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

[Sarahsmile416]

I think rose711 is referring to him stealing Joe's vote specifically. It felt to me like he did that only because of his OTT Joe obsession and that he thought it'd just be oh so funny if Joe voted himself out.

Well yes, but he was only doing that because Joe finally lost immunity. I wonder though had Joe won, would he have used his advantage to vote out someone else or would he have waited until Joe lost? I will say he took a lot of joy out of the whole thing which certainly bugged

[peachmangosteen]

Well yes, but he was only doing that because Joe finally lost immunity. I wonder though had Joe won, would he have used his advantage to vote out someone else or would he have waited until Joe lost? I will say he took a lot of joy out of the whole thing which certainly bugged

 

I've been wondering about that, too. Honestly I think it was kinda dumb for Stephen to use his advantage at all for this vote. He was under the impression that enough people were voting for Joe/Abi anyway so he didn't really need to use it, which further makes me believe the only reason he did was because he thought it'd be super funny if Joe ended up voting himself out. I guess he wasn't sure about Abi, but in that case he should've stolen Abi's vote.

Edited November 28, 2015 by peachmangosteen

[Oscirus]

But for someone like Ciera in this particular season she had to try to go for big moves because otherwise she was certainly going to be voted out quickly

 

.

Even when Ciera was at the bottom, she didn't go for the big move every single time because she knew better. I'll give it to Ciera, that was good rhetoric.

 

Considering the plan counted on Abi sticking with it, I doubt Spencer was really THAT calm on the inside....

 

 

It didn't really matter though. Once he heard about Stephen's power it didn't matter which way she was going to vote anyway.  Any doubts about the vote at tribal should've been assuaged as soon as he heard they were going to split the vote. 

 

I guess he wasn't sure about Abi, but in that case he should've stole Abi's vote

 

Why? He had doubts about Abi, but he knew how Joe was going to vote.

[rose711]

I'm no fan of Stephen but that was what the advantage had him do - steal a vote. What was he supposed to do, say I will use this advantage, but not steal a vote?

Well, he was gleeful about using Joe's own vote to vote Joe out and wanted to marinate in his joy. I thought that was childish. He could have taken anyone's vote (from the other alliance)but he wanted to make Joe vote himself out. I guess at the time he thought he was making good tv instead of setting himself up to be mocked by the editors.

I also thought it perfectly illustrated his fixation on getting Joe out that blinded him to his own peril, even though he got the most votes against him just days before.

Edited November 28, 2015 by rose711

[Hera]

It amazes me when people have not thought these things through. The individual rewards almost always get two people to ask. I remember in Kim's season some of her allies would get frustrated at who she asked along. You can't take your closest allies because that leaves those lower on the totem pole vulnerable to being flipped. As hard as it is, I think your closest ally should stay behind. This should have all been talked through and agreed upon in advance. And if you happen to be someone who dominates these challenges, attempt to throw one to your bestie/s so they can get reward and leave you behind. People almost always make this same mistake. They also reveal too much when it's a comp where a players tiles are smashed. Again, this should have been talked through and agreed in advance. It's a common challenge. Instead, they foolishly reveal the pecking order.

Foolishly revealing the pecking order is why I love the rope cutting challenge or when the winners of reward challenges are forced to choose people to take with them. I really don't like the reward challenges that split people up into teams—I want to see people make difficult decisions and rattle their allies. Even when players do have a plan, it often results in hurt feelings—people change their minds about who to bring at the last minute ("Take the people I want to sweet-talk into voting with me? But I'd rather go on this spa reward with my best friend in the game!"), or people understand on an intellectual level why they were left behind, but arm bummed about it because they're tired of rice and want to sleep in a bed.

 

I agree that closely allied players should have a pact not to take each other on reward. It sucks for the person who doesn't win (especially if they're not even close enough to the win it would be possible to throw the challenge to them), but you need someone making sure that the people on the reward don't plot against your alliance and someone else doing the same among the people at camp. The people that should be brought are

• players who have voted with the opposing alliance, but who may be persuaded to swing to yours,
• players in your alliance who need to be reassured that they're valued so that they don't flip, and
• players who need to be separated from the rest of the tribe, lest they rally everyone against you.

 

A lot of people feel like they have to bring people along who have done them favors in the game (reciprocating a reward or playing an idol on their behalf), but I don't think that helps players as much as they think it will. There are multiple instances of that in San Juan del Sur, where people gave up their places on reward to other people, only for those same people to vote them out as soon as possible. People help other players to advance their own games. No one's going to burn an idol on someone they want to get rid of soon, and if someone used a reward slot on you, then it's because that person wants you to work with them. Unless you have reason to believe they've changed their mind or that they fall into one of the above categories, you can probably leave them behind while you try to curry favor with other people.

 

The alliances are more fluid this season, but I don't think Stephen gained anything by taking Jeremy on reward with him. It would have been better to take Spencer instead of Jeremy and let Jeremy keep an eye on things back at camp (maybe let him complain loudly about it, so that people feel like they can approach him about working against the people who are away). I think Spencer would have been a lot less likely to flip on Stephen if he felt that he and Stephen had a connection with each other instead of being connected through Jeremy.

 

Final thought: I enjoyed watching Jeremy reassuring Spencer that he would have played and idol for him if the situation had called for it. It was such a parent moment: "I love you both equally—it's just that your brother needs more of my attention right now. If you were in his place, I would do the same thing for you."

[Haleth]

Finally got to watch and have to comment on one of the funniest Survivor moments ever... when Fishbach tricked Abi into grabbing the wrong answer. Well played, Fishbach. What wasn't well played was the secret advantage and splitting his own vote. We were so close to losing crabby, er, Abi!

Fun couple of episodes but I had to turn away at the shots of the gnarly feet. Too gross.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Haleth

[Lingo]

I understand why they keep saying voting blocs instead of alliances this season, because these have not been true alliances for the most part.  Usually, people stick with their alliance, and once they don't they have "flipped" and they don't go back to that alliance.  But this time, people will vote with someone, then not vote with them, then vote with them again.  The voting is much more fluid.  And no one seems to get their panties in a bunch over it.  

 

It is because of this fluidity in voting that I was surprised that they all stuck with the plan and still voted out Stephen after he used his advantage. I thought the main reason Stephen was the target was because he had this unknown advantage.  Now he has used it, and used it before all the others had voted, I believe, why not switch your vote to Joe?  You have a much better chance of beating Stephen in an IC than beating Joe.  I would think that Stephen stayed the target because he was obviously in an alliance, but, since we never heard anyone discuss getting rid of Jeremy, I am not so sure they cared about alliances.  

