Lurker > WilhuffTarkin

303 might be Brian Corridan

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

306 is probably Tina from Exile Island

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

^Do you mean Redemption Island?

As a big fan of Russell's, I'd say RI is definitely his weakest outing. He really just wasn't around long enough to make a large impact. However, when he lost the duel to Matt and cried a bit, I think we all saw a more human side of him and got to fully understand just how much Survivor means to him. I'm thinking that darkx probably appreciates that, and as someone who doesn't like Russell too much, that that makes his RI incarnation the top one on the list (because his more human side is displayed).

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

311 could be Christina Cha.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Been away for a while.

I'm sort of surprised that Scout got booted so early. She seemed a lot more down to earth than a lot of the other people on that season.

And about Jeff Wilson: can't argue that, for what time he was on the show, he wasn't that great. But I think that if he hadn't been injured, Ulong could have won some immunity challenges. The sumo challenge, for example. One of those things we'll just never know, I guess.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

I can agree with labeling Alex as the douchebag of the season. You have to really wonder what strategic value he thought telling Rob that "at the final four, I'm pretty much guaranteed to vote you off" had at the final SEVEN. That, in and of itself, I wouldn't call a douchebag move, but it does show an extreme amount of confidence that, as we saw, was not necessarily warranted. So...I dunno. I feel like calling that a "douchbag move" for the time that it happened at may be allowing what followed to retroactively color my perception of it, but at the same time, it's hard to see why he would do that and expect it to have any positive benefits.

Joel is one of those guys whose general perception is a little confusing to me. Yeah, the edit made him seem kind of chauvinistic, but the specific comment that was chauvinistic can be attributed to Gervase ("Girls are the stupidest thing on the planet next to cows"), so it's a little strange to see so much of the consequence of that comment thrown on to Joel and Gervase seeming to get off relatively free. So while I can understand having him low for his season, it just seems a little off given that Gervase was the one who made the comment. Maybe someone can explain the general perception to me?

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Something I wanted to bring up when darkx posted his review of HvV J.T. but forgot to until just now:

In the review, he said something about J.T. feeling like he had something to prove in the strategy department coming into that season. I figure this is in reference to the perception that some people have that in Tocantins, Stephen was calling all the shots in that alliance.

What are your guys thoughts on this?

I watched Tocantins again about a month ago, and I never got any impression that Stephen was in charge. I think with J.T./Stephen you get one of the rare instances where two people are actually in an "equal partnership" of sorts where neither is really leading the way strategically. I'd make it analogous to Tina/Colby and Stephenie/Rafe in that regard.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Stephenie is probably my least favorite person to ever play the game of Survivor. I truly never understood why she was popular for Palau. All she ever did was complain about losing. Really: that's it. But somehow never-ending complaining was perceived as admirable competitiveness. Her whole "OMG I'm going to have friends!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" thing upon learning that she was moving to Koror was pretty obviously done for the benefit of the camera if you ask me, as was her break down in tears at the council when Janu quit. I'm supposed to believe that she was sobbing hysterically one minute, was smiling on her way out of tribal council, and the tears were real? I can't make that leap. She was completely inept at the strategic aspect of the game, putting her life in Bobby Jon's hands instead of taking control for herself while at Ulong, and then at Koror seemed to think that some kind of passive "Women's alliance! ...if you guys want" was going to cut it.

I prefer her Guatemala incarnation because everyone else started to see what I saw in Palau. She had a terrible attitude and was a sore loser...but at least she wasn't getting away with it this time. Her "I can't believe I finally won something!" act upon winning that individual immunity was, again, clearly done to make herself look good in front of the camera.

James calling her out for thinking that it was "all about her" in HvV was spot on imo. In one of her confessionals she says that she thinks Rupert doesn't like her "because I threaten his popularity." That right there pretty much shows that she's completely enamored of herself and thinks that she's amazing. That being said, I DO believe she had a valid point, because I'm pretty sure that Rupert is almost as enamored of himself and his popularity as Stephenie is of hers.

