Board 8 > Survivor/BB/TAR Summer Topic 3 - David and FOUTTE vs. a Goliath Level 6

(+) Yeah! (+)

mnkbear907 posted...

I don't watch Survivor, I just think it's silly to argue that players should actively avoid making good smart decisions. Like do want a season of no one making any moves at all and everyone just picking straws to decide who to nominate and evict? Because that's what praising bitter juries will accomplish. (obvious hyperbole)

I'd rather see an interesting season. And a season of four vanillas dominating week after week after week, no matter how good one of them is, isn't interesting. The hacker twist killed the season. If it weren't for that, Rockstar would have gone home during Angela's first HoH, then a L6 member on Haleigh's, then maybe again on Faysal's due to having less reason to doubt Scottie, and then Bayleigh is still around to use her power app last week. If that were the case, it would likely be Tyler/Kaycee/Sam/JC vs. Haleigh/Bayleigh/Scottie/Faysal right now, which would be SO much more interesting and suspenseful than what we have.
---

mnkbear907 posted...

I don't watch Survivor, I just think it's silly to argue that players should actively avoid making good smart decisions. Like do want a season of no one making any moves at all and everyone just picking straws to decide who to nominate and evict? Because that's what praising bitter juries will accomplish. (obvious hyperbole)

I'm arguing that bitter juries will change the definition of "good, smart decisions". Ideal gameplay in ALL scenarios is to form an alliance and pacify all members of that alliance while eliminating outsiders. And that's boring as fuck. That gives you your Redemption Island, South Pacific, One World trifecta. If bitter juries change the gameplay so that "alienate the opposition and sweep them off the board entirely" becomes a bad option, then GOOD. Give us a China or Cagayan where, even if an alliance is dominating, they're still cool with picking off their own members on occasion.
---

Bayleigh was always the the target on Angela's HoH due to her power app. L6 just used the hacker thing as extra justification. Bayleigh's game was over the moment she blabbed to Rachel.

I just think it's stupid to complain about L6 being good and praising bitter juries because of it. Complain about FOUTTE for being so awful they effectively evicted themselves. Complain about casting for finding so many idiots all at once.
---

mnkbear907 posted...

Bayleigh was always the the target on Angela's HoH due to her power app. L6 just used the hacker thing as extra justification. Bayleigh's game was over the moment she blabbed to Rachel.

I just think it's stupid to complain about L6 being good and praising bitter juries because of it. Complain about FOUTTE for being so awful they effectively evicted themselves. Complain about casting for finding so many idiots all at once.

I complained about Derrick. I complained about Paul. I complained about Ross. I complained about Boston Rob, about Tyson, about Kim Spradlin. And the more bitter juries we get robbing the "best" player (which, if they lose, then they're NOT the best player), then maybe people stop trying to mastermind entire seasons down to every little detail and ruin any and all excitement.
---

Yeah, instead we'd just get a group of players too afraid to make moves because they don't want to risk hurt anyone's entitled crybaby feelings.
---

mnkbear907 posted...

Yeah, instead we'd just get a group of players too afraid to make moves because they don't want to risk hurt anyone's entitled crybaby feelings.

So...the exact thing that's happening this season? 'cause I don't see what moves are being made when you just pick off your opposition non-stop.
---

I have no idea how you can equate those two scenarios.
---

mnkbear907 posted...

I have no idea how you can equate those two scenarios.

It's simple. Optimal strategy in both Big Brother and Survivor is to form a majority alliance and make ZERO effort to break from that alliance at any point. It's important to also establish yourself as part of the dominant sub-alliance within that main alliance, so when you've eliminated all opposition, you have a new set of opposition to eliminate. This is to ensure that everyone who reaches the end has made the same moves and betrayed the same exact people, so bitterness is minimized. That's why this season has become so fucking boring, because there has been zero effort whatsoever from L6 to branch out and secure alternate strategic venues. They're playing a perfectly safe game that requires no moves to be made to minimize emotions. And at THAT point, the final decision becomes "which person was least offensive to the dominated jurors on a personality level?", which is just as unsatisfying for the viewers as watching a boring Pagonging.
---

They did try to branch out. It was just ultimately pointless because the people they branched out to were so stupid. Brett got himself in good with FOUTTE and wouldn't have been immediately targeted in those couple weeks if F had power. But they didn't so it didn't matter. Tyler/Angela made good with Fayleigh, but again it didn't matter in the end. Kaycee is fair game though.
---

Again, you should be complaining about the bad players being so bad that the good players didn't even need to get inventive for the most part.
---

mnkbear907 posted...