 

I have to agree with your first paragraph. I know what they mean by the "voting blocs" and so forth because it does seem much less predictable than usual. In fact I'm having trouble remembering who voted for whom in each vote because there is no set-in-stone Group A vs. Group B dynamic that I can use to label everyone. There's Jeremy/Stephen and there's Ciera/Kelley/Abi and there's a whole lot of people inbetween.

 

Your second paragraph also makes a good point: Stephen is much less of a threat once his advantage is gone. Actually, during the episode, I thought that Jeremy might try to strike a deal with Spencer and the others on the first vote, to vote out Ciera while trying to trick Stephen into wasting his advantage. Obviously, though, Stephen's loyalty was much more important to Jeremy.

 

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 do think his social/strategic game is probably better than it looks. I think people really like him. And I think there is actually a pretty good chance he could convince a majority to vote for him in the end. As for Mike, it's offtopic, but in retrospect it's a little baffling he beat Carolyn in the end because even though (or perhaps because) he was always lobbying for votes, it seems like he was really disliked out there, and maybe they voted for him only because he won so many challenges (though maybe I'm mistaking Dan's hatred for everyone's hatred).

 

But he didn't have to announce his advantage before the vote. He only had to announce it before the person whose vote he was stealing went up to vote. So he double blew his advantage.

 

I think he buried his instructions in a silly place. He really should have dug them up and reread them.

 

I remember freeze-framing on that parchment, reading those rules, and disbelieving them as written. It feels weird to me that the timing of his advantage would happen to come down to the order of people voting -- which is dependent on what? Where they sit? Jeff's whim? So the randomness of it is odd. And the way it was shown on TV, Stephen ended up voting last, which if it's based on seating doesn't make sense, since he was in the middle of the group. I think they edit the voting sequence out of order sometimes.

 

Anyway, it's all moot, as I don't think it would have mattered when Stephen announced his play.

 

Finally watched the episode online and caught the end where they show the votes:  So Stephen really, really screwed up with splitting the votes.  I mean we knew this but seeing it play out was horrendous.  He should have put both votes toward Abi and done a run off with her.  What a huge mistake!  Must hurt more being that he is such a student of the game.

 

Watching the video online at CBS was a trial in and of itself.  Sheesh!

 

I agree whole-heartedly about the CBS video player. I watch all my Survivor and TAR episodes with it and it's always a pain.

 

I don't agree with your first paragraph because I think Stephen would have lost that runoff. He was doomed as soon as they decided to throw any votes at Abi. The more I think about it, though, the more I'm confused as to what Stephen and Jeremy's plan was. The way the episode was edited, their alliance seemed to be convinced that everyone was in on the plan to vote off Joe (the vote-Stephen plan was edited as a complete surprise). And they tried to convince Joe to vote Abi. So in Stephen's mind, the vote should have went 8-Joe, 1-Abi. But he (or Jeremy) was worried Joe may have built a counter-alliance and may have an idol.

 

Now, with 9 players left in the game, if you think you have a solid voting block of 6 or more, then there's no need at all to use Stephen's advantage. Your 6-person block could vote 3-Joe and 3-Abi, and even if one of them plays an idol, you can vote the other off in a revote. Obviously you're even safer if you have 7 votes (or 8, if Abi also votes for Joe).

 

But if you think the split is 5 to 4 (in your favor), then you've got a problem if Joe uses an idol. You can't split your vote or else you lose your majority. In this very particular case, it makes sense to steal a vote AND split the votes. Then, as above, you put 3 on Joe, 3 on Abi, and the opposition puts their 3 on Stephen. Then, again, you can win a revote whether or not an idol is played.  This must have been what Stephen expected to happen.  To repeat, it would have made no sense to steal a vote if the expected split were 6-3 or better.

 

But the actual split was not 5 to 4, but 4 to 5. Now, here again, it of course makes sense to steal a vote, flipping it back to 5-4. But in this scenario there's no protection from an idol.  Obviously it doesn't make sense to split your 5 votes, because you end up with exactly what actually happened.

 

(Of course, if the split is 3 to 6 or even worse, then you're screwed no matter what.)

 

So, either Stephen screwed up (which is certainly possible), or he must have suspected exactly a 5-4 split -- which doesn't exactly fit the blindside narrative we saw, but does explain why he speculated in his farewell that exactly one person, Spencer, flipped. (Then again, this scenario requires that the flipper was supposed to vote for Joe, whereas we saw Stephen ask Spencer to vote for Abi...I suppose they changed their mind later).

 

To conclude, stealing a vote AND splitting your voting block in this situation makes sense only in a very narrow range of circumstances -- and, as usual, leaves you vulnerable to flippers. Even disregarding this particulars of this episode, it might be wiser in the general case to just steal the vote and hope no idol is played.

 

Now in real life you don't know exactly how many votes are going each way. Stephen was probably trying to have his cake and eat it too by both stealing and splitting the votes. He just must not have expected a majority of the votes going against him.

 

I have no idea if Joe has ADD, but I think this challenge was an advantage to detail oriented people. There were some trick questions. For instance, part of the story mentioned the twelfth and thirteen century, which is the 1100s and 1200s, which was an answer option. Then they also threw in the option of 13th and 14th century. I'm pretty sure Keith fell for that one, and perhaps Joe too.

 

I fell for it too!

 

.

It didn't really matter though. Once he [stephen?] heard about Stephen's power it didn't matter which way she [Abi?] was going to vote anyway.  Any doubts about the vote at tribal should've been assuaged as soon as he heard they were going to split the vote.

 

I'm not sure what you mean, but if I interpreted it correctly, you're incorrect. If Abi had voted for Joe, then it would have been a 3/3/3 split vote, and the runoff vote would have been unpredictable with both Joe and Abi's votes negated.

[Oscirus]

Which one of Spencer, Keith and Kelley do you think would switch their votes on the revote?

[Nashville]

I've been wondering about that, too. Honestly I think it was kinda dumb for Stephen to use his advantage at all for this vote. He was under the impression that enough people were voting for Joe/Abi anyway so he didn't really need to use it, which further makes me believe the only reason he did was because he thought it'd be super funny if Joe ended up voting himself out. I guess he wasn't sure about Abi, but in that case he should've stolen Abi's vote.