Basically, I don't like Stephenie because she's a huge phony.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Amada was 388 AND 387. I'm really not a fan of the way she plays the game, which seems to be to ally herself with people who are willing to make the cold, callous decisions necessary to advance the alliance, and then for her to try to cast herself as someone who, in spite of going along with every one of those decisions, is somehow less morally culpable for them, and she's really a good person, and blah blah blah.

Amanda is kind of like a modern Kelly Wiglesworth, when you think about it.

Peih-Gee calling Amanda out for her "doe eyes" at the jury at the end of China was awesome.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Aras is definitely bottom tier for people who have won it. He and Danielle made up what was arguably the worst final two since Vecepia and Neleh.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

What I've read is that Dirk backed Stacey, but Sean said that they were told to "vote your conscience" or some such.

I dunno...it's a little sketchy, but who can say what happened?

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Surprised your list doesn't include "William."

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

So, rather than actually discuss a difference of opinion like mature people, you just want to make insulting comments. Yay.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

I like Kelly Wiglesworth for being part of the Tagi Alliance. That alliance, to this day, is still the best alliance Survivor has ever had imo. I mean really, does it get more eclectic than this?

-The arrogant gay man.
-The young, athletic, toboy-ish girl.
-The curmudgeony old retired Navy Seal.
-The female redneck trucker.

Love it!

The reason that Borneo is probably still the best season to this day imo is because of the Tagi Alliance. I just love the whole story with them. I look at their progression from a psychological standpoint: when they voted out Dirk, it's like they were really testing the waters on whether or not this alliance thing could work. It whetted their appetites, and they obliterated everyone else like a dark force that nobody could see coming after sharpening their claws.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

neonreaper posted...

WilhuffTarkin posted...

AC/DC appearing on any list like this makes the list suck pretty much by itself, honestly. Sad thing is, there will undoubtedly be two of their albums when everything is all said and done.

I ask you, people: does anyone care about ANY of the songs on Back in Black other than "Hells Bells," "Back in Black," and "You Shook Me All Night Long?" The rest is just mediocre to bad filler! I'd even go so far as to say that the second half of "Back in Black" is terrible (when it's basically just Brian Johnson going "BA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAAAAAAACK! BA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!")

will pray for you this weekend but it may be a lost cause at this point

Well, would you care to elaborate on that? I don't like AC/DC because I find them to be very untalented musicians relative to their peers, astonishingly bad lyricists, and unimaginative song writers.

If you disagree, that's okay with me. In the interest of discussion, what about them appeals to you?

As for the comment about the tracks on Back in Black after the famous three, I stand by it. "What Do You Do for Money Honey," "Shoot to Thrill," "Rock N' Roll Ain't Noise Pollution"...I don't think there's anything remarkable about any of them.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

I disagree, actually. I think Bon Scott-era AC/DC is horrendous. Every song they ever did with the guy sounds exactly the same. With one exception (that I can remember): a slower song called "Ride On." Too bad that song sucked too.

There's really just nothing even remotely good about Scott's voice. Which isn't to say that Johnson's is much better, but I guess I personally do find it preferable.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

AC/DC appearing on any list like this makes the list suck pretty much by itself, honestly. Sad thing is, there will undoubtedly be two of their albums when everything is all said and done.

I ask you, people: does anyone care about ANY of the songs on Back in Black other than "Hells Bells," "Back in Black," and "You Shook Me All Night Long?" The rest is just mediocre to bad filler! I'd even go so far as to say that the second half of "Back in Black" is terrible (when it's basically just Brian Johnson going "BA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAAAAAAACK! BA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!")

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Oh, one other thing that makes Marquesas unenjoyable to me: Rosie O'Donnell on the reunion show. That is the single worst moment in the history of Survivor, bar none.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

I don't really get the Kathy love. She seemed really obnoxious about the shelter when she was still on Rotu, the way she presented the shells or whatever they were to the tribe.

She got better, but she never struck me as particularly likeable. She was probably the best player at the end of the season, but that's because everybody else was terrible.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

I don't dislike Carl...I'm not a fan though. He just wasn't really around long enough to make much of an impression.

