S29.E13: Let's Make A Move

[peachmangosteen]

I don't think he was necessarily dumb. What I DO think, based off both his and Jaclyn's comments, is Jon is one of those people who read "The Secret" and took it to heart - that as long as you eliminate or minimize negative thoughts as much as is humanly possible and focus exclusively on the positive outcome you desire, then the positive WILL happen. Also judging from J&J's comments (particularly Jaclyn's), it usually works for him. Just not this time.

What a spot on interpretation of Jon. I find this aspect of him kind of endearingly annoying.

 

So "Natalie" is the "anti-Kelly"? :)

 

LOL! Perfect!

 

I agree that Josh and Jeremy had deceptive winner's edits, but not Jon.  Jeremy was also getting a clear-cut hero's edit, and Jon betrayed that hero over idol paranoia.  From there, I thought Jon, like Josh close to the merge, had a subtle-turned-obvious villain's edit.  Or at least he had the closest thing to one.  No one one-hundred-percent trusted him save for Jaclyn (even Missy was only at ninety or ninety-five percent there), Natalie, Baylor, and Keith were all tired of him and Jaclyn and thought of them as fake (whether or not they were is irrelevant at all; that was just how they were perceived by the other castaways), and the editors just left in so many moments of Jon annoying the others and being seen through by the jury.  Nothing about his edit screamed "winner" to me.

 

You make good points and I do agree, but Jon was getting so many confessionals/segments about his dad and got to talk about Jaclyn's condition more than she did, which was annoying and suggested to me that he was a likely winner.

 

It's so exciting that all the big dog male players are out.  And the last man standing, Keith, is still somehow a credible threat to win, in my mind.  I believe I am catching on to the editors' strategy: "This season is boring so let's edit it to be a complete mystery" which is great.  Dear editors: always edit like this.  I have no idea who will win.  I also love their Cassandra edit of Jaclyn: they show us every time she says something completely right which Jon ignores.

 

This! I've grown fond of this season's terrible editing because at least it meant that the winner wasn't super obvious from like Day 1. The people were not as interesting as the people from last season, but the editing has made the game itself seem more interesting IMO.

 

I would honestly be happy with anyone left winning at this point.  I'm not rooting for any of them, but I'm not rooting against any of them either!

I feel the same really. I am OK with anyone winning. In fact, I'll probably be happy to see anyone left winning except maybe Missy.

Edited December 12, 2014 by peachmangosteen

[Guest]

Jon mentioned the prior Blood vs. Water season, about Kat's "who wants to date someone who didn't even make the merge?"  Someone had suggested he had only watched Cagayan. 

[LanceM]

Jon said on RHAP today that he left his idol back in camp in Jaclyn's bag.  However because he never actually gave it to her she can't use it. I am guessing the producers probably just removed it from her bag.

[cooksdelight]

I started a winner vs loser edit for those of you who wanted one. Have fun!

[peachmangosteen]

Jon said on RHAP today that he left his idol back in camp in Jaclyn's bag.  However because he never actually gave it to her she can't use it.

 

Thanks for this. Also, LOL!

Edited December 12, 2014 by peachmangosteen

[Babalu]

Jon said on RHAP today that he left his idol back in camp in Jaclyn's bag.  However because he never actually gave it to her she can't use it. I am guessing the producers probably just removed it from her bag.

Did Jon say that Jaclyn can't use it or is this your interpretation?

I may be remembering incorrectly, but I thought that Gary Hogeboom played a HII without the viewers knowing he had it (though we knew he'd been looking for it, and they did show a flashback of him finding it after he played it). If this really happened, there is precedent for an editorial misdirect. Probably wouldn't make much difference for Jaclyn, though, since I doubt she's a target at next TC and couldn't use it after that, anyway.

[LanceM]

Nope he specifically said Jaclyn couldn't use it. 

[millennium]

Jon said on RHAP today that he left his idol back in camp in Jaclyn's bag.  However because he never actually gave it to her she can't use it. I am guessing the producers probably just removed it from her bag.

 

Aha!   So my what-if scenario of Jon letting Jaclyn hold the Immunity Idol for him wasn't so far-off after all.

 

Except, of course, that the IDIOTS didn't bring it to Tribal Council with them.