They did try to branch out. It was just ultimately pointless because the people they branched out to were so stupid. Brett got himself in good with FOUTTE and wouldn't have been immediately targeted in those couple weeks if F had power. But they didn't so it didn't matter. Tyler/Angela made good with Fayleigh, but again it didn't matter in the end. Kaycee is fair game though.

And I'm gonna cheer when Kaycee beats them all for trying to play Albert Destrade's failed game. Talking the talk means nothing if you don't walk the walk.
---

There's a damn good reason Survivor Cagayan is widely considered to be the best post-HvV season by a pretty large margin. Even though it had a very clearly established dominant alliance, and even though said alliance won and the mastermind behind it all won the season, there was no sub-alliance, and there was enough paranoia within said alliance that they were willing to take out some of their own before completely wiping out the minority, which led to a really dramatic final tribal council in which both finalists got grilled by the jury but the prize was ultimately handed to the correct person who both made the necessary social relationships with both the majority and minority AND got his hands dirtier.
---

Wait, so you say you want people to branch out and have interesting strategies... so you'll be happy when the person who tried that the least beats the others...?
---

mnkbear907 posted...

Wait, so you say you want people to branch out and have interesting strategies... so you'll be happy when the person who tried that the least beats the others...?

Tyler never branched out. He had one strategy and then just let everyone THINK he was on their side, but when push came to shove, he stuck with his REAL alliance.

Same with Brett and Angela.

Fuck that. You wanna clown people all summer, you go right ahead. But if they don't take kindly to that and vote bitter, that's on YOU. At least Kaycee didn't offer false hope.
---

mnkbear907 posted...

Wait, so you say you want people to branch out and have interesting strategies... so you'll be happy when the person who tried that the least beats the others...?

They didn't really branch out though. Brett and Tyler and Angela were never serious whatsoever about working with anyone on FOUTTE, and FOUTTE has realized that now and it's poor jury management.
---

I'm actually really starting to doubt if Tyler can beat Kaycee, his ideal F2 opponent, in the jury vote. I think he has to go up against either Angela or Brett.
---

Inviso posted...

mnkbear907 posted...

I don't watch Survivor, I just think it's silly to argue that players should actively avoid making good smart decisions. Like do want a season of no one making any moves at all and everyone just picking straws to decide who to nominate and evict? Because that's what praising bitter juries will accomplish. (obvious hyperbole)

I'm arguing that bitter juries will change the definition of "good, smart decisions". Ideal gameplay in ALL scenarios is to form an alliance and pacify all members of that alliance while eliminating outsiders. And that's boring as fuck. That gives you your Redemption Island, South Pacific, One World trifecta. If bitter juries change the gameplay so that "alienate the opposition and sweep them off the board entirely" becomes a bad option, then GOOD. Give us a China or Cagayan where, even if an alliance is dominating, they're still cool with picking off their own members on occasion.

how do bitter juries prevent alliances sticking together and dominating? all that does is give even less wiggle room to work with the last 1 or 2 members of the opposing side, knowing that they'll definitely win if they make it.
---

But the whole point is FOUTTE was so bad that there was never a proper reason for members of L6 to have to work seriously with any of them. At what point during this season were they supposed to do it without becoming weaker in the process?

If the hacker thing didn't happen and one of Tyler/Angela/Kaycee went out on Haleigh's HoH (and not Brett because Brett did branch out), then maybe things would've turned out differently, but we'll never know because Rockstar was a moron and gave her veto to Tyler.
---

it's my new catchphrase time

i miss peridiam
---

Xuxon posted...

Inviso posted...

mnkbear907 posted...

I don't watch Survivor, I just think it's silly to argue that players should actively avoid making good smart decisions. Like do want a season of no one making any moves at all and everyone just picking straws to decide who to nominate and evict? Because that's what praising bitter juries will accomplish. (obvious hyperbole)

I'm arguing that bitter juries will change the definition of "good, smart decisions". Ideal gameplay in ALL scenarios is to form an alliance and pacify all members of that alliance while eliminating outsiders. And that's boring as fuck. That gives you your Redemption Island, South Pacific, One World trifecta. If bitter juries change the gameplay so that "alienate the opposition and sweep them off the board entirely" becomes a bad option, then GOOD. Give us a China or Cagayan where, even if an alliance is dominating, they're still cool with picking off their own members on occasion.

how do bitter juries prevent alliances sticking together and dominating? all that does is give even less wiggle room to work with the last 1 or 2 members of the opposing side, knowing that they'll definitely win if they make it.

lol yeah, knowing about the bitter jury forming just gives L6 more incentive to get Haleigh/Scottie/Sam/JC out.
---

Xuxon posted...

