S31.E05: A Snake In The Grass

[NutMeg]

Pennbenn, it took me a minute to understand what you meant (I'm slow on days when waking up - from a nice dream and to an overcast day - is hard), but I now get it and agree with you :-)

(Edited because it appears I wrote the same thing twice) 

Edited October 26, 2015 by NutMeg

[Bryce Smith]

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.

I don't think so.  One of the challenge throwers last season won.

[NutMeg]

I don't think so.  One of the challenge throwers last season won.

That's right! Was that the first time it ever it happened? 

 

Then again if there ever was a chance for the winner to reveal it after the fact, better show it. This is the first time when is turned out to (kind of work for, or rather be intrumented by) the winner.  

[KimberStormer]

Did Mike throw a challenge?  I have no memory of that.  But then I've tried to put that season out of my mind.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

No, it'd be the equivalent of Jeremy saying he didn't care who went between Spencer and Kelly because his real final 3 alliance was right there with him.  Kimmi was Monica's number one ally, as far as Monica was concerned.  There was literally no threat to Kimmi in any sense whatsoever in Monica's proposal, whereas if Jeremy was saying his "real alliance" was on another tribe, that would be a threat to Stephen and Kimmi.  Even if Kimmi is suicidally dead-set on going to the end with Jeremy and Stephen instead of Monica (who sounds like a good person to take to the end to me, if everyone didn't like her), Monica's future plans couldn't possibly harm her; she'd be informed of them and able to counteract them.

 

Peih Gee and Jamie did lose, and in Jamie's case, edited-for-maximum humiliation despite doing everything perfectly rationally.  I've never seen Africa, though.  Someone here or on TWOP once listed a bunch of examples where people have at least claimed post-game to have thrown challenges (or just not put in any effort...I agree with you that's entirely possible in this case) but as it had no consequences it wasn't shown.  Anyway, I certainly don't know, I'm just saying that Stephen's comments seemed to strongly hint in the direction of throwing it.  And I find the tut-tutting about throwing challenges annoying.  If it makes sense, throw it!

[NutMeg]

Mike did throw a challenge in order to save one of his allies (can't remenber her name) who was on another tribe after the swap. He had a hard time throwing it, it was a memory challenge and she was real bad at it, so it became ridiculous at the end (did he end up telling her the answer or do I remember wrong? I'm afraid I've already erased most of that seaon from my memory). Anyway, as I remember it, he was the one throwing it and the tribe wasn't in on it, but my memoryb of that season is wonky.      

[jsm1125]

Yep, Mike successfully threw the last pre-merge challenge to save Kelly, who was the first booted at the merge, and who probably had a better social game than basically everyone else that season (isn't it a sad testament to that season when arguably the best social player didn't even make the jury?). I don't believe that Kelly was in actual danger at that tribal council, as IIRC, Shirin would have been the next boot on that tribe had Kelly gone to tribal council. That season actually had such promise pre-merge.

[lilabennet]

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.  

I am with you as far as Twitter or the press goes, but lying in confessionals is rational if you believe that production may do something to screw up your game.

[wonald]

Yep, Mike successfully threw the last pre-merge challenge to save Kelly, who was the first booted at the merge, and who probably had a better social game than basically everyone else that season (isn't it a sad testament to that season when arguably the best social player didn't even make the jury?). I don't believe that Kelly was in actual danger at that tribal council, as IIRC, Shirin would have been the next boot on that tribe had Kelly gone to tribal council. That season actually had such promise pre-merge.

 

If she really had that good of a social game, she wouldnt have been the merge boot. She closed herself off too early to Jenn, Shirin, and Hali which is why they targeted her in the first place.

 

Drake (which contained winner Sandra) in S7 is another example of a winner that threw a challenge.

Edited October 26, 2015 by wonald

[Guest]

Ethan won Africa after being on Boran, which threw a challenge after the swap to vote out Silas.  

 

I'm fine with people throwing challenges, as long as it's not left and right.  I didn't like the way Blood vs. Water was handling reward challenges later on, deciding who would win beforehand and the other players taking dives until Jeff just said, "to hell with it, who do I give it to?"  

 

lilabennet- Yeah, I can see that.  If Stephen thinks production uses confessional info against people, that's pretty damning.  But I guess if they didn't fully throw it, just half-assed it, he could've been aiming to miss only, not score for Angkor, so it could be both things are true-- it was a royal flub but was only meant to be a little flub. 

[dnagirl]

If I was on Survivor and heard Woo's story about his mom, I would have felt sympathy for him, even though I have family members who didn't survive heart issues. It would have never crossed my mind to complain about it, but then again, I'm not a soulless bitch, unlike Abi.

