Support NeoGAF

[Crazymoogle]

I know this might have been mentioned, but did anyone notice how Russell said that he went to the jury and lost with the two people he brought with him the first time he was on? I thought that this season was taped before they revealed that Nat won last season. Guess that means they let Russell know he lost before the Reunion special. (I know it's always been suspected that they do this, but this confirms it)

During the episode before the jury speeches? He just talked about bringing two people with him he thought he could beat. Nothing about winning or losing.

 

[Coolio McAwesome]

Sandra revealed Russell's game to the Heroes after the merge and then offered to jump sides after JT was gone. She essentially won herself all five of of the Heroes votes with these two plays, and she did so without putting herself at risk. EVERY SINGLE HERO VOTED FOR SANDRA. That's enough to win the entire game (not to mention that she already had Courtney's vote wrapped up from her previous alliance.)

The fact that Sandra was able to do all of this without the Villains realizing it was pretty impressive. They had no idea what kind of game Sandra was playing and didn't know what kind of offers she had made to the other side. By flipping Candice, Russell was able to ruin Sandra's plans; but that doesn't mean that he completely erased all the work she had done up to that point. She had been giving the Heroes olive branches the entire time and Russell was still too stupid to view her as a jury threat. Russell, by his own admission, didn't care about the jury. Sandra, in contrast, was smart enough to keep her eyes on the prize.

 

[Zombie James]

During the episode before the jury speeches? He just talked about bringing two people with him he thought he could beat. Nothing about winning or losing.

I'm pretty sure he said, "Last time I brought two people I thought I could beat and lost."

 

[Crazymoogle]

The fact that Sandra was able to do all of this without the Villains realizing it was pretty impressive. They had no idea what kind of game Sandra was playing and didn't know what kind of offers she had made to the other side.

But did she really do it for votes? No, she did it to survive. She made a reactionary move, and it paid off. Sure, this has happened before, but it's a shame that so much of Russell actually playing the game counted for so little when all was said and done.

Certainly, Russell made a mistake in keeping Sandra around, but the jury - hero and villain - was still blinded with the idea of revenge and not ready to vote on the merits of the game. I wonder how it would play out if they voted after watching the season on TV.

 

[Crazymoogle]

I'm pretty sure he said, "Last time I brought two people I thought I could beat and lost."

He actually said "I brought two people I thought I could beat. And I didn't." So you're wrong on how you said it, but ultimately right. Good call; I really didn't think they would announce the winner prior to the live tribal council.

 

[yellowjacket25]

Sandra revealed Russell's game to the Heroes after the merge and then offered to jump sides after JT was gone. She essentially won herself all five of of the Heroes votes with these two plays, and she did so without putting herself at risk. EVERY SINGLE HERO VOTED FOR SANDRA. That's enough to win the entire game (not to mention that she already had Courtney's vote wrapped up from her previous alliance.)

The fact that Sandra was able to do all of this without the Villains realizing it was pretty impressive. They had no idea what kind of game Sandra was playing and didn't know what kind of offers she had made to the other side. By flipping Candice, Russell was able to ruin Sandra's plans; but that doesn't mean that he completely erased all the work she had done up to that point. She had been giving the Heroes olive branches the entire time and Russell was still too stupid to view her as a jury threat. Russell, by his own admission, didn't care about the jury. Sandra, in contrast, was smart enough to keep her eyes on the prize.

You are making the assumption that she did that to win votes if she made it to the end which I dont think is correct. It just ended up being a fortunate side effect. She was trying to stay alive in the game and find new people to team up with since she was in such bad shape at the time. She actually got lucky. If her plan of switching would have actually worked then there is almost no chance that she would have won the game.

 

[unomas]

The fans voted Russell, not shocked in the least. The fans are watching from a perspective of who played the game the best, not the bitter tears of you screwed me over and I don't like you so I'm going to vote for the person I despise the least.

Sandra has a horrible personality, and she acted so smug on the final. She was the least hated of the 3, that is the only reason she won. Jerry would have won too because she didn't step on any toes. Sandra won by luck.

Sandra didn't win a challenge, had a failed attempt at aligning with the Heroes, and couldn't get out her arch nemesis even though she was gunning for him the entire game. She had no power in the game, she was fortunate to be in the final 3, and was only there because Russell allowed her to be.

