I doubt you read my posts with the wrong tone. My writing tone is often bitchy and sarcastic. If I happen to be saying something that rubs you the wrong way I could see how that plus the tone could miff someone pretty badly. No worries. No need to be sorry. Perhaps I deserved it. Believe it or not I was stumped trying to think of a time I'd ever been called a jerk in real life. Probably good to be put in check occassionally.

Kart is a loon sometimes, but he also makes some fair points. I'm going to say things that please him from time to time because I'm kind of an independent. I probably see both sides more than most. See isn't the right word...appreciate. I can appreciate both sides of an issue/argument/so forth. I think it's why I'm not in the polarized camp on Russell. I like him and I don't like him. I understand the Jane hate, but don't really share it. I like (and dislike) some things about Marty. I like (and dislike) some things about Jane. I understand that some may indentify with club hopping 20-something Benry and some may identify with middle-aged Mom Holly and that's okay with me on both counts. ...I appreciate you people and I appreciate my Everywoman. I don't think my Everywoman is an idiot because she thinks Chase is a really nice guy and wouldn't mind seeing him win. He is a really nice guy. How she views Survivor is just different from how I view it.

yeah its great to have people with all different opinions posting on this forum. people just talking about how great russel is would get boring fast.

exactly. It's called the moron/Kart block for a reason. That is it's official name right?

Ignorance?

So I was trying to get some earlier seasons of survivor to watch, and I found one episode I accidentally downloaded that was the russian version of survivor. I couldn't understand a thing but know for sure its way crazier. It was the first episode and the whole crew had to take whatever supplies off of a jeep and run away before the jeep exploded. There is way less humor or upbeat moments and I think the host is threatening to kill everyone if they don't complete challenges. I'm thinking about watching the rest of it even though I don't understand a word LOL.

haha wtf, sounds crazy

I'm having a problem figuring out this season becauses of the (seemingly) lol bad players left. I'll let philosoraptor explain

far from it, you can do that in a day.

It's all about water weight and dehydration

I don't think there are any bad players left and I don't think there were many to start the season.

Season is nearly over already nnnooooo. Thursday's show and then Sunday's is the finale.

Don't dismiss Jane folks. She's been the strongest player on many levels. I put her in the top three(-1.Chase, 2.Jane, 3.Holly) of possible winners. I thought Jane was making a mistake beating the boys in that one challenge where they divided the sexes. It was just showing off instead of playing low key and conserving her energy. There seems to be too much judging a book by it's cover going on here ITT. Maybe a anti-Southern bias?

If Fabio can make to the final then I would put him as the favorite. He hasn't played with any strategy and has just been a follower, but he hasn't really made any enemies and is the most likable.

Sash's strategy has been horrible as pointed out ITT. He's got no chance to win, too much backstabbing.

Dan is just another follower and has no chance to win if by some miracle he makes it to the final.

When is the next season scheduled and is Colby taking over for Probst soon?

The effect of getting a positive edit:

Fabio is a favorite to win, although he's played with no strategy

Dan is just a follower and has no chance to win in the end.

You're right.

Yeah, the edit kind of gave away that there was no way Brett was going to win out immunities and make it to the finals in Samoa. If he made it to the finals it was obvious he'd win, and by his invisible Kelly edit it was obvious he wasn't going to be winning.

I disagree. When she flipped to the Brenda/Sash alliance after the tribal switch, it was made clear through their actions and confessionals at the merge that she was still their sixth/seventh, behind Chase/Na/KP/Fabio. She essentially bought herself more time.

I assume the powerplayers that you claim she helped oust were Marty and then Brenda. She didn't help devise and execute their ousting any more than Dan, Sash, KP, etc.

She made it clear how much she hated Marty and wanted him to go, but ever since the tribal switch, he was in no way a power player. The only time he was in a good position was before the switch, and with everyone knowing that, he was a target more than a power player. How many tribals in a row did she try to get rid of him only to have someone else go instead? He left only when everyone else came to the consensus that it was his time. So she gets no credit for that. Her constant bitching and moaning about Marty only hurt her argument because she sounded like a vitriol spewing broken
record.

She had NOTHING to do with Brenda going. That was 100% orchestrated by Holly, and then later on NaOnka. The only thing you can give her credit for was the fact that a deciding factor in Chase ultimately deciding to go against Brenda was his closeness with Jane.

Her two immunity wins are impressive for a woman who looks like she's about to break in two, but the fact that she really rubbed that one win in the faces of the others was terrible strategy. She has shown on several occasions that she is controlled by her ego, and cannot keep her mouth shut at times when it would really be in her best interests to do so.
Seriously, Kart, I don't think I've ever overall disagreed with anyone as much as I find myself disagreeing with you on this forum. To make the connections and deductions you make takes a seriously skewed brain.

For example, to watch the episode where Brenda was ousted and come away with it thinking that Jane helped orchestrate it, even though all she did was nod in agreement with what Holly had to say, it just seems like sometimes you're watching a completely different show than the one the rest of us are watching.

The fact that you think this season has been rife with good, strategic players makes me understand your love for Sandra, who by the way had the exact same strategy as Benry's "anyone but me."

In regards to the rest of this season, we are all again thinking much harder than these players. They have shown time and time again (as have the vast majority of players every season) that their main concern is getting to the final 3, with very little thought about who they'll be up against, and acting accordingly. I too think that Sash would have a much easier time winning vs. the guys than Holly/Jane/Chase but other than everyone's overall consensus that ending up against Jane is a bad idea (which I agree with you guys, is turning out to not really be as dangerous as THEY perceive), there seems to be little thought as to who people want to wind up with.

