S33.E06: The Truth Works Well

[kikaha]

Just now, kikaha said:

On 10/28/2016 at 3:32 PM, simplyme said:

I did notice one thing she did at TC that would have made me vote for her if I were Adam and I were straddling the fence. When she said Adam voted for her but she didn't hold a grudge, she grabbed his head. I think she meant it to come off as "Hey, look! I'm playful! We're buds!" but unless you actually know someone really well and have a very affectionate bond, that actually is a power move. You do not touch someone's face or head unless you know they are receptive. Try that with a dog and you'll get bitten. That's essentially what happened to her.

My sense is that Adam made up his mind to boot Figgy before tribal.  Remember two episodes ago?  Adam had marveled at how Michelle saved Figgy's butt -- yet concluded that meant Figgy (not Michelle) had to go!  He never was part of their in-crowd... wanted her gone for a number of episodes... and was all ears when Ken approached him with the opportunity.   

[Guest]

2 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

This.  (Actually, that whole post was on point, primo stuff; but this was what I wanted to highlight.)

Makes sense.  I'm a tennis nut, and I know in pro tennis, players can be fined if they are judged to be "tanking", not putting in their best effort.  I mean, if it's in league with gamblers, they can get in huge trouble, of course; but even if it's just that they got blown out the first two sets and they know they have no chance against Djokovic (or whomever), they can't just be like "okay, this sucks, I want to get to the showers".  They're supposed to continue to try their best to the end, for the sake of the fans watching--and the same idea applies here (although it could be argued that three tribes trying to "tank" could be interesting to watch in its own way).  Of course, this is hard to prove if it's done subtly, so it would be kind of funny if they were all trying to appear as though they were trying, but still trying to lose.

I feel like sometimes in Big Brother you see the clear challenge losers just loafing on the sidelines, just watching the winners finish a challenge, but never in Survivor.  I like that about it.  I think they edit the challenges to appear closer than they are sometimes, too, which does make them more interesting to watch.  I imagine they need footage of all the people at each stage of the challenge to do that, so anyone not finishing is going to mess that up.

[Red Bridey]

I haven't watched Survivor in years, so I've actually been enjoying this season, more than I ever thought.  But I don't understand what the "Legacy award (?)" is.  I'm afraid I don't remember which Gen X woman has it. Can anyone fill me in?

[KimberStormer]

2 hours ago, Red Bridey said:

I haven't watched Survivor in years, so I've actually been enjoying this season, more than I ever thought.  But I don't understand what the "Legacy award (?)" is.  I'm afraid I don't remember which Gen X woman has it. Can anyone fill me in?

The Legacy Advantage was found by Jessica, the one who ousted Paul and was saved by David and is now with Ken on the tribe with Taylor and Adam (and just booted Figgy.)  It is a mysteeeeeerious power which will come into play on day 36 or something like that, but we won't know what it is until then.  (I suspect the same advantage that Michele won last season, but I don't know if that's a common guess or not.)  What makes it the Legacy Advantage is that if Jessica gets voted out, she must pass it (somehow, we don't know how it'll work) to another player.  So SOMEONE will have that advantage at the end of the game, regardless of how many people have it and get voted out with it in their pocket.  Jessica promised Ken she would pass it to him if she gets voted out next, which makes an interesting situation for Ken, who might try to get her voted out so he can get the advantage, perhaps in such a way that she doesn't know it was him  (Unfortunately, I just don't think Ken is that devious.)

[LadyChatts]

1 hour ago, KimberStormer said:

The Legacy Advantage was found by Jessica, the one who ousted Paul and was saved by David and is now with Ken on the tribe with Taylor and Adam (and just booted Figgy.)  It is a mysteeeeeerious power which will come into play on day 36 or something like that, but we won't know what it is until then.  (I suspect the same advantage that Michele won last season, but I don't know if that's a common guess or not.)  What makes it the Legacy Advantage is that if Jessica gets voted out, she must pass it (somehow, we don't know how it'll work) to another player.  So SOMEONE will have that advantage at the end of the game, regardless of how many people have it and get voted out with it in their pocket.  Jessica promised Ken she would pass it to him if she gets voted out next, which makes an interesting situation for Ken, who might try to get her voted out so he can get the advantage, perhaps in such a way that she doesn't know it was him  (Unfortunately, I just don't think Ken is that devious.)