 

[Coolio McAwesome]

I disagree with that long post when it mentions Russell got lucky when Tyson got voted out, that wasn't luck. Russell made that whole play happen and wrapped Tyson around his finger, he thought steps ahead of Boston Rob's alliance and wiped them out.

The notion that Russell somehow convinced Tyson to change his vote to Parvati is absurd. Russell probably assumed that Rob's alliance were going to split their vote in order to flush out the idol. (Rob's plan was for three people to write down Russell's name and three people to write down Parvati's name.) I maintain that Russell had NO WAY of knowing whose name Tyson was going to be writing down in the first place. For all Russell knew, Tyson was already going to be writing Parvati's name down. (Given the nature of the split-vote plan, there was already a 50/50 shot that Tyson would be writing Parvati's name down.) At best Russell was taking a 50/50 shot. At worst, he took a shot in the dark. Either way, he got lucky.

 

[CoolTrick]

Russell fans need to understand something.

Playing for jury votes affects every single move and interaction that goes on out there, from the first day until the last day.

You CANNOT HAVE a strategic game that does not involve factoring in jury votes.

When that happens, you get Russell.

The REASON Russell plays like he does, and the reason other people DON'T play like he does, is BECAUSE of jury votes.

Russell makes the moves he makes not because he's smarter than the other players. It's not like he thinks of new ways of strategy.

Shit like bullying people, burning things, coercing, putting people down are strategies other contestants COULD DO but they DON'T *BECAUSE THEY WANT TO TRY AND WIN THE GAME*.

When people are going to Tribal Council and they're scrambling about who to vote off, the way they conduct themselves is always with a mind towards the jury. It's in the back of everyone's mind in how they play strategically, in how they even address everyone, in every single conversation that takes place out there. Guaranteed.

With Russell, you're seeing someone who is playing untethered to the jury. It's not a strength of his, it's him deliberately spitting in the face of social etiquette when every other player is playing by that standard. You can't win the game if you can't find a general sense of what the common denominator is as far as standards go.

That's what bothers me about all the whining about Russell lost.

Every player is capable of lying and tricking people.

They don't DO it to that extent because they want to win.

Praising Russell's strategic game misses the point entirely because it assumes you can realistically separate strategic and social game. To do so is to torpedo your winning chances; you end up playing a kamikaze game.

It's shit that's subtle enough that it's not easy to fully demonstrate on TV, but the reason this game is so mentally taxing is not even the food and the environment, it's the CONSTANT worry about what everyone thinks of you -- and having to maneuver strategically in spite of that.

Russell does not deserve accolades because he willingly ignored that.

It's not just about a fucking bitter jury. It's the entire POINT.

Russell cannot play, ANYONE cannot play making those kinds of moves, doing that kind of stuff, if they want to win.

It's just that it was explicitly obvious until someone had the arrogance to try and challenge it.

 

[MagicJackBauer]

Final 3 has to go. That way you get that last challenge which will eliminate worthless players like Sandra.

 

[Mercury Fred]

:lol

Fantastic!

Sandra was the perfect winner for this season. Poverty is a hideous, shrill piece of shit and Russell is a one-note Napoleon. I'd rather it was Jerri, but definitely glad if it couldn't have been her that it was Sandra.

 

[Crazymoogle]

Wow, you can see it in his eyes before the vote goes down, Russell knew it was over. Man...

wow, Cooltrick sounds pretty angry. :lol The problem with your argument is that in the day to day life of Survivor, they're worried about what other people think of them first-and-foremost because it affects their immediate future - whether they get voted out or not. That's why you never see an interview on the beach for almost the entire season where somebody goes "well, I could do this but I would lose a jury vote." Does it have to be factored in somehow? Sure. But I also doubt that many players - including the ones we saw - could play just as aggressively and survive as long.

Russell's innovation comes from a) ruthless exploitation of the game rules and b) convincing other people of a way to think. It will be interesting to see how players use these lessons in 21 and 22.

Edit: Yeah. Not a fan of final 3 at all. Has it ever worked out well?

 

[DrForester]

Man, Russel's meltdown during the reunion show was great. Watching Jeff smack him around verbally a few times too was also enjoyable.

