S39.E12: Just Go For It

[tvfanatic13]

18 minutes ago, PaperTree said:

Yes.  Does she have an idol?

What ProfCrash said!

[princelina]

13 hours ago, laurakaye said:

But to say that once he was on the boat headed home, he was "actually very respectful?"  Why does Probst feel any need whatsoever to sugarcoat Dan's actions AFTER he was told that there was no way he was going back to camp?  He was "actually very respectful" after he obviously blew up to the point of having to be calmed down in the first place.  Give me a break.  "Dan" and "respectful" do not belong in the same sentence.  I see no need for Probst to try and shine a pretty light on a predatory scumbag.  

Jeff could have just said that Dan was respectful and went home - he actually exposed the fact that Dan made a huge honking stink about being evicted before "calming down".  From what I've seen everyone (and by everyone I mean Survivor watchers who know who Dan is - not all of society 😄) are dying to know what happened, so Dan is reaping possibly more consequences - if we all knew what happened it might fade more quickly than everyone dying to know and carrying on about it all week!  I've already been questioned by my boss (a casual viewer at best) and my brother (who NEVER contacts me unless he needs something!)

12 hours ago, sigmaforce86 said:

OMG I am so glad you said this.  I was debating whether to ask here or in another topic whether I was remembering this correctly - that Missy and Elisabeth had their own experiences with Dan and downplayed it changing the story only after the vote (to, in my opinion, save their games).  Only because this is how the MSN article from today was phrased:       Tribemates Missy Byrd and Elizabeth Beisel then made up their own complaints to manipulate other players to vote out Dan, and it became a giant mess,

https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/survivor-removes-a-player-from-the-game-for-the-first-time-ever/ar-AAK1ZFL

And the minute I read it I thought no they didn't make it up they backtracked.  But then I wondered if I was remembering that episode wrong which is why I was happy to see your comment.    And that, to me, is a problem.  By backtracking people could say well if you take it back or downplay it or say it wasn't as bad as you thought or whatever excuse you make then it probably is reasonable for MSN to use the words "made up" which makes the whole thing sound like a false accusation.  The game play makes for this twisted narrative of what is a real world, outside of strategy, this happened scenario and what is an outwit, I exaggerated, moving my game forward scenario.  I disagree with MSN's wording, I wish they had chosen something less definite than "made up" but it's weird uncharted territory to have this happen in a situation where things are made up as people push their game forward.  There's just a huge difference between made up I went to island of the idols and had to draw a rock to win an advantage and made up he touched me, no he didn't, yes he did.

To pick a nit - they didn't make up what he was doing but they did "make up" how it made them feel - from what I recall Missy found him creepy and annoying but was fine dealing with it, and Elizabeth said she DGAF about him - but they cried to Janet so that was what they "made up".  And then of course they did some lying to Janet after the fact, and to Dan when they told him they were just getting Janet off their back.

6 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Eh, the show seems to have lazily settled on a couple of formulas for their challenges which I find tedious and stale. I usually fast-forward thru them. I mean, if slapstick is your objective then sure, this was funny and so are the blind man's bluff challenges, but that's not what I'm here for.

I really miss the more creative challenges that had the players running into the woods and reciting answers to questions into the camera or the challenges that forced them to show their cards by eliminating other players. I'm just so over the obstacle course and puzzle combo challenges. It seems like it's all they ever do anymore.

I'd like to give this a million likes, and send it to production for them to read every day until they make a change!

5 hours ago, treeofdreams said:

Those spinning challenges are just silly.  Do none of the contestants realize that when they are done spinning in one direction, all they need to do is spin a couple of times in the opposite direction to get their equilibrium back??

I didn't realize it!  I'd like to say I'll keep that knowledge in my pocket until I appear on Survivor, but I'll actually be trying it out tomorrow in my living room!  (Not tonight - I've been drinking wine while baking cookies 😄)

[Steph Sometimes]

So I have a dumb question. What if Janet finds another idol? Would she able to play one, get it nullified by Dean and then use the other one? Probably not, right?

I'm guessing she's out at 5,, and then Lauren and Noura fight for 4th with fire. And then Tommy wins because that's the game we have right now. Stupid Tommy.

[Lamb18]

I just watched the show. I figured something must have gone down since its Thursday night and this thread is already at page 6.

Regarding Dan, TPTB will protect the staff but not the players. I suppose the production crew do not have to sign all the disclaimers that the players do plus are protected under workplace sexual harassment laws and policies.

Happy thought: maybe Elaine will come back so there will be 6 and the filming/production plan won't be all mucked up?

I still think Dean is stupid. And I'm really seeing Tommy's arrogance now.

Another reason to be glad Dan is gone: I won't have to see the sunlight glinting on his body fuzz anymore.

[fishcakes]

19 minutes ago, Steph Sometimes said:

So I have a dumb question. What if Janet finds another idol? Would she able to play one, get it nullified by Dean and then use the other one? Probably not, right?

Oooh. I have no idea but, theoretically, I think maybe she could. I went back and looked at the scene of the nullifier being played in the David vs. Goliath season to see how it works. The idol nullifier has to go in the voting urn with the name of the person it's being played against before anyone plays an idol. So in DvG, Dan played his idol, then Jeff first pulled the nullifier out of the urn and said all votes against Dan would count, all before he started the vote count. The idol has to be played before the vote count, and the nullifier has to be played before the idol is played. So I could see it being possible that Dean puts the nullifier in the urn against Janet, Janet plays her idol, Jeff pulls the nullifier and says votes against Janet will count, and then Janet plays a second idol, which she should still be able to do because Jeff hasn't yet revealed any votes. I mean, really, it could go either way. They could say that the nullifier works against one idol only or that it works against any number of idols played by one person. Jeff would probably make that decision on the fly and just go whichever way he thinks would create the most drama.