From what I remember reading, she wills it to someone right after she's voted off, and somehow production slips it to that person.  Now, my question is: what if, say, Jessica never told Ken she'd will it to him, and just did it?  Does production tell Ken?  Or does he just go through his bag one day and discover it?  That'd be interesting if someone was snooping through his bag for an idol or advantage, found this legacy thing, and thought Ken was holding out on them-and Ken didn't even know it was there.  Could make for an amusing camp scene of finger pointing and fighting.

[laurakaye]

On 10/28/2016 at 3:32 PM, simplyme said:

I did notice one thing she did at TC that would have made me vote for her if I were Adam and I were straddling the fence. When she said Adam voted for her but she didn't hold a grudge, she grabbed his head. I think she meant it to come off as "Hey, look! I'm playful! We're buds!" but unless you actually know someone really well and have a very affectionate bond, that actually is a power move. You do not touch someone's face or head unless you know they are receptive. Try that with a dog and you'll get bitten. That's essentially what happened to her.

This may have been creative editing, but Adam went from wearing a good-natured grin as Figgy was clutching his head, to a stone-cold poker face after she let go.  For a few seconds, he looked downright ticked off.  I thought for sure Probst would've commented on that - being as he's so quick to comment on reactions and body language - but again, it might've been editing.

On 10/28/2016 at 5:15 PM, PerfidiousAmber said:

Oh my god, now I'm dreaming of being stranded on a deserted island with Ken...

Ummmmmmmmm.........what were we talking about?

On 10/29/2016 at 4:04 PM, Blissfool said:

If the sole purpose was to break up the self-proclaimed power couple, why not eliminate Taylor instead?

Figgy was the better choice, IMO.  When Figgy blathered on about how close she was to Michelle, that was a big red flag.  I think Jessica and Ken correctly identified Figgy as the threat and saw Taylor as willing to go along with whatever she wanted.  Good call.  I cannot wait to see the other two tribes' reactions to booting Figgy.

[fishcakes]

Re: the legacy advantage. I'd have to go back and look at the episode where Jessica told Ken about it, but I thought when she did she said, "if I'd been voted out, I would have given it to you." It sounded to me like she was acknowledging that she was mistaken in not believing him and if she had gone that night, then that would have been her apology, but it didn't sound like she was promising to give it to him in the future if she were voted off. I would think at that point she might feel like she owed more of a debt to David than to Ken, although now that it's just her and Ken on the new tribe, that might not be true any longer.

Edited November 2, 2016 by fishcakes
quoted post was deleted

[green]

On 10/31/2016 at 2:55 AM, LadyChatts said:

From what I remember reading, she wills it to someone right after she's voted off, and somehow production slips it to that person.  Now, my question is: what if, say, Jessica never told Ken she'd will it to him, and just did it?  Does production tell Ken?  Or does he just go through his bag one day and discover it?  That'd be interesting if someone was snooping through his bag for an idol or advantage, found this legacy thing, and thought Ken was holding out on them-and Ken didn't even know it was there.  Could make for an amusing camp scene of finger pointing and fighting.

Didn't someone post in the past thread when people were speculating on how it worked that they saw or read something online that explained that BEFORE Jessica goes to any tribal she has to tell a production assistant (in the regular confessional that day maybe ... this is my guess) who she would will it to in case she was the one leaving.

I mention that because my first thought on reading that post was she would will it after being voted out and remembered being totally surprised it was a before the vote scenario.

Also the way she phrased her advantage in the game to Ken I don't know that she came right out and told him it was something she had to "will" if she was voted out.  If that was the case it would be a very bad move on her part.

Wasn't it more like something about she was allowed to "share" the advantage with one person and she was going to choose Ken?  Phrasing it in a way where she didn't give away that she had to be out of the game before he got the advantage.  Because if she used the term "sharing" instead of "willing" that is a really big deal and would then make that conversation a really good move on her part.

Edited November 2, 2016 by GenL
Quoted post deleted.

[KimberStormer]

21 minutes ago, laurakaye said:

I'm sure she was one of about 596 past Survivor players who have wanted Probst to shut up during challenges.  She came as close as anyone to actually saying it - I believe Penner might've been the only one to say it to Probst outright -

COURTNEY (8:25 if this doesn't start then)

Edited October 31, 2016 by KimberStormer

[laurakaye]

LOL...how could I forget about Courtney?!

[JudyObscure]

Wow, my memory of Courtney was fairly positive until I watched that whole video.  She really was a jerk in the first part of her season, hating everyone for not being a cool New Yorker, including the Buddhist monk.

