S31.E10: Like Selling Your Soul to the Devil / S31.E11: My Wheels Are Spinning

[SlackerInc]

My fan problem is that I like both Spencer and Fishback and I've been grumpy all season that those two couldn't trust each other and become the brilliant alliance mates they should have been.

 

This is me!  I'm surprised at all the negativity toward Fishback, but then my favorites often seem to be hated (see: Shirin, Cochran).

 

I was so glad enough of them did the white rock.  I hate watching that level of suffering.  

 

I though Keith might be the one complaining the others were selfish, leaving him as the only one to compete against Joe.  Then Tasha suggested Keith and Joe were selfish for competing.  Hm.  I guess the show didn't let them discuss the vote because the smart thing if people wanted Joe out would be for 5 to pick shelter then the others compete against Joe.

 

Yup, I guess  they didn't want to let them get too strategic and have the five weakest challengers sit out or whatever.  But it was too bad they wasted more than they needed, and I agree that the "selfish" tag could have been turned the other way.  Although it wasn't as clear as in those cases where the people sitting out get to eat.

 

That said, have these people forgotten that they get to vote for the winner? They're all so concerned about getting Joe out because he might win immunities to the end and win, but I honestly don't think he would even if he managed to get there. He might have votes from Wigglesworth and Savage (depending on who he's up against and how bitter Savage is) but I get the feeling everyone else will vote on gameplay and unless he's at the end with Abi and Keith, I don't see him getting the votes. 

 

I'm not a big fan of Joe, and I was hoping he'd get sent home rather than Stephen.  But I don't understand the premise (which seems to be rampant here) that winning challenges isn't "gameplay".  Aren't those games?  The central focus of each episode?  I mean, at the end people can use whatever criteria they like when voting for a winner (including "I just like so-and-so better and want her to have a million dollars"), but if they want to reward "gameplay" why wouldn't being a challenge monster qualify?  I see people complain that someone is good at strategy but has no social game, or is good socially but is not very strategic.  Why couldn't it be a knock against someone that they are good at strategy and the social game but suck at challenges?  I get the impression many people think that sounds like the ideal player.

 

I think Jeremy's idol move was inspired by Natalie saving Jaclyn at the end of SJDS: the idea was to establish a pecking order, to show who brought who to the end.  Going up against Stephen at FTC was a good idea for Jeremy, since Stephen was so socially adrift; but there was the danger of him being able to say "I carried Jeremy strategically, just like I carried JT, remember?  I'm the mastermind, I did xyz."  But with this idol play Jeremy could say, "You wouldn't be here if it wasn't for me."  And jurors are impressed by that kind of flashy move.  

 

I don't remember the season you were talking about, but I definitely thought Jeremy was making a play for the jury.  And I think it was a great idea, and people are not giving him enough credit for that aspect of it.

 

I like Keith. He's not much of a strategist, but he's pretty good at comps and he's downright hilarious. I loved his whole "This ain't fun" spiel. Also, taking Joe's shirt while he was away on reward. Hilarious!

[snip]

So, on the contrary I LOVE the storytelling challenges. I feel like we haven't seen one of those in awhile.Being at night made it extra fun. The best part was when Stephen and Abi arrived at the same station at the same time and he totally faked her out. I was rolling! 

 

You make good points about Keith.  I didn't care for him much on his original season, but for all the reasons you say, he is likable.  He could be a threat rather than a goat if he went to the end, and I think it would be (as I allude to above) perfectly legit for him to get the million.

 

I missed how Stephen faked Abi out.  I remember she took the wrong one and then he took the right one and said "sorry, Abi", but I didn't realize he actually somehow got her to take the wrong one.  How?  Also, isn't it kind of weird that they are supposed to say their choice out loud for the cameras, when their competitors might be nearby?  (I kept snickering as I watched this, unable to shake the memory of Rudy running through the woods and saying "I dunno" over and over.)

[cherrypj]

I missed how Stephen faked Abi out.  I remember she took the wrong one and then he took the right one and said "sorry, Abi", but I didn't realize he actually somehow got her to take the wrong one.  How?

 

He took the lid off the middle pot, Abi grabbed a package from that pot, Stephen replaced the lid, and got a package from the third pot. "Sorry, Abi," with a smile to the camera.

 

Too funny.

[SlackerInc]

So Abi just thought he was being way too slow to get out of there?

[Kromm]

I'm not a big fan of Joe, and I was hoping he'd get sent home rather than Stephen.  But I don't understand the premise (which seems to be rampant here) that winning challenges isn't "gameplay".  

It's gameplay. It's just very shortsighted gameplay. While it's not like Joe could make himself NOT look like a physical powerhouse, he still could have done subtle things to make himself lose some of those early challenges (when he didn't need them so much) so that he didn't look like this unshakable force they have to unseat. If I were him I would have shown a magic (fictional) tendency to get confused by puzzles. It would have stood him well in the long term, given him a little relief, to not seem so bulletproof.  While there's an argument to be made for seeming SO overwhelming at the challenges that people just strategize around that, it rarely takes more than a few minutes for people to change course when a sudden opportunity (like a challenge threat suddenly losing) comes along. 

 

I also wonder if there's more he could be doing to encourage some idea that while he might get to the end, that he's no threat there to win a final vote. Of course whatever argument he'd use (or better yet strategy to suggest it without overtly saying it and have other people come to the conclusion themselves) would have to be something he could counteract in a final tribal, but there's probably something still that could be worked that way. 

[Bryce Lynch]

I'm getting bits and pieces of information to explain this, but why did Spencer say that "Stephen made a very questionable Survivor decision by taking Jeremy.... and Tasha on that reward challenge."

Why was that questionable to him? I understand that everyone has their own opinions, but what did Spencer himself mean or think by that? Would appreciate it thanks.

Jeremy NEEDS to find another idol now, for my LIIIFE

Edited November 26, 2015 by Bryce Lynch

[Bryce Lynch]

I'm getting bits and pieces of information to explain this, but why did Spencer say that "Stephen made a very questionable Survivor decision by taking Jeremy.... and Tasha on that reward challenge."

Why was that questionable to him? I understand that everyone has their own opinions, but what did Spencer himself mean or think by that? Would appreciate it thanks.

Jeremy NEEDS to find another idol now, for my LIIIFE

I think he meant that Stephen made it obvious who was at the top of his allliance...I mean voting bloc...by choosing those 2.

