Everyone who watches at home thinks they'd be some sort of All-Star Survivor cyborg, without emotion or mistake. People try to fit into the social situations they're placed in, and they sometimes make errors related to that.

The thing with Ralph showing his idol has been pretty much universally proclaimed a gigantic mistake, and proof that Ralph is an idiot. But who really knows? Alliances aren't the simple, cut and dried units as they're portrayed on TV. They're constantly evolving, relationships change day to day, especially when you're in the first 2 weeks of ever encountering these people you're with 24/7. Maybe Ralph felt secure enough on Day 5 to not disclose the HII to the group, but maybe on Days 6-11, **** got real weird at camp? Some people may have decided to start buddying up to Stephanie and Krista. Ralph may have gone from "very important tribe member" during construction of Zapatera's camp, to "annoying guy with weird body hair who we can't understand"; and Ralph may have begun to feel some insecurities.

It may be true that the best Survivor players are capable of controlling their emotions and being a robot while they're in the game. But the people that are best capable of doing that are sociopaths like Brian Heidik. As much as we can sit here and believe that we'd be flawless players who would set aside all our insecurities for 39 days when we're surrounded by cameras and strangers, plus playing for a $1M prize... The truth is, we'd probably make a lot of the same mistakes that get blasted in these threads.

So, yeah.... Between all of this and the fact that many of the "giant mistakes" are works of the editors... I really get annoyed by armchair Survivor players.

Hey Boc. I definitely don't want to have it out with you again. I'm not attacking you at all here. But let me just submit to you this: We are a forum of poker players, whether professionally or recreationally, and so one interest we have is strategy and games, especially when it crosses over into the arena of real life social interactions. This is why a show like Survivor has such a large draw for us. We like to discuss what happens in each episode from a strategic standpoint, and talk about what is shown, and what might have been better strategic options, and what we ourselves would like to think we would have done were we there instead.

That being said, we are also aware that since it is a television show (reality tv at that) that there is a certain level of manipulation that the producers and editors create to direct the audience into following certain storylines, characters, etc. However, since we do not know just how much manipulation is going on, we have no way to gauge just how much to take the show with a grain of editing salt.

But it is still fun for us to talk about the show, and it kind of ruins this fun when you remind us that we may not be watching what really happened. To what end do you do this? What would ideally be the response you'd like to see from your posts?

Or more specifically, what is it that you would like us to discuss in this thread? I think it has already been shown that discussing something like the editing itself doesn't have much interest here, especially since it is comprised with as much fruitless speculation as discussing the content of the episodes themselves, and also carries with it the danger of spoiling the show at a certain level, which we all want to stay away from.
Discussions about "well this character got x many confessionals, but when they showed this character with the shot of the spider, I think that's foreshadowing that they're going to get blindsided" etc. just doesn't interest me, or others in this thread as much as strategy talk. If it did, the thread would be more comprised of those posts. But it's not.

My questions to you in this thread are not rhetorical. I really would like to know what you hope to achieve with your constant reminders about the editing. If anything, let me ask you a question I've asked in the past that you never answered: What can we take away from the footage that you think is fair?

+1. i feel like you might need to just copy paste that once a month just to remind boc.

I dunno... I don't care what you guys talk about in these threads, really. I've relaxed considerably this season, and I don't really outright attack people over terrible posts anymore. The few exceptions are generally posts by Clovis.

I now realize that not everyone on 2p2 is a kool-aid drinking sheep, oblivious to the role that editing plays on this show. Previously, I kind of lumped people into groups. (Group 1: Me. Group 2: Everyone. Group 3: kartinken) Now, I see there are tons of different groups, tons of different types of fans, tons of different perspectives, tons of discussions going on at all different levels. I'll keep trying to have discussions about the stuff that I enjoy discussing, while politely staying out of the discussions that I find idiotic.

As for this topic, I wasn't trying to start a firestorm when replying to Halpert's post, I was just trying to point out that not all of the winners have been "great players". Not all of the winners have played "perfect games". And really, I think a lot of what goes into being a "great Survivor player" can't really be illustrated through a bunch of hourlong edited episodes, so I generally just try to avoid all of the "who's the GOAT??" discussion.


apparently I can't post links to anything on Mario's page. So here's a little(ish) excerpt from what I tried to link to.