 

Actually, I think Stephen was under the impression (a) fear of his "advantage" was the reason he got so many votes at the previous TC, and (b) burning it now would remove that particular target from his back.

 

Well, he was gleeful about using Joe's own vote to vote Joe out and wanted to marinate in his joy. I thought that was childish. He could have taken anyone's vote (from the other alliance)but he wanted to make Joe vote himself out. I guess at the time he thought he was making good tv instead of setting himself up to be mocked by the editors.

I also thought it perfectly illustrated his fixation on getting Joe out that blinded him to his own peril, even though he got the most votes against him just days before.

 

One can't call oneself a true strategist if one cannot keep some perspective in the game to see the Big Picture.

Stephen forfeited his claim to such a title with his monomaniacal anti-Joe obsession.

So I also think it was totally appropriate for Stephen to exit the game at this point, and for Stephen's "Joe must go" tunnel vision to blind Stephen to his own peril.

[Superpole2000]

Things I loved:

- Stephen falling victim to his own hubris. "Joe votes for Joe!" I bet you thought you were being really clever.

- Ciera getting bounced. She never could see/understand her opponents' viewpoints.

- The basketball battle. It was a welcome change from the onslaught of balancing acts and sliding down a ramp challenges. 

 

Things I did not love:

- The steal-a-vote idea. I think it is grossly unfair and too much of a deviation from the 31 seasons of gameplay. Everyone should have a vote, no matter what.

- Natasha's "I put the team ahead of me!" perspective about the shelter. Had she felt threatened to be voted out or that she had a chance at winning immunity then she would have been all about the white rock. She chose the black rock because it benefit her, not because it helped everyone else. Faux-charity!

- The live posting in this thread. Come on guys! You're better than that!

Edited November 29, 2015 by Superpole2000

[jumper sage]

Superpole2000 I agree with you about the whole shelter thing.  Boo frickin hoo.  It's not like they are all in a war camp.  They can leave at any time.

[peachmangosteen]

It's not like they are all in a war camp.  They can leave at any time.

 

But when they leave they usually get an onslaught of, "You are a disgusting, worthless person for quitting this game show."

Edited November 29, 2015 by peachmangosteen

[BigRedCheese]

 

The live posting in this thread. Come on guys! You're better than that!

 

I don't come on here until after the show, but what's so terrible about that? 

[BarneySays]

I admit I have generally not found this season very interesting.  Most of the entire cast appear to have believed too much of their own hype. They all think they are the bestest EVER to participate in this show and haev gone around displaying their self-aborption.  The ugly reactions of Cass and Savage to be booted ae perfect examples.  Ciera is convinced that she's the most strategic player out there (see ya later).  Jeremy is so vain that he assumes that everyone agrees that what he wants is what's best for all.  Tasha thinks she's a big player and likes to crow when she thinks she's in a strong position, but I don't recall her ever taking any risks.  And that selfish bullshit is par for the course with her bringing up her religion.  There is no selfish in survivor.  It's cut throat.  Stephen manages to embody a perfect balance of whiny loser and self-important douchebag.  Frankly, only Wiggles, Kelly, and Keith (and Kimmi, but she's just along for the ride) seem to have their heads on straight.  The rest have been fluffed too much by Probst and the survivor machine. 

 

I have never found Jeremy interesting or impressive at this game.  He's too self-absorbed and too accustomed (it appears) to having his way simply because that's the way the world should spin.  He demonstrated why I find him unimpressive, with that utterly foolish move to save Stephen.  Stepping out of line like that ruined his chance of winning the the million.  He overrode his alliance (who had agreed on Stephen) and blindsided all of them.  That's fine, if it inures to the benefit of the group.  But here, it only benefited Stephen and sowed discord among the others.    Had he discussed his plan with Tasha and Spencer he would have been okay (assuming they were willing to go along with it).  But he was impulsive and was only thinking about himself at that moment.  We saw the predictable consequence of that decision.  He is now in a three person alliance, facing a group of at least four.  Frankly, if Kimmi can do anything other than sit around and applaud moves at tribal council, she will abandon Jeremy and sell herself as a goat. Kimmi's and Abi's stock (with Keith perhaps as well) has just risen significantly.  I'm beginning to think that the early storyline of little Spencer growing up may have been a foreboding.  It looks like he or Kelly has the best strategy of the remaining players. 

 

I don't get the "Stephen is a survivor genius" shtick.  But then again, I never find the praises heaped on the "geniuses" as earned.  Frankly, it appears to be based solely on articulation.  Stephen made one mistake after another.  He deserves a place alongside James and the other boneheads.  First, he was blindsided by nearly the entire tribe.  Granted, that could happen to anyone, but a so-called expert should be better at taking stock of people.  (He notoriously failed on this account in his first go-round.)  His response (or lack thereof) to the blindside was moronic.  First, it was foolish to be so gushing towards Jeremy at the tribal council, letting everyone know he had undying fealty to Jeremy.  More importantly, he didn't appear to be concerned about the votes he got.  He did not guage where everyone stood to determine what he needed to do to ensure his safety.  He seemed to assume that the people who had just voted against him were now going to follow his plan for the next vote.  (Jeremy was equally obtuse in this regard.)   

 

And then he made the fatal error- winning reward and being faced with a Hobson's choice.  Granted, they were all particularly desperate, but a wise player who was just almost eliminated, would have wanted to stay with the group to make sure they weren't planning on doing it again.  But that wasn't stupid enough for the mighty survivor.  He had to announce to the group that he was selecting Tasha to shore up his alliance.  He has now told the group who his top two allies are!  Stupid, stupid man. 

 

Then he let his obsession with Joe get the better of him.  He should have done the math and recognized that now was not the time.  Eliminate a non-alliance member and flush Joe's idol (if he had one).  Then wait for Joe to falter again.  Sure, it's a risk, but less of a risk than relying upon allegiance from players who just showed him they had no allegiance to him.  Nonetheless, this two hour episode has redeemed the season for me.  The more braggadicio contestants are falling by the wayside (with the exception of Wiggles), leaving people who are really trying to win, as poosed to playing survivor strategist for the cameras and crown of smartest survivor.

 

A few other points: 

- Keith is playing the Sandra game.  Might the jury reward him, as they did her, for simply hanging on until the end?

