too.

Another twist that could've prevented the alliance from all moving forward together? The infamous head-to-head. Imagine a team not in the alliance fragmenting it for winning the last head-to-head. I know it's generally hated, but I thought that was a good way to mix things up with the alliance.

But really, I think production just wasn't as strict at times when it comes to answer sharing. I guess they didn't expect it when it first happened with the sauerkraut in Berlin, so they adjusted and reprinted future clues, such as the one in Kazakhstan. Although, they should've learned from Berlin not to underestimate the allied teams for the answer sharing on the penultimate leg. I think production will be more careful and strict about this next time. By the way, with the amount of times teams did not read their clues throughout the race, we could've had so much potential for 30-minute penalties, for breaking the rules on the clues if those stated that sharing answers are not allowed.

Throughout the history of the race, there were teams helping one another that were fine to watch, and there were also those that ruined the task, the episode, or the season altogether. As much as I think the alliances were very effective strategic moves this season, they were so hard to watch at times. I just fear that future TAR teams will follow this strategy for its effectiveness, so I hope production won't miss these loopholes next time.

P.S. Did not proofread my thoughts.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2020, 11:19:11 AM by Platrium »

Offline RachelLeVega

  • RFF TAR Updater
  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 5032
  • Fearless of ticket agents - too hot to be handled!
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2020, 02:48:01 PM »
Long explanation short:

Alliances are tolerable as long as they are not a) damaging the integrity of a task or b) made to serve an ulterior motive.

Firstly, I have no issue with teams assisting each other between tasks in finding locations and working together to arrive at a location (by far, there are endless examples of this with airport shenanigans and navigation mixups). But when this occurs repeatedly, it turns into handholding, as people have expressed, and downplays the racing aspect. Fine. I'm not going to argue against the teams' choice for this gray area. Viewers may not enjoy it, but it's not affecting the key components and objectives of the Race so there is no real ethical issue to this personal preference.

When teams power through a task requiring them to figure something out, sharing answers and guidance from other racers is where I draw the line because it shows a failure from production - a significant loophole in the rulebook that encourages teams to bypass a signature to that task simply by having Roadblock performers and racers during Detours or ARIs work together. I'd love to see this patched in future seasons, U.S. and international, because future teams are going to see 32 and think this is a productive idea when it's actually counterproductive toward production and viewers' enjoyment. Just like how in the season 30 premiere where Cedric & Shawn were penalized for verbal help toward each other to shake the integrity of the Icelandic alphabet Roadblock, I'd like to see teams of these racers sharing information with each other penalized on the mat because it chips away the integrity to a greater extent.

If you all want to see the progression of this alliance and answer-sharing monster morphed in recent seasons, it's under this tag.
Show content
- (1st stage) TAR23 with Amy and Travis & Nicole during the first Indonesia leg at the xylophone Roadblock
- (2nd stage) TARseason-that-shall-never-be-named to rid Brenchel due to Dave & Connor's U-Turn vendetta
- (3rd stage) TAR28 during the UN Roadblock in Geneva to leave Jessica behind as an ulterior motive
- (4th stage) Rules went off the rails during Brooke's infamous strainer Roadblock meltdown in TAR29
- (5th stage) What we've seen throughout this season conspired by the Mine Five Alliance
<3 Family, friends, food, freedom...FULFILLED <3
Countries "raced": Greece (2019), Italy (2017), Switzerland (2017), Taiwan (2016), U.S. (WA 2013, CA [S.F. 2014, L.A. 2023], TX 2021, IL all the time)

