S43.E13: Snap Some Necks and Cash Some Checks

[jsm1125]

18 hours ago, rhbhaddict said:

According to wikipedia both Cassidy and Gabler each voted incorrectly only one time.   Cass voted Ryan when Jeanine went out and Gabler voted Ryan when Dwight went out.  I keep hearing Cass never voted wrong.

Cass at least knew where the vote was going when Jeanine went home; she wanted Ryan to get some votes in case Jeanine successfully played her shot in the dark 

[blackwing]

This was a terrible season.  If Gabler really did deserve all the votes, then the editing truly failed.  Because from what I saw, he did very little this season.  He never controlled or dictated the votes, he was always along for the ride.  

Owen is really delusional if he thought he had any chance of winning.  He said he didn't want to be a zero-vote finalist and that's exactly what he was.  He was a floater, desperate to work with anyone who would work with him.  I saw Gabler as the same way.  Both were always on the bottom, both were always being used by someone in the majority alliance as an extra vote.

I was surprised that Cassidy didn't get more votes, particularly from any of the women who also suffered from what seems to have been acknowledged as an alarming number of women getting voted out early.  She hung on, won immunities, got in with the right people.  I would not be surprised if Karla was really bitter and helped to campaign against her.

I didn't mind Gabler winning, because he said he would donate the money, but I definitely am puzzled as to how he won.  For me he ranks up there along with Michelle Fitzgerald as one of those flabbergasting undeserving winners.

[peachmangosteen]

2 hours ago, blackwing said:

[Gabler] never controlled or dictated the votes, he was always along for the ride.  

Cassidy never dictated votes either.

In the end, I think they were both (and even Owen tbh) on a pretty even playing field game-wise and, as they usually (always) do, the jury voted for who they liked better lol.

[blackwing]

On 12/15/2022 at 1:28 PM, fishcakes said:

Gabler was not hiding in plain sight because no one was ever looking at him. He didn't control any strategy or drive any votes; he was a useful idiot to whichever alliance he barnacled himself to in any given week and because he was such a non-entity, he made it to the end. The goat finally won the game. It had to happen someday.

Owen was not an underdog. He was just a bad player with an anger management problem.

Cassidy wasn't the greatest player ever, but she was better than Gabler and Owen. She was targeted repeatedly by different players (Ryan, Noelle, Cody, Jesse, Karla) and managed to turn the tables on them. I do think her loss was a result of some stealth bitterness on the part of the jury, despite what an unseemly lovefest the reunion was, though maybe it seemed sappier because of all the overwrought musical cues.

Agreed, this sums up my feelings about each of them.  Looking at the comments from each episode each week on this board, nobody thought Gabler was playing some kind of stealth game.  In fact, it seems many thought he was a bumbling idiot.  It seems doubtful this was his persona that he was putting on as an act.  Many deemed him a goat early on.  He got brought to the end purely because he was never a threat.

Owen seems to think being an underdog is someone who was always on the bottom but can rise up and challenge and win.  He wasn't an underdog, he was just a bad player.  There's a reason why he was always on the bottom and on the wrong side of the vote.  Instead of trying to do something about it, he always pathetically whined about nobody wanting to talk with or work with him.  And being so pathetically needy about wanting a spot on the bus.

Frankly, I disliked Owen the moment he admitted that he is a self-loathing Asian.  Have some pride in who you are, man.

I agree with you that Cassidy wasn't the greatest player either, but she was better than the other two and she did what she had to and survived.  She was targeted repeatedly and was able to escape each time.  She won individual immunity at times she desperately needed it.

Her gameplay reminds me a little of Mike Holloway.  He too, found himself targeted repeatedly, and he too, managed to survive by winning immunity or otherwise.  Not sure why his game was praised and rewarded by his jurors but Cassidy was viewed as "weak" for not wanting to give up her immunity.  I firmly believe that Karla had a hand in Cassidy's loss.

It's true that Cassidy wasn't as eloquent as Gabler, but in past seasons, you can be as eloquent as you want and if you've done nothing in the game, you still won't win.  I had been convinced that Gabler at final tribal was going to be like Hannah Shapiro, Julie Rosenberg, Angelina Keeley and some of the other do-nothings that try to claim they played a great game.

I wish people had asked Gabler more to describe more moves that he and he alone decided on his own that drove the vote.  Karla nastily asked Cassidy this question, why not make Gabler explain better as well?  He even admitted that he joined "Ride or Die" and other alliances.  To me that's not an example of someone who controlled the game.  That's an example of someone who was a floater.

Floaters and goats never win this game, until now.

[Jeanne222]

When the winner was announced I was as shocked as Cass.

The first thing I thought was did Gabler tell the other players he was donating the prize to veterans?  I think yes and that's why he got all but James vote.

A worthy cause of course but that's NOT how the game is played!  It's survival of the fittest not who's donating the winnings to a specific charity.  That was wrong and I hope it doesn't set precedent for future shows!

[Jeanne222]

15 hours ago, blackwing said:

Agreed, this sums up my feelings about each of them.  Looking at the comments from each episode each week on this board, nobody thought Gabler was playing some kind of stealth game.  In fact, it seems many thought he was a bumbling idiot.  It seems doubtful this was his persona that he was putting on as an act.  Many deemed him a goat early on.  He got brought to the end purely because he was never a threat.