La Traviata  you gave me an excuse to go back and watch this episode again.  I'll admit to a some bias in favor of Michaela -- young, minority girl with a tough background who tries really, really hard in camp and in challenges -- of course I would like to see her do well.  But I haven't forgotten that oddly hostile moment with the machete, flicking stuff in Figgy's direction.  So I watched again looking for real meanness directed at Hannah and all I saw was something like a hopped up basketball coach in the heat of the game.  She didn't sneer at Hannah or call her names or even seem angry at her, it was all just coaching, to my ears.  I'm trying to keep an open mind though., it's early days and  we still may not have seen all aspects of her personality, just like with the others.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

She didn't sneer at Hannah or call her names or even seem angry at her, it was all just coaching, to my ears. 

I admittedly have not liked Michaela since her weird aggression very early on but I'm surprised to hear that considered 'just coaching'.  Even Jeff commented repeatedly on "Michaela BARKING orders at Hannah!", "Making sure Hannah know what time it is!", "Those two may not want to take a road trip together!"  

Michaela did seem angry and dismissive to me.  Michaela told Hannah (out of nowhere it seems), "Don't get frustrated."  Hannah calmly said, "I'm not getting frustrated, I'm getting yelled at."  Hannah calmly said, "Just let me know if you need me..." and Michaela interrupted with a very heated "SHUT!  UP!"  That was the rudest one, to me.  

[ljenkins782]

31 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I admittedly have not liked Michaela since her weird aggression very early on but I'm surprised to hear that considered 'just coaching'.  Even Jeff commented repeatedly on "Michaela BARKING orders at Hannah!", "Making sure Hannah know what time it is!", "Those two may not want to take a road trip together!"  

Michaela did seem angry and dismissive to me.  Michaela told Hannah (out of nowhere it seems), "Don't get frustrated."  Hannah calmly said, "I'm not getting frustrated, I'm getting yelled at."  Hannah calmly said, "Just let me know if you need me..." and Michaela interrupted with a very heated "SHUT!  UP!"  That was the rudest one, to me.  

There is an extra scene on the CBS site where it is clear that Hannah was really not okay with the whole exchange, she went on at length about how frustrated she felt. Which I totally get and I would have felt the same way in the heat of the moment. But ultimately, them losing might very well have meant she was toast, so at the end of the day, enduring one uncomfortable challenge isn't the worst thing that could have happened to her that day. So I can see both sides, but am hoping that it doesn't turn into a lasting grudge. 

[Red Bridey]

Thank you, Kimberstormer et al regarding the Legacy Advantage.  Is this a new twist for this season, or has it been used before?  As I said, I haven't seen Survivor in a decade or more.

[Guest]

Thanks, ljenkins.  It took me a while to find that extra scene of Hannah's so here's the link, if anyone else wants to see it.

The legacy thing is a brand new twist.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Guest

[shortsummers]

I think there is probably very little chance that the Purple or Orange teams will throw the next challenge.  The merge may well not place for several more episodes, and if they throw this challenge they might be in a position to have to vote out a member of their alliance in the next episode.  But the Green team has little reason not to throw the challenge since they have two GenXers to eliminate.  However, if the other teams perceive that the Green team is throwing this challenge, they may well try to throw the next immunity challenge.  That is when it could get interesting.

Though there are many challenges where it might be obvious the teams are throwing it, there are some where it won't necessarily be obvious.  The complicated word puzzle they had earlier comes to mind.  I'm terrible at word puzzles and I could have been there all day and not solved it.  How would Survivor know the teams aren't trying?

[Lamb18]

The thing with Michaela's behavior, it's not so much what she did, but how other people (on the show)feel about it since they are the ones who determine her fate on Survivor.  In an earlier post I said she should tone it down for the sake of her game and I still think that, because people can be easily offended and make elimination decisions based on that. 

[JudyObscure]

14 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

Thanks, ljenkins.  It took me a while to find that extra scene of Hannah's so here's the link, if anyone else wants to see it.

 

Hmmm.  You're convincing me, Winston.  I don't put much stock in what Jeff said because escalating conflict is one of his favorite things, but Michaela's words in print, and Hannah's feelings about it all, do make a difference.

I don't agree with Hannah's self portrait of this quiet, goes-along-meekly person, because we saw how she would not shut up when Zeke and Adam were begging her to, but she still is very different from Michaela.  I can see now that not every word Michaela yelled was helpful in the challenge.  I personally hate to have people give me orders about my emotions of the "Don't be frustrated," and "Calm down, " variety.  I heard Michelle say that after the ball passed the bar, only one person should control.  If Hannah had been that one person she might have done fine.