Edited December 12, 2014 by millennium

[KimberStormer]

I just realized I was wrong in saying Missy had never been on the outside of a vote, because she expected Keith to go home last episode, duh.  The point remains that Natalie has not been in control of the whole game; you could say she's smarter than to try to do that.  She laid low when she had to.  Nothing wrong with that.

[KaveDweller]

Jon said on RHAP today that he left his idol back in camp in Jaclyn's bag.

 

He didn't even take it to tribal council? That's pretty arrogant. 

[LanceM]

I just realized I was wrong in saying Missy had never been on the outside of a vote, because she expected Keith to go home last episode, duh.  The point remains that Natalie has not been in control of the whole game; you could say she's smarter than to try to do that.  She laid low when she had to.  Nothing wrong with that.

 

I am pretty sure that since the merge Baylor has been the only one that has never been on the outside of a vote.

[pennben]

I heard Jon as saying he left his bag at tribal, not that he didn't bring it to tribal council.  It's at 26:57 of this podcast where the discussion starts.

Edited December 12, 2014 by pennben

[Mrs. P.]

I feel sure Jon has mentioned other seasons, though I can't remember which right now. The two of them flipped and flopped his way through the game like Rob C, which back in my day we called "great strategic play", not "zero strategic play". Is Jon a Rob? No. But he's not a zero either.

Wasn't Jon the one who quoted Kat's famous line about not making the merge?

Edited December 12, 2014 by Mrs. P.

[Mooncake76]

He didn't even take it to tribal council? That's pretty arrogant. 

 

I loved the eyebrow raising from Baylor when Jon (and Jaclyn?) said he was thinking about his jury speech.  Even if he truly believed that he would make it to the end, it wasn't wise for him to broadcast that to everyone else.  It's presumptuous, arrogant, and it gives other players extra satisfaction from taking him out.  

 

I don't think Nadiya and Natalie had a toxic relationship, but it was obviously unhealthy (that constant yelling and screeching at each other for stupid little things).  It's nice that they always had each other, it's comforting and feels safe, but I think it's also important to spend time apart to develop as an individual.  I think that's what we're seeing with Natalie.  She doesn't have someone to rant at whenever she felt frustrated, she had to get along with other people without her sister to fall back on, and more importantly, she had to think for herself and make her own decisions.  If they genuinely did spend all their time together and essentially experienced the same things, she now has something significant that is her's alone.  I do wonder how all of this would change the dynamic of their relationship, but that's OT.  I'm just glad that I can see them as separate entities now. 

[RedheadZombie]

Oh, Jaclyn might be annoying to Jon, for sure, outside of the game.  But I absolutely wouldn't be surprised if Jon can be just as insufferable with his entitlement issues or his sort of pride or boastfulness in his privileged life, and Jaclyn's been on the wrong end of that outside of the game.

 

Jon has been telling Jaclyn for weeks what he will tell the jury.  Implication:  I will make it to the end Jaclyn, but you won't.  He never said - if either one of us makes it to the end, we need to remember to point this out to the jury.  He really shot himself in the foot when he chided Jaclyn for giving the jury credit for an amazing play that he did (which of course, Natalie actually did, but only after Jaclyn attempted it).  I loved Jaclyn's reaction - "What jury?"

 

I don't understand how Missy thinks Jon will appreciate her "loyalty".  So she didn't write his name down.  She also didn't tell him about the blindside, or warn him to play his idol.  I'm not surprised, but Missy needs some lessons in loyalty.

Edited December 12, 2014 by RedheadZombie

[Squirrely]

I loved the eyebrow raising from Baylor when Jon (and Jaclyn?) said he was thinking about his jury speech. Even if he truly believed that he would make it to the end, it wasn't wise for him to broadcast that to everyone else. It's presumptuous, arrogant, and it gives other players extra satisfaction from taking him out.

I don't think Nadiya and Natalie had a toxic relationship, but it was obviously unhealthy (that constant yelling and screeching at each other for stupid little things). It's nice that they always had each other, it's comforting and feels safe, but I think it's also important to spend time apart to develop as an individual. I think that's what we're seeing with Natalie. She doesn't have someone to rant at whenever she felt frustrated, she had to get along with other people without her sister to fall back on, and more importantly, she had to think for herself and make her own decisions. If they genuinely did spend all their time together and essentially experienced the same things, she now has something significant that is her's alone. I do wonder how all of this would change the dynamic of their relationship, but that's OT. I'm just glad that I can see them as separate entities now.

