S33.E13: I'm Going For A Million Bucks / S33.E14: Reunion

[gator12]

6 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I don't really agree with that writer.  To me, a Survivor goat is distinct from a sports 'goat', which is basically just a scapegoat.   It's more like the chattel definition as described by the reddit writer in that article.  Phillip is the perfect Survivor goat example.  He was so disrespected he wouldn't get many votes.  He wasn't a scapegoat of anything.  Though Russell was, I guess, in that he had a ton of blood on his hands.  But is that a goat in Survivor or just someone with a very poor social game?  I would say the latter.  

I feel like in this context goat is just a metaphor for a non-contender.  It's a stupid, breathing thing you lead around by a rope that you'll always look smarter than.  

Do you have the link to the reddit writer explanation of a goat?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, gator12 said:

Do you have the link to the reddit writer explanation of a goat?

Sorry, it's not reddit, it's the SurvivorSucks site and it's talked about around halfway through the insidesurvivor article linked to above.  

[Rachel RSL]

Quote

Sigh.  I just did a deep dive into Ken's Twitter and I think he's a Patriots fan.  So much for that, but it was fun while it lasted.

The man lives in Denver! Why is he a Pats fan? Ugh! Oh well, they can't all be perfect ;)

Edited December 18, 2016 by Rachel RSL

[Stinamaia]

3 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I don't really agree with that writer.  To me, a Survivor goat is distinct from a sports 'goat', which is basically just a scapegoat.   It's more like the chattel definition as described by the reddit writer in that article.  Phillip is the perfect Survivor goat example.  He was so disrespected he wouldn't get many votes.  He wasn't a scapegoat of anything.  Though Russell was, I guess, in that he had a ton of blood on his hands.  But is that a goat in Survivor or just someone with a very poor social game?  I would say the latter.  

I feel like in this context goat is just a metaphor for a non-contender.  It's a stupid, breathing thing you lead around by a rope that you'll always look smarter than.  

 

Interestingly enough Philip is called a stinky bug I think.  Something like that.  I would put Russell Hantz in that category too.  The woman Rob took to the end was definitely Bunny.  

Edited December 18, 2016 by Stinamaia

[Sugar]

I love it when people make their own assumptions on what went down (footage we weren't shown) to affirm their personal opinions, completely disregarding the statements and actions of the people who were actually there. There's a reason Hannah didn't win. Some of you want to make a case for her being this brilliant player with great strategy, but she didn't get a single vote. No one respected her game. So where are you getting your ideas from?! So, what, the entire jury is sexist and ageist, and didn't vote for Hannah based on her gender and youth? C'mon.

[violet and green]

6 hours ago, mojoween said:

I am personally glad that I no longer have to look at Hannah's horrible purple shorts.

It is possible thirty odd days of camel toe factored into the jury's decision, also.

[gator12]

10 hours ago, gator12 said:

that Michelle questions wasn't really a compliment to her game, since Ken was also at the right side of the votes but one and Adam was at the right side of votes except those 2 time.

[Shades of Scarlet]

Decent - but by no means great - season, boring/unsatisfying/undeserving winner. 

If appraising Ken's game very positively because he worked hard, he cooked, he fished, and he won *four* individual immunity challenges while also remaining true to his values and honest at least until the very end is "old school," then count me as an "old school" viewer, I guess.  I suppose I would be a great disappointment to petulant nerds like Zeke who want to game to "evolve," whatever the heck that means.  Shut it, Zeke! 

I think Ken lost, plain and simple, because he wasn't popular.  The editing didn't really show it, but it's clear that many of the castaways on the jury found him to be overbearing and pompous.  Will as much as said so directly in a confessional, and in the jury speaks video posted just above, Michelle (looking adorable) says she would like Ken to explain his case for the million "concisely," with a devious little smile as she says that word.  I don't think Ken was popular, and I don't think he was going to get any votes no matter who else was there at the end.  I also think that the "he didn't strategize" argument is a cover for "I just didn't like the guy." 

And that's a shame, because while I certainly feel sorry for Adam and the sad loss of his mother - which by the way I couldn't care less if he used to his advantage or not - I thought he was an arrogant weasel and a worm.  He was inarticulate, and in a season in which we heard about several contestants conquering their anxiety, he seemed to be a nonstop rolling ball of nerves every time the camera was on him.  He found two idols and misplayed them both, he appeared to do nothing around camp, and he was on the wrong side of key votes or his strategies failed, on a nearly constant basis.  One thing I think he did accomplish that I haven't seen mentioned much around here is he figured out (late) to play to Brett's massive ego, not only guaranteeing Brett's vote but also placing a loud advocate in his favor on the jury and also influencing the ineffectual Sunday and the smug-yet-easily-manipulated Chris.