I liked the blindside, mostly because I enjoy watching the looks on faces as the victim realizes what is happening. Didn't give a fig one way or the other about Monica, but I'm still not sure what the whole clam disagreement was about. I thought Monica was worried that they'd overclam their particular beach, not the entire ocean. I can see that point, but in the end, it seems like she and Kimmie were just talking past each other.

I've been rewatching the series from the beginning and realizing how much more these later groups are getting in the way of food and reward items. Contestants used to go on food rewards (or even the auction in S2), eat and get sick simply because their systems couldn't handle a regular amount of real food. That doesn't seem to happen much anymore. Not that I'm saying the game is easy, but they do seem more pampered.

[wonald]

I think if the show could get away with starving the players more, they would. But they learned early on that people on pace to lose 50 lbs have little energy to do anything, much less provide good TV versus losing the 25 lbs they do now.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Ozzy threw a challenge in Season 13 and was the runner up.

 

Colleen became a star more for her girl next door qualities then anything else.

 

I guess she 'acted' like a girl next door but she looked otherworldy beautiful IMO which I guess made her actions that much more attractive.

 

Re:  the controversy over a "Girls' Alliance" or likewise

 

Some people relate to their own identity extremely strongly, especially minorities (Just my opinion).  I identify with characters or people in real life who share identity characteristics to myself and I often make friends based on those demographics as well.  It's not necessarily intentional but it can certainly happen.

 

Sorry Winston but there was no direct evidence of sex :)  And I'll take Colleen's word for it.

 

Anyone who thinks too far ahead gets bounced. Every single time.

 

Don't agree at all.  Some people make their alliances that keep them to the end of the game on Day 1.  Russell/Natalie made their Season 19 alliance early on.  Yul and Becky did in Season 13 on probably Day 1.  There must be other examples of this.  Like every season basically.  The mistake is thinking OUT LOUD too early to the WRONG PERSON.  Takes a lot of good judgement, luck, trust, (maybe even shared identity characteristics, like Becky and Yul fully admitted to using) to pick the right alliance mate on Day 1.

 

I definitely agree that getting rid of Monica (Non entity in 2 seasons) over Kelly (Challenge Monster) and Spencer (extremely smart and sort of a Challenge Whatever is Less than Monster) is incredibly stupid.  But it was way more fun for me and I'm happy.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Ms Blue Jay

[KimberStormer]

Riiiiiight the memory challenge.  Now I remember, thanks NutMeg.

[Guest]

I guess she 'acted' like a girl next door but she looked otherworldy beautiful IMO which I guess made her actions that much more attractive.

Colleen had an understated gorgeousness.  Frequently bonking Greg in the jungle out of boredom isn't very 'girl next door', or maybe it is, depending upon your perspective.  No judgment here.  I loved her and I wish we'd see more evidence of casual hookups since rumor has it they still occur.  

[Zuleikha]

Even if Kimmi is suicidally dead-set on going to the end with Jeremy and Stephen instead of Monica (who sounds like a good person to take to the end to me, if everyone didn't like her), Monica's future plans couldn't possibly harm her; she'd be informed of them and able to counteract them.

Exactly! And Kimmi/Stephen/Spencer aren't guaranteed of this with Spencer or Wigles (especially Kimmi, who at least as edited, is not forming bonds with Spencer or Wigles).

 

I will crack up if merge happens and Kelley Wentworth brings Spencer into the Ta Keo alliance because no matter how much Spencer may like Stephen and Jeremy right now, they've given him no reason to stay with them instead of going to an alliance that includes him in discussion and votes. Stephen even suggests in his Parade blog that they may have blundered by not offering Spencer/Wigles trust in the Monica blindside--although of course who knows if he's being honest with that.

[dnagirl]

I think if the show could get away with starving the players more, they would. But they learned early on that people on pace to lose 50 lbs have little energy to do anything, much less provide good TV versus losing the 25 lbs they do now.

Oh I totally agree.  It's just interesting watching the Outback (which was brutal) vs. this season at the same time.

[Oscirus]

No, it'd be the equivalent of Jeremy saying he didn't care who went between Spencer and Kelly because his real final 3 alliance was right there with him.  Kimmi was Monica's number one ally, as far as Monica was concerned

 

Well argued on the first part. However on the second part, what does it matter if Monica considers Kimmi to be her number one alliance if Kimmi doesn't want to be in an alliance with her?

 

Monica's future plans couldn't possibly harm her; she'd be informed of them and able to counteract them.

 

If Monica decided to jump at the merge, that would also screw over Kimmi's alliance and in essence her and there would be no way to counteract it. What's good for Monica doesn't necessarily have to be good for Kimmi.

 

 

think if the show could get away with starving the players more, they would. But they learned early on that people on pace to lose 50 lbs have little energy to do anything, much less provide good TV versus losing the 25 lbs they do now.