 

[Coolio McAwesome]

Sandra has a horrible personality, and she acted so smug on the final. She was the least hated of the 3, that is the only reason she won. Jerry would have won too because she didn't step on any toes. Sandra won by luck.

The term "least hated" seems to imply that the jury didn't actually like Sandra, but rather hated the other two other people more. I don't think this was the case at all. Perhaps you missed Courtney's imaginary fist bumps or Rupert saying "I love you," but I think it was BLATANTLY clear that Sandra's vote had more to do with the fact that she was well-liked and less to do with the fact that the others were hated.

It should be obvious to anyone who watched the game that people enjoyed hanging out with Sandra. (Rob and Parvati certainly got a kick out of her.) By all accounts, Sandra had a great personality. The only person who Sandra was rude to in the game was Russell, but that only made people like her more. Russell called her useless in tribal council, repeatedly tried to bully her, and openly talked to Rob about getting rid of her when she was sitting right in front of them. Sandra wasn't intimidated by Russell's act in the least. She stood up to him in front of everyone, made it clear that she was against him, and basically laughed in his face. In the end, Russell bent over and took it because he was too stupid to see Sandra's end game.

 

[JohnsonUT]

Stephanie (before dropping ads) implied that the people on this show hang out and have relationships. Was she meaning in the context that they played together before or that they get together and socialize?

 

[Zombie James]

Man, Russel's meltdown during the reunion show was great. Watching Jeff smack him around verbally a few times too was also enjoyable.

I thought his meltdown at the last reunion was better (even though it seems now that he knew for months). He tried to buy the title of "Sole Survivor" from the winner :lol

 

[CoolTrick]

wow, Cooltrick sounds pretty angry. :lol The problem with your argument is that in the day to day life of Survivor, they're worried about what other people think of them first-and-foremost because it affects their immediate future - whether they get voted out or not. That's why you never see an interview on the beach for almost the entire season where somebody goes "well, I could do this but I would lose a jury vote." Does it have to be factored in somehow? Sure. But I also doubt that many players - including the ones we saw - could play just as aggressively and survive as long.

Russell's innovation comes from a) ruthless exploitation of the game rules and b) convincing other people of a way to think. It will be interesting to see how players use these lessons in 21 and 22.

You miss the point.

What the castaways think of each other IS the game.

Russell does not "exploit" game rules. He does things that no one does because it's obvious to other people that if you do the things he does, you don't win.

It's not about playing aggressively and surviving. That misses the point.

The point is that people CHOOSE not to play that aggressively in that manner because they WON'T WIN.

It's the EASY way to lie to the extent that Russell does. What that does it help someone make it far because eventually people want to take you to the end and beat you.

Russell CANNOT play the game like he does if he wants to win.

"That's why you never see an interview on the beach for almost the entire season where somebody goes "well, I could do this but I would lose a jury vote." Does it have to be factored in somehow? Sure."

You don't see it because it's not an explicit thing, it seeps through in how they interact with each other in every moment.

Russell's handling of Jerri, wanting to backstab her at the very end because he assumed he'd get her vote is the utter epitome of what I'm talking about.

It's great he lied so much to make Jerri think he was a solid ally and thus help him vote out people that he wanted. But anyone can do that. Russell's utter cluelessness was backstabbing Jerri and thinking "Oh, of course she'll vote for me!" What the hell?

That's NOT A GOOD GAME.

 

[Coolio McAwesome]

Stephanie (before dropping ads) implied that the people on this show hang out and have relationships. Was she meaning in the context that they played together before or that they get together and socialize?

There are various "get-togethers" for Survivor players to attend (including anniversary parties, charity events, etc.) and a lot of the players develop real friendships with the people they play the game with. These friendships often continue after the game is over. That awesome hat that Courtney wore during the game happens to be the exact same hat that Todd wore during Season 15.

 

[Crazymoogle]

CoolTrick, I'm referring to actual rule exploiting, ie: looking for idols before anyone knows they should exist. You're going a bit crazy. :lol

 

[DoomGyver]

I thought the point of the game was to "Outwit Outplay Outlast", they should change it to "Dontpissinanyonescheeriosoryouwilllosetowhineybitches".

 

[CoolTrick]

I'm not going crazy, you just keep missing the point.

Running around finding idols isn't exploiting.

That's spending dozens of hours off in the woods meaning you don't get to socialize and know your tribe, which many Survivors commented on Russell about.