Inviso posted...

mnkbear907 posted...

I don't watch Survivor, I just think it's silly to argue that players should actively avoid making good smart decisions. Like do want a season of no one making any moves at all and everyone just picking straws to decide who to nominate and evict? Because that's what praising bitter juries will accomplish. (obvious hyperbole)

I'm arguing that bitter juries will change the definition of "good, smart decisions". Ideal gameplay in ALL scenarios is to form an alliance and pacify all members of that alliance while eliminating outsiders. And that's boring as fuck. That gives you your Redemption Island, South Pacific, One World trifecta. If bitter juries change the gameplay so that "alienate the opposition and sweep them off the board entirely" becomes a bad option, then GOOD. Give us a China or Cagayan where, even if an alliance is dominating, they're still cool with picking off their own members on occasion.

how do bitter juries prevent alliances sticking together and dominating? all that does is give even less wiggle room to work with the last 1 or 2 members of the opposing side, knowing that they'll definitely win if they make it.

As opposed to...?
---

mnkbear907 posted...

(and not Brett because Brett did branch out)

*pretended to branch out. There is a big difference, especially when it comes to jury management.
---

Underleveled posted...

mnkbear907 posted...

(and not Brett because Brett did branch out)

*pretended to branch out. There is a big difference, especially when it comes to jury management.

I guess we're just going in circles now.

But yeah Brett's goodbye messages were bad, but he's also a recruit and not a fan of the show so it's not like he'd even have proper knowledge of bitter juries.
---

Inviso posted...

Xuxon posted...

Inviso posted...

mnkbear907 posted...

I don't watch Survivor, I just think it's silly to argue that players should actively avoid making good smart decisions. Like do want a season of no one making any moves at all and everyone just picking straws to decide who to nominate and evict? Because that's what praising bitter juries will accomplish. (obvious hyperbole)

I'm arguing that bitter juries will change the definition of "good, smart decisions". Ideal gameplay in ALL scenarios is to form an alliance and pacify all members of that alliance while eliminating outsiders. And that's boring as fuck. That gives you your Redemption Island, South Pacific, One World trifecta. If bitter juries change the gameplay so that "alienate the opposition and sweep them off the board entirely" becomes a bad option, then GOOD. Give us a China or Cagayan where, even if an alliance is dominating, they're still cool with picking off their own members on occasion.

how do bitter juries prevent alliances sticking together and dominating? all that does is give even less wiggle room to work with the last 1 or 2 members of the opposing side, knowing that they'll definitely win if they make it.

As opposed to...?

Does that mean you don't have an answer to Xuxon's question?
---

mnkbear907 posted...

Inviso posted...

Xuxon posted...

Inviso posted...

mnkbear907 posted...

I don't watch Survivor, I just think it's silly to argue that players should actively avoid making good smart decisions. Like do want a season of no one making any moves at all and everyone just picking straws to decide who to nominate and evict? Because that's what praising bitter juries will accomplish. (obvious hyperbole)

I'm arguing that bitter juries will change the definition of "good, smart decisions". Ideal gameplay in ALL scenarios is to form an alliance and pacify all members of that alliance while eliminating outsiders. And that's boring as fuck. That gives you your Redemption Island, South Pacific, One World trifecta. If bitter juries change the gameplay so that "alienate the opposition and sweep them off the board entirely" becomes a bad option, then GOOD. Give us a China or Cagayan where, even if an alliance is dominating, they're still cool with picking off their own members on occasion.

how do bitter juries prevent alliances sticking together and dominating? all that does is give even less wiggle room to work with the last 1 or 2 members of the opposing side, knowing that they'll definitely win if they make it.

As opposed to...?

Does that mean you don't have an answer to Xuxon's question?

My whole argument is that if the players know that juries are gonna be bitter at them for pulling this "No Homers" attitude towards ANYONE outside of their core alliance, then MAYBE, JUST maybe, people might realize that, "Hey, sticking with this group until the very end isn't gonna get me a win. Maybe I should ACTUALLY try to change things up instead of just PRETENDING to do that." At the very least, we'd stop getting these Paul/Derrick/Tyler/Boston Rob/Kim/Tyson/Domenick/Russell Hantz mastermind leaders that have to have everything go EXACTLY the way they decide, because that shit might backfire on them. As it is NOW, there's no reason to work with the outsiders because it's not like they're human beings. They're just chess pieces who should vote for the best player like chess pieces do.
---

But if they let the one person who isn't making a fake relationship win, it just means they have no reason to even pretend to work with them.
---

Mewtwo59 posted...