I think the way he took them was worse than who he took.

I think he should have picked Jeremy first and made it clear that it was to thank Jeremy for saving him.

When asked to choose the 2nd person, he should have said, "Jeremy, I wouldn't be here without you, so I will give you the honor of choosing."

Either that, or he should have picked someone and said it was because he thought they really needed some rest and a good meal. If he had invited Abi, she might have voted for Joe. If he invited Keith, he might have thought he was higher up in the alliance and stuck with it.

Picking Tasha first and saying it was to sure up his alliance with her was about the worst thing he could do. It was bad for Tasha as well.

[Bouffe]

I agreed with most everything you posted, except the above.  The voting went like this 

 

Stephen - 4 votes

Abi - 3 votes

Joe - 2 votes

 

If Stephen had used both of his votes on Joe, it would have been

 

Stephen - 4 votes

Abi - 2 votes

Joe - 3 votes

 

And Stephen still goes home.  

 

The only way for Stephen to not go home on the first vote would be to put both votes on Abi and force a tie.  I don't think that there was any way Stephen was going to vote for Abi over Joe and, if he did, I think Stephen would have lost on the re-vote, unless he could use his advantage a second time, which is doubtful.  

 

I stand corrected. I miscounted at the end of the episode, I guess! I was convinced Joe had 3 votes. So yes, Stephen would still have gone home had he voted twice for Joe. However, I still maintain my original opinion that Stephen should have voted twice for Joe. I know they were worried about an idol, but that was a very small chance that he had one. And I agree with you, I cannot see Stephen vote Abi twice, especially not over Joe.

[ProfCrash]

I think Stephen was toast when he had to explain his advantage. I think it would be better for him to announce he was using it, say whose vote he was taking when he voted, and have the advantaged explained after the vote. Essentially, keep the power a mystery until after the votes happened. Once he announounced what it was, the anti-Stephen faction knew they had the votes to nullify the advantage. If it had not been explained until after the vote it might have changed the vote a bit.

[violet and green]

I think Stephen was toast when he had to explain his advantage. I think it would be better for him to announce he was using it, say whose vote he was taking when he voted, and have the advantaged explained after the vote. Essentially, keep the power a mystery until after the votes happened. Once he announounced what it was, the anti-Stephen faction knew they had the votes to nullify the advantage. If it had not been explained until after the vote it might have changed the vote a bit.

 

He didn't have to explain it then (if at all - though I am sure Jeff would have filled in the details). He had to say he was using his advantage before the person whose vote he was stealing voted. He could've waited a fair while before telling them. He was like an overexcited child, so thrilled he was going to be voting for Joe, 'as Joe', and he seemed to have no recall of the rules of his advantage - thereby blowing any advantage.

[ProfCrash]

Stephen said he was using the advantage before voting began. Probst told him to explain it. Stephen did and said he was taking Joe's vote. Then voting began.

[MissEwa]

I'm not a big fan of Joe, and I was hoping he'd get sent home rather than Stephen.  But I don't understand the premise (which seems to be rampant here) that winning challenges isn't "gameplay".  Aren't those games?  The central focus of each episode?  I mean, at the end people can use whatever criteria they like when voting for a winner (including "I just like so-and-so better and want her to have a million dollars"), but if they want to reward "gameplay" why wouldn't being a challenge monster qualify?  I see people complain that someone is good at strategy but has no social game, or is good socially but is not very strategic.  Why couldn't it be a knock against someone that they are good at strategy and the social game but suck at challenges?  I get the impression many people think that sounds like the ideal player.

 

It absolutely is gameplay, and a perfectly valid way to get to the end, and in some seasons - especially earlier ones - with some juries, it would absolutely get you the win and that would be perfectly valid. But I just don't think in this season, with these players, it would necessarily be enough. This is a group that seems more likely to reward good social/strategic moves and in, say, a FTC where the choices were 'I was nearly always on the bottom, had to scramble through every TC, saved myself with an idol I grabbed in the middle of a challenge while you were all RIGHT THERE and then flipped the game and got here' or 'I won seven immunity challenges and mostly went along with other people's plans', I don't think Joe would win. YMMV and I may well be wrong, of course. 

[Bouffe]

I'm not a big fan of Joe, and I was hoping he'd get sent home rather than Stephen.  But I don't understand the premise (which seems to be rampant here) that winning challenges isn't "gameplay".  Aren't those games?  The central focus of each episode?  I mean, at the end people can use whatever criteria they like when voting for a winner (including "I just like so-and-so better and want her to have a million dollars"), but if they want to reward "gameplay" why wouldn't being a challenge monster qualify?  I see people complain that someone is good at strategy but has no social game, or is good socially but is not very strategic.  Why couldn't it be a knock against someone that they are good at strategy and the social game but suck at challenges?  I get the impression many people think that sounds like the ideal player.

 

Being a challenge beast is gameplay. I've always liked players who physically dominate the game. Sucking at challenges but excelling at strategy is also gameplay, and all combos imaginable. Richard Hatch was great strategically but was not by any mean a challenge beast. Tom Westman won 5 out of the 7 individual immunities and won his season. I prefer well rounded players, but those are not the norm. Very few have been physically, strategically and socially dominating (Boston Rob comes to mind). 

Edited November 26, 2015 by Bouffe

[violet and green]

Stephen said he was using the advantage before voting began. Probst told him to explain it. Stephen did and said he was taking Joe's vote. Then voting began.

But he didn't have to. He had to state he was using it before the person whose vote he was stealing cast their vote. He did not have to announce it at the very start, before anyone got up to vote.

[KimberStormer]

It's possible that there was some technical way Stephen could have used his advantage at a different time, but I doubt he would make the mistake of not reading the instructions very carefully, and in any case I really don't think it would have changed anything.

[violet and green]

Here ya go. Dug up my recording:

 

Stephen reads aloud from his scroll: "Wait until it is your turn to vote, and then announce to Jeff that you wish to use your advantage.

 

You will then select one tribe member whose vote you will steal."

 

He jumped the gun.

