Most and Least Favorite Past Contestants

ProfCrash · January 16, 2015

What Donny said. We saw Russell's game and little of anything else that season. Other contestants from that season talked about what Natalie and the rest of the alliance did to keep Russell in the game. They needed the number and he was a goat extraordinaire. Many of his big moves were made with the help of his alliance mates. But all of that was boring and had nothing to do with what the Producers wanted us to see.

I am guessing it might have been one of the most misleading seasons of Survivor out there.

sara416 · January 17, 2015

Oh he definitely blew the social game, there's no denying that. But I still feel like he was able to use people to his advantage and instrumented some of those moves that his alliance mates did. I said it was an unpopular opinion, and I'm standing by it. The second and third time he was asked back were ridiculous, and Brandon Hantz was a nightmare and unsafe to be there. They clearly went to the well way to often.

BigRedCheese · January 17, 2015

Yeah, Russell Hantz was good tv, but a lousy Survivor player, sort of like a bizzaro version of Rupert. I guess I should say both of those characters were good tv for a portion of the viewing public, but not me, couldn't stand either one of them. They both created characters that have given them opportunities outside of Survivor, which I guess was their goal all along, since their goal certainly couldn't have been to win Survivor.

ToastnBacon · January 17, 2015

I never could figure out what Rupert's job was, he billed himself as a troubled youth mentor.

I'm thinking that if you are a troubled youth, the last thing you would want to do is become a protégé of a grungy self-aggrandizing goof like Rupert.

TudorQueen · January 17, 2015

The thing is, I've heard from a few different sources that Rupert really is dedicated to helping at risk youth and has put his Survivor money almost entirely into that cause, with many in his home area insisting he walks the walk sincerely.

ToastnBacon · January 17, 2015

The thing is, I've heard from a few different sources that Rupert really is dedicated to helping at risk youth and has put his Survivor money almost entirely into that cause, with many in his home area insisting he walks the walk sincerely.

Perhaps you are right, but one could look at his charity, Rupert's Kids, and see a guy who created a 501c charity in order to draw a yearly paycheck from it as the executive officer.

Looks like his wife and another family member gets compensated from it as well.

What do they do?

From what I can tell they put kids ages 18 to 24 who have just gotten out of jail and detention facilities to work mowing lawns and gutting abandoned houses.

Either I am a cynical bastard or he is a saint, take your pick.

http://www.rupertskids.org

https://www.citizenaudit.org/201486687/

http://pdfs.citizenaudit.org/2005_09_EO/20-1486687_990_200506.pdf

KimberStormer · January 18, 2015

Let's not forget his bid for Indiana governor, or senator, or whatever it was!

ToastnBacon · January 18, 2015

Let's not forget his bid for Indiana governor, or senator, or whatever it was!

I certainly can't see him being an effective Govenor with his weird Jim Henson muppet voice. The guy sometimes pronounces Rs as Ws.

Speaking as someone who made it out of the "hood" and went to college, I just can not see Rupert as gaining much traction with a gang banger who has just been released from jail.

I can't see his half gruff monster/half baby-talk patter about good conquering evil doing a damn thing but pissing off those "angry young men"to an even greater extent.

Rupert probably is a kind hearted soul, but I seriously doubt he is doing anything of substance with those "kids."

Edited January 18, 2015 by ToastnBacon

RescueMom · January 18, 2015

I certainly can't see him being an effective Govenor with his weird Jim Henson muppet voice. The guy sometimes pronounces Rs as Ws.

I'd agree, except that I live in Minnesota. Where we had Governor Jesse Ventura.

henripootel · January 19, 2015

They both created characters that have given them opportunities outside of Survivor, which I guess was their goal all along, since their goal certainly couldn't have been to win Survivor.

This is, for me, the real lasting value of Russell Hantz - he shined a light on the conflicts of interest between players and production. Hear me out.

I think production guys really high-fived when they cast Hantz - he's charismatic, looks good on tv, and has an easily digestible smarm that lends itself to a simple narrative. And I think he really delivered the goods, giving wind to whatever nonsense production needed to get on film about how everyone believed his prevarications and how he was the best player ever. This was sure to make him the focus of hostility from viewers and other players, what with his 'arrogant braggadocio' and 'conniving ways', but they were also the reason he didn't stand a chance of actually winning.

Here's where it gets interesting, for me at least. I think Hantz was given certain assurances that production would help him win, and I think they did help, some. HIIs fell at his feet (including one given to him by a total stranger, on a different tribe, for no particular reason), and I seem to recall one vote that looked to blind-side him were in not for a remarkably prescient play of an HII, almost like someone warned him he was in danger. But I think he was ultimately foiled because the producers (wisely, in my opinion) refuses to simply stuff the ballot box, and without that, 'Russell Hantz' the character couldn't win. This is why Russell banged on later about how the game is flawed and how he 'got screwed' - he did everything he was asked to do but he didn't get what they intimated he would, namely, the title. This title may have no more meaning than the WWE champion belt but he wanted it, and had expectations that he'd 'earned it'. I mean what's the use of being assured of how you're a Survivor Celebrity with multiple return invites and tongue-baths by Probst if you don't get to, you know, win.

Should also say that I never really minded 'Russell Hantz' the character and found him fairly entertaining. I know we were supposed to hate him since he was a 'villain' but it just never reached me. And I think he highlighted the division between being a 'Great Player' on Survivor and actually winning Survivor. As you say, Cheese, winning often seems to be not the goal, but this is servicing the producer's interests, not the player's. I think we're meant to think that these two interests are in fact one in the same, but they're not.

Edited January 21, 2015 by henripootel

BigRedCheese · January 19, 2015

I know we were supposed to hate him since he was a 'villain'

I disagree with you there, I think we were supposed to love him, or at least find him to be a lovable rascal , and that was the case for a large part of the viewing public, the editing worked, just as it did with Rupert, but I found him to be too off putting. If he had won, I might never have watched again, because, then, it's not really Survivor anymore, at least not the Survivor I have any interest in watching. That was his first season, I didn't find him to be so intolerable on HvV, I guess because he was playing against seasoned players. His next time around, we saw that his first season had caught up with him, and his tribe threw a challenge just to get rid of him, which I don't blame them, it was a tight spot, it sucks to throw a challenge, but who knows if crazypants is sabotaging his own tribe when they're not looking.

ToastnBacon · January 19, 2015

Russel was hillarious and fun to watch no matter if the distinction of intentional villian applies or not.

