I feel like Amanda is underrated tbh because of how she does at ftc. She went to the end twice as the favorite to win, just gives awful jury speeches. Even in HvV, she goes to the end if Heroes get majority come merge. She obviously has some big flaws and her lying to Parv was laughably bad, but she's always gonna be a contender in any season she's in. She's pretty boring and weird as a 3 time player when there are so many bigger female characters, but she was pretty cool in Micronesia.
My point. Wouldn't mind her in Micronesia, but she should have retired after this one imo. But she would have made it to the final for the 3rd time and lost again, I would have be DEAD.
I personally would have preferred seeing Carolyn win, or at least not tie with dead fish Will.
I agree, but I don't think anything could have saved Worlds Apart from being absolute shit. Except maybe Lindsey making the merge.
Worlds apart was a pretty good season game play wise tbh.
were we watchingthe same season?
World's Apart was pretty bad.
3 successful idol plays is pretty good to me tbh.
...if i recall correctly it was Jenn who played her idol early on.... standard play..... and then Mike.... public enemy #1.... standard play... and carolyn.... who knew she was the next biggest threat to Mike with Mike having immunity... and Dan playing his advantage...
I think the bluff of the idol play to get them to change their votes (Tyler & Will) was probably the best play of the season.
I personally would have preferred seeing Carolyn win, or at least not tie with dead fish Will.
I agree, but I don't think anything could have saved Worlds Apart from being absolute shit. Except maybe Lindsey making the merge.
Worlds apart was a pretty good season game play wise tbh.
were we watchingthe same season?
World's Apart was pretty bad.
3 successful idol plays is pretty good to me tbh.
Honestly the only one I was impressed with was Jenn's, because IIRC she took a shot in the dark and just played it on herself, not knowing whether or not the majority voted for her or Hali. Mike's was predictable, and so was Carolyn's, so neither really wows me.
She's horrible. I liked her on Palau, but I absolutely hated that ***** on Guatemala and HvV.
Loved her in Guatemala! Her and Judd were the mains villains.
I actually like Amanda, but I don't think she was necessary in this season. And rest the people I have listed- they annoys ME, so I don't want to see theirs dusty ***** all over again.
And Jerri really was huge villain in Australia? If she was, I gotta watch this season. Kimmi <3
I don't understand why Rob is that liked. He did something cool in the past? As now, the way he speaks... is awful and ********. Mybe it's his accent, idk.
Fun fact, Judd is from my town, and we all went to the town recreation hall and watched the season.
I'm not basing it off just Tony, but what they've said as a whole on how Jefra played. The edit constantly ignores people who don't fit the narrative but are good players (Natalie White, Jenn Lyon, Artis, the list goes on and on). To just buy what the edit sells isn't something I'll ever do honestly. Yeah but that's more points for Tony, I mean it's not like they had an awful relationship between Tasha and Tony and I'm sure he would clue her in and talk to her about it. That latter part never happenef, Tony always planned to turn on Jefra because he knew she didn't trust him and only trusted Trish/Kass after the LJ vote. That's not taking away from Spencer lol, just making note that he could have literally gone when Tasha did. Neither was playing very better than the other as no one wanted them around. Mike is a pretty bad winner though, he deserved his win but would have been long gone if not for immunities and an idol. A better player is able to not need these things to make ftc. Nah, Tony was well covered by flipping but also having his alliance stuck in that if they flipped there were still Jeremiah/Spencer/Tasha left who were beats in the challenges and have a good shot in ftc. Tony never even had to use those idols and his game is still very similar without it.
I know you aren't just basing it off of Tony but that example is pretty much what you are basing it off. You do know the players are also biased and don't see everything that happens right? If they aren't around another player they don't know what they are doing/what game they are playing.
Also, I don't just buy what the edit sells but if someone did enough to win or were to make game changing moves/decisions it wouldn't be left on the cutting room floor. I know for a fact everyone has games that aren't shown, that's just obvious. But I can't root for someone based on moves that aren't shown, that just doesn't make any sense. That's like saying Jermiah found an idol and tried to blindside Tony but it wasn't shown so he should be in the top 5 players of the season. Doesn't work that way.
Spencer/Tasha played off of Tony's paranoia and used it to their advantage. You can't just say everything was Tony's idea. Because if Spencer and Tasha weren't there to put it in his head and do it, it wouldn't have happened. And yes again, Spencer may have gone instead but he didn't because he won immunity which is part of the game. A lot of good players would have gone home earlier if they didn't have immunity or idols. Mike was definitely a bad winner, but was the best of the season with Mama C as a close second. The whole season sucked. But again, idols and immunity ARE part of the game lol.
"No one was playing very better than the other as no one wanted them around" You do realize this is a game where you get rid of the threats and people who are playing good games/have a chance to win right? People don't usualy keep the best players around as it doesn't benefit them...
Yeah which is why you get a grasp on what the cast as a whole thinks. I would definitely trust their opinions as a whole over an edited 42 minute tv show that can often be deceiving for the sake of a specific narrative they want to spin. They didn't, Tony has had no problem calling himself out in interviews about things like his moves coming back to bite him potentially and who was playing strong games, etc and has no reason to lie since he and Spencer are good friends, but has said he planned to turn on Jefra regardless which is easy to believe for reasons already stated. To say if not for those two, Jefra doesn't go is wrong though even if we're beliving it to be true. We have no idea how things go. By all accounts, Rodney actually played a very good game behind the scenes and was running his alliance and even was extremely well liked and had a shot at ftc and fell short at the last tc. There were a few decent players top in Sierra, Carolyn, and then Mike. I have no problem with a player needing immunity for a vote or so, but when you need it like Mike did for like 5-6 votes then yeah it shows a serious flaw in your game. I'm not bashing Spencer for it since he didn't always need immunity like Mike, just noting he and Tasha were interchangeable with who won immunity. Pretty obviously but a better player is able to make themselves not seem like a threat despite being one. An example is Natalie A who was great, but never made herself come off that way to the others and hid it very well. A better player doesn't need immunity or an idol multiple votes, because they're doing so well socially and alliance wise that it's not needed. I definitely am willing to give people slack when it's just like one challenge or something or they're in a position through no fault of their own, but when you come off as a threat and people want you out so early yeah....you're doing something wrong.
If it wasn't for those two Jefra most likely wouldn't have gone home because Trish and Kass may not have been in on it. They were blindsided at that TC
Rodney played a pretty shitty a game. His alliance were ****** players like Dan and WIll. So controlling them isn't saying much considering they had no game. Most people that season sucked. Mike screwed up socially, that's why he NEEDED to win out. I agree that you shouldn't need to win every challenge to win but if you need to win out, and you do, you most likely deserve to win.
