Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Tara Ariano

S31.E05: A Snake In The Grass

Recommended Posts

Fishbach basically confirmed this in either his Twitter or his People blog. He didn't admit to outright throwing it, but said something like they were not opposed to losing. 

 

Can you show me the link of it? Read both but can't find it.

Share this post


Link to post

Guest

KimberStormer, every season. And as noted, the ones who talk about it out loud, that is. From what I've been told, it's 24-hour paranoia so I guess it's natural to think ahead to save your sanity a bit.

I thought you meant *this* season.  I don't think it's true of every season.  I think the ones who think ahead like a good Chess player tend to win, but only if they had trustworthy alliance mates.  

 

I wonder if this season they seem particularly fluid in their alliances because they do know so many other players, and respect many.  In a normal season, you probably are more likely to go the distance with the known quantity you aligned with on day one then throw her under the bus and jump in with new near-strangers.

Share this post


Link to post

A pretty obvious episode, thanks to poor editing.  I don’t mind a predictable boot if it is done in an interesting way, Drew Christie - come on down!, but by giving us Purple-Monica up until now the show didn’t provide us with a satisfying elimination.  I replied to a bunch of posts earlier - so on to the rankings.

 

Ta Keo (Blue-ish)

 

Still to be known as Purple Ta Keo.  No changes here either.  (Isn’t copy-paste grand?)

1. Keith, 2. Cierra, 3. Kass, 4. Joe, 5. Kelley, and 6. Terry

 

Okay, we did have some strategic talk - and the four OldBayon members won’t feel so bad about their new “Final Five,” once they see that newBayon gave Monica the boot.

 

Angkor (Yellow)

 

Yea, no tribal council!  Only one small change - because Tasha isn’t an idiot.

1. Tasha, 2. Andrew, 3. Woo (4), 4. Abi-Maria (3)

 

Bayon (Pink)

 

I don’t think Monica could have phrased her interest in targeting Spencer over Kelly to Kimmi in any way that Kimmi wasn’t going to spin it to Jeremy as a betrayal.  And with Spencer currying favor with Jeremy, I’m not sure if she could have convinced Stephen either.  As it was, she voted the way her alliance told her to, oops.

 

1. Jeremy (1) Still has the HII.  Is doing a good job of making sure no one suspects he has it.
2. Kimmi (3)  Playing a “loyalty,” game to go with her “I’m not a threat,” game.
3. Stephen (4) But I think he’s in danger of being supplanted by Spencer.  (At least in Jeremy’s eyes.)
4. Spencer (6) He was shown to be playing better than Kelly, and has this ridiculously positive edit happening.
5. Purple Kelly (5)

 

OUT  Monica (2)  I blame not expecting this on the Abi-Maria show - we had no inkling that Monica was getting on Kimmi’s nerves until the opening segment of this episode.  I don’t think her exit was optimal for the folk who voted her out, but I can understand why they did what they did.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

the only thing Wiggles has is that she happened to play in Season 1. I remember nothing else of her.

Oh I remember her, of course she had that great immunity run that got her to the final two, she almost flipped to the other side because she had more in common with Jenna and Colleen (all three of them won my heart when they were running around the island with makeshift capes on playing superheroes, it was so adorable), because of their younger ages, but had the good sense not to flip. Unfortunately Sue wouldn't forgive her for even considering it (from what I remember, she said Kelly reminded her of an old friend of hers that had died, so I guess it was personal for her in a way that it wasn't for Kelly). I'm glad to have her back, but it appears she's not really into it.

 

Gretchen is the one I would love to see return, even more than Colleen, she said that she would be willing, so I hope she gets asked back at some point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
himela, on 23 Oct 2015 - 06:28 AM, said:

Spencer's game is good because of the degree of difficulty that it has. Most players till now at least had it easy. They are either in a winning tribe (Ta'keo) or in a good alliance (Bayon). At the moment Joe, Terry, Cierra, Kass, Keith and Kelley are in an always winning tribe and Jeremy, Stephen, Monica and Kimmi were in a good alliance (until Monica decided to throw this luck in the garbage and paid for it). The only people who have had to struggle are the Angkor tribe. Spencer found himself in a minority alliance with Shirin and he managed to convince his then tribe mates to keep him. He realized his mistakes in the game last time and promised to change them. The next day he found himself again in a minority being only by himself. He has zero alliances and is open to join any alliance that will want him and that makes him a good choice to keep. He managed to change himself and become a new Spencer who will be less strategic and more cool and emotionally vulnerably so that he keeps himself in the low. He pleaded his case in this tribal council without showing his inner state. Spencer's game is good because he can adjust to new situations and remain a winner through them while most other players just had it easy. Spencer needs to lay low, play the weak emotionally victim and become a loyal force in Bayon in order to go forward.

And yet . . . he still remains on the bottom.  Therefore, not impressed.

 

blackwing, on 23 Oct 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

There was a black female that I liked but can't remember anything more about.

Her name was . . . Ramona.  I think. . . .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

This is the first we have seen any dynamics at Bayon.  We don't know the history behind Kimmy's dislike for Monica; I don't think the clams and her musing about an all girls alliance was the first straw.   And it was easy for her to convince Jeremy and Stephen to vote for her.  There is more there and I hope that comes out later. 

 

Here 'tis, on Twitter.

 

 

This almost says that Monica was in the rifle site before she said a word this episode.  We know that Steven and Jeremy were close to Spencer so I doubt he was a target.   As for Wigglesworth, we don't know much but we will as per Probst.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

As for Wigglesworth, we don't know much but we will as per Probst.

 

I guess I missed that, where did he say that? I don't really mess with twitter, so if it was there, I wouldn't see it. Too much inane babble to sift through and find interesting tidbits, at least to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

This is the first we have seen any dynamics at Bayon.  We don't know the history behind Kimmy's dislike for Monica; I don't think the clams and her musing about an all girls alliance was the first straw.   And it was easy for her to convince Jeremy and Stephen to vote for her.  There is more there and I hope that comes out later. 

 

 

 

This almost says that Monica was in the rifle site before she said a word this episode.  We know that Steven and Jeremy were close to Spencer so I doubt he was a target.   As for Wigglesworth, we don't know much but we will as per Probst.  

I think you're right.  I think they let Monica go because she mentioned taking out Jeremy.  It sounds like he's running that tribe and Kim and Stephen are loyal henchmen.  I could see the editors wanting to hide that fact for the time being, if he makes it to the end.  

 

I feel like Jeremy's getting the winner's edit and Stephen might be the right hand man of the alpha winner again.  Better him than Kim.  Jeremy did telegraph that in a confessional, if Stephen's playing for second again he'll be happy to be his JT because Jeremy's playing to win.  

Share this post


Link to post

I think I agreed with Kimmi about the larger point of the clams, but I don't think Monica was worried about depleting the ocean, just their little area they were in. That would make sense if they knew for a fact they were going to be there the whole time, but on a season like this, there can be all kinds of twists and shake ups, you might suddenly find yourself in a situation like Anchor, in a desolate no man's land cursed by the Survivor god, so eat all the clams you want I say.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I guess I missed that, where did he say that? I don't really mess with twitter, so if it was there, I wouldn't see it. Too much inane babble to sift through and find interesting tidbits, at least to me.

 

 

Somewhere he waxed poetic about  "her story."  Not sure where.  He thinks we will like it but did not say why or give specifics. 

I think I agreed with Kimmi about the larger point of the clams, but I don't think Monica was worried about depleting the ocean, just their little area they were in. That would make sense if they knew for a fact they were going to be there the whole time, but on a season like this, there can be all kinds of twists and shake ups, you might suddenly find yourself in a situation like Anchor, in a desolate no man's land cursed by the Survivor god, so eat all the clams you want I say.

 

 

I agree.  It may have been more about Monica being bossy or arguing her point too much, probably not the first time Kimmi has dealt with this aspect of her personality hence the heightened irritation.  

Edited by wings707

Share this post


Link to post

Here 'tis, on Twitter.

 

 

throw is a strong word. let's say we were comfortable losing.