Which is ALSO evident of his lack of understanding about how to play Survivor.

 

[Zombie James]

I thought the point of the game was to "Outwit Outplay Outlast", they should change it to "Dontpissinanyonescheeriosoryouwilllosetowhineybitches".

It's a game with 20 people, split into groups. For 70% of the game you're in that group trying to win challenges as a team, living together, building shelter, trying to come to a consensus on who to vote off. Once that's done you're thrown into another group doing the same things, except winning challenges for yourself and the people you vote off have the say on who wins the game.

Some people here are seriously downplaying the social aspect of the game when it's pretty much the entire point of the game.

 

[Crazymoogle]

Dude, just count all of the caps and bold you've used tonight. That's all I'm saying. You've gone down one argument road and I've gone down another. If you don't think hunting early for idols or burying tools is exploiting the rules of the game (and quite cleverly, might I add) there's really no room for a discussion.

Anyway, back to the interesting conversation: did they announce next season's location yet? Or is it all pending Jeff signing another deal? Didn't see it on the canadian broadcast for some reason...

 

[CoolTrick]

Dude, just count all of the caps and bold you've used tonight. That's all I'm saying. You've gone down one argument road and I've gone down another. If you don't think hunting early for idols or burying tools is exploiting the rules of the game (and quite cleverly, might I add) there's really no room for a discussion.

I use caps and bolds for Russell fans who don't seem to understand it, particularly those who want to denigrate the other players when it's Russell who is so clearly delusional about how Survivor works.

It doesn't matter about exploiting the game. I don't consider that exploiting. You do. It doesn't even matter.

The point is that in all of those hours he spent doing that, and Russell said he spent dozens and dozens of hours doing it, was when Russell was away from camp and not socializing.

AGAIN, it may get him to the end, but he cannot win.

If you want to talk about going down one argument road vs. another, it's the debate over the merits of doing whatever you can to get to the end of the game even as it lessens your chances of winning more and more. You may believe getting to the finals is the most important thing regardless of the cost. That's fine.

What I'm not a fan of is people acting like lying out of your ass and bullying people is something only Russell could think of, and then whining when he doesn't win. No, it's something EVERYONE could do but they don't BECAUSE they want to win.

 

[seady]

The Reunion only shows how stupid Russell is. What a horrible player. All he does is bullying his way in.

If you guys watch some of those behind the scene stuff on CBS website, you will know why he is around for so long. The people in the game actually WANT him to stay in the game because they know they could beat Russell in the final jury vote, not because they are afraid of him.

There are a lot of opportunity to get him out, but they actually keep him alive because of that reason. Go to CBS website and find out why. He stays not because he is good, but because he is so hated among the jury so people keep him around.

Only Russell thinks he has a chance to win the game.

 

[DJ_Tet]

Anyway, back to the interesting conversation: did they announce next season's location yet? Or is it all pending Jeff signing another deal? Didn't see it on the canadian broadcast for some reason...

They said it was going to be in Nicaragua.

edit: I'll second that Will was the best reality game player I've ever seen, from BB2. Surprised to see him get mentioned actually. Wasn't that the 9/11 season too?

 

[seady]

I also found it funny that some people say Sandra sucks at challenges so she shouldn't win.

The point of winning those challenges is to win immunity so you don't get your butt kick off during tribal council when danger is coming your way. What's the point of winning those challenges if you are not going to get voted off anyway? Being too strong will only put a target in your back as physical threat. The sweet spot of winning those challenges is to win it only when you need it. (Parvati is great at this. Maybe it's luck, but she always win it when she needs it the most - both this time and previous seasons).

Or put it the other way, isn't it more impressive that someone can stay alive throughout the whole game without winning a single challenge? Isn't that more telling that they didn't need the immunity idol to survive the game?

I think only long time survivor fan will understand this point.

 

[xbhaskarx]

Wow, I can't believe Russell voted out Jerri instead of Parvati.
I'm a big Russell fan so the end was rather painful, I had to watch the jury questions and final vote on mute.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Wow, I can't believe Russell voted out Jerri instead of Parvati.
I'm a big Russell fan so the end was rather painful, I had to watch the jury questions and final vote on mute.

:lol

 

[VPhys]

Amanda looks way worse w make up

Truer words...