[Ms Blue Jay]

It's personal preference, in my mind.  Joe seems to be naturally good at what these challenges require and seems to have more endurance, tenacity, determination to do well in them than other humans.  But that kind of bores me.  Other people might find that fascinating and worthy of a win.  The game is so complex and people's reasons for liking or preferring a player are so multifaceted, personal, and complex.  No rules for why you should appreciate one player over another.  Joe's gameplay bores me, but so does Joe as a human.  If Jeremy was winning every challenge I might love it.  If Abi was winning every challenge ditto.  All I care about is what entertains me, makes me laugh, etc.  Also, challenges are only one aspect of the game like hitting is one aspect of baseball.  We've seen how Challenge Monsters fare in this game.  Usually second place.  Ozzy, Wiglesworth, and Colby come to mind.  So why root for someone who probably won't win?

 

Also, if challenges were so important they'd cast 16 Joes.  They make the cast well rounded to see what will happen in this game with this mix of personalities.  The game is up for grabs for anybody no matter what your physical endurance or athleticism is.  Not everyone finds balances challenges so fascinating.

 

I think Joe is good at being a human socially; I don't know if he has great social game though.  It's really hard to define good social game, maybe we know it when we see it.  I feel like Joe has abilities that make people keep him around.  It's a good debate though.  I don't know if I reward it as good social game.  Spencer is showing good social game, I think.  Like I've said ad nauseum, both "Sides" of this cast like and trust Spencer implicitly.  Nobody distrusts him.  Okay; Abi does, but the editors showed a great scene of him tending to Abi as one needs to do to get her to do what you want.  Tasha was good at this too.  

Edited November 27, 2015 by Ms Blue Jay

[truthaboutluv]

In terms of Joe's challenge prowess, I thought it was very interesting that he wasn't even close in the Reward Challenge and that makes me wonder how good he would really be at challenges that aren't endurance/balance heavy. Because if you think about it, every single individual immunity challenge so far as been in that vein - balance the ball on a stick while standing on the plank, balance a ball on a round plate while holding onto ropes, stand on a small wooden thing in the water, etc. There's been no memory challenge, obstacle course, puzzle, etc. And when they had a pretty difficult challenge (frankly I think it could have been immunity challenge) reward challenge that included lots of running and more importantly memorization, he wasn't even close. 

Edited November 27, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[ghoulina]

So Abi just thought he was being way too slow to get out of there?

 

They both reached the station at the exact same time. There was like a second or two of them just kind of standing there, waiting to see what the other would do. So Stephen goes ahead and opens a box and Abi just snatches a package out and runs. But it was the wrong box, and she was gone before she could realize that Stephen didn't take the same one. It was pretty awesome.

[princelina]

In terms of Joe's challenge prowess, I thought it was very interesting that he wasn't even close in the Reward Challenge and that makes me wonder how good he would really be at challenges that aren't endurance/balance heavy. Because if you think about it, every single individual immunity challenge so far as been in that vein - balance the ball on a stick while standing on the plank, balance a ball on a round plate while holding onto ropes, stand on a small wooden thing in the water, etc. There's been no memory challenge, obstacle course, puzzle, etc. And when they had a pretty difficult challenge (frankly I think it could have been immunity challenge) reward challenge that included lots of running and more importantly memorization, he wasn't even close. 

I thought that he was SO "not close" that it made it pretty clear he was throwing it.  Which was a smart move because then he got to sit around camp with the bitter bunnies who hadn't been picked to go along, and in the end found himself in a new group voting out Stephen!

[truthaboutluv]

I guess that's one theory but seems to me that he was very much trying and just kept getting the questions wrong. 

[princelina]

Well when Jeff called him out for sucking, he laughed and said, "Thanks, Jeff" and seemed to be just lackadaisically picking at the knot of his package.  (Haha - see what I did there?  Call me Probst :)  And at the end he only had 2 discs.  I just can't believe that he is that bad or slow at anything, based on what I've seen of him from 2 seasons.

[fishcakes]

Regarding the vote splitting, in Stephen's defense, it was Jeremy who said that Joe had an idol and he was pretty insistent about it. Stephen said they were voting for Joe and Jeremy said, "he has the idol." Stephen said he didn't, Jeremy asked if Stephen was sure, Stephen said no, and then Jeremy again said that Joe has it. Then they were kind of talking over each other so I'm not sure what was said, but that's when the vote splitting plan came up. Now, why Jeremy thought Joe had an idol is a mystery to me; maybe he assumed that the one Wentworth played against Savage had been rehidden and Joe had found it, but why? Since Jeremy himself found two, one at a challenge and one in the middle of the night, more than anyone he's probably watching what other people are doing. So possibly Joe disappeared for a while and it made Jeremy suspicious, but if so, I wish we had seen that because as it is, it just looks to me like Jeremy screwed himself by being unnecessarily paranoid and being the one behind the split vote that got his closest ally voted out.

 

Even so, I don't think Jeremy is necessarily dead. This has been such a fluid season that I could see Joe and Spencer joining back up with him now that Stephen's gone since Stephen is the one they were wary of. I've pretty much given up trying to figure out who's going to do what this season, and I'm really enjoying being surprised by how things play out every week. This is the first season where I consistently have no idea who's going home, which makes every TC really fun to watch.

 

I was starting to dislike Abi less the last few weeks because she's gotten very little airtime, but, ugh, she's back. All her "me me me it's all about me all the time" was bad enough, but the Mr. Poopy Pants business shows what a trashbag she is. Even if she doesn't like Stephen and even if she can't muster up the basic human decency to feel a little compassion for someone who's clearly feeling sick and probably embarrassed about having to run off every few minutes to go to the bathroom, the least she could have done -- and I mean the very least -- is not make fun of him for it.

 

I thought the new shelter looked about the same as the old shelter, just with a better roof.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I'm sorry I can't get behind the idea of Joe even understanding that one could throw a challenge.

 

Totally agree with fishcakes about the shelter, I was all like, that's it?  Um... Sad.  And I didn't even notice a better roof.  I saw the fire burning.  LOL.

Edited November 27, 2015 by Ms Blue Jay

[truthaboutluv]

Well when Jeff called him out for sucking, he laughed and said, "Thanks, Jeff" and seemed to be just lackadaisically picking at the knot of his package.  (Haha - see what I did there?  Call me Probst :)  And at the end he only had 2 discs.  I just can't believe that he is that bad or slow at anything, based on what I've seen of him from 2 seasons.

 

I don't think it was a matter of being slow. The key aspect of the challenge was memorization. You had to remember all the details of the story while running from station to station and being faced with three options for each question, all looking fairly right. Again,  I don't think Joe had any issue getting to the stations. I just think he kept getting the questions wrong. 