If you are someone like Joe who needs to win every single episode to get by you are definitely doing something write. But if you are someone who doesn't win or doesn't need to fight to win at all, then you aren't a threat, and don't have enough on your "resume" to win, especially if you aren't the one who is controlling the moves. Just being likeable and everyones friend doesn't cut it in my book.
If you can win 3-4 challenges here and there and people don't try to pull the trigger on that person, then their physical game AND social game is great. There are a lot of players like that. It doesn't just need to be one or the other like you make it seem
We have no idea what happens if it's just those 5 instead of 7 with Tasha and Spencer there, jumping the gun there. I don't see how him controlling weak players says anything about his game. Good players constantly control weaker ones, doesn't take anything away from them. Yeah that's actually won people the game so I'd disagree. It helps to have some moves down, but survivor isn't this insanely flashy game of big moves. It can often be as simple as people liking and respecting you more: see Samoa and HvV. Making it seem? I'm not, I have no issue with people winning challenges at all, just with people NEEDING to win multiple challenges to get farther and being labeled a good player. JT, Tom, Danni, Chris, Kim all won immunity more than a few times and great winners.
So if Spencer and Tasha weren't needed to get out Jefra and Trish and Kass helped Tony, it would be another instance of when Trish just followed whatever Tony wanted. I'm not talking abot Tony's game, and Spencer and Tasha are not weak players. If you seriously believe that you are more than delusional. Tony was great but was extremely paranoid and easily manipulated. He had a flashy game which I liked but not a perfect one. Him flipping on the people who trusted him more than once is proof of his not so great social game.
To me it's more about the game play, one person can be extremely cutthroat but make amazing moves, and someone can be really nice and sweet but completely useless. In the end I personally would root and vote for the cutthroat person. That's why I enjoy people like Spencer and Jenn's jury speeches. They tell people not to be bitter and vote for their friends but to vote for the person who played the better game.
Survivor isn't an insanely flashy game of big moves, that's why Ciera got the boot. That's all she wanted to do and her social game wasn't strong enough. Tony's game was flashy though. All of a sudden it's ok for him to do it but not others? Again it's not a flashy game of big moves, but if you don't do anything and are just nice, you don't deserve to win. This isnt the same game it was 15 seasons ago. The people who are most liked don't win and don't deserve to, unless they do something in the game.
And that matters why? Trish beats everybody else left in that final 5 so it's a moot point aside from you disliking players who aren't needlessly aggressive. I'm delusional for looking beyond a tv edit? How does that prove he didn't have a great social game? He flipped on LJ as he was a threat and Jefra for not trusting him after that LJ vote, he was respected and wel liked by most of his castaways. The Cagayan edit was so off and again just tries to paint a picture of Survivor as something it is not.
Yeah, but we are watching a TV show, these people on the jury personally know and have relationships with these people. It's nearly impossible to say leave your feelings out of it when survivor is so raw and the bonds you form. If a finalist can't convince a juror to vote for them, that's on the finlast and not the juror/ They mishandled them if the jury member doesn't want to vote for them. Those jury speeches are awful btw, easily some of the worst in survivor history. People can vote however they choose and so please.
lol Ciera got booted, because of an idol, you'll notcie she had a strong majority with 7-3 in that vote and even when Tasha notcies how Ciera is rising as this huge threat, still goes along with it. Tony's game is certainly flashy, where did I say it's not right? I said they try to paint the show as such, when really even without all those big moves, Tony is still a very good player who was well liked by his cast. The big moves just mae for better tv, he even has said for every hour they showed his idol and strategy talk, the rest of the day he'd be bonding with people and forming relationships. Those winners I listed won like 5 years ago, with one of them even winning twice. Every winner who has won has been the most well liked by the jury--every single one.
I'm not basing it off just Tony, but what they've said as a whole on how Jefra played. The edit constantly ignores people who don't fit the narrative but are good players (Natalie White, Jenn Lyon, Artis, the list goes on and on). To just buy what the edit sells isn't something I'll ever do honestly. Yeah but that's more points for Tony, I mean it's not like they had an awful relationship between Tasha and Tony and I'm sure he would clue her in and talk to her about it. That latter part never happenef, Tony always planned to turn on Jefra because he knew she didn't trust him and only trusted Trish/Kass after the LJ vote. That's not taking away from Spencer lol, just making note that he could have literally gone when Tasha did. Neither was playing very better than the other as no one wanted them around. Mike is a pretty bad winner though, he deserved his win but would have been long gone if not for immunities and an idol. A better player is able to not need these things to make ftc. Nah, Tony was well covered by flipping but also having his alliance stuck in that if they flipped there were still Jeremiah/Spencer/Tasha left who were beats in the challenges and have a good shot in ftc. Tony never even had to use those idols and his game is still very similar without it.
I know you aren't just basing it off of Tony but that example is pretty much what you are basing it off. You do know the players are also biased and don't see everything that happens right? If they aren't around another player they don't know what they are doing/what game they are playing.
Also, I don't just buy what the edit sells but if someone did enough to win or were to make game changing moves/decisions it wouldn't be left on the cutting room floor. I know for a fact everyone has games that aren't shown, that's just obvious. But I can't root for someone based on moves that aren't shown, that just doesn't make any sense. That's like saying Jermiah found an idol and tried to blindside Tony but it wasn't shown so he should be in the top 5 players of the season. Doesn't work that way.
Spencer/Tasha played off of Tony's paranoia and used it to their advantage. You can't just say everything was Tony's idea. Because if Spencer and Tasha weren't there to put it in his head and do it, it wouldn't have happened. And yes again, Spencer may have gone instead but he didn't because he won immunity which is part of the game. A lot of good players would have gone home earlier if they didn't have immunity or idols. Mike was definitely a bad winner, but was the best of the season with Mama C as a close second. The whole season sucked. But again, idols and immunity ARE part of the game lol.
"No one was playing very better than the other as no one wanted them around" You do realize this is a game where you get rid of the threats and people who are playing good games/have a chance to win right? People don't usualy keep the best players around as it doesn't benefit them...