But sadly I don't think there will be a second idol for Janet to find before the next TC. Since no idol was played at the last TC, there's no idol to be rehidden. And even if there were, she doesn't know that there's a nullifier out there or that Dean knows she has an idol, so she likely wouldn't be searching for another one.

[Nashville]

On 12/11/2019 at 8:03 PM, Lady Calypso said:

He also had them when he went to Island of the Idols, I'm pretty sure. So they basically didn't bother showing him finding them, or he found them off camera. Which is very anticlimatic, not that I liked Noura playing such an immature game in the first place.

Typical Noura nonsense: 90% noise, 10% substance.

On 12/11/2019 at 10:05 PM, CletusMusashi said:

I love that Noura's big evil scheme of vengeance was to simply elevate Dean's shoes about six feet off the ground in plain sight. While ranting about it maniacally, of course.

So that was Noura’s Grand Payback Plan - sticking Dean’s shoes a little out of reach?  GuhhREAT idea there, Nourma; unfortunately, a device exists which can totally foil your nefarious scheme.

What is this astounding device?  Well, I’m SOOOO glad you asked:

20 hours ago, simplyme said:

a crew member complaining may be a LOT scarier to TPTB than a cast member.

No “may” about it; unlike (possibly) the contestants, there’s ZERO wiggle for Production to dodge its responsibility to deal with a sexual harassment complaint by a crew member.

13 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

What bothers me most is that a coin flip is probably going to cost Janet Sole Survivor and a million dollars. 

IMHO all the nullifier might do is speed up Janet’s departure by one TC.

[simplyme]

1 hour ago, Nashville said:

IMHO all the nullifier might do is speed up Janet’s departure by one TC.

Could you explain your reasoning on that one? (You usually have solid reasoning. I'm just not following it this time.)

To me, the nullifier means she very well might go out 5th. After that, she might not win immunity or be auto-dragged to the finale, but she still has a chance at the third spot if she can beat someone making fire. We know she can make fire, so that's conceivable to me. I'd say it would come down to who wins the final immunity and what decisions they make.

[JudyObscure]

I've been lying awake thinking of all the people harmed by Dan's presence in the game; Kellee, Janet, the reputations of  Elizabeth, Missy, Aaron, Lauren, many others to a lesser degree, possibly Molly for instance.  They really should all be called back for a second season.  I would be fascinated to watch that.

[ProfCrash]

56 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

I've been lying awake thinking of all the people harmed by Dan's presence in the game; Kellee, Janet, the reputations of  Elizabeth, Missy, Aaron, Lauren, many others to a lesser degree, possibly Molly for instance.  They really should all be called back for a second season.  I would be fascinated to watch that.

Missy and Elisabeth weaponized harassment to advance their game. Any harm done to their reputation is solidly on them. 

[Haleth]

8 hours ago, fishcakes said:

They could say that the nullifier works against one idol only or that it works against any number of idols played by one person. Jeff would probably make that decision on the fly and just go whichever way he thinks would create the most drama.

And you just know that decision would not be to save Janet.

According to one of the articles (sorry, I don't remember which) the next TC was skipped which confused the jury members.  So are we going to see Probst tell the remaining players that they are skipping a TC or will the show be edited in a way that this isn't apparent to viewers?  Did they have an immunity challenge anyway and then a second IC before the next TC?  Or did they skip that too?  Will there be one or two people with immunity at TC?

[Nashville]

1 hour ago, simplyme said:

Could you explain your reasoning on that one? (You usually have solid reasoning. I'm just not following it this time.)

Because Janet’s primary saving grace up to now has been oVokai’s focus on Pagonging oLairos; with Elaine’s eviction, though, that project is effectively complete and it’s time for oVokai to start eating its own.  

Dean IS still around, of course, and technically he is the last of the original Lairos tribe - but IMHO BRob’s soliloquy on Jury management came a little too late for Dean to effectively employ.  The majority of the Jury is oLairos, and that would normally be a concern - except Dean has already burned more bridges with his former original tribemates than William Holden did in Bridge on the River Kwai, his sole remaining competition for Goat of the Season is Noura, and Tommy is going to cover Dean’s ass over that of RattleMouth.  Dean probably has a decent coast to F3, unless an idol block of a split vote finds Dean catching the downside of the split as a safety play - but the F5 TC is the last TC in which an idol can be played, Dean has the idol nullifier, and he knows (via Tommy) that Janet has an idol - so THAT’S a non-issue.

Which means we now take a look at oVokai - which was formerly looking like this, power structure-wise:

1. Tommy/Lauren.
2. Dan/Janet.
3. Noura.

Janet’s friendship/alliance with Dan has previously kept her game relatively healthy within the oVokai power structure.  Dan’s boot, however, played right into the hands of Tommy/Lauren as it busted up their primary “power couple” competition for them - and Janet as an individual represents much more of a F3 threat than the others.  With Dean’s lips being somewhat permanently spot-welded to Tommy’s ass - and his TC vote almost permanently riding in Tommy’s pocket - I’d surmise the remaining power structure looks something like this:

1. Tommy
2. Lauren
3. Dean
4. Noura
5. Janet

If Dan hadn’t caught the Boat Ride to Oblivion I’d have figured Noura to be the next TC target (superfluous swing vote upon whom nobody could reliably depend), but Janet would’ve been right behind Noura on the chopping block; she’s a strong competitor with better relationships in the Jury than pretty much any other oVokai left standing.  