[Zuleikha]

And at the end he only had 2 discs.  I just can't believe that he is that bad or slow at anything, based on what I've seen of him from 2 seasons.

I don't think we've seen anything to suggest whether or not Joe is good at retaining fact from an orally told story. It's a particular skill set. The story was cleverly designed to include mention of most of the answers so that the people really did have to remember the differences between things like whether the leader was Buddhist and the prevailing religion was Hinduism at the time or whether it was the reverse... whether rocks were floated down the river for Angkor Wat or Bayon. I think Joe is just not good at that. 

 

Fortunately for Joe, the only regular type of challenge that involves a similar skill set is the know-your-castmates challenge, which I haven't seen done in a long time. Although this would be a good season to bring that back...

 

I really wish Folklore had been an immunity challenge. It's true the IC competitions have involved way too similar a skill set. The first one that's felt significantly different was ep 11's foot one and lo and behold, Joe lost. But I don't think Folklore could have been an IC because Probst wanted to do it at night and have the fire effects.

[green]

This is important for those who think Fishbach voted himself out by splitting his votes with the advantage. The important part is that he was going home thanks to the decision to split the votes to guard against Joe's possible immunity, which absolutely would have worked had Spencer and Keith not flipped.

I think Spencer and Keith are the idiots here for not sending Joe home when they could. My guess is they both think they can beat Joe in an upcoming immunity challenge, Spencer because he has once and Keith because he almost did. However, they know for a fact that they can beat Fishback in challenges, so they should have taken out Joe now and gone after Fishback next.

My fan problem is that I like both Spencer and Fishback and I've been grumpy all season that those two couldn't trust each other and become the brilliant alliance mates they should have been.

 

I don't think Spencer over worries about whether Joe wins through to the finals or not as long as he is there too.  I think strategy will almost always trump a "natural" (gifted atheletic body someone was born with) with the jury unless some members get petty about personal revenge. 

 

Now I'm sure Spencer would rather go to the final three or two or whatever it is with the likes of Abi and Keith say or even Kimmi as a stray from the other alliance to pull along.  But Joe is not as dangerous as Stephen at this particular point in the game with Stephen's endless plotting and his "advantage" and the core alliance that was suddenly exposed for all to see.

 

If he went after Joe instead of Stephen then there would be a 4-4 tie between the two groups.  (Jeremy/Stephen/Tasha/Kimmi vs Spencer/Kelly/Keith/Abi).  Cause no way would Spencer stay as the number 5 person in Jeremy's alliance.  That could be game suicide to let that happen.  So why throw away a 5-4 advantage.  Who knows if you will ever have the numbers on your side again in the game.

 

Also Spencer probably has the closest relationship with Jeremy of the 5 so he could have a foot in both camps if something weird happens.  Especially since he would NOW be worse case number 4 and possible number 3 now with Jeremy's group.  Stephen being out benefits him either way he goes.

 

As far as Keith, he just "wants to compete", hah.  But yeah even Keith knew Kimmi was the fourth wheel on the Jeremy/Stephen/Tasha core three. 

 

So if you have five outsiders looking in on a solid four alliance (voting blocs my backside, even Tasha announced it was time for alliances) and one of them has this big, mysterious advantage then you better move in the here and now or decide which clothes you will be wearing to the jury.

 

Ooo, something I forgot to mention, I loved Stephen's little ploy with Abi at the reward challenge, opening the wrong jar for her.  Abi was hilarious slowly strolling in that challenge, too.  That was a great challenge all in all.  I suppose not, but I wonder if Spencer especially wanted to target Stephen because Stephen twice beat him by milliseconds--in this challenge, and to the buoy with the advantage?

 

I'd say zero chance of that.  Spencer isn't into emotional knee jerk reactions over petty stuff like that.  He is into his place in the game and allia...err, voting blocs.  When Jeremy gave him a straight out lie after the idol play (and his voiceover told us he knew it was a lie) and then Stephen announced he was rebuilding his alliance (not voting bloc) with Tasha; Spencer saw he wasn't in Jermy's final three and that Stephen, who was, had some powerful advantage in the game. 

 

And the fewer the numbers the more powerful that advantage would undoubtably get.  (Spencer didn't know Stephen would play his advantage at that TC beforehand is my guess).  So he acted to take out that advantage and the main plotter around camp who was now definitely not alllied with him as soon as possible.  It was a totally logical move, not an emotional move I'd say.

Edited November 27, 2015 by green

[Nashville]

So Abi just thought he was being way too slow to get out of there?

 

Purely my own personal impression, but it looked to me like:

• Stephen lifted a pot lid.
• Instead of actually reading through the question & answers and making a decision herself, Abi assumed Stephen lifted it to select what he thought was a correct answer.
• Abi figured she'd beat Stephen to it, snatched a disc from the open pot, and ran - the first time I remember her actually running in this comp, actually.  And probably laughing to herself all the way back at how she'd put one over on Stephen.

Here ya go. Dug up my recording:

 

Stephen reads aloud from his scroll: "Wait until it is your turn to vote, and then announce to Jeff that you wish to use your advantage.

 

You will then select one tribe member whose vote you will steal."

 

He jumped the gun.

 

Not necessarily; waiting until the actual moment of Stephen's turn would cost him the chance to steal a vote from anybody who was lined up to vote ahead of him.

 

 

Regarding the vote splitting, in Stephen's defense, it was Jeremy who said that Joe had an idol and he was pretty insistent about it. Stephen said they were voting for Joe and Jeremy said, "he has the idol." Stephen said he didn't, Jeremy asked if Stephen was sure, Stephen said no, and then Jeremy again said that Joe has it. Then they were kind of talking over each other so I'm not sure what was said, but that's when the vote splitting plan came up. Now, why Jeremy thought Joe had an idol is a mystery to me

I sincerely doubt Jeremy actually thought Joe did have an idol; planting the idea in other peoples' heads, however, keeps Jeremy's biggest meat shield in the game.

 

I was starting to dislike Abi less the last few weeks because she's gotten very little airtime, but, ugh, she's back. All her "me me me it's all about me all the time" was bad enough, but the Mr. Poopy Pants business shows what a trashbag she is. Even if she doesn't like Stephen and even if she can't muster up the basic human decency to feel a little compassion for someone who's clearly feeling sick and probably embarrassed about having to run off every few minutes to go to the bathroom, the least she could have done -- and I mean the very least -- is not make fun of him for it.