And Nat is actually lucky her twinnie was voted out, because seriously, how long would any of the remaining contestants been able to stand the two of them together? I'd take the constant PDA of any of the couples over shrieks of "TWINNIE!" all the live long day.

If this is for real the longest they've been apart in 28 years, I do think it will help in the long run. I get that twins can function as one and thrive but I really think every adult needs to learn how to function alone. Maybe Missy will learn this as well, since I'm guessing this is probably a long time for her to be without a man, at least going by the serial divorcees I know who can't be alone for a week.

[green]

ETA: Can't there be a special thread for discussion of "winner edits", "villain edits", etc.?  I really hate it (I think it's either wrongheaded or spoilerish, depending on how accurate it is, and has nothing to do with the actual strategery of the game), and it doesn't seem like it really qualifies as discussion of the episode.  Anyone with me on this?

 

 

I'm not. 

 

I think everything we think about what we see in an episode or episodes should be fair game.  If people read into what a person might be like in real life -- and we do that all the time in episode threads -- then why can't we discuss edits.  How is projecting a conclusion that "I think Jon is really smug" onto his wine tasting scene for example any different then "Jon is edited as being smug thus he can't win in my opinion."  If anything the latter is more on topic since it is based on how the episode is being presented to us as opposed to what the person may really be like in real life.

 

There is absolutely nothing spoilerish about individual speculation based on what we see on TV.  We aren't CBS.  We don't know what is going to happen.  So no, put me down for the right of anyone to discuss the episode as long as there are no REAL spoilers and if everything remains civil.  Just skip those posts you don't like but don't censor others is my pov for all message boards.  Then everyone will be happy. 

 

But if you turn everything into a filing system only a lawyer can understand where stuff goes and you have to skip around to a dozen threads while worrying if you are breaking some arcane rule or other?  Well, you take all the fun and free flow out of the board.  Especially since we don't exactly have a hundred pages on this thread so there is no need to micro-manage all aspects of an episode.  Again just my opinion.

 

Sorry if this is too OT but since someone gave a positive stance on this I just think that someone who likes this stuff should post a counter reply.  Also it is darn hard to edit out some stuff from your posts that contribute to other stuff you are saying.  Kind of ties your hands behind you back when you are posting what you think.  Like "I think Jon won't win but I can't tell you why I think he won't win because I'll be banned for saying something I see on the episode but can't express in the episode thread."  Instead saying "I don't think Jon will win because he is too damn smug" period which isn't what I actually think but I can't say what I actually think. 

 

Also talking about editing can be subtle and not who you think may win.  Like "I wonder why Jon is always shown looking so confident and kind of cocky" could be considered an editing comment.  Is "shown" allowed and not "edited as?"  Way too many shades of gray and lawyering every darn post for my liking.  So I basically would have to skip almost every episode and give up posting on this board because it becomes a legal chore and and not a fun thing.  How is that right?

Edited December 12, 2014 by green

[Chit Chat]

I don't think Keith gets more than a couple of votes, one of them from his son.  People don't see him as a good strategist at all, just someone who has benefited mostly from circumstances.  He is a good competitor in challenges, though

 

I've watched this show for so long now, that I really don't care if the best strategist wins or not.  Just for shits and giggles, I'd love to see Keith take the whole thing. If you can survive that long with some of these personalities, hell, give him 2 million dollars!  He's been pretty good at challenges, and he seems to be a hard worker around camp.  The social game is lacking, but he seems likeable enough, just a little awkward at times. 

 

Just my opinion, but I think if you're hurt bad enough that you can't participate in challenges anymore, you should be pulled from the game.

[Daisy]

 

See to me this is crazy hyperbole.  A regular old split vote?  It's been done a million times.  Don't get me wrong, it was a good move.  But not as good as Reed's would have been, and certainly not on the level of Cirie's triple play.