- Abi continues to be one of the most unpleasant people on TV.

- I never liked Joe, but Stephen's obsession and this episode turned me around.  I wouldn't have a problem with him winning the whole thing.

- I have also grown to like to Kelly and Spencer, the latter of whom I always thought was full of self-importance.  So, I'm fine with either of them winning, and i think it may come down to one of them.

- Kimmi seems really pleasant, but she needs to get in this game. 

- I don't think Jeremy is laying back in the challenges.  I don't recall him ever being a challenge threat and his size poses a physical problem in most of the challenges thus far.

Net net, I have finally started to enjoy this season and find myself in the enviable position of having a few players to root for, instead of hoping that the biggest asshole doesn't win. 

[Knuckles]

"if Kimmi can do anything other than sit around and applaud moves at tribal council, she will abandon Jeremy and sell herself as a goat."

 

I have been wondering what Kimmi is doing? Since she orchestrated the blindside of Monica, pretty much nothing, just riding along with Jeremy and friends.

Is there some moment when she makes a move or just waits to be voted out. Even she must see that she is low on the Jeremy/Tasha totem pole, and Stephen's exit doesn't improve her position.

Make a move, Kimmi or be gone.

[Vicky8675309]

"if Kimmi can do anything other than sit around and applaud moves at tribal council, she will abandon Jeremy and sell herself as a goat."

 

I have been wondering what Kimmi is doing? Since she orchestrated the blindside of Monica, pretty much nothing, just riding along with Jeremy and friends.

Is there some moment when she makes a move or just waits to be voted out. Even she must see that she is low on the Jeremy/Tasha totem pole, and Stephen's exit doesn't improve her position.

Make a move, Kimmi or be gone.

 

When the tribe was huddled in the shelter while Stephen, Jeremy and Tasha were on reward, Keith called Kimmi a "fool" for not seeing the tightness of that group. This was after she tried to justify Stephen's reward picks to the group. It was kind of funny--Keith's exasperation with Kimmi. I could use more Keith and Kimmi scenes since this was in the same vein as Kimmi dropping and burning the food in the fire and Keith getting annoyed with her (funny)

[Oscirus]

When the tribe was huddled in the shelter while Stephen, Jeremy and Tasha were on reward, Keith called Kimmi a "fool" for not seeing the tightness of that group

 

As opposed to joining with the alliance that just targeted her?  I know that people  want Kimmi to be the next Keyser sose or something but what reason did she have for turning on Jeremy  and Stephen last week when they were the only ones voting to put her in danger?

Kimmi selling herself as a goat would be dumb because the group already has their goat. Why do they need another one?

[slowpoked]

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.

 

Yeah, I think that was great gameplay by the women. When you're on the bottom, you just try to find ways to survive, even if it means voting off your alliance on the minority as well if it meant you're safe. I'm actually surprised it worked with Abi. I expected Abi to be selling off her vote on Ciera or Wentworth if it meant she was safe for a a few more days. But she stuck with them so good for her. And when there's a solid minority, it's easy for someone in the majority to play a blindside or flip a vote, because like you said, you're getting more than 1 vote. Maybe that's also why there's a lot of hesitation with splitting the votes this season - you have a solid three that can turn the apple cart upside down with just 2 or 3 votes from the other side.

 

It's interesting to see Ciera being thought of as the ringleader of the coven. Tasha said something to the effect that once Ciera is gone, the two would be unhinged and it would be like free-for-all for the votes of those two women. I wouldn't have thought of in a million years that Ciera will end up to be the best babysitter of Abi, but there you go.

 

Dalton Ross made an interesting point in his recap that Jeremy set off the chain of events that led to Wentworth being safe for at least on more week. That if he hadn't played the idol for Fishbach, it would not have been put back on play and Wentworth would not have found one. So I assume that the second idol that Jeremy found was Wentworth's idol put back in play? Because he only had two idols after the first one was used. 

[ljenkins782]

Well, he was gleeful about using Joe's own vote to vote Joe out and wanted to marinate in his joy. I thought that was childish. He could have taken anyone's vote (from the other alliance)but he wanted to make Joe vote himself out. I guess at the time he thought he was making good tv instead of setting himself up to be mocked by the editors.

I also thought it perfectly illustrated his fixation on getting Joe out that blinded him to his own peril, even though he got the most votes against him just days before.

I didn't interpret it that way, I thought he was marinating in the ability to actually vote for Joe for a change since he had been immune literally since day 1. Though in thinking back on it, I guess he did go to the trouble of specifying which vote was which. 

 

I guess he wasn't sure about Abi, but in that case he should've stolen Abi's vote.

 

Stealing Abi's vote would generally be the best bet, as she's been the most unpredictable voter thus far. But Joe was in the "vote Stephen" camp, wasn't he? Not that Stephen knew that, but the result would have been the same if he'd stolen Abi's vote. 

 

Overall, bad episode for Stephen (and for Jeremy, who stuck his neck out for a guy who didn't last past the next vote). Winning that reward wasn't worth it and making the speech about Tasha wasn't smart. He was safe to pick Jeremy because he obviously owed him (though always risky to leave camp together), but singling out Tasha and specifying that he needed to shore up their alliance...not sure why the group needed to hear that. 

 

Honestly, I don't get a vibe from Tasha that she was all that interested in working with Fishbach anyway, it seems like from her perspective, their "alliance" is tied solely to the fact that they're both allied to Jeremy. It's like that friend you tolerate simply because your other friend likes them and you end up spending time together by default. 

 

And the vote splitting was an odd choice too, has he explained why? I would ordinarily guess fear of an idol, but he already thought the group was splitting the votes 2 ways and wasn't anticipating the votes against himself. He spent the whole game fixated on Joe and didn't take the chance to give him 2 votes when Joe himself didn't have a vote to cast elsewhere. Very strange. 

 

Foolishly revealing the pecking order is why I love the rope cutting challenge or when the winners of reward challenges are forced to choose people to take with them. I really don't like the reward challenges that split people up into teams—I want to see people make difficult decisions and rattle their allies. Even when players do have a plan, it often results in hurt feelings—people change their minds about who to bring at the last minute ("Take the people I want to sweet-talk into voting with me? But I'd rather go on this spa reward with my best friend in the game!"), or people understand on an intellectual level why they were left behind, but arm bummed about it because they're tired of rice and want to sleep in a bed.