[Dominii]

On 10/29/2016 at 8:24 PM, hincandenza said:

As an aside, I will literally die if post-merge David suddenly reveals himself to be some kind of Ozzy-level challenge beast, and he really was throwing challenges this whole time. :)

There's no way David is a challenge beast, although he is a decent strategic player. If David wins, it'll be because he used his brains, not his brawn.

[simplyme]

Here's my reaction to Michaela/Hannah and the ball table challenge. Sorry, it's long, and it took me a while to think it all through. (I admit I didn't rewatch either.)

Yes, that challenge basically requires one person does the major moving of the table while the other steadies the table to do it well. We'll call them the dominant player and support player. Now here is where I disagree with some folks. I saw nothing that indicated that Hannah was "screwing up" the challenge. Michaela may have realized how it worked best (hell, Hannah may have, too), but we saw no clear, communicated deliniation of roles. I don't know that it is fair to assume that Michaela should always have the dominant role simply because she tends to be the more aggressive player.

In defense of Hannah:

1. The challenge requires recognizing that those two roles are needed.

2. Then the two players have to agree on which player is taking which role.

3. Even after that, players must adjust to each other's movements. This will take a bit of time.

Hannah wasn't wildly flailing. There was miscommunication at the beginning when both players would move the table too much, both trying to be the dominant player. This subsided when Hannah accepted the support role and the two adjusted to each other.

While I wasn't thrilled with Michaela's treatment of Hannah, I suspect she is used to being the dominant player on sports teams, and it may not have occurred to her that Hannah would claim that role. She's also probably used to barking orders during competitions. I suspect she would have treated everyone on her team, er tribe, except Jay in a similar manner. She may not have used the exact same words with each, though. I imagine the "Don't get frustrated" was specifically for Hannah, but I can easily see her yelling Shut up! at any or all of them.

I don't know that I would call it "just coaching." It's more a focused, aggressive player's attempt to win, and to them, they are always right. It's not always fun or easy to play alongside.

I think how people react to this (as viewers, as onlookers, as teammates, and as the target) is going to vary a lot based on 1. personal experience and 2. whether or not they win. (I think gender is less of a factor than others, but YMMV.) I should probably add 3. how you feel about both players.

If you've spent a lot of time around team sports, it is not unusual to encounter a Michaela-type. I think @303420 (I hope I remembered the right poster number there) covered that pretty well. Gym class does not count. 

Someone who tends to be a very good, valued player tends to be given leeway for barking orders at others or being pushy so long as it is seen as contributing to the team. However, if they are doing this and the team loses, it can go poorly for them. I'll also note that it may not translate between sports, and you can wear out your welcome if you're just a jerk in general. (I graduated with a guy who was the national wrestling champ at his weight. Great at wrestling. Picking for teams in gym, there were a LOT of other guys picked first because he was one of those guys who thought he was a team of one in everything and would run over his teammate to make a catch, often screwing it up.)

So it's kind of a mixed bag here for me. It's pretty much a clash of personalities that can be interpreted through a bunch of different personal lenses. Michaela can seem mean. Hannah can seem awkward.

If I were Hannah, yeah, I wouldn't have liked what was said. I thought she handled herself well. But I've also been around enough Michaela-types that I would have rolled my eyes and not taken it personally. Hannah and Michaela are at a disadvantage in not knowing each other long enough to really have the give and take down. I knew people well enough that when I hit a limit with someone's mouth towards me or someone else, I would tell them I needed quiet or support for a bit. They shut up. Off the field, those people have had a wide variety of personalities, from jerk to sweetheart. On the field, no one mistakes them for being cute and fuzzy, but if they're truly gifted, most people want them on their team.

Edited November 1, 2016 by simplyme
Added a 3rd point

[hincandenza]

5 hours ago, Dominii said:

There's no way David is a challenge beast, although he is a decent strategic player. If David wins, it'll be because he used his brains, not his brawn.

 Yes, I know, that is the joke. :)  

[Whimsy]

I have deleted/hidden a ton of posts that quoted or directed comments to specific posts that were removed due to not adhering to our rule of Be Civil. As a reminder- do not engage, report. 

[Michel]

I love how there is so much fawning over Ken's reaction to Figgy's reveal of herself and Taylor being together, but thus far, nothing said about Jessica's reaction, since she also knew about them.  Blech.

Edited November 2, 2016 by GenL
Edited the off-topic to this episode comment.

