i wouldn't like that they were voting this way, but i would then sure as hell be trying to take only women with me to the finals (assuming that it wouldn't affect the others' votes). this is actually a great scenario for you, because you know exactly how they're voting (or at least one major criteria). if you knew ahead of time how everyone would vote, you would then be able to choose the most favorable people to be sitting next to you at FTC and could then change your game around getting to the end with those exact people.

and that's a big part of what survivor is: trying to figure what people will be voting on. ideally, yes, i agree with kos et al that strategy would be the driving factor. however, it's often isn't with survivor jurors, and so a big part of survivor is trying to figure out how people are going to vote. if they are going to vote based on emotion and who played the most honest game, well then you better play an honest game. it may cripple your strategic game, and it may make you control less of what happens in the game, resulting in you ending up in the FTC less often, but you'll win more often when you get there. so you need to balance those two (sometimes opposing) goals: getting yourself to the finals and then winning the jury votes when you are there.

someone who gets themselves to the finals a large percentage of the time might also win a smaller percentage of the time (this would apply to russell or someone who everyone is trying to take to the end because they know that person won't win!). some people who get the end only rarely might win a large percentage of the time when they get to the end (such as natalie/generic coat-rider, or someone who no one wants to take to the end because the players are afraid they'll win most of the time). that's what makes this version of survivor interesting, seeing the opposing strategies at work. i would also appreciate (perhaps even more so!) a game of survivor where the entirety of the strategy was around getting to the end and then letting your gameplay speak for itself, but that's a different game.

Congrats to Jud, he earned it. I didn't give him enough credit but he really turned it up a few notches to get to the final. Close final jury and Sash didn't get a single vote. Everybody hated that guy.

Whether you respect it or not is irrelevant if you are in the game. You just have to figure out how to work with the way they will base their decisions.

One of the things that pisses me off the most about this game is the stupid jury decisions (ie Natalie over Russell because he was boo hoo mean to people) but after 21 seasons, we all know what to expect, and the contestants should to.

Please explain why that was stupid.

Actually, no, don't. We've been through this before and some people will never get it.

People love throwing around "stupid" and "dumb" in this thread without having idea what those words mean, I think.

Someone earlier in the thread called Holly "dumb" for saying "strategical." First of all it IS a word that DOES mean the same thing as "strategic." Second of all, even if it weren't a word, intelligence is about ideas not grammar and vocabulary, and Holly was clearly extremely bright.

Sorry, I should have said "stupid imo". It wasn't stupid in the game, but because I didn't like the reasoning, and it wasn't how I would have voted, in my own head I thought it was stupid.

I was actually trying to make the point that because people have always voted that way, that makes it normal and expected, and not stupid. But I failed apparently.

Is the outcome determined by a judge or a jury?

If by judge, then the only pertinent facts are the points of law, or in this game the strategy employed.

If by jury, then pertinent facts carry some, but not all the requisite information for the jury to establish a winner. Logic and actual moves carry less weight, perception is more important.

Reality point here for the intellectually challenged, how can a jury acquit a killer who was caught in the act? They were persuaded at that time. If they change their mind later, it doesn't invalidate their deliberated conclusion, at that time.

That was Probst's point about Russel, and is a valid point to impeach the Kos principle of how to play the game. This game, not a judge decided game.

I must have missed it. What is the Survivor "law" that says "strategy" is how the game should be decided?

The game is what it is, not what you wish it to be.

? re-read what he wrote, cres is on your side here.

I would not have respect for someone for whom gender would have a sway on their decision, no. Just like I don't respect certain people's political or religious views and I think they're idiots, etc. But if it is within the parameters of the game to allow them to do as such, I wouldn't say that they voted "incorrectly" which seems to be what Kos is saying.

Kos: That jury voted based on emotion instead of strategy.
Me: Agreed

Kos: It's really frustrating to me
Me: Agreed. Me too.

Kos: Russell played so much of a better strategic game. Objectively, one can prove that
Me: Agree

Kos: He's more deserving, strategy-wise
Me: Agreed!

Kos: Man I wish he won
Me: Yes, me too!

Kos: I wish the jury had respected strategy more.
Me: I wish they had, too.

Kos: The jury are butt-hurt morons whom I do not respect.
Me: Totally!

Kos: The jury SHOULD have voted based on strategy, as I would. They voted INCORRECTLY.
Me: (buzzer) Disagree. They can't vote "incorrectly". The reason for this is because there is no objectively "correct" way to vote so we can't compare how they voted against that.

this was definately a great part of the episode. the whole time that fabio was too happy to control himself at all was pretty funny too. fabio being TOO happy + sash squirming + chase finally realizing he shouldn't be an idiot and protect someone like sash made for some good TV imo.

Lately I have been trying to watch some older seasons. I am through 4 episodes of Marquesas so far, but it's really not as enjoyable because every episode I've found on the internet for free has been really poor quality. I think this is consistent for a lot of the older seasons. If I purchase the actual DVD or get it from Netflix, will it be normal, good quality? Or were things just really that bad 9-10 years ago?

Just watched finale and probably the nervous I have ever been during a final Immunity Challenge, I wanted Fabio/Jud to win, he deserved it inf more than the other three, and a good ending to a relatively dull season but far from the worst imo.