There’s no way in hell the remaining oVokai are letting Janet get within sniffing distance of F3 so long as it’s within their power to prevent, so Janet would still be gone ASAFP even if the idol nullifier wasn’t in play - if not this week, then next.

[amazingracefan]

I find the speculation annoying so I'm just skipping it.

[Tryangle]

13 hours ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

I’ve thought that Karishma was attractive at certain points in the game and with certain camera angles, but last night she looked gorgeous in the red dress. 

In one of the earliest seasons, one of the men “sleep groped” a female tribe mate. I can’t remember if anything was ever done about that or if he was just ultimately voted off.

She looked very glam in the red dress, but I think I found Kirishma more attractive in-game (when she wasn't being a downer).

The names that came to mind with the "sleep groping" was Ted/Ghandia back in Thailand and Ted was all "I don't even like you" when they argued about the unwanted behaviour. Ghandia got voted out heavily, perhaps supporting the narrative that the woman in the situation is the 'troublemaker'. Between that and the Sue/Richard situation and All-Stars, and what's happened this season, I guess the show's trying to be more aware and mindful, although it seems there's still a ways to go.

[laurakaye]

So this episode began with seven, went down to six with Elaine's departure, and went down to five with Dan getting kicked out.  Does this mean this season was shortened by one episode?  Usually the finale starts with five.  I'm perfectly fine with this season losing a week's worth of advertising and hype due to Dan being removed when it should've happened so much earlier.

[ProfCrash]

whoops different thread deleted

Edited December 13, 2019 by ProfCrash

[ProfCrash]

24 minutes ago, laurakaye said:

So this episode began with seven, went down to six with Elaine's departure, and went down to five with Dan getting kicked out.  Does this mean this season was shortened by one episode?  Usually the finale starts with five.  I'm perfectly fine with this season losing a week's worth of advertising and hype due to Dan being removed when it should've happened so much earlier.

I thought that the finale has been starting with 6 for a while now which has led to a very rushed reunion. So they should have more time for the reunion.

And I think they might just skip ahead three days since the incident supposedly took place after the immunity challenge. I take that to mean after the final 6 immunity challenge and not the one we just saw otherwise they would not have had a tribal with Dan in it and Elaine would have stayed in the game. So we are likely to not see a reward and immunity challenge.

[AZChristian]

Statistics indicate that 51% of women have experienced unwanted sexual touching.  51%

It is difficult for me to believe that after 39 seasons of Survivor, there have been just the few of which we were aware.  And this is the FIRST time a perpetrator has been ejected because of it.  

[Jel]

On 12/12/2019 at 5:56 AM, Bryce Lynch said:

Dan deserved to be ejected, but if none of the women are going to step up and ask for this and,  but instead, be willing to work with him, gaslight other women over the situation, and say  by their words and votes that they wanted him to stay in the game, then I don't think production had any business doing so.   

You can't  be strategic and uncooperative with TPTB about sexual harassment and then expect them to step in and fire/eject someone, AGAINST your expressed wishes.   

They do though because it's their game and they make the conduct rules. They have a rule about physical assault, but they, for some inexplicable in 2019 reason, didn't have one for inappropriate touching especially AFTER a NO was issued? After Rich Hatch? After #metoo? Les Moonves? I mean this is not new.

The fact that any of the women were able to dismiss it or tolerate it depresses me because I think it bespeaks a past history that they all share -- they handle it differently, but I bet every single one of them has experienced this kind of harassment in real life, and even more depressingly probably knew that for these kinds of "minor transgressions", few people would even find it truly objectionable, let alone punishable. Many people simply go along to get along. Should Kellee be expected to suffer the abuse and potentially blow up her game by taking up the sexual harassment crusader mantle mid-game and insisting he be ejected?  She should take his abuse and any potential fall out?  Because CBS hasn't figured out that this type of behavior is not okay?  Doesn't seem fair. 

In an ideal world, Kellee would have said, "I've told him to stop, he keeps doing it, this is not acceptable". The others would chimed in with their similar experiences of him, would have agreed with and supported her decision, and CBS would have removed him from the game and could have played the soft music while discussing how important it is to respect a person's "No".  But alas.

I think CBS realized they screwed up here, and are frantically back peddling now, and trying to find a way to cover their asses by citing "confidentiality concerns" (uhm, names need not be released for details to be provided)

[ProfCrash]

11 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Statistics indicate that 51% of women have experienced unwanted sexual touching.  51%

It is difficult for me to believe that after 39 seasons of Survivor, there have been just the few of which we were aware.  And this is the FIRST time a perpetrator has been ejected because of it.  

It is not. See my post in Rob Has a Podcast. Stephen Fishbach discusses this subject a bit during the podcasr

6 minutes ago, Jel said:

I think CBS realized they screwed up here, and are frantically back peddling now, and trying to find a way to cover their asses by citing "confidentiality concerns" (uhm, names need not be released for details to be provided)

I think that there is litigation pending some where and CBS has to stay quiet for the time being.

[Bryce Lynch]

42 minutes ago, Jel said:

They do though because it's their game and they make the conduct rules. They have a rule about physical assault, but they, for some inexplicable in 2019 reason, didn't have one for inappropriate touching especially AFTER a NO was issued? After Rich Hatch? After #metoo? Les Moonves? I mean this is not new.

The fact that any of the women were able to dismiss it or tolerate it depresses me because I think it bespeaks a past history that they all share -- they handle it differently, but I bet every single one of them has experienced this kind of harassment in real life, and even more depressingly probably knew that for these kinds of "minor transgressions", few people would even find it truly objectionable, let alone punishable. Many people simply go along to get along. Should Kellee be expected to suffer the abuse and potentially blow up her game by taking up the sexual harassment crusader mantle mid-game and insisting he be ejected?  She should take his abuse and any potential fall out?  Because CBS hasn't figured out that this type of behavior is not okay?  Doesn't seem fair. 