[Jobiska]

I think it's because nobody was sure Ken had it in him to be deadpan like that.  He seems so straightforward and serious.  Nobody doubted Jessica could tease and joke around.

[SlackerInc]

On 10/31/2016 at 2:21 PM, Winston9-DT3 said:

I admittedly have not liked Michaela since her weird aggression very early on but I'm surprised to hear that considered 'just coaching'.  Even Jeff commented repeatedly on "Michaela BARKING orders at Hannah!", "Making sure Hannah know what time it is!", "Those two may not want to take a road trip together!"  

Michaela did seem angry and dismissive to me.  Michaela told Hannah (out of nowhere it seems), "Don't get frustrated."  Hannah calmly said, "I'm not getting frustrated, I'm getting yelled at."  Hannah calmly said, "Just let me know if you need me..." and Michaela interrupted with a very heated "SHUT!  UP!"  That was the rudest one, to me.  

Yes, those were the two "highlights" (lowlights?) for sure.  On the "just coaching" defense, I will say that this can actually be defended depending on what type of coach you're talking about.  Bobby Knight is a famous example of a super hardass coach, and he obviously has had a lot of success but I never liked him.  I've seen this kind of coaching way at the other end of the spectrum too: at the baseball diamond next to the one where my five year old son was practicing for T-ball, there was a coach screaming insults at girls who looked to be 10-12 years old.  But I think (hope) that this style of coaching is slowly going the way of the dinosaurs.  Furthermore, who's to say Michaela gets to be coach anyway?

On 10/31/2016 at 2:57 PM, ljenkins782 said:

There is an extra scene on the CBS site where it is clear that Hannah was really not okay with the whole exchange, she went on at length about how frustrated she felt.

Thank you so much for posting this!  I will try not to gloat too hard about how much it proves I was absolutely right in my interpretation of how Hannah felt about it (of course, people can still disagree with her feeling that way, but a lot of people claimed that she was obviously "okay with it" and I never bought that whatsoever).  Everyone should watch that video: skip to the 54 second mark if you want to get right into a discussion of the challenge specifically.

[green]

I think why we were shown such a l-o-n-g (total?) clip of Hannah annoying the hell out of Zeke and Adam in that second episode was because the editors knew this was coming up.  Hannah is soooooo needy.  It is all about her and her emotions and her need to be understood etc etc.  She doesn't care a fig about others but expects them to stop what they are doing to tend to her.

She is the last person anyone would want to share a foxhole with.  "But you got to use the machine gun last attack.  Why can't I?  So what that I broke my glasses yesterday and almost shot Zeke.  It's myyyyy turn!  Whine whine whine whine whine."

Sorry but I can't stand people like that.  I'd have made Michaela look like Miss Manners' poster child in comparison at that fight for your very Survivor life competition.

Has Hannah never seen this show before?  Does she not know this is based more on "Lord of the Flies" and is about grit and survival (which includes winning the damn immunity challenge first and foremost) and not some "everyone gets a trophy and a hug" game?

I excused some, though not all, of her annoying Zeke and Adam that first time to worrying about her status in the game and attempting to play same though very poorly.  But this time there is no excuse for her being upset.  Their tribe WON the immunity and that is all she should care about.  She gets to, you know, "survive" to fight another day.  Or to annoy even more people another day as the case may be.

[KimberStormer]

Personally I think that clip just reinforces my understanding of the thing.  I know exactly how Hannah feels because, as I said before, it's just like me and my brother playing Mario Party or something.  ("JUST STAY RIGHT THERE AND DON'T MOVE I'LL DO IT" "ugh but...ok, ok" -we die- "WHY DIDN'T YOU MOVE!" "You told me not to!!" "BUT OBVIOUSLY I DIDN'T MEAN LET THEM KILL YOU!")  She knows Michaela likes her and wasn't trying to be mean.  She didn't make a scene about it at all.  She specifically says she might have said something in the real world but it's Survivor so she didn't.

I can't understand from this situation any way in which Hannah demanded anyone tend to her or acted needy.  I also don't see her as being emotionally crushed by big bad bully Michaela.  (Michaela for her part says, in her own secret clip, that she probably should have been nicer about it, but that she's only intense like that in the challenges and thinks it may actually help to get people to trust her because they think she's a straight shooter, which is smart.)  Hannah was just frustrated, as absolutely anyone would be IMO, no matter what macho sports nonsense about sucking it up and taking it for the team people might spout, and she didn't do or say anything about it because she knows it's Survivor.  Being a nerd and having a panic attack does not make Hannah some fragile glass figurine easily shattered by someone yelling.  She can handle it!  I know because she did handle it!

