Are you still allowed to be manipulative?

If it's a bunch of emotionless cyborgs I don't think manipulation would work very well, so I'd guess the best in challenges would run the show.

Someone trying to convince you to do something in such a world shouldn't work, and they should be 100% logical when deciding who to vote off (worst in the challenge every weeek I guess?).

is that a cattle dog in your picture?

Sure manipulation is allowed, but I agree that it becomes problematic. I mean, the whole reason why manipulation works is because people have weaknesses which can be attacked and exploited. If they don't have those weaknesses... You may be correct. It would come down to voting off the weakest challenge competitors pre merge, then the strongest post merge. It doesn't sound all that interesting to watch either.

Anyone else have theories on how imaginationland plays out? So far we have one answer that sounds plausible and one that was good for some laughs.

Oh, and my dog is a border terrier.

I just started watching survivor this season and it has been amazing. Are the previous seasons anywhere near this good, and are they worth going back and watching? Or is this season head and shoulders above the rest because it's all people who are good at the game?

This season is by far the best ever. It's not close.

However, there are other great seasons too. The Fan vs Favorites, Cook Islands, All Stars, Palua, and The Amazon are also really good.

RML604,

I'm in the same boat as you, trying to catch up on seasons.

That's pretty much the list I was given to start with and they've all been pretty awesome. None have matched up with this season imo, so you're a bit spoiled if this is the first season you're following.

It's definately worth catching up on past seasons if you enjoy watching Survivor.

SEASON 1 may have been the best

but this one is awesome

This is why I think him keeping the idol would have had a huge butterfly effect.

Does Amanda tip off Parv the way she did if the heros are running the vote 6-4 (assuming Sandra still flips) with an idol in their pocket?

Does Candice still flip if Russell doesn't have the idol but JT does (I doubt it especially with Sandra flipping)?

You should set up some parameters and give the players a grade (1-10 or 1-100 etc) in each catagory. You could have a 2 tier grading system based off of the player's strengths in gameplay, and what they value most for a potential FTC vote.

If you want to throw some numbers out there it's pretty easy to run a bunch of simulations which should take human emotion out of the equation.

::insert facepalm image here::

You are literally the only person on earth who does not agree.

Season one was amazing seeing it when it first aired but I dont think it holds up as well now.

Sandra didn't know about the idols and didn't flip. I don't see why she would flip if JT didn't give Russell the idol. Pretty sure Sandra was waiting on who won that 1st tribal and was going to swing at 9 if Villains win and 7 if heros win. At 7 her and the remaining villain most likely would've been able to swing Amanda and Candace.

Yeah, this season has been beyond awesome. The only part that sucks is it's going to make next season suck. It came really close to sucking too. If Parv gets the boot instead of Randy at 1st tribal, which seemed like it was really close to happening, then we probably only get 20% of the awesomeness.

Only thing that could've made this season better is if Colby goes instead of Tom.

It's not a cast of emotionless cyborgs. I think the person who posed the question is curious to see how the game would play out if there were 20 players who all are strategic players who want to make it to the end and nothing else. Within that, there are different styles admissible, but is there a dominant strategy in that sort of game. I.E. if you play in a game where everybody is a strategic threat, if you get to the merge and everybody thinks you are a top threat in challenges, it is in their interest to get you out. I think the most interesting game possible left is to make a cast out of the 20 most strategic players ever. Unfortunately, because CBS still wants T&A and likable characters, so the best strategy game will never happen.

You are literally incorrect. Unfortunately, that's become a recurring theme in your posts.

But whatever, keep on posting about what a terrible player Sandra is. You're really convincing people.

if you've ever played Diplomacy with a group of good gamers, over a decent stretch of games, you'd see how this evolves. strategy and trust become very important. the players with a good eye for strategy that stick with each other and work towards mutual benefit have the strongest game here.

I don't think Russell falls in that category of player. a part of what makes Russell so good at what he does is how he emotionally manipulates people. (look at Danielle the day after for a good explanation of his skills)

Natalie doesn't get dumped on as a strategist simply because she aligned with Russell, she gets dumped on because she was pretty much a barbie doll looking out from one of the stumpy little hobbits pockets the whole game. You assume "aligning with Russell" includes "be a mindless zombie" in the rules, it doesn't. Lookit Parvati, duh!