Offline theschnauzers

  • TAR Detectives
  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 4268
  • An original TARfly
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2020, 03:09:05 PM »
I was asked to copy this post I made from the bitch, squeal, thread to here. I’m going to add a couple of comments afterwards.
Quote
I can’t say how much negativity there has been directed towards any team as I don’t see those unless they are retweeted.  But to have Racers complain about the tone means that tone is excessive. Remember Flo, in her season that she and her teammate won? And to watch that final leg at TARcon and then the teams arrive, and literally almost no one even talked to her? (I did by the way.)
As James and Will have pointed out on social media repeatedly! It’s a game. And I have pointed out all season once the alliance emerged, it’s not against thr rules. What you had was a master stroke of gameplay on TAR like we hadn’t see before, a long term alliance of strong teams that worked and a final three of those five teams that worked. On this leg it does appear the teams tried in good faith to complete the musical memory task on their own, but for all four teams to interpret it that same way, meant that the clue itself was or seemed to be part of the problem. So the decision of the allied final three teams to work together to solve a then seemingly unsolvable task is understandable. It’s also fortunate that two of the teams finally re-read the clue and realized what was wanted. No idea how long teams were there, but their decision is understandable. Gary and D’Angelo could have re-read the clue at any point, but they didn’t.
So I really don’t see anything to bitch about. I really don’t.
The formation of the Mine Five alliance was as much the result of happenstance (i.e., blind luck) as anything else. That the five teams were among the stronger teams in this season is likewise, happenstance. The issue of alliance only becomes such an issue because the Mine Five were the first long-term largest alliance ever seen on TAR. (Just to set things straight, the first long-term alliance was actually in season one after that infamous incident at the Tunis airport. The remaining teams targeted Team Guido after than. Then in season three, almost all the other teams on the second leg targeted Derek and Drew in a “twin hunt” And there’s no question there have been long term alliances in past seasons, just not of this size. There was also in an early season a decision of the various teams to arrive at the Pit Stop mat simultaneously in first place. That led to the rules that there couldn’t be ties in arrival at the mat.
No, it doesn’t make for great television but it does make for great gamesmanship. This particular season had something unique a large alliance that started in leg 2 and continued to the last possible moment, that include a three person alliance that made it to the final three. And keep in mind, the viewer only knows what the editing allows, I.e. viewer perception, and the teams in the moment can only act on their perceptions of the moment while the Race is being filmed.
And remember, even the Racers often don’t know during filming, or even until the episode airs, things the viewers know from viewing at the same time.
I don’t know whether alliances like what we saw with this season is a good thing or a bad thing. But it was within the rules, as alliances of all sorts have been within the rules from the beginning. The only change production ever made over the course of the seasons was to limit almost entirely what used to be called, eat-sleep-mingle ESM at the pit stops, and force interactions to occur during legs. That’s it. And alliances thrived in some form or other anyway.
-- theschnauzers


Online stunami

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2020, 07:03:50 PM »
My opinion on this whole mess (lol) of alliance is:

It's fine to make small-term alliances, BUT just don't forget it's a race, and there is only one winner.
Yes we had alliances in the past but never to that extend. And in the end, whoever wins will not be seen as a great winning team because people will always remember them as needing the help of other teams to get there, so the last laughs is on the 3-person alliances.

The reason this season's alliance is so annoying is because 1) it's pretty big 2) they never were in danger (and that's because the other teams got themselves out)
It would have been very interesting to see if in leg 6/7/8/9, two members of the alliance being in the bottom and having to fight each other. It would have created a fraction for the remaining of the race. I don't feel bad for Eswar/Aparna and Gary/Deangelo because it's more of a : you lost the own game you were playing kind of thing... (Tho it was dumb of Madison/Riley to burn the u-turn board, to go out of your way to save an ally) I would have let the teams at the bottom battle it out.)

In the end it's a game, tv show , and people are overacting on the internet. People shouldn't be insulted.

Offline BourkieBoy

  • Aussie Updater (TAR and Survivor)
  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 5814
  • I'm a Reality Television Nerd!
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2020, 07:54:54 PM »
I hate this alliance throughout the whole season. Yes, it's currently within the rules, but it makes it extremely boring for viewer, because we know positions won't change, because they are all helping each other during the Race! Is the winner of the season going to split the million dollar cheque five ways? There is nothing wrong whatsoever in helping other teams occasionally at extremely difficult Roadblocks (like a Zodiac symbol or Arabic symbol Roadblock), but helping each other on nearly every single task? That's a big no-no.