In an ideal world, Kellee would have said, "I've told him to stop, he keeps doing it, this is not acceptable". The others would chimed in with their similar experiences of him, would have agreed with and supported her decision, and CBS would have removed him from the game and could have played the soft music while discussing how important it is to respect a person's "No".  But alas.

I think CBS realized they screwed up here, and are frantically back peddling now, and trying to find a way to cover their asses by citing "confidentiality concerns" (uhm, names need not be released for details to be provided)

But,, Kellee said she did NOT want production to step in.  If she had said, "yes' to the production member's question and TPTB failed to step in, then I would agree they failed.

But, without a complaint, there is effectively no actionable harassment.  A lot of touching goes on at camp in Survivor, much more than in the real world.  Most of it is consensual.   Much of Dan's obviously wasn't.  But, unless a person being touched is willing to step up and say they want action taken, TPTB really aren't in a position to take strong action.

Imagine if they had ejected Dan against Kellee's wishes, and there was either backlash against her, or her alliance lost the numbers advantage and she got voted out.   Then, people would  be saying TPTB screwed Kellee and treated her like a child, instead of a grown woman, by ejecting Dan, when she wanted to handle the situation in a way that was more advantageous to her game.

All the lying, exaggerating and downplaying by Missy and Elizabeth also clouded the issue a great deal.   TPTB saw one woman complaining about the touching, but not wanting him ejected and two others telling different stories to different people to manipulate them for gain in the game.   They have no formal complaint and in fact the victim expressly declined to make a formal complaint.   

As I have said before, I think women (and men) should be strongly empowered to protect themselves from sexual harassment.  Complaints should be taken seriously and investigated and where there is evidence strong action (like firing or ejection from Survivor) should be taken.  

But, if women choose to be pragmatic (Kellee), cynical or downright devious  (Missy and Elizabeth) in how they deal with unwanted touching, I think TPTB have their hands tied.  Women need to stand firmly (like Janet) against this behavior and when they do, those in authority should back them in the strongest way.   

[peachmangosteen]

6 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

But,, Kellee said she did NOT want production to step in. 

As @Eolivet and many others have said, the point is she never should have been put in the position to make the decision for Production. 

[4N6MAL]

On 12/11/2019 at 9:00 PM, mojoween said:

On the flip side, Janet is a real good lady

Yes.

[Jel]

2 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

But,, Kellee said she did NOT want production to step in.  If she had said, "yes' to the production member's question and TPTB failed to step in, then I would agree they failed.

But, without a complaint, there is effectively no actionable harassment.  A lot of touching goes on at camp in Survivor, much more than in the real world.  Most of it is consensual.   Much of Dan's obviously wasn't.  But, unless a person being touched is willing to step up and say they want action taken, TPTB really aren't in a position to take strong action.

Imagine if they had ejected Dan against Kellee's wishes, and there was either backlash against her, or her alliance lost the numbers advantage and she got voted out.   Then, people would  be saying TPTB screwed Kellee and treated her like a child, instead of a grown woman, by ejecting Dan, when she wanted to handle the situation in a way that was more advantageous to her game.

All the lying, exaggerating and downplaying by Missy and Elizabeth also clouded the issue a great deal.   TPTB saw one woman complaining about the touching, but not wanting him ejected and two others telling different stories to different people to manipulate them for gain in the game.   They have no formal complaint and in fact the victim expressly declined to make a formal complaint.   

As I have said before, I think women (and men) should be strongly empowered to protect themselves from sexual harassment.  Complaints should be taken seriously and investigated and where there is evidence strong action (like firing or ejection from Survivor) should be taken.  

But, if women choose to be pragmatic (Kellee), cynical or downright devious  (Missy and Elizabeth) in how they deal with unwanted touching, I think TPTB have their hands tied.  Women need to stand firmly (like Janet) against this behavior and when they do, those in authority should back them in the strongest way.   

No actionable harassment in the law, or in the Survivor players code of conduct? Why put the onus on Kellee, or any victim, to ask for consequences? Shouldn't CBS do that because they have rules/standards/behavioral or contractual expectations?

I completely see a grey area in a first time/one time situation, and I agree that a person should say something if they don't like what's happening. But Kellee did ask him to stop touching her and he chose to continue. This is where the grey turns to black and white. Once she said no, the line has been clearly set, and any more of the same behavior is clearly crossing it. 

I feel like all of the gaming stuff is a side issue really. And so is the "who said what to whom and when did she say it" is too. The only thing that really matters in this context, imo, is Kellee said stop, and Dan, having been informed she didn't want his touch, and no longer potentially unaware he was causing her distress, continued the behavior.  He knew she didn't like it; he did it anyway. 

To your point about CBS ejecting Dan because Kellee wanted them to: Should Kellee have been put in that position? It's up to Kellee to establish the CBS harassment guidelines, in the middle of the game? If CBS has rules of conduct (suggestion: Person says stop touching me, you stop touching them) then it would be their own rules they would be enforcing. Any complaints at that point should be directed to CBS.

This is a serious (not a rhetorical) question:

If Survivor A punches Survivor B, do they ask Survivor B how s/he feels about it and if they should eject Survivor A from the game? Or does production just eject the person for a rules violation?

Has this ever happened  and if so, did they ask for players' input as to consequences?

[Rachel RSL]

Welp, guess Dan's son has to change schools.  Good job, Father of the Year!