I'm tryining to predict based on what I'm picking up about darkx's preferences.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

For your pre-merge Africa boot, I could see it being any of these three (based on what seems to dictate your opinion of players as seen in your writeups):

Lindsey: well, I don't think anyone likes her.
Silas: You don't seem to be a fan of people who are in controlling positions and flaunt it, and I'm guessing that if John Carroll is this low then Silas will be somewhere in the same ballpark.
Carl: I could see it. Him talking about having a Mercedes and a lot of money or whatever seems like it might dock him in your book.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Hmm...re-reading my post and I notice a typo: "outcats." Funny enough to leave as it is.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Marquesas is the worst season imo. I'll respect you having it in your top five because I understand that there are reasons some people like it. I just don't get those reasons. It seems to me that they frequently boil down to three things:

1. Kathy peeing on John's hand. Sure, it was entertaining for a minute, but it hardly carries a season.

2. The people on the outs flipping the game and voting out the controlling alliance. On paper, I agree that this would normally be something that would make a season interesting. But when every single person in the game is boring as hell, it doesn't make for compelling television regardless of what they do. Some people say "(insert season) had the worst final four out of any season" about seasons they dislike. I say that Marquesas had the worst final EIGHT of any season. I can get you not liking John, but he was the only person who seemed to be doing anything out of the final nine. After he got booted, it was just boring TV. The former outcats now become the controlling alliance and vote everyone else out, which is exactly the same thing. Except there's nothing even remotely compelling about any of them. Ugh. That's me, though.

3. PURPLE ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So what? It's a great idea for earlier in the game, but it sucked ass in a final four setting.

That's my take on Marquesas.

Your season rankings is quite different from my own. I suppose that's part of what makes Survivor great. Even the worst seasons are worth watching if you're a fan. I suppose I'm glad that some people are able to enjoy the ones that I think are lousy relative to the others.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

SanityLapse posted...

Clay so good. At least a Top 20 contestant for me. Maybe Top 10. Makes me sad when people miss out on how incredible he was to watch. Also, he wasn't nearly as bad of a player as some people say. The only people who say that were the ones who disliked watching him. But Clay made a number of positive social connections, mainly with Sook Jai. Of course Brian was the better player, since he was the best player ever.

Hmm...Brian was definitely one of the best, but Clay seemed sort of average to me. Would you elaborate on what makes him rank so high for you?

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

I don't like the new spoiler tags.

I don't really know how to use them...and I feel like an idiot for saying that. How's it done?

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

On the one hand, I sometimes want to say that, you know, yeah, RS fills its lists with cliches and and it's never a surprise what's going to be at the top of their lists. They fill their lists with classics, and there are reasons that most albums or songs deemed as "classics" have that status. There's nothing inherently wrong with having everything that the Beatles, Bob Dylan, and Bruce Springsteen ever put out on their lists, even if I personally don't agree.

But then I think...that's right: I personally don't agree. My personal taste is different. And somehow, I have a very hard time seriously believing that a list like this accurately reflects the individual taste of any of the people who compile it. It's like a mathematical formula for them: total up reviews for every album, arrange them by score, there's your list.


Spoilers


Making sure to have a Beatles album at number one, because god forbid anything else be at number one. Honestly, the top ten looks exactly the same to me as the last time I saw this list.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Topic title shamelessly pilfered from the youtube video because...there's no better way to describe it.

Extremely funny, if old.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

I almost wish it could be Spurs vs. Celtics so that Tim Duncan can squash Kevin Garnett, just as his career squashes Garnett's.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

411 is probably Osten

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

I'm gonna guess that 413 is either Mia because she was unpleasant, or John Palyok, who didn't seem to be very noteworthy.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Mik_Pick posted...

Even crueler was that they were originally going to be brought back in Guatemala but producers decided on two others from Palau instead. (Bobby Jon and Steph)

Interesting. I was unaware that those two were originally the ones who were to be brought back.

I found that the two they did bring back, however, turned out to be one of the better things about the season. The cast of that season was just strange...somehow they never seem to register in the same way that people from other seasons had. Even the people who were outright asses seemed to be asses in a distant way. Having the specific two that they brought back from Palau, because of the way their Palau experience went, come back kept things a bit more compelling imo.