I honestly don't know if the producers were feeding him lines. Sometimes I think maybe they were.

I remember in one of his confessions he called two people his puppets, and boasted of his intention to throw them in the trash when he was finished with them.

Pure gold! I have no doubt that the editors were celebrating when they reviewed that film clip.

Mike Teevee · January 19, 2015

This is probably one of the most unpopular opinions out there, but I loved Russel the first season he was on. After that, not so much. But he played a brilliant game that first time around, making moves that in no way should have worked but totally worked to his favor. I was so pissed when he lost in the end to some blonde girl whose name I don't remember. The jury voted for her simply because they hated Russel, but she did nothing except stay under the radar the whole game. He should have won his first season. Was he a good person? Not necessarily. But he was a hell of a game player.

The beauty of Survivor, in my opinion, is that there are no "should haves". The person who is supposed to win ALWAYS wins. Because the only rule for winning is to earn the most jury votes. That's it. There's no other score that counts. The best game player will know how to earn those jury votes. Will the jury vote for the person who does well in challenges? Will they vote for the most aggressive player? Will they vote for the person they like the most? You need to figure out what your fellow players on the jury value, then explain to them how you performed in a manner that they will reward. Russell couldn't do this, therefore he wasn't the best player and didn't win.

Natalie (the "blonde girl" who won Samoa) played a great social game. Unfortunately, that doesn't translate to great tv. So Natalie, and players like her, get a raw deal from a lot of the fans, IMO. I wasn't expecting Natalie to win until the final tribal council. She explained to the jury that the first people voted off that season were the aggressive female players, so she needed to find another way to play. The jury member responded to her that this was the type of strategy explanation the jury was looking for. At that point, I figured she would win.

Russell will never win unless he learns jury management. That was the difference for Boston Rob between All-Stars and Redemption Island. A jury has never -NEVER! - voted by saying "I prefer the person sitting next to you, but you had great strategy so I'm giving you the million dollars". The jury always votes for the person they like better. Which is why, after 29 seasons, Survivor is still a social game, no matter how hard Probst and others try to shove "big moves" down our throats.

peachmangosteen · January 19, 2015

I disagree with you there, I think we were supposed to love him, or at least find him to be a lovable rascal , and that was the case for a large part of the viewing public, the editing worked, just as it did with Rupert, but I found him to be too off putting.

This was my biggest problem with Russell. It felt like we were supposed to be pissed he didn't win because he was just so fucking great when in actuality I thought it was clear as day he sucked and wasn't very good at the game of Survivor. If he'd been presented as a love to hate villain (and if Natalie had gotten a minuscule amount of credit in the narrative) I probably would've enjoyed him.

The beauty of Survivor, in my opinion, is that there are no "should haves". The person who is supposed to win ALWAYS wins. Because the only rule for winning is to earn the most jury votes. That's it. There's no other score that counts. The best game player will know how to earn those jury votes. Will the jury vote for the person who does well in challenges? Will they vote for the most aggressive player? Will they vote for the person they like the most? You need to figure out what your fellow players on the jury value, then explain to them how you performed in a manner that they will reward. Russell couldn't do this, therefore he wasn't the best player and didn't win.

This. I 100% agree.

henripootel · January 20, 2015

A jury has never -NEVER! - voted by saying "I prefer the person sitting next to you, but you had great strategy so I'm giving you the million dollars".

I always love the various incarnations of this at FTC: "Sure I betrayed you, but it was a great, big move! You gotta respect that!"

No. No, they don't.

KimberStormer · January 20, 2015

The beauty of Survivor, in my opinion, is that there are no "should haves". The person who is supposed to win ALWAYS wins.

A jury has never -NEVER! - voted by saying "I prefer the person sitting next to you, but you had great strategy so I'm giving you the million dollars". The jury always votes for the person they like better. Which is why, after 29 seasons, Survivor is still a social game, no matter how hard Probst and others try to shove "big moves" down our throats.

Whereas I think the beauty of Survivor is that there is no ALWAYS or NEVER. Woo lost. And Kelly Wigglesworth lost. [cue the tautological protests] Fans love ALWAYS, they love NEVER, but only when it supports their own likes and dislikes, which can't help but be influenced by editing (one way or another), and I think, by a sort of counter-reaction towards the rest of the audience and the producers/Probst. Everyone hated Russell in particular because he was over-edited so hard, "shoved down our throats", and were delighted to see him lose; now it's axiomatic that only loveable social bunnies win. But for years and years it was (and still is, for some) an article of fan faith that Lex was a pathetic bitter deluded jackass, because people liked Rob, and I suspect fans especially liked that he was playing the game without worrying about being nice.

I often think our perception of whether the jury likes someone is based almost entirely on whether we like them. Hence the surprise that everyone felt when it turned out that the whole dang island hated Sugar, or that everyone liked Jenna Morasca. We're also forever inventing reasons why the people we like are Good (at the game, I mean) and people we don't like are Bad. I'm terrible about this; everyone I don't like, I nitpick their games to death (e.g. Spencer), and everyone I do like, I can justify every move they make (e.g. Lisa Welchel). But it's a just-world fallacy. People win and lose Survivor for all kinds of reasons; if it was just a student-council election based on pure personal popularity I don't believe anyone would be that interested, even those who most disdain the BIG MOVE. Sometimes people vote for someone they hate to win, because they respect their game. (This happens more lately, I feel; the "bitter jury"--which the Anthropic Principle School of Survivor, represented by Mike Teevee's quote there, would probably say is a logical impossibility anyway--is possibly becoming a thing of the past.) Sometime people vote for someone who they like best. Every jury is different. There is no ALWAYS. There is no NEVER. There is no rule, there is no guarantee; someone like Russell could win, and someone like Tom could lose. You can't say "Well they may hate me but they've got to respect my moves", but you also can't say "Well I did jack shit in the game but everyone likes hanging out with me".

Anyway, again I confess that I'm not saying this out of a pure love for truth and the ruthless examination of my own biases or anything; it's because I'll be damned if I'm not "allowed" to say that Parvati absolutely should have won HvV, and Sugar should have won Gabon, and Dawn should probably have won Caramoan, etc. I can be dissatisfied with the jury when I think they got it wrong, and I will continue to be. (Plus, I like big moves, because I'm watching a TV show and a season without big moves is South Pacific, a tedious Pagonging, about as fun as watching 39 days of accountants doing taxes or something.) If you're Troyzan, and too childish and petulant to admit that you were beaten by the better player, I'm going to call you an asshole, and say you voted wrong.

peachmangosteen · January 20, 2015

I believe that whoever won was the person who 'deserved' to win, but that sure as hell doesn't keep me from being pissed when people I hate win! For instance, Bob winning will never not drive me crazy. His game play sucked. But I accept that sometimes (most times honestly) that doesn't really matter. I believe (like Mike Teevee) that the winner has always been and will always be the person that the majority of the jury 'likes' more. That's just the way it is and I'm ultimately OK with it.