Owen seems to think being an underdog is someone who was always on the bottom but can rise up and challenge and win.  He wasn't an underdog, he was just a bad player.  There's a reason why he was always on the bottom and on the wrong side of the vote.  Instead of trying to do something about it, he always pathetically whined about nobody wanting to talk with or work with him.  And being so pathetically needy about wanting a spot on the bus.

Frankly, I disliked Owen the moment he admitted that he is a self-loathing Asian.  Have some pride in who you are, man.

I agree with you that Cassidy wasn't the greatest player either, but she was better than the other two and she did what she had to and survived.  She was targeted repeatedly and was able to escape each time.  She won individual immunity at times she desperately needed it.

Her gameplay reminds me a little of Mike Holloway.  He too, found himself targeted repeatedly, and he too, managed to survive by winning immunity or otherwise.  Not sure why his game was praised and rewarded by his jurors but Cassidy was viewed as "weak" for not wanting to give up her immunity.  I firmly believe that Karla had a hand in Cassidy's loss.

It's true that Cassidy wasn't as eloquent as Gabler, but in past seasons, you can be as eloquent as you want and if you've done nothing in the game, you still won't win.  I had been convinced that Gabler at final tribal was going to be like Hannah Shapiro, Julie Rosenberg, Angelina Keeley and some of the other do-nothings that try to claim they played a great game.

I wish people had asked Gabler more to describe more moves that he and he alone decided on his own that drove the vote.  Karla nastily asked Cassidy this question, why not make Gabler explain better as well?  He even admitted that he joined "Ride or Die" and other alliances.  To me that's not an example of someone who controlled the game.  That's an example of someone who was a floater.

Floaters and goats never win this game, until now.

Karla was a bitter little pill!

[violet and green]

13 hours ago, Jeanne222 said:

When the winner was announced I was as shocked as Cass.

The first thing I thought was did Gabler tell the other players he was donating the prize to veterans?  I think yes and that's why he got all but James vote.

A worthy cause of course but that's NOT how the game is played!  It's survival of the fittest not who's donating the winnings to a specific charity.  That was wrong and I hope it doesn't set precedent for future shows!

It's been made clear that he didn't tell them until after the votes were read, and why.

[Jeanne222]

2 hours ago, violet and green said:

It's been made clear that he didn't tell them until after the votes were read, and why.

Made clear by whom if I may ask?

[millennium]

4 hours ago, violet and green said:

It's been made clear that he didn't tell them until after the votes were read, and why.

Had he done that, I would have demanded a mistribal.

[violet and green]

3 hours ago, Jeanne222 said:

Made clear by whom if I may ask?

He told them about his plan at the reunion, their reaction was genuine, and he has spoken about his decision to not tell them until after the votes in several interviews.

[DEL901]

3 hours ago, violet and green said:

He told them about his plan at the reunion, their reaction was genuine, and he has spoken about his decision to not tell them until after the votes in several interviews.

Also, he would likely have been disqualified if he had spoken of it beforehand. 

[ljenkins782]

14 hours ago, Jeanne222 said:

Quote

It's been made clear that he didn't tell them until after the votes were read, and why.

Made clear by whom if I may ask?

It's been reported in multiple outlets that he did not share this information ahead of time.

On 12/20/2022 at 7:45 AM, Jeanne222 said:

When the winner was announced I was as shocked as Cass.

The first thing I thought was did Gabler tell the other players he was donating the prize to veterans?  I think yes and that's why he got all but James vote.

A worthy cause of course but that's NOT how the game is played!  It's survival of the fittest not who's donating the winnings to a specific charity.  That was wrong and I hope it doesn't set precedent for future shows!

This is a show where people swear on their kids' lives and then betray the person they made that promise to and lie about dead grandmothers. I suspect that at least half the jury would have been cynical about Gabler's plans for the money if he'd told them ahead of time. 

Quote

Floaters and goats never win this game, until now.

I kind of like that a "goat" won, it seems like something that could shake up the gameplay even more than all the twists and advantages. Fear of a goat upset could make strong players want to bring other strong players to fight it out at the end. 

[SummerDreams]

1 hour ago, ljenkins782 said:

Floaters and goats never win this game, until now

Sandra who won twice is the ultimate goat. Anybody but me strategy is the goat strategy 😹

[paul4295]

23 hours ago, ljenkins782 said:

I kind of like that a "goat" won, it seems like something that could shake up the gameplay even more than all the twists and advantages. Fear of a goat upset could make strong players want to bring other strong players to fight it out at the end. 

I'd like to think this could happen, but I don't.  If you want to win, you get rid of the strongest players and keep the players you know you can beat.  If I was playing, I would like the winner to be a "worthy" winner, but not as much as I would want to be the winner myself (whether I was "worthy" or not).  Therefore my strategy would be to keep as many goats as possible.

[JudyObscure]

I've never  understood the "I was always on the right side of the vote!" as a big bragging point at FTC.  To me it just says you were comfy in a majority alliance and no one feared you enough to organize a blind side.  I'm more impressed with the scrambling an outsider like Owen has to do.

I may be wrong here, but I believe floaters became a bad word through Big Brother players like Rachel Riley screeching about hating floaters, while they themselves were safe in a good sized alliance and upset that, due to the floaters, they didn't have an entirely worry-free ride to the end.  That made me start rooting for floaters.

[SummerDreams]

There are two categories of floaters, those who just follow somebody else's lead and those who seem as floaters but secretly they are the ones making the decisions. The best example of the latter is Kevin Jacobs from Big Brother Canada 10 who was the orchestrator of most of the decisions in the house but people just saw him as a floater and they took him to the end where he revealed all his moves and he won.