I find it disheartening to see so many still putting the onus on Kellee even though it has been explained so many times over the past few weeks exactly why it should never be up to the victim.  I think Kellee has made it very clear in her postings that she thinks Dan should have been removed from the game and she's very unhappy with how TBTP handled the entire situation.  

 I do mourn the loss of Dean potentially playing himself right out of the game with Jamal's fake advantage.  That would have been so beautiful.

[Bryce Lynch]

15 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

As @Eolivet and many others have said, the point is she never should have been put in the position to make the decision for Production. 

I totally disagree.   A person being touched in an unwanted way absolutely should get to decide whether or not she wants those in authority to intervene.   

I actually think it is presumptuous and demeaning for TBTP to take action where a woman has not requested assistance.   It his her body, her perceptions and feelings about the touching and her decision whether to file a complaint, and her responsibility to file a complaint, if she wants action taken.  Taking action against Dan, against Kellee's expressed wishes,  would be the opposite of empowering her.  

I think Dan is disgusting and would have totally supported him being ejected.  But, a victim needed to request (or demand) action.    

[Jel]

12 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I totally disagree.   A person being touched in an unwanted way absolutely should get to decide whether or not she wants those in authority to intervene.   

I actually think it is presumptuous and demeaning for TBTP to take action where a woman has not requested assistance.   It his her body, her perceptions and feelings about the touching and her decision whether to file a complaint, and her responsibility to file a complaint, if she wants action taken.  Taking action against Dan, against Kellee's expressed wishes,  would be the opposite of empowering her.  

I think Dan is disgusting and would have totally supported him being ejected.  But, a victim needed to request (or demand) action.    

I totally understand you are not defending Dan or his behavior -- just want to be clear about that -- you are definitely one of the good guys, Bryce Lynch.  I appreciate that we're having a civil and respectful debate around complicated topics. 🙂 

Would this be true if it were a full on punch in the face? CBS ejects Dan for punching Aaron and then people would complain because Aaron has agency and can decide whether or not the punch to his face was a violation? I assume not because assault is already in the law and sexual harassment remains the domain of corporate HR policies.  But there was a clear violation here, (she said stop) so either CBS has no policy or they are leaving the enforcement of their own policy up to individual players, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[CountryGirl]

I haven't read through all the responses  yet and maybe it's just me, but it really rubs me the wrong way that the moment  Dan touches a Survivor internal, he's ousted but all the other times were just ignored  (sorry, a talking to isn't action in my book).

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that he is FINALLY gone but he should have been gone on day one when he was using Kellee as a pillow with his head on her CROTCH FFS. No matter that she didn't want them to take action then or later on. Harassment is harassment is harassment. 

It just smacks of "well, NOW it's serious and actionable because it's one of our own being targeted."

[Bryce Lynch]

2 minutes ago, Jel said:

No actionable harassment in the law, or in the Survivor players code of conduct? Why put the onus on Kellee, or any victim, to ask for consequences? Shouldn't CBS do that because they have rules/standards/behavioral or contractual expectations?

I completely see a grey area in a first time/one time situation, and I agree that a person should say something if they don't like what's happening. But Kellee did ask him to stop touching her and he chose to continue. This is where the grey turns to black and white. Once she said no, the line has been clearly set, and any more of the same behavior is clearly crossing it. 

I feel like all of the gaming stuff is a side issue really. And so is the "who said what to whom and when did she say it" is too. The only thing that really matters in this context, imo, is Kellee said stop, and Dan, having been informed she didn't want his touch, and no longer potentially unaware he was causing her distress, continued the behavior.  He knew she didn't like it; he did it anyway. 

To your point about CBS ejecting Dan because Kellee wanted them to: Should Kellee have been put in that position? It's up to Kellee to establish the CBS harassment guidelines, in the middle of the game? If CBS has rules of conduct (suggestion: Person says stop touching me, you stop touching them) then it would be their own rules they would be enforcing. Any complaints at that point should be directed to CBS.

This is a serious (not a rhetorical) question:

If Survivor A punches Survivor B, do they ask Survivor B how s/he feels about it and if they should eject Survivor A from the game? Or does production just eject the person for a rules violation?

Has this ever happened  and if so, did they ask for players' input as to consequences?

The onus is on someone (in this case it could have been Kellee or others) to say they believed they were being harassed or abused and to complain and ask for action to be taken.   The victim(s) would not have complete control over what that action would be, but they should have input and their impressions about how serious the offenses were should be taken into account.  

I'm not asking Kellee to climb some tall mountain.  Just to say, "Dan this x, y and z, they were unwanted, I told him to stop and I wan't action taken."  After that, I would want production to view the video evidence and kick Feely Dan to the curb.  

I imagine in 39 seasons of Survivor a  few punches have been thrown.  I believe we have seen shoving and threatening behavior with no ejections.   

I would imagine that if someone was punched, that person would be asked for their input.  If player B got punched by player A and told production they didn't want player A ejected, I doubt player A would be ejected.   

[Bryce Lynch]

3 minutes ago, Jel said:

I totally understand you are not defending Dan or his behavior -- just want to be clear about that -- you are definitely one of the good guys, Bryce Lynch.  I appreciate that we're having a civil and respectful debate around complicated topics. 🙂 

Would this be true if it were a full on punch in the face? CBS ejects Dan for punching Aaron and then people would complain because Aaron has agency and can decide whether or not the punch to his face was a violation? I assume not because assault is already in the law and sexual harassment remains the domain of corporate HR policies.  But there was a clear violation here, (she said stop) so either CBS has no policy or they are leaving the enforcement of their own policy up to individual players, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I really don't know, but I tend to think that if Aaron told production he didn't wan't Dan ejected, he wouldn't be ejected.  