 

I miss the old coconut chop style challenges, they don't do those nearly enough anymore. And yeah, the group reward challenges take away that element of revealing alliances and drama causing.

 

More than one game has been torpedoed by choosing the wrong person for an individual reward (Gregg and Ian from Palau spring to mind immediately, plus the complete takedown of the Rotu 4 in season 4 after the coconut chop challenge.) 

 

Stephen of all people should really have played that one smarter, he spends half his life analyzing moves like that. It would be a different story if say, Keith, had won. 

 

 

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.

 

It would have totally negated the point of the gamble if they'd been allowed to discuss it. If only 3 people had done it, those 3 would have given up their shot at immunity and gotten absolutely nothing for it. I was actually shocked that so many people gave up their shot. Of all the people to opt to play, Keith was the best choice because he's one of the better competitors AND he's completely clueless as to strategy so it's easier to forgive him if anyone is mad that someone chose to compete. 

 

I always laugh at the Abis of the group, who act like giving up a chance to compete is such a sacrifice when they really never had a prayer. (like Will from last season who tried to trade his shot at immunity for his letter from home when he'd come in dead zero last in every challenge up to that point, lol.) 

 

As for the others, looks like Kelley Wentworth is going to go deep with that idol.  She survived a vote without anyone targeting her, there's still Joe, who could lose again and be an obvious target, plus Abi was in danger this week and could be again. If she can hang onto the idol for another vote or 2, she could sneak into the top 3. 

[slowpoked]

 

More than one game has been torpedoed by choosing the wrong person for an individual reward (Gregg and Ian from Palau spring to mind immediately, plus the complete takedown of the Rotu 4 in season 4 after the coconut chop challenge.) 

 

Not only taking the wrong people on the reward, but making the wrong decision about it too. Brenda dearly paid for that when she became too generous on Caramoan, not only taking people with her but actually giving up the reward to the other people that lost. It gave those other people who went on the reward a reason to target her soon. And her closest ally, Dawn, who Brenda initially chose for the reward but was sent back to camp instead, got insanely pissed off at her and so it didn't take much for Cochran and co. to convince her to blindside Brenda.

 

Basically, except for the food, reward wins suck.

Edited November 30, 2015 by slowpoked

[pricklypear]

Smartest line of the episode (loosely quoting): "You're blind if you don't see them three." (Keith, about Tasha, Jeremy, and Fishback)

 

Funniest exchange of the night (again, loosely quoting): 

Abi: "I think I'm the next one out of here. Joe, why don't you let me win immunity?"

Joe: "Uh, no." 

Abi: "I can't trust Joe."

Did she REALLY expect him to give up immunity for her, and does she REALLY think she's in more danger than Joe?

 

Also, this was a great episode, but not so much fun for someone who doesn't particularly like looking at feet. Keith's nasty feet, Fishback's nasty feet, the immunity challenge. *shudders*

[Nashville]

Funniest exchange of the night (again, loosely quoting): 

Abi: "I think I'm the next one out of here. Joe, why don't you let me win immunity?"

Joe: "Uh, no." 

Abi: "I can't trust Joe."

Did she REALLY expect him to give up immunity for her, and does she REALLY think she's in more danger than Joe?

 

That's the way things are supposed to work - in AbiWorld, anyway. :)

[Zuleikha]

I always laugh at the Abis of the group, who act like giving up a chance to compete is such a sacrifice when they really never had a prayer.

It looked like a fairly straightforward balance challenge. Abi very nearly won the last balance challenge. I think she was one of the most likely players to beat Joe.

[pricklypear]

Also forgot to say kudos to Spencer for keeping a poker face when Stephen was telling him about his advantage. That must have been tough to stay calm through, listening to someone basically telling you how they are going to ruin your plan (when they don't even know they are in the middle of ruining your plan).

[calico]

Finally was able to watch the episode and it was soooooo worth the wait!  I'm pretty sure I called it a couple weeks ago that Fishbach would blow up his own game thru over-complication and obsessiveness.  Hahahahaha.  Awesome.  The best part was Fish's little speech as he wrote down Joe's name.  Once.   And meanwhile Moby Dick lives to go on another immunity run.

[LadyChatts]

I admit I have generally not found this season very interesting.  Most of the entire cast appear to have believed too much of their own hype. They all think they are the bestest EVER to participate in this show and haev gone around displaying their self-aborption.

 

 

I don't think it is bad, but it is kind of dull at this point.  There's all this talk of evolution that isn't really evolution, big moves that rarely anyone is bothering to make, I'm so over the endurance challenges, I hate that they had to once again bail the Survivors out because they couldn't make an adequate shelter (or they didn't provide them with the right supplies for it), making every boot into a blindside, and I agree about everyone believing their own hype.  But I don't see a lot of game play going on.  In terms of full alumni seasons, it is better than the original AS, but I prefer HvsV.  Also prefer Micronesia, but this is better than Caramoan.  I don't know if it's because I really didn't enjoy the last two seasons so that's why I'm liking this more than I might have if it followed a really great series of seasons or what.  Not a total bust, but kind of dull.  I hope with Stephen gone things pick up. 

 

However, I also don't think the editing hasn't done this season any favors, either.

Edited December 1, 2015 by LadyChatts

[needschocolate]

Kimmi selling herself as a goat would be dumb because the group already has their goat. Why do they need another one?

 

I assume the goat you are referring to is Abi, in which case, Kimmi might be aiming to replace the goat, not be the second goat.  Kimmi seems to be a more pleasant goat to have around camp.  

[ProfCrash]

I doubt Kimmi sees herself as a goat. I think Kimmi sees herself as part of a solid four person alliance and that she was going to the final three with Jeremy. Her FTC spiel is going to be that she protected her core alliance by taking out Monica and that she worked with Jeremy, Stephen, and Tasha to keep their alliance intact. She is going to be hurt when people do not see her strong game.

 

Tyson and Rob did a mover or non-mover game in the podcast which I thought was useful. So here is mine:

 

Jeremy: Mover. He has worked to protect the people in his alliance. He talked Andrew and Joe out of taking out Stephen twice and played an idol to protect Stephen. People are bringing him information and listen to him. The last couple of votes did not go his way but that is more because people were threatened by Stephen then they were targeting Jeremy. If they were targeting Jeremy, they would have voted for him. I think he is respected by most of the folks in the game. I think he had a solid four including Kimmi, Tasha, and Stephen. He will move to bring Spencer into Stephen's spot in his final four and look to boot Spencer at the four spot.