 

I don't buy this for a second. It's not like people in Bayon were arguing with one another or someone was really annoying or considering quiting. They had a nice number of 6 and no loss which is impressive. I don't believe they some way wanted to go to tribal and the decision to vote out Monica seemed like it was made last minute after Kimmi told them Monica was considering a girls alliance down the road. I don't think people who know the game so well like Fishback does would ever consider wanting to go to tribal. They just say it to make less fools of themselves for losing or creating a strategy around their loss.

And yet . . . he still remains on the bottom.  Therefore, not impressed.

Give the guy some time for god's sake. I bet he is not taking all this air time just to be voted out sooner than later.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't buy this for a second. It's not like people in Bayon were arguing with one another or someone was really annoying or considering quiting. They had a nice number of 6 and no loss which is impressive. I don't believe they some way wanted to go to tribal and the decision to vote out Monica seemed like it was made last minute after Kimmi told them Monica was considering a girls alliance down the road. I don't think people who know the game so well like Fishback does would ever consider wanting to go to tribal. They just say it to make less fools of themselves for losing or creating a strategy around their loss.

 

 

 

Yes, I see your point and agree.  I did find it curious that Monica told Jeff that she was not bothered going to tribal.  She actually said it was good and then something to the effect of testing alliances.  It was very odd.  She, of course, thought the agenda was very different than it turned out to be!  

Edited by wings707
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't buy this for a second. It's not like people in Bayon were arguing with one another or someone was really annoying or considering quiting.
I'm wondering if the time line is different than what we were shown. Maybe Monica's discussion with Kimmi happened before IC and closer to when Kimmi was still irritated about the clam debate. Monica viewed Kimmi as her ally, so that type of idle speculation of strategy wouldn't be odd. Then, the whole "snake in the grass" conversation may have happened pre-IC.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm wondering if the time line is different than what we were shown. Maybe Monica's discussion with Kimmi happened before IC and closer to when Kimmi was still irritated about the clam debate. Monica viewed Kimmi as her ally, so that type of idle speculation of strategy wouldn't be odd. Then, the whole "snake in the grass" conversation may have happened pre-IC.

 

 

Fishbach's blog is good.  He makes it clear as to why they voted the way they did.  One minor spoiler having nothing to do with boot order.  

 

http://www.people.com/people/mobile/article/0,,20961658,00.html

Edited by wings707

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

On RHAP Rob said Jeremy also implied on Twitter that he sat out the immunity challenge because they were throwing it.  

 

From Stephen's blog:

What would have happened if Timbira had voted out Erinn Lobdell before the merge, or if Galu took out Shambo? The entire tribe would have benefitted from eliminating the weakest link.

Disloyal numbers don't just hurt you; they help your opponent. In that way, they're like own goals at immunity challenges.

 

I didn't really get what he meant.  By comparing Monica to Erinn and Shambo is he saying that their tribe would be physically stronger without Monica?   Or that Erinn and Shambo were disloyal?  I don't really remember Shambo much but JT/Stephen took Erinn to F3 over Cirie, didn't they? 

 

And that second sentence I don't really get the italics part (my italics).  Is it me or is there a word or two missing?  I was surprised that text made it into People.  

 

I don't know, that's the first blog post of his I read and I thought it was way less interesting, funny and insightful than Dalton's EW recap, and Dalton wasn't out there.  

Share this post


Link to post
And that second sentence I don't really get the italics part (my italics).  Is it me or is there a word or two missing?  I was surprised that text made it into People.  

 

An 'own goal' is a soccer term meaning you scored into the goal your team was defending, in other words, you scored a goal for the other team.  That's what Stephen is saying his awful shot in the immunity challenge that gave Ankgor a point instead of his team was.  He's also saying keeping disloyal tribe members is the strategic equivalent of scoring an own goal....you give the other team a point (person) and simultaneously put your own team a point (person) behind in the game.

Edited by pennben
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Fishbach's explanation all sounds quite logical except for the part where Spencer and Kelly aren't in the Bayon alliance and so, IMHO, there is zero reason to believe Spencer or Wigles would stay more loyal to Stephen/Jeremy/Kimmi than Monica would have. Also, the idea that Spencer/Wigles are safe because who are they going to flip to applies to Monica as well. Monica has no relationships on old Ta Keo and poor ones on old Bayon. Where is Monica going to flip?