Yeah which is why you get a grasp on what the cast as a whole thinks. I would definitely trust their opinions as a whole over an edited 42 minute tv show that can often be deceiving for the sake of a specific narrative they want to spin. They didn't, Tony has had no problem calling himself out in interviews about things like his moves coming back to bite him potentially and who was playing strong games, etc and has no reason to lie since he and Spencer are good friends, but has said he planned to turn on Jefra regardless which is easy to believe for reasons already stated. To say if not for those two, Jefra doesn't go is wrong though even if we're beliving it to be true. We have no idea how things go. By all accounts, Rodney actually played a very good game behind the scenes and was running his alliance and even was extremely well liked and had a shot at ftc and fell short at the last tc. There were a few decent players top in Sierra, Carolyn, and then Mike. I have no problem with a player needing immunity for a vote or so, but when you need it like Mike did for like 5-6 votes then yeah it shows a serious flaw in your game. I'm not bashing Spencer for it since he didn't always need immunity like Mike, just noting he and Tasha were interchangeable with who won immunity. Pretty obviously but a better player is able to make themselves not seem like a threat despite being one. An example is Natalie A who was great, but never made herself come off that way to the others and hid it very well. A better player doesn't need immunity or an idol multiple votes, because they're doing so well socially and alliance wise that it's not needed. I definitely am willing to give people slack when it's just like one challenge or something or they're in a position through no fault of their own, but when you come off as a threat and people want you out so early yeah....you're doing something wrong.
If it wasn't for those two Jefra most likely wouldn't have gone home because Trish and Kass may not have been in on it. They were blindsided at that TC
Rodney played a pretty shitty a game. His alliance were ****** players like Dan and WIll. So controlling them isn't saying much considering they had no game. Most people that season sucked. Mike screwed up socially, that's why he NEEDED to win out. I agree that you shouldn't need to win every challenge to win but if you need to win out, and you do, you most likely deserve to win.
If you are someone like Joe who needs to win every single episode to get by you are definitely doing something write. But if you are someone who doesn't win or doesn't need to fight to win at all, then you aren't a threat, and don't have enough on your "resume" to win, especially if you aren't the one who is controlling the moves. Just being likeable and everyones friend doesn't cut it in my book.
If you can win 3-4 challenges here and there and people don't try to pull the trigger on that person, then their physical game AND social game is great. There are a lot of players like that. It doesn't just need to be one or the other like you make it seem
We have no idea what happens if it's just those 5 instead of 7 with Tasha and Spencer there, jumping the gun there. I don't see how him controlling weak players says anything about his game. Good players constantly control weaker ones, doesn't take anything away from them. Yeah that's actually won people the game so I'd disagree. It helps to have some moves down, but survivor isn't this insanely flashy game of big moves. It can often be as simple as people liking and respecting you more: see Samoa and HvV. Making it seem? I'm not, I have no issue with people winning challenges at all, just with people NEEDING to win multiple challenges to get farther and being labeled a good player. JT, Tom, Danni, Chris, Kim all won immunity more than a few times and great winners.
So if Spencer and Tasha weren't needed to get out Jefra and Trish and Kass helped Tony, it would be another instance of when Trish just followed whatever Tony wanted. I'm not talking abot Tony's game, and Spencer and Tasha are not weak players. If you seriously believe that you are more than delusional. Tony was great but was extremely paranoid and easily manipulated. He had a flashy game which I liked but not a perfect one. Him flipping on the people who trusted him more than once is proof of his not so great social game.
To me it's more about the game play, one person can be extremely cutthroat but make amazing moves, and someone can be really nice and sweet but completely useless. In the end I personally would root and vote for the cutthroat person. That's why I enjoy people like Spencer and Jenn's jury speeches. They tell people not to be bitter and vote for their friends but to vote for the person who played the better game.
Survivor isn't an insanely flashy game of big moves, that's why Ciera got the boot. That's all she wanted to do and her social game wasn't strong enough. Tony's game was flashy though. All of a sudden it's ok for him to do it but not others? Again it's not a flashy game of big moves, but if you don't do anything and are just nice, you don't deserve to win. This isnt the same game it was 15 seasons ago. The people who are most liked don't win and don't deserve to, unless they do something in the game.
And that matters why? Trish beats everybody else left in that final 5 so it's a moot point aside from you disliking players who aren't needlessly aggressive. I'm delusional for looking beyond a tv edit? How does that prove he didn't have a great social game? He flipped on LJ as he was a threat and Jefra for not trusting him after that LJ vote, he was respected and wel liked by most of his castaways. The Cagayan edit was so off and again just tries to paint a picture of Survivor as something it is not.
Yeah, but we are watching a TV show, these people on the jury personally know and have relationships with these people. It's nearly impossible to say leave your feelings out of it when survivor is so raw and the bonds you form. If a finalist can't convince a juror to vote for them, that's on the finlast and not the juror/ They mishandled them if the jury member doesn't want to vote for them. Those jury speeches are awful btw, easily some of the worst in survivor history. People can vote however they choose and so please.
lol Ciera got booted, because of an idol, you'll notcie she had a strong majority with 7-3 in that vote and even when Tasha notcies how Ciera is rising as this huge threat, still goes along with it. Tony's game is certainly flashy, where did I say it's not right? I said they try to paint the show as such, when really even without all those big moves, Tony is still a very good player who was well liked by his cast. The big moves just mae for better tv, he even has said for every hour they showed his idol and strategy talk, the rest of the day he'd be bonding with people and forming relationships. Those winners I listed won like 5 years ago, with one of them even winning twice. Every winner who has won has been the most well liked by the jury--every single one.
Truth.
You shouldn't be signing up for Survivor if you are just gonna vote for your friends over the person who played the best game. If the jury needs to be reminded of that because they are bitter then so be it
Why? There is no requirement on how someone is supposed to vote, superfans say that jurors MUST vote for who played the best game, but they really don't. A juror can vote however they please, they aren't entitled to vote the way the fanbase thinks they should. A majority of jurors vote for who they liked the best, key examples: Samoa, HvV, SJDS, Tocantins, Palau, Amazon, Pearl Islands, the list is too long to keep going.
I'm not basing it off just Tony, but what they've said as a whole on how Jefra played. The edit constantly ignores people who don't fit the narrative but are good players (Natalie White, Jenn Lyon, Artis, the list goes on and on). To just buy what the edit sells isn't something I'll ever do honestly. Yeah but that's more points for Tony, I mean it's not like they had an awful relationship between Tasha and Tony and I'm sure he would clue her in and talk to her about it. That latter part never happenef, Tony always planned to turn on Jefra because he knew she didn't trust him and only trusted Trish/Kass after the LJ vote. That's not taking away from Spencer lol, just making note that he could have literally gone when Tasha did. Neither was playing very better than the other as no one wanted them around. Mike is a pretty bad winner though, he deserved his win but would have been long gone if not for immunities and an idol. A better player is able to not need these things to make ftc. Nah, Tony was well covered by flipping but also having his alliance stuck in that if they flipped there were still Jeremiah/Spencer/Tasha left who were beats in the challenges and have a good shot in ftc. Tony never even had to use those idols and his game is still very similar without it.