But if they let the one person who isn't making a fake relationship win, it just means they have no reason to even pretend to work with them.

Pretending to work with someone is actually really really really awful strategy that almost never works out and just makes the person getting duped really really pissed.
---

Underleveled posted...

Mewtwo59 posted...

But if they let the one person who isn't making a fake relationship win, it just means they have no reason to even pretend to work with them.

Pretending to work with someone is actually really really really awful strategy that almost never works out and just makes the person getting duped really really pissed.

Yeah, again, Albert Destrade got shut out in South Pacific for doing this shit.
---

Yeah, that's my point. Albert pretended to work with the other alliance and got shut out. Sophie didn't and she won. That doesn't change the fact that her alliance dominated the season.
---

Mewtwo59 posted...

Yeah, that's my point. Albert pretended to work with the other alliance and got shut out. Sophie didn't and she won. That doesn't change the fact that her alliance dominated the season.

And that season still sucked.

Compare to Cagayan which I brought up before that is exciting and electric because big personalities are making necessary big moves, and the biggest personality and biggest mover-and-shaker won.
---

Yeah, Tony's moves were exciting, but they could've backfired spectacularly, especially if Trish wasn't there. Not shaking things up might be boring, but it's safe. That's why people do it.
---

Also we can just throw this right back to Russell Hantz, who lost back-to-back seasons due to abysmal jury management rooted in making empty F3 deals with more than half of the jury.

But L6's blandness makes me wish for someone like Russell who, terrible as he was, actually made his seasons unpredictable (you know, other than spoiling them to the entire internet, but that's a different story)
---

Didn't Sandra spoil HvV? Or was it both of them?
---

The bottom line is, from a gameplay perspective, it's a lot easier to defend betraying someone that you were legitimately working with for a while than it is to defend just outright duping and lying to someone regarding an alliance, and from a viewer perspective it makes the season more interesting and usually more unpredictable.
---

Tony didn't really have to do that, though. Woo voted with Tony on every single one of those votes. It's easy to win when you're against a guy who was with you in every betrayal and then tries to play the honor card at the end.
---

And even with that, Kass would've gotten destroyed at FTC by the people she was working with and betrayed. There's no guarantee that you aren't killing your game by betraying your allies.
---

Mewtwo59 posted...

Tony didn't really have to do that, though. Woo voted with Tony on every single one of those votes. It's easy to win when you're against a guy who was with you in every betrayal and then tries to play the honor card at the end.

Tony had to do it for his own game because he was SO paranoid that LJ and Jefra were gunning for him that he was going to lose his mind, and probably the game, if he kept them in. And that's partially on casting - they need to find people who are going to make the season interesting, and in BB20, all the duds stuck together while the misfits and eccentrics put on a decent show for the first 8 weeks.
---

No, I'm talking about Tony having to defend himself about betraying everyone because Woo betrayed everyone too and was playing the honor card.
---

Mewtwo59 posted...

No, I'm talking about Tony having to defend himself about betraying everyone because Woo betrayed everyone too and was playing the honor card.

I think if anything this DOES prove my point - ultimately Tony played the more upfront game, even considering all the betrayals.
---

I didn't read all of the messages but I will NEVER consider a good. Thing the best players should win the game ESPECIALLY if they arent assholes like Russell.
---

Paras and Tangela
---

I will probably not be watching live very much for the rest of the season. I have rehearsals most Sunday and Wednesday nights now, and I might have just enough time to watch Wednesday episodes after work on Thursdays before the eviction episode.
---

Holy shit Australian Survivor just stepped up the season with that merge ep
---

Just so you know guys, after discussing it with Redmond, I'm only going to blog once or twice this next season of Survivor. I kind of like it that way >_>

The theme makes even less sense now that the cast is out. Meh.
---

KujikawaRising posted...

Just so you know guys, after discussing it with Redmond, I'm only going to blog once or twice this next season of Survivor. I kind of like it that way >_>

The theme makes even less sense now that the cast is out. Meh.

Aside from the school of Rock guy they make sense based on physical appearance.
---

It's about time they had this Sam segment.
---

Haha, adding water to that is just mean.
---

No comments on the cast announcement for Survivor?

Two comments on last night's Big Brother?

I miss Peridiam.
---

Hooray Survivor!

I told both my coworker and my casual survivor fan immediately when i saw the cast reveal and the idol twist
---