 

 

I don't mean the move itself was  on par of the triple play vote, and I can understand if you think I was being hyperbolic. For me, It was just how I felt at the time. It was a crazy vote because there were a lot of factors - 1: Jon maybe playing his idol, 2: Keith opening his mouth, and 3: Missy doing the 'right' thing.  I wanted the plan to work out. for me, it seems like a lot of these "bust a move" moves, don't really work out well because people feel antsy, something was hinted/stated, Jeff says something. 

So just seeing it unfold, and then knowing that Jon literally couldn't do something to save himself, was for me, right up there with just pure Survivor Satisfaction. on seeing a good plan unfold and the only reaction someone could do was clap and say "ya got me." 

 

Actual move wise? yeah, it was just a plain ole a split vote and it won't go down in the history of moves done on the game on a whole, but i liked it, and it made me a bit giddy :)

[303420]

There is precedent for someone not being able to or refusing to participate in a challenge and not being removed. Scout had a bum knee in Vanuatu. Kimmi Kappenberg refused to eat the cow brains way back in Australia. As was already mentioned, if the other players don't like the idea, they can vote out the injured player.

I mean, if no one is counting on you to win challenges, what difference does it make if you can't even start them? If Keith had been injured, his stock would have gone down against Alex last week. It doesn't make a difference for Missy.

Edited December 12, 2014 by 303420

[RedheadZombie]

Just my opinion, but I think if you're hurt bad enough that you can't participate in challenges anymore, you should be pulled from the game.

 

At this point, Missy staying in the game with an injury doesn't bother me.  In a typical season, she would be "punished" by not going on rewards or winning II.  Unfortunately, this blood and water crap is encouraging a lot of sacrificing, and Missy may very well be given someone's reward or even II.  Hopefully, after watching Jeremy and then Jon go home after magnanimously giving away their reward, this won't continue to happen.  But even if it does, a social game should be on level with a physical game, so if Missy is able to evoke help from these suckers, good for her.

[Chit Chat]

 In a typical season, she would be "punished" by not going on rewards or winning II.

 

Unless somebody gives up their spot and lets you take their place. 

[BigRedCheese]

 

I don't understand how Missy thinks Jon will appreciate her "loyalty".

 

I think she meant not only her loyalty to him, by not writing his name down, but her loyalty to her daughter for not spilling the beans. Also, I think she meant that he would appreciate how hard it was for her, and judging from his interviews, after seeing the episode, he did appreciate how difficult it was for her, and was touched by how much she struggled with the decision.

[cooksdelight]

Yes, Jon feels that way NOW. No telling how he was feeling about it during the tribal councils to come.

[jhummerbird]

 

Any way you look at it, this guarantees a tie vote at TC under all eventualities:

• Jon plays the idol for himself: results in a 2-way tie between Jaclyn and Keith, and Jaclyn gets voted out in the 2nd round of votes.
• Jon gives Jaclyn the idol to play: results in a 2-way tie between Jon and Keith, and Jon gets booted in the 2nd round of votes.
• Jon doesn't play the idol at all: results in a 3-way tie between Jon, Jaclyn and Keith, and Jon gets voted out in the 2nd round of votes. Which is what happened.

Option 2 was actually the riskiest of the three for Natalie because of Missy's steadfast refusal to write down Jon's name. If Missy had persisted through the second round of votes, the result would be another 2-2 tie (Nat and Baylor voting for Jon, against Jaclyn and Missy voting for Keith). At this point Jon and Keith would be drawing rocks out of a bag, which introduces a chance element out of the control of Natalie or anybody else - Keith could pull the black rock just as easily as Jon.

Fortunately for Nat, Jon trusted her and went with Option 3. Baylor's vote against Jon was simply the continuation of that plan.

 

Ha, I came here to correct you that Option #2 couldn't have happened, and then realized that you were right. Sorry. :) 

I was wondering if Missy was going to vote Jac on the revote as well -- Nat and Baylor could've afforded to let her do that, if it made her conscience feel better about never writing Jon's name down. Some survivor players seem to get hung up on never *literally* breaking their promises, even if their vote is essentially against a certain player.