TudorQueen · January 20, 2015

For me, "Survivor" is like "The Amazing Race" in that whoever wins 'deserves' the win by virtue of having won. However, as some of you have said, this doesn't mean I'm always going to be happy with the results. I mean, I despised Jenna Morasca in her first season, and loved Matthew (an unpopular opinion, I think), but Jenna won - in a landslide - because the jury voted for her and therefore, it was a legitimate victory. I'm unhappy with the fact that Jonathan Penner never won - and I think he is one of those player/fans for whom the win is as important or even more important than the money - but he didn't win, and that's a fact (though one of those seasons saw him evacuated against his own wishes for medical reasons).

Skilled reality shows ("Top Chef", "Project Runway", etc) are a different kettle of fish. You can have an opinion on whose work is the best (though in cooking competitions it's hard to evaluate how good their work is!) and feel it is unfair that someone won - or didn't win - based on the criteria. For example, Gretchen was one of "Runway"'s least popular winners, because many viewers believed her designs were inferior to Mondo's (or Michael's, or someone else's), as well as not liking her personality.

With "Survivor", there were a number of factors involved in who got voted off the island, but in the end, either you got the jury's votes or you didn't. So even when you think the jury voted for the 'wrong' reasons, it's a simple equation of 'you won them over or you didn't'.

Mike Teevee · January 20, 2015

Whereas I think the beauty of Survivor is that there is no ALWAYS or NEVER.

You appear to have misinterpreted my comments. I didn't say a jury will never vote a certain way, I said they never have voted that way. I stand by that. Richard was liked better by the majority of the Borneo jury (Rudy, Sean, Sue & Greg). Tony was liked better by the majority of the Cagayan jury. Have there been individuals who voted for someone they don't like because they respected his/her game? Sure. But never a jury. Not yet, anyway.

. People win and lose Survivor for all kinds of reasons; if it was just a student-council election based on pure personal popularity I don't believe anyone would be that interested, even those who most disdain the BIG MOVE. Sometimes people vote for someone they hate to win, because they respect their game. (This happens more lately, I feel; the "bitter jury"--which the Anthropic Principle School of Survivor, represented by Mike Teevee's quote there, would probably say is a logical impossibility anyway--is possibly becoming a thing of the past.) Sometime people vote for someone who they like best. Every jury is different. There is no ALWAYS. There is no NEVER. There is no rule, there is no guarantee; someone like Russell could win, and someone like Tom could lose. You can't say "Well they may hate me but they've got to respect my moves", but you also can't say "Well I did jack shit in the game but everyone likes hanging out with me".

This is what I explained in my statement: "You need to figure out what your fellow players on the jury value, then explain to them how you performed in a manner that they will reward."

I'll be damned if I'm not "allowed" to say that Parvati absolutely should have won HvV, and Sugar should have won Gabon, and Dawn should probably have won Caramoan, etc. I can be dissatisfied with the jury when I think they got it wrong, and I will continue to be. (Plus, I like big moves, because I'm watching a TV show and a season without big moves is South Pacific, a tedious Pagonging, about as fun as watching 39 days of accountants doing taxes or something.) If you're Troyzan, and too childish and petulant to admit that you were beaten by the better player, I'm going to call you an asshole, and say you voted wrong.

Of course you can say you're dissatisfied with the jury, or you don't agree with their vote, or you would have voted differently. But to say someone voted "wrong" runs counter to what you said above:"There is no rule." If there are no rules on how to vote, how can a vote be wrong?

And if no votes are wrong, then the right person ALWAYS wins.

henripootel · January 20, 2015

This is what I explained in my statement: "You need to figure out what your fellow players on the jury value, then explain to them how you performed in a manner that they will reward."

I prefer Linda Holmes' version of this: 'you need to construct narrative for each jury member wherein the can live with themselves for giving you a million dollars.' And it's never too early to start.

Edited January 20, 2015 by henripootel

TudorQueen · January 20, 2015

I remember Richard Hatch saying, in a post-season interview, that he had gotten off the boat the first day with an image of a million dollar check made out to him firmly in his mind, and that everything he did was towards fulfilling that mental image.

Note the image did not include putting aside anything for taxes...

Nashville · January 20, 2015

I've always viewed Russell as a "brat prince" type. Hantz can make it to next-in-line for the crown (and has done so twice*), but he will never wear it.

Russell was a substantial physical player, and his strategic gameplay at times bordered on the genius. His Achilles heel was his social game, and was twofold:

His innate abrasive personality negatively impacted his ability to form personal relationships with other players; his alliances were purely strategic, never personal.
More significantly, Hantz recognized this shortcoming in his game - but instead of addressing it, he chose to put on a set of blinders and delude himself into believing the stunning brilliance of his strategic game would outweigh his poor social game in the minds of the Jury.

I believe Russell's self-delusion pinpoints an innate lack of empathy in his personality. RH significantly valued strategic play over social play - and not only did he assume the jurors would do the same, he was unable to comprehend why they did not. He voiced as much in his second FTC after the vote, when he stated he felt the jurors had voted "wrong" - as if they had broken a game rule in not sufficiently valuing his strategic game. I still think Probst's response was stellar: the game Russell was describing would be a VERY interesting game - but it wouldn't be Survivor.

* Of course, Russell's second time around was largely a matter of luck in timing. By playing two seasons back-to-back, RH had a substantial advantage over the other contestants in that he had an opportunity or observe their gameplay, but they had no chance to observe his. IMHO Hantz would never had made it to F2 if they had - as was so ably demonstrated in his third outing.

henripootel · January 20, 2015

RH had a substantial advantage over the other contestants in that he had an opportunity or observe their gameplay

While we're freewheeling on subject anyway - why does anyone think that knowing something about someone is somehow a huge advantage. You might see that someone was a pure-ass liar in their earlier season but isn't everyone pretty much a liar here? Would you really adjust your strategy based on what you saw previously? I can't remember any example of where people really seemed to benefit from this information. There are, of course, people who say they won't 'trust' (whatever that means in the game) so-and-so because they're a proven liar but there're still plenty of folks who will ally with them, sometimes giving the very same reason (that they're 'good at the game' or whatnot). I'm not convinced that previous information about players really does much of anything, even though I can think of reasons why the producers might want us to think it does.