And what an anti-climatic ending. Sandra, seriously?

 

[xbhaskarx]

Yeah Russell doesn't know how to play the game, he should learn from two-time winner Sandra:

physical challenges: nonexistent
mental challenges: below average
strategic game: awful
social game: well below average

Apparently that's the formula for beating out two of the best players in Survivor history.

I just read through the last few pages and these three quotes sum it up best:

Haha, I'll say the same thing I did last season. Outwit, outlast, outplay. It says nothing about get everyone to like you, or vote for the person who did nothing because they didn't control any of the decisions that got you voted out.

She didn't win anything, was horrible in challenges, I mean really?

There is something wrong when somebody can lose every challenge and sit back doing nothing but still win just because other players were actively participating in the strategic game, making big decisions, and getting the attention.

Survivor: Do nothing, piss off nobody, Outlast

Well said.
Fuck the jury members, Natalie, Sandra, and this show.
Russell should have won last season and Parvati should have won this season (or Russell if he had been smart enough to vote out Jerri instead of Parvati).

 

[Brian Fellows]

Sandra!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Suck it whiners!

 

[BigJonsson]

I wonder what the twist will be for Nicaragua

 

[TheDuce22]

You miss the point.

What the castaways think of each other IS the game.

Russell does not "exploit" game rules. He does things that no one does because it's obvious to other people that if you do the things he does, you don't win.

It's not about playing aggressively and surviving. That misses the point.

The point is that people CHOOSE not to play that aggressively in that manner because they WON'T WIN.

It's the EASY way to lie to the extent that Russell does. What that does it help someone make it far because eventually people want to take you to the end and beat you.

Russell CANNOT play the game like he does if he wants to win.

"That's why you never see an interview on the beach for almost the entire season where somebody goes "well, I could do this but I would lose a jury vote." Does it have to be factored in somehow? Sure."

You don't see it because it's not an explicit thing, it seeps through in how they interact with each other in every moment.

Russell's handling of Jerri, wanting to backstab her at the very end because he assumed he'd get her vote is the utter epitome of what I'm talking about.

It's great he lied so much to make Jerri think he was a solid ally and thus help him vote out people that he wanted. But anyone can do that. Russell's utter cluelessness was backstabbing Jerri and thinking "Oh, of course she'll vote for me!" What the hell?

That's NOT A GOOD GAME.

Russel is great at the game of survivor, every move he made was perfectly logical and worked out in the long run. He turns on people when he should, he has some magical ability to get people to vote his way when he needs them to, he find and plays the idol better than anyone, and he wins immunity when it matters. Not everyone can do that.

The problem isnt in the way he played, its that after he picks his opponents off he rubs salt in the wound and tells them why he is so much better. Although it may be true, it leaves a bunch of bitter, spiteful jury members. I think his mind works differently than most. He looks at it as purely a game, and if someone pulled one over on him im willing to bet he would give that person their due. When people dont acknowledge they were beaten by the better player I think its frustrates him.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

I'm glad to see that even Russell could admit that Parvati deserved to win the game.

 

[Coolio McAwesome]

Yeah Russell doesn't know how to play the game, he should learn from two-time winner Sandra:

physical challenges: nonexistent
mental challenges: below average
strategic game: awful
social game: well below average

You obviously watched a different show. Sandra played a fantastic social game. She was easily one of the most-liked players in the game. Everyone loved her except Russell. Parvati was Russell's closest ally in the game, and even she was laughing her ass off when Sandra was putting Russell in his place. Russell was so blinded by his own hatred of Sandra that he failed to notice that everyone else liked her. Parvati wouldn't have made the same mistake. Parvati told Russell that he would not be able to defeat Sandra in the finals, but he was too stupid to listen.

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/surviv...J30Y91WxNcEHYS4RIeDU2W1&vs=homepage&play=true

This hidden scene perfectly illustrates just how clueless Russell was when it came to Sandra. He had no idea who he was dealing with whereas Parvati viewed her as the threat that she was.

I'll also point out that the challenges and immunity idols are completely irrelevant. They are tools that can help you survive in the game, but they aren't necessary to win the game. The social aspects of the game, on the other hand, ARE important when it comes to the final vote. Sandra excelled in the social game and Russell sucked. When Russell was spending hours in the woods looking for idols, Sandra was busy playing the real game.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Final 3 has to go.