I empathize with the situation Kellee was in, being torn between a pragmatic decision to increase her shot a million dollars and one to get rid of the gropey creep.   But, I can't criticize TPTB for not going against Kellee's expressed wishes.   

Generally speaking, in a corporate setting or in the legal system, authorities don't step in, and take action unless someone makes a complaint and requests action.  

[slaterain]

37 minutes ago, Jel said:

No actionable harassment in the law, or in the Survivor players code of conduct? Why put the onus on Kellee, or any victim, to ask for consequences? Shouldn't CBS do that because they have rules/standards/behavioral or contractual expectations?

...

This is a serious (not a rhetorical) question:

If Survivor A punches Survivor B, do they ask Survivor B how s/he feels about it and if they should eject Survivor A from the game? Or does production just eject the person for a rules violation?

Has this ever happened  and if so, did they ask for players' input as to consequences?

THIS! I was reading through to see if anyone had brought this up yet - thank you! I don't think it has ever happened on survivor with the closest being the hantz kid where his irrational behavior was worrying and they did an impromptu beach vote. Top Chef removed a contestant once after a physical altercation - immediately. They have video proof of her asking him to not touch her and then Dan continues to touch her - lay his gross head on her. She was put in an awful situation. Dan's actions should have caused immediate repercussions from production. At the very least - the talk should have occurred in those first few days and put him on probation. they let it go on way too long. I am also surprised how positive of an edit he got after Kellee's boot. Granted the women he primarily snuggled up against or touched were all booted. And his behavior was different when Janet was around which says a lot. The sad thing is he may not ever realize or see his behavior as wrong. And it makes me cringe how many comments (not here) that defend his behavior. If a woman says don't touch me and he can't respect that or even make the slightest effort to stop - this is an issue and should be dressed immediately. 

Regarding the gameplay and if removing him early would cause complaints of production influencing results - Production always impacts results and is part of the unpredictable nature and luck required in the game - all the advantages, etc. Who you align with is a part of it and can be very dependent on the game. Medical evacs also screw up games but are a fact of it. Dan's actions are the reason for his removal and his alone. 

Edited December 13, 2019 by slaterain

[Scatterbrained]

So many people try out for Survivor, it seems that the interview process is lengthy.  They cast a “Hollywood agent” guy who looks a bit like Weinstein in the midst of the #MeToo era.  I think they wanted this to happen, it just didn’t happen exactly the way they wanted it to happen.  Maybe they were hoping that it would be like season 2 of The Real World and everyone would insist Dan go ASAP.  

The recent challenge seems like something you’d see on Big Brother.  I miss Falling Coconuts.

if Rob and Sandra return in future seasons, I’d love it if they heckled/encouraged players during challenges.  Maybe there can be a special reward called “Roasting with Rob” where he feeds the players and mouths off to them.  Or something.

[ProfCrash]

5 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

The onus is on someone (in this case it could have been Kellee or others) to say they believed they were being harassed or abused and to complain and ask for action to be taken.   The victim(s) would not have complete control over what that action would be, but they should have input and their impressions about how serious the offenses were should be taken into account.  

I'm not asking Kellee to climb some tall mountain.  Just to say, "Dan this x, y and z, they were unwanted, I told him to stop and I wan't action taken."  After that, I would want production to view the video evidence and kick Feely Dan to the curb.  

I imagine in 39 seasons of Survivor a  few punches have been thrown.  I believe we have seen shoving and threatening behavior with no ejections.   

I would imagine that if someone was punched, that person would be asked for their input.  If player B got punched by player A and told production they didn't want player A ejected, I doubt player A would be ejected.   

Punches are not thrown because people know that is an automatic ejection from the game. Harassment should be an automatic ejection from the game, then maybe contestants will listen when another contestant says they don't want to be touched.

Brandon was "voted out of the game" at an impromptu tribal council because he was dangerously close to punching Philip. I long suspected that Production took it to the BS fake Tribal, complete with a vote, because they could not pull Brandon, in their minds, until he threw a punch but they all knew it was coming. Probst stood there on the beach with his arm around Brandon, giving him comforting massages and the occasional squeeze, to keep Brandon from going after Philip. It was stupid but the line in the sand was physical violence. So they came up with a charade to make Brandon leave before the violence occurred, most likely knowing he was going to be voted out any way.

There was direct intervention there for good reason. Production has been slow in establishing a firm line in the sand regarding harassment and that is a massive oversight on their part. There have been two gross cases in the past that should have led to evictions that didn't. This is another case.

From the sounds of it a firm line has been drawn for the Season 40 cast (listen to Rob Has a Podcast Know it All's) and hopefully that firm line will stay in place for the rest of the shows run.

[Auntie Anxiety]

I agree that this is a complicated situation, but Survivor isn’t the real world. Most sexual harassment and unwanted touching in the real world is not caught on film, so it is up to the victim to go to TPTB and lodge a complaint, which would likely start a he said-she said (or s/he said-s/he said) debate. But the producers actually saw this happening in real time, filmed it, filmed Kellee agonizing about it in her talking head but did nothing. TPTB dropped the ball.

[Jel]

6 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

The onus is on someone (in this case it could have been Kellee or others) to say they believed they were being harassed or abused and to complain and ask for action to be taken.   The victim(s) would not have complete control over what that action would be, but they should have input and their impressions about how serious the offenses were should be taken into account.  

I'm not asking Kellee to climb some tall mountain.  Just to say, "Dan this x, y and z, they were unwanted, I told him to stop and I wan't action taken."  After that, I would want production to view the video evidence and kick Feely Dan to the curb.  

I imagine in 39 seasons of Survivor a  few punches have been thrown.  I believe we have seen shoving and threatening behavior with no ejections.   

