S33: Hannah Shapiro

[peachmangosteen]

I was really hoping she was about to pull off an Australian Survivor Kristy, but alas.

She completely outperformed Adam at FTC imo. But, she's a nerdy woman while Adam is a nerdy man with a dying mother and the jury had at least 2 men who were not gonna let themselves get beat by a woman (or a better looking man than them), so she never had a chance really.

I'm with whoever brought up that they hope she gets asked if she pushed back on Chris' completely unfounded assertion that Adam convinced Ken to vote out David. That was so absurd and it drove me nuts that no one called that out besides Ken halfheartedly defending himself.

Edited December 15, 2016 by peachmangosteen

[gator12]

Outperforming others in the FTC means nothing if no one in the jury respect your game. 

I didn't think she outperformed anyone 

Edited December 15, 2016 by gator12

[peachmangosteen]

Like I said in the ep thread, it's hard out there for a woman! Adam in no way, shape, or form played a subjectively better game than Hannah, so for him to get a unanimous vote while Hannah gets disrespected by the jury is just absurd.

Someone said in the ep thread that's it's not even that they think Hannah should have won, it's just that Adam really didn't earn a unanimous win/Hannah didn't earn no votes and zero respect based on gameplay. 

I think Adam and Hannah both played an OK- good game. Adam made much bigger blunders than Hannah though imo and honestly without Hannah I don't think would've made it as far as he did. But that could be editing.

[thehepburn]

Noone said that Survivor was fair. Hannah got into whatever power later on bc she was seen as an annoying AF goat from early on. Yeah, part of it is bc she is a woman but part of it was bc she is young, spastic, annoying AF, and chose a manner of playing that does not get rewarded the mil. 

[Rachel RSL]

I don't think Hannah was ever dragged along because people thought she was a goat. She strategically aligned herself with people and was involved in voting discussions before almost every TC. Like I said earlier in this thread, at one point, Adam said he had to start making moves because, up to that point, Hannah had been running the show.  So, while the people outside her alliance like Brett or Chris, etc. might think she's a goat, the people who worked with her know that she was very strategic. Sadly, it all comes down to the perception of the jury. And I 100% agree that Hannah didn't get the credit she deserved because she's a woman. She gave better answers than Adam, she played a stronger strategic game than Adam IMO (it was her who got him that far in the game, not the other way around) but the jury was predisposed to give Adam credit for things Hannah did and nothing will ever convince me that it wasn't because she's a woman and he's a man.

[thehepburn]

Perception is reality, esp in Survivor. Bret called her a goat. Zeke called her a goat. She was a goat in most of the cast's eyes.

[Rachel RSL]

Right. Which is exactly what I just said.

[gator12]

I don't think Hannah is the reason why Adam made it far in the game. Adam made it far b/c when Zeke and David was going head to head they weren't playing attention to Adam. They had bigger fish to fried which was each other. He was never a target except for that one that and at that time it was more important to get rid of Jay's allies. Hannah twice on the other hand, both side though of her as expandable when they thought the bigger fish had an idol at play

And base on Jessica juror talk before FTC, sounds like Hannah made a lot of blunders we just wasn't shown it.

Edited December 18, 2016 by gator12

[gator12]

Also making moves means nothing if the jurors look at it has a dumb move, better to read the room correctly, try to make big move and fail, hope for the best that you make it to the end and wins. 

Based on the jury speaks videos, she wasn't going to get any votes at the FTC before that even started. 

[LadyChatts]

I'm sticking with the theory that they wouldn't give the nerdy girl who was neurotic at the beginning of the season, and who openly owned her moves, the win.  Maybe the next Hannah or Aubry will have a sob story and the jury won't have a choice.

Listening to Hannah at the FTC trying to explain her Bret/Sunday votes, it clicked to me (finally) that it really wasn't a bad idea.  Looking at it this way, she votes David off instead of Sunday.  That leaves a final 6 of Ken/Bret/Jay/Adam/Sunday/Hannah.  So let's say they are still successful at getting Jay out in 6th.  Bret/Sunday I don't believe would have ever voted against each other.  We'll say Ken still wins F5 immunity.  Adam, I believe would have voted with Bret/Sunday, and gotten rid of Hannah.  Adam no doubt wanted the easiest path possible to the win.  He thought Ken and Hannah were perfect goats, but the better goats would have been Bret/Sunday.  In a Bret/Adam/Sunday final 3, Adam still likely wins (though the mom story brought in, I wouldn't be surprised if at least Chris voted against him and threw a vote to Bret).  So he still wins, just not unanimously.  Hannah may have had her blunders, but I have a deeper respect for the game she played.  I truly hope she gets another chance to return.  

ETA: one of Hannah's exit interviews.  She answers the question about Chris praising Adam for the Ken move.

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/12/15/survivor-millennials-vs-gen-x-hannah-shapiro 

Quote

We saw, during the final tribal, Chris giving Adam the credit for convincing Ken to flip on David. He called it the move of the game, actually. And, on the show, it looked like you were given that task of getting him to flip, so what was your reaction when Chris praised Adam for that?
I’m not shocked that Adam was getting a bit of credit for, not just that move, but for a few of my moves. Adam was much better at showing his cards a bit more at previous Tribals. I know, with Chris specifically, in some of his exit press he was like, “Hannah’s just goofy and silly,” and that’s what I was leading with and I think, again, it’s a perception thing. I think that Chris was going to have a hard time believing what I was doing if his perception of me wasn’t as a smart, strategic player.

