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?
It's usually easy to tell within the final 2/3. There's usually a player that is surrounded by a goat or two or just a player that's had a much stronger game than the other's.
I wouldn't vote for someone like Missy or Jaclyn over Natalie. I would neverrrr vote for someone like Woo over Tony. (That's why when juror's tell other juror's to vote for whoever played the best game, it shouldn't be an issue It's not like it was a close call between two people and a juror was telling them to go a ceratin way.)Or someone like Will over Mike. Mama C was pretty close, but overall Mike's game was better. For the current season I wouldn't vote for Keith/Kimmi/Abi over Spencer, Tasha, Joe, Jeremy or Kelley. I hope it comes down to 3 of those last 5 so it can be an interesting vote, rather than an obvious one like most cases.
It's usually obvious for me, but sometimes it can be close between 2 people. Then for me it would come down to analyzing their overall game, my relationship with them, and the jury questions.
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 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.
No. You don't and you have proven you don't.
Lol but I do. I'm not so sure you do yet. You haven't even seen some recent seasons.
I don't know the game because I feel like the better player should win over someone who was just nice to everyone? Please, next.. I'm literally having a disucssion with people but apparently I don't know the game that I've watched for years and years because I have a different view/opinion then them. If the game goes how you view it then Keith will win this season.
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.
But people have wpn simply for being nice/friendly, that is a strategy that has won before which I've stated a few times already. Most often people who play a cutthroat game as long as they're sure to not burn bridges or treat others poorly, do get the votes in the end. I mean yeah people give bitter speeches, but they just lost a shot at a million dollars and it is still so raw and hurts. It's easy to use the mantra it's just a game when we're watching from home with no connections and none of our actual feelings involved. This all just comes back to proper jury manegement and if you have it, you should be getting the jury votes either way.
Where did I say or imply this? The jury speeches are rude and condescneding to the other players as if the person/way they're voting is the right and on;y way to go with. Yeah, Spencer has even said he likely didn't change a thing and Jefra/Sarah were the only ones who were hestitant to vote Tony, everybody knew Mie was winning easily, so yeah those weren't close votes and the speeches didn't impact much if at all. The jurors didn't hate Mike at all, they wanted him out, but besides maybe Rodney at a moment and Dan, everybody was good with him.
lol you complaining about me being condescneding when you called me delusional for not calling Spencer and Tasha good players in Cagayan
she's been playing the game the entire season, editors just choose not to show her at all for whatever reason, but yeah yies to that comment.....
she's been coasting.
anddd? she's been in the power alliance and is one of the least likely to be targeted as her alliance is filled with bigger threats. She is very well liked and has a great story for FTC. She doesn't need to be making crazy moves, somehow the fanbase assumes big moves = playing the GAME
she's been playing the game the entire season, editors just choose not to show her at all for whatever reason, but yeah yies to that comment.....
she's been coasting.
anddd? she's been in the power alliance and is one of the least likely to be targeted as her alliance is filled with bigger threats. She is very well liked and has a great story for FTC. She doesn't need to be making crazy moves, somehow the fanbase assumes big moves = playing the GAME
ummm that's because it does.... even Kimmi said it herself this episode... if you coast, you'll be forgotten... the only way to coast and win, is to bring other coasters to the end with you
No it doesn't, people are almsot always playing the game. Being nice to people and bonding is playing the game as those are social relationships, being ignored in the edit doesn't mean you're not doing anything, it means you're not important to the story they're trying to tell. Smh, this really started in RI, but has spread over to this season with Ciera shouting people are not playing the game, when they are, they're just not playing overly flashy and in a way you want them to.
also lol at your last point, Natalie beat Russell in Samoa, Sandra beat Russell/Parv in HvV
well Russell was a nasty player, he didn't deserve the win (anyone would have won against him) (but russell was in a category of his own.. there's a fine like between being a strategic gameplayer and just being plain mean)... im still super bitter at Sandra winning though. That should've been Parv's game - that was the one thing that ruined a near perfect season.
