Since we're going by speculation here, then if we look at his history on HvV, he had such a great amount of respect for Rob too, but at the end of the day, his loyalty was to Jerri, to the point where she was able to make him go against the person he admired most (on his own team). So I don't think he flips to JT unless Jerri is also willing to.

from that section on a naonka's facebook page below her profile picture:

"Espada/ La Flor/ Libertad
FOR LIFE!!!!!"

lol

I believe this is what people in the writing game call "irony."

There's definitely some slim chance he doesn't flip, but it's just terrible play to give him the chance to since he's such a heavy favorite to.

I've always thought that it's an advantage for Sandra that she is somewhat abrasive. I don't think she is doing it on purpose, but I do think it gives her edge late in the game. Just like being bad at the challenges gives her edge. Neither is on purpose, but being bad at challenges helps keep her off the hit list in a post merge situation. And being abrasive makes her seem attractive to take to the end. I think if you can't win your way to the end it actually behooves you to have some sort of flaw (real or fictitious) that you can point to as to why no one is going to vote for you in trying to get someone to take you to FTC. If you don't have that flaw, and can't win your way to the end, floating is more of a hang on and pray strategy-it can still be viable if you are in really tight with a person who CAN win IICs and will take you with him/her out of loyalty. I've never by any means thought Sandra was some sort of mastermind. I give her credit for remaining aware of her situation and other people's situations. And she buzzes some helpful things for herself into people's ears from time to time. And I think she is fairly competent at FTC. But a lot of why she is able to move through the game so freely is what I percieve to be her built in edges--things she isn't doing on purpose.

yeah agree soncy. have some flaw is good or bring someone who is viewed as a bigger threat to right before the end.

Sandra didn't really get to the end because she was abrasive, though. She got there because she didn't do **** the entire game (either one), and people wanted to take her to the FTC.

Some great debates itt. Enjoying reading very much.

The last three winners - Natalie, Sandra, and Jud - have now all been UTR floaters for the most part (with a nod to Jud for being a challenge beast at the end).

My greatest fear is that in upcoming seasons this is going to lead to a log-jam of players all trying to be UTR and noone wanting to do the strategic dirty work of flipping/blind-siding. The result could be a lack of good strategic play and a more boring show.

Look, for instance, at how hard Chase and Sash worked to try to "build relationships" and "get to know on a personal level" the other players, and they still didn't win enough votes, based almost entirely on the fact that they made strategy moves that Jud didn't. At the FTC, Chase was characterized as a "flip-flopper" and Sash was made to be the lying villain.

I am very sick of hearing butt-hurt jurors talk about "honor" and "integrity" when their moves were the ones that didn't work, but someone else's did (see Benry this season).

Call me nuts, but I think we may have a better show if the winner is truly judged on their ability to "Outwit, Outplay, Outlast" - perhaps by a jury of former winners/all-stars - not players from that season's game.

Can you see a FTC where the remaining three have to get questioned by and plead their case to a jury of Boston Rob, Russell, Parvati, Sandra, and Richard Hatch?

That's a new Survivor season I would be excited to see.

The thing is that Sash frequently unnecessarily lied to people. In the secret scenes on CBS we see him making Final 3 deals with everybody, which is a. counterproductive since at least some of them will know that he was unlikely to follow through, b. dangerous, as people will inevitably compare notes, and c. damaging because he will inevitably have to renege on all but two of those deals. While Russell was vilified for being too aggressive and overbearing, Sash was widely perceived as slimy and untrustworthy. Kelly, one of his closest allies, reportedly attacked him at FTC for being too diplomatic and never saying anything substantial. The game hasn't changed, it's just that after two seasons of Russell people have begun to associate strategic play with people who happen to be unpopular and therefore unlikely to win a jury vote. Yul, Earl, Todd, and Parvati won, and Kenny would've won Gabon against any non-Kota except *maybe* Matty. Strategists can still win, they just have to not be insufferable douches in the process.

Agree with this. Sash also seemed really transparent and insincere to me. It's not about just trying to forge personal relationships, you have to do it well.

I don't think he did a very good job at the FTC owning his lies, either.

Sash wasn't a great strategist, unless you define that as someone who makes alliances with everyone. He would have fared far better had he, for example, not lied at F7. Just pick your alliance and stick with it, and lie only when absolutely necessary. Most of his lies had no real purpose, other than as a last ditch contingency plan if he needed that person later. And that sort of thing is fine, if applied sparingly, but it's usually better to make a person want to work with you without having to lie to them in advance, "just in case".

Chase had a similar problem - he made promises he couldn't or wouldn't keep, which had little strategic value, and did nothing more than make people angry. Lying about taking people on a reward challenge, or making a promise and not keeping it, is just stupidity. I don't know that it ended up hurting him at the end, but if it didn't, it's likely only because of being against Sash (a worse violator of the concept), or because of his excellent FTC

I forgot who said it in what season, but whoever it was was right. It's easy to go deep in Survivor telling everyone lies and breaking alliances. It's harder to maneuver through the game without doing that.

I don't think this is a valid concern. For the most part, people are going to play how they play. Natalie, Sandra, and Jud are never going to drive the bus. Russell and Boston Rob are never going to let someone else drive the bus. (For the record, the people who I think are the best players do a little of both--or mix in some back seat driving.) If the past three winners cause some drivers to adopt a more congenial roadside manner maybe we will see some controlling play rewarded again soon. But the game is a game of people. For seasons to not be boring we need a nice mix of interesting/entertaining people. And in my opinion, one of the most enteraining players of all time is one of the worst Survivor players ever to grace our TV sets--Coach.

