You know, this actually got me thinking. We are now several seasons deep with juries that have not appeared to be butt hurt and have rewarded good gameplay instead of just who they like the best.

I actually think that if Russell were to play today, he COULD get a lot of votes at a FTC and win. But ironically, his biggest problem now would be his super aggressive style would make him a huge target and he'd be voted out before getting there. Just a theory.

Dude, they aren't butt hurt by people who are decent human beings. There's a big difference between that and Russell Hantz. Also, the jury didn't berate Mike and tell him he was a horrible scumbag for back stabbing his allies, but they didn't vote for him either.

Russell Hantz and good gameplay....eye? Of the 626 players to ever play, I wouldn't even put him in the top 300 strategic players, let alone the fact he will still likely be in the bottom 10 socially.

I'll give you some flashes of competent strategic gameplay in post merge Samoa which is why he is as high as top 500. The main one being when he um, helped convince John Fincher to flip to avoid a rock draw.

Heroes vs Villains - Instantly out of the majority alliance and then quickly became a mega goat nobody bothered to target because he was such a slam dunk easy win at the end

Redemption Island - The tribe threw immunity to take him out at first tribal

Australian Survivor - The tribe voted him out at the first opportunity with him holding an idol

Russell hasnt been on American television in 37 years

I think Jeff letting Drea truth bomb post elimination was a very underrated part of the season; Omar wasn't really on people's radar until Drea decided to let loose after being voted out. Kind of feel like it shouldn't be allowed.

Why? Do you think people voted out shouldn't be able to say anything? Where do you draw the line?

I'm 99% certain he's cut people off in the past.
"ok Joe, time to go, the tribe has spoken"

He doesnt muzzle them

Frankly, yes. They are out of the game and should not be allowed to influence active players anymore, and in reality Jeff should be supporting this because it encourages less aggressive game play since as a player you now have to be concerned about a departing player dropping a bomb on you at their most bitter moment.

I mean, where do YOU draw the line. If I'm eliminated at F8, and at the F5 tribal council, someone says something I know is false, should I be then piping up from the jury "that guy is lying!"? It's the same principle.

This kind of reinforces my opinion that Drea is not a nice person. She had an off-putting and strange affect to me, and her behavior at the TC where Rocksroy got voted out was bizarre.

https://heavy.com/entertainment/surv...ies-ponderosa/

Wow Omar continuing his racism against Drea post-game

Once a player voted out has their torch snuffed and has left the TC area. This is clearly enforced.


What if Drea would have burst out with "Omar, you bastard. I can't believe you told him" right when Mike said he didn't have an idol? She wasn't voted out yet, would that be OK with you?

Yes, that is still during tribal.

Once they are voted out they should shhh, just like for jury members.

Mostly agree, players should be forced to shut their yaps once the votes are read. They're a jury member at that point and it is strictly enforced that jury members are not to talk to those still in the game.

That Omar story is wild. As much as Drea's exit was considered "great and enjoyable" (it's even referenced as such in the article), it smacks of a big act. She had every advantage in the world, got played and blindsided, and tried to pretend it was all good when it really wasn't.

I think this is probably true, but it's hard to know for sure with a show like Survivor. He could be doing some muzzling and it gets edited out.

I wonder, after having been targeted in this way by Drea, if Omar had any regrets about lying to Mike about things Hai did not say in order to get Mike to vote Hai out. I know the situation is a bit different because the lies Omar told about Hai having said things he didn't say were told while still in the game, but he was still putting false words in Hai's mouth which I think is a bit different than misrepresenting one's own intentions.

Apparently bitter jurists are still a thing.

Maybe but I think it's wrong.

Essentially, as long as you're still "in the game", everything you do or say has to be measured against the consequences of doing it - what do you gain vs what do you lose by doing or saying something.

Once the votes have been read and you are O-U-T, any actions you take or things you say have no potential consequences for you. That's why they shouldn't be allowed. It's never been an issue before because people have been responsible and respectful about it - this is the time it wasn't that way, and it should spark changes.

I would say that the consequences of deciding to vote someone out are that they might tell all - either to people on the jury or before they leave tribal council to people still in the game - and you need to take that into consideration before you make your vote.

We're not going to agree on this, and that's ok. I would imagine the breakdown on this would be along the same lines as opinions on having side conversations during tribal council - some think it's ok, others don't.

I think side conversations at Tribal Council are fine, it's still part of the game before voting and before the most important information every episode is revealed - the votes.

I think talking after you are voted out is a bad thing since it hurts gameplay & strategy:
1/ In the end the voting process is the only moment where you are able to 100% see who is aligned with you and who is not. It is also strategically incredibly important to figure out who voted who every tribal council, and players who are good at figuring that out will have a clear advantage.
2/ You can play Survivor in many different ways, but any way probably at some point requires you to lie and be dishonest, and to make sure that does not blow up in your face.
3/ An essential part of Survivor is collecting information, sharing information and not sharing information in a way that gives you an edge and gives you a better chance to win the game.

Now imagine a world where after EACH vote, the player eliminated would release all the most strategic information they had in their possession before exiting.
They would (1) tell who in their opinion are the top 3 surviving player with the highest win equity, (2) which persons have been dishonest with them and lied to them, (3) reveal all information they have about advantages and (4) share key information about the vote that just happened (for example, "Omar got me to vote Mike by saying Mike was trying to get me out", while Mike did not do anything like that at all).

This would absolutely ruin the game, and the game could not be played in the same way anymore.. Nobody who still is in the game would play like this, because they would be destroying their own edge to give them the best chance to win the game. Once you are voted out, you don't lose any edge anymore by revealing all of this.

I think it should be forbidden but I don't think Jeff will do anything about it when it happens once in a while, because he's clearly chasing sensation/drama in recent years.

I just thought of Jeff Varner waiting until after the votes are read to out Zeke

Is there some higher purpose to Survivor other than sensation/drama that I am unaware about?

Personally, I'm more than happy with the amount of sensation and drama that comes in from watching good players play the game of Survivor, and the ways that production tries to **** with that to add more sensation and drama ends up backfiring. It would be like watching the NBA Finals played on an ice rink.

I'm pretty sure that would be awesome.

Sure, in a hilarious bloopery trainwreck sort of way. But it's not a great way to determine who is the better team.