All i'm saying is, Kimmi is not getting a winners edit... or any edit. Therefore, her game was weak and she coasted (attempting to make one move towards the end of the season) and will most likely not win
Or even look at trish... liked by all her castmates & was voted out because of that
yeah, but i think it came down to how trish was being too well liked to the point where it might not be a good thing to sit next to her. There has to be a balanece between being well liked, but also not letting people catch onto it too much. Also, Woo wasn't well liked, a lot of people say he was quiet ou thtere and really only spoe to Tony and Trish mostly.
also lol at your last point, Natalie beat Russell in Samoa, Sandra beat Russell/Parv in HvV
well Russell was a nasty player, he didn't deserve the win (anyone would have won against him) (but russell was in a category of his own.. there's a fine like between being a strategic gameplayer and just being plain mean)... im still super bitter at Sandra winning though. That should've been Parv's game - that was the one thing that ruined a near perfect season.
All i'm saying is, Kimmi is not getting a winners edit... or any edit. Therefore, her game was weak and she coasted (attempting to make one move towards the end of the season) and will most likely not win
I think there have been players who have played like Russell, see Kass or Stephenie in Guatemala. Parvati deserved to lose though, her laughing at the heroes' letter after JT was voted out and alientating people who would make the majority of the jury and sit next to the woman who was friends with them and tried to help them was a bad move. She also caused Russell to implode at final 7.
Yeah definitely not winning, but that doesb't mean her game is weak at ll. A lot of people get weak edits, despite playing good games.
Coasting is a way to play the game tho...Everyone is playing the game, whether is being less threatening or making crazy power plays. Kimmi's there because she played a better game than everyone whose out before her. Luck also helps tho.
It's okay to coast until merge (if you can, since that'd be ideal), but after that you really have to look at the endgame. You need something that will impress the jury if you are standing up there at the end pleading your case. It's more than likely that someone in that F3 will have done a lot more than you if you didn't make any sort of move in the game (ex. Wentworth, Spencer, Tasha, and Jeremy would all win over Kimmi in a heartbeat... because they DID stuff). Coasting is only okay for the first bit.. but at some point you're gonna have to actually do something if you want to win... and Kimmi trying to start this all-girl alliance this far in the game is probably not gonna be enough. You can coast to the end... doesn't make you better than the players before you (playing safe vs playing the game).. sure you placed better than them because you weren't a threat, but had some of them happened to get out of their postition, they'd still beat you in the end (Stephen, Kass, Joe).
A lot of people aren't happy with Tasha from interviews thus far in the season though, she's definitely someone Kimmi can beat. She could probably beat Keith or Abi as well and even soemwhat of a shot for a good reason for rhe money and story at ftc. You don't have to play a super strategic, aggressive game to win, just be more well liked than the people at the F3 and get the most jury votes. That's just something Jeff likes to make the show about, but even Parvati herself has said the show isn't about big moves. It just sells the show better to casual fans. Playing safe is playing the game, playing the game isn't exclusive to being the most aggressive.
It's okay to coast until merge (if you can, since that'd be ideal), but after that you really have to look at the endgame. You need something that will impress the jury if you are standing up there at the end pleading your case. It's more than likely that someone in that F3 will have done a lot more than you if you didn't make any sort of move in the game (ex. Wentworth, Spencer, Tasha, and Jeremy would all win over Kimmi in a heartbeat... because they DID stuff). Coasting is only okay for the first bit.. but at some point you're gonna have to actually do something if you want to win... and Kimmi trying to start this all-girl alliance this far in the game is probably not gonna be enough. You can coast to the end... doesn't make you better than the players before you (playing safe vs playing the game).. sure you placed better than them because you weren't a threat, but had some of them happened to get out of their postition, they'd still beat you in the end (Stephen, Kass, Joe).
Let's say Stephen place 9th, but Kimmi made it to FTC: Although Stephen was super strategic and made bold moves or at least tried to make moves, but was seen as a threat than eliminated and Kimmi did the opposite, I still that Kimmi played the game. She was justaxposing her self to other big theats in the game, "playing safe". I think that strategy of hers worked better thant Stephen's strategy, therefore playing a better game. And it's easy to say if Stephen, kass, Joe were at FTC they'd win, but they are not. Plain and simple. Although, I understand your point. I think this season is going to heavily rely on how many big moves you've made instead of coasting thouhg, so unless Kimmi and her girl alliance takes her to FTC, I don't see her being a good contender.