Much as Fishbucket grated on my nerves, I have to agree.  Throwing out the "Mr. Poopypants" bit once might have been considered a (rather tasteless) stab at humor.  Repeating it - emphatically - struck me as a bitch move.

[kikaha]

It's true the IC competitions have involved way too similar a skill set.

 

 

Disagree.  Survivor already heavily favors the strategists/social players.  Introducing more memory type challenges would slant the game even more to their benefit. 

 

Joe is spectacularly good at a remarkably wide range of challenges.  He's very strong, fast, coordinated, with superior balance: his raw physical abilities probably put him near the top of all Survivor players.  He has excellent eye/hand coordination, which makes him a threat in those challenges with plates, balls and other props the contestants must handle.  He even nearly won the last challenge, where they used their feet.  And on top of all this Joe is an outstanding puzzle solver. 

 

Mike is famous for his immunity run last season.  But Joe beat him in virtually every challenge they did together.  IMO Joe is the most rounded challenge beast ever in Survivor, and probably the best. 

[Etta Place]

I actually went back and rewatched Stephen tricking Abi into taking the wrong answer at the challenge just so I could laugh again. I prefer to remember him that way, instead of as the person who split his own votes and eliminated himself.

 

I agree with those upthread who said that Spencer would much rather deal with Joe, even at the end, than Stephen. The thing about it is, in addition to Spencer's show of gameplay being a better end-stage argument to the jury than Joe's immunity run, Spencer can count on Stephen to vote for gameplay. So if you're a strategic player, Stephen is always going to be a better jury vote than competitor.

[ShadowSixx]

Fishbach and Ciera gone in the same night is just music to my ears. Good riddance to the both of them. Didn't want either of them to win. Now he can go sit and cry about JT/Joe still being in the game. Didn't I want that to happen last week? I think so.

 

All that's left is Abi to get rid of and I'll be happy with the remaining players. 

[violet and green]

Not necessarily; waiting until the actual moment of Stephen's turn would cost him the chance to steal a vote from anybody who was lined up to vote ahead of him. 

 

No! He wasn't to wait until his turn to vote. He was to announce his intention to use his advantage before the person whose vote he was intending to steal voted. He could've used his own vote, if he was called first, and then waited for Joe to stand up to go and vote and announced he was now using his advantage, for example.

[KimberStormer]

I'd say zero chance of that.  Spencer isn't into emotional knee jerk reactions over petty stuff like that. 

 

Well, I agree more or less, but this idea that Spencer isn't into emotional knee jerk reactions is pretty much a silly story we're getting fed about Spencer the Boy Robot learning to access his emotion chip.  What is "Zero percent chance of winning the game!" but an emotional knee jerk reaction?  But you're right he wouldn't vote Stephen for such a reason--it might have been a bit sweeter to do it, though.

[NutMeg]

What a delight it was to have a double episode (I had forgotten about that) - and what a double episode it was!

 

I'm mostly going to concentrate on the second part here (yes, Ciera did her best, which was nice to see, but I'm ok with her leaving).

 

When THAT reward challenge, the first individual one, my first thought was that it was the one you didn't want to win - having to pick someone, and then someone else, and maybe more. Always messy...

 

...and lo and behold, winning that challenge turned out to be the kiss of death.

 

Back for a minute to the white or black rock challenge - those who thought they had a shot did compete, and good for them (whether it was to save his skin [Joe] or to best the golden boy, as a personal challenge or to show your worth to a potential alliance [Keith], they knew they had a shot). The others knew they didn't, and whatever they said after the fact, they had nothing to lose, and a shelter to gain. They pretended they were going for the noble choice - whithout the dramatic weather conditions, I'm sure this was designed for food or play, which could have had an ever better dynamics.

 

I love this seaaon, but as often happens it sours me on some players that I liked during their original season (Stephen). But some other players HAVE evolved in a good way, and for the first time ever I really liked Spencer these episodes.

 

I do get why between Stephen and  Joe you go for Joe: unless you're Jeremy or Tasha (and maybe Kimmi), you know that Stephen's loyalties lie not with you. Joe's, on the other hand? still up in the air and looking for a good deal. Plus, if there are times when he's not a target (likely), you want him with you rather than potentially  anyehere else.

 

And sometimes allying with a loyal immunity monster is not so bad, especially when you have HII protection - it did work for Yul, didn't it?  In addition, this season, the jury might be more open to all kinds of strategies, so who knows? Also, way better to keep a Joe who'll be grateful/loyal even when he wins immunities that a Stephen whose loyalty is not with you.

 

And somehow - and NOW it does makes sense that we never saw it - Joe must have done something right in buildings connections because other immunity winners with no connection (Ozzy in the season that Sophie won) were dead men walking the second they became targetable, despite having the potential to be used by people on the low totem pole.

 

Balance challenges: yes, we've had a lot of these, but remenber that they are the most gender neutral (without a yogi in sight, women usually get these, and who could have known Joe would still be here at this stage?), so my thinking is that they were chosen to even to field rather than to favour a contestant that could have been voted out much earlier.

 

Even if Spencer hadn't realized Stephen/Jeremy + Tasha + Kimmi was a solid block, it would still have been in his best interest to get rid of Stephen, whose game thought is the closest to his and who therefore would have been the toughest competition to distinguish yourself from if they had shared a FTC.   

 

And lastly, I love having so many  strategic players but also many other kinds of players (that can be used as pawns or that can suddenly become potential winners in their own right). I found Keith absolutely adorable this week, hated Abi again and was extatic that Joe survived without THE necklace. I'm looking forward to discovering the gameplay of the quiest players - one good thing about having Cierra and Stephen gone is that we will see more from the others.  

 

ETA: while the necklace looks particularly good on Joe for the overall "Renaissance man look", I was surprised to see that it also looks good on Spencer, who does have gold hair that nicely match the gold in the necklace.

Edited November 27, 2015 by NutMeg

[violet and green]

Oh ignore my last post! I am sleepdeprived and now contradicting the information I provided earlier, dictated by the the clue... (cough.)

 

I still think he should have reread the instructions and used his advantage better, though.

[Nashville]

Oh ignore my last post! I am sleepdeprived and now contradicting the information I provided earlier, dictated by the the clue... (cough.)