If Nat and Baylor had offered Missy that option (to never have to vote against Jon), it could have worked even in Option 2 -- as long as Missy didn't vote for whoever Jac voted for. (Say Nat and Baylor vote Jon, Jac votes Keith, and Missy votes Nat.) That would've been pretty risky tho.

I think Natalie is playing a GREAT strategic game, and unlike Jon, has set herself up extremely well to get into the FTC. I was yelling at my TV last week when they didn't go after Jaclyn once Jon won immunity. But in that case, Nat would've been in a tight group of three (Missy/Baylor/Nat) with three free-ish agents (Jon/Alec/Keith). It's easy to think that the three guys could've pulled in Missy/Baylor against Nat, or that they would've refused to negotiate and gambled on a tie, or that Jon could've played his idol and deflected the vote onto someone else. A 3-2-1 vote, to protect against the idol, would've meant the 2 people would have had to vote for someone in the 3 group. (Let's say Missy/Baylor/Nat vote Jon, flushing the idol. Alec/Keith vote Baylor. Jon votes whoever, but plays the idol. Baylor goes home.) The brilliant thing about her vote last week is that it set up a 4-2 split, for the purpose of creating a 2-2-2 tie. This way, everyone involved in flipping was protected.  And if worse came to worse, and one of J/J had won immunity, Nat still would have been okay: J/J vote Keith, Missy/Baylor/Nat vote J or J, and Keith's vote doesn't matter. Either J/J doesn't play the idol and one of them goes home, or they do and Keith goes home. Nat is then the swing vote in a group with two couples, and it seems like both couples are unusually fixed on staying together and pulling in a third for tribal council. Plus Nat is better at immunities than everyone except Jon. 

To sum up (sorry, first time poster!) I think Nat had one of the best plays I've ever seen on Survivor, because it took two tribals to set up, protected everyone who was voting with her, and even the back-up plan gave her a decent shot at the finale. 

[BigRedCheese]

I agree cook, but I think she was more concerned about it on a personal level than a game level.

[peachmangosteen]

I think Nat had one of the best plays I've ever seen on Survivor, because it took two tribals to set up, protected everyone who was voting with her, and even the back-up plan gave her a decent shot at the finale. 

 

Great points, but I'm not so sure Natalie was thinking that deeply about it. I'd love it if she were though because that really is pretty genius.

 

Do we know for a fact Missy didn't vote for Jon on the revote? I tend to think she did. Normally they will show the vote for every person who got one, I think. So if Missy had voted for Jaclyn/Keith, then I believe her vote would've been read first and then the 2 Jon votes.

Edited December 12, 2014 by peachmangosteen

[BigRedCheese]

They showed her revote, it was for Jaclyn

[cooksdelight]

They showed her revote, it was for Jaclyn

No, that was Missy's original vote. They never showed the revote at the end, just the first votes because it showed Jon holding up his vote. I rewatched the end to be sure.

[BigRedCheese]

Oh, I thought that was the revote since they showed it after that. Or at least I think they did, lol, I've slept since then.

[peachmangosteen]

cooksdelight is right, they showed the original vote. I don't believe they ever show the revote over the final comments, for some reason.

[needschocolate]

It would be extremely difficult to get far in Survivor without lying or at least misleading someone along the way.  Players usually have their core alliance that they are loyal to and other players (the alliance of convenience) that they pretend they are loyal to for the sake of their game.  So, every season we get those people who tout how loyal they are even when they have gone against people they seemed to have an alliance with - "I was completely loyal the whole season - loyal to the people I decided in my head that I was truly loyal to, even though many others thought I was supposed to be loyal to them, I never planned to be loyal to them, so when I wasn't loyal, that didn't count as being disloyal."  

 

Missy had an alliance with Jeremy and Jon.  Apparently her true loyalty was with Jon.  Jeremy thought she would be loyal to him, but what Jeremy thinks doesn't matter, Missy never planned to be loyal to Jeremy, so in Missy's mind she remained loyal and true the whole season. 

[BigRedCheese]

Her connection to Jon was based on their religious faiths, so I think she feels that transcends the game. If this hadn't been a BvW season, I'm sure she would have reported back to him immediately, but it was her daughter, so that complicated matters.