Edited by Zuleikha
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Winston9-DT3, on 24 Oct 2015 - 2:50 PM, said:

I don't really remember Shambo much but JT/Stephen took Erinn to F3 over Cirie, didn't they?

They took her to the F3 over Taj.  Cirie wasn't even on that season.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

Oh, right, I meant Taj!  (or should I say Taj.)  I rewatched several seasons back to back this summer and I think Cirie was on two. 

 

Thanks, pennben, for explaining "own goal".  Funny, my daughter played AYSO soccer for like 6 years and I coached one year and was 'team mom' all the others, and I've never heard that term!  

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post

I still believe that throwing a challenge is idiotic. If nothing else new Bayon had a strong 6 alliance in which Jeremy and Fishback were #1 and #2. They had no reason to force a tribal and break this 6. They have no idea what the old Bayons are thinking and what alliances they are forming. And yes the message sent to old Bayins is "we don't care about you anymore, we got our new alliance going". That being said I still think Kimmi did well informing the guys about Monica's secret plans BUT I think Jeremy and Fishback should have kept Monica and should have booted Wiggles, not only cause she is a big physical threat but also cause she has alliances they know nothing about. In Angkor Abi flipped and destroyed a solid alliance of 4 because... well, she is Abi. In Bayon how could they let the minority come on top by booting one of their own, it sounds crazy to me.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

An 'own goal' is a soccer term meaning you scored into the goal your team was defending, in other words, you scored a goal for the other team.  That's what Stephen is saying his awful shot in the immunity challenge that gave Ankgor a point instead of his team was.  He's also saying keeping disloyal tribe members is the strategic equivalent of scoring an own goal....you give the other team a point (person) and simultaneously put your own team a point (person) behind in the game.

 

 

Interesting.  He asked Probst before the game started what would happen if you hit another team's board and sent their flag up.*  He relied that it would count for that team.  Then he did just that.   hmmmmmmmmm

 

*Jeff mentioned this in an interview in one of the links on this thread.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the Jeremy tweet. I don't imagine that he would have let Kimmi sit him out if they were playing hard enough to win.

 

https://twitter.com/jeremy2collins/status/657011096436527104

 

didn't really get what he meant.  By comparing Monica to Erinn and Shambo is he saying that their tribe would be physically stronger without Monica?   Or that Erinn and Shambo were disloyal?  I don't really remember Shambo much but JT/Stephen took Erinn to F3 over Cirie, didn't they

 

They only took Erinn over Taj because Taj was way more likeable then her. As a matter of fact, if Stephen would've won immunity, he was planning on taking Erinn to the finals. But yea both Erinn and Shambo turned on their tribal alliances at the merge.

 

Also I just realized that Juicy J was caught again :(

Edited by Oscirus
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

Thanks for clarifying that about Tocantins (and Shambo).  I'm no Stephen.  He should write as if his audience isn't made of Survivor fanatics.   I think I am one and still didn't know what he was talking about.  

Interesting.  He asked Probst before the game started what would happen if you hit another team's board and sent their flag up.*  He relied that it would count for that team.  Then he did just that.   hmmmmmmmmm

 

*Jeff mentioned this in an interview in one of the links on this thread.  

It is odd he asked then did it.   But it'd also be odd for him to do it on purpose and hint so on Twitter but then in his secret scene he said it was a total flub.  If you're going to own it, why not own it then in confessional?  Maybe they decided not to admit throwing it until the season was over?  

Share this post


Link to post

I think you're right.  I think they let Monica go because she mentioned taking out Jeremy.  It sounds like he's running that tribe and Kim and Stephen are loyal henchmen. 

 

I agree. And it's just more proof, imo, that Kimmi (and Stephen) is a damn idiot.

 

Yeah, yeah. Fishbach's "bromance". That's so much better than a nasty "women's alliance".

 

But of course. Women aligning together are disgusting and evil but men aligning together are studs and game Gods.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

A pretty obvious episode, thanks to poor editing.  I don’t mind a predictable boot if it is done in an interesting way, Drew Christie - come on down!, but by giving us Purple-Monica up until now the show didn’t provide us with a satisfying elimination.  I replied to a bunch of posts earlier - so on to the rankings.