I agree ... not because worthless people can win (they always have), but because you lose an element of drama at the end. "Who will so and so take with them to the final 2?" is great because it allows for someone to be blinded by loyalty or allows them to pull a backstab on their alliance member.


I was real disappointed with these people on the jury. You would think after participating in these things multiple times, they would be able to divorce themselves from the emotion and make a logical pick. I guess it's hard for (most) people to hand someone money they don't like. It just boils down to that at the end of Survivor.

 

[Kozak]

Russell had little to no chance of winning Survivor and its bullshit. You can keep arguing CoolTrick but its not the fact that Russell payed bad, its that Sandra didn't even play at all and won.

Her biggest move was finding the hidden immunity idol and she wasted it by keeping it a secret..

Her idea of "strategy" was swearing a school girl oath that she would kill off Russell.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Well, it's to the detriment of the other contestants that they didn't recognize that with Sandra. It's the game she plays and it won the first time.

You could say it's an exploit with Survivor (like Russell said), but it also takes talent to do. It's a similar game to what Cirie plays (remain a non-threat physically and always stay in the middle so you can flop wherever the power is). It's a balancing act and Cirie got caught whereas Sandra was able to maintain the balance the whole game.

 

[Kozak]

I reckon Russell should have brought up "I'm a Villain". A lot of the Hero's voted on who they thought was a "hero"..

Also, Coach continued with his stupid remarks :lol He called Russell a "little man" yet Coach was the only one that showed he was a "little man" on the show. Boston Rob should have been on the jury, he would have whooped Coach's ass in Ponderosa.

 

[Baker]

I haven't read this thread since last night, so sorry if this is just rehash.

What Russel was trying to convey last night and I agree with: Survivor shouldn't be a social game. How you play the game shouldn't be trumped just by who you're friends with (especially in an all-stars season).

I don't feel like ranting this early in the morning. I'll see you guys in the Big Brother thread where the jury usually doesn't turn into petty fucktards.

Edit: I would have been 100% ok with Parvati winning too.

 

[The Chef]

Yeah Russell doesn't know how to play the game, he should learn from two-time winner Sandra:

physical challenges: nonexistent
mental challenges: below average
strategic game: awful
social game: well below average

Apparently that's the formula for beating out two of the best players in Survivor history.

My thoughts exactly.
It cracks me up how anyone can say that Russle plaid like a moron. I've never seen anyone have such control over the game and it's players. And Sandra takes it... This is the weak point of this show. Everyone is saying how horrible he is and how he went too far. Get your head out of your ass. This is SURVIVOR. And this nonsense of trying to win AND keep the jury to love you is ridiculous. That's exactly the reason we have people like Sandra who win. Because the jury will vote for her simply to spite Russel.

Pathetic.

 

[Slacker]

What Russel was trying to convey last night and I agree with: Survivor shouldn't be a social game. How you play the game shouldn't be trumped just by who you're friends with (especially in an all-stars season).

What set Survivor apart when it was introduced is still the best part of the game: convincing people who you had a hand in voting out to vote to give you the million dollars. If you want a pure physical game with no social stuff, we had that already, it was called American Gladiators.

Sandra played a near perfect game this time around, and I'm glad she won the title. She went into Final Tribal Council with a clear plan of attack: make sure the stink of Russell sticks all over Parvati, and it worked brilliantly. Russell dug his own grave, and took Parv down with him. Sandra played the jury like a fiddle. She's like the Anti-Amanda.

Russell's fatal mistake was the same in both of his seasons, he loves looking people in the eye while he twists the knife in their gut too much. There are moves that are harsh but understandable (like JT's ouster), and there are moves that are just plain dickish, like voting out Danielle. By the way Russell would have had a much better shot against Jerri and Danielle, and he could have probably made that happen.

I don't agree that JT's hidden idol and love note hand-off was the game's biggest mistake ever. JT's move was at least based on reasonable assumptions from the information available to him. Obviously it bit him in the ass, but wasn't completely unfounded. The biggest mistake to me is definitely Tyson voting for Parv for no reason whatsoever. He went from Rob's plan, which was 100% rock solid, to voting for Parv and hoping that Russell does the same thing. There was no reason to do what he did, and it altered the course of the entire game, although you could speculate that Sandra still could have one (maybe over Courtney and Coach). Colby's move directly cost him $900,000, but I don't know if I consider that a "mistake." More like a moral decision. A dumb decision sure, but not a mistake.