[green]

It would be extremely difficult to get far in Survivor without lying or at least misleading someone along the way.  Players usually have their core alliance that they are loyal to and other players (the alliance of convenience) that they pretend they are loyal to for the sake of their game.  So, every season we get those people who tout how loyal they are even when they have gone against people they seemed to have an alliance with - "I was completely loyal the whole season - loyal to the people I decided in my head that I was truly loyal to, even though many others thought I was supposed to be loyal to them, I never planned to be loyal to them, so when I wasn't loyal, that didn't count as being disloyal."  

 

Missy had an alliance with Jeremy and Jon.  Apparently her true loyalty was with Jon.  Jeremy thought she would be loyal to him, but what Jeremy thinks doesn't matter, Missy never planned to be loyal to Jeremy, so in Missy's mind she remained loyal and true the whole season. 

 

Except now when it matters like anything since he is on the jury.  Best get your "pretended loyalty" tribe mates out before they make the jury, heh.

[scowl]

Too bad they didn't show the revote. One of the funniest moments in Survivor history was Rudy casting his second vote for the same person. His explanation: "Same reason as before." 

[henripootel]

It’s not a hard fast rule because every injury is so specific. But here’s the general approach—if you are in a life-threatening situation, we pull you. Period.

 

That's a Probst quote from last page, but I'll interpret: the rule is that there are no rules unless we say so.  How can there be if the producers can simply call an audible whenever they please.  Not sure I mind in this case (Missy staying in).  I mean it her staying in keeps keeps Jeffy happy because it shames future quitters, Missy's alliance cuz it keeps her vote in play, and even everyone else because Missy'll never win a challenge so more for them.  I mean if they want to hold strictly to the rules, they can have Missy start the challenge and hobble pathetically for a minute or two, but that's not gonna change anything.  I give Jeff a pass on not keeping to the rules this time.

I heard Jon as saying he left his bag at tribal, not that he didn't bring it to tribal council.

Did cross my mind to wonder (after Jon got voted out) if he could say 'Hang on a second, Jeff', then gifted his HII to Jaclyn right there and then.  Technically I don't think you're out till Jeff says you're out, and while you can't play the HII at that point, I wonder if there are rules about giving it away.  Probably doesn't matter - no way they'd let you do such a thing, but it's interesting to think how it'd affect things if you could.  I mean it's always fun to watch people exit while holding the instrument that'd have saved them, but why not give it to the person who's now (likely) the most screwed?  That'd shake things up.

Edited December 12, 2014 by henripootel

[Sarnia]

cooksdelight is right, they showed the original vote. I don't believe they ever show the revote over the final comments, for some reason.

If one of them hadn't vote for Jon, wouldn't the edit have shown that vote in order to keep a bit of suspens? I figured the third vote must have been for Jon as well (but of course that's not a proof, just a hint).

[Lamb18]

I wonder how well Jaclyn would have done without Jon.  I wonder this only a little (not like I want to see her back or anything, TPTB).

We'll see next Wednesday how well she does without him.

 

Regarding the next tribal, I think Keith needs to go, from Natalie's point of view.  If Jaclyn is voted out next, Keith could win over Missy as a fellow "parent", or Missy & Baylor may decided to vote out Natalie because they feel they have a better chance with Keith or Jaclyn than Natalie.  Of course this could still happen, so I think Natalie's best chance is to play the "girls rule" card and talk up having a final tribal that's just girls.  That will play to princess Jaclyn's ego since she doesn't care much for Keith anyway, and Missy & Baylor would still be safe. 

 

Another alternative would be to have Natalie, Keith & Jaclyn bond and vote out Missy or Baylor next, ideally Missy because there's no way she'll win immunity.  Natalie is safe at the next tribal anyway since she has the idol, so it's a matter of who she feels safest with at the following tribal. She also has to consider that if she wins the next immunity, who would be the best bet to hand the idol to?

 

I feel, however, Natalie will be loyal to her Missy/Baylor alliance.  I guess we will find out!

[ShadowSixx]

How come they didn't give the girl with the broken wrist the opportunity to continue?

 

The girl who had the broken wrist hers required surgery because she broke it in 3 places, while Missy looks like she doesn't need surgery.