Hannah was so ineffectual she might not have been on the season.  Did she really consider herself to be some master strategist?  Bizarre.      

I feel bad for Ken. 

Edited December 21, 2016 by Shades of Scarlet

[gator12]

Adam was only on the wrong side of the Mari and Brett vote.

[Rachel RSL]

14 hours ago, Shades of Scarlet said:

Hannah was so ineffectual she might not have been on the season. 

Except that Adam himself said that, for a large part of the time he was aligned with Hannah, she was the one "running the show". Those were his exact words, not mine. So, I think what most people here have been saying is correct, it all came down to how the jury perceived them.

 

Quote

If appraising Ken's game very positively because he worked hard, he cooked, he fished, and he won *four* individual immunity challenges while also remaining true to his values and honest at least until the very end is "old school," then count me as an "old school" viewer, I guess.  I suppose I would be a great disappointment to petulant nerds like Zeke who want to game to "evolve," whatever the heck that means.  Shut it, Zeke! 

I agree. (Mostly with the shut it, Zeke!) Back in the early seasons, a provider, hard worker and challenge beast like Ken would have been a leading contender to win it all. But those days are long gone.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Rachel RSL

[Guest]

I agree about the challenge beast part but was being a provider ever a winning strategy?  Not that some winners weren't also providers, though none spring to mind to me at the moment, except maybe Hatch.  I just don't recall a jury ever naming that as a reason they chose a winner.  

I feel like the most noted providers as far as fishing were probably Ozzie and Rupert, who can't win to save their lives.  

I've always marveled at how well the players seem to discount that role.  I think human nature would favor keeping the hard workers and nicer people but the players usually seem pretty good at focusing on pure strategy and alliance stuff instead.  

[gator12]

1 hour ago, Rachel RSL said:

she was the one running the show.

When did he say that?

[Special K]

The ideal would be to be a challenge monster for the first few weeks so your tribe needs you to avoid TCs.  Be nice and fun to be around, get to know everybody and respect/be kind to all regardless of personal dislike.  Then play possum a bit on the challenges (but don't completely suck) and focus on being a good provider/worker.  Build a strong alliance.  Once the merge happens, ramp up the strategy to keep your alliance together.  Try not to  win the family-visit reward.  That's a no-win.  And then in the final weeks, turn back into a challenge monster and win the last few IIs!

[Rachel RSL]

7 minutes ago, gator12 said:

When did he say that?

I believe it was during the rock draw episode. He said he needed to start making some moves because he'd been sitting back and letting Hannah run the show.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Rachel RSL said:

Except that Adam himself said that, for a large part of the time he was aligned with Hannah, she was the one running the show.

Did he let Hannah pick the last few boots at that time, or was she really running the show for "a large part of the time he was aligned with her"?  I'm too lazy/busy to look it up but it felt like the former to me at the time.  

[Rachel RSL]

I'm just going by what Adam himself said. Right before that confessional, there is a scene with Adam & Hannah discussing who to vote for and Adam actually asks her "What do you want me to do?" Did he "let" her pick the last few boots? I'm not sure but that's pretty much the same thing as her running the show. She was making decisions and Adam was going along with them. I get the impression that a lot of people don't want to give Hannah credit for literally anything. Maybe she's not a strategic mastermind but to say that she was ineffectual and might as well not even have been on the show is overkill, IMO.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Rachel RSL

[Guest]

I just meant what was the time span of her 'running the show', in Adam's mind.  Did he give her credit for running the season or a couple votes?  It seems like if he really felt she was running the show to any serious extent, he would've shown some interest in getting rid of her.  It felt more like he always knew he could minimize her role to the jury, or wouldn't need to, which was true.  

Though I agree with your point.  That is overkill.  The hyperbole gets to me.  If viewers like someone they can do no wrong, if not, they can do no right.  

[Rachel RSL]

Quote

I just meant what was the time span of her 'running the show', in Adam's mind. 

That I'm not sure of.  Even if it was just a few votes, in his mind it was clearly long enough that he felt the need to voice concern over it. 