KimberStormer · January 21, 2015

Of course you can say you're dissatisfied with the jury, or you don't agree with their vote, or you would have voted differently. But to say someone voted "wrong" runs counter to what you said above:"There is no rule." If there are no rules on how to vote, how can a vote be wrong?

Let me put it this way: when it comes to winning Survivor, as Clint Eastwood said: "Deserve's got nothin to do with it." Who won, by getting the votes, is a fact, and "deserving" it is irrelevant. When I say people didn't deserve to win, it doesn't mean I don't think they got the votes and didn't actually win (even henripootel doesn't believe that!) They won. Deserve is a different thing competely. This gives me the freedom to say, yes Troyzan, you voted that way, but you were wrong to do so, the same way I can say yes Lisa, you voted out Abi, but you were wrong to do so. I can critique someone's game, and their jury vote is part of their game; they don't magically become perfect and transcendent by getting voted out, despite Dale and Missy acting as though their children had been killed and sent to heaven when it happened to them. JT is a great player with a huge flaw: not that he threw a magnificently risky Hail Mary with his idol giveaway move, but that he is a terrible juror, provincial, partisan, and petty. On the other hand Kat is a poor player in general but a fantastic jury member.

I'm going to drop the subject now because I've been having this discussion for years and it never goes anywhere. Hard-nosed realists know that THE WINNER DESERVED TO WIN BY VIRTUE OF WINNING and THE JURY VOTE FOR WHO THEY LIKE BEST AND YOU CAN TELL BECAUSE THEY SHOW THAT THEY LIKE THEM BEST BY VOTING FOR THEM, and all the other tautologies; I am content to be the deluded emotional girly-girl who can't face these incontestable facts.

Nashville · January 21, 2015

While we're freewheeling on subject anyway - why does anyone think that knowing something about someone is somehow a huge advantage. You might see that someone was a pure-ass liar in their earlier season but isn't everyone pretty much a liar here? Would you really adjust your strategy based on what you saw previously? I can't remember any example of where people really seemed to benefit from this information. There are, of course, people who say they won't 'trust' (whatever that means in the game) so-and-so because they're a proven liar but there're still plenty of folks who will ally with them, sometimes giving the very same reason (that they're 'good at the game' or whatnot). I'm not convinced that previous information about players really does much of anything, even though I can think of reasons why the producers might want us to think it does.

A HUGE advantage? Maybe, maybe not. IMHO there would probably be some degree of advantage, which could basically be boiled down to two words:

Tactics.
Tells.

Trick Question · January 21, 2015

Have there been individuals who voted for someone they don't like because they respected his/her game? Sure. But never a jury. Not yet, anyway.

Brian Heidik won a jury vote (albeit narrowly) because he was shrewd enough to go to the end with perhaps the only player out there who was even less likable than he was. Heidik knew he wouldn't be able to keep up his "hardworking family man" persona all the way through, especially once he started voting out his own alliance members he had F2 deals with, yet by the time everyone seemed to recognize this it was too late --- the jury had to hold their noses and vote for either unlikable Brian or unlikable Clay, and the majority went with the one who at least exhibited more strategy.

Brian's win, by the way, is another example of why Russell is a horrible Survivor player. Heidik knew enough to get to the end with someone a jury couldn't possibly respect, whereas Russell stupidly went to the end with three incredibly well-liked players in Natalie, Sandra and Parvati and got destroyed in the vote. Mick was the only FTC competitor Russell would've beaten, because Mick (while not hated or anything) was such a non-entity in the game that nobody would give him the million. Though who knows, if it was a Mick/Russell F2, maybe Russell was hated so much that enough of those Natalie votes flip over to Mick and even he beats ol' Hantz.

henripootel · January 21, 2015

A HUGE advantage? Maybe, maybe not. IMHO there would probably be some degree of advantage, which could basically be boiled down to two words:
Tactics.

Tells.

Can you expand on that, Nash? Seems to me that most voting comes down to boring things like previously-established alliances, which is why pagonging is so popular. Rather than consider the merits of who 'deserves to go home' (as Jeffy sometimes puts it) or who 'isn't pulling their weight' or whatnot, people form coalitions and usually stick with them. This isn't all the votes but I'll bet it explains a lot of them.

If so, then being 'tactical' isn't usually required, nor is knowing the established tactics of others - they're pretty much the same as everyone else, form alliances, stick with them. People might have a reputation for not sticking with their alliances but this too is unreliable - even 'villains' like the oft-pilloried Russell often kept his word (IIRC) while newbies can and do flip-flop for no particular reason (sorry - 'make Big Moves').

As for 'tells' - you mean like in poker, where somebody twitches their left eye if they're lying? That kinda thing is, in my experience, mostly fiction. Some people are just bad liars but you don't have to know them particularly well to see that. And as the players themselves often say, it's safe to assume that everyone in the game is lying to you at some level. No sense looking for twitchy eyes when you should just be doing a head count in your alliance - this kinda brinksmanship just doesn't seem to play that big a big role in this game.

I think the only good piece of information you can get from a player's earlier seasons is that they've had earlier seasons, and for some reason the producers like them enough to bring them back. That might give me pause for several reasons, but pretty much none of them involves their 'track record' for voting this way or that, or the heavily-edited version of their game-play that got shown on tv.

Edited January 21, 2015 by henripootel

kikaha · January 21, 2015

Brian's win, by the way, is another example of why Russell is a horrible Survivor player.

Francesca is a horrible Survivor player. Osten and s29 Julie are horrible players. Someone who makes two finals in a row, actively dictating play, often deciding who gets booted, is not horrible in my book.

Mike Teevee · January 21, 2015

Let me put it this way: when it comes to winning Survivor, as Clint Eastwood said: "Deserve's got nothin to do with it." Who won, by getting the votes, is a fact, and "deserving" it is irrelevant. When I say people didn't deserve to win, it doesn't mean I don't think they got the votes and didn't actually win (even henripootel doesn't believe that!) They won. Deserve is a different thing competely. This gives me the freedom to say, yes Troyzan, you voted that way, but you were wrong to do so, the same way I can say yes Lisa, you voted out Abi, but you were wrong to do so. I can critique someone's game, and their jury vote is part of their game; they don't magically become perfect and transcendent by getting voted out, despite Dale and Missy acting as though their children had been killed and sent to heaven when it happened to them. JT is a great player with a huge flaw: not that he threw a magnificently risky Hail Mary with his idol giveaway move, but that he is a terrible juror, provincial, partisan, and petty. On the other hand Kat is a poor player in general but a fantastic jury member.