I would imagine that if someone was punched, that person would be asked for their input.  If player B got punched by player A and told production they didn't want player A ejected, I doubt player A would be ejected.   

Okay, so if I am understanding you, in the case of sexual harassment/unwanted touch, because not all touch is unwanted, the victim needs to tell production that this behavior makes me uncomfortable and needs to stop. We can contrast that with something more straightforward like a punch in the face, which most people do not want, so no real grey area there.

And if I'm understanding you correctly, I think I see the seed of our disagreement and that is you are putting sexual harassment/unwanted touch in a separate category than straight up assault (like a punch) and I am not. I, having experienced it, think that unwanted touch is assault. To account for any potential misunderstanding, I think it's fair to expect the victim to inform the person you don't like it, but once that's happened, anymore is definitely assault. 

[sadiegirl1999]

Well, Varner has weighed in. 😐

he says the reunion is pre-taped Bc the cast is supporting DAN and want to call out production. 😯

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/survivor-dan-spilo-inappropriate-touching-incident-jeff-varner-slams-cbs-pretaped-reunion.amp

[lilabennet]

39 minutes ago, Jel said:

This is a serious (not a rhetorical) question:

If Survivor A punches Survivor B, do they ask Survivor B how s/he feels about it and if they should eject Survivor A from the game? Or does production just eject the person for a rules violation?

Has this ever happened  and if so, did they ask for players' input as to consequences?

I'm not sure about Survivor, but on The Challenge a punch will automatically get you ejected while some other sort of physical altercation (like a violent push, even down to the ground) means that production will talk to all of the cast members and if one says that they feel unsafe, then the person is ejected (or sometimes just sent to a hotel for a while to calm down).  Sometimes if there is only one person likely to say they feel unsafe, then the other cast members will talk them out of insisting the offender goes home before production gets to them.  The offender is given a warning and a second violation sends them home.  Girls usually get away with more than guys do and better competitors get away with less because people want them to go home.

[JudyObscure]

5 hours ago, ProfCrash said:

Missy and Elisabeth weaponized harassment to advance their game. Any harm done to their reputation is solidly on them. 

Yes, but my point was that if Dan had been taken out of the game as soon as they saw his problem with touching, they never would have been put in the position of being tempted to do what they did and we would never have know that side of them.  So, in the long run,  they were harmed by Dan's presence really more than anyone.   Who knows how 'anyone-but-me,'  Sandra would have handled that situation?  Only the women who were there when Kellee complained were put to that test.  

[Jel]

21 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I really don't know, but I tend to think that if Aaron told production he didn't wan't Dan ejected, he wouldn't be ejected.  

I empathize with the situation Kellee was in, being torn between a pragmatic decision to increase her shot a million dollars and one to get rid of the gropey creep.   But, I can't criticize TPTB for not going against Kellee's expressed wishes.   

Generally speaking, in a corporate setting or in the legal system, authorities don't step in, and take action unless someone makes a complaint and requests action.  

Would that be true if the HR manager witnessed both the behavior and the request from the victim that it stop, and then witnessed more of the same after the request to stop?

[DEL901]

17 minutes ago, Jel said:

Okay, so if I am understanding you, in the case of sexual harassment/unwanted touch, because not all touch is unwanted, the victim needs to tell production that this behavior makes me uncomfortable and needs to stop. We can contrast that with something more straightforward like a punch in the face, which most people do not want, so no real grey area there.

And if I'm understanding you correctly, I think I see the seed of our disagreement and that is you are putting sexual harassment/unwanted touch in a separate category than straight up assault (like a punch) and I am not. I, having experienced it, think that unwanted touch is assault. To account for any potential misunderstanding, I think it's fair to expect the victim to inform the person you don't like it, but once that's happened, anymore is definitely assault. 

To add to this... in cases in the real world, women have bitten their tongues and taken it for years rather than being thought of as trouble-maker much like Kellee was worried about how it would affect her game..  If an incident wasn't witnessed... and even sometimes if it was, if it wasn't sexual-touching often the victim will get the blame.... oh, she's just too sensitive/bitchy.  He's such a nice guy.  He never bothered me.  (Ya, and Jeffrey Dahmer didn't eat everyone he met, but he was still a mass murderer)

And look at victims of domestic violence.  For years, cases weren't prosecuted unless the victim pressed charges, but many were afraid to.  Now the cops arrest the abuser even if there is no complaint filed if they have probable cause.  And in the case of Kellee, there wasn't probable cause... there was outright proof on film.

I think the difference between Kellee and the crew member:  the crew member wasn't competing for a million dollars.  And even though it wasn't filmed, TPTB got corroboration from at least one of the players who witnessed what happened.  The crew member just had to call her union and, in the MeToo era and CBS would have no choice but to act.

Edited December 13, 2019 by DEL901

[ProfCrash]

7 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

Yes, but my point was that if Dan had been taken out of the game as soon as they saw his problem with touching, they never would have been put in the position of being tempted to do what they did and we would never have know that side of them.  So, in the long run,  they were harmed by Dan's presence really more than anyone.   Who knows how 'anyone-but-me,'  Sandra would have handled that situation?  Only the women who were there when Kellee complained were put to that test.  

Agreed that they would not have been in the position to shoot themselves in the foot but they still made the choice to shoot themselves in the foot. I don't think they deserve a second chance because they crossed a line that they should have known better to cross. And they did not hurt themselves in the game, neither did Aaron, by voting out Kellee. Their reputations have suffered outside the game but that is a different story. Aaron came out of it ok. I think most people understand his apology.