But as a person, I'd vote for whoever I liked more. Part of the strategy is eliminating cast aways yet maintaining a good enough relationship with them so you don't loose their jury votes. Which is why Russel aint that great. You can call them bitter, but that's part of the game.
A lot of people aren't happy with Tasha from interviews thus far in the season though, she's definitely someone Kimmi can beat. She could probably beat Keith or Abi as well and even soemwhat of a shot for a good reason for rhe money and story at ftc. You don't have to play a super strategic, aggressive game to win, just be more well liked than the people at the F3 and get the most jury votes. That's just something Jeff likes to make the show about, but even Parvati herself has said the show isn't about big moves. It just sells the show better to casual fans. Playing safe is playing the game, playing the game isn't exclusive to being the most aggressive.[/quote]
Exactly. It seems that alot of people don't seem to get this. There's so much more ways to play the game than just making "big moves".
A lot of people aren't happy with Tasha from interviews thus far in the season though, she's definitely someone Kimmi can beat. She could probably beat Keith or Abi as well and even soemwhat of a shot for a good reason for rhe money and story at ftc. You don't have to play a super strategic, aggressive game to win, just be more well liked than the people at the F3 and get the most jury votes. That's just something Jeff likes to make the show about, but even Parvati herself has said the show isn't about big moves. It just sells the show better to casual fans. Playing safe is playing the game, playing the game isn't exclusive to being the most aggressive.[/quote]
Exactly. It seems that alot of people don't seem to get this. There's so much more ways to play the game than just making "big moves".
i'm not saying they have to make the "big moves"... but they have to do something aside from sitting on their *****, losing ICs, and just being buddy buddy. THAT is not deserving of a Survivor title... plain and simple. I would never hand over a million dollars to someone who literally did nothing all game... but thats just me
You literally agreed that not making big moves means you're not playing the game so I'm confused here. Either way, totally agree DA. Editing and Jeff just edit the show to push a big moves agenda. Cagayn is the worst of this with how they edit Tony to be Russell like and build up to his downfall and it never happens. Leading to threads like "could Russell have won with a Cagayn jury?" and the like.
A lot of people aren't happy with Tasha from interviews thus far in the season though, she's definitely someone Kimmi can beat. She could probably beat Keith or Abi as well and even soemwhat of a shot for a good reason for rhe money and story at ftc. You don't have to play a super strategic, aggressive game to win, just be more well liked than the people at the F3 and get the most jury votes. That's just something Jeff likes to make the show about, but even Parvati herself has said the show isn't about big moves. It just sells the show better to casual fans. Playing safe is playing the game, playing the game isn't exclusive to being the most aggressive.[/quote]
Exactly. It seems that alot of people don't seem to get this. There's so much more ways to play the game than just making "big moves".
i'm not saying they have to make the "big moves"... but they have to do something aside from sitting on their *****, losing ICs, and just being buddy buddy. THAT is not deserving of a Survivor title... plain and simple. I would never hand over a million dollars to someone who literally did nothing all game... but thats just me
Way to undersell a strong social game, which is what differentiates someone like Sandra and someone like Natalie T.
You literally agreed that not making big moves means you're not playing the game so I'm confused here. Either way, totally agree DA. Editing and Jeff just edit the show to push a big moves agenda. Cagayn is the worst of this with how they edit Tony to be Russell like and build up to his downfall and it never happens. Leading to threads like "could Russell have won with a Cagayn jury?" and the like.
...I got more of a Boston Rob vibe from Tony, constantly all over everyone as if that was his sole duty while he's out there on the island.
Just because he ws hiding out in shacks and finding idiols doesn't mean he should automatically be compared to Russell lol
It's usually easy to tell within the final 2/3. There's usually a player that is surrounded by a goat or two or just a player that's had a much stronger game than the other's.