Edited December 15, 2016 by LadyChatts

[gator12]

22 minutes ago, kikaha said:

Hannah showed how badly she misjudged the jury and her own play: she thought she had a good shot to beat Adam, yet lost 10-0 to him.  On top of which, she proudly voted out the only two people she had a realistic chance to beat. 

Another one of Hannah mistake during the FTC, she claim/imply that she was the kingpin. Not with Zeke and David sitting in the jury. She might have well have call the jury dumb and delusional when every person there was calling both Zeke and David the mastermind at one point during those 39 days.

Also,  getting rid of Sunday and Jay at 7 and 6 fine. She had the perfect no blood on her hand excuse to get rid of David at five. Adam mistakenly told her about the idol. Her mistake, ran and tell that to David and Ken. Let Bret and Adam vote out David, while you, David and Ken vote out Adam like the original plan. Adam played his idol and Ken is non the wiser. Get rid of Adam at 4, finale 3 with Ken who would get a vote from Jessica and Bret who did nothing wasn't going to win. Hannah would have won if she was sitting next to Ken and Bret.

Edited December 17, 2016 by gator12

[peachmangosteen]

14 hours ago, gator12 said:

Hannah would have won if she was sitting next to Ken and Bret.

I'm not so sure. If you believe some of the jury Hannah (and Ken) couldn't have beaten anyone. Which is just sad really, but for some reason the jury in general just refused to give Hannah any respect. And no I don't think it really had fuck all to do with anything Hannah actually did.

I loved how Hannah played FTC. Like I've said before, it was reminiscent of Australian Survivor Kristy's FTC performance, which is one of my favorite FTC performances ever. But I do agree that in this particular case with these particular people it was just about the worst way to play FTC. IMO she wasn't going to win no matter what she did, especially once Adam started talking about his mom, but who knows maybe she could've gotten one vote if she'd gone a different route.

[gator12]

Adam won before he talk about his mom, I watch the jury speak videos where they all talk about who they were going to vote before the FTC. Contestant have lost at the FTC with as much a compelling sob story as Adam and yet no one voted to gave a million dollars. If people don't respect your game they won't vote for you. If you say you were the kingpin and no one saw that, it doesn't matter if you explain it well, they won't believe you. Especially when the two kingpin was sitting in the jury. You are not the kingpin with David and Zeke are there.

If you see the jury being dumbfounded that Sunday was voted out, don't try to make it worse for yourself by voting out Bret before David. If you see the jury nodding along with Adam when he call the Bret and Sunday move dumb, don't try to defend it, go another way, admit it was a mistake and try to BS your way into how it was a growing experience maybe she might have gotten some votes. Jury love that, instead of my game was flawless, I'm the real Kingpin and the version of I'm a real boy. If one doesn't know that they have to play to the jury than the deserve to lose, simple as that.

No one wins survivor because of sob story, that a disservice to the people on the jury. Jeremy didn't win b/c of a sob story. And Ken would have gotten a vote b/c he had a sob story too. 

[gator12]

At the end of the day, Hannah was always playing for second or third place when she didn't take out David, Jay and Adam out. She just didn't know it but like Adam said to Jay and David, coming in second to sixth place is the same thing, he was playing for the win and that why they needed to go. And he had a good social game and understood how to play to the jury. The two most important part of survivor, social games and jury management, the other stuff means shit once one get to the FTC.

[simplyme]

Actually, I fully believe the Sunday and Bret votes were defensible... just not by the nerdy, neurotic, giggling girl who talks too much and has panic attacks. The social component is the issue for Hannah imo.

[LadyChatts]

2 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

I'm not so sure. If you believe some of the jury Hannah (and Ken) couldn't have beaten anyone. Which is just sad really, but for some reason the jury in general just refused to give Hannah any respect. And no I don't think it really had fuck all to do with anything Hannah actually did.

I loved how Hannah played FTC. Like I've said before, it was reminiscent of Australian Survivor Kristy's FTC performance, which is one of my favorite FTC performances ever. But I do agree that in this particular case with these particular people it was just about the worst way to play FTC. IMO she wasn't going to win no matter what she did, especially once Adam started talking about his mom, but who knows maybe she could've gotten one vote if she'd gone a different route.

Which to me is pretty pathetic that the jury would have voted for Sunday or Bret over her.  Neither of those two had any sort of game play whatsoever.  So it goes back to my original thinking, that they just couldn't stand the thought that the neurotic nerdy girl beat them all to make it to the end.  In listening to Hannah's FTC and defense of her moves, as well as reading some of her exit interviews, I think she made an excellent case why she made the moves when she did.  And she said it benefited her game.  I know it's still an interesting concept to some people playing this game, but it seems lost on jurors when people actually say 'this move benefited me, I'm playing for me, and that's why I did it.  Otherwise I would have been voted off next.'  In addition, we've had so many seasons of worthless goats being dragged to the end, it was somewhat refreshing this time around that some of the threats were actually kept around over the goats.  So maybe that's a new concept as well that jurors will have to get used to.  Which would be great, because I'd love to see people realize they have to play the game, not get dragged through in an alliance.