 

I still think he should have reread the instructions and used his advantage better, though.

 

No problem.  :)    A curious thing, though - unless there were extra instructions or modifiers in the parchment beyond what Stephen read out loud, it sounds like Stephen may have actually stretched the advantage further than the parameters dictated by the parchment.  Suppose it was an intentional curtailment of the advantage that it could only be applied to those players voting after Stephen in the chronological order - but by revealing the advantage prior to anyone's vote, Stephen extended the scope to all players?

If this were the case, however, the onus would be on Production to correct the error prior to the vote - which they (apparently) did not do.  Which means either:

1. Pre-Stephen chronological vote exemption was not an intent of the original advantage as printed;
2. Production didn't catch the error; or,
3. Production didn't care enough to correct the misinterpretation.

 

One remaining point of curiosity on my part, however - and this may be a question with a totally unknowable answer: I wonder how many intended votes at TC changed simply upon hearing (a) Stephen's statement of his advantage and (b) his intent to use it?

More specifically - I wonder how many TC votes originally intended for Joe or Abi might have gotten switched to Stephen, because players were afraid the advantage gave Stephen too much power?

[ToastnBacon]

Fishbach crying again.

I can't stand the guy, and I'm thinking there is a good chance of him crying in his Ponderosa video.

So glad the Survivor "Know it all" is gone.

[ProfCrash]

That weather was brutal, they all looked miserable. Stephen was sick and his feet were thrashed due to the getting up and walking a ton during a massive down pour. I have no problem with his crying. There are plenty who will tell you that I can be a hard core let them suffer bitch and for all of that, I have no problem with the crying when they are suffering. I could feel the chattering teeth while sitting on my couch at home.

 

It still does not justify Andrew's idiotic hat at tribal council.

 

I don't think Stephen played a good game. He was too fixated on Joe and Joe's alliance. He was not flexible and not adaptable. I don't think he did a good job of reading the room. He bought into the idea of making a big move as much as Ciera did. His game felt more like a game of desperation then a well thought out strategy. It is also clear that he loves the game and wanted to do well. I am glad he is gone and I hope he can be comfortable with his game and his edit.

 

I had no problem with Ciera and her game play. Voting out Woo made sense to me. I think Andrew was the next target and the early merge happened. I suspect, based on exit interviews from Andrew, that Ciera knew that Andrew and others were saying that he never should have been voted on and that she was a waste of a slot. I think she knew she was at the bottom of Bayon and that she was screwed with the big merge. Her rhetoric got old, yes they are playing their game and their game is not good for you but it doesn't mean that they are not playing. That said, watching from home, it sure looks like Kelly, Kimmi, Spencer and Keith were not playing to win. I am sure Kimmi will tell us she had a final three with Jeremy and Stephen. Kelly has said she had something with Joe. Keith is Keith and I think he is willing to keep competing and hoping to knock out Joe and win immunity idols to the finals, which was his game from BvW. Spencer would tell you that he was in a better place then Ciera thinks. Ciera needed to do something to get herself in a better place and in a way, she succeeded. Ciera would still be in the game if Jeremy had not saved Stephen. Ciera and Kelley managed to get Spencer, Stephen and Jeremy to flip the script and take out Kelly. Ciera and Kelley managed to get everyone on board with taking out Stephen, twice. So she might have been loud and it might have been annoying but she did flip folks. 

[Vicky8675309]

Ciera said in her Ponderosa video that Spencer was the force behind the Stephen blindside. 

[truthaboutluv]

Based on the editing, I didn't see either of those two situations that way.

 

Ciera and Kelley managed to get Spencer, Stephen and Jeremy to flip the script and take out Kelly.

 

 

Seemed to me the plan to get rid of Wigglesworth was Stephen's because it tied into his obsession with going after Joe. And Ciera and company were down for anything that didn't involve targeting them. Stephen was the one who who had to pitch and sell the idea to Spencer and Jeremy and convince them it made sense. Jeremy and Spencer were not swayed by anything from Ciera and Kelley as we saw because in fact a big hesitation for them with Stephen's plan was that it meant temporarily voting with and aligning with three people they did not trust at all. 

 

Ciera and Kelley managed to get everyone on board with taking out Stephen, twice. 

 

 

Again not the case from how I saw the episode. Seemed to me it was Spencer who wanted Stephen out and worked to make that happen. Tasha was still waffling about going after Stephen instead of Ciera and we saw her and Spencer talking about it. We also saw Spencer and Jeremy in a heated back and forth leading to tribal council with Spencer making the case for why it should be Stephen. Also supposedly (didn't see it myself but read it in her thread), Ciera said in an exit video that who she really wanted to go after was Jeremy and Spencer convinced her that Stephen made more sense at that time.

 

And then the second blindside of Stephen also seemed to be more Spencer again, who seemed determined to get him out from the moment Jeremy played his idol for Stephen. So I disagree that Ciera flipped anyone. Instead, what I see is proof of exactly why all her ranting was annoying. Because as I said, just because people weren't playing to her benefit and the way she wanted at that time, didn't mean they didn't understand the game or weren't playing it. Spencer this episode is a perfect example of that. Yes he laid low after the merge because considering the close calls and madness he went through leading to the merge, he needed to. He had no numbers, no solid alliance, etc. He had to bide his time and try to make inroads where he could and figure out the right moves at the right time. It doesn't mean he wasn't playing the game. 

Edited November 27, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[JudyObscure]

I think it would have been good TV if Stephen had voted last and then announced which vote he would steal. That way Jeff could have read "Joe votes Abi (or whoever.) Does not count. Joe votes Joe. Does count." etc.

[ProfCrash]

It's cool to see things differently.

 

Yes, Ciera, Kelley and Abi were very clear that they were on the bottom, which was obvious to everyone, and that they were happy to move, as a threesome, to help people who wanted to upset the apple cart. They were very clearly pitching to Kimmi, Keith, Spencer, and Kelly. Stephen bought into their pitch and talked with the three to get out Joe. They suggested Jeremy but were fine with Joe when Stephen was clearly not going for Jeremy and were fine with Kelly when Joe won immunity.