For the first few episodes at any rate. Guatemala turned out to be incredibly boring overall. Second weakest season imo.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

The spineless tool has to be Chase.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

It's incredibly funny to hear you throwing the word "bias" around when you're very clearly biased yourself against Russell. Or, at the very least, "Russell fans." You certainly use the term as though it somehow makes me a bad person. Perhaps I should have guessed as much when your first post on the matter was something to the effect of "A Russell fan? In this topic? Wow, I could really say some select things about that, but I'll reign myself in." And yet you have the gall to call someone ELSE biased? That's just about the funniest thing I've read in this topic--yes, even funnier than the review of Russell's loss that Mega Mana posted back on page 11 (I didn't read the whole thing, but it certainly was humorous. In a good way). You ought to take a long look in the mirror before using that word again. If I'm biased, then there's a picture of you next to the word in the dictionary. But hey, if you want to have an aggressively negative attitude toward me because I like Russell, then go ahead; just don't go trying to label me as biased to cover yourself up. Biased against Natalie? Hardly: if I'm ranking the contestants of Samoa, Natalie gets near the top of my list. Doesn't change the fact that what she did within the game to get to the end was almost nothing--ALMOST. You'll notice I never said "nothing," it was always "almost nothing" or something similar to that. I would have been happy to go into depth on that if you had only asked me to. Instead, you start insulting me. Yay for effective discussion tactics!

You say I don't know Survivor very well? I know it inside and out--I'm a huge fan. And I can see that you are too. I'm glad that there are other people out there who are passionate about it as I am. We have a differing interpretation of some things. Unlike you, I never would have let that actually tick me off, and to a point that I started insulting you? What was, and could have continued to be, a lively and fun discussion now ends because of your absolutely ridiculous and uncalled for conduct in that last post. Good job.

I'm really sorry that you have such a poor attitude. But I don't care anymore. I'm done talking to you. I'm not wasting any more time on someone who just starts being rude in the middle of a conversation for no reason whatsoever.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Naomi_Diamond posted...

Most of what you say is just "I think it should be this way" - sorry, doesn't hold any water. That's not the way Survivor works. You state your perspective like it's the truth - it's not. It's what you want to see. Most players go to win, but many make friends along the way. Did you watch Samoa as well? Russell treated them poorly. The fact that you don't even agree with me there is why I hesitate to bother much . You won't find much of anyone agreeing with you. Russell yelled at most of the players. He was much a bully to his alliance. This is so common fact that it's weird hearing otherwise. Russell said many nasty things to their faces, not just the cameras. He wasn't friendly or respectful. Rewatch the season. Waste your time. Then get back to me with the results I already know exist.

I say this after listening to interviews, reading interviews, and blah blah post-game stuff where the other contestants spoke of Russell and his antics. Most of them talked about his cockiness. He was very off-putting.

Natalie is not a lesser player. That's your bias speaking. Seriously. A lesser player? Russell got owned in classic Survivor villain glory. You're a fan? Accept it. Understand it. Russell is definitely a lesser player if we're talking about employing a strategy to win the game. Natalie is perfect for Survivor, in fact. She knew how to play the hand she was dealt rather well. You say she did "nothing" - I see this and shrug. You clearly don't know your Survivor very well.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Wow! Considering that I've stated on numerous occasions that "this is my opinion" or "I'm willing to admit that this is me saying how I think it SHOULD be," not to mentioned "You're all welcome to disagree with me," I assumed we were operating with that as an understood point. I didn't think it was possible to miss it. I can't believe you're even TRYING to throw the "you state your opinion like it's fact" line at me. The logic in that line of thinking would baffle the Sphinx. It is, in fact, YOU who is seeing what you want to see. Why you're so uptight about this that what you're incapable of seeing anything but "Russell Fan = fail" is beyond the scope of reasonable comprehension. I also assumed we were operating with some kind of mutual respect for one another as people, but, evidently, I was completely and totally wrong about that.

Apparently, we're operating under circumstances in which you start being rude to me for no discernible reason. You're not interested in any exchange of ideas or intelligent discussion, which is what I thought was the case. I'm sad that I was wrong, because I was actually very much enjoying our conversation.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Naomi_Diamond posted...