I know you aren't just basing it off of Tony but that example is pretty much what you are basing it off. You do know the players are also biased and don't see everything that happens right? If they aren't around another player they don't know what they are doing/what game they are playing.
Also, I don't just buy what the edit sells but if someone did enough to win or were to make game changing moves/decisions it wouldn't be left on the cutting room floor. I know for a fact everyone has games that aren't shown, that's just obvious. But I can't root for someone based on moves that aren't shown, that just doesn't make any sense. That's like saying Jermiah found an idol and tried to blindside Tony but it wasn't shown so he should be in the top 5 players of the season. Doesn't work that way.
Spencer/Tasha played off of Tony's paranoia and used it to their advantage. You can't just say everything was Tony's idea. Because if Spencer and Tasha weren't there to put it in his head and do it, it wouldn't have happened. And yes again, Spencer may have gone instead but he didn't because he won immunity which is part of the game. A lot of good players would have gone home earlier if they didn't have immunity or idols. Mike was definitely a bad winner, but was the best of the season with Mama C as a close second. The whole season sucked. But again, idols and immunity ARE part of the game lol.
"No one was playing very better than the other as no one wanted them around" You do realize this is a game where you get rid of the threats and people who are playing good games/have a chance to win right? People don't usualy keep the best players around as it doesn't benefit them...
Yeah which is why you get a grasp on what the cast as a whole thinks. I would definitely trust their opinions as a whole over an edited 42 minute tv show that can often be deceiving for the sake of a specific narrative they want to spin. They didn't, Tony has had no problem calling himself out in interviews about things like his moves coming back to bite him potentially and who was playing strong games, etc and has no reason to lie since he and Spencer are good friends, but has said he planned to turn on Jefra regardless which is easy to believe for reasons already stated. To say if not for those two, Jefra doesn't go is wrong though even if we're beliving it to be true. We have no idea how things go. By all accounts, Rodney actually played a very good game behind the scenes and was running his alliance and even was extremely well liked and had a shot at ftc and fell short at the last tc. There were a few decent players top in Sierra, Carolyn, and then Mike. I have no problem with a player needing immunity for a vote or so, but when you need it like Mike did for like 5-6 votes then yeah it shows a serious flaw in your game. I'm not bashing Spencer for it since he didn't always need immunity like Mike, just noting he and Tasha were interchangeable with who won immunity. Pretty obviously but a better player is able to make themselves not seem like a threat despite being one. An example is Natalie A who was great, but never made herself come off that way to the others and hid it very well. A better player doesn't need immunity or an idol multiple votes, because they're doing so well socially and alliance wise that it's not needed. I definitely am willing to give people slack when it's just like one challenge or something or they're in a position through no fault of their own, but when you come off as a threat and people want you out so early yeah....you're doing something wrong.
If it wasn't for those two Jefra most likely wouldn't have gone home because Trish and Kass may not have been in on it. They were blindsided at that TC
Rodney played a pretty shitty a game. His alliance were ****** players like Dan and WIll. So controlling them isn't saying much considering they had no game. Most people that season sucked. Mike screwed up socially, that's why he NEEDED to win out. I agree that you shouldn't need to win every challenge to win but if you need to win out, and you do, you most likely deserve to win.
If you are someone like Joe who needs to win every single episode to get by you are definitely doing something write. But if you are someone who doesn't win or doesn't need to fight to win at all, then you aren't a threat, and don't have enough on your "resume" to win, especially if you aren't the one who is controlling the moves. Just being likeable and everyones friend doesn't cut it in my book.
If you can win 3-4 challenges here and there and people don't try to pull the trigger on that person, then their physical game AND social game is great. There are a lot of players like that. It doesn't just need to be one or the other like you make it seem
We have no idea what happens if it's just those 5 instead of 7 with Tasha and Spencer there, jumping the gun there. I don't see how him controlling weak players says anything about his game. Good players constantly control weaker ones, doesn't take anything away from them. Yeah that's actually won people the game so I'd disagree. It helps to have some moves down, but survivor isn't this insanely flashy game of big moves. It can often be as simple as people liking and respecting you more: see Samoa and HvV. Making it seem? I'm not, I have no issue with people winning challenges at all, just with people NEEDING to win multiple challenges to get farther and being labeled a good player. JT, Tom, Danni, Chris, Kim all won immunity more than a few times and great winners.
So if Spencer and Tasha weren't needed to get out Jefra and Trish and Kass helped Tony, it would be another instance of when Trish just followed whatever Tony wanted. I'm not talking abot Tony's game, and Spencer and Tasha are not weak players. If you seriously believe that you are more than delusional. Tony was great but was extremely paranoid and easily manipulated. He had a flashy game which I liked but not a perfect one. Him flipping on the people who trusted him more than once is proof of his not so great social game.
To me it's more about the game play, one person can be extremely cutthroat but make amazing moves, and someone can be really nice and sweet but completely useless. In the end I personally would root and vote for the cutthroat person. That's why I enjoy people like Spencer and Jenn's jury speeches. They tell people not to be bitter and vote for their friends but to vote for the person who played the better game.
Survivor isn't an insanely flashy game of big moves, that's why Ciera got the boot. That's all she wanted to do and her social game wasn't strong enough. Tony's game was flashy though. All of a sudden it's ok for him to do it but not others? Again it's not a flashy game of big moves, but if you don't do anything and are just nice, you don't deserve to win. This isnt the same game it was 15 seasons ago. The people who are most liked don't win and don't deserve to, unless they do something in the game.
And that matters why? Trish beats everybody else left in that final 5 so it's a moot point aside from you disliking players who aren't needlessly aggressive. I'm delusional for looking beyond a tv edit? How does that prove he didn't have a great social game? He flipped on LJ as he was a threat and Jefra for not trusting him after that LJ vote, he was respected and wel liked by most of his castaways. The Cagayan edit was so off and again just tries to paint a picture of Survivor as something it is not.