I wouldn't vote for someone like Missy or Jaclyn over Natalie. I would neverrrr vote for someone like Woo over Tony. (That's why when juror's tell other juror's to vote for whoever played the best game, it shouldn't be an issue It's not like it was a close call between two people and a juror was telling them to go a ceratin way.)Or someone like Will over Mike. Mama C was pretty close, but overall Mike's game was better. For the current season I wouldn't vote for Keith/Kimmi/Abi over Spencer, Tasha, Joe, Jeremy or Kelley. I hope it comes down to 3 of those last 5 so it can be an interesting vote, rather than an obvious one like most cases.
It's usually obvious for me, but sometimes it can be close between 2 people. Then for me it would come down to analyzing their overall game, my relationship with them, and the jury questions.
No. You don't and you have proven you don't.
Lol but I do. I'm not so sure you do yet. You haven't even seen some recent seasons.
I don't know the game because I feel like the better player should win over someone who was just nice to everyone? Please, next.. I'm literally having a disucssion with people but apparently I don't know the game that I've watched for years and years because I have a different view/opinion then them. If the game goes how you view it then Keith will win this season.
Kimmi's playing the game now!?
Kimmi,
Now you want to talk about an all female alliance when Monica approached you 1st and you turned it down?
Bye...
But people have wpn simply for being nice/friendly, that is a strategy that has won before which I've stated a few times already. Most often people who play a cutthroat game as long as they're sure to not burn bridges or treat others poorly, do get the votes in the end. I mean yeah people give bitter speeches, but they just lost a shot at a million dollars and it is still so raw and hurts. It's easy to use the mantra it's just a game when we're watching from home with no connections and none of our actual feelings involved. This all just comes back to proper jury manegement and if you have it, you should be getting the jury votes either way.
Where did I say or imply this? The jury speeches are rude and condescneding to the other players as if the person/way they're voting is the right and on;y way to go with. Yeah, Spencer has even said he likely didn't change a thing and Jefra/Sarah were the only ones who were hestitant to vote Tony, everybody knew Mie was winning easily, so yeah those weren't close votes and the speeches didn't impact much if at all. The jurors didn't hate Mike at all, they wanted him out, but besides maybe Rodney at a moment and Dan, everybody was good with him.
lol you complaining about me being condescneding when you called me delusional for not calling Spencer and Tasha good players in Cagayan
she's been playing the game the entire season, editors just choose not to show her at all for whatever reason, but yeah yies to that comment.....
she's been coasting.
anddd? she's been in the power alliance and is one of the least likely to be targeted as her alliance is filled with bigger threats. She is very well liked and has a great story for FTC. She doesn't need to be making crazy moves, somehow the fanbase assumes big moves = playing the GAME
ummm that's because it does.... even Kimmi said it herself this episode... if you coast, you'll be forgotten... the only way to coast and win, is to bring other coasters to the end with you
No it doesn't, people are almsot always playing the game. Being nice to people and bonding is playing the game as those are social relationships, being ignored in the edit doesn't mean you're not doing anything, it means you're not important to the story they're trying to tell. Smh, this really started in RI, but has spread over to this season with Ciera shouting people are not playing the game, when they are, they're just not playing overly flashy and in a way you want them to.
also lol at your last point, Natalie beat Russell in Samoa, Sandra beat Russell/Parv in HvV
well Russell was a nasty player, he didn't deserve the win (anyone would have won against him) (but russell was in a category of his own.. there's a fine like between being a strategic gameplayer and just being plain mean)... im still super bitter at Sandra winning though. That should've been Parv's game - that was the one thing that ruined a near perfect season.
All i'm saying is, Kimmi is not getting a winners edit... or any edit. Therefore, her game was weak and she coasted (attempting to make one move towards the end of the season) and will most likely not win
You do realize that coasting and being social is not a way to set yourself up.. Look @ Woo
Or even look at trish... liked by all her castmates & was voted out because of that
yeah, but i think it came down to how trish was being too well liked to the point where it might not be a good thing to sit next to her. There has to be a balanece between being well liked, but also not letting people catch onto it too much. Also, Woo wasn't well liked, a lot of people say he was quiet ou thtere and really only spoe to Tony and Trish mostly.
