Survivor: Generic Thread (No Spoilers)

The game really is a popularity contest. In my opinion the biggest mistake players make is voting out physical threats over likable people. Especially with the inclusion of the final 3, a likable person always sneaks into the final tribal council. Examples: Earl, Bob, Natalie, and now Fabio. Parvati didn't deserve to win Heroes vs. Villains because of her jury management. The heroes all hated Russell and associated Parvati with him. Did younotice she only got jury votes from Villains? Sandra tried to work with the heroes and has said in interviews that Parv and Russell would sit around and make fun of the Heroes all the time. (Especially the JT letter that they all were apart of). In my opinion the game is mostly luck. Best Winners/Players discussion are pretty irrelevant. It's about getting to the end with ******* off the least amount of people.

[QUOTE=salt&vinegar;228550]I honestly can't agree that Natalie is a worse winner than Danni, Bob or Amber. She really orchestrated the Eric(I think?) blindside. Amber did nothing and Danni simply won because Stephanie was that seasons villian. [B]Bob probably had somewhat of a game, but I can remember anything he did on the show[/B].[/QUOTE] Bob won 3 individual immunities and 2 reward challenges. Also, Bob made one of the craftiest moves ever by making a fake hidden immunity idol then using it to blindside Randy. That is A LOT more than Natalie did on her season.

[QUOTE=MF41590;228555]Bob won 3 individual immunities and 2 reward challenges. Also, Bob made one of the craftiest moves ever by making a fake hidden immunity idol then using it to blindside Randy. That is A LOT more than Natalie did on her season.[/QUOTE] Personally, I think that was Bob's worst move. They already had the votes to get rid of Randy. All the fake idol did was allow Sugar to humiliate Randy. It was a great moment for the show seeing Randy's downfall but Bob almost lost his winning vote. Randy absolutely despised all of the final 3.

[QUOTE=SurferZ;228557]Personally, I think that was Bob's worst move. They already had the votes to get rid of Randy. All the fake idol did was allow Sugar to humiliate Randy. It was a great moment for the show seeing Randy's downfall but Bob almost lost his winning vote. Randy absolutely despised all of the final 3.[/QUOTE] I 100% agree. It was a pointless "move" and had no real impact on the game at all. Had Bob not been against Susie and Sugar in the end he probably wouldn't have won because of how bitter Randy was.

[QUOTE=SurferZ;228557]Personally, I think that was Bob's worst move. They already had the votes to get rid of Randy. All the fake idol did was allow Sugar to humiliate Randy. It was a great moment for the show seeing Randy's downfall but Bob almost lost his winning vote. Randy absolutely despised all of the final 3.[/QUOTE] This is obviously pure speculation, but Bob could have been thinking that after Jeff told Randy it was a fake idol, Randy might have thought that Bob really was trying to help him and that Bob didn't know it was fake. Obviously, any chance of Randy not realizing what had gone down was thrown out the window by Sugar and others laughing hysterically. If you remember, Bob was actually pretty upset afterwards about all the laughter. I realize that is a pretty far-fetched theory on my part, but I don't think Bob went with the fake hidden immunity idol plan just to embarrass Randy.

[QUOTE=molds13;228511]Dalton Ross over at EW [url=http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20451729,00.html]ranked the winners[/url] from the first 20 seasons. [/QUOTE] I personally disagree with every position on the list, but the number 1 spot. Richard definitely deserves that number one spot, but everyone else just seemed to be randomly placed. I think Parv deserves the 2nd spot over Tom and JT should be way down the list IMO. Yul, Chris, Brian, Danni and Earl are not memorable whatsoever and should probably each be further down. [QUOTE=Bacchus;228545] [B]While I think Sandra at least showed up (unlike Natalie "Zero Game" White) Parvarti played a better game in Heroes vs. Villains - in my honest opinion and should have won.[/B] I find the list accurate in that it has been built using the same criteria I use when judging winners and judging seasons... If you get blindsided - you got played by the better player or players. Take it like a man (or woman) and reward the game play. Don't be a bitter pansy and cry whilst giving your vote to a pawn that was just along for the ride. When you do, you disrespect the game and it is a game. Not a popularity contest. Not give the nice middle age woman the prize because she has a great smile contest. It is a game, and the jury should reward gameplay in the spirit of the very first iconic season when Richard Hatch was crowned the first Survivor because he outwitted, outlasted, outplayed.[/QUOTE] I completely agree with the Parvati thing. She hands down should have won Heroes vs. Villains but I think she was looped in with Russell and some didn't vote based on game play and decided to vote on friendship.