Yeah, but we are watching a TV show, these people on the jury personally know and have relationships with these people. It's nearly impossible to say leave your feelings out of it when survivor is so raw and the bonds you form. If a finalist can't convince a juror to vote for them, that's on the finlast and not the juror/ They mishandled them if the jury member doesn't want to vote for them. Those jury speeches are awful btw, easily some of the worst in survivor history. People can vote however they choose and so please.
lol Ciera got booted, because of an idol, you'll notcie she had a strong majority with 7-3 in that vote and even when Tasha notcies how Ciera is rising as this huge threat, still goes along with it. Tony's game is certainly flashy, where did I say it's not right? I said they try to paint the show as such, when really even without all those big moves, Tony is still a very good player who was well liked by his cast. The big moves just mae for better tv, he even has said for every hour they showed his idol and strategy talk, the rest of the day he'd be bonding with people and forming relationships. Those winners I listed won like 5 years ago, with one of them even winning twice. Every winner who has won has been the most well liked by the jury--every single one.
Truth.
You shouldn't be signing up for Survivor if you are just gonna vote for your friends over the person who played the best game. If the jury needs to be reminded of that because they are bitter then so be it
This is BS to the core. Each member of the jury can vote for womever they want for whatever reasons they want. Nobody needs to be reminded of anything. If the Jury is mad or bitter for whatever reason then guess what? That's the final 3's fault(or it may be one or two particular people on the F3) and it's the people on the F3's job to somehow change their minds and get them to vote for the them. That is not the responsibility of ANYONE on the jury to tell anyone how to feel and how to vote ESPECIALLY when they're just at bitter as anyone else. Survivor is a social game and you can't expect people to vote for the person that they had no connection with or was an ******* to them even if they did play a good game. That's why Russell lost twice before....He was an ******* who never made any real connections and he was never nice or friendly to anyone..noone is going to give a million dollars to that(well maybe some people would but most people wouldnt) How you come across to people is a big part of the game on Survivor. Always have been and always will be.
Me too. It ruins the game if people are just going to vote for their friends over people who actually played the game and deserve to win. "Oh this person blindsided me, had idols and won immnity, but this person was nice to me. I'm gonna vote for the person who was nice." Yawn.
There's nothing wrong with someone giving their opinion on who should win during the jury speeches. It's what they talk about in the jury house anyway and it is just giving people a look at what they thing/how they are voting. Instead of the same "why should you win" questions over and over again. The other jury members don't have to actally do it, someone is just giving their opinion and telling everyone not to be bitter/get their heads out of their ***. There is NOTHING wrong with that and some people just don't get that.
It's not the final 3's fault that the jury is bitter. The jury gets angry that they were outplayed and didn't make it to the end and they take it out on the person who actally played the games and made moves. That is all on the jury members, not the players who survived.
Yeah you're still not getting it, we aren't robots. We have emotions, feelings, etc and to just say hey this guy did all these strategic things, but treated me like garbage, hey I'll still voe for him isn't something that typically happens ever for a reason. Not only is someone having a bad social game that they treat people poorly playing a bad game and poor jury management, it is a valid reason not to vote for someone.
If a jury is bitter, it is on the finalists to turn it around and get their votes anyway they can. If they can't, you had poor manaegement there and did something wrong to burn their vote. There's a lot wrong with those speeches, the biggest part being how condescneding they come across when Mike and Tony were winning their seasons either way. Also, as has been said a million times, people don't have to vote for a set criteria because there is none. Thos speeches are some of the all time worst, while speeches with emotion and raw feelings are tpyically very good, see Sue or Trish.
You seem to not really get the game, I mean it all comes down to the jury vote. If you can't get the jury votes, it's not on the jurors, but on you for not handling the situation the way you should have.
Yeah you're still not getting it, we aren't robots. We have emotions, feelings, etc and to just say hey this guy did all these strategic things, but treated me like garbage, hey I'll still voe for him isn't something that typically happens ever for a reason. Not only is someone having a bad social game that they treat people poorly playing a bad game and poor jury management, it is a valid reason not to vote for someone.
If a jury is bitter, it is on the finalists to turn it around and get their votes anyway they can. If they can't, you had poor manaegement there and did something wrong to burn their vote. There's a lot wrong with those speeches, the biggest part being how condescneding they come across when Mike and Tony were winning their seasons either way. Also, as has been said a million times, people don't have to vote for a set criteria because there is none. Thos speeches are some of the all time worst, while speeches with emotion and raw feelings are tpyically very good, see Sue or Trish.
You seem to not really get the game, I mean it all comes down to the jury vote. If you can't get the jury votes, it's not on the jurors, but on you for not handling the situation the way you should have.
And In Jenn's case on WA how hypocritical it was for her to tell people to stop being bitter when she herself was bitter and bascially quit the game and try to **** up everyone else's game because she was getting outplayed.
And you can also add Boston Rob to that too. He was winning Redemption Island regardless but David just had to tell everyone how to vote.
Yeah you're still not getting it, we aren't robots. We have emotions, feelings, etc and to just say hey this guy did all these strategic things, but treated me like garbage, hey I'll still voe for him isn't something that typically happens ever for a reason. Not only is someone having a bad social game that they treat people poorly playing a bad game and poor jury management, it is a valid reason not to vote for someone.
If a jury is bitter, it is on the finalists to turn it around and get their votes anyway they can. If they can't, you had poor manaegement there and did something wrong to burn their vote. There's a lot wrong with those speeches, the biggest part being how condescneding they come across when Mike and Tony were winning their seasons either way. Also, as has been said a million times, people don't have to vote for a set criteria because there is none. Thos speeches are some of the all time worst, while speeches with emotion and raw feelings are tpyically very good, see Sue or Trish.
You seem to not really get the game, I mean it all comes down to the jury vote. If you can't get the jury votes, it's not on the jurors, but on you for not handling the situation the way you should have.
[/quote]
And In Jenn's case on WA how hypocritical it was for her to tell people to stop being bitter when she herself was bitter and bascially quit the game and try to **** up everyone else's game because she was getting outplayed.
And you can also add Boston Rob to that too. He was winning Redemption Island regardless but David just had to tell everyone how to vote.
[/quote]
Yeah, that's what gets me too is Jenn was definitely bitter against Carolyn and Will for turning on her as well and went to vote for who she liked the best. I really like Jenn, but her jury speech and the Worldas Apart FTC in general was awful.
That as well, Jeremy did one kinda in SJDS, but it was really weird because it was so short lol. I just know Ciera is probably gonna give one for ths upcoming FTC which ew.
One funny thing about RI is how, again it's so poorly edited with how Rob was winning against anyone, but he wasn't and jury members have even said they wanted any reason in the world to not vote for Rob,but Natalie didn't give them a single one and Phillip just picked fights with jurors. Like Ashley, Matt, Grant, Andrea, Steve, Mike all would have clean sweeped against Rob in a jury vote. This is a big reason why I can't buy into Rob being this amazing player when he got his win on his 4th shot, against newbies, and had such a poor social game.