Russell fans blame the jury. Everyone else blames Russell. The jury is never wrong; they can't be.

What they can do is award the title to a lesser player. Which happens quite frequently. I call it immaturity, for reasons I've already explained. You and I, evidently, have a fundamental disagreement on this point.

Russell actively ruined his chances of getting votes. He was completely played by his entire alliance (sans Shambo), who knew he was an obnoxious presence, and knew that he was the perfect shield and goat. Nobody from his alliance removed him because they couldn't lose to him. He was a sure a bet as can come in Survivor.

...You and I obviously didn't watch the same show. There was never once, at any point, even the slightest indication that his alliance was playing him. Stumbling ass-backward into a situation where in order to punish someone else for outplaying them, the jury votes for you =/= playing that other person.

Good Survivor players are able to balance the social, numbers, and physical games. Russell's approach was completely one-dimensional and not suitable to win Survivor. Russell's gameplay in Samoa could never win Survivor, as not a single jury would ever give him the win, despite what many odds some would wager against. He had the chance to bring people like Shambo to the end, but that would've never enter his thought process, even after losing the game handily.

Because, as I've said, the jury wasn't even interesting in giving him a fair hearing. They made up their minds before the final tribal council. Is there a rule against it? Nope. Does that make it just? Nope.

Sabotaging your own tribe early on? Bad gameplay. Voting out strong members over obvious weaker ones early on? Bad gameplay. Showing people hidden immunity idols again and again? Bad gameplay. Revealing you have lots of money at home? Bad gameplay. Playing in a way that people you can beat get voted out? Bad gameplay. Making superfluous alliances that backfire and cause them to hate you? Bad gameplay. Playing a one demensional game? Bad gameplay.

The first two points: actually, this helped him gain complete control of Foa Foa, and didn't even remotely come into play with a jury that was all-Galu except for Jaison, who definitely didn't care about earlier votes or know about the sabotage.

Showing hidden immunity idols: Not sure how it counts as bad gameplay when it doesn't result in anything bad happening to you.

Money at home: I can agree on this.

The way he played: Again, I disagree. He took two idiots who didn't do much of anything to the end. There's no logical reason to expect that this will hurt you.

Alliances: we've seen it time and again. Sometimes the people who it win and we're all "Awesome strategy!" When it doesn't work, people want to say that it was poor strategy. I think it's a pretty great strategy either way. People are morons to fall for it, but fall they do.

One dimensional game: Disagree. If you think that he got to the end without a social game that helped him maintain control of his alliances...I'm not even sure what to say to that.

I have to turn in for the night, I'll check back tomorrow. So long everybody!

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Naomi_Diamond posted...

You don't get it. Getting the jury to pool votes away from you is based on YOUR game. Russell's game was so bad, he had the jury trying to get him to lose. They were conspiring to cost him the title. He treated them so poorly that they took it back and threw it in his face. That's the game. That's a part of Survivor. Don't piss off the jury. It'll come back to bite you.

His jury management was so bad, and that's a clear example of why his strategic game was not very good. Eliminating people from the game is only part of the game. If you piss them off enough that they won't vote for you in the end, you're doing it wrong.

No, you don't get it--this is exactly why I use the word immaturity. People don't go to Survivor to make friends. They go to win. It is incredibly immature for anyone to go to Survivor prepared to be immersed in lying and betraying and then actually take personal offense to it, that they carry with them when they're outside of the game, that obscures their reasoning when they vote. This is not a jury that conspired against Russell because they felt like he treated them poorly--this is a jury upset about being thoroughly outplayed and outwitted in every sense of the meaning. To be honest, I'm not even sure where you're coming from saying that he treated them poorly unless voting them off counts as treating them poorly. Almost every single "mean" thing he said was in a camera confessional, not to them at all. Which, again, that's something that everyone is well aware of when they get there--there will be voting out. It might be them. And if they're upset about being voted out, that's really their problem. They're adults, they should be able accept it.

Naomi_Diamond posted...

Also, you can't say who you'd vote for in a season without being there. It's not the same thing. Plus, editing is deceptive.

It's a hypothetical statement meant to illustrate a point. Jeez...