[gator12]

Well the social part is the biggest part of Survivor, if they had bigger social game than Hannah than they play a better game than Hannah. Like I said if you can't get the social game right than strategy mean next to nothing in Survivor.  David was neurotic but he was able to bond with people. Hannah couldn't, Ken who isn't neurotic couldn't. That probably why this cast look at them as the biggest goats to ever goat.  And if your biggest claim to playing the games is being the Kingpin while Zeke and David are there, than you have no case

1 hour ago, simplyme said:

Actually, I fully believe the Sunday and Bret votes were defensible... just not by the nerdy, neurotic, giggling girl who talks too much and has panic attacks. The social component is the issue for Hannah imo.

She might have gotten Sunday vote if she didn't tell Sunday that Sunday was a goat and I need to get rid of you b/c I want to take that goat place.

She might have gotten Zekes vote if she didn't screw that up socially when Zeke was voted off.

[Sarahsmile416]

3 hours ago, gator12 said:

Well the social part is the biggest part of Survivor, if they had bigger social game than Hannah than they play a better game than Hannah. Like I said if you can't get the social game right than strategy mean next to nothing in Survivor.  David was neurotic but he was able to bond with people. Hannah couldn't, Ken who isn't neurotic couldn't. That probably why this cast look at them as the biggest goats to ever goat.  And if your biggest claim to playing the games is being the Kingpin while Zeke and David are there, than you have no case

She might have gotten Sunday vote if she didn't tell Sunday that Sunday was a goat and I need to get rid of you b/c I want to take that goat place.

She might have gotten Zekes vote if she didn't screw that up socially when Zeke was voted off.

I think the problem wasn't that Hannah and Ken didn't bond with people, but more that they didn't bond with enough people. Ken had a very tight bond with both Jess and David (and the rest of his early alliance), but never was able to bond with anyone else as much as he bonded with them. Although it does seem from exit interviews that he seemed fairly close to Hannah and Adam.

Hannah, OTOH, seemed to have a bond with Ken and David but that was really it. Though she talked with a lot of people (more than Ken probably), I think she didn't develop close relationships with any of them for whatever reason. 

[peachmangosteen]

27 minutes ago, Sarahsmile416 said:

Though she talked with a lot of people (more than Ken probably), I think she didn't develop close relationships with any of them for whatever reason. 

I was just reading Hannah's TVGuide interview and she actually believes that the fact that she had such deep bonds with people is what hurt her:

Quote

 I think part of my problem in the game was I built really deep relationships with people, and I think more than anyone, people felt very hurt by me. I got this a few times. 

And I do remember a few people talking about feeling close to her. Sunday, Ken, Adam, Will. And we know from extra vids that her and Michelle were pretty bonded.

However, I don't really think that had much to do with her losing. I just think ultimately everyone gave Adam more credit/respect for his game than they did Hannah. I'm still not really sure why that is. 

And speaking of that TVGuide interview, Hannah actually won their viewer voted poll for "Best TV Performance of 2016," which is awesome. 

Edited December 17, 2016 by peachmangosteen

[MissEwa]

14 minutes ago, Sarahsmile416 said:

Hannah, OTOH, seemed to have a bond with Ken and David but that was really it. Though she talked with a lot of people (more than Ken probably), I think she didn't develop close relationships with any of them for whatever reason. 

Curiously, Hannah's exit interviews suggest the opposite - that she did bond with people and that's why they were more upset when she voted them out. She's got a pretty good view of her own game, I thought (and some of the potential gender issues involved). 

http://parade.com/532281/joshwigler/survivor-hannah-shapiro/

http://my.xfinity.com/blogs/tv/2016/12/15/survivor-millennials-vs-gen-x-finalist-hannah-thought-strong-woman-like-jessica-get-targeted/

And funny...

Holmes: Did you think your objectification of men was going to help you with the jury?
Shapiro: I think it helps me every day.

ETA. snap @peachmangosteen 

Edited December 17, 2016 by MissEwa

[peachmangosteen]

13 minutes ago, MissEwa said:

Holmes: Did you think your objectification of men was going to help you with the jury?
Shapiro: I think it helps me every day.

I love her!

[LadyChatts]

29 minutes ago, Sarahsmile416 said:

I think the problem wasn't that Hannah and Ken didn't bond with people, but more that they didn't bond with enough people. Ken had a very tight bond with both Jess and David (and the rest of his early alliance), but never was able to bond with anyone else as much as he bonded with them. Although it does seem from exit interviews that he seemed fairly close to Hannah and Adam.

Hannah, OTOH, seemed to have a bond with Ken and David but that was really it. Though she talked with a lot of people (more than Ken probably), I think she didn't develop close relationships with any of them for whatever reason. 

In Ken's case, I don't know if he was ever given a chance initially.  Bret/Chris/Sunday, and originally Jessica seemed to have it out for him.  He was at the bottom of his original tribe.  The millennials seemed better bonded with each other, and when Zeke turned on David and his crew, Ken likely got lumped in there.  That and his self consciousness about his speech impediment, I don't know that socially he could have done so hot.  Blowing up at Will when his name was getting thrown around as a potential to being voted off likely didn't help his cause.

In Hannah's case, I just don't think they wanted to give her any credit.  Adam was getting credit for stuff she did.  And they praised Adam's game, but trashed Hannah for doing the same thing.  She had a strong case, and I wish it was rewarded. 

[peachmangosteen]

7 minutes ago, LadyChatts said:

In Hannah's case, I just don't think they wanted to give her any credit.  Adam was getting credit for stuff she did.  And they praised Adam's game, but trashed Hannah for doing the same thing.  She had a strong case, and I wish it was rewarded. 