Again, I'm all for critiquing the players, their gameplay, and their jury vote. To say Troyzan's jury vote is stupid, or petty, or bitter - fine. All I'm saying is that it's not "wrong" because there are no rules for voting. Once you explain why a vote is "wrong", you've introduced rules for voting. If I say Troyzan's vote was "wrong" because Kim controlled the game better, well, now I've introduced the principle that a jury member *must* vote based on who controlled the game better.

I'm going to drop the subject now because I've been having this discussion for years and it never goes anywhere. Hard-nosed realists know that THE WINNER DESERVED TO WIN BY VIRTUE OF WINNING and THE JURY VOTE FOR WHO THEY LIKE BEST AND YOU CAN TELL BECAUSE THEY SHOW THAT THEY LIKE THEM BEST BY VOTING FOR THEM, and all the other tautologies; I am content to be the deluded emotional girly-girl who can't face these incontestable facts.

OK.

In my defense, I never suggested "THE JURY VOTE FOR WHO THEY LIKE BEST AND YOU CAN TELL BECAUSE THEY SHOW THAT THEY LIKE THEM BEST BY VOTING FOR THEM". In fact, I said the opposite, that we have seen jury members vote for players they don't like the best.

Nor would I suggest "THE WINNER DESERVED TO WIN BY VIRTUE OF WINNING". I would, however, agree that the winner deserves to win by earning more jury votes.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Mike Teevee

Mike Teevee · January 21, 2015

the jury had to hold their noses and vote for either unlikable Brian or unlikable Clay, and the majority went with the one who at least exhibited more strategy.

From my perspective, the people who voted for Brian (Helen, Jan, Ted, Jake) did like him. Helen, for instance, was pissed at him for not telling her she was getting voted out, but she liked him. (At least before she watched the season on TV.) But I think that's a distinction that's often missed in Survivor, but critical for a player's jury management.

Oholibamah · January 21, 2015

My all time fave is Sandra and I doubt anyone will ever replace her as my #1. Two time winner, bitches! But I love Kim a lot, too. And I really liked Natalie White. I also liked Parvati (mostly), Natalie Anderson, and Sophie. As for non-winners, I liked Andrea. And the lone male player that I ever had strong feelings of like for is Penner and that's mostly just because I think he's hot and I love his voice.

Least faves are Russell, Terry, Tom, and Bob. I hate that Boston Rob won RI and I don't think he's a great player, but I like him as a person.

I think peachmangosteen is my spirit animal.

This was my biggest problem with Russell. It felt like we were supposed to be pissed he didn't win because he was just so fucking great when in actuality I thought it was clear as day he sucked and wasn't very good at the game of Survivor. If he'd been presented as a love to hate villain (and if Natalie had gotten a minuscule amount of credit in the narrative) I probably would've enjoyed him.

Case and point: I actually liked Russell in Heroes v. Villains. Why? Because he was edited with an even hand, and his opponents (Parvati/Sandra) were given their due credit. It wasn't painted as "How Russell Lost", and despite being a central character to the narrative, he wasn't shoved down my throat.

Whereas I think the beauty of Survivor is that there is no ALWAYS or NEVER. Woo lost. And Kelly Wigglesworth lost. [cue the tautological protests] Fans love ALWAYS, they love NEVER, but only when it supports their own likes and dislikes, which can't help but be influenced by editing (one way or another), and I think, by a sort of counter-reaction towards the rest of the audience and the producers/Probst. Everyone hated Russell in particular because he was over-edited so hard, "shoved down our throats", and were delighted to see him lose; now it's axiomatic that only loveable social bunnies win. But for years and years it was (and still is, for some) an article of fan faith that Lex was a pathetic bitter deluded jackass, because people liked Rob, and I suspect fans especially liked that he was playing the game without worrying about being nice.

I often think our perception of whether the jury likes someone is based almost entirely on whether we like them. Hence the surprise that everyone felt when it turned out that the whole dang island hated Sugar, or that everyone liked Jenna Morasca. We're also forever inventing reasons why the people we like are Good (at the game, I mean) and people we don't like are Bad. I'm terrible about this; everyone I don't like, I nitpick their games to death (e.g. Spencer), and everyone I do like, I can justify every move they make (e.g. Lisa Welchel). But it's a just-world fallacy. People win and lose Survivor for all kinds of reasons; if it was just a student-council election based on pure personal popularity I don't believe anyone would be that interested, even those who most disdain the BIG MOVE. Sometimes people vote for someone they hate to win, because they respect their game. (This happens more lately, I feel; the "bitter jury"--which the Anthropic Principle School of Survivor, represented by Mike Teevee's quote there, would probably say is a logical impossibility anyway--is possibly becoming a thing of the past.) Sometime people vote for someone who they like best. Every jury is different. There is no ALWAYS. There is no NEVER. There is no rule, there is no guarantee; someone like Russell could win, and someone like Tom could lose. You can't say "Well they may hate me but they've got to respect my moves", but you also can't say "Well I did jack shit in the game but everyone likes hanging out with me".

Anyway, again I confess that I'm not saying this out of a pure love for truth and the ruthless examination of my own biases or anything; it's because I'll be damned if I'm not "allowed" to say that Parvati absolutely should have won HvV, and Sugar should have won Gabon, and Dawn should probably have won Caramoan, etc. I can be dissatisfied with the jury when I think they got it wrong, and I will continue to be. (Plus, I like big moves, because I'm watching a TV show and a season without big moves is South Pacific, a tedious Pagonging, about as fun as watching 39 days of accountants doing taxes or something.) If you're Troyzan, and too childish and petulant to admit that you were beaten by the better player, I'm going to call you an asshole, and say you voted wrong.

This is so beautiful that I wasn't even able to shorten how much of it I quoted. I don't even have anything to add, but it's such an interesting idea that perception of a "bitter juror" is relative to how likeable the player is. For all I know, Kim's social game failed to impress upon Troyzan and he just hated her: how can I then argue that he was "wrong", but argue that Laura et. al. were justified for doing the same in Samoa?