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Xuxon posted...

there is no rule about how to determine your vote. there is no rule against conspiring. if i was a juror, i'd probably vote based on who would most benefit society with it. or if none were likely to, then who i liked or respected more. even if i was in an alliance with someone like Russell and he never betrayed me, i wouldn't vote for him.

The point I'm making is, the fact that the jury did conspire shows that Russell never had a chance of winning it. It's not a question of him working himself out of the winning circle by not being humble at the final tribal council (not that he had much to be humble about--his accomplishments were incredible). This really is a case of the jury throwing the vote against someone because they were upset that he had made them all look like morons by how thoroughly he outplayed them. No amount of "Russell could have said this or that" is going to change that it was, in fact, a bitter jury voting to spite him.

The other point I'm making basically amounts to "this is how I think things should be." I'm willing to admit that; however, I stand by it. I firmly believe that jurors should cast votes for the best strategic player, and that votes cast for other reasons are votes that have been cast for the wrong reasons. That's just me, though. You're all welcome to disagree with me.

I'll offer up Survivor: Gabon as an example. In a final tribal council that featured three players who were unbelievably weak from in terms of strategy, Sugar was probably the most strategic. Did I, personally, like Sugar? Not really. But, I'd still be casting my vote for her if I was on that jury because she actually made some moves in the game.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Different system, fair point. I maintain, however, that it is still their job to cast votes objectively. Pooling votes to make a lesser player win because of bitterness is not objective.


Something I forgot to add to this: different system or not, it doesn't make the jury any less corrupt.

CycloRaptor posted...

guys I think WilhuffTarkin may actually be russel hantz

:)

Not quite. Just a big fan.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Mega Mana posted...

A jury in the legal system is twelve complete strangers who don't know you beforehand and know nothing about the case until its presented.

This jury is made of people you start out the game on day one with and get to know you first hand before you are ever sitting in that final seat, while they're also going for the final seat themselves.

Totally different system.

Different system, fair point. I maintain, however, that it is still their job to cast votes objectively. Pooling votes to make a lesser player win because of bitterness is not objective.

Delseban posted...

But the fact is, jurors are often not objective. Do you believe that a player should take this account when playing their game? If the jury is not objective, does the blame lie on them, or on the player, for not appealing to them?

The jury. Sorry, but it really is that black and white to me.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Mega Mana posted...

If Russell had done anything, anything, to appeal to the jurors at final tribal, I think he might have picked up some votes. You have a final case to make to the jury before they vote. If you make moves and blindsides and handle a jury terribly, you're not going to win. Kim owned the post-merge. Completely owned it. Blindsides everywhere, huge moves, and Ponderosa had some anti-Kim movement. But she handled the jury extremely well, both when she was putting them there and when she answering their questions. He could've won against Shambo. He could've won against John. He could've won against a few other people had they lasted longer in the game (I see him winning against Marisa given certain circumstances, Ben too, and Christina). But he voted out everyone who he could've won against and brought with him too people he had no chance to unless he brought a very, very strong final jury game. He did not. Were they bitter? Most likely. But he made them bitter, and he did it every week. Look at his HvV play where's he just openly a smartass and complete wretch to everyone.

No, you're wrong. The jury hade made up its mind, quite literally conspiring together...BEFORE the final tribal council...that they wanted to MAKE SURE that Russell did not win. There was nothing he could have said on that night to help himself win. His goose was cooked. If something like this happens in the legal system, everyone is appalled. I'm not sure people aren't equally appalled by the corruption of this jury.

Jury management is key, and has always been key. Russell absolutely failed at that part of the game, the social game. Russell had a chance to plead his case and win them over, but he failed miserably.

To this point, I really just have to repeat, in essence, things I've said before. Foremost among them that this is just my personal opinion. :)

To me, jurors have to be objective. If your attitude as a juror is "I think you were mean to me so I won't vote for you," that is not objectively analyzing the person, and this is where my "immaturity" comments stem from.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Mega Mana posted...

And they were pooling their votes towards Mick until Natalie won the jury over at final tribal.

They could have been pooling their votes toward Marisa if they wanted to. The important detail is that they were pooling votes AWAY from Russell. Not giving him a fair chance. That is the height of immaturity (letting sour grapes determine your jury vote), and displays a rather large lack of respect for the game.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Naomi_Diamond posted...