I think I am 5 for 5 guessing the boots on this season's episodes. I am no savant, so that tells me that the editing on this show has become too obvious. They could use some variance to how they set up the episodes. For instance, this particular episode would have been very interesting if we viewed it all from Monica's viewpoint. After showing us the final vote reveal, the show could have then flashed back to the 30-60 seconds of footage that revealed the voting turning point. As presented, it was all a bit of a giveaway. It doesn't have to be this formulaic.

Share this post


Link to post

The reason to throw the challenge is to protect Tasha and Savage and both Monica and Kelly are expendable. My guess is Spencer and Jeremy had a pre game alliance.

Share this post


Link to post

The reason to throw the challenge is to protect Tasha and Savage

Then why not throw the challenge two tribals ago when Tasha and Savage were in a minority in their tribe and were really in danger of going home? Now Savage and Tasha have already shown they have a good thing going in Angkor since both people that left from Angkor were in former Takeo tribe (Jeff and PG). What you said makes no sense :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

That's why I think the timeline has to be off from what we were shown. It doesn't make sense for Kimmi/Jeremy/Stephen to throw the challenge if they were planning on Bayon strong, viewed Spencer as a valuable potential ally, and didn't have a particular issue with Wigles. I feel like all the stuff with Monica has to have happened first.

 

Maybe someone can ask Stephen, Jeremy, or Kimmi about it on Twitter. I don't do Twitter, so I can't.

Share this post


Link to post

That's why I think the timeline has to be off from what we were shown. It doesn't make sense for Kimmi/Jeremy/Stephen to throw the challenge if they were planning on Bayon strong, viewed Spencer as a valuable potential ally, and didn't have a particular issue with Wigles. I feel like all the stuff with Monica has to have happened first.

 

Maybe someone can ask Stephen, Jeremy, or Kimmi about it on Twitter. I don't do Twitter, so I can't.

There's no way Stephen will throw CBS and Probst under the bus like that.

 

I rewatched the whole scene and nobody was talking about getting ready for tribal and considering who to vote out. When Kimmi went to the guys she said "so we were talking about Kelly and Spencer and she brought up a girls alliance" while the logical sentence for just before tribal should be "we were talking about who wo vote out, Kelly or Spencer". What you are saying does make sense. If this happened like this, it totally makes sense that the 3 wanted to throw the challenge and maybe Stephen did try to aim in favor of Angkor. But if it had happened like that, why hasn't Monica mentioned it in her interviews?

Share this post


Link to post

But of course. Women aligning together are disgusting and evil but men aligning together are studs and game Gods.

 

Women aligning together is fine - if it's because you trust the people you're aligned with (to a certain degree), respect their game, and have similar goals; and these people just happen to be women. When you want to work with women just because they're women, without any thought as to whether these people are truly beneficial to your game, that I find stupid. I have yet to see any guys this season outright mention a "male alliance". 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

I like a good women's alliance and don't mind it as a strategy.  The men do tend to pal up sometimes and take out the smaller women early, like Monica.  

 

And it sounds like the Jeremy/Stephen bromance might be running things so why not as Monica start to think of ways to get around that?  It sounds like Kim and Monica were clearly #3 and 4 on their original Bayon alliance, and Monica's spot was already getting bumped further down by Spencer making inroads. Trying to get Kim to keep options open for turning the tables later sounds reasonable to me, in Monica's shoes.   When you don't fit in with your alliance and feel like low man on the totem pole may as well try to form a new one on whatever basis you've got to work with.  

Share this post


Link to post

Then why not throw the challenge two tribals ago when Tasha and Savage were in a minority in their tribe and were really in danger of going home? Now Savage and Tasha have already shown they have a good thing going in Angkor since both people that left from Angkor were in former Takeo tribe (Jeff and PG). What you said makes no sense :)

Because they are much closer to a swap now. Because they can't know if Woo and Abi might force a tie. Because this challenge was possibly very easy to throw. They couldn't throw the puzzle block one. I forget what the other challenge was but I recall Angkor being very bad.