My thoughts exactly.
It cracks me up how anyone can say that Russle plaid like a moron... This is SURVIVOR. And this nonsense of trying to win AND keep the jury to love you is ridiculous.

I'm baffled by how many people are saying this. Trying to win and keep the jury on your side is 100% of what Survivor is about.

 

[evala]

Yeah Russell doesn't know how to play the game, he should learn from two-time winner Sandra:

physical challenges: nonexistent
mental challenges: below average
strategic game: awful
social game: well below average

Apparently that's the formula for beating out two of the best players in Survivor history.

I just read through the last few pages and these three quotes sum it up best:

Well said.
Fuck the jury members, Natalie, Sandra, and this show.
Russell should have won last season and Parvati should have won this season (or Russell if he had been smart enough to vote out Jerri instead of Parvati).

The show is flawed. Sandra won?!? Pure Insanity. Final jury were suckers voting for a sucker! I'm so glad Russel won the people votes for second time.

 

[Baker]

Sandra played a near perfect game this time around...

Sandra didn't play a game.

If you guys want to say Russel sucks because he doesn't understand the social aspect, then fine. However, you can't flip around and say someone who sat around for 39 days while everyone else took the heat actually played the game. I can't believe the jury let her play the "loyalty" card when her fucking alliance was gone by what, the fifth week? It's pretty easy to stay loyal when you're playing solo.

Like someone said earlier, she didn't do jack shit in the other 2/3 of the "criteria." The jury should have compromised and gave it to Parvati.

 

[Manics]

And this nonsense of trying to win AND keep the jury to love you is ridiculous. That's exactly the reason we have people like Sandra who win. Because the jury will vote for her simply to spite Russel.

Pathetic.

That's all part of Survivor. EVERYONE knows the rules. You get people voted out, and you somehow have to convince them to vote for you. It's not pathetic, it's the GAME. Even Probst was trying to get it through Russell's thick head, Survivor isn't just about making the final 3, you have to actually have the respect of the jury to win. That's why he'll never win playing the way he does. Apparently you don't understand the rules of Survivor either. :lol

 

[Slacker]

Sandra didn't play a game.

If you guys want to say Russel sucks because he doesn't understand the social aspect, then fine. However, you can't flip around and say someone who sat around for 39 days while everyone else took the heat actually played the game. I can't believe the jury let her play the "loyalty" card when her fucking alliance was gone by what, the fifth week? It's pretty easy to stay loyal when you're playing solo.

Like someone said earlier, she didn't do jack shit in the other 2/3 of the "criteria." The jury should have compromised and gave it to Parvati.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but it seems to me that Sandra actually winning the game is evidence that she did in fact play it.

The three criteria you mention are a slogan, not a requirement of the game. To win you have to do two things: Get to the end, and convince people to vote for you. Sandra did both, and she won. Russell is good at the first part, but will never master the second. Parvati would have been a worthy winner, but she wasn't able to close the deal at FTC. She also made a mistake bring Sandra to the end to begin with, but I assume she thought she'd be better off against another former winner (not a bad assumption).

In the end, Sandra had either befriended or convinced enough people on the jury to vote for her, and it's GG.

 

[unomas]

Sandra was the least hated of the final 3, bottom line is that is why she won. Nobody liked Parvati or Russell from the start, they weren't going to vote for either of them regardless of who was up against them at the end. Jerry would have won had she been there even though she played as pathetic of a game as Sandra did.

If the bitter tears jury continues this game is going to be awfully boring from now on because everyone is going to be so worried about making other people mad. If the bitter players trend continues this show will only continue to go downhill fast.

 

[Baker]

To win you have to do two things: Get to the end, and convince people to vote for you. Sandra did both, and she won.

See, I understand that. It doesn't stop me from thinking it's a fundamental flaw in the show though (at least somewhat recently). I don't want the format changed, I want the jury to act like a jury and see the game outside of their own self-centered perceptions.

That mindset makes it perfectly valid to be a coat-tail riding turd and it pisses me off. In the only other reality show I watch (Big Brother), no matter how awful and petty the final jury is, they will flat out say "fuck you floater you didn't do shit you lose." That's what I like to hear.