 

Kelley: Mover. She has been in a bad place since the second vote and has managed to build enough personal relationships to remove herself from danger. She worked into a final five with Shirin, Ciera, Keith, and Joe. When the second swap happened, Joe was looking to protect Kelley. A few people have mentioned needing to take out Kelley because she is working with Joe. That relationship paid off in spades when Joe told Ciera that Kelley was the one getting votes and Kelley was able to play her idol. She allowed Ciera to stir the pot and has benefited from the mix up. Ciera put a larger target on her back then Kelley had because Ciera was so vocal. Kelley is using the aftermath to her benefit. She has a second idol and good relationships with Joe and Spencer. I think she has good relationships with Keith from the first swap and from the past two votes. I don't know that she has a strong alliance with anyone. She is working with Abi, Spencer, Keith and Joe but I think she is more comfortably fluid with who she works with then Spencer is.

 

Spencer: Mover. Spencer had been laying low after a disastrous start to the game. He was nearly booted on two occasions only to have someone else screw up enough to move the target. Shirin targeted Jeff and ended up going home instead of Spencer. Spencer should have gone home instead of Woo but Andrew screwed that up by putting the target on Ciera. He used his time to build relationships with people and work his way into the majority alliance. He used those relationships and the votes of the ostracized women to target Stephen. I see him working with Jeremy, that has been his plan since he swapped tribe.

 

Joe: Not a mover. Joe is hard to categorize. He is a challenge beast with a good social game and great work ethic. If he makes the finals, he wins. But he doesn't seem to be doing much on the strategic side and he seemed pretty resigned to going home last week. There didn't seem to be much hustle after he lost immunity. I think he was pretty surprised that Stephen went home even though he knew what the plan was. I think people will respect his challenge wins and his social game but he does seem to be lacking a strategic game.

 

Tasha: Not a Mover. Tasha played the swap well. She saw the massive crack between Jeff, Peih-Gee, Abi, and Woo and exploited it. She stroked Abi properly and was able to survive a swap that she should not have survived. Sense then she has been involved in a massive blow up with Kass, which I think left bad feelings with people who were watching. She called Joe and Keith selfish because they choose to compete for immunity instead of building the shelter. She re-iterated this point at tribal. That is not going to sit well with Joe or Keith and probably people on the jury will not be happy with such judgements. We have not seen people bringing information to Tasha or really actively including her in much planning. She was left out of the Kelly Wigglesworth blindside. She is probably aligned with Jeremy and Kimmi. I don't think she will be thrilled about Spencer joining her group.

 

Kimmi: Not a Mover. Outside of the Monica vote she has done little to nothing. She is in a tight alliance that has been at the top of the pecking order until the last few votes. She was left out of the decision to vote out Kelly Wigglesworth. She may be the person who termed Abi/Ciera/Kelley as the Witches Coven which makes me think that she did nothing to try and develop relationships with them. This means no votes for her from them at FTC if she makes it. Worse yet, she is not being approached to discuss voting out others because she has not made herself approachable. So she has no chance of influencing the game.

 

Keith: Not a mover. Keith gives some great sound bites and is good at challenges but that is about it. I don't think that he is a member of any alliance but seems to be working with Joe.

 

Abi: Not a mover. Abi will vote out anyone who votes for her and do what she needs to do to stay in the game. Ciera mentioned in her interviews how to work with Abi, stroke her, say nice things to her, make her feel loved. Screw any of that up and you are dead to her. This is amazingly crappy game play. Kimmi and Keith are not doing much but they are not seen as high maintenance. Abi has napalmed bridges. She is a number working with Kelley but she doesn't seem to trust Kelley and I suspect that the only way Abi sees the final is as a goat. I am not sure she even sees the final as a goat because she is just such a pain in the ass and people don't want to deal with her.

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

 

Survivor Presents A Double Dose Of Double-Crossing
Inclement weather and a smug host rubbing it in their faces make things miserable for the Survivors, but one in particular is having an extra-crappy time out there.

[Lamb18]

Except that they've been friends, and allies, since the beginning of the merge. I could easily see Abi trying to help because she thinks that's what friends so:

 

Wentworth successfully "drops" her necklace on the ground.

Wentworth: Hey Abi, I dropped my necklace, I'm just gonna go under the shelter to find it.

Abi: Gosh, that's so awful. Here, let me help you...

Wentworth: No, really. I can manage. Just continue on with your coffee.

Abi: No, I'll help. Girl, it's hard to find a necklace in the sand, and you have to crawl underneath!

Wentworth: No really! I'll do this on my own!!!

Abi: WHY DON'T YOU WANT MY HELP??? What's going on here Kelley? Are you ok? Are you hiding something from me?

 

Abi is probably the only person on that island who can easily turn a polite rejection of assistance into paranoia.

Abi could add: "After all, I know how hard it is to find a bracelet in a purse."

[Mabinogia]

It was much easier the way Kelley did it, and if someone happened on her crawling out from under, then she could pull the dropped my necklace thing, but if no one did, then no one ever need know. I'm an overly paranoid person. If I were Abi I wouldn't let Kelley go crawling around down there herself. The production crew were just there building, an idol had just been used so a new one was likely to be put in play and Kelley wants to go snooping around somewhere odd all on her own? Nope, wouldn't be happening on my watch. I'd be all nice as pie and offer to help and when she refused, I'd crawl under there anyway. How's she gonna stop me?

 

In Survivor, it pays to never leave someone on their own. EVER! Not even to go potty. lol (which is one of the million reasons I would never go on the show).

[kikaha]

Suppose Abi had gone under the new shelter and found the idol.  Could she keep it?  I'm guessing from what Probst said earlier about Jeremy's second idol, the answer is no: these idols are only for the person who finds the clue.  AFAIK, this is the first season Survivor has ever done that. 

[LadyChatts]

Suppose Abi had gone under the new shelter and found the idol.  Could she keep it?  I'm guessing from what Probst said earlier about Jeremy's second idol, the answer is no: these idols are only for the person who finds the clue.  AFAIK, this is the first season Survivor has ever done that. 

 

Which makes me wonder why?  Seems kind of unfair if someone else finds it but only the person with the clue can keep it.  Frankly, I think it is more exciting and fun to watch when someone has a clue or is obviously looking for the idol, and people go crazy trying to follow them and find it before they do.  Cagayan's idol hunt is one of my favorites.