Right! And I just can't really fully suss out why this is. I'm thinking it's probably just a combination of things. But I still think that underlying/subconscious sexism and Adam's story are the biggest factors.

[gator12]

Hannah say she had a strong bond with people in the game but others in their interviews are saying differently so should I believe the person who misread the jury?

The different is that Adam didn't take credit for the Bret vote, he voted differently the jury saw that. It was her idea to vote out Sunday, David on the jury could/might have told people that and she mess up with what she told Sunday. 

At the final 5 council, Adam played his idol, Bret knew that Hannah knew and was telling Ken and David about it. Should could have not told David and Ken vote out Adam, Adam used his idol David goes home and not lose Ken trust. Losing Ken trust didn't matter since its the final 5.

That three big mistake right there that differentiated her game from Adam. Those move count as a negative, no matter how much sense it made to her it was bad for her game since it would never net her a win.

And don't say I was responsible for every single one of you being there when you were in an alliance with Zeke and than David. The jury knows the Kingpin statement is a lie. And the only Kingpin move you made was taking out Bret and Sunday, those aren't big move those are move you make to maybe take you to the finals, not something to brag about at the FTC.

Plus she mess up when she flip on Zeke, they had a majority. She didn't have to go and join Adam, David, Jessica and Ken group, a group of 4 when she was in a group of 6. 

Another negative to her social games, not bothering with Jay after the Michaela vote, that a potential jury member. She needed his vote and Jay is tight with Jury members Michelle and Taylor.

Thinking about it, that six (Jay, Taylor, Michelle, Zeke, Sunday, Bret) voted right there she lost, so I don't know why she thought she had a chance of winning going to the FTC. This is the finale 3 with someone that you were told was a big threat, not the Finale 2 with Hannah and Ken.

Edited December 18, 2016 by gator12
Add more about Hannah social game/bad jury management.

[Eolivet]

I've been thinking about this (too much, LOL) about whether Hannah ever had a "path to 6" (like the "path to 270" from the Presidency), and I've sort of decided that I wonder what would've happened if instead of trying to fight against her own perceptions, she had tried to fight against Adam's.

The biggest knock on Hannah by the jury seemed that she was a flipper who got rid of dumb threats instead of David. Adam was able to seize upon that point and basically "I know, right?!" to the jury. What if Hannah came in with the argument that she was loyal...to Adam? That they formed a post-merge alliance and he was her loyal #2, and she did everything she could to protect him from the vote. Adam can't really argue otherwise because he was left out of decisions. She could say that she made decisions that she thought were best for both of them. Essentially turn his "I played a flawed game" against him -- where instead of it seeming like he has humility and recognizes his mistakes, make it seem like he was clueless and a follower.

If she's feeling really brave, she might even emphasize how she and David made decisions together, even without Adam's input. That no matter what they did, she made sure Adam's name didn't get brought up because he was a good, loyal lieutenant. Saying that everyone thought she had no loyalty, but she was loyal to one person after the merge, and one person only.

But basically, kill Adam with kindness -- because the facts are open to interpretation. Hannah never voted against Adam (...right?), and Adam even played his idol for her (she could've easily brought that up -- that's how tight they were, how much of a bond they had!) Get rid of the idea that she was a follower of David's, and turn it around so that Adam was a follower of Hannah's (but in the nicest way possible). To put it in game theory terms: that she was the Fox, protecting Adam, the Bunny.

Again -- not sure she ever had a "path to 6" with too many of the Gen X-ers disliking her (and I thought she completely botched her question from Sunday -- you don't tell a goat they're a goat, when they think you're the goat), and the remaining Millennials sort of "Meh" on her (except Michelle) and the votes she might've gotten sitting next to her at final tribal council. But I do wonder if Adam's win would've been unanimous with that argument.

[gator12]

That argument wouldn't have work b/c one when she flip on Zeke she went to a group that Adam was a part of. Adam talk to everyone and strategist with everyone. The people on the jury knows for example why Will and Jay went home because Adam insisted on that when Hannah was like but Will was loyal to me. Trying to keep a flipper around when this cast didn't like flippers. With Jay, she and David was trying to keep him and vote out Bret before him until Adam said absolutely not and Jay knew that.  

Jessica said her core group was Adam, Ken and David after the merge plus when they went the drawing rock tribal, Hannah freak out and said lets vote out Will before that TC started. One of the many according to Jessica's jury speak. If she tried to say that she was the reason why Adam is still in the game, you know David and Jessica were thinking, she came to joined us and why would we ever think of getting rid of an allied, number when we were trying to get rid of people in Zeke's group? Since Adam and Bret had a side deal where they protected each other while being on opposite side, that argument wouldn't have work with him either.

The only decision that Adam was left out of was the Mari vote, he was on the right side of every vote except two. That just one vote different than Hannah. And that one vote different was look at as a positive b/c that was a vote to vote out David.

That argument might have work if the jurors didn't know a few things, Adam wasn't part of every conversation and the Jury didn't see him as one of the threats that was left. 

[KimberStormer]

Picking up crumbs here, but it really does seem from exit interviews that "vote out David right away" was for whatever reason the main (possibly only) move that the jury was going to see as strategic.  Loath as I am to agree with Sophie, it does seem like that's what they wanted and weren't getting from Hannah.  What I'm curious about is: doesn't that go for them, too?  Why didn't they vote out David right away?  This isn't a gotcha, I'm curious about it.  Were they all trying to, but it was impossible without Hannah?