And frankly, if we look at past seasons, it has seemed almost futile for us as the audience to try to figure out who would for for whom. When the votes are finally cast, it seems like most jury members end up making their decisions based on things we couldn't have foreseen.

Who would have thought that Jenna Morasca was so much more like than Matthew in season 6? Or that Suzie would have received 3 votes in Gabon and almost win? Or that both juries in 19&20 would have spite voted against Russell as hard as they did? I guess we as the audience expected some backlash, but not as much. Were we really shown that Natalie had done that much more socializing with the Galus than Mick to warrant him not getting any votes? Or did we take what little we saw and blow it out of proportion in hindsight after seeing her win? etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.

The final voting always ends up being very unpredictable, except for maybe 1 or 2 votes for those whom it's pretty obvious. But would it really surprise us, if, say, Dan got to the finals and ended up winning because he's a pretty likeable dude? I mean, has he gotten any less positive of an edit and less screen time than say, Bob in Gabon? Or if Sash got to the finals, I could see him getting 0 votes out of spite, or all 9 because at the end of the day, no one really dislikes him and in spite of him being a strategic threat, people still seem to want to align with him. It really could go either way.

+1 to all of that. i have no idea who is a real jury threat.

Was planning on reading that whole huge post, but that's a big investment after a start like this. Obviously whenever you first flip you are at the bottom. The point is recognizing where there is more room to maneuver. She probably knew she was never going to break up Marty, Jill, Dan and Eve, so she flipped to the other alliance and is now at the top of it.

Call it results oriented if you like, but it seems like she had more going into the decision than you are giving her credit for.

He just writes that junk to stir things up. He doesn't believe most of it himself.

Me and millions of other survivor fans.

I have never written anything here I didn't firmly believe at the time I wrote it.

Ok then. It's results oriented thinking. Jane didn't maneuver the way she did at the switch in an attempt to improve her place in the game. She did it to try to get Marty out. That has been her #1 directive this season. She has almost never been shown saying one other thing in regards to game plan and strategy. No need to read my whole other post but the paragraph after the one you quoted I feel had a well made argument that she shouldn't be getting any sort of credit for Brenda going either.

You made some excellent points in your post, but was some of this a joke?

Wasn't Matthew the guy who was socially awkward and constantly chopping things with a machete and making everyone nervous? I think I'd have been pretty flabergasted if he had won. An argument could be made that Suzie was a better choice than Bob, so not too surprising that she got some votes. S19, they did a fair job of making it seem like Russell had a shot, but I think I still thought voting would be between Nat and Russ. By S20, Russell had no shot and it was obv. Pick some instances which were actually somewhat perplexing. Like JT sweeping Stephen.

I felt you were semi-wrong on this point. Holly instigated let's get Brenda out, but I'm pretty sure they showed Jane having talks with players about voting out Brenda (helping to carry out the plan, in other words). Remember when she was spouting off about not aligning with villians as she tried to make sure Naonka was on her side with this decision (ha)? Then, I can't remember if Jane or Holly talked to Fabio, but I think they showed Jane communicating the plan with at least one other player.

I give Holly the bulk of the credit, but I don't know that I'd say Jane did nothing to help carry it out. I don't think what CBS showed us supports that claim.

I agree with a lot of what you said about Jane's game though.

lol yeah. you are right soncy. it was pretty clear everyone thought matthew was crazy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JFXUvkIXms

lollll rob c is so funny. they need to bring him back

I haven't watched it since it was first on, but as I remember it, even though they thought Matt was off and a little nervous when he had that machete, it was more jokingly than that they actually thought that they were stuck with a potential psycho. I had been under the impression that he was still liked especially compared to the bitchy divaness of Jenna. I remember them making Jenna to be pretty unlikeable (her and Heidi painted as the popular bitches making fun of poor, deaf Christy) and that without question, Matt would have at least garnered votes from Butch, Rob, and Christy and Jenna's only guarantee being Heidi. Figured Alex, Deena, and Dave were swings with the first two leaning towards Jenna and Dave towards Matt.

Will try to rack my brain tomorrow to think of better examples from other seasons, but I think my point that who ends up getting votes from whom ends up being overall pretty futile to speculate on and is unpredictable despite editing. The Stephen/JT is definitely a good example.

The main reason for the toughness is because I think we as the audience end up being very surprised as to who ends up voting emotionally instead of out of respect for gameplay. I'll say it again, I was surprised about how the S19 vote went down. I expected Erik, with his fist pump appreciation for when his own team ousting him backfired, to dig Russell's style, instead of being the most outspoken one at FTC against him. I'm surprised Jaison didn't vote for Russell. I'm surprised Dave Ball didn't respect Russel's game enough to vote for him. Especially considering that at FTC, I thought Russel delivered his answers brilliantly.

No, I'm not a Russel nut hugger. I am a fan but recognize several flaws in his game.

I didn't find this one perplexing. You had 2 people who played almost an identical game such that it's hard to say one did anything differently than the other. One is a charismatic guy farmer from the south that everybody likes, the other is a nerdy business guy who was much more introverted. Who is gonna win the popularity contest there?

I mean, I think you're reaching here. Of course people who are on the inside have to talk to other people about the plan. If I hatched a plan to blindside somebody, no way would I want to have to talk to everybody about it, I'd have my allies try to sway some people so it's not 100% on me. When we talk about "non-strategic" we don't mean that they just sit around oblivious to everything around them involving the game (Except for Kelly P. but she seemed to be oblivious to a lot of things). We mean that we never see them hatching a plan or opposing a proposed plan, or discussing what is going to happen 2-3 votes ahead.