And her Survivor life was not on the line either, nor was Michaela's.  Green team is not only a big Millenial majority, but it's all people who more or less trust each other and have no reason to flip and target each other like Adam had a reason to flip on Figgy.  At worst it would be Hannah with an interest in flipping, or Michaela wanting to get rid of Jay's idol.  It would have been better, in fact, for the Millenials as a whole, for them to have lost; Figgy would still be in the game, and vain smug behind-the-back-talking self-appointed-nicknamed hair-flipping villain though she might have been, she certainly had no plans or reason to flip on her original tribe.  Histrionics over challenges being the most important thing in the world annoys me as much as it seems to do Stephen Fishbach, though I don't agree with Stephen on many other things.

Edited November 2, 2016 by KimberStormer

[simplyme]

1 hour ago, green said:

Does she not know this is based more on "Lord of the Flies" and is about grit and survival (which includes winning the damn immunity challenge first and foremost) and not some "everyone gets a trophy and a hug" game?

I'd respectfully argue that Survivor is even more of a social game than a grit and survival game. You could conceivably lose every challenge and still make it to FTC, and if you did so against people who were truly hated, you could conceivably win. It's not like anyone looked at Sandra and thought, "Whoa. Challenge beast." Yet she has two wins to Ozzie's zero.

Russell never seemed to grasp that social aspect and that's why he lost. Repeatedly.

I'll admit that I'm waiting to see what Michaela's gameplay is like postmerge and how it is received. Right now we're in what I think of as the teamwork portion of Survivor. The latter portion, people have to turn on each other and are no longer competing in tribes, and they start using all sorts of things to justify voting for someone. Someone comes across as nice? Vote them out because everyone likes them! Someone doesn't come across as nice? Vote them out because they're a jerk! ;)

[tvfanatic13]

On ‎10‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 1:41 AM, SVNBob said:

TL;DR version

What does this mean??

[simplyme]

2 minutes ago, tvfanatic13 said:

What does this mean??

TL;DR stands for Too Long; Didn't Read.

Think of it as saying "Short version:"

Edited November 2, 2016 by simplyme

[KimberStormer]

3 minutes ago, simplyme said:

I'd respectfully argue that Survivor is even more of a social game than a grit and survival game. You could conceivably lose every challenge and still make it to FTC, and if you did so against people who were truly hated, you could conceivably win.

I guess she won one of those immunities where both a man and a woman win, but otherwise, this is Denise Stapley!

[SlackerInc]

12 hours ago, tvfanatic13 said:

What does this mean??

"Too long; didn't read."  The usage has shifted over time somewhat, as it was originally a kind of mild insult someone might post in response to a huge wall of text.  Now it's more often (as in the case you quoted) used by the person themselves if they have just written something really long.  They are saying "I just wrote a huge long post, but the short summary of my point is ____________."

[green]

17 hours ago, simplyme said:

I'd respectfully argue that Survivor is even more of a social game than a grit and survival game. You could conceivably lose every challenge and still make it to FTC, and if you did so against people who were truly hated, you could conceivably win. It's not like anyone looked at Sandra and thought, "Whoa. Challenge beast." Yet she has two

That is part of what I meant.  First, win the immunity challenge.  But second, don't go all whiny and suck it up if you feel hurt for some reason.  To go on the whine is poor playing of the social game.  It shows how emotions can take over you and make you an unreliable ally who might flip because you got an emotional little "ouchie" in the moment.

[Lamb18]

19 hours ago, simplyme said:

I'd respectfully argue that Survivor is even more of a social game than a grit and survival game. You could conceivably lose every challenge and still make it to FTC, and if you did so against people who were truly hated, you could conceivably win. It's not like anyone looked at Sandra and thought, "Whoa. Challenge beast." Yet she has two wins to Ozzie's zero.

Russell never seemed to grasp that social aspect and that's why he lost. Repeatedly.

I'll admit that I'm waiting to see what Michaela's gameplay is like postmerge and how it is received. Right now we're in what I think of as the teamwork portion of Survivor. The latter portion, people have to turn on each other and are no longer competing in tribes, and they start using all sorts of things to justify voting for someone. Someone comes across as nice? Vote them out because everyone likes them! Someone doesn't come across as nice? Vote them out because they're a jerk! ;)

Agree - Denise in Philippines - who went to every tribal council. I see Kimber beat me to it.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I'm rewatching this season, and while I love it, Hannah's refusal to wash her face or her body are bumming me out so hard.