[Guest]

That's a Probst quote from last page, but I'll interpret: the rule is that there are no rules unless we say so.  How can there be if the producers can simply call an audible whenever they please.  Not sure I mind in this case (Missy staying in).  I mean it her staying in keeps keeps Jeffy happy because it shames future quitters, Missy's alliance cuz it keeps her vote in play, and even everyone else because Missy'll never win a challenge so more for them.  I mean if they want to hold strictly to the rules, they can have Missy start the challenge and hobble pathetically for a minute or two, but that's not gonna change anything.  I give Jeff a pass on not keeping to the rules this time.

Did cross my mind to wonder (after Jon got voted out) if he could say 'Hang on a second, Jeff', then gifted his HII to Jaclyn right there and then.  Technically I don't think you're out till Jeff says you're out, and while you can't play the HII at that point, I wonder if there are rules about giving it away.  Probably doesn't matter - no way they'd let you do such a thing, but it's interesting to think how it'd affect things if you could.  I mean it's always fun to watch people exit while holding the instrument that'd have saved them, but why not give it to the person who's now (likely) the most screwed?  That'd shake things up.

I'm pretty sure that there is a rule that you can't hand over your idol on your way out or someone would've thought of it before.

 

Now the game is rigging it so Missy can stay?  They get accused of rigging no matter what they do.  If they'd made her leave, they would've been rigging it to favor Jon.  

 

And I'm pretty sure they can't make injury rules that don't involve subjective judgment, case by case.  "A suspected hairline fracture of the fourth metatarsal:  Day 24 and prior you have to leave, after you can stay."  

[peachmangosteen]

If one of them hadn't vote for Jon, wouldn't the edit have shown that vote in order to keep a bit of suspens? I figured the third vote must have been for Jon as well (but of course that's not a proof, just a hint).

 

That's what I said as well. They always show at least one vote for every person that got a vote. I think Missy definitely voted for Jon on the revote.

[henripootel]

Now the game is rigging it so Missy can stay?  They get accused of rigging no matter what they do.  If they'd made her leave, they would've been rigging it to favor Jon.

Technically, they did just that.  I'm pretty sure there is a rule that say players 'have to compete' but I'd bet it was intended for contestants who might feel lazy that morning or maybe that they were gonna lose anyway.  Nope, you have to compete.  But what does this mean in Missy's case?  You want her to hobble for a while as the others race ahead?  How much does she have to do before she tried to 'compete'?  Better to just let her slide - no way she's gonna be able to do anything on even the easiest of challenges (of the type we've seen).

 

I am curious - how would making Missy leave rig things for Jon?  You reckon he wouldn't have gotten voted out?

Edited December 13, 2014 by henripootel

[KaveDweller]

I am curious - how would making Missy leave rig things for Jon?  You reckon he wouldn't have gotten voted out?

 

I think Missy leaving would have made it worse for Jon.  Then Keith, Baylor, and Natalie would have voted for Jon and that would have been it.

 

And I'm pretty sure they can't make injury rules that don't involve subjective judgment, case by case.  "A suspected hairline fracture of the fourth metatarsal:  Day 24 and prior you have to leave, after you can stay."

 

I think they leave it up to the doctor.  Jeff always makes a point of asking the doctor if they are in fact pulling the person.  So, I don't think there are specific rules it is more going along with the doctor's judgement about whether it is safe.

[Nashville]

That's what I said as well. They always show at least one vote for every person that got a vote. I think Missy definitely voted for Jon on the revote.

 

They do on the primary vote to build temporary suspense - temporary because everybody's vote is exposed to the audience at episode's close.

On revotes, though...?  It might serve a more strategic - AND suspenseful - purpose to minimize the vote exposure on revotes.

Leave contestants guessing about whether so-and-so followed through with "the plan" - whatever "the plan" may be.

 

Actually, this is the same reason I have never liked Production's "show at least one vote for everybody who got voted against" approach.

It has significant potential to disable a noteworthy chunk of strategic vote-flipping.

[SVNBob]

Ha, I came here to correct you that Option #2 couldn't have happened, and then realized that you were right. Sorry. :) 

I was wondering if Missy was going to vote Jac on the revote as well -- Nat and Baylor could've afforded to let her do that, if it made her conscience feel better about never writing Jon's name down. Some survivor players seem to get hung up on never *literally* breaking their promises, even if their vote is essentially against a certain player.