If TAR 33 & 34 resume filming once mass vaccination against COVID occurs, I really hope the producers make a rule change, wherein teams cannot make alliances with other teams. Sure, it will be acceptable and be within the rules to work together and help one other team at an extremely difficult Roadblock that everybody is struggling to complete, but not a Mine Five alliance ever again. No more "Accidental Alliance" ala TAR24 again ever. This isn't BB or Survivor.

Offline alecbaldwin

  • RFF Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2020, 08:33:21 PM »
This season alliance is exactly why I was on the side of Max & Katie/Pam & Winnie/Bate & Anthony/Caroline & Jennifer/Chuck & Wynona alliance against John & Jessica/Joey & Meghan/Mona & Beth alliance. If you recall, the Mine 5 alliance was formed after the teams learned about the Core 3 alliance.

Of course, there's no rule preventing teams from forming alliance to make it to the end & get rid of every other teams but if you're gonna do that, you better be prepare to have other teams ganging up against you to protect themselves.

Like someone said on here, there're pros and cons to every one of the choices we make and to me, the risk of MAYBE not winning the show but having a clean cons-ience and feeling like I get to (re)present my trueself for everyone to see is much worth taking than the risk of becoming the person that I'be ashamed of watching on TV and having to defend against the judgements from the society.

And I believe that would be good for TAR itself.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2020, 07:10:40 PM by alecbaldwin »

Offline Declive

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2523
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2020, 11:10:20 PM »
I think it's a great strategy for teams in their goal to win TAR.
For us viewers...not as nice.
100% commitment makes everything easy
99% commitment makes everything hard

Offline danielpadx

  • RFF Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2020, 04:36:58 PM »
This is the first time that an alliance has lasted this long and worked so effectively in making it to the finals. From a racer perspective, this was a smart move. Many of the haters on this season would have done the exact same thing if they were on the racer’s shoes. Even if there was no alliance the top three teams are for the most part the strongest in the group and would likely make it in the final 3 anyway.

Offline alecbaldwin

  • RFF Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2020, 06:26:10 PM »
I'm going to copy dryedmangoez comment and put it here because I think it's important.

Quote
One thing about the boot order, we don't know how horribly the Mine Five would do without feeding each other answers. Like, how far behind would a team get if Hung wasn't standing there waiting to force answers and solutions down the other teams' throats? (As just one example.)

And they aren't violating rules, but they're definitely looking for shortcuts. And that is almost as bad. What's the point of the show putting together tasks when teams aren't actually going to perform and complete them? Part of that is the show's fault and poor design, part of that is the teams' decisions. But this is a Race. And they are harming the integrity of the Race by trying to find shortcuts.

The Mine Five's attitudes about it are also a turn off. The ganging up, the bullying, the cocky attitudes. Put these teams against some of TAR's even middling teams from the past? They'd get eaten alive. And it won't take an alliance of five to do it.

There's also the argument that's popped up over the years, including from certain teams themselves. That teams are Racing to win, they're not here for our entertainment. That is a flawed defense. The Amazing Race is an entertainment TV show. And while no one wants teams to play up to the camera or be fake (like many teams have in the recent past and increasingly so in the current social media-influencer era), teams go into the show knowing what it is about. (Though that's debatable with increasing recruits too.)

Teams can certainly do whatever they want to win, but the show's fans/viewers aren't obligated to like it or appreciate it. Or even respect it. Viewers certainly have the option to not watch. And as the data has proven the last couple of years, many have indeed made that decision to say Bye bye to The Amazing Race.