And to people who think Fabio didnt have a legitimate strategy you are wrong. He played the best overall out of everyone left, the only thing I am really disappointed in with him was that he didnt create back up plans better post merge and relied too much on immunity later(cause he didnt set up back up plans).

What you said in the second part of your sentence is exactly why people think he didn't have a legitimate strategy. So considering this glaring misstep by him to have no back up plans and therefore need to win out the challenges, what about his game strategically do you appreciate and respect?

FWIW I'm glad Fabio won and was rooting for him since Marty was voted out, but not because I respect his strategic prowess. His likability is a 9 or 10, and his strategy is maybe at a 2.

So, I'm planning on watching a bunch of seasons I missed some/all of and it's Australia's turn. Is it just worse then every other survivor season or is it actually bad?

If you haven't watched anything other than this season and season 1, it will be good. It's just that there are WAY better seasons later on...

grunching

glad Fabio won but my god he sounded like a complete moron in the reunion, way more than from the space cadet edit he got

FTC and reunion were alright I guess, could've used some more venom. what annoyed me most was how Alina made the several marks about Fabio "not being a man" in her jury questions. wtf get off your high horse, bitch. you are exactly 2 years older than the guy. good thing some little girl didn't win this season.

I don't think he sounded like a moron at all, I thought he sounded very smart, just very excited so it was hard to gather his thoughts.

Anybody who wants to undermine the government is almost smart by definition.

I cant describe how much I love that Fabio's performance in the finale is considered "smart" in KK's world. I almost spit out my beer reading that.

Like I said, smarts for me is in ideas, not words. If you listen to what he was actually trying to say, he plans on doing some really good, progressive things with the money.

Dude was just excited, cut him some slack.

I believe we under appreciate that aspect of going deep as well. When you get far enough, I think people tend to start looking around and making the evaluation of 'who can get votes'. People like Sandra/Sundra/Dan who haven't been good at challenges and haven't been the front man for the moving and shaking aren't high on anyone's threat list. People like Russell who have ticked everyone off, or at least who are not well liked, are also not as high on the vote getting threat list. Once the purples handed the FOAs the numbers advantage, it really wasn't in any of the FOAs best inerests to get rid of Russell (other than purples might have lauded him/her as a hero). I think the editing made it seem like he had more of a shot than he did. WE didn't know he had no shot, but the other FOAs most likely had a better idea of how the votes might go. I suspect so anyway.

And I agree the dynamic was much easier to read in HvV. So much so, that I still kind of resent that Russell got rid of Danielle which I felt really harmed Parvati's chances to win while not improving his own at all. A final three of Parv, Russell, and Danielle was the best shot any of those three had of winning.

I feel like a lot of time that bolded part gets fed to us a little bit. Like for instance, did Russell cleverly get Shambo to turn on her own tribe and help the FOAs gain a numbers advantage? Sure he's going to toot his horn on that issue. But it's not like Shambo is all "Please stop twisting my arm and making me do exactly what is in my best interests anyway, and more importantly (to her) what I WANT to be doing." I give him credit for recognizing where the weak link was and having a good method of attack, but it's not like she really needed much prodding to embark on a course of action that was going to lead in her being able to vote Laura and Dave Ball out of the game. That's what she wanted to do, and it was actually good for her game, not that I think she particularly cared about what was good for her game.

And why shouldn't players be more than willing to 'carry out the moves' of someone who they feel can't win votes in the end?

I agree the bolded is a skill I value, but it's hard to quantify because there are a lot of reasons a person could choose to follow another person's plan; some of which may benefit the follower more than the leader. So who should get the points then?

He actually reminded me of Phil Laak a little bit with his incoherent rambling. Phil is definately smart. Fabio...is not nearly as dumb as he appears, I believe. Eccentric for sure.

How was Shambo siding with the Foas and forcing a (hypothetical) tie at F10 good for her? Russell presented it to her as "you're in our five, and we'll go to the end together" when it was really "I need you this vote and the next one, but after that, you're useless, and I'm gonna cut you loose." Granted, Galu wanted nothing to do with her, but Russell still used her as a free vote with no real intention of taking her to the end (debatable, I guess, but I think it's pretty clear he was always going to take two Foas to the FTC).

IM going to preface with the fat i drunk as ****...

Lets compare him ot the obvious dominator in Russell, ok in the beggning his strategy is 180 from russel, he stays quiet and just helps on challenges and around camp a little but is far from voal and a strategic threat, but from the beginning he said this was his strategy, sure the FTC jury didnt ehre about it at all until FTC but he vocalized thuis in the first or second episoede that he would play dumb until he didnt need too. This is a legitmate stragtegy, albeit most people befor ehim who used it were dumb as ****, he actually planned it. Now post merge is where his obvious flaw came out. He didnt plan a backup if his sdmall alliance were to get picked off. But maybe he did. Maybe he knew he would be out, and instead of trying to scramble and create a new one with brenda/sash/chase.holly and them he decieded to act lik e a pwn long enough to where he could legitiamtely win out. Maye he knew this was his best hcane then flipping and making it deep than not receiveing votes(aka sash at FTC). The fact is he won a predominately puzzle challenge(the nicargaue afacts one with surivior puizzle) way behnd sash wjho was perceived as the strongest mental competitor left. I think a lot of people doubt how smart fabio actually is.