If Nat and Baylor had offered Missy that option (to never have to vote against Jon), it could have worked even in Option 2 -- as long as Missy didn't vote for whoever Jac voted for. (Say Nat and Baylor vote Jon, Jac votes Keith, and Missy votes Nat.) That would've been pretty risky tho.

That couldn't have happened for 2 reasons.  First of all, Natalie had immunity.  Mainly though, per the rules of the re-vote, the only possible people to vote for are the ones that are in the tie.  So in this hypothetical scenario, Missy would have had to vote for either Jon or Keith.  And if she wanted to avoid another tie, she would have had to vote Jon. 

Granted, if there was a 2nd tie, there would have been a discussion, prior to Jeff needing pulling out the Rocks of Death.  And that would have been a draw that only included the women (except Natalie).  But we're getting increasingly hypothetical here.

[bluebonnet]

That couldn't have happened for 2 reasons.  First of all, Natalie had immunity.  Mainly though, per the rules of the re-vote, the only possible people to vote for are the ones that are in the tie.  So in this hypothetical scenario, Missy would have had to vote for either Jon or Keith.  And if she wanted to avoid another tie, she would have had to vote Jon. 

Granted, if there was a 2nd tie, there would have been a discussion, prior to Jeff needing pulling out the Rocks of Death.  And that would have been a draw that only included the women (except Natalie).  But we're getting increasingly hypothetical here.

Jon only needed two votes on the revote.  Missy could have voted Keith or Jaclyn so long as Baylor and Natalie voted Jon.  

Edited December 13, 2014 by bluebonnet

[pennben]

Missy could have blown up the plan when it was that they planned to vote 2-2-2.  Once it was in the revote when only Natalie, Bayor and Missy voted, she had no power if Baylor and Natalie voted together.

Edited December 13, 2014 by pennben

[SVNBob]

Jon only needed two votes on the revote.  Missy could have voted Keith or Jaclyn so long as Baylor and Natalie voted Jon.

True, in what actually played out.  And technically, for all we know that's what did happen.  

 

But I was referring to the hypothetical scenario of Jaclyn playing Jon's idol and thus not part of the tie and eligible to vote.  In that case Missy would have to vote for Jon to avoid another tie and the possibility of facing the Rock of Death.

[henripootel]

And I'm pretty sure they can't make injury rules that don't involve subjective judgment, case by case.  "A suspected hairline fracture of the fourth metatarsal:  Day 24 and prior you have to leave, after you can stay."

My guess is that this has less to do with making sure everyone is safe and more to do with legal issues.  When an injury is obvious egregious, the doctor and the contestant will swiftly agree that it's time to go, so the producers are covered.  When it's less obvious, the doctor can make the call (so again, asses are covered) even against the wishes of the contestant.  The interesting ones are where the doctor is unsure and the contestant wants to leave - I seem to recall times in the past where Jeffy asked 'just to be clear, you want to leave the game and go to the hospital, right?' Always sounds to my ear like being 'clear' means 'making it clear that this is your choice' should any questions arise later about how you didn't win a million dollars.  Ditto with choosing to stay, should you exacerbate the injury through greed.

Actually, this is the same reason I have never liked Production's "show at least one vote for everybody who got voted against" approach.

As producer shenanigans goes, I rank this near the bottom on the offensive scale.  Far more benign than, say, casting clearly unstable trouble makers and allowing them to run amok for 'tv gold'.  

Edited December 13, 2014 by henripootel

[needschocolate]

But I was referring to the hypothetical scenario of Jaclyn playing Jon's idol and thus not part of the tie and eligible to vote.  In that case Missy would have to vote for Jon to avoid another tie and the possibility of facing the Rock of Death.

 

If Jon would have played his idol (or if Jaclyn or Keith would have played an idol) there still would have been a tie.  Do we know for sure that the idol player be able to vote on the re-vote?  Has this ever happened? 

 

I just assumed that the 3 vote getters wouldn't get to vote again, and the rest of them would have to vote for one of the other two, because one played an idol.  However, now that it was mentioned, it also makes sense that playing an idol keeps you from being part of the tie and you would get to vote again.