There are a number of reasons why it makes sense after two votes and not earlier.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Because they are much closer to a swap now. Because they can't know if Woo and Abi might force a tie. Because this challenge was possibly very easy to throw. They couldn't throw the puzzle block one. I forget what the other challenge was but I recall Angkor being very bad.

There are a number of reasons why it makes sense after two votes and not earlier.

 

 

This makes sense.   What are the other reasons?  

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think the challenge was thrown as much as It was more of a shrugged at loss.   Truth be told, Takeo should probably be looking at throwing so they can get rid of Terry. No way in hell should they want such a challenge threat anywhere near the merge.

 

And no women's alliances aren't inherently evil. But if you're trying to or even thinking out loud about trying to form one.  You're going to be seen as a threat to opposing alliances and you will get rightfully booted.

Edited by Oscirus
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think the challenge was thrown as much as It was more of a shrugged at loss.   

 

Fishbach has said it was thrown as much as he can, on Twitter.  Not much reading between the lines was needed.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Guest

I wonder why he gave a confessional making fun of his Angkor point, saying he was almost as bad at challenges as Monica.  Maybe they honestly don't trust the secrecy of the confessional out there?  Maybe production frowns on throwing challenges so it's easier to admit it later on Twitter than to the show's cameramen, who feed Probst fodder for TC questions?  

Share this post


Link to post

Fishbach has said it was thrown as much as he can, on Twitter.  Not much reading between the lines was needed.  

No he didn't. He specifically said that he didn't throw it on twitter. There's no reason for him to lie about it after the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure what Stephen can discuss what isn't shown, but at minimum they weren't doing their best to win.They sat out their strongest player and scored for the other team.

It makes good sense for them to not win this challenge hen hey have two expendable people : Monica and Kelly. Maybe after the show ends we can hear more about this.

Share this post


Link to post

No he didn't. He specifically said that he didn't throw it on twitter. There's no reason for him to lie about it after the game.

 

 

MMV.  It was my impression.  

Share this post


Link to post
. If this happened like this, it totally makes sense that the 3 wanted to throw the challenge and maybe Stephen did try to aim in favor of Angkor. But if it had happened like that, why hasn't Monica mentioned it in her interviews?

 

 

She may not know (or may just now be finding out). 

 

 

 

He specifically said that he didn't throw it on twitter. There's no reason for him to lie about it after the game.

I interpret "throw is a strong word. let's say we were comfortable losing" as an admission that he, Kimmi, and Jeremy were not trying to win. 

Edited by Zuleikha
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

I also thought Stephen and Jeremy both implied they threw it, on Twitter.  I just don't understand why Stephen suggested he didn't during the game.  Maybe they sort of threw it but that Angkor point was truly an accident, too?  I mean, if you're throwing a challenge, scoring a point for the other team isn't a subtle way to do it.  But "I meant to do that" is a handy spin on it later.

 

But part of me feels like if they'd discussed throwing it there'd be footage and that would've been tv-worthy.  Who knows, though.  Maybe the editors liked clam-gate better than the real story.

Share this post


Link to post

It didn't feel to me that they were throwing the challenge, but IF they did, regarding why now and not two challenges ago, one reason could be that they had already written out Savage and Tasha, who were outnumbered in their new tribe, but now, seeing that they've managed to survive, thought that they would make better allies after the merge than Monica.

Share this post


Link to post

Stephen appears to me, too, to be saying, as directly as he can without actually saying it, that he helped Angkor on purpose and they threw the challenge.  The show never really shows challenge-throwing unless the throwers get their comeuppance, because for some reason throwing a challenge is considered an outrageous sin.  It's also interesting that he apparently totally agrees with Monica, despite the typical ha! ha! it's ironic! edit she got for saying so, that it's good to go to tribal sometimes.  I think considering he did this cockamamie blindside and in the preview is saying he wants to make a SEASON-DEFINING BIG MOVE! he is in the Philippines Pete position of having been so long without going to tribal that he's bored, which is a dangerous thing to be on Survivor.  (Though I think--can we all agree?--that this season has pretty much proven that Abi turning on RC had nothing really to do with Pete's idol-clue prank, and would have happened regardless.)