[QUOTE=molds13;228575]I don't necessarily think that Chris is memorable at all, but he played a decent game. He was the only man up against 6 women and even then, got three of them to vote for him in the final. That's pretty impressive.[/QUOTE] Yeah I see. I guess I just have that Vanuatu as one of my least favorites and I've blocked most of it out of my mind. Although I think they did have one of the best maze challenges ever with the Vertical maze. That was pretty fantastic and probably the only thing I remember, other than Chris dropping the F-bomb at the live Reunion after finding out he won.

If you ever want a laugh out of Survivor you should check out [url=http://www.averdata.net/~locbaseb/funny/funny115.htm]Survivor: The Funny 115[/url] which is a countdown of funny moments from Survivor Seasons 1-11, and sometime in December the rest of the Seasons will be done :D

I can't believe that Sandra is that low. Given she's not the best winner, but she certainly shouldn't be as low as she is. I'm glad to see that Danni got some respect from the guy who made the list. She's very underrated as a player and Guatemala in general is a very underrated season. ... and Parvati rules. 'Tis all.

[QUOTE=Lamb Chop!!!;228636]I can't believe that Sandra is that low. Given she's not the best winner, but she certainly shouldn't be as low as she is. I'm glad to see that Danni got some respect from the guy who made the list. She's very underrated as a player and Guatemala in general is a very underrated season. ... and Parvati rules. 'Tis all.[/QUOTE] I would also put Sandra a little further up mainly because she's a double winner. You kind of have to give her mad props for winning twice, even if Parv should have won the second time around...

[QUOTE=SurferZ;228554] because of her [B]jury management[/B]. [/QUOTE] Jury Management as defined in Webster's: [FONT="Courier New"][INDENT][SIZE="4"] A new term in the "Survivor Universe" used by the rabid anti-Russell Hantz faction to describe why he was not awarded the title of "Sole Survivor" during the show's 19th season; used in the adjacent 20th season of Survivor to describe why neither Russell or Parvati won. [/SIZE][/INDENT][/FONT] "Jury Management" is a ridiculous ideal to throw into a game where it has no place. When taken into consideration, it ruins the entire point of Survivor. It rewards "do nothings" and "coat tail riders." Changing the game by masterminding the overthrow of soon to be powerful jury members is considered taboo in the world of jury management. The best play is to sit on a log for 39 days, keep with the status quo and hope for the best... [url=http://vevmo.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8554][img]http://vevmo.com/imagehosting/14d10aa3792f57.jpg[/img][/url] Let's say there is a basketball game between the Celtics and Lakers. The Celtics win 101-58. Only one Celtic gets into double figures in a primary statistical category, Kevin Garnett, who puts up 35 points, 15 rebounds and has 12 assists (to go along with a handful of steals in what is a career game.) An MVP has to be named for the contest and in a break from tradition, the other team is doing the MVP voting. They decide that Avery Bradley should be named MVP (even though he only played in the last minute and scored a total of two points on a layup after a steal and assist from Garnett) because he was really nice and had a way about him. Their logic is that Garnett had 2 unnecessary hard fouls in the game. One resulted in a technical. This on top of the fact he called their mother's "****" after each and every basket (and it was clear he meant it.) Not to mention he got away with another 5 fouls, was cheating with his pivot foot yet never getting called for a travel and overall they just don't like him. Lets be honest. Everything in that last paragraph could be true, but the Lakers would still give Garnett the game MVP. They know it is a game and they are going to vote for the best, most impactful player. And good thing for Kevin, as it would be a shame if he had to spend the entire game complimenting people's s**** and exchanging niceties about the weather... Saying a person had better jury management skills is a sanitized way of stating they didn't deserve to win but you were not a fan of the alternative. Just my two cents. :wink2:

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. My point is that doesn't happen in Survivor. Unfortunately, people 80% of the time vote for who they like the best or dislike the least. Russell doesn't understand that so he will never win. Parvati didn't understand that in Heroes vs. Villains. I agree with you that the jury should award the best player but it doesn't happen. Let's look at past examples. Borneo Rich vs. Kelly. Rudy and Sean were both good friends with Rich so they voted for him. Sue hated Kelly after she took her out so she disliked Rich less. Colleen and Jenna both thought Rich was too arrogant so they voted Kelly. Gervase hated Sue's speech so to stick to Sue he voted Kelly. Everyone besides Greg voted with their emotions. Samoa: The Galu heavy jury all hated Russell so they banded together to promote Natalie. Shambo was good friends with Russell so she voted for him. John was the only jury member who voted for the most strategic player. My point is that it doesn't matter what the jury should do, its what the jury tends to do. Seriously look at any FTC, with the exception of 1 or 2 votes the voters pick the person they like the best. Edit: I just want to add that I don't give much credit to winners because I believe the way to win is to be likable and stay out of the way. Half the survivors in any seasons are going to play the game like this. The lucky one floats to the end and wins.

[QUOTE=SurferZ;228649] My point is that it doesn't matter what the jury should do, its what the jury tends to do. Seriously look at any FTC, with the exception of 1 or 2 votes the voters pick the person they like the best.[/QUOTE] You're right on that account, but I don't think it has to be that way. Look at the jury in a murder trial. The judge will give the jury, before deliberations, specific instructions as to how they must proceed and what they may and may not consider. I think a solution might be as simple as that (although much like jury trials there would still be emotional leakage.) If Jeff, before the vote, said something to the effect of: "You are not here tonight to decide who was the nicest or most gregarious person. You are not here to settle a score. You are not here to give a million dollars to the person that needs the money the most. You are here to take into account the entire breadth of the last 39 days and reward the player whose game play was truly superior and lives up to the tagline Outwit. Outplay. Outlast. You are here to decide the title of Sole Survivor." I'm not sure how much good it would do, but it would be a start...

I think we both agree on how the jury should vote but it's really an impossible solution without production interference (which I don't think is a good idea). I felt this way since Amber beat Boston Rob. That's when I realised you have to play the game expecting the bitter jury if you want to win. One thought I had after watching Samoa was separating the jury. I really feel like Laura who was the leader of Galu swayed the jury anti-Russell. Would separating them change anything? Maybe, maybe not? Personally, I still think Russell would have lost. I think that you can argue that people like Russell, Boston Rob, or JFP were the real winners in the sense that they are the players people were talking about after there season. Samoa was only a year ago and the casual fans either have forgotten Natalie or know her as the worst winner ever. No one would remember Sandra if it wasn't for HvV. Everyone remembers JFP and Rupert. I still think Boston Rob was the only person to figure out how to win without actually winning. Proposing.

Yeah, I think it would change the seasons a lot actually. If the only incentive was sole survivor entire seasons could have gone down differently. What do you guys think about the rumors of Probst not renewing his contract. Do you think the producers will continue the show? Would it work with a new host? My opinion is no Probst, end the show. I hope he renews though to do a final all-star season. Unfortunately, my opinion is that people like Boston Rob and Russell would be out early due to producer favoritism. There like survivor royalty so the other cast members will resent them in the game. Like Rich was voted out in the first all-stars cause Lex and everyone want to be the ones who beat Rich.

[QUOTE=molds13;228654]Do you guys think any of the seasons would have ended differently if the winner didn't receive a million dollars?[/QUOTE] I think some season's would have ended differently if a million dollars wasn't on the line. Some people play the game to get the win, not necessarily the million dollars. sure it is incentive, but it's not the sole reasons, other play for the sole reason of the 1 million dollars. As far as the list goes, I don't necessarily agree with order. I think Sandra did a good job and should be ranked higher. A "coat-tail" rider is a form of play. Why not get rid of them, instead of giving them a free ride? Because some people aren't smart enough to do so. People who they don't see as a threat usually sneaks up in the final 2-3. Why? because they weren't looked at as a threat, which is a smart move for some people. Look at this past season. Holly, Chase and Sash realized Fabio was a huge threat because he didn't upset anyone. They should have voted him out earlier, but when it came down to the wire it was too late because he won the last 3 immunity challenges. Did he deserve to win? Maybe? (This season was awful and I honestly don't know who deserved to win out of those 3... I would have said Holly if she made it). How about Colby and Tina? Both were very likeable. I think that was an amazing season and fair jury. Both had good reasons as to win. As Jerry pointed out, and the list, Tina's smartest move was getting so close with Colby that he took her to the final 2, instead of Keith. Yes, He won almost every immunity challenge, but Tina was played a very strategic game. Honestly everyone has pro's and con's to winning.