[NutMeg]

1 hour ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I agree about the challenge beast part but was being a provider ever a winning strategy?  Not that some winners weren't also providers, though none spring to mind to me at the moment, except maybe Hatch.  I just don't recall a jury ever naming that as a reason they chose a winner.  

I feel like the most noted providers as far as fishing were probably Ozzie and Rupert, who can't win to save their lives.  

I've always marveled at how well the players seem to discount that role.  I think human nature would favor keeping the hard workers and nicer people but the players usually seem pretty good at focusing on pure strategy and alliance stuff instead.  

Tom was also the main provider, but obviously that was not his only strength in the game.

[gator12]

2 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

Did he let Hannah pick the last few boots at that time, or was she really running the show for "a large part of the time he was aligned with her"?  I'm too lazy/busy to look it up but it felt like the former to me at the time.  

This is what I remember, the last time he was around her and they went to TC, she didn't know about Mari. They went to three tribe and she didn't know about Michaela. He's the one who insisted that Will, Jay and David go. Will and Jay left and was smart to know that the jury wanted David to go at least at F7 and that it was a mistake for him to.

If he said that during the rock drawing episode, he had only went to four TC with her at the time of the rock drawn, TC #1 Michelle control Hannah. TC#2 Zeke and Hannah didn't like that Adam wanted to talk to the cool kids and Zeke just simply wanted to break up the cool kids alliance. TC#3 victim of being part of the cool kids alliance. 

Going by the TC before the rock drawn, maybe he said that b/c Hannah was telling him to stay away from the cool kids and he was annoys that she was telling him how to run his social game? B/c according to Rachel, this was before Hannah made the dumb moves of Sunday and Bret 

2 hours ago, Rachel RSL said:

I believe it was during the rock draw episode. He said he needed to start making some moves because he'd been sitting back and letting Hannah run the show.

Edited December 21, 2016 by gator12

[Shades of Scarlet]

 

I'm just going by what Adam himself said. Right before that confessional, there is a scene with Adam & Hannah discussing who to vote for and Adam actually asks her "What do you want me to do?" Did he "let" her pick the last few boots? I'm not sure but that's pretty much the same thing as her running the show. She was making decisions and Adam was going along with them. I get the impression that a lot of people don't want to give Hannah credit for literally anything. Maybe she's not a strategic mastermind but to say that she was ineffectual and might as well not even have been on the show is overkill, IMO.

Enh.  If we have to look that hard for evidence that Hannah had strategy, she probably didn't really have any.  One stray remark from Adam - really?

As for the comment from another poster implying that I just plain darn hated Hannah and that's why I can't give her any credit, actually, I neither liked nor disliked her.  She was simply there.  That's why I said she was ineffectual.  Attempts to portray her as some strategist are baffling to me.  Apparently everyone out there agreed. 

[Guest]

I thought you meant she may as well not have even been there from an entertainment aspect as well.  I agree with you she didn't seem to have much effect on the game.  I think some people enjoyed watching her, though.  I did.  I for sure don't think she was robbed of a win or even deserved votes, though.   But as far as people to take to the end to take all the votes from, I would take Ken and Hannah over past goats.  (My own interpretation there.  I don't personally describe players as stinky bugs and bunnies and whatever else.  For me it's goat or contender.)  

[Eolivet]

I just rewatched most of the season, and am posting here rather than the editing thread, because I think it's more about the game as a whole than the editing (and I think they're sick of me over there -- it's OK, I'm sick of me, too).

But I continue to be fascinated by this season. It was just such a good drama, I think I could watch it many times over. I was sort of curious because I'd forgotten a lot of the beginning to middle of the season.

And after watching pretty much the whole season again, I think it's safe to say Adam won because he gave the impression that he had the best read on the game. Not that he made the best moves, but he could tell you what needed to be done. He had an incredibly rough mid-game (almost voted out twice), but he laid low and helped take out anyone who would've received votes instead of him, which got him to the end.

That goes beyond the David vote -- it starts pretty early on, with Zeke's "nerd alliance." Adam is the only one who pushes to get rid of Jay pretty consistently. Even after the hilarious "Jay has an idol!" sequence, Adam is still telling everyone who will listen that Jay needs to go (again, from what we saw). I think it got lost (or it did for me) in the family visit/reward steal/#yinyang of the final part of the season, but Adam was the only one we were shown who consistently -- and likely correctly -- targeted Jay throughout the game.