[LadyChatts]

11 minutes ago, KimberStormer said:

Picking up crumbs here, but it really does seem from exit interviews that "vote out David right away" was for whatever reason the main (possibly only) move that the jury was going to see as strategic.  Loath as I am to agree with Sophie, it does seem like that's what they wanted and weren't getting from Hannah.  What I'm curious about is: doesn't that go for them, too?  Why didn't they vote out David right away?  This isn't a gotcha, I'm curious about it.  Were they all trying to, but it was impossible without Hannah?

That's what I'm saying!  Everyone grumbling about David outlasting them had any and every opportunity to vote him out long before he made the final 4.  So why did Hannah and Ken catch flack for waiting until the final 4?  I get the loyalty thing, but everyone said he was a threat to win.  So Ken and Hannah finally do it, but they're the bad guys, and Adams the hero for voting him out at the final 4?  

Edited December 19, 2016 by LadyChatts

[violet and green]

They had the opportunity to do it, and were about to do it, when Hannah breathlessly insisted it was more important to take out Sunday then, which they did. It was ludicrous.

[KimberStormer]

1 hour ago, LadyChatts said:

That's what I'm saying!  

I'm not saying, though, I'm asking!

@violet and green, was that the only opportunity to vote out David?  Or did he only become the #1 priority vote after Zeke left?  (Also, was Hannah's vote necessary?)

Edited December 19, 2016 by KimberStormer

[violet and green]

29 minutes ago, KimberStormer said:

I'm not saying, though, I'm asking!

@violet and green, was that the only opportunity to vote out David?  Or did he only become the #1 priority vote after Zeke left?  (Also, was Hannah's vote necessary?)

That requires more brain cells than I have available currently! It was the prime moment, shall we say. It was finally set to happen - rather than people saying we really need to get him out, but he's got probably got an idol, because David always has an idol, etc.

What I do recall strongly was Hannah's rationale that she needed to get Sunday out now, because Sunday was a goat and she didn't want to be in a final three with someone who hadn't earnt their way to that position... 

[KimberStormer]

Yeah, I guess I should just watch the episodes if I want to know.  Anyway, it sounds to me like Sophie is right, and you have to vote how the jury wants you to vote, which may or may not be what is actually right for your game (or even might make it impossible for you to get to the end--I don't know if that's true in Hannah's case, but it seems like she thought it was).  I just think it's weird because there have been many times when "vote out X!" was what the jury wanted, but in those cases, as far as I remember, X was always there at FTC, like Tony, Russell (in HvV), Kim Spradlin, etc.  Like, if Natalie and Phillip had voted out Boston Rob at F4, I think the jury would have cheered the BIG MOVE, not said, "well OK but why didn't you do it sooner?"  But maybe I'm wrong!

Edited December 19, 2016 by KimberStormer

[gator12]

DP

Edited December 19, 2016 by gator12

[gator12]

4 hours ago, KimberStormer said:

Yeah, I guess I should just watch the episodes if I want to know.  Anyway, it sounds to me like Sophie is right, and you have to vote how the jury wants you to vote, which may or may not be what is actually right for your game (or even might make it impossible for you to get to the end--I don't know if that's true in Hannah's case, but it seems like she thought it was).  I just think it's weird because there have been many times when "vote out X!" was what the jury wanted, but in those cases, as far as I remember, X was always there at FTC, like Tony, Russell (in HvV), Kim Spradlin, etc.  Like, if Natalie and Phillip had voted out Boston Rob at F4, I think the jury would have cheered the BIG MOVE, not said, "well OK but why didn't you do it sooner?"  But maybe I'm wrong!

I think Hannah's problem was that she let 3 big threats go to the final 6 and 2 big threats to the final 4 which guarantee no matter who was voted out at 4 the other big threats was going to win. I didn't watch when Boston Rob won but I think voting out big threats at the final 4 is only rewarded when all the dragoon are slayed and are not at the FTC.

[kikaha]

6 hours ago, KimberStormer said:

Picking up crumbs here, but it really does seem from exit interviews that "vote out David right away" was for whatever reason the main (possibly only) move that the jury was going to see as strategic.  Loath as I am to agree with Sophie, it does seem like that's what they wanted and weren't getting from Hannah.  What I'm curious about is: doesn't that go for them, too?  Why didn't they vote out David right away?  This isn't a gotcha, I'm curious about it.  Were they all trying to, but it was impossible without Hannah?

 David did not look like a threat to the others till pretty late in the game, and then Hannah frustrated their attempts to boot him.

Zeke was the first  to identify David as a dangerous player, around F8, and tried to boot him then.  He had the votes, too, but Hannah blew up that plan, by flipping on Zeke.  Her execution sucked so much (Zeke saw right through her), she planted the target on her own back.  i.e. she turned a position of total safety, where she could have booted David, into a position of mortal danger, where only rocks saved her. 

After that, the two other huge threats -- Jay and Zeke -- got targeted and booted.  Which left David as the one everyone needed to clip, if they wanted to win.  The next real chance to boot him came at F5.  David had no idol and did not win the IC.  Once again, he was the biggest threat in the game, sure to win if he made F3.  Despite that, and even though David was a fair bet to win the F4 IC, Hannah again flipped and kept David in the game!  She instead voted out Bret.  