 

 

I think they stopped starving them after Africa, when people started getting really sick  (Lex got so sick that he was urinating pure blood).  The better fed they are, the better TV they tend to make and I'd imagine it cuts down on the potential for medevacs.

[willpwr]

Stephen, to me, comes across like one of those outcasts that's nice until he's let into the cool clique and then he lets his bitchy side out and gleefully picks on the new outcast (in this case, Monica). Do I think Stephen intentionally scored for Angkor? No, quite frankly, because I don't think he's that talented and I personally know what it's like to fuck up and then cover it up, like "yeah, I meant to do that!" We'll see if at the end of the season he regrets not voting for Spencer. I don't understand in the strategy of lying in a confessional in this game, it's not like Big Brother where that can make sense.. if he meant to throw it then he should have owned up to it right away, I'm more inclined to believe his immediate reaction which was that it was a mistake instead of what he's selling now after he's had time to think.

[azshadowwalker]

I think they stopped starving them after Africa, when people started getting really sick  (Lex got so sick that he was urinating pure blood).  The better fed they are, the better TV they tend to make and I'd imagine it cuts down on the potential for medevacs.

 

Isn't it weird that all of the quits came after they stopped? The only medevac prior to that was Skupin in the fire, whereas we have tons of injuries, infections and mental breakdowns now. And I guess better TV is in the eye of production, because I'd take any of the first three seasons over anything since Thailand.

 

Stephen, to me, comes across like one of those outcasts that's nice until he's let into the cool clique and then he lets his bitchy side out and gleefully picks on the new outcast (in this case, Monica).

 

I agree, but I've always felt he was an asshole who played the nerd to feel slightly superior to everyone else. I didn't like him in his first season, and he's doing himself no favors with me this time around.

[Guest]

There really haven't been tons of medevacs since season 3.  I think there have only been 11 total.  

 

I'm not surprised quits went up.  They recruit most of the people now from California, from the mactor wanna-be population.  

[KimberStormer]

Well argued on the first part. However on the second part, what does it matter if Monica considers Kimmi to be her number one alliance if Kimmi doesn't want to be in an alliance with her?

 

If Monica decided to jump at the merge, that would also screw over Kimmi's alliance and in essence her and there would be no way to counteract it. What's good for Monica doesn't necessarily have to be good for Kimmi.

 

Well, to me, someone trusting me and thinking of me as their #1 ally, when I don't actually care about them, seems like a great thing to have in Survivor.  You can use them and cut them free without feeling conflicted about it.  And I disagree about the second part: forewarned is forearmed.  There are many ways she might prevent the flip, if she knows it's happening.  (Especially as Monica would be counting on her as a number for the flip.)  If Spencer or Wiglesworth flip at the merge, or even if Jeremy or Stephen do, they sure aren't telling Kimmi.  Why would it be better not to have any chance of knowing when a move is happening?

 

Not to mention, she could prevent Monica's idea from working out, if she wanted to (still a bad choice in my book, but perhaps it's too risky to propose saving Kelly over Spencer to Jeremy and Stephen), just by voting out Kelly and putting the women down in numbers.  Boom, no more women's alliance.  According to kikaha and LadyChatts' interpretation, Monica was monomaniacally obsessed, like a Survivor Captain Ahab, with the women's alliance; all she wanted, all she thought, all she ate and breathed in camp was women's alliance women's alliance women's alliance.  So put the women down in numbers, and now Monica has no more ideas; Kimmi can lead her easily.

 

When you think about it, however "too far ahead" Monica was thinking, Kimmi must have been thinking exactly as far; she was moving to prevent the exact future move which Monica was plotting (or, if you think as I do, was keeping open as a possibility.)  Monica wasn't the one who moved on these distant future events, though.  Monica stayed in the moment, with her alliance as it was, and voted for Kelly; whereas Kimmi, Stephen, and Jeremy backstabbed the very first OldBayon member out of the game to block a hypothetical post-merge event which must forever remain a doubtful dream, and which, after all, they could as easily have prevented by voting out Kelly, as planned.  Who was thinking too far ahead?  Who was acting without thinking about the present?  Who was overplaying here?

Edited October 28, 2015 by KimberStormer

[Zuleikha]

Yeah, unless Stephen, Jeremy, or Kimmi give an explanation of the Monica boot that explains why Monica is more of a flip risk than Spencer or Kelly, I will continue to think that they're full of it. Every argument Stephen made about Monica's "danger" applies to Spencer and Kelly. IMHO, it was an emotion-driven vote, not a strategic one.

 

Well, to me, someone trusting me and thinking of me as their #1 ally, when I don't actually care about them, seems like a great thing to have in Survivor.  You can use them and cut them free without feeling conflicted about it.

Yes! That's the point I've been trying to make. There is no downside to Kimmi's game to keeping Monica.