This whole "convincing who you voted off to still like you" thing is bullshit. There is no way to do that without:

1) Lying
2) Floating

Jeff's blog last week summed up my point pretty well:

WHAT A LOAD OF HYPOCRISY
Russell’s decision to bring in Colby and Rupert is a perfect example of the hypocrisy in this game. Russell who moments earlier had sarcastically called Rupert, “the second coming of Christ” offered to align with him so they could take out Danielle. First he approached Colby, who had no issue aligning with Russell. Then he approached Rupert, the man who despised Russell so much he had called him a “disgusting terrible human being.” They bumped fists like brothers, without so much as a word and just like that… they’re allies.

That’s Survivor. Right there. Leave your morality at home. Save your speeches for the shower. Here’s the thing though. Russell’s move doesn’t surprise me at all. He has always said, “I’m a villain who is playing a game.” Rupert on the other hand has made his name and a decent living off being the morally superior one. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t stand on a pedestal and proclaim yourself the most moral of all only to hop off the pedestal the minute a better situation presents itself. Changing sides and changing your mind is fine – that’s basic Survivor. But you can’t have it both ways.

Let me be really clear about something. I do not root for Russell. I do not root against Rupert. I do not root for or against anybody. I merely observe and comment. Russell makes no bones about how he plays. Neither for that matter does Parvati or Sandra. They play hard and they know it could cost them in the game. What is annoying me (now I’m the one losing my mind!) is the holier than thou crap spewing out of people’s mouths. Rupert just proved the point better than any rant I could ever make. He’d team up with Russell right now if he thought it would get him to the end. To repeat, there is nothing wrong with changing strategies, but the lectures about right v wrong have grown tired.

 

[jstevenson]

This thread is soggy from all the bitter tears. One of the parts of winning Survivor is not being the least liked person left when the jury votes. Russell can't pull that off. And outside of Hatch in Season 1 no player has won that way.

And there you go. Tom just spoke my next sentence. Having a great physical and mental game isnt good enough. How you treat people counts too.

Yeah the whole game of Survivor has gone down hill. Look at the first season, Richard pissed off everyone, but they all saw him as the best player because he did what it took to make it to the finals, thus he won.

Sandra revealed Russell's game to the Heroes after the merge and then offered to jump sides after JT was gone. She essentially won herself all five of of the Heroes votes with these two plays, and she did so without putting herself at risk. EVERY SINGLE HERO VOTED FOR SANDRA. That's enough to win the entire game (not to mention that she already had Courtney's vote wrapped up from her previous alliance.)

I think a huge part of the reason the jury is starting to feel disconnected from the game is due to its size and the 3 finalists. For instance, w/ Season 1 - Hatch had a jury consisting of 4 Pagong and 3 Tagi. He had the loyalty of his alliance mates from Tagi, and only had to get one Pagong to switch. Again though, bitter, bitter tears from the other 3 Pagong, who hated Richard for "playing the game evil."

The first Survivor was totally a social vote at the end. Only Greg, who saw the game for what it was, spared us Kelly being named sole survivor.

We now have nine jury members. Assuming you end up w/ 12 people equally split, and one former tribe makes it to the end, that means 3 of your tribe (in this case Villains) and 6 of the opposing tribe (Heroes) are on the jury. That's PROMOTING the opportunity for bitter tears. A smaller jury can allow a more narrow balance for how survivor typically gets played. But by having 3 people at the end, and counting back nine people, you almost assure that the destroyed alliance will have 5-6 members. An immunity challenge run by a dominant player could assure a 5-4-0 win, and we'll see more votes like this, where the opposing tribe votes for whoever was nicest to them, regardless of strategy skill.

The worst part is, this is the community of survivors, who to some aspect, should respect gameplay as king. The first season honored the gameplay mechanism, by crowning Richard over Kelly (who arguably played a better social game, esp. in terms of being friends with the Pagong). Of course, probably entirely different if Rudy wins the final challenge and votes out Kelly (winning 4-3 or 5-2, I would guess).

Still - I think by returning the formula to 2 finalists w/ 7 jury members - you can narrow that focus down a bit more to ensure the final alliances making up the jury are more balanced, creating closer/more accurate votes.