[QUOTE=CrazyRealityGuy;228657]A "coat-tail" rider is a form of play. Why not get rid of them, instead of giving them a free ride?[/QUOTE] I'm going to totally disagree. Sorry, CRG. They are getting the free ride because the "mastermind/minds" have trust that the jury will give the title of Sole Survivor to the most deserving player (as they should.) Unfortunately, juries have sometimes disregarded the point/tagline of the show out of pure spite and vote for "other" - not because "other" was deserving, but because they could not get past their own feelings of deficiency in getting outplayed by the best player. "Other" could have been [I]anyone[/I] on Survivor 19 and they would have won and it would have had nothing to do with their game play...

[QUOTE=Bacchus;228658]I'm going to totally disagree. Sorry, CRG. They are getting the free ride because the "mastermind/minds" have trust that the jury will give the title of Sole Survivor to the most deserving player (as they should.) Unfortunately, juries have sometimes disregarded the point/tagline of the show out of pure spite and vote for "other" - not because "other" was deserving, but because they could not get past their own feelings of deficiency in getting outplayed by the best player. "Other" could have been [I]anyone[/I] on Survivor 19 and they would have won and it would have had nothing to do with their game play...[/QUOTE] I agree but, the castmembers should learn to vote out the coat tale rider, so the true mastermind doesn't have that much power. The mastermind has his/her henchmen, and if they can't get out the mastermind, get out the henchmen. They should learn "coat tail" riders will make it to the end, if they aren't voted off. I don't think it's a good way to play the game, but I still think it's a form of gameplay, especially if they know the mastermind is despised. I know I might be wrong or in the majority but that is my thoughts.

[QUOTE=Bacchus;228658]I'm going to totally disagree. Sorry, CRG. They are getting the free ride because the "mastermind/minds" have trust that the jury will give the title of Sole Survivor to the most deserving player (as they should.) Unfortunately, juries have sometimes disregarded the point/tagline of the show out of pure spite and vote for "other" - not because "other" was deserving, but because they could not get past their own feelings of deficiency in getting outplayed by the best player. "Other" could have been [I]anyone[/I] on Survivor 19 and they would have won and it would have had nothing to do with their game play...[/QUOTE] I agree that anyone could have been Natalie and she is awful winner. If it wasn't for Russell she wouldn't have been near the final 3. But her winning is Russell's fault. If he wasn't such a ****** to all of Galu they wouldn't have minded having him win. That's how people are. Are they gonna vote for the dude who beat them and rubbed it in their face or the nice girl who was just along for the ride. Russell does not play the game to win. In terms of getting far in the game Russell is great. In terms of winning, i'd say he is one of the worst survivor players.

[QUOTE=CrazyRealityGuy;228660]I agree but, the castmembers should learn to vote out the coat tale rider, so the true mastermind doesn't have that much power. The mastermind has his/her henchmen, and if they can't get out the mastermind, get out the henchmen. They should learn "coat tail" riders will make it to the end, if they aren't voted off. I don't think it's a good way to play the game, but I still think it's a form of gameplay, especially if they know the mastermind is despised. I know I might be wrong or in the majority but that is my thoughts.[/QUOTE] I completely agree. I think that if anyone makes FTC and wins, then they deserve it. I mean, obviously they did [i]something[/i] right. Natalie went with Russell, who protected her, and stayed out of the way while making friends with everybody. While it's certainly not the most engaging strategy, it still got her to the end and gave her a million dollars, right? That's just my opinion.