To expect every juror to cater to your take on 'respecting the game' (just as Russell so aptly puts it too) is absurd and not a good mindset to have. Every juror does respect 'the game', because the game is not simply 'make flashy moves' and 'eliminate other players'. It's about priming yourself to earn a jurors vote. The jury are fundamentally 'the game'.

Lex respected 'the game' - but he also took it personally. Voting for a player to win is a part of the game. He spoke backwards and contradicted himself, but Rob should have worked that to earn his vote, not lose it. Just because a juror doesn't vote for one person doesn't mean they aren't 'respecting the game'. Natalie and Amber had games as well. They played their games well as witnessed by the fact that the jury thought they deserved to win more than those they were next to. The jury is never wrong, and will never be wrong. They are inherently right in their decision, be it 'mature' to you or not. Russell should have worked to the people he was playing with, instead of expecting them to work to him.

I don't think it's a simple concept to grasp because people have so many different takes on what 'the game' is, and what 'strategic' can be, but nonetheless Russell was an ass hat and could have easily won had he been more humble and displayed some humility. By choosing not to he did a poor job playing 'the game'. Players like Hatch, Tom, Todd, Rob, or Kim were dominant in eliminating everyone but at the same time were humble in their approach to jury management. Russell showed no respect to the jurors and in turn received none back, costing him his game.

I disagree. When the jury makes up its mind that they are going to pool their votes to ensure that Player A does not win before Player A has even stated his case, we have a corrupt jury on our hands. It's no different than an actual legal case where the jury has not afforded all parties a fair chance to plead the case.

Amber and Natalie DID have games. Games that were not as impressive from a strategic point as Rob and Russell, who forged their ways to the end. There's nothing inherently wrong with riding coattails, it's just pretty silly to think that it is more worthy of recognition than someone who made things happen.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

LOLContests posted...

But why should someone vote for someone based on that criteria? All the game says is to vote for whomever you want to see win the money. Why shouldn't someone vote based on who they like or dislike? Why is that worse than giving someone money because they made a lot of moves on some arbitrary game show?

It doesn't break any rules to vote just because you like this person/dislike the other person. You're right there.

But, people should have respect for the game that they signed up for. Again, this is just how I see it. Everyone goes to Survivor to try to win by outwitting, outplaying, and outlasting the others. The strategic players are the players who make the big moves to advance themselves and in some cases seem to really bend the game to their wills. How is that not more admirable and worthy of winning than someone who is just along for the ride? How have they not outwitted and outplayed much more so?

An example of what I'm talking about may be found in All-Stars. I like Lex as a strategic player, but there is definitely some hypocrisy in his attitude about getting booted. He was very clear about how "the first time I was out to prove that I could pay it straight. This time, it's just business." You'd think someone with an attitude like that would admire the gameplay of Boston Rob, who made nearly every big "business" decision in the game. Lex was outplayed by Rob, and that's all there is to it. Yet when it comes time to cast his jury vote, Lex is...bitter about being outplayed? After he made it very clear that the game was "just business" to him that time around?

The point is, people can and will lie, deceive, and betray in the game of Survivor. They do it for the purpose of self-advancement. People who go to Survivor thinking that there won't be Russells and Fairplays are naive. People who go there knowing that there will be Russells and Fairplays, and admit themselves that they will lie and betray to win, but are bitter about somebody like Russell coming along and doing it better than they ever could have display immaturity by not voting for that strategic player. That player outwitted and outplayed far better than anyone else.

If the argument is "well, lying and betraying is all good and well...but Russell just did it to an unnecessary point," then the issue we have is that people draw the line at what's acceptable in different places. Just because someone like a Russell draws it further away, or maybe never draws it at all, means that his strategic brilliance should be ignored and he shouldn't be voted for? If you have two players, and one says "I may have to lie and betray, but I'll only do it to a point," and the other says "I may have to lie and betray, but I came here to play to win so I'm going to do it and not have qualms about it," you know, how can the first person fault the second for just being willing to draw the line in a different place? It's all in the context of the game of Survivor. There's nothing wrong with it.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Naomi_Diamond posted...