I think Chase did not win primarily because he was perceived as weak. I mean, the people who he was actually close to and therefore most directly 'stabbed in the back' went ahead and voted for him. He seemed like he got on well with Purple Kelly and Naonka. If they vote based on their friendship with Chase, he wins. If they listen to Marty blasting Chase for being dumb and don't want to be known for voting for 'the dumb guy' as well as being a spineless quitter, they vote for the person Marty is backing.

I guess Sash's relationship building was so transparently fake that he knocked himself completely out of the running. We think Marty and Brenda were the other strategic players on this season and they said they valued strategy, but neither voted for Sash. (Marty gave every indication that he liked the play of Jill, Dan, and Fabio...Bernry also???I can't remember on him, but--Am I really expected to take his claim seriously that he values strategy?)

Cirie, Rob C., Rafe, Todd.

I understand the concern that recent seasons could lead to everyone trying to go under the radar.

But there are other possibilities. One is strategists stop trying to eliminate all the other strategists early and are more willing to take them to FTC (but outplay them). I'm sure the folks here can come up with other ways for strategists to counter the UTR players.

Responses to a couple of other points:

"The jury should be people outside the game." What should the people outside the game base their votes on? The 1 hour edits? So the producers control who wins based on how they edit the game? Without living with survivors and seeing all they do how can they be judged?

"XXX played a great game; the jury just didn't appreciate it". To me, this is like "that was a great bluff, but that guy was such a calling station." Bluffing into a calling station is not a great bluff. And if a player doesn't consider how to get the votes in FTC, then they didn't play great. Thinking "the jury should vote based on XXX because it's the right way to think" doesn't work. A player has to try to get to know the other players, figure out what they might base decisions on (not just what they say they would base it on, btw). Find ways to avoid responsibility for voting out those that will be spiteful (or take players with you that are more responsible), etc. Obviously there's a big conflict between doing things to get to FTC and doing things that will get you the votes at FTC. Anyone who only thinks about how to get to FTC deserves 2nd or 3rd.

Less aggressive strategies are hard to show. I also think it's also hard to show the components of less aggressive strategies because they can be subtle and take a lot of time. An episode isn't going to show a player spending time talking to other players about their families, doing a fair share of menial work around camp, making a point to never take more than a fair share of food, or listening to others when they are having a hard time. We see bits of those things but most episodes focus on big aggressive moves or being a jerk because they make for good TV. My point here is that it's very hard for a viewer to know who played a very deft and subtle strategic game.

S22 starts in less than 2 months!

I think it was Clovis who asked for just Cast spoilers for S22. There's nothing definite out there, but http://www.truedorktimes.com/s22/survivometer22.htm is a pretty good resource. As more cast members are figured out, they'll pop up there right away.

I'm nearly positive that as long as you stick to that page, you won't get any deeper spoilers, but I've never followed this process before, so I accept no responsibility for any other spoilers that go up on that page.

it was thanks.

I believe they update that page with actual spoilers as they become known, so I'd be wary of visiting it any time after we know the cast.

I really hope they have better challenges next season. I re-watched a few older seasons recently and there were many very unique and interesting challenges which required a wide variety of skills where a team as unit could win it or lose it.
I miss those endurance challenges where they get offered food for stepping down.

As for Sandra's strategy. I think she has a good feeling for the power players at the beginning of the game and she knows how to stay on their good side. She doesn't do the "me and you, final two" crap instead she takes in all the information and decides then who has the numbers and sticks with majority.
Once she made the merge she's save for a couple of vote and then she's totally capable of flipping at least once if necessary.
Furthermore, she's lucky. How did no one figure out that she threw away the fish? Not even in the FTC? They clearly didn't push her hard enough, she has such a temper they could've easily gotten her to start jelling.
I still don't know how they gave here the million AGAIN but I guess somehow the perfect final three came together for her to get it.

I'm game for that, but there are some problems. First, there's usually only two or three very viable strategists on any given season. Second, seems like some of the strategists have a bit of a blind spot for how the voting is going to go and they overvalue their own tactics. "I'm a great strategist, they have to vote for me. (If they don't they are just idiots.)" Third, strategists are really in love with killing off the other 'good players' and are probably more likely to attempt to align with a large group of woats (there, is that better?)--but trying to angle for the worst of the woats in the endgame. Attempting to keep in the people who REALLY rub people the wrong way should be interesting. Russell would be trying to get to the end with Ben from Somoa and Shannon from Nicaragua. Corrine from Gabon would be a dream finalist for Russ. It's scary that I can actually keep coming up with names.

I'm trying to think of a season where that actually happened (all allstar seasons excluded for obv reasons) and I pretty much come up empty.
I guess, Todd and Amanda worked pretty well together. I don't consider JT a real strategic player so, neither do I consider Earl as one. Fairplay and Burton came pretty close but no cigar for them.

I'd like to see an alliance with three very strategic players who own the game from start to finish who plant sneaky lies and manipulate the others so much that they start voting out each other. But I guess it'll never happen.

Maybe they should do another Fans vs. Favorites, but this time, put some real Fans in there some players who are like totally obsessed with the game. Then add some nice new twists that force action.

I'd like to see a "tribe shuffle" season where they shuffle tribes like every three days. That should bring an interesting dynamic to the game.

very nice variance

here's my addition

Chase mad.

I would probably bang Holly for ***** and giggles.