By doing that, she guaranteed she couldn't win: at least one of David and Adam would make F3, and either one would trounce her.  Anyone who doubts this should check out the "Jury Speaks" videos, recorded the day of FTC.  The majority portray Hannah as a goat, who had no chance of winning.    

[NutMeg]

13 hours ago, KimberStormer said:

Picking up crumbs here, but it really does seem from exit interviews that "vote out David right away" was for whatever reason the main (possibly only) move that the jury was going to see as strategic.  Loath as I am to agree with Sophie, it does seem like that's what they wanted and weren't getting from Hannah.  What I'm curious about is: doesn't that go for them, too?  Why didn't they vote out David right away?  This isn't a gotcha, I'm curious about it.  Were they all trying to, but it was impossible without Hannah?

Ooooh, what a good and excellent question :-) Of course they could have done it without Hannah! If Adam switches to their side at 7, there goes David/Ken/Hannah, in whatever order. The weird thing, which I call bullshit, is that Adam is rewarded for looking sorry while quite happy to vote whoever Hannah decided to vote. Not one freaking person on the jury was able to see/realize that post merge Hannah had been the driving force on the vote and that Adam followed her, rather than the opposite - not sure if they were blinded by his sob story, their perception of her that precluded her being strategic/ them losing to her, the willingness to just go with the group for the undecided, this new post fact reality where perception trumps facts more often than not? I have no idea, of course, but I must say that this vote lowered my opinion about some jurors that I expected a more balanced view/game spirit from, such as Michelle, Michaela, David, Zeke. As I had super low expectations about Sunday, Bret and Chris, I was not disappointed by them. Jay, Will, they seem to read to room, go with the flow, so their votes made sense hopefully in a later season they'll come of age.  (I like that, in her first season and her only time on the jury, Parvati did NOT go with the consensus).

So, my question is: if Hannah had played it like Sophie, Adam was basically my goat from day one, bla bla bla (which is pretty close to what I saw), would he have been believed? I still think she *might* have swayed a couple of votes - I want to believe Michelle, David, Michaela, some combo of those - would have at least voted for her but I don't even think they would have. 

[Special K]

I think in the end, the jury for the most part votes for whatever scenario allows them to think most highly of themselves or their game.

I don't think they had enough (any?) respect for Hannah and Ken, so the thought of being beaten by either one of them was anathema to many of them.  Even though I don't think either one was technically a goat (in the Brian Heidik/Clay or Boston Rob/Shepard classic sense).  Adam, they "liked" well enough, he had a sob story, and his winning didn't (in their opinions) reflect badly on themselves.

[gator12]

1 hour ago, NutMeg said:

Ooooh, what a good and excellent question :-) Of course they could have done it without Hannah! If Adam switches to their side at 7, there goes David/Ken/Hannah, in whatever order. The weird thing, which I call bullshit, is that Adam is rewarded for looking sorry while quite happy to vote whoever Hannah decided to vote. Not one freaking person on the jury was able to see/realize that post merge Hannah had been the driving force on the vote and that Adam followed her, rather than the opposite - not sure if they were blinded by his sob story, their perception of her that precluded her being strategic/ them losing to her, the willingness to just go with the group for the undecided, this new post fact reality where perception trumps facts more often than not? I have no idea, of course, but I must say that this vote lowered my opinion about some jurors that I expected a more balanced view/game spirit from, such as Michelle, Michaela, David, Zeke. As I had super low expectations about Sunday, Bret and Chris, I was not disappointed by them. Jay, Will, they seem to read to room, go with the flow, so their votes made sense hopefully in a later season they'll come of age.  (I like that, in her first season and her only time on the jury, Parvati did NOT go with the consensus).

So, my question is: if Hannah had played it like Sophie, Adam was basically my goat from day one, bla bla bla (which is pretty close to what I saw), would he have been believed? I still think she *might* have swayed a couple of votes - I want to believe Michelle, David, Michaela, some combo of those - would have at least voted for her but I don't even think they would have. 

Adam didn't follow her, Adam was in the David, Jessica and Ken group. Hannah flip and went to his group post merge. He made the strategic move of following her on the Sunday vote b/c if he put his foot down, he knew he would be the next to go basically he would have Zeke himself out of the game. He's the one that insisted that Will and Jay go when they did and voted for David to go at F5.

Hannah had a chance to get rid of David at F10, F7 and F4 but she flip at F10 when she was in the majority group that I had the number which cost them to go to rocks and Jessica went home.

Base on what was air, David was the driving force and leader except for that Sunday vote.

[gator12]

16 minutes ago, Special K said:

I think in the end, the jury for the most part votes for whatever scenario allows them to think most highly of themselves or their game.

I don't think they had enough (any?) respect for Hannah and Ken, so the thought of being beaten by either one of them was anathema to many of them.  Even though I don't think either one was technically a goat (in the Brian Heidik/Clay or Boston Rob/Shepard classic sense).  Adam, they "liked" well enough, he had a sob story, and his winning didn't (in their opinions) reflect badly on themselves.

I don't think Adam sob story had anything to do with it.

Hannah and Ken fail at the social game. Hannah mess up with Sunday, Zeke, Jay and others. Ken just fish and cut coconut. Survivor is where one has to Outwit, Outplay and Outlast. One can't just strategist and claim they played better than their competitors or one can't just win IC and claim they were better if they failed at the other two part.