I understand that you guys want to talk strategy, and I understand why. But when you do, you all sound to me like a bunch of Dwight Schrutes arguing over the tactics used in a Tom Clancy novel.

Isn't it more fun when you can play Thursday morning quarterback, though? I get that there's a large portion of the audience that just sits back and watches it for an hour a week for entertainment, but I can't help thinking about what I would do in everyone's shoes, mistakes I think they made, etc. That's the fun of it: it's a complex game that can be played a million different ways, and we're able to (roughly) evaluate how each of those million scenarios would have played out. For me, that's what separates it from 99% of game shows.

boc just get out of these threads then. thats what they are here for. when you come in here and make posts like that you just sound like a douchebag to me.

You're the one being a douchebag, saying these threads are only here for what you want them to be. There's plenty of ways to watch this show, there's plenty of ways to enjoy it, and there's plenty more to talk about in these threads other than STRATEGY!!!.

I've quit being an *******, going from post to post screaming IT'S THE EDITING IT'S THE EDITING. So what's your problem with me?

Some people want to watch the show as a game or a sport. Some people want to watch the show as a long movie or a story. The game people get to feel very smart by criticizing the players on the island. The story people get to feel smart by knowing that what we see on TV is a bunch of heavily edited crap. So, whatever. We're all a bunch of douchebags.

lol i dont watch it as anything. i know its just a tv show. i dont care what you discuss. ive never stopped you from talking about anything or made fun of you for wanting to discuss editing. i just think you are an idiot when you come here and call us dwight shrute discussing whatever.

when i said thats what they are here for. i didnt mean to just disucss strategy. i meant for us to talk about anything. i think you think you are smarter then us and we take survivor as some super serious thing and everything we say we know we are right. everyone other then you seems to realize that we are just casually discussing a tv show we really enjoy. we just go deep and make assumptions cause it is interesting to us.

Yeah as someone who previously did think boc was kind of a jerk in Survivor threads, I don't see his last few responses in this thread as rude or out of line at all. He's just calmly explaining where he's coming from, and I think it's a pretty reasonable pov. Just because he enjoys in the show in a different way than a lot of us do doesn't mean he isn't allowed to post in these threads or something. To the extent that he's not on the attack and calling people idiots or whatever -- and he's not -- I'm not sure why you guys are responding to him so aggressively.

yeah i dont care if he posts in this thread about the game. but if he keeps posting stuff like we come off as dwight schrutes discussing a novel. it comes off as real rude to me.

"Everyone who watches at home thinks they'd be some sort of All-Star Survivor cyborg, without emotion or mistake."

"So, yeah.... Between all of this and the fact that many of the "giant mistakes" are works of the editors... I really get annoyed by armchair Survivor players. "

both of those comments on this page by boc. they annoyed me. he just makes all these assumptions about the state of minds of people who post in this thread.

I dunno if this was a compliment or an insult, but seeing as the only other poster singled out was clovis, I don't like my chances.

ok VM, relax. I don't think I'm smarter than you or Kos or Ken or anyone. I don't even know why we're arguing.

ok cool. i dont want to argue. we are good

I'm your biggest fan, Ken.

So I hear there's a new season that's just started.

Eh, what Boc posts doesn't really bother me. I know what I'm seeing is a story created by producers from what really happened. I know that what we see is only a minor fraction of what really went on out there, and that all characters/situations that we see are at the very least mildly skewed to what the editors want us to see for their story. I know the entire purpose of the tv show is to create a compelling story, regardless if one actually occurred. I know that characters are edited completely differently depending on how they do - for instance I'm positive that everything Coach said during Tocantins wasn't absurd, but they chose to edit him that way and keep only the ridiculous stuff ... and they would have edited him completely differently had he of won.

I am at the least aware of all these things. With that said, it's still enjoyable to watch and then discuss the scenarios we are presented with. It's fun to put ourselves in the contestants shoes and try to come up with what we think is the optimal strategy in that particular spot. It's no different than yelling at Carson Palmer "How the **** didn't you see him you suck!!111" to me. Sure, we never really know all the information necessary to make an educated and concrete decision, but hell it's a poker forum - we all love games of incomplete information. We typically discuss optimal lines with incomplete info. Why does Survivor have to be different?