Edited December 2, 2015 by LadyChatts

[green]

Suppose Abi had gone under the new shelter and found the idol.  Could she keep it?  I'm guessing from what Probst said earlier about Jeremy's second idol, the answer is no: these idols are only for the person who finds the clue.  AFAIK, this is the first season Survivor has ever done that. 

 

I think you are mixing that up with the fact the idol wouldn't appear in a challenge until the idol clue was found.  That activated the placing of same.  And since it was a big deal to try and grab them with stealth I assume if someone else also spotted the idol and beat Jeremy to it it would have been theirs.

 

And the one Kelly got was in camp so definitely open to anyone who found it.  No different than any other idol in the past where people could find idol clues but everyone could look for the idol without one and claim it if they came across it.  Even at times following someone who they thought had a clue and hoping to outrace them to the idol when the clue holder lead them near it.

Edited December 2, 2015 by green

[KimberStormer]

I think you are mixing that up with the fact the idol wouldn't appear in a challenge until the idol clue was found.  That activated the placing of same.  And since it was a big deal to try and grab them with stealth I assume if someone else also spotted the idol and beat Jeremy to it it would have been theirs.

 

And the one Kelly got was in camp so definitely open to anyone who found it.  No different than any other idol in the past where people could find idol clues but everyone could look for the idol without one and claim it if they came across it.  Even at times following someone who they thought had a clue and hoping to outrace them to the idol when the clue holder lead them near it.

 

Probst actually said nobody but Jeremy could take the idol he got in the woods.  The challenge was supposed to be in getting it without anyone knowing, not getting it before anyone else.  I also feel I must assume, until I hear otherwise, that nobody but the clue-finder could take the idol Kelley found under the shelter.  I too think this is bizarre, but I can imagine some reasons, like how Jeff said long ago they were working to eliminate the "Russell Factor" of people searching for idols without clues, and even the mystifying (to me) outrage over Woo "stealing" the clue from Spencer in Cagayan.

[LadyChatts]

Probst actually said nobody but Jeremy could take the idol he got in the woods.  The challenge was supposed to be in getting it without anyone knowing, not getting it before anyone else.  I also feel I must assume, until I hear otherwise, that nobody but the clue-finder could take the idol Kelley found under the shelter.  I too think this is bizarre, but I can imagine some reasons, like how Jeff said long ago they were working to eliminate the "Russell Factor" of people searching for idols without clues, and even the mystifying (to me) outrage over Woo "stealing" the clue from Spencer in Cagayan.

 

I don't understand why though.  Who cares if someone stumbles across an idol without a clue or not.  It should be finders keepers.  And if they think by doing that it will eliminate people thinking certain contestants are getting help, they are wrong.  I never did get the outrage of Woo stealing Spencer's clue.  Spencer was an idiot for leaving it unattended.  Kass was an idiot for not paying attention to Spencer when she was sent to baby sit him while the others looked.

 

Last season, Joe found the clue, shared it with Tyler, who stupidly shared it with Mike, who then found it.  He didn't technically have the clue, but he still got to keep it and use.  If he found it, should he have been forced to hand it over to Joe?  It may lead to less people looking if they think they won't be entitled to the idol without a clue anymore.  Especially since people will now be looking at challenges.  I don't know, to me this might lead the idol play down a boring and bad slope.

[Oscirus]

From the way Jeff said it, I gathered that he meant that nobody was going to find the idol unless the clue holder told them where it was. Only two people in the game even knew there were HIIs at challenges. For Jeremy's second idol, it was merely a matter of planting the idol when Jeremy went to get it. As for Kelley's, I seriously doubt that anybody would've thought to look underneath the shelter unless she told them about it.

[plurie]

I agree that closely allied players should have a pact not to take each other on reward. It sucks for the person who doesn't win (especially if they're not even close enough to the win it would be possible to throw the challenge to them), but you need someone making sure that the people on the reward don't plot against your alliance and someone else doing the same among the people at camp. The people that should be brought are

• players who have voted with the opposing alliance, but who may be persuaded to swing to yours,
• players in your alliance who need to be reassured that they're valued so that they don't flip, and
• players who need to be separated from the rest of the tribe, lest they rally everyone against you.

 

A lot of people feel like they have to bring people along who have done them favors in the game (reciprocating a reward or playing an idol on their behalf), but I don't think that helps players as much as they think it will. There are multiple instances of that in San Juan del Sur, where people gave up their places on reward to other people, only for those same people to vote them out as soon as possible. People help other players to advance their own games. No one's going to burn an idol on someone they want to get rid of soon, and if someone used a reward slot on you, then it's because that person wants you to work with them. Unless you have reason to believe they've changed their mind or that they fall into one of the above categories, you can probably leave them behind while you try to curry favor with other people.

 

I totally agree. You should NEVER take your closest allies on a reward. You leave them behind in camp so they can keep the others in line. You either take people who you're trying to flip, or people who could flip others in your absence. And you should have discussed this within your alliance well before any challenges.

[Guest]

I don't understand why though.  Who cares if someone stumbles across an idol without a clue or not.  It should be finders keepers. 

I think the 'why' is the same as for all their decisions-- they thought it'd be better tv this way.  I agree.  I like this new twist.  The other players aren't excluded, they can find the clues.  But once a clue is found, it effectively invokes a mini-challenge for the clue finder.  Letting non-clue-finders step in and screw up that mini-challenge would be annoying to me, like if they let non-reward winners go eat the food or ride in the helicopters because they got to it first (without winning the challenge).  

[kikaha]

I think the idols should be open game for everyone.  Imagine the uproar if someone other than the clue-finder discovers the idol, and is forbidden from taking it. In that case, would the clue holder still be able to get the idol, or would it go off limits? 

[Guest]

I don't know why there'd be an uproar.  A lot of things are off limits to them out there-- idols in peoples' bags, crew tents, going outside their boundaries.  They're pretty much caged animals held to the rules of the game.  You mean audience uproar?  I don't think they'd show us people going into off limits things.  They don't now.  

[kikaha]

Winston, yes, but those rules are all spelled out to everyone ahead of time.  The players know them.  I'm picturing someone stumbling across an HII this season -- an eruption of joy and euphoria, like we always see when someone finds an idol -- only to have production pull the rug out from under them.  To quote Abi, "Debbie Downer." 