 

I don't think they probably threw it to get out Monica, though.  Sounds like rationalization to me.  Probably just wanted to get rid of another TaKeo.  I think rose711 has an excellent analysis.  My assumption is, they threw it to get rid of Kelly, but switched to Monica at Kimmi's urging, because they were bored, and because they didn't like her.  (I have to say, Stephen is least likeable when he's talking shit about someone unpopular with his tribe, whether that's the tribe on the island or the Cheese and Wine Tribe back home.)  How silly of Monica to think she might need options in the future, when her tribemates were so full of disdain for her!  Clearly she should have stuck with them through thick and thin, not even so much as imagining anything else!

 

Women aligning together is fine - if it's because you trust the people you're aligned with (to a certain degree), respect their game, and have similar goals; and these people just happen to be women. When you want to work with women just because they're women, without any thought as to whether these people are truly beneficial to your game, that I find stupid. I have yet to see any guys this season outright mention a "male alliance". 

 

So to my thinking this vote is actually a good example; in my mind here's how a theoretical women's alliance could have been very good for Monica and why saving Kelly, had the other members of her mixed-gender alliance been willing, could have been very good for her.  The question comes down to what can you offer.  I've already tried to break down why, assuming no swaps or merges and Bayon losing, Monica is screwed without Kelly.  But why Kelly and not Spencer?  It's because it's soooooo much harder for her to make her offer sound better to Spencer than running to tattle on her to Jeremy would be.  Monica can say I promise Spencer you're my number one!  But why should Spencer believe her?  They have no bonds, and she's obviously coming to him out of desperation.  When it's merge, she can cut him loose, there's nothing to make him more important than anyone else.  But with the promise of a women's alliance, Kelly has a better hope of outlasting at least the dudes, at the merge.  It's just a rallying point, a focussing symbol, but it's something.  Much more plausible to her that she can trust Monica.

 

Also, the dudes don't say they're aligning because they're dudes, but that's what they mean when they say "a threat".  A bigger dude = a "threat".  Jeremy and Andrew and Joe aligned specifically for dudeness' sake.

 

I'm exhausted tonight so I'm not sure I'm making sense, sorry~~

Edited by KimberStormer
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Stephen appears to me, too, to be saying, as directly as he can without actually saying it, that he helped Angkor on purpose and they threw the challenge.  The show never really shows challenge-throwing unless the throwers get their comeuppance, because for some reason throwing a challenge is considered an outrageous sin.  It's also interesting that he apparently totally agrees with Monica, despite the typical ha! ha! it's ironic! edit she got for saying so, that it's good to go to tribal sometimes.  I think considering he did this cockamamie blindside and in the preview is saying he wants to make a SEASON-DEFINING BIG MOVE! he is in the Philippines Pete position of having been so long without going to tribal that he's bored, which is a dangerous thing to be on Survivor.  (Though I think--can we all agree?--that this season has pretty much proven that Abi turning on RC had nothing really to do with Pete's idol-clue prank, and would have happened regardless.)

 

I don't think they probably threw it to get out Monica, though.  Sounds like rationalization to me.  Probably just wanted to get rid of another TaKeo.  I think rose711 has an excellent analysis.  My assumption is, they threw it to get rid of Kelly, but switched to Monica at Kimmi's urging, because they were bored, and because they didn't like her.  (I have to say, Stephen is least likeable when he's talking shit about someone unpopular with his tribe, whether that's the tribe on the island or the Cheese and Wine Tribe back home.)  How silly of Monica to think she might need options in the future, when her tribemates were so full of disdain for her!  Clearly she should have stuck with them through thick and thin, not even so much as imagining anything else!

 

 

So to my thinking this vote is actually a good example; in my mind here's how a theoretical women's alliance could have been very good for Monica and why saving Kelly, had the other members of her mixed-gender alliance been willing, could have been very good for her.  The question comes down to what can you offer.  I've already tried to break down why, assuming no swaps or merges and Bayon losing, Monica is screwed without Kelly.  But why Kelly and not Spencer?  It's because it's soooooo much harder for her to make her offer sound better to Spencer than running to tattle on her to Jeremy would be.  Monica can say I promise Spencer you're my number one!  But why should Spencer believe her?  They have no bonds, and she's obviously coming to him out of desperation.  When it's merge, she can cut him loose, there's nothing to make him more important than anyone else.  But with the promise of a women's alliance, Kelly has a better hope of outlasting at least the dudes, at the merge.  It's just a rallying point, a focussing symbol, but it's something.  Much more plausible to her that she can trust Monica.