More on this below.

While we're freewheeling on subject anyway - why does anyone think that knowing something about someone is somehow a huge advantage. You might see that someone was a pure-ass liar in their earlier season but isn't everyone pretty much a liar here? Would you really adjust your strategy based on what you saw previously? I can't remember any example of where people really seemed to benefit from this information. There are, of course, people who say they won't 'trust' (whatever that means in the game) so-and-so because they're a proven liar but there're still plenty of folks who will ally with them, sometimes giving the very same reason (that they're 'good at the game' or whatnot). I'm not convinced that previous information about players really does much of anything, even though I can think of reasons why the producers might want us to think it does.

The example that stands out in my mind is Sophie's alliance with Coach, which was very much predicated on knowing he would A) keep her around out of a misplaced sense of "honor" and B) drown in his delusions at FTC.

People are also commonly targeted due to their previous gameplay - Tina, Rob C, Cirie, Parvati, and even Russell himself in RI. In this regard, it isn't an "advantage" to be unknown, but an "advantage" by virtue of not being a weakness.

despite Dale and Missy acting as though their children had been killed and sent to heaven when it happened to them.

Minor quibble, but I thought Missy handled Baylor's blindside very well.

Brian's win, by the way, is another example of why Russell is a horrible Survivor player. Heidik knew enough to get to the end with someone a jury couldn't possibly respect, whereas Russell stupidly went to the end with three incredibly well-liked players in Natalie, Sandra and Parvati and got destroyed in the vote. Mick was the only FTC competitor Russell would've beaten, because Mick (while not hated or anything) was such a non-entity in the game that nobody would give him the million. Though who knows, if it was a Mick/Russell F2, maybe Russell was hated so much that enough of those Natalie votes flip over to Mick and even he beats ol' Hantz.

Absolutely. If Russell had had the foresight to bring Mick and Shambo to the Finals, he stood a great chance of winning. Which is one of Natalie's most underrated and brilliant moves: she had Russell completely bamboozled into thinking she stood no chance.

Again, I'm all for critiquing the players, their gameplay, and their jury vote. To say Troyzan's jury vote is stupid, or petty, or bitter - fine. All I'm saying is that it's not "wrong" because there are no rules for voting. Once you explain why a vote is "wrong", you've introduced rules for voting. If I say Troyzan's vote was "wrong" because Kim controlled the game better, well, now I've introduced the principle that a jury member *must* vote based on who controlled the game better..

For me, a jury vote can fairly be deemed "wrong" when it veers into "hypocrite" territory. Troyzan was upset because he felt the women were blocking his ability to play the game, celebrating when he lost Immunity, and was eliminated for being a "threat" without being given an opportunity to scramble back into the game. He was frustrated, and took it out on Kim by throwing his vote to Sabrina. Fine. But this vote is not only inconsistent with the way Troyzan had played the game, but was borne from the same "pettiness" that he'd accused the women of in voting him out.

Candice in HvV is another one I have problems with. Her vote for Sandra is justifiable because they are friends in real life, so I don't begrudge her that. But she openly accused Parvati of being Russell's "abused wife", which is not only offensive and untrue, but hypocritical: Candice was also aligned with Russell, and seemed content to do whatever he instructed.

I had no problem with Vytas' vote for Monica because it was carryover from a threat he'd made to Tyson during the game: it was consistent. Certain "bitter" jurors (i.e. Alicia) play the smug honor card during the game, so a bitter vote is consistent with their game - they pledged loyalty with the only expectation of reciprocation. Because these jurors can be anticipated, it can be avoided, and is thus a reasonable vote IMO.

So can a vote be "wrong" as in against the rules? No, of course not. But when a jury vote is not consistent with the player's overall gameplay, I do think it can be fairly critiqued.

henripootel · January 21, 2015

People are also commonly targeted due to their previous gameplay - Tina, Rob C, Cirie, Parvati, and even Russell himself in RI. In this regard, it isn't an "advantage" to be unknown, but an "advantage" by virtue of not being a weakness.

Don't know about the others but I kinda had the impression that Russell was targeted in RI not so much because his awesome strategic methods were spoiled (and hence didn't work) but because he was flown in special and introduced by Probst as a super-awesome player, hence sure to win (and, not for nothing, hog camera time). This alone would inspire me to boot his ass off ASAP, which they did in fact do (and got scolded by Jeffy, who clearly had other results in mind). They didn't outfox Russell by having seen his playbook, they were warned that they'd never get any camera time while Russell was around so they took appropriate steps.

Coach now - fair point. I'd think that any time with him at all would show him to be clearly egomaniacally crazy-pants but any previous season would make that pretty clear too. Touché.

Squirrely · January 22, 2015

I just watched the first BvW for the first time and it cemented my Candice hate. I really can't stand her and I'd rather see Russell brought back again before her. Talk about acting like your firstborn had been slaughtered (even though it was her much more likable husband, not her child.)

I haven't seen all of the seasons, and YouTube just pulled a bunch of S3 eps while I was right in the middle. It seems impossible to watch those early seasons without spending a fortune on dvds, which I'm not going to do.

Anyhoo, some of my faves are: Yul, Cirie, Tom, Ozzy in the beginning, Cochran in his second run, and poor dumb Eric. Dumbest kid to ever play but I got nothin' but love for his enthusiasm. Oh, and Penner. He really grew on me.

Some least faves: the Hantzes, possibly Brandon even more than Russell, Naonka, Shane, Coach, and that other Russell who got a 2nd chance.

Nashville · January 22, 2015

Can you expand on that, Nash? Seems to me that most voting comes down to boring things like previously-established alliances, which is why pagonging is so popular. Rather than consider the merits of who 'deserves to go home' (as Jeffy sometimes puts it) or who 'isn't pulling their weight' or whatnot, people form coalitions and usually stick with them. This isn't all the votes but I'll bet it explains a lot of them.

If so, then being 'tactical' isn't usually required, nor is knowing the established tactics of others - they're pretty much the same as everyone else, form alliances, stick with them. People might have a reputation for not sticking with their alliances but this too is unreliable - even 'villains' like the oft-pilloried Russell often kept his word (IIRC) while newbies can and do flip-flop for no particular reason (sorry - 'make Big Moves').