Yeah you're still not getting it, we aren't robots. We have emotions, feelings, etc and to just say hey this guy did all these strategic things, but treated me like garbage, hey I'll still voe for him isn't something that typically happens ever for a reason. Not only is someone having a bad social game that they treat people poorly playing a bad game and poor jury management, it is a valid reason not to vote for someone.
If a jury is bitter, it is on the finalists to turn it around and get their votes anyway they can. If they can't, you had poor manaegement there and did something wrong to burn their vote. There's a lot wrong with those speeches, the biggest part being how condescneding they come across when Mike and Tony were winning their seasons either way. Also, as has been said a million times, people don't have to vote for a set criteria because there is none. Thos speeches are some of the all time worst, while speeches with emotion and raw feelings are tpyically very good, see Sue or Trish.
You seem to not really get the game, I mean it all comes down to the jury vote. If you can't get the jury votes, it's not on the jurors, but on you for not handling the situation the way you should have.
And In Jenn's case on WA how hypocritical it was for her to tell people to stop being bitter when she herself was bitter and bascially quit the game and try to **** up everyone else's game because she was getting outplayed.
And you can also add Boston Rob to that too. He was winning Redemption Island regardless but David just had to tell everyone how to vote.
[/quote]
Yeah, that's what gets me too is Jenn was definitely bitter against Carolyn and Will for turning on her as well and went to vote for who she liked the best. I really like Jenn, but her jury speech and the Worldas Apart FTC in general was awful.
That as well, Jeremy did one kinda in SJDS, but it was really weird because it was so short lol. I just know Ciera is probably gonna give one for ths upcoming FTC which ew.
[/quote]
And then at the reunion it revealed that she would've voted for ******* Rodney...Like sit down and shut up.
I didn't see SJDS so I can't comment on that one(But I would like to see that season though).
One funny thing about RI is how, again it's so poorly edited with how Rob was winning against anyone, but he wasn't and jury members have even said they wanted any reason in the world to not vote for Rob,but Natalie didn't give them a single one and Phillip just picked fights with jurors. Like Ashley, Matt, Grant, Andrea, Steve, Mike all would have clean sweeped against Rob in a jury vote. This is a big reason why I can't buy into Rob being this amazing player when he got his win on his 4th shot, against newbies, and had such a poor social game.
Yeah. I'm not convinced that rob is one of the best soley because of that.
Yeah you're still not getting it, we aren't robots. We have emotions, feelings, etc and to just say hey this guy did all these strategic things, but treated me like garbage, hey I'll still voe for him isn't something that typically happens ever for a reason. Not only is someone having a bad social game that they treat people poorly playing a bad game and poor jury management, it is a valid reason not to vote for someone.
If a jury is bitter, it is on the finalists to turn it around and get their votes anyway they can. If they can't, you had poor manaegement there and did something wrong to burn their vote. There's a lot wrong with those speeches, the biggest part being how condescneding they come across when Mike and Tony were winning their seasons either way. Also, as has been said a million times, people don't have to vote for a set criteria because there is none. Thos speeches are some of the all time worst, while speeches with emotion and raw feelings are tpyically very good, see Sue or Trish.
You seem to not really get the game, I mean it all comes down to the jury vote. If you can't get the jury votes, it's not on the jurors, but on you for not handling the situation the way you should have.
And In Jenn's case on WA how hypocritical it was for her to tell people to stop being bitter when she herself was bitter and bascially quit the game and try to **** up everyone else's game because she was getting outplayed.
And you can also add Boston Rob to that too. He was winning Redemption Island regardless but David just had to tell everyone how to vote.
Yeah, that's what gets me too is Jenn was definitely bitter against Carolyn and Will for turning on her as well and went to vote for who she liked the best. I really like Jenn, but her jury speech and the Worldas Apart FTC in general was awful.
That as well, Jeremy did one kinda in SJDS, but it was really weird because it was so short lol. I just know Ciera is probably gonna give one for ths upcoming FTC which ew.
[/quote]
And then at the reunion it revealed that she would've voted for ******* Rodney...Like sit down and shut up.
I didn't see SJDS so I can't comment on that one(But I would like to see that season though).
I am getting it though, but when playing a game like this you have to leave your emotions at the door. I'm not saying not to make friends and any emotional connections to people, but you have to be willing to cut those ties and do what's best for your game. Also, there's a difference between someone treating you like garbage and someone playing the game. Social game is important too. If you're treating people like shit, then you are doing an awful job. But that doesn't mean someone should win just for being nice/having friends. People who are cutthroat (who aren't treating people like garbage) deserve to win over someone who is just nice. Many people get offended that these players lie, or blindsided them and take it personal, hence becoming bitter, and not wanting to vote for them.
That's where the jury speeches come into play. You people make it seem that if the person adresses the jury that the jury automatically has to vote that way. Nope, they can still vote anyway they want, but you guys seem to forget that. Also, I think the jury members know a little more about how the other jury members are gonna vote over us. So if they felt they had to do it, I'm sure it was for a reason. And if the person was going to win the season either way than what's the big deal? It's not like the jury member changed the minds of everyone. Jenn was bitter... but she was able to realize that she got outplayed and own up to it in the end. Plus, she knew from being on the jury that everyone hated Mike but had a connection with either Will or Mama C.
I don't see why you guys get so offended over it, like it shouldn't happen. Some people do like it/think they are good speeches.
Also, I do get the game thank you. I've watched for seasons and probably know a lot more about it than most people. No need to be condescending just because I have a different view/opinion than you.
I really hate bitter jury members... like learn to leave your heart at the door. You don't go into survivor expecting to be all buddy buddy with everyone... you know you're gonna have to stab a few backs along the way, and if you can't deal with that you shouldn't be on it. I'm not saying that ppl who treat others as shit should win... but ppl that actually PLAY the game SHOULD win. Russell didn't win because he was an ***. Tony won because he played the game.. sure he was aggresive and wasn't the most likeable character, but others saw what he did and how he manipulated as very strategic. I remember watching last seasons big brother and seeing Austin in the jury house be super bitter towards Vanessa because she backstabbed him so well... he wanted friggn Liz to win... who did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Like his judgement of Vanessa was completely clouded because he was so bitter.