He was also the driver behind two post-merge boots that were nearly as important (or moreso) than Bret and Sunday: Will (following the flip, Adam is the one who wants him gone and pretty much pushes for it to happen) and Jay (David and Hannah were ready to take Jay up on his offer, so the editing says, but Adam is insistent). Neither of which he took "credit" for at final tribal council (again, that we saw).

So, I'm left with the impression of someone who was on the outside at the beginning, was just harmless enough (and just lucky enough) to squeak by the vote in the middle, laid low for a few episodes (he says as much) and did a heck of a lot of talking. He was more talk than action, really. There's a whole conversation with Bret that I think someone mentioned where he talks about how big a threat David is. And as we saw, he talked a lot at tribal council.

Ultimately, it seems like Adam's win was similar to that of a politician: he didn't sell himself, he sold his vision. I thought that was kind of unique in Survivor -- people usually win by selling themselves and their moves. Putting aside his personal story, it was a pretty unique strategy. Again, nowhere near one of the best games played, but for my money, one of the most interesting ways to win.

TL;DR -- again some more -- and now I'm really done talking about this (but will happily listen to others talk). Thank you all for your awesome conversation about what I thought was one of the greatest seasons (certainly one of the great post-merge seasons ever) of the show, and see you all in March (I almost typed February -- too long, CBS -- too long!)

[Rachel RSL]

47 minutes ago, Shades of Scarlet said:

If we have to look that hard for evidence that Hannah had strategy, she probably didn't really have any.  One stray remark from Adam - really?

We really don't have to look that hard though. She's shown strategizing with people before almost every vote.

[kikaha]

6 hours ago, Rachel RSL said:

We really don't have to look that hard though. She's shown strategizing with people before almost every vote.

Let's look at the votes Hannah took part in, and see how much impact she really had, from a strategic or game-running standpoint:

Mari vote: she was completely on the outside of the move to boot Mari, and changed her vote against her own ally after Michelle worked her over at tribal.

Michaela: Hannah had no idea Jay was targeting Michaela. Hannah voted to boot to boot Bret.

So pre-merge, she shaped neither of the votes she took part in, was wrong on one, and a last-second convert on the other.

Michelle: David and Chris came up with the idea to boot Michelle.

Taylor: Jay manipulated this vote more than anyone else, getting Taylor to incriminate himself, and voting against Taylor to help swing the majority off his own back.

Chris: David pushed the strategy of booting Chris.

Jessica: David recruited Hannah to try and boot Zeke, but Hannah's awful execution almost got herself evicted: Zeke immediately saw through her terrible poker face, and targeted her instead. Only rocks and Jessica's huge screwup kept Hannah in the game.

Zeke: David's idea, with a major assist from Will.

Sunday: Hannah played a big role in this boot, but she made a mortal error in doing so, because Sunday was one of the few players Hannah might beat in finals.

Jay: everyone agreed they had to boot Jay.

Bret: the second vote Hannah drove, and like the first, a colossal mistake. Hannah again voted out one of the only players she might beat, while keeping in the game the #1 threat (David) who was a sure bet to win if he made F3.

David: finally she agreed to vote against David, though by this time it was too late – she had left in the game another player she could not possibly defeat, and was now 100% sure of making FTC.

So for the entire game, I would say Hannah played key roles in two votes. Both were terrible plays. The rest of the time, she was mostly along for the ride, where other players conceived and pushed through the strategy, or like at F4 the decision didn't matter because she was guaranteed to lose by then.

In what way was she the strategic mastermind? No one out there thought so: they believed the exact opposite.

And as I've pointed out before, if she was, she fucked up so badly in seeding the jury, she got shut out in the vote that counted most.

[waving feather]

Honestly I can't tell if Hannah is not given enough credit by the fellow castaways or the edit credited her more than what she did. 

Chris was asked about why they didn't credit Hannah for getting Ken to vote out David and Chris said the viewers didn't see everything. he didn't elaborate, though.

And then on the show, Hannah was the one shown suspecting Bret of being a cop. But after the show, Bret said he loves Hannah but Jay was the one smart enough to guess that he was a cop and Jay actually got Hannah to question him about the funeral home business.

So who knows what actually went on and how much we saw or didn't see.