 

Unlikely to happen, just kind of interesting to speculate. 

[Mabinogia]

Imagine the uproar if someone other than the clue-finder discovers the idol, and is forbidden from taking it. In that case, would the clue holder still be able to get the idol, or would it go off limits?

 

That's what I'm curious about. Can someone find the Idol and move it so the clue person can't find it? That would be kind of funny. If they find it, does production slap their wrist and put it back? That's just stupid. Besides, if just one person is hunting for an Idol won't it be kind of obvious who might have an idol? I like the paranoia of not knowing who could possible have one. It could be anyone.

 

IDK it just seems like a stupid rule to me. If they want people  to stop hunting for the Idols, whatever, now  they are going to end up with people fighting each other to get the clues.

 

Give everyone a piece of a clue, see who works together and who tries to find the Idol on their own. Make it impossible to find without a clue, so no more looking around at all the very obviously placed rocks or holes in trees. But saying only someone with a clue can take an idol seems silly to me.

[Guest]

In the case of Jeremy's idol that was in a spot none of them would be after dark and lit by a lantern, I assume that lantern was lit when Jeremy's cameraman signaled the production person out there to light the lantern because Jeremy was coming.  So anyone else would never find that one.  

 

Kelley's under the shelter is tougher.  Maybe it wasn't there until Kelley found the clue.  So anyone who got the idea to search the new shelter would have already done so and had no reason to look again.  

[slowpoked]

Winston, yes, but those rules are all spelled out to everyone ahead of time.  The players know them.  I'm picturing someone stumbling across an HII this season -- an eruption of joy and euphoria, like we always see when someone finds an idol -- only to have production pull the rug out from under them.  To quote Abi, "Debbie Downer." 

 

Unlikely to happen, just kind of interesting to speculate. 

And Probst has said they don't put it in play unless someone has found the clue right?

 

So the second idol that Kelley found, it was only put in place after she found the clue? It wasn't just there under the shelter since the beginning. 

 

It's interesting to think about it. Because say someone accidentally found or stumbled upon an idol that was already spoken for, or was only exclusive to the person who found the clue - what would production say: "Hey, that's great, but you can't take it, someone else already has it."? Then that person will go around camp telling everyone that someone has an idol, now they just have to figure out who. 

 

Both Ciera and Stephen's exits, and the previous exits too, have mentioned Joe frantically looking for an idol whenever he can. Someone even said he practically turned the camp upside down looking for an idol. Obviously, he wouldn't find one because only the clue is hidden, not an idol. Maybe that's why only two people have successfully found the idols this season (Kelley's second one was more luck, I guess). Everyone was looking for the idol itself, but Jeremy knew to only look for a clue. 

[Guest]

The clues look just like many of the idols, though-- a little brown wrapped packet.  

 

They had hoped there'd be some fake idols this season due to them making them all look different.  I hope that happens.  Fake idols are fun.  

[green]

I still think Kelly's second idol is just your usual old school idol.  The clue was in the reward challenge pot that someone was guaranteed to find so that means the idol was being hidden in camp during that challenge.  Because it was guaranteed someone would come across it, it isn't an individual Kelly-only idol if she can find it.  It's jus tyour typical helping clue we have seen for seasons on the show.  Anyone seaching around and checking out the structure itself, and they have hidden idols ther in the past, could have grabed.

 

I'm still not sure that the other earlier idols were only for the clue finder either.  The wording seemed up to interpretation and didn't say straight out one way or the other.  More that the finding of the clue activated the placing of the idol.  And since this had never been done before (hiding an idol in a challenge) it almost guaranteed the clue finder was the only person that would "find" it.

[slowpoked]

I'm still not sure that the other earlier idols were only for the clue finder either.  The wording seemed up to interpretation and didn't say straight out one way or the other.  More that the finding of the clue activated the placing of the idol.  And since this had never been done before (hiding an idol in a challenge) it almost guaranteed the clue finder was the only person that would "find" it.

That's true. Probst specifcally said (during Kelly's first idol) that the other team participating in the challenge did not have an idol planted in the raft because no one among that tribe was able to find a clue. So it's either Kelley gets it, or no one else gets it. And since this is the first season of them doing that, no one would think of looking for idols right in the middle of challenges. It would be interesting to see how future players (starting S33) approach this new info. 

 

I wonder if there were idol clues for every challenge this season. Jeremy mentioned being more attentive during challenges after he found his idol to see if anyone else was doing the same. 

[BigRedCheese]

 

I'm still not sure that the other earlier idols were only for the clue finder either.

 

That was confirmed by Probst, and I think Kelly's was probably under those rules too, those earlier clues weren't meant specifically for Jeremy and Kelley. Of course, this is Survivor, so if it makes good tv, they're not afraid to overlook the rules, so who knows.

[princelina]

I don't understand why though.  Who cares if someone stumbles across an idol without a clue or not.  It should be finders keepers.  And if they think by doing that it will eliminate people thinking certain contestants are getting help, they are wrong.  I never did get the outrage of Woo stealing Spencer's clue.  Spencer was an idiot for leaving it unattended.  Kass was an idiot for not paying attention to Spencer when she was sent to baby sit him while the others looked.

 

Last season, Joe found the clue, shared it with Tyler, who stupidly shared it with Mike, who then found it.  He didn't technically have the clue, but he still got to keep it and use.  If he found it, should he have been forced to hand it over to Joe?  It may lead to less people looking if they think they won't be entitled to the idol without a clue anymore.  Especially since people will now be looking at challenges.  I don't know, to me this might lead the idol play down a boring and bad slope.

IMO the producers just do new "idol rules" each season, but some of them must be left open to interpretation.  In the case of Woo/Spencer - 

 

Spencer had clearly left his pants unattended, and while those of us watching were annoyed at Woo's pants-peeking, he DID do something allowed by the game. The fact that it was seen by viewers as "sneaky" or "mean" or whatever didn't mean it was not allowed.  

 

In this season, the fact that they have stated that no idols were shown until someone found a clue doesn't, to me, mean that if someone found an idol without the clue that would make it off-limits -- for example, if someone had noticed the idol dropping off the side of the thing where Kelly Went. found it before she did, then - to me, that person found the idol and KWent. was out of luck!  At which point the producers would have had to scramble.  I'm sure they were counting on that not happening - in which case they are right.  Which makes their jobs easier.