Ppl need to get over their emotions... ppl that LOVE the game of survivor and know how to play it, understand this. Thankfully the majority of the jury usually has it right.. but there always the few on there that i just want to punch square in the face. The best player deserves the title. I would gladly hand over the money to someone that backstabbed me... so long as I think there game was strong enough. Now I know you might think "but you wouldn't know until you are actually in that position".. fair enough, i'll never be on survivor... but I have been in similar situations before, and I have had no problem doing so. I see it as a game, not as a friendship getaway.
I really hate bitter jury members... like learn to leave your heart at the door. You don't go into survivor expecting to be all buddy buddy with everyone... you know you're gonna have to stab a few backs along the way, and if you can't deal with that you shouldn't be on it. I'm not saying that ppl who treat others as shit should win... but ppl that actually PLAY the game SHOULD win. Russell didn't win because he was an ***. Tony won because he played the game.. sure he was aggresive and wasn't the most likeable character, but others saw what he did and how he manipulated as very strategic. I remember watching last seasons big brother and seeing Austin in the jury house be super bitter towards Vanessa because she backstabbed him so well... he wanted friggn Liz to win... who did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Like his judgement of Vanessa was completely clouded because he was so bitter.
Ppl need to get over their emotions... ppl that LOVE the game of survivor and know how to play it, understand this. Thankfully the majority of the jury usually has it right.. but there always the few on there that i just want to punch square in the face. The best player deserves the title. I would gladly hand over the money to someone that backstabbed me... so long as I think there game was strong enough. Now I know you might think "but you wouldn't know until you are actually in that position".. fair enough, i'll never be on survivor... but I have been in similar situations before, and I have had no problem doing so. I see it as a game, not as a friendship getaway.
I wish Jerri won heroes vs villains tbh. It would have been a great end to her redemption storyline.
My point. Wouldn't mind her in Micronesia, but she should have retired after this one imo. But she would have made it to the final for the 3rd time and lost again, I would have be DEAD.
http://insidesurvivor.com/2015/11/survivor-season-32-premiere-date/
...if i recall correctly it was Jenn who played her idol early on.... standard play..... and then Mike.... public enemy #1.... standard play... and carolyn.... who knew she was the next biggest threat to Mike with Mike having immunity... and Dan playing his advantage...
I think the bluff of the idol play to get them to change their votes (Tyler & Will) was probably the best play of the season.
Honestly the only one I was impressed with was Jenn's, because IIRC she took a shot in the dark and just played it on herself, not knowing whether or not the majority voted for her or Hali. Mike's was predictable, and so was Carolyn's, so neither really wows me.
Fun fact, Judd is from my town, and we all went to the town recreation hall and watched the season.
Screw Stephanie. Give me some more Bobbi Jon to look at.
I didn't think Worlds Apart was that bad. Not the best season but not horrible.
Truth.
I found this so funny, i died when they showed Rodney.
https://youtu.be/lNu1sFVQk5I
You shouldn't be signing up for Survivor if you are just gonna vote for your friends over the person who played the best game. If the jury needs to be reminded of that because they are bitter then so be it
Why? There is no requirement on how someone is supposed to vote, superfans say that jurors MUST vote for who played the best game, but they really don't. A juror can vote however they please, they aren't entitled to vote the way the fanbase thinks they should. A majority of jurors vote for who they liked the best, key examples: Samoa, HvV, SJDS, Tocantins, Palau, Amazon, Pearl Islands, the list is too long to keep going.
This is BS to the core. Each member of the jury can vote for womever they want for whatever reasons they want. Nobody needs to be reminded of anything. If the Jury is mad or bitter for whatever reason then guess what? That's the final 3's fault(or it may be one or two particular people on the F3) and it's the people on the F3's job to somehow change their minds and get them to vote for the them. That is not the responsibility of ANYONE on the jury to tell anyone how to feel and how to vote ESPECIALLY when they're just at bitter as anyone else. Survivor is a social game and you can't expect people to vote for the person that they had no connection with or was an ******* to them even if they did play a good game. That's why Russell lost twice before....He was an ******* who never made any real connections and he was never nice or friendly to anyone..noone is going to give a million dollars to that(well maybe some people would but most people wouldnt) How you come across to people is a big part of the game on Survivor. Always have been and always will be.
I hate bitter jury members...
Me too. It ruins the game if people are just going to vote for their friends over people who actually played the game and deserve to win. "Oh this person blindsided me, had idols and won immnity, but this person was nice to me. I'm gonna vote for the person who was nice." Yawn.
There's nothing wrong with someone giving their opinion on who should win during the jury speeches. It's what they talk about in the jury house anyway and it is just giving people a look at what they thing/how they are voting. Instead of the same "why should you win" questions over and over again. The other jury members don't have to actally do it, someone is just giving their opinion and telling everyone not to be bitter/get their heads out of their ***. There is NOTHING wrong with that and some people just don't get that.
It's not the final 3's fault that the jury is bitter. The jury gets angry that they were outplayed and didn't make it to the end and they take it out on the person who actally played the games and made moves. That is all on the jury members, not the players who survived.
Yeah you're still not getting it, we aren't robots. We have emotions, feelings, etc and to just say hey this guy did all these strategic things, but treated me like garbage, hey I'll still voe for him isn't something that typically happens ever for a reason. Not only is someone having a bad social game that they treat people poorly playing a bad game and poor jury management, it is a valid reason not to vote for someone.
If a jury is bitter, it is on the finalists to turn it around and get their votes anyway they can. If they can't, you had poor manaegement there and did something wrong to burn their vote. There's a lot wrong with those speeches, the biggest part being how condescneding they come across when Mike and Tony were winning their seasons either way. Also, as has been said a million times, people don't have to vote for a set criteria because there is none. Thos speeches are some of the all time worst, while speeches with emotion and raw feelings are tpyically very good, see Sue or Trish.
You seem to not really get the game, I mean it all comes down to the jury vote. If you can't get the jury votes, it's not on the jurors, but on you for not handling the situation the way you should have.
And In Jenn's case on WA how hypocritical it was for her to tell people to stop being bitter when she herself was bitter and bascially quit the game and try to **** up everyone else's game because she was getting outplayed.
And you can also add Boston Rob to that too. He was winning Redemption Island regardless but David just had to tell everyone how to vote.
quote
=Debut Album]
quote
=Fresh Meat]
Yeah you're still not getting it, we aren't robots. We have emotions, feelings, etc and to just say hey this guy did all these strategic things, but treated me like garbage, hey I'll still voe for him isn't something that typically happens ever for a reason. Not only is someone having a bad social game that they treat people poorly playing
a bad game and poor jury management, it is a valid reason not to vote for someone.