[QUOTE=Youssarian;228666]I completely agree. I think that if anyone makes FTC and wins, then they deserve it. [/QUOTE] I'm sure you didn't feel that way before Russell came on the scene. Actually, almost no one did. You could go to any Survivor discussion on the net and 99% of the chatter would be about how the best player didn't win and what a shame it is to the game and the brand that the jury could not put the past behind them and vote for the truly best Survivor. In post Russell reality, people need to be able to create a series of excuses as to why a player that clearly should not have won, won. It is that simple... Natalie had no impact on her position in the FTC. She was hand picked by Russell because she did nothing in the game and didn't deserve to win and he assumed that being he was clearly the better player, they'd vote for him. Instead they went with, "other." It wasn't a vote to say she deserved to be the Sole Survivor. It was a vote of defiance, much like people who vote for "Mickey Mouse" in a Presidential election (although I think Mickey Mouse probably deserves to be President a bit more than Natalie, Sole Survivor.)

[QUOTE=Bacchus;228668]I'm sure you didn't feel that way before Russell came on the scene.[/QUOTE] Actually, I only watched one season before Samoa and stopped halfway through so... But that's how I feel about any reality show. I don't know, maybe it's just, everyone complains; oh, so-and-so won and they didn't deserve it, but it already happened. I mean, if someone deserved it more (gameplay-wise), then wouldn't they have won? And who are we, viewers, to judge who "deserved it" when we're watching an edited TV show? It's all opinion.

[QUOTE=Youssarian;228679]Actually, I only watched one season before Samoa and stopped halfway through so...[/quote] I see. [quote] And who are we, viewers, to judge who "deserved it" when we're watching an edited TV show? It's all opinion.[/QUOTE] Here would be my hypothetical test: Let's say Jeff Probst retires and 5 years from now he is out from under any contractual obligations (i.e. required niceties) and writes a tell all book. During an interview for the book on The Today Show, Matt Lauer asks him point blank who he would have voted for on Survivor Samoa. He asks him who he thinks deserved the title of Sole Survivor more, Natalie or Russell. Do you think Jeff, who isn't some viewer who watched an edited show but rather the real live host of said show would choose Natalie over Russell? This is a guy who has been on the front lines for 21 + seasons. We are talking about an expert on the show, Survivor. How do you think he would answer? Ok...before you say anything, there is this... [B]Jeff Probst:[/B] "Often times on Survivor, the vote does come down to a choice where a determining factor is 'how nice someone is' but that's usually when all other criteria being considered is equal. That doesn't hold up this season. This season was so lopsided in terms of one person (Russell) completely dominating the game that to not give him the money and the title is a bit silly."

Whatever Jeff said in reply would include the word I at least 1.5 times per sentence on average. The man has an unbridled ego. As for Russell, I've met the guy on several occasions and think he is a good guy, funny, friendly and outgoing; but, for all the hype about him (much of it his own) I'm always grounded by someone who once wrote: "Show me someone who displays second place medals and I'll show you a loser."

[QUOTE=V1man;228701]Whatever Jeff said in reply would include the word I at least 1.5 times per sentence on average. The man has an unbridled ego.[/QUOTE] On The Soup a couple weeks ago, they showed a clip from one of the challenges, and they counted how many times Jeff made a jab at the contestants. I can't remember the exact number, but it was quite high. I don't know why Jeff thinks he's so important now. He should just stick to hosting, and save those comments for Tribal Council.

This is what I have to say about Russell. He plays a good strategic game, but a terrible social game. The social game is a big part in Survivor because if you **** off the jury and make them feel like losers, they're probably not going to vote for you. Russell doesn't understand that. With that said, I actually didn't dislike him in Samoa so I don't think my opinion is too biased. Natalie played the better social game. If Russell could learn how to socialize, he might win.

[QUOTE]Natalie played the better social game.[/QUOTE] "The social game" otherwise known as "jury management" but best known as an excuse. Natalie didn't play any game. She was just there...

[QUOTE=Bacchus;228731]"The social game" otherwise known as "jury management" but best known as an excuse. Natalie didn't play any game. She was just there...[/QUOTE] I'll admit that she didn't do much. She was the one who got the Galu girls to turn on Erik though which was a turning point for Foa Foa. Had she not done that, Foa Foa would have been goners.