The most surprising thing from Ponderosa: everyone hated Holly (and I'm not even sure why). Would Dan have actually won vs. Holly and Sash?

It's not as hard as you guys are making it sound. Todd did it. Hatch did it. Heidik did it (barely). Even Boston Rob almost did it, and a lot of 3rd-5th place finishers have mastered it (Cirie, Cesternino, Yau-Man, Rafe, etc.).

But again, people aren't even considering this, they just think, "You respect strategy, so you'd be a dick, and everyone would hate you." That's fine, I guess, but it just shows how they wouldn't even try to separate the two. They'd all be screwed if they tried to play the likable card and got to a jury that respected strategy. Here's an idea: do both! It's possible, I promise! Many people have done it.

Kos, I might just be confused by all the different posters in this thread. If your viewpoint is what you've said in the last few posts, that's fine. I thought you were basically arguing that someone like Russell (or Sash or whoever) deserved to win even though no one liked them because they played the best strategically. Haven't you said that before? If not, then I apologize, but you do realize why we're arguing against the people who say that strategy should be the only thing that determines winners?

Possibly. People liked him. I believe Marty would have lobbied for him. I don't think he get's Brenda's vote, but the block of Marty, Fabio, and Benry is good start for anyone.

Maybe it was the shoes? The voice? That she didn't play with them? Jury was pretty heavy with people she had not played with or who she had voted out. Was she pretty harsh on the quitters? I can't remember her comments. Might have sealed her fate in the voting.

Vs 2 goats, vs goat, vs goat, (all barely), couldn't even beat a goat, and Todd is the only likeable one you listed that actually made it to the end (fan of Todd's by the way). The rest on your list couldn't get there because they are too likeable and the people on their seasons weren't too ******ed to realize that and do something about it.

Even so, I agree with you. Do both. It is possible.

You're free to argue for whatever you want. For me, I would vote like 99% based on strategy because I feel that the strategists drive the action, and I'd rather vote for someone who took THEMSELVES to the end instead of someone who got there without really understanding what was going on. The social aspect is lumped into strategy for me, though I apparently define it differently than everyone, as I think it's more about the ability to implement your strategy than anything else. You can come up with a great strategy, but if people don't like you enough to carry out your plan, it's worthless.

The problem is that people are starting to consider strategists to be unlikable douchebags, which is really only because of Russell and Sash. Many of the past great strategists have also been extremely likable people who were able to win over jurors even after voting them out, and that's definitely the key to winning after you play a good strategic game. I mean, Sash was a "strategist" of sorts, but he was a bad one and a very poor player.

But they all single-handedly brought that goat to the end. If you're the second worst player in the game, but you bring the worst player to the end, that's good strategy, no? There's no rule that says you have to beat a good player. Taking a goat to the end is smart.

Taking a goat to the end is smart if you are a borderline goat yourself (for dislikable reasons). If you are Cirie, you have to be willing to risk a non-goat else there is no way you are getting to the end because whoever wins that last immunity is taking the goat you dragged along...not you. If you are likeable you have to risk a non-goat unless you have enough ******ed goats to do your bidding.

In that case Marty's goal is to prevent Chase from getting the million dollars (or the other way around, giving Fabs the million) which still does not make him an ass because he's still in the game and is still eligible to manipulate the outcome of the game.

If his intention was to make Chase look bad to the audience then he would be an ass.

marty said in his interview that he decided he was going to vote fabio. that all his questions were to help fabio win

At least twice during Ponderosa clips which have no bearing on the game, Marty said that Chase was dumb as a bag of hammers. I'm not sure who that makes look bad to the audience. Probably depends on the audience.

I actually think Marty and Chase have a few things in common. They both valued the people they played the game with. Marty voted for who he liked the most out of the options, and I think Chase would have done the same.

When you guys say "goat" are you not meaning 'greatest of all time?' because then how could you take 2 goats...

Ugh that earlier post that said "sash not winning proves the stupidity of society" is so ironic it's tilting. Sash was 100% talk, absolutely no game whatsoever. How desperate was that minority alliance that he suggested early on?

Man I can't imagine how Fabio felt watching Sash's confessionals throughout the season. I bet he was laughing at him non stop.

Kos knows what he's talking about youse guys. I'm on his side.

it's confusing, but in this context, lowercase goat = an actual goat, like the animal. uppercase GOAT = greatest of all time. yeah, confusing.

Season to season this thread never changes, kos as per usual bases the game on some rule/strategy for the alternate universe. Only caught a few eps and half the finale, this season had no hook for me anyways. And agreed with many about the reunion, Probst is just phoning it in.

I wouldn't say no game. He is definitely a fan of the show and understands strategy. However, I do think he made a few major strategic mistakes, and he's a completely lifeless, boring person. He sort of gives me that Amanda vibe; she had the "glazed over" look, and he had the teleprompter/robot/skeletor personality that came off as insincere and fake at all times.

I approve of this post. Thank you.

must hear this

http://robhasawebsite.com/2010/12/20...l-5-survivors/

interviews up

According to Probst, Tocantins was the best cast that he has had on the show

Take out Coach and Tyson, and everyone else dies from boredom

I think we can now call this season top 3 worst all time. It will be the one where nobody on earth can recall the winner within 2 years.

Not a single player who should ever be on an all star season.

When would S22 have been shot? Early fall? Wouldn't that mean Rob went incommunicado for a month with a 6-month pregnant Amber at home?

Could someone PM a place where I can see the season 22 cast? I dont want any winner or bootlist spoilers though please.

Is s22 another allstars type thing?

Australia, Fiji, and Thailand were worse imo

Plus we never know how this season is going to age (Think Cook Islands after Ozzy and Parvati did FvF).

Jud might be sitting across Natalie in F2 for the All-Winners S24 (16 players)

Marty might ship the Survivor Masterminds S25

who knows

Pretty sure there's more then enough equity to justify being absent in the 6-7 month stage.

Kos, you're doing a much better job of explaining your position than you have previously, itt. It really sounded like you believed that people should vote on strategy alone and that strategy didn't include being likeable.

I actually think Fiji isn't terribad.

I don't dispute that Rob may have decided that it was worthwhile and based on the rumors he did. But my first reaction after hearing about the recent birth last night was, "well, then I guess he didn't go for last season after all." I think the timing would have to be just right for most folks to consider it.

First, there's the whole issue of marginal utility; between the two, they won 1st+2nd place money from all-stars + whatever else from their original seasons + Rob in HvV + amazing race + their wedding show + other appearances, etc. Once you have your first 1.5 million I'm not sure a 1/10 (let's assume he has twice the average) chance at 1million is enough to offset being away. If they were broke, it would be one thing; financially secure, another.

Should be entertaining though.