[fishcakes]

I don't think anyone here is saying Hannah is the greatest strategist of all time who was unfairly robbed of her rightful title of Sole Survivor; people are just saying, "really, zero votes? And Adam got ten? Come on, jury." Ken was mostly a non-factor strategically (and would get no credit at all, had he not had a hand in voting out David), but Hannah and Adam were similar in terms of gameplay. They both made mistakes and they both made good moves. They both antagonized people and neither one seemed to have more friends on the jury than the other. I think either would have been a worthy winner, but neither deserved a unanimous vote. In the end, the jury decided they'd rather lose to Adam than to Hannah, and we don't really know if it was sexism, or because of his mom, or if there were other factors that we can't know about because we weren't there. But it is strange to me that people are arguing so hard that Hannah was terrible at the game considering that Adam was really not better. Not saying he was worse, but he was definitely not 10-0 better than Hannah.

And FWIW, I think voting out Sunday instead of going with Adam's plan to split the vote between David and Jay was the right move for Hannah and maybe for Adam as well. If they had done what Adam wanted, then David would have gone home because Jay played his idol. Hannah and Adam would have gone from being in the majority alliance to being tied in numbers with the opposing alliance, and I don't think Bret would have flipped so easily on Jay if Sunday were still there. (And this is just rank speculation on my part, but since it was David who beat Jay (who'd been leading) at the next IC, it's not hard to imagine that with David gone, Jay would have won that IC and voted out Adam. Once that happens, we're probably looking at an F3 of Jay and his two goats Bret and Sunday. If Jay doesn't win that IC, then there's likely a 3-3 Adam/Jay tie that goes to rocks and then Hannah has a 1 in 4 chance of going home.)

Edited December 23, 2016 by fishcakes

[KimberStormer]

I notice your list includes not one mention of Adam driving the votes, @kikaha?  He did the Figgy vote of course, but that was given to him on a silver platter.  He was even more flatfooted by the Mari vote than Hannah was.

From my perspective on the merge Michelle boot, it looked like Adam was making a complete ass of himself trying as hard as he could to get himself voted out and Hannah kept him on the reservation, looking very much like a key member, if not a leader, of the anti-Cool Kids alliance, and that is the last I saw.  A truly embarassing display that I relish because I don't like him.  I didn't much like Hannah at that moment, voting my favorite out like a cold killer when I thought they were pals, but it was less pathetic, at least.

Ah, but they tell me Adam "wanted to" vote out David but couldn't execute it, therefore people gave him points for trying -- this is literally what many people have argued.  It is absolutely hilarious to me that a season which was all about contrasting those strong-work-ethic, honest-living Gen-Xers to the feckless, everybody-gets-a-gold-star Millenials, where one of the fucking puzzle solutions was "NOT A PARTICIPATION TROPHY" gave some tedious shouty blonde white-dude jackass a literal million-dollar "A for effort".  And the only woman left gets zero votes and the loser-dork "she's not even hot" treatment at the finale because she actually executed, but did it wrong.  And nobody seems to have even noticed this.

Edited December 23, 2016 by KimberStormer

[violet and green]

49 minutes ago, KimberStormer said:

 It is absolutely hilarious to me that a season which was all about contrasting those strong-work-ethic, honest-living Gen-Xers to the feckless, everybody-gets-a-gold-star Millenials, where one of the fucking puzzle solutions was "NOT A PARTICIPATION TROPHY" gave some tedious shouty blonde white-dude jackass a literal million-dollar "A for effort".  

That is pretty funny!

It reminded me of all those Oscars given a few years ago, one after the other, to whoever cried the most extravagantly in one of the nominated films. Here you go, you win!

[Guest]

I don't know how anyone can quit watching mid-season and expect to have an accurate picture of what went down.  If there was a 'participation prize' winner it would've been anyone left but Adam.  

[kikaha]

Kimberstormer, I wasn't trying to make the case for Adam.  I don't think he (or anyone else) played all that well this season.  I do think:

a) the proposal I often hear on these boards -- that Hannah was the mastermind -- is 100% false.  That was the point of my last post, as well as a few others.

b) Hannah did not keep Adam on the reservation.  He did that himself, by continually establishing good relations with the other players, even as he screwed up.  That is why he so rarely got votes at tribal, and was never in real danger.  Hannah did not establish such good relations, often got votes at tribal, and was in extreme danger of getting booted twice.

c) overall, the jurors saw a great deal more of what happened than we did.  Several of them, like Zeke and David, worked with Hannah through most of the game.  All of them -- every single juror-- believed Adam played better than Hannah and Ken.  Most of them thought it wasn't even close. 