 

Also, the dudes don't say they're aligning because they're dudes, but that's what they mean when they say "a threat".  A bigger dude = a "threat".  Jeremy and Andrew and Joe aligned specifically for dudeness' sake.

 

I'm exhausted tonight so I'm not sure I'm making sense, sorry~~

 

I think the first bolded part (bolding mine) could be the key to the discrepancy between what we were shown and what Stephwen is putting out there (althought we DID have Ozzy's team willing to throw a challenge back in his first season, but they were all voted out, save him). 

 

I also very much like the second part I bolded, that explains very well how "women alliance" can indeed be a rallying point.

 

Thinking back to Fans vs Favs, imagine if, after the reshufle, when Parvati was getting close to Natalie and what's her name and showing herself willing to work with them, if one of them had run off all horrified and clutching her pearls to the other newbies, crying "she wants to ally with us! let's all vote her out and then battle it out". Well, these newbies had more strategic sense than Kimmi and knew to keep all their options open!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

I agree that Stephen came across unlikable for the first time for me there.  He talked about Monica as if she didn't matter as a person or something, because she was outside his clique.  

 

And the "was he lying to x or y" thing (on Twitter or in confessionals) bugs me, too.   It's exactly like Abi-Maria telling the press she was post-break-up and then later saying "Oh that was strategy, I was lying."  I don't much care which statement was the lie, it's telling enough that you're lying at all to one faction.  Lying to other players during the game is part of the game.   Lying on Twitter, in confessionals or to the press isn't.  That's a lie to fans.  Why lie to fans?  We're not your opponent.   The game is not afoot.  

Share this post


Link to post

I interpret "throw is a strong word. let's say we were comfortable losing" as an admission that he, Kimmi, and Jeremy were not trying to win.

 

So did I. My contention isn't that they tried to win. It's just that they didn't care about losing. If they won then so be it but if not then they could get rid of a threat.

 

The show never really shows challenge-throwing unless the throwers get their comeuppance, because for some reason throwing a challenge is considered an outrageous sin.

 

I disagree. If  people throw challenges they show it. In Africa the challenge was thrown and there was no real consequence to that, same for China. It's just that most people who throw challenges do it in such a dumb way that there are usually consequences.

 

How silly of Monica to think she might need options in the future, when her tribemates were so full of disdain for her!  Clearly she should have stuck with them through thick and thin, not even so much as imagining anything else!

 

 

More like how silly of Monica to tell somebody who felt safe in an alliance of her future plans that didn't involve said alliance. It would be the equivalent of Jeremy saying he didn't care who went between spencer and kelly as long as he could get to his real alliance at the merge.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that Stephen came across unlikable for the first time for me there.  He talked about Monica as if she didn't matter as a person or something, because she was outside his clique. 

 

Agreed.  Between his blog and some of his extra interviews, he's quite blatant with his dislike of Monica.  It's very unappealing, especially within a nationally published blog.  I feel in the blog capacity he should hold himself to a higher standard as, and I'm putting this in heavy quotes, a reporter on what was going on.  He can gossip all he wants in his 'whine and cheese' (I'm pretty sure I got the spelling of that right) meetings.

Edited by pennben
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think he can be as nasty as he wants on his blog as long as he remains a neutral observer. Once he's involved as one of the parties, I think he should go for a more neutral stance. YMMV, etc. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think he can be as nasty as he wants on his blog as long as he remains a neutral observer. Once he's involved as one of the parties, I think he should go for a more neutral stance. YMMV, etc.

 

My only caveat to my agreement with you NutMeg, is I also think he should carry water for his friends, even when he's not directly involved, on his twitter feed or elsewhere other than his People's blog.

Edited by pennben
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size