I believe we're looking at things from radically different perspectives. You're at step K with alliances already formed and thinking in terms of TC votes, while I'm at step B looking for information to determine the best practical choices for forming alliances - who do you trust, how much do you trust them, and for how long. You have a Lisa Whelchel in the game? Fairly trustworthy for the long haul, so long as you keep an eye on your stuff and don't divulge any really BIG and/or significant secrets. Being approached by a Russell Hantz? So long as you can keep from firing up his paranoid streak, he's absolutely trustworthy - for at least a couple of weeks at a shot, then re-evaluate. Have a Johnny Fairplay in the game? His tell when he is lying is that his lips are moving - totally untrustworthy. Run in the other direction - but don't let it LOOK like you're running, else you're his next target.

As for 'tells' - you mean like in poker, where somebody twitches their left eye if they're lying? That kinda thing is, in my experience, mostly fiction. Some people are just bad liars but you don't have to know them particularly well to see that. And as the players themselves often say, it's safe to assume that everyone in the game is lying to you at some level. No sense looking for twitchy eyes when you should just be doing a head count in your alliance - this kinda brinksmanship just doesn't seem to play that big a big role in this game.

I think the only good piece of information you can get from a player's earlier seasons is that they've had earlier seasons, and for some reason the producers like them enough to bring them back. That might give me pause for several reasons, but pretty much none of them involves their 'track record' for voting this way or that, or the heavily-edited version of their game-play that got shown on tv.

I wasn't thinking of anything on this level of subtlety - although we'll have to agree to disagree on the subject of poker tells, as they helped me keep gas in my Chevelle back in the college years. :) I was thinking more in terms of interpreting how their style of play differs between when they're being straight-up with someone vs. when they're lying, or have something to hide. Yes, virtually everybody lies to some degree - but it's also a fact some are better at it than others (using the examples I mentioned before, compare Whelchel and Fairplay). I'm sure the production edit slants usable perception to varying degrees - but once again, limited information is better than none at all.

Miss Scarlet · January 22, 2015

I commented in the media thread about how the female contestants are told to say the past contestant they're most like is Parvati.

I find it interesting that CBS sees Parvati as so integral to their brand and it doesn't surprise me that the female winner they must approve of/think will attract the most viewers is the one whose strategy they advertised as "the flirt" and "using her sexuality to get her way".

It also makes a lot of fans lionize Parvati. I'm not saying that she's not a good player, but I think that sometimes this "legendary" status makes people think that she's a better player than she was and makes her moves seem smarter, more strategic, etc. Some fans seem to forget what her gameplay was even like, all they remember is that she keeps being touted as one of the best of allll time. This is part of why I tend to think of her as overrated.

Edited January 22, 2015 by wudpixie

Squirrely · January 22, 2015

I think Cirie deserves more credit than Parvati. I recently rewatched FvF and Cirie was the brains behind most of the "Black Widow Alliance" moves. She wanted Ozzy out, she came up with the idea to dupe poor Eric into giving his immunity to Natalie, etc. Parvati was a damn good player, absolutely. She won! But I think she gets too much of the credit, for that season at least. I think Cirie is one of, if not the most shrewd women to ever play.

Miss Scarlet · January 22, 2015

I definitely agree that Cirie should get most of the credit for F vs F. It seemed like all the blindsides were her ideas and she's the one that really set most of them into motion. That was pretty clear to me as a viewer, which was amazing given that the edit was protecting and hyping up Parvati as the eventual winner. If Cirie had won I think we would have seen Parvati as having little involvement in a lot of those important moves. One of her biggest moves was getting Alexis and Natalie into the girls alliance when they were at Airai and, unless the edit was misleading, she got that idea from James. Yes, James. He said "we have to get Alexis and Natalie because otherwise Eliza is going to scoop them up".

This is kind of what I mean about Parvati's status in the Survivor community preceding her. Some people have forgotten about her actual gameplay, especially in Micronesia, but get told over and over again how much of a great player/strategist she was. Even for some people who re-watch seasons her status will affect the way they interpret her gameplay and it definitely affects new fans/players, who watch these seasons for the first time (or who are told by casting to only watch H vs V and the most recent season before they go out to play and then told to say they're most like Parvati).

Edited January 22, 2015 by wudpixie

BK1978 · January 22, 2015

I agree with this...

I think Cirie deserves more credit than Parvati. I recently rewatched FvF and Cirie was the brains behind most of the "Black Widow Alliance" moves. She wanted Ozzy out, she came up with the idea to dupe poor Eric into giving his immunity to Natalie, etc. Parvati was a damn good player, absolutely. She won! But I think she gets too much of the credit, for that season at least. I think Cirie is one of, if not the most shrewd women to ever play.

and this...

I definitely agree that Cirie should get most of the credit for F vs F. It seemed like all the blindsides were her ideas and she's the one that really set most of them into motion. That was pretty clear to me as a viewer, which was amazing given that the edit was protecting and hyping up Parvati as the eventual winner. If Cirie had won I think we would have seen Parvati as having little involvement in a lot of those important moves. One of her biggest moves was getting Alexis and Natalie into the girls alliance when they were at Airai and, unless the edit was misleading, she got that idea from James. Yes, James. He said "we have to get Alexis and Natalie because otherwise Eliza is going to scoop them up".

This is kind of what I mean about Parvati's status in the Survivor community preceding her. Some people have forgotten about her actual gameplay, especially in Micronesia, but get told over and over again how much of a great player/strategist she was. Even for some people who re-watch seasons her status will affect the way they interpret her gameplay and it definitely affects new fans/players, who watch these seasons for the first time (or who are told by casting to only watch H vs V and the most recent season before they go out to play and then told to say they're most like Parvati).

I have been saying this for years that she is an overrated winner and that had there been a final three I think Cirie should have won. Granted I have not watched the season since it aired so my memory of it might not be that great but I also thought that Amanda played pretty well and probably should have had a better shot at winning had she been able to deal with the jury better.

Miss Scarlet · January 22, 2015

I have been saying this for years that she is an overrated winner and that had there been a final three I think Cirie should have won. Granted I have not watched the season since it aired so my memory of it might not be that great but I also thought that Amanda played pretty well and probably should have had a better shot at winning had she been able to deal with the jury better.

It also doesn't help that she takes credit for moves that weren't hers and presents herself as a strategic mastermind. A lot of what she says is total gibberish.

I remember some of the players' interviews from Micronesia who said they would have voted for Amanda, but she did a horrible job at final TC. They said that Parvati was not well-liked by the jury. Yet this is someone whose social game is praised all the time. I remember during H vs V, Rob C. said on his podcast that he thought Cirie should have won Micronesia and was the best player that season. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think he would say that anymore, because he knows Parvati now, but also because her reputation has gone way up since then. So again, this is another instance where her reputation might be affecting people's perceptions of her.