 

Spencer targeted Stephen, probably because of the move that he made and because Spencer wanted to secure his position with Jeremy, but

 

The constant harping about playing the game, making a move, realizing that there was a power alliance in control and people need to do something to change the game and improve their own position worked its way into Stephen and Spencer's head. Yes, they are both strategic players but having someone with a bullhorn yelling in your ear influenced their play. It was also key that the three stuck together the entire time that they were on the bottom. I did not see any of the three go off and offer just their vote, they were a package deal. That gave Stephen and Spencer 3 and 2 votes. Not just one, which was ideal.

 

The aggressive play, very different then the understated play of Hali, Jenn, Shirin and Joe in Worlds Apart, succeeded in pushing people into making moves that may not have been in their best interest. Stephen made the move to take out Kelly because he wanted to make a move but showed himself untrustworthy with his larger alliance. It led to him being a target. Yes, the advantage didn't help, but not telling Tasha about the vote killed his ability to work with Tasha and probably Jeremy.

 

Spencer taking out Stephen, someone who probably cannot win an immunity challenge with his feet as screwed up as they are and who was probably not going to be able to win in the final because of his social awkwardness and fixation on Joe, makes little sense. But it will qualify as a big move. Heck people on this board are thrilled that Spencer is finally playing. I was happy to see Stephen go, especially since he played the advantage, but it was the wrong move. Take out the challenge beast when you have the chance. There is no reason to make that move at that moment except that Ciera, Kelley, and Abi's chorus for the last three or four weeks worked. I am betting that Spencer was thinking that he could take out a power player and be seeing as making a move. Stephen was not a power player, he was Jeremy's lieutenant and that was it.

 

So the "Make a move, shake things up" chorus and Stephen and Spencer's desperation to do just that worked. Ciera was bounced by an idol, which no one saw coming. Otherwise Stephen is gone an episode earlier and Joe goes after losing immunity to Spencer and Ciera, Kelley and Abi are still there.

 

You don't have to be the person who selects the target to have set off the chain of events.

[ghoulina]

I actually went back and rewatched Stephen tricking Abi into taking the wrong answer at the challenge just so I could laugh again. I prefer to remember him that way, instead of as the person who split his own votes and eliminated himself.

 

Indeed. It seems Stephen's biggest downfall is thinking TOO much. Two times when he had to make snap decisions - going for the advantage and faking out Abi, he handled it very well. When he has time to ruminate over things, he ends up making a muck of things.

[truthaboutluv]

It's cool to see things differently.

 

Yes, Ciera, Kelley and Abi were very clear that they were on the bottom, which was obvious to everyone, and that they were happy to move, as a threesome, to help people who wanted to upset the apple cart. They were very clearly pitching to Kimmi, Keith, Spencer, and Kelly. Stephen bought into their pitch and talked with the three to get out Joe. They suggested Jeremy but were fine with Joe when Stephen was clearly not going for Jeremy and were fine with Kelly when Joe won immunity.

 

Spencer targeted Stephen, probably because of the move that he made and because Spencer wanted to secure his position with Jeremy, but

 

The constant harping about playing the game, making a move, realizing that there was a power alliance in control and people need to do something to change the game and improve their own position worked its way into Stephen and Spencer's head. Yes, they are both strategic players but having someone with a bullhorn yelling in your ear influenced their play. It was also key that the three stuck together the entire time that they were on the bottom. I did not see any of the three go off and offer just their vote, they were a package deal. That gave Stephen and Spencer 3 and 2 votes. Not just one, which was ideal.

 

The aggressive play, very different then the understated play of Hali, Jenn, Shirin and Joe in Worlds Apart, succeeded in pushing people into making moves that may not have been in their best interest. Stephen made the move to take out Kelly because he wanted to make a move but showed himself untrustworthy with his larger alliance. It led to him being a target. Yes, the advantage didn't help, but not telling Tasha about the vote killed his ability to work with Tasha and probably Jeremy.

 

Spencer taking out Stephen, someone who probably cannot win an immunity challenge with his feet as screwed up as they are and who was probably not going to be able to win in the final because of his social awkwardness and fixation on Joe, makes little sense. But it will qualify as a big move. Heck people on this board are thrilled that Spencer is finally playing. I was happy to see Stephen go, especially since he played the advantage, but it was the wrong move. Take out the challenge beast when you have the chance. There is no reason to make that move at that moment except that Ciera, Kelley, and Abi's chorus for the last three or four weeks worked. I am betting that Spencer was thinking that he could take out a power player and be seeing as making a move. Stephen was not a power player, he was Jeremy's lieutenant and that was it.

 

So the "Make a move, shake things up" chorus and Stephen and Spencer's desperation to do just that worked. Ciera was bounced by an idol, which no one saw coming. Otherwise Stephen is gone an episode earlier and Joe goes after losing immunity to Spencer and Ciera, Kelley and Abi are still there.

 

You don't have to be the person who selects the target to have set off the chain of events.

 

Basically I disagree but okay. This whole point seems to hinge on the belief that Ciera screaming about playing the game and the three women together at the bottom is what lit a fire under these people to see these threats or see these moves to take them and I just disagree with that. I don't believe for one minute that Stephen needed Ciera and company talking about playing the game to realize he needed to improve his position or take any move, etc. Stephen has been wanting to boot Joe since forever and the Kelly Wigglesworth move was purely for him tied to that - weakening Joe because he couldn't boot him since he won immunity again. However Kelly Wigglesworth was very tied to him.

 

Similarly I don't think it was Ciera's words that sparked Spencer going after Stephen. I think it's that Spencer saw Stephen as a threat and realized he had a good opportunity to boot him and then Jeremy thwarted that with an idol play that only confirmed to him how important Stephen was to Jeremy. And then Stephen later compounded it by exposing that he did see an alliance with Jeremy and Tasha. I cannot imagine that Spencer who has played this game before just like Ciera, needed her screaming about playing the game, to put those pieces together for himself. But again YMMV...

Edited November 27, 2015 by truthaboutluv

[Sarahsmile416]

This. I hated Tasha's whole selfish vs selfless thing about the immunity challenge, but if anyone was selfless in this situation it was Keith, who competed despite not needing or really caring about immunity, just so Joe might not win. The people who chose shelter were thinking of themselves as much as Joe was - no-one went white thinking 'hey, it's a game and I don't care but poor Ciera over there is really cold.' They chose to improve their own long-term prospects in the game with comfort. Calling out Joe for being selfish was such BS.