As for the Jenna thing - I wasn't saying anything like "omg she made a mistake and won wtf!". There isn't anyone that I've seen (Have not seen Heidik's (sp?) season) that has played a perfect game. In fact, with as many different ways to play this game that there are, I doubt a "perfect" game even exists. I was just commenting on her doing something that now a days is just so blatantly "dont do that", but way back then perhaps didn't seem so out of the ordinary?

We nitpick stuff and give what we think are better decisions using what we are given. It's fun sure, but more importantly it gives us something to discuss with one another. I doubt very many - if any - of us actually think we could play remotely optimally if we were there and I don't think saying "That seems really really bad strategically Jenna" insinuates that we would.

But I do enjoy reading what Boc has to say. It's a different viewpoint from mine, and if it wasn't for reading his editing comments in between seasons, I never would have discovered some cool little things to look for throughout the season.


edit: lol argument ended on both ends by the time i posted. I type slow.

Well, I guess some/many/most strategy posters might realize that they wouldn't be cyborgs out there, but some people sure post as if they believe they would be

Also, I thought about it and remembered that Jenna is one of my least-favorite winners, so pile on her all you want imo.

Then I thought more about it and realized it's sad that I like Jenna more than like 8 of the last 9 winners.


Heidik got the most godlike gamebot edit of all time. Almost all of his airtime is strategy-based, and he's edited as basically never being wrong about anything. Thailand is boring as **** strategically, though.

so you think thailand isnt worth watching? one of the only ones i havent seen.

Eh. I like Thailand somewhat, and definitely think you should watch it at some point. There's a bunch of entertaining people, especially on Chuay Gahn. Clay is a quote-machine. Brian is entertaining as the "guy who's ****ing right about everything". Ted is the man. Helen is one bad bitch. Sook Jai, with the exception of Robb, is probably the least entertaining original tribe in Survivor history.

The big twist of the season worked as the producers wanted it to. There just wasn't a whole lot of compelling post-merge activity.

What other seasons haven't you watched? I'll tell you in what order I'd watch them.

its the only one i know i didnt see. but i think there must be one or two in the middle i missed.

It makes me cry how many people haven't watched Vanuatu, Guatemala, and Exile Island. And how Palau is somehow seen as the best season of that era. God dammmmmmmit, the seasons right before it and right after it are among my favorites, and Palau is in my bottom-5.

To each their own, though

Africa
Marquesas
Thailand
Amazon (currently watching)
Pearl Islands

Exile Island is sooo underrated. I guess it's because the winner was kinda meh? There were so many good characters on that season, and a few different entertaining story arcs. It's in my top 5 I think (which admittedly changes somewhat frequently)

Hey Boc. We're all good, I don't think you're being a jerk or anything. But I would say that if your main point is that people should be free to discuss Survivor in different ways, then don't you see the irony (and perhaps some hypocrisy) that so many of your posts are geared towards attempting to invalidate the way we like to discuss the show?

And for the record, your long response after mine had plenty of assumptions based on the editing. Not every one of the winners played a perfect game? How do you know this? How could you possibly know something like this? Isn't it possible that the winners were edited to have imperfect games, but they really played perfectly out there?

Now obviously I don't believe this, but you see my point. You yourself are making assumptions that according to your own criteria are as equally invalid.

I frankly disagree with a lot of that excerpt you posted. I don't understand why it is demeaning to call Survivor reality tv because it lumps it in with shows like Flavor of Love? If he's making a comparison of the level of editing, there is very little difference. Both shows are heavily edited. If his point is the quality of the show, then it's just a matter of taste but has no bearing on what genre it belongs in. Seinfeld is a sitcom, but I don't think it is demeaning to call it that just because According to Jim is too.

Really, there is one and only one barometer to tell just how accurate the footage shown is to the actual events, and that is to ask the contestants. And just like poker, you need a large sample size. And over 22 seasons, and over 300 contestants, they have overwhelmingly stated that they do feel like they received an accurately portrayed edit, even those that may have been given a negative one.