The only people whose games were hurt were Kellee and Janet. Kellee did have a way of protecting herself but she didn't play her idol. Janet was able to repair the harm. 

Sandra would have told Dan to stop touching her and might very well have crossed the no punching rule the next time he did it. Sandra had no problem telling people that she did not like them or what they were doing. Russell knew that Sandra didn't like him. There would not have been any doubt about where she stood.

[Ms Blue Jay]

58 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Generally speaking, in a corporate setting or in the legal system, authorities don't step in, and take action unless someone makes a complaint and requests action.  

That's not necessarily a good thing.

Corporations and companies, like the Survivor entity, like CBS, etc. should definitely have rules protecting people, and then enforce them.  They often don't, but I think that's atrocious.

Empowering women would be letting them play this game all the while feeling safe that they aren't going to be groped and harassed or touched against their wishes.  Women on Survivor are way, way more vulnerable than women in a typical corporate setting for several reasons - shared living and sleeping conditions.  The weather is extremely hot.  The women have little clothes to choose from and dress in and cover themselves up. (In real world corporate settings, women who have been victims of sexual harassment agonize over what to wear to work.  I can't even imagine what Kellee went through.)

Empowering women is not putting a corporations' decisions in their hands and then blaming them for not picking the "right" answer.  Corporations should have rules regardless of one person's wishes, and that is when ethics and business ethics come into play.  It's simply ethical to not let sexual harassment run amok unless a woman stands up and screams over and over again that this is not ok. 

Put a rule in, then enforce it.  It's not that hard.   Rule:  Do not touch other players if they tell you not to.   Enforcement:  You do it, you are either warned once or out of the game.  Enforcement:  You do it twice, you are out of the game.  It is ethical to do this.  It is not ethical to not do this. 

Playing Survivor is not some human right.  It shouldn't supersede the right that humans have to be safe or to involve themselves with corporations while still enjoying protection.  Dan isn't granted some god given right to playing Survivor and we don't have to bend ourselves into pretzels trying to figure out how we can let him stay after doing really horrible things to the other players.  It's not the end of the world to kick someone out of the game.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Ms Blue Jay

[Jel]

Agree Mrs. Blue Jay. Plus the whole "we're learning as we go here at Survivor!" thing is exhausting, too. Seriously? You're learning? Is the word "no" new to you guys or something? Not quite sure what it means and what to do about it when someone says they don't want to be touched. But you're learning. Good to know. When can we expect you to figure this out. Rough estimate?

[Ms Blue Jay]

Yeah 39 seasons in that looks pretty pathetic.

[Jel]

Just now, Ms Blue Jay said:

Yeah 39 seasons in that looks pretty pathetic.

Don't you worry, Mrs. Blue Jay -- they're learning!

I taught my son what no meant when he was was little -- maybe I can teach a class at CBS!

Class, if a woman says "stop touching me", do you:

A. Continue touching, but only at night

B. Touch her with abandon because WTF, she's a woman and what right does she have to tell you no

C. Try a different kind of touching -- feet or hair this time!

D. Complain loudly about how ridiculous it is that someone would dare to tell you to stop touching them when you are ONLY TRYING TO GET WARMTH or SOME HELP UP for crying out loud!

E. Stop touching her

[RescueMom]

4 minutes ago, Jel said:

Don't you worry, Mrs. Blue Jay -- they're learning!

I taught my son what no meant when he was was little -- maybe I can teach a class at CBS!

Class, if a woman says "stop touching me", do you:

A. Continue touching, but only at night

B. Touch her with abandon because WTF, she's a woman and what right does she have to tell you no

C. Try a different kind of touching -- feet or hair this time!

D. Complain loudly about how ridiculous it is that someone would dare to tell you to stop touching them when you are ONLY TRYING TO GET WARMTH or SOME HELP UP for crying out loud!

E. Stop touching her

Great list - you missed one that I saw someone argue on Twitter yesterday:

F. Whine about how unfair it is that other people can touch her but you can't ("If Janet gets to hug you than I have every right to hug you too!")

[Jel]

1 minute ago, RescueMom said:

Great list - you missed one that I saw someone argue on Twitter yesterday:

F. Whine about how unfair it is that other people can touch her but you can't ("If Janet gets to hug you than I have every right to hug you too!")

Good one, RescueMom!

Also, 

G. Don't you know who I am!? Big shot movie producer and talent agent from the industry that spawned the #metoo movement!

[Ellee]

1 hour ago, sadiegirl1999 said:

Well, Varner has weighed in. 😐

he says the reunion is pre-taped Bc the cast is supporting DAN and want to call out production. 😯

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/survivor-dan-spilo-inappropriate-touching-incident-jeff-varner-slams-cbs-pretaped-reunion.amp

There's some incorrect information in that article.  Kind of leaves the article in question for me.

Is Fox News related to Yahoo? 

[MrsR]

As children we're told don't let anyone touch you. You tell if someone touches you. You say no.

Then we become adults and suddenly the rules change. Ever so subtly.

No one has mentioned Courtney Yates and her problems with Jean Robert in China. In a word, YUCK!

On topic, I really wish they had made it clearer when the ejection occurred. It looked like the next morning after the TC.

[plurie]

I hope the production employee sues the hell out of Burnett & co. If they'd ejected Dan earlier, she wouldn't have been groped by him.

[RedbirdNelly]

1 hour ago, ProfCrash said:

Sandra had no problem telling people that she did not like them or what they were doing. Russell knew that Sandra didn't like him. There would not have been any doubt about where she stood.

somewhat off topic but this is why I've always loved Sandra. She told Russell outright she didn't like him. I recall one time where he said "if you are not with me, you are against me." and she responded "I'm against you, Russell."