He could have won that jury by not being an ass hat.

Personally, I don't mind people being arrogant or whatever if they can actually back it up with good strategy. Within the context of Survivor, I think that's okay. So, someone like a Russell Hantz or a Jonny Fairplay gets a thumbs up from me, whereas someone like...Judd Sergeant just comes across as a jackass. It may seem like a strange distinction, but it works for me. I also feel like a lot of the moments that people point to and say "this is Russell being a terrible person" shouldn't really be taken so seriously. The dumbass girls alliance? Come on now, it's pretty damn clear that that statement was made with humorous intent. It was funny! In the past few months, I introduced a friend of mine (a girl) to Survivor, and when we got to Samoa she was splitting her sides laughing at that.

And like I said earlier: in my opinion, juries who cannot objectively vote for the best strategic player display a lack of maturity. Winning is what people sign up for Survivor to do. The jury in Samoa awarded the title to someone whose accomplishments, like everyone else's, paled in comparison to what Russell achieved. Just because someone like Russell is better at separating whatever personal feelings he may have from the game decisions he needs to make to advance himself, they're going to punish him? Gimme a break.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

LOLContests posted...

People act as if the Galus voted against Russell because they were in Tier B, but I think a lot of them were drawing their motivation from Tier A as well. They weren't just upset that he voted them out. They honestly thought that Russell was an objectionable human being.

No, they conspired to ensure that Russell WOULD NOT win before the final tribal council even started. It was like a jury alliance, if you will, that apparently didn't include Shambo or John (to their credit). There is absolutely no way he ever could have won that jury, because that's just how many sour grapes they had. It's pretty ridiculous.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

KingBartz posted...

From: Mr Lasastryke | #100
Everyone is.

I'm just seeing people who point out which popular comedians they don't like. Nobody has said "Dance Cook is objectively awful."


ITT: People who are famous for being funny, but who actually aren't funny

<_<

It's pretty obvious that the implication is "in your opinion." At least, I assumed it would be. If it helps, that was what I intended it to be understood as.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

After Russell losing Samoa, Boston Rob losing All-Stars is the second biggest travesty in final tribal council history imo, and for the same reasons.

But I agree, better to not sidetrack the topic with rants, so instead of doing that I'll just generalize my personal opinion on the matter: people say that the social game is what kills these great strategists at the end, and they aren't wrong. But, I PERSONALLY feel that juries who cannot set aside personal feelings in order to vote for the best strategic player have not voted for the right reasons. They should vote for the best strategic player, and not doing so, to me, shows a lack of maturity. Thus, I feel that Rob should have won All-Stars and Russell should have taken Samoa and HvV.

That's just my opinion, though. My saying that is not meant to open up a can of worms here, but rather to quickly sum up my feelings on the matter and to leave the point alone now.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Wow. I could not possibly disagree with that statement more.

But, I don't want to appear as though I'm here to get on your nerves, so I'll look forward to you backing it up whenever it comes about in your rankings.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

AdmiralZephyr posted...

If I were ranking based solely on strategy I'd probably have Russell (at least in his Samoa incarnation) around the 20-30 range. HvV and RI not so much.

WHAT? Criminal underrating of his Samoa performance! Poor show, sir!

And really, how can Russell in HvV not be up near the top as well? He made a bunch of all-star players look like absolute children at the game of Survivor.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

AdmiralZephyr posted...

WilhuffTarkin posted...

Any list that does not have Russell Hantz in the top three is a complete failure. He played the single best strategic game of all time in Survivor: Samoa, and was still easily the best player in Heroes vs. Villains. Shame on you, TC.

But to your point that people who like Russell don't know who Richard Hatch is, I personally think that any list without Richard Hatch in the top three as well as Russell is also a complete failure. :)

This isn't necessarily who played the best strategic game though. Some of my top 25 and even top 10 were terrible strategic players.

Well...as long as you're willing to admit that if you were ranking based on strategy that you'd have Russell way higher, I guess I can accept it then. I suppose I can understand why some people just don't like him as a person...although I think that in terms of strategy AND entertainment value, he's top tier.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.