[fishcakes]

59 minutes ago, gator12 said:

Hannah had a chance to get rid of David at F10, F7 and F4 but she flip at F10 when she was in the majority group that I had the number which cost them to go to rocks and Jessica went home

Hannah didn't flip at F10. She was already in the David/Ken/Jessica/Adam group and had voted with them since the merge, first against Michelle at F13, then in the split vote against Taylor and Jay at F12, then against Chris at F11. F10 was the vote where Will wanted to flip on Jay/Zeke/Bret/Sunday and vote out Jay, but then Ken made the bonehead move of outing Will to those four, who let Will rejoin them because they basically had no choice, as without him, they didn't have the numbers. That group was originally going to target David, but then they got nervous that he might have found another idol, so they switched the vote to Hannah. And the reason they went to rocks is at least partly because when David got up to play his idol, Adam, believing Sunday's lie, told him to play it for Ken. Had David played it for Hannah (and I'm not sure if he was going to do that; it's just as likely he would have played it for himself since he knew he was a target), then Zeke would have gone home that night instead of Jessica. It's true that David/Adam/Jess drew rocks to save Hannah, but that was as much about keeping their alliance in the majority than it was about saving Hannah, but in either case, nothing she did caused them to go to rocks.

[kikaha]

2 hours ago, NutMeg said:

If Adam switches to their side at 7, there goes David/Ken/Hannah, in whatever order.

Adam didn't want to boot Ken and Hannah.  He was happy to sit next to them at FTC, where he felt sure to win.  Which is exactly what happened.  He made finals against two goats, and got every single vote.  

I strongly believe that Hannah was not the driving force behind the key votes.  The only votes she did lead were poor choices, that cemented her landslide loss, and in one case put her a whisker away from getting booted herself (the rock boot). 

Hannah did a real good job at FTC, I felt.  Yet she did not sway or switch a single juror.  They knew too much about her game. 

The fact that she thought she could win shows she was more deluded than even Russell.  She misread the room as thoroughly as is possible. 

[gator12]

1 hour ago, fishcakes said:

Hannah didn't flip at F10. She was already in the David/Ken/Jessica/Adam group and had voted with them since the merge, first against Michelle at F13, then in the split vote against Taylor and Jay at F12, then against Chris at F11. F10 was the vote where Will wanted to flip on Jay/Zeke/Bret/Sunday and vote out Jay, but then Ken made the bonehead move of outing Will to those four, who let Will rejoin them because they basically had no choice, as without him, they didn't have the numbers. That group was originally going to target David, but then they got nervous that he might have found another idol, so they switched the vote to Hannah. And the reason they went to rocks is at least partly because when David got up to play his idol, Adam, believing Sunday's lie, told him to play it for Ken. Had David played it for Hannah (and I'm not sure if he was going to do that; it's just as likely he would have played it for himself since he knew he was a target), then Zeke would have gone home that night instead of Jessica. It's true that David/Adam/Jess drew rocks to save Hannah, but that was as much about keeping their alliance in the majority than it was about saving Hannah, but in either case, nothing she did caused them to go to rocks.

After they voted out Chris at F11, the split into 2 groups when Zeke realize that David was a mastermind. Hannah who was one of Zeke allies flip on him, that why Zeke an interview said, I couldn't believe she flip to go to a minority alliance. That why Jessica said, the reason why Hannah name game up at F10 was b/c she flip on Zeke, which incidentally its why Zeke was targeted also b/c he flip on Chris from the second tribe. She had just came into the alliance of David, Adam, Ken and Jessica during the drawing of rock. This is how Zeke and Jessica saw it base on the interviews. Will wanted to flip on Jay, Zeke, Bret and Sunday at F9 and he did. David said he was going to play his idol to save himself and if he had knew that Adam and Hannah had heard that it was Sunday threw out Ken names, he wouldn't have believe it.

Edited December 20, 2016 by gator12
I realize that since the voted were tie Hannah would have been save.

[gator12]

20 minutes ago, kikaha said:

Adam didn't want to boot Ken and Hannah.  He was happy to sit next to them at FTC, where he felt sure to win.  Which is exactly what happened.  He made finals against two goats, and got every single vote.  

I strongly believe that Hannah was not the driving force behind the key votes.  The only votes she did lead were poor choices, that cemented her landslide loss, and in one case put her a whisker away from getting booted herself (the rock boot). 

Hannah did a real good job at FTC, I felt.  Yet she did not sway or switch a single juror.  They knew too much about her game. 

The fact that she thought she could win shows she was more deluded than even Russell.  She misread the room as thoroughly as is possible. 

I never watch any of Russell's season. Did he win final IC during his seasons and he just pick bad finalist to go with him?

Hannah was playing both side in that Zeke will tell her things and she goes in tell David what Zeke's side was thinking and vice-versa. I think that created mistrust for her and I refuse to believe Hannah was the Kingpin when the show and everyone else though David was the Kingpin and her two poor choices were not kingpin moves. You bring the bunny and the goat with you to the FTC, not vote them out.

[fishcakes]

15 minutes ago, gator12 said:

After they voted out Chris at F11, the split into 2 groups when Zeke realize that David was a mastermind. Hannah who was one of Zeke allies flip on him, that why Zeke an interview said, I couldn't believe she flip to go to a minority alliance. That why Jessica said, the reason why Hannah name game up at F10 was b/c she flip on Zeke, which incidentally its why Zeke was targeted also b/c he flip on Chris from the second tribe. She had just came into the alliance of David, Adam, Ken and Jessica during the drawing of rock.