So even though Adam didn't impress me too much, I agree with the jury: he outplayed Hannah, and by a fair amount.

[kikaha]

Kimberstormer, I didn't see your final sentence till just now.  It bewilders me.  Hannah executed almost nothing herself -- she mostly followed the lead of others -- and the little she drove on her own was ass-backwards wrong, guaranteeing she could not win. 

[peachmangosteen]

Huge +1 to @fishcakes and @KimberStormer's posts.

I have to really agree with @fishcakes assessment that I don't see where anyone is trying to argue that Hannah was some kind of strategic mastermind. The point is Adam didn't play any better than Hannah strategically and yet he won 10-0 with the jury trying to act like he is a strategic mastermind.

[kikaha]

peachmangosteen, afraid I disagree with both your sentences.  Hannah herself claimed she was the mastermind -- that was the whole point of her FTC argument -- and a number of posts in these boards have said the same thing. 

Also, I didn't see the jury as a whole claim Adam was the mastermind.  They thought he had a good command of the strategic game, setting up good targets throughout the game, aiming for the real jury threats, like David.  Hannah repeatedly kept huge threats in the game, while booting lesser ones.  

Over and over I see Russell Hantz get mocked for how deluded he was.  I agree, he didn't have a clue.  Yet he got two votes out of nine from his first jury, while Hannah got zero out of ten.  And Hannah went to the end with exactly the players she wanted to -- the players she thought she would beat!

If we put down Russell for his big blind spot -- based on the actual results -- how can we not do the same to Hannah?

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

The point is Adam didn't play any better than Hannah strategically and yet he won 10-0 with the jury trying to act like he is a strategic mastermind.

But jury management is the one strategy that matters.  

[Rachel RSL]

27 minutes ago, kikaha said:

If we put down Russell for his big blind spot -- based on the actual results -- how can we not do the same to Hannah?

Part of the difference is that Hannah had a chance of winning, depending on who she was sitting next to in the final 3. Russell had absolutely no chance of winning in any season he played, no matter who he was sitting next to in the finals.

[kikaha]

1 hour ago, Rachel RSL said:

Part of the difference is that Hannah had a chance of winning, depending on who she was sitting next to in the final 3. Russell had absolutely no chance of winning in any season he played, no matter who he was sitting next to in the finals.

Don't see why that matters.  Russell misread his jury, and is reviled for it, but Hannah misread her jury even worse.   She was more clueless about how the jury saw her and her game. 

Also, not sure I agree with you about Russell.  Suppose Samoa had an F2, and Russell took Mick to the end.  My guess is Russell wins.  He probably beats Shambo in an F2 as well... and also Shambo and Mick in an F3.

[fishcakes]

1 hour ago, Rachel RSL said:

Part of the difference is that Hannah had a chance of winning, depending on who she was sitting next to in the final 3. Russell had absolutely no chance of winning in any season he played, no matter who he was sitting next to in the finals.

Pretty much. Russell didn't lose because he was a bad strategist, he lost because he was a bad person. He mocked people, he called them losers, he got right in their faces and said he would take them to the finals and they wouldn't get any votes. There's no comparison between Russell's and Hannah's game.

Nor do I think losing in a blowout or near-blowout is evidence that the person was deluded about his or her strategic ability. Stephenie ran the game in Guatemala and got only one vote against Danni. Becky got zero votes against Yul and Ozzy, even though Yul has always said she was his equal partner in making decisions. Amanda got only one vote against Courtney's two and Todd's four, and her game was at least as good as, if not better than, Todd's. Fishbach in Tocantins, Dawn in Caramoan, Gervase in BvW -- all equally responsible for the same moves the winner made, all getting zero votes. Even though we criticized some aspects of each of these people's games, most of them get credit for being decent strategic players. Only Becky and Gervase were (unfairly, IMO) considered coattailers, but I don't remember the criticism about them being nearly as harsh as it is about Hannah.

[Guest]

Are many people criticizing Hannah harshly?  I've said I didn't think she deserved the win or even votes but I don't feel harshly toward her.  By 'deserve votes' I mean I don't think anyone deserves consolation votes or something.  If all the jurors felt she was even 1% less worthy than Adam, then a shut-out is the result.  That doesn't imply to me that she or Ken is useless or reviled or anything.  And I don't feel anyone ever 'deserves' votes or a win besides the person who got them.  