If a jury is bitter, it is on the finalists to turn it around and get their votes anyway they can. If they can't, you had poor manaegement there and did something wrong to burn their vote. There's a lot wrong with those speeches, the biggest part being how condescneding they come across when Mike and Tony were winning
their seasons either way. Also, as has been said a million times, people don't have to vote for a set criteria because there is none. Thos speeches are some of the all time worst, while speeches with emotion and raw feelings are tpyically very good, see Sue or Trish.
You seem to not really get the game, I mean it all comes down to the jury vote. If you can't get the jury votes, it's not on the jurors, but on you for not handling the situation the way you should have.
[/quote]
And In Jenn's case on WA how hypocritical it was for her to tell people to stop being bitter when she herself was bitter and bascially quit the game and try to **** up everyone else's game because she was getting outplayed.
And you can also add Boston Rob to that too. He was winning Redemption Island regardless but David just had to tell everyone how to vote.
[/quote]
Yeah, that's what gets me too is Jenn was definitely bitter against Carolyn and Will for turning on her as well and went to vote for who she liked the best. I really like Jenn, but her jury speech and the Worldas Apart FTC in general was awful.
That as well, Jeremy did one kinda in SJDS, but it was really weird because it was so short lol. I just know Ciera is probably gonna give one for ths upcoming FTC which ew.
One funny thing about RI is how, again it's so poorly edited with how Rob was winning against anyone, but he wasn't and jury members have even said they wanted any reason in the world to not vote for Rob,but Natalie didn't give them a single one and Phillip just picked fights with jurors. Like Ashley, Matt, Grant, Andrea, Steve, Mike all would have clean sweeped against Rob in a jury vote. This is a big reason why I can't buy into Rob being this amazing player when he got his win on his 4th shot, against newbies, and had such a poor social game.
And In Jenn's case on WA how hypocritical it was for her to tell people to stop being bitter when she herself was bitter and bascially quit the game and try to **** up everyone else's game because she was getting outplayed.
And you can also add Boston Rob to that too. He was winning Redemption Island regardless but David just had to tell everyone how to vote.
[/quote]
Yeah, that's what gets me too is Jenn was definitely bitter against Carolyn and Will for turning on her as well and went to vote for who she liked the best. I really like Jenn, but her jury speech and the Worldas Apart FTC in general was awful.
That as well, Jeremy did one kinda in SJDS, but it was really weird because it was so short lol. I just know Ciera is probably gonna give one for ths upcoming FTC which ew.
[/quote]
And then at the reunion it revealed that she would've voted for ******* Rodney...Like sit down and shut up.
I didn't see SJDS so I can't comment on that one(But I would like to see that season though).
Yeah. I'm not convinced that rob is one of the best soley because of that.
Yeah, that's what gets me too is Jenn was definitely bitter against Carolyn and Will for turning on her as well and went to vote for who she liked the best. I really like Jenn, but her jury speech and the Worldas Apart FTC in general was awful.
That as well, Jeremy did one kinda in SJDS, but it was really weird because it was so short lol. I just know Ciera is probably gonna give one for ths upcoming FTC which ew.
[/quote]
And then at the reunion it revealed that she would've voted for ******* Rodney...Like sit down and shut up.
I didn't see SJDS so I can't comment on that one(But I would like to see that season though).
[/quote]
You should watch! Fantastic season imo
Watch it! SJDS didn't have that much of a likable cast but it was awesome. Love Jon and Jaclyn and Natalie was fantastic.
I am getting it though, but when playing a game like this you have to leave your emotions at the door. I'm not saying not to make friends and any emotional connections to people, but you have to be willing to cut those ties and do what's best for your game. Also, there's a difference between someone treating you like garbage and someone playing the game. Social game is important too. If you're treating people like shit, then you are doing an awful job. But that doesn't mean someone should win just for being nice/having friends. People who are cutthroat (who aren't treating people like garbage) deserve to win over someone who is just nice. Many people get offended that these players lie, or blindsided them and take it personal, hence becoming bitter, and not wanting to vote for them.
That's where the jury speeches come into play. You people make it seem that if the person adresses the jury that the jury automatically has to vote that way. Nope, they can still vote anyway they want, but you guys seem to forget that. Also, I think the jury members know a little more about how the other jury members are gonna vote over us. So if they felt they had to do it, I'm sure it was for a reason. And if the person was going to win the season either way than what's the big deal? It's not like the jury member changed the minds of everyone. Jenn was bitter... but she was able to realize that she got outplayed and own up to it in the end. Plus, she knew from being on the jury that everyone hated Mike but had a connection with either Will or Mama C.
I don't see why you guys get so offended over it, like it shouldn't happen. Some people do like it/think they are good speeches.
Also, I do get the game thank you. I've watched for seasons and probably know a lot more about it than most people. No need to be condescending just because I have a different view/opinion than you.
Not a Survivor fan but thought I'd share this.
http://www.tvguide.com/news/richard-hatch-the-biggest-loser-survivor-win...
Natalie <33333 she was my favourite that season... sooooooo happy she won!! that made the season for me
I really hate bitter jury members... like learn to leave your heart at the door. You don't go into survivor expecting to be all buddy buddy with everyone... you know you're gonna have to stab a few backs along the way, and if you can't deal with that you shouldn't be on it. I'm not saying that ppl who treat others as shit should win... but ppl that actually PLAY the game SHOULD win. Russell didn't win because he was an ***. Tony won because he played the game.. sure he was aggresive and wasn't the most likeable character, but others saw what he did and how he manipulated as very strategic. I remember watching last seasons big brother and seeing Austin in the jury house be super bitter towards Vanessa because she backstabbed him so well... he wanted friggn Liz to win... who did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Like his judgement of Vanessa was completely clouded because he was so bitter.
Ppl need to get over their emotions... ppl that LOVE the game of survivor and know how to play it, understand this. Thankfully the majority of the jury usually has it right.. but there always the few on there that i just want to punch square in the face. The best player deserves the title. I would gladly hand over the money to someone that backstabbed me... so long as I think there game was strong enough. Now I know you might think "but you wouldn't know until you are actually in that position".. fair enough, i'll never be on survivor... but I have been in similar situations before, and I have had no problem doing so. I see it as a game, not as a friendship getaway.
How do you determine who the 'best player' is?
I would watch it but I can't seem to find the season anywhere where I can watch it for free.
If you have popup blocker I would suggest primewire.ag but if you don't it gives a lot of pop-ups
I'm sure someone else has another website though
Pages