I think there have been players who have played like Russell, see Kass or Stephenie in Guatemala. Parvati deserved to lose though, her laughing at the heroes' letter after JT was voted out and alientating people who would make the majority of the jury and sit next to the woman who was friends with them and tried to help them was a bad move. She also caused Russell to implode at final 7.
Yeah definitely not winning, but that doesb't mean her game is weak at ll. A lot of people get weak edits, despite playing good games.
Try searching for the season number instead of the title. Like survivor 0 episode 1
Oh really? I didn't know that. I thought this was her first episode on the show
no problem! more than happy to clairfiy
Coasting is a way to play the game tho...Everyone is playing the game, whether is being less threatening or making crazy power plays. Kimmi's there because she played a better game than everyone whose out before her. Luck also helps tho.
It's okay to coast until merge (if you can, since that'd be ideal), but after that you really have to look at the endgame. You need something that will impress the jury if you are standing up there at the end pleading your case. It's more than likely that someone in that F3 will have done a lot more than you if you didn't make any sort of move in the game (ex. Wentworth, Spencer, Tasha, and Jeremy would all win over Kimmi in a heartbeat... because they DID stuff). Coasting is only okay for the first bit.. but at some point you're gonna have to actually do something if you want to win... and Kimmi trying to start this all-girl alliance this far in the game is probably not gonna be enough. You can coast to the end... doesn't make you better than the players before you (playing safe vs playing the game).. sure you placed better than them because you weren't a threat, but had some of them happened to get out of their postition, they'd still beat you in the end (Stephen, Kass, Joe).
A lot of people aren't happy with Tasha from interviews thus far in the season though, she's definitely someone Kimmi can beat. She could probably beat Keith or Abi as well and even soemwhat of a shot for a good reason for rhe money and story at ftc. You don't have to play a super strategic, aggressive game to win, just be more well liked than the people at the F3 and get the most jury votes. That's just something Jeff likes to make the show about, but even Parvati herself has said the show isn't about big moves. It just sells the show better to casual fans. Playing safe is playing the game, playing the game isn't exclusive to being the most aggressive.
Let's say Stephen place 9th, but Kimmi made it to FTC: Although Stephen was super strategic and made bold moves or at least tried to make moves, but was seen as a threat than eliminated and Kimmi did the opposite, I still that Kimmi played the game. She was justaxposing her self to other big theats in the game, "playing safe". I think that strategy of hers worked better thant Stephen's strategy, therefore playing a better game. And it's easy to say if Stephen, kass, Joe were at FTC they'd win, but they are not. Plain and simple. Although, I understand your point. I think this season is going to heavily rely on how many big moves you've made instead of coasting thouhg, so unless Kimmi and her girl alliance takes her to FTC, I don't see her being a good contender.
But as a person, I'd vote for whoever I liked more. Part of the strategy is eliminating cast aways yet maintaining a good enough relationship with them so you don't loose their jury votes. Which is why Russel aint that great. You can call them bitter, but that's part of the game.
Bye @ Steph being booted second. **** you James, you ain't shit.
And as now, I kinda like Russell this season.
And Colby is a bae.
i'm not saying they have to make the "big moves"... but they have to do something aside from sitting on their *****, losing ICs, and just being buddy buddy. THAT is not deserving of a Survivor title... plain and simple. I would never hand over a million dollars to someone who literally did nothing all game... but thats just me
You literally agreed that not making big moves means you're not playing the game so I'm confused here. Either way, totally agree DA. Editing and Jeff just edit the show to push a big moves agenda. Cagayn is the worst of this with how they edit Tony to be Russell like and build up to his downfall and it never happens. Leading to threads like "could Russell have won with a Cagayn jury?" and the like.
Way to undersell a strong social game, which is what differentiates someone like Sandra and someone like Natalie T.
...I got more of a Boston Rob vibe from Tony, constantly all over everyone as if that was his sole duty while he's out there on the island.
Just because he ws hiding out in shacks and finding idiols doesn't mean he should automatically be compared to Russell lol
Pages