[KimberStormer]

8 hours ago, kikaha said:

Kimberstormer, I wasn't trying to make the case for Adam.  I don't think he (or anyone else) played all that well this season.  I do think:

a) the proposal I often hear on these boards -- that Hannah was the mastermind -- is 100% false.  That was the point of my last post, as well as a few others.

b) Hannah did not keep Adam on the reservation. 

It's telling that you didn't mention him at all unless you're "making a case" for him.  I think as far as Hannah being "the mastermind", well as far as I can tell this is one of the many seasons where there was no "mastermind", but by your own account she was more effective at getting the vote to go her way than he was.  As for your point b) I just meant the merge vote; I remember it quite specifically that she was telling him to chill out and stop being a nutcase.  But it's entirely possible I remember it wrong.

7 hours ago, kikaha said:

Kimberstormer, I didn't see your final sentence till just now.  It bewilders me.  Hannah executed almost nothing herself -- she mostly followed the lead of others -- and the little she drove on her own was ass-backwards wrong, guaranteeing she could not win. 

By your own account Adam executed nothing himself, and followed the lead of others every time, so almost nothing is better than nothing.

I know you enjoy bringing up Russell as your magical trump card, but that would be more effective if you didn't often praise Russell's game and call him the mastermind, including in HvV when he was totally shut out.  If his moves counted for something, if only respect, why not Hannah's?  I don't think she "should" have gotten votes, but I do think it's fine for people online to say she played a good game and they're disappointed she didn't get more credit for it.  And as you only have to beat the people you're at the end with, it also seems OK to me to point out that she did some things more effectively than Adam and Ken did, even if not as well as people on the jury.

Edited December 23, 2016 by KimberStormer

[Shades of Scarlet]

On 12/22/2016 at 9:44 AM, Rachel RSL said:

We really don't have to look that hard though. She's shown strategizing with people before almost every vote.

Okay, but strategizing with people, i.e., talking with people about who to boot next, is not the same as being effectual.  As succinctly and comprehensively pointed out by @kikaha in a terrific post, Hannah spazzed around talking a lot, but actually had very little to do with almost anyone being booted.  And the one that *was* her idea, Sunday, was a massive blunder.   

The most strategy the entire season was shown by Michaela in her seashell demo, which promptly got her booted.  In fact, because of the lack of post-merge strategy and suspenseful boots - added to the uselessness of both advantages and the misplay of virtually every idol - I found the season to be quite pedestrian and unmemorable.  Adam's win was the icing on that cake.  

[peachmangosteen]

37 minutes ago, Shades of Scarlet said:

As succinctly and comprehensively pointed out by @kikaha in a terrific post, Hannah spazzed around talking a lot, but actually had very little to do with almost anyone being booted.

Another thing her and Adam have in common!

Edited December 23, 2016 by peachmangosteen

[Shades of Scarlet]

6 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

Another thing her Adam have in common!

Oh, my feelings exactly.  Actually the more I think about it the more this season moves from "meh" to "terrible." 

[peachmangosteen]

I still loved this season and I still like many of the cast as people, but the game play definitely did suck from almost everyone. But I find bad game play from interesting and not horrible people fine. I even enjoy it tbh. 

ETA: Also personally I am super over 'strategic masterminds who run the whole game' type players. I honestly very rarely like them. I think Kim and Parvati are the only players of that type that I rooted for and loved.

Edited December 23, 2016 by peachmangosteen

[Shades of Scarlet]

Parvati is my all-time favorite Survivor.  Robbed of a win in HvH, too.  She's how I judge "strategic masterminds."  Hannah?  Not so much as far as that label. 

[kikaha]

3 hours ago, KimberStormer said:

It's telling that you didn't mention him at all unless you're "making a case" for him.  I think as far as Hannah being "the mastermind", well as far as I can tell this is one of the many seasons where there was no "mastermind", but by your own account she was more effective at getting the vote to go her way than he was.  As for your point b) I just meant the merge vote; I remember it quite specifically that she was telling him to chill out and stop being a nutcase.  But it's entirely possible I remember it wrong.

By your own account Adam executed nothing himself, and followed the lead of others every time, so almost nothing is better than nothing.