That said, have these people forgotten that they get to vote for the winner? They're all so concerned about getting Joe out because he might win immunities to the end and win, but I honestly don't think he would even if he managed to get there. He might have votes from Wigglesworth and Savage (depending on who he's up against and how bitter Savage is) but I get the feeling everyone else will vote on gameplay and unless he's at the end with Abi and Keith, I don't see him getting the votes. He's stopping other people winning immunity, but this whole 'if he gets to the end he'll win' thing is weird if they're all annoyed with him and his lack of gameplay, which they seem to be. Mike won immunities to get himself to the end last season but he also made actual moves and played the game. I'm not out there though so maybe his social/strategic game is better than it looks.

I agree for the most part, though I think it's clear he is playing a good social game. His strategic game is up for debate. When DH and I were watching on Wednesday and we heard him opine that if he was voted out, that was the game, or some such. This is the problem with Joe in a nutshell. He lacks a killer instinct in this game...he doesn't scramble or try to save himself for the most part, he just figures getting out is part of the game. He is not a stupid guy by any means, he knew that it was very likely Spencer and Kelley were not telling him the truth when they told him he "wasn't going home" - the problem was that even if he knew that he didn't do anything about it.

The most fight I have seen in Joe was when he defended himself for choosing to compete for immunity and when he started cursing about Wigglesworth being voted out and part of his alliance voting to do it. I'd like to see more of this Joe, I think it would benefit him as a player to have more of this passion.

[Cutty]

Indeed. It seems Stephen's biggest downfall is thinking TOO much. Two times when he had to make snap decisions - going for the advantage and faking out Abi, he handled it very well. When he has time to ruminate over things, he ends up making a muck of things.

 

He thinks Survivor strategy for a living. That definitely muddled up his gameplay. 

 

I didn't mind watching Stephen because I enjoy him so much on RHAP but he didn't play the greatest game, and likely would've been gone pre-jury if not for the first tribe swap.

[ProfCrash]

Ste[hen's Ponderosa video points to how hard this game is for him. It caused me to reassess what type of player he is and I think he is closer to the Dawn, Lisa player. The person who understands that the game requires blindsiding folks and lying but he is not really comfortable with that element. In his Ponderosa video he says that it took a long time for him to recover from his first time playing because the moves he made where out of character for him.

 

Stephen is a socially awkward person who, I think, is more of a straight shooter in life. The social element required in Survivor is tough for him. I think the strategic blindsides and the like is something that he intellectually understands and embraces but when it comes to actually pulling it off his stressful and hard for him because that is not who he is. He understands the game so he does what the game requires but it is not something he is fully comfortable with or embraces. That video made it easier for me to understand why he was so awful at his final tribal with JT. How do you defend something that your head tells you you have to do but your heart tells you is wrong?

 

That scheminess vibe he was giving off to, well everyone, is probably because he has to work hard at doing that stuff. He is not a natural bullshit artist. He wants to be Jeremy or JT, someone who people gravitate to and who seem to be able to blindside folks and people don't take offense. Maybe it is that people are more comfortable to losing to the person they expect to lose to, the good looking athletically gifted person, over the socially awkward nerd.

[Bouffe]

I agree with those upthread who said that Spencer would much rather deal with Joe, even at the end, than Stephen. The thing about it is, in addition to Spencer's show of gameplay being a better end-stage argument to the jury than Joe's immunity run, Spencer can count on Stephen to vote for gameplay. So if you're a strategic player, Stephen is always going to be a better jury vote than competitor.

 

Excellent point that I had not considered. Spencer is decent at challenges and can steal a few from Joe. He is better at strategic gameplay than Joe. He seems to also have a better social game than Joe. Pitted against Fishback, Spencer may have the edge physically but Fishback takes it strategically (perhaps only in appearance but still). Socially I don't know.

 

I think Spencer is playing a good game this time around. I think of all players, along with Jeremy, he is making use of his second chance the best. He has changed his game from paranoid, woah-is-me player to a more socially adept, more level headed player. I like it, a lot.

[peachmangosteen]

I've always found it to be a huge testament to be able to say someone is proud of themselves. I think we need more of that in society, and don't see why I should expectantly wait for an outside source to confirm that I've done a good job.

There are two definitions of "pride": someone taking positive stock in something they've done, and somebody thinking overly highly of themselves akin to a "deadly sin". I suppose it's possible Ciera falls into the latter - I haven't read her interviews - but I don't think it's wrong to say you're proud of yourself. (I also don't think it's wrong to admit you're attractive, but the way Heidi did it obviously made her sound like a twat).

 

+1.

 

I'm sure he was mortified to have diarrhea on national TV, not to mention he could barely function.

 

I don't know how mortified he was since he brought up his 'gastrointestinal distress' a few times himself. If he was so mortified by it he could've avoided saying that phrase so much. I think he even brought up how they should hashtag it. All that being said though, I couldn't be mad at Stephen's breakdown because I know if I was on Survivor sitting in the pouring rain for days with swollen feet and diarrhea I would be a damn mess, too.

 

Now, why Jeremy thought Joe had an idol is a mystery to me ...

It felt to me like Jeremy was doing that to further throw everyone off about him being the one with an idol. Which honestly I think was unnecessary and it pleases me that him doing that contributed to him losing his greatest ally.

Edited November 27, 2015 by peachmangosteen

[ProfCrash]

I think he mentioned it because he knew that it was going to air, there is no way that wasn't going to air. Let's be real. Massive down poor, he is in pain, he has to leave the shelter every 30 seconds to poop, and he has a confessional were he is crying, rocking back and forth saying he is not going to quit. He knew that was airing. So why not give it a prettier name then saying he had the runs? It fits his nerdiness. (shrugs)

 

And yeah, I don't think he wanted it to air but he knew it would. The whole naming it and hastag thing was probably more an attempt to make it into a joke and less mortifying.

 

As for the Joe having an idol, I think Jeremy knew Stephen was done in the game and that trying to keep him in was going to hurt Jeremy's game. Jeremy prevented Stephen from being voted out twice through words and a third time with the idol. Jeremy knew that the tribe was voting out Stephen. He could tip Stephen off and save him again or go with the tribe. Telling Stephen that Joe had an idol leads to the vote split. Jeremy voted for Joe but I think that he knew what was happening and did nothing to change the outcome.

[Jeffurry]

Instead of #PoopyPants, perhaps Abi-Maria should have gone with #DiarrheaVanStank.