Hannah didn't flip on Zeke; if anything, Zeke flipped on Hannah because she hesitated in going along with his plan to vote out David. At F11, David, Ken, Jessica, Adam, Hannah, Zeke, and Will voted against Chris. Jay, Bret, Sunday, and Chris voted against Jessica. Chris went home. At F10, Zeke and Will then flipped and went with Jay, Bret, and Sunday -- the minority alliance. Hannah did not flip and go with the minority alliance; she stayed with David, Ken, and Jessica, convinced Adam to also stay with them and not go with Zeke et al., and the resulting alliances stood at 5-5. Hannah's name didn't come up at F10 because she flipped on Zeke; it came up because she wouldn't flip with Zeke. And while Zeke may have wanted her out, the rest of his alliance didn't care. They were happy to vote for her because they figured if David had an idol, he wouldn't play it on her, but that was a dumb assumption. David played his earlier idol to save Jess, he played his current idol to save Ken, and he drew a rock to save Hannah. None of those were so much because he loved his allies, but because he needed the numbers. If he had known the vote that night was for Hannah, he likely would have played his idol for her.

[gator12]

You are right about the vote (which is why I said Zeke was look at as a flipper for the Chris vote). I'm going by the Jessica and Zeke interviews, where Zeke said that at the merge Hannah had no one which I fully admit he might have been thinking to highly of himself. And Jessica mention the reason why she didn't flip and voted out Hannah b/c Hannah look at as a flipper who flip on her main and the one allies who bought her in. The TC, everyone was telling her to vote out the flipper in Hannah.

I think one of the reason why Hannah was so defensive at the FTC was b/c she was perceive as a flipper and she was trying to defend that notion. Flip one Mari, Flip 2 Zeke.

Speaking of flippers, has any perceive flippers ever won the game?

Edited December 20, 2016 by gator12

[Rachel RSL]

59 minutes ago, gator12 said:

I never watch any of Russell's season. Did he win final IC during his seasons and he just pick bad finalist to go with him?

Russell could have been in the finals with a bottle of ketchup and the ketchup would have won. He was a vile human being who was a complete dick to everyone yet he still expected them to vote for him. He had zero social game.

[fishcakes]

43 minutes ago, gator12 said:

I think one of the reason why Hannah was so defensive at the FTC was b/c she was perceive as a flipper and she was trying to defend that notion. Flip one Mari, Flip 2 Zeke.

Speaking of flippers, has any perceive flippers ever won the game?

I do agree that Hannah had to defend herself against being thought of as a flipper, although I don't really remember anyone calling her that before Bret did it when he was voted out. (Not that no one did, I just don't remember it.) Although it's pretty rich that Bret acted offended that she flipped, since she certainly didn't flip on him. They were never allied; he'd tried to vote her out twice before; plus, he was a flipper himself. He'd just flipped on Jay at the previous vote. I don't know, maybe he was just still drunk from one of his many rewards. Nonetheless, once she got tagged with that, Ken ran with it at FTC, so that's her Survivor rep now.

Replying to your flipper question in the past seasons thread.

[KimberStormer]

1 minute ago, fishcakes said:

Replying to your flipper question in the past seasons thread.

I will too!

[gator12]

3 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

I do agree that Hannah had to defend herself against being thought of as a flipper, although I don't really remember anyone calling her that before Bret did it when he was voted out. (Not that no one did, I just don't remember it.) Although it's pretty rich that Bret acted offended that she flipped, since she certainly didn't flip on him. They were never allied; he'd tried to vote her out twice before; plus, he was a flipper himself. He'd just flipped on Jay at the previous vote. I don't know, maybe he was just still drunk from one of his many rewards. Nonetheless, once she got tagged with that, Ken ran with it at FTC, so that's her Survivor rep now.

Replying to your flipper question in the past seasons thread.

It wasn't shown on edits (from what I remember) but from what I understand from interviews and some of the Jury speaks interviews she was views that way from early on.

Edited December 20, 2016 by gator12

[Eolivet]

6 hours ago, NutMeg said:

Not one freaking person on the jury was able to see/realize that post merge Hannah had been the driving force on the vote and that Adam followed her, rather than the opposite

Not for nothing, but I really don't think the jury voted for Adam because he was the driving force of anything (other than the driving force of Why The Heck Didn't We Vote Out David). His final tribal council speech can be characterized as "Yes, I made mistakes, but I swear, I had no idea what Hannah was doing sometimes!" And that was seen as strength rather than weakness.

5 hours ago, gator12 said:

Adam didn't follow her, Adam was in the David, Jessica and Ken group. Hannah flip and went to his group post merge.

Thanks for the refresher, @gator12  (and @fishcakes!) -- I'm now remembering Hannah's godawful poker face when Zeke was all "Let's vote out David!" and she was all "Suuuuuuuuure, uh-huh, yeah."

Hannah's argument then should've been that she and David joined forces after the Zeke vote, and she kept Adam as her Bunny (not her goat -- the jury didn't think of him that way). Again, because of Hannah's own likability problem, I think her best bet would've been to lean in to Adam's likability, but paint it as a weakness rather than a strength. "Poor, sweet Adam -- he just wasn't comfortable with being ruthless and strategic. And then he played that idol for me! How could I vote him out after that, bless his heart!"

It also might've forced Adam say he was playing both sides with Hannah and David, and Bret and Sunday -- and maybe a jury looks less kindly on a Bunny who wants to take dead fish to the end rather than play with Foxes.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Eolivet