I know you enjoy bringing up Russell as your magical trump card, but that would be more effective if you didn't often praise Russell's game and call him the mastermind, including in HvV when he was totally shut out.  If his moves counted for something, if only respect, why not Hannah's?  I don't think she "should" have gotten votes, but I do think it's fine for people online to say she played a good game and they're disappointed she didn't get more credit for it.  And as you only have to beat the people you're at the end with, it also seems OK to me to point out that she did some things more effectively than Adam and Ken did, even if not as well as people on the jury.

The only votes Hannah was effective at getting sabotaged her game, and made it impossible for her to win.  I find that worse than trying to make good boots, even if your efforts mostly fail.  And remember, Hannah was the reason some of Adam's big boot targets failed, even though she hurt herself in the process. 

As for Russell, IMO he WAS a mastermind.  He picked out lots of prime targets, who were huge threats to win, and took them out, totally changing the complexion of both his seasons.  He was also a dick (completely unnecessarily for his game), and that's why he lost.  I bring him up because I think standards that apply to him should apply to others who make it to the end but get shut down, including Hannah. 

[fishcakes]

5 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

Are many people criticizing Hannah harshly?

No, it's not many people, but the intensity of the criticism is more than I'm used to seeing (aside from that for the true trash fire humans like Dan Foley or Will Sims, in which case, as far as I'm concerned, no amount of criticism will ever be enough). It's either, "she did nothing," or "everything she did was stupid and wrong." Also, "she's a spaz," "she was deluded," and "she was clueless." Those of us defending her have been asking what Adam did that was so much better, but now I'm thinking, okay, and what did Ken do that was so much better? Because he and Hannah also voted in sync, we rarely saw him talking strategy, and his social game was ... not of the Lord. Except for early on when he warned Jess her alliance was turning on her, it seems that for the most part he just followed David's lead. Of everything she did in the game, Hannah's gotten the most flak for voting out Sunday and Bret as the only two people she could beat, but those are most likely the only two people Ken could have beaten as well and no one is dragging him for it.

Edited December 24, 2016 by fishcakes

[Jextella]

It occurred to me that Survivor is a lot like the work world.  You can do your job to absolute perfection but if no one likes you or knows the good work you do, it really doesn't matter.  Both are HUGE in getting ahead in a job and the same is true for this game. 

I'm glad the issue of perception is being discussed.  for whatever reason, I don't think I clued into it as much in the past but this season brought home how important it is.

Where this matters tons is in the strategic game play.  It occurred to me that the jury responded to "intentionality".   As a bunch of superfans, they wanted to see someone win who planned moves and executed them - just like in a game of chess.  This, more than anything, was Hannah's biggest challenge IMO.  She never came of as intentionally planning strategic moves.  She came across as reactive rather than proactive which I don't think was the case.   When it came time to make her case with the jury, she was not able to articulate how this was so. 

The way I see it, Hannah played a good strategic game, but Adam played it better.  And, he was also more likeable than Hannah and managed perceptions really, really well by being articulate and strategic with the words he used - especially during jury times.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Jextella

[kikaha]

Suppose Hannah had voted to boot David at F5.  That leaves Ken, Hannah, Adam and Bret in the game.  I think Ken still wins the FIC.  But with David gone, now Ken and Hannah can boot Adam, leaving them to face Bret at FTC. 

I feel sure Hannah does not get shut out against those two.  She may actually win:  while Bret had some friends on the jury, I don't think anyone saw him as a strategic force, and she can rightly claim she booted the top two threats still in the game.  She could even throw in Jay and claim the troika. 

So I think the chances are fair that by booting Bret instead of David at F5, Hannah cost herself the game, and handed it to either Adam or David (if he had won the FIC). 

[MissEwa]

5 hours ago, kikaha said:

Suppose Hannah had voted to boot David at F5.  That leaves Ken, Hannah, Adam and Bret in the game.  I think Ken still wins the FIC.  But with David gone, now Ken and Hannah can boot Adam, leaving them to face Bret at FTC. 

Maybe. Or maybe Ken decided he can't trust her and decides to boot her, with help from Bret (who dislikes her but also didn't think Adam was a massive threat) and possibly Adam (who would just be glad it wasn't him) - that was her logic, anyway. 

I don't think Hannah was the best player ever. She's one of my favourites, from a personality POV, but she's not a mastermind. IMO her game, and her motivations, were solid, but ultimately not right for the jury she was facing. It happens. I just wish it hadn't been a wash (and yes, I get why it was...)

Edited December 27, 2016 by MissEwa