I've also noticed that people tend to misremember why everyone wanted to vote her out during H vs. V. She kept saying it was because she was such a threat and used this as an example of what an amazing player she was and people will still cite that as a reason that she's the best player ever, but I remember reading all the pre-game interviews for that season and the other players said they wanted her out because she was the Villain who had played with the most people on the Heroes side. It was strictly a numbers thing. If anyone else on the Villains tribe like Sandra, Tyson, etc had played with that many Heroes then they probably would have been talked about for the first boot too. It actually amazes me how she was able to twist this and claim that it was because she was such an amazing player.

Edited January 22, 2015 by wudpixie

Hera · January 22, 2015

Don't know about the others but I kinda had the impression that Russell was targeted in RI not so much because his awesome strategic methods were spoiled (and hence didn't work) but because he was flown in special and introduced by Probst as a super-awesome player, hence sure to win (and, not for nothing, hog camera time). This alone would inspire me to boot his ass off ASAP, which they did in fact do (and got scolded by Jeffy, who clearly had other results in mind). They didn't outfox Russell by having seen his playbook, they were warned that they'd never get any camera time while Russell was around so they took appropriate steps.

I'm not so sure. I've always thought that there was an informal (and possibly even unspoken) alliance among previous winners on Heroes vs. Villains. I generally accept the idea that jurors vote for the player whose win makes them the most at peace with their loss, which renders things like being wealthy or already winning irrelevant, but still—it had to be in the backs of all the previous winners' minds that if they went to the Final Tribal Council with someone who hadn't won before, the fact that they had won the game before was most likely not going to help their case. I also think that during the filming of Heroes vs. Villains, Russell hadn't realized that he lost Samoa and most likely told (or heavily implied to) everyone he had won it. So I think Russell may have been a fairly attractive ally...at least early on, before people realized how toxic he is.

While we're freewheeling on subject anyway - why does anyone think that knowing something about someone is somehow a huge advantage. You might see that someone was a pure-ass liar in their earlier season but isn't everyone pretty much a liar here? Would you really adjust your strategy based on what you saw previously? I can't remember any example of where people really seemed to benefit from this information. There are, of course, people who say they won't 'trust' (whatever that means in the game) so-and-so because they're a proven liar but there're still plenty of folks who will ally with them, sometimes giving the very same reason (that they're 'good at the game' or whatnot). I'm not convinced that previous information about players really does much of anything, even though I can think of reasons why the producers might want us to think it does.

I generally agree with this. There is no guarantee that a returning player won't change up her/his game—JT did (though I think it was also a case of him being lost without Stephen there to guide him), and so did Parvati, Cochran, and Tyson. Tyson, in particular, was a surprise to me in Blood vs. Water. Based on his previous performances, I had him pegged as someone who could never win the game. So good ol' boys can turn into unpredictable, untrustworthy players, and loose cannons can turn into focussed, strategic players.

I take Oholibamah's point that Sophie was able to count on Coach's delusions of grandeur helping her game while getting in the way of his own, but he definitely dialled back some of the more negative aspects of is Tocantins game in both Heroes vs. Villains and South Pacific. I don't remember him being as negative about anyone in his second two games as much as he was about Erinn. Plus, while I'm sure Coach's previous seasons may have given her an inkling of what he might be like, I'm willing to bet the way he behaved while she was playing with him is largely what informed her decision to ally and stick with him. If Coach hadn't been organizing prayer circles and blathering on about honor, it's entirely possible that Sophie might have flipped on him or not allied with him in the first place. My point is that whatever insights a new player might get from having seen a returning player's previous season(s) are going to be based on footage that was heavily edited to fit into that season's wider narrative. At most, the newbie has some snapshots of the returnee's personality, but how representative or relevant those are is unknown until the newbie actually gets to play with the returnee.

I think being a returnee playing against first-timers is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) advantages someone can have. Returning players know what they were doing in the game 24/7 and then get to see how much or little of that made it into the show (and what their fellow contestants were up to that they may or may not have been privy to at the time). They get to find out where their blind spots were and exactly how much of a toll the exhaustion and lack of food took on them and their ability to handle stress and uncertainty. Plus, they have the opportunity to get to know other players who might return and form pre-game alliances. The results from the seasons that had a mix of new and returning players bear all this out: of the five seasons that did this (Fans vs. Favorites, Redemption Island, South Pacific, Caramoan, and the first Blood vs. Water—did I forget any?), four were won by a returning player.

Nashville · January 23, 2015

I generally agree with this. There is no guarantee that a returning player won't change up her/his game—JT did (though I think it was also a case of him being lost without Stephen there to guide him), and so did Parvati, Cochran, and Tyson. Tyson, in particular, was a surprise to me in Blood vs. Water. Based on his previous performances, I had him pegged as someone who could never win the game. So good ol' boys can turn into unpredictable, untrustworthy players, and loose cannons can turn into focussed, strategic players.

I take Oholibamah's point that Sophie was able to count on Coach's delusions of grandeur helping her game while getting in the way of his own, but he definitely dialled back some of the more negative aspects of is Tocantins game in both Heroes vs. Villains and South Pacific. I don't remember him being as negative about anyone in his second two games as much as he was about Erinn. Plus, while I'm sure Coach's previous seasons may have given her an inkling of what he might be like, I'm willing to bet the way he behaved while she was playing with him is largely what informed her decision to ally and stick with him. If Coach hadn't been organizing prayer circles and blathering on about honor, it's entirely possible that Sophie might have flipped on him or not allied with him in the first place. My point is that whatever insights a new player might get from having seen a returning player's previous season(s) are going to be based on footage that was heavily edited to fit into that season's wider narrative. At most, the newbie has some snapshots of the returnee's personality, but how representative or relevant those are is unknown until the newbie actually gets to play with the returnee.

This is definitely a factor, and IMHO the weakest point of the "forewarned is forearmed" philosophy. I actually think after some time and reflection Russell DID learn something from his first two close-but-no-cigar outings, and planned on changing his tactics third time around. He simply didn't stay in the game long enough to exercise any changes to a significant degree. On the whole, however, I think you would be moderately safe if you counted on most people being unoriginal. :)

I think being a returnee playing against first-timers is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) advantages someone can have. Returning players know what