You have to realize, if you're not with Russell you're against Russell. The black-and-white quality of the situation is apparent, and the winning strategy is clear. It's not perfect, and you've done a good job of outlining why - but it's much better than the alternative. If you remember Parvati's whole "Russell is the Devil, you don't fight the Devil" speech, you can recognize she agrees with this sentiment - and so does RUSSELL, going back to the interview linked in this thread earlier where he stated aligning with Boston Rob would be his best option (Boston Rob is the same kind of player as Russell, so it's the same deal - align yourself with the aggro players that try to control the game).

Of course it's possible for someone to have success in Survivor using a strategy that doesn't involve aligning with Russell. Some might even suggest that Sandra is living proof of that possibility. However, after looking at what Sandra actually did this season to get to where she got, giving her any real credit for the success she's had is a lot like saying Brett masterminded his way into the Final 4 (in fact he definitely deserves more credit than Sandra, since he won those challenges).

I might have been a little harsh of Sandra in my earlier posts - there's not really any substance to her being a "bad" player. However, there isn't any proof that she's "good" either. Throughout this game she's been in spots where it looks like a pretty good situation to be in, so you can't fault her too much. She and the rest of her alliance have just been absolutely owned by Parv and Russell over and over again. You can't blame her for much wrong doing, but you can't give her credit for being the one to stick around when her teammates get voted off... because obviously if it's Russell and Parv vs. player 1 through 7, maybe 2 and 5 make it to the final 4 but that doesn't mean they are better players 1,3 4, 6 and 7, them sticking around is just by the nature of the game.

Some might say "lookit, Sandra said herself "anyone but me!", she's manipulating these people! Remember the Coach vote!?!" And based off what we've seen this season, I think it's clear this argument has no substance. Sandra isn't here because of anything she did, she's here because of everything she can't do - challenges, controlling a game. Players like Boston Rob, Tyson, J.T., and Amanda are all clearly more important players to vote off. With Courtney, Coach, and Candice - arguments could be made that Sandra is a better vote in all these situations, but if that's the case we don't chalk it up as a point for Sandra, lol! Besides her "work" in the Coach vote, which I've disputed before, there's not a single sign of Sandra working any voodoo magic to change the votes. For that reason, if voting off Sandra instead of Courtney was the superior move, then it should be chalked up as a strategical mistake made by Russell, Parv and Danielle - not a play made by Sandra!

where do you go to watch past seasons? i keep searching online but all i find are megavideo links and megavideo has a habit of making my computer crash

linky

He has a bunch of different full seasons. Watched Amazon and Pearl Islands over the weekend.

You can find some others too, but it can take some digging since people will make their account private to avoid getting the vids taken down.

i dont like sandra

i wont say she is awful

but i won't be happy if she wins

I definitely don't qualify as one of these people but Sandra really is in the best position and she's getting a great edit. If she doesn't win at this point I will be very very shocked.



That being said, she's a total douchebag. At least Russell is an ass straight to your face, Sandra is just one in confessionals and I find that really annoying. /Russell favouritism

thanks jmill

Actually, imaginationland IS a cast of emotionless cyborgs otherwise it's not really imaginationland. I do not think Russell exists in imaginationland as I do not think that the desire to embarass people and rub their faces in it (and the consequent enjoyment of such) is particularly rational or emotionless. And if it was, the practice of it in imaginationland would not be terribly successful. Hence, my amusement regarding: "Russell destroys this imaginary season and it's not close."

As I originally pondered this idea, my thinking was along the lines of: You have to take emotion and personal values out of the game to remove the problem of the spite vote at the end. But if emotion is out of the game...yuck. I was trying to figure out what the improtant skills would be. Being likable or not is no longer much of an issue. Some people might like that, I guess. But now reading people is not much of an issue either. Manipulation is pretty much a non-factor. I was trying to imagine an actual season. People were not engaging in grudge matches. They just shook each other's hands amicably when they got voted out. Viewers at home...who am I kidding...there was no one interested in this imaginationland Survivor.

I thought I might hone in on the 'really' important skills in Survivor by considering this hypothetical situation, but then I couldn't think of many skills that didn't rely on emotion in some way. The whole game started looking pretty boring. Perhaps it would come down to how good you were at sandbagging your ability in the challenges.

That people are motivated by different things and have strengths and vulnerabilities add the complexity that makes Survivor interesting. The fights, the friendships, the trust, the betrayals, the cooperation, the manipulation. The process that gets you to the end must be balanced such that your opponents will award you the final victory. Which means you have to know what is important to them and be able to appeal to it (or use it against them) both in advancing yourself AND in getting the final vote to go your way. The game is quite fabulous.

Obviously we CAN'T remove emotion from the game, but who would really want to?