« Last Edit: December 11, 2020, 06:53:59 PM by georgiapeach »

Offline georgiapeach

  • Amazing Race Admin
  • RFF Administrator
  • I Live at RFF
  • *****
  • Posts: 54196
  • TAR Detective
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2020, 07:01:11 PM »
GUYS I am saying it again.

It is perfectly fine to explain why you think a team could have done better, or why you didn't enjoy a decision or gameplay they made, or why/how you think they could have done better or had better strategy, or how they could have done better.

It is NOT okay to attack a team personally or be rude to ANY or our Racers.

Any such comments WILL be deleted and you will be a risk of losing posting privileges.

"Hate the game...NOT the people"
RFF's Golden Rule:
Have RESPECT for each other, regardless of opinion. This of course includes no flaming/insulting other users and/or their posts.

Offline claude_24hrs

  • " I am Claude "
  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2207
  • Not interested with fantasy games
    • Facebook
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2020, 07:12:33 PM »
The mine five alliance was a bit neutral even though they formed in Leg 2 and four out of five teams won in all legs. Thrilled to wait for three of mine five, now the secret three in the final leg.

Offline dryedmangoez

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2383
    • DryedMangoez.com
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2020, 09:56:11 PM »
Bad thing.  :nono2:

This cannot become the norm moving forward. And judging from the comments on social media, TAR will need to do something to ensure that teams respect the Race and competition. Otherwise, the show will lose what little fans it has left.

Offline Nyoman_SB1

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #19 on: December 13, 2020, 09:30:46 AM »
We've seen many alliances in the past seasons, but this season is completely different coz it consist of 5 strong teams. They dominate the race and made it predictable & boring. I saw more than 3,8k comments on TAR facebook page (which i think never happened before), where majority of the comments hate this alliance. I feel bad for Phil because he had to warn the teams to forget this alliance at the pit stop/pit start.


Offline georgiapeach

  • Amazing Race Admin
  • RFF Administrator
  • I Live at RFF
  • *****
  • Posts: 54196
  • TAR Detective
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #20 on: December 13, 2020, 10:59:39 AM »
And as far as I remember that ws a FIRST!
RFF's Golden Rule:
Have RESPECT for each other, regardless of opinion. This of course includes no flaming/insulting other users and/or their posts.

Offline dryedmangoez

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2383
    • DryedMangoez.com
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2020, 03:07:28 PM »
Yeah, some of the common defenses from alliance apologists go something like "This is not new on the Race." "There have always been alliances on the Race." "Teams always do this." "I've watched since the first episode and this has always happened before." "YoUrE jUsT jeALouS youR tEAm gOt beATeN!"

But, no. This has been unprecedented. Yes, there have been alliances before. Yes, teams have helped each other and given each other answers. But that may be once a season. Maybe twice. But to hold each other's hands every Leg? No, we've never seen that before. (And I hope we never will again.)

Offline Maanca

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 4217
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #22 on: December 13, 2020, 03:23:39 PM »
Sure, we've seen multi-team alliances before. For examples,

Most of TAR22 (a top 5 season for me) was driven by Max & Katie, Bates & Anthony, Pam & Winnie, Caroline & Jennifer vs. Joey & Meghan and Mona & Beth.

Most of TAR21 was set solely on getting rid of Abbie & Ryan so they wouldn't win the 2 million dollar prize.

Those alliances collaborated yes, but they weren't handholding each other through the race. So the Mine 5 is definitely something different I don't want to see again.

Offline gamerfan09

  • HOST: Design Challenge 8
  • TAR Detectives
  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 6619
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2020, 09:40:49 PM »
This season is very exciting and unpredictable!


Offline Declive

  • RFF Frantic Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2523
Re: TAR 32 ALLIANCE: Brilliant and/or a Bad thing for TAR itself?
« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2020, 09:48:56 PM »
This season is very exciting and unpredictable!



My point exactly...
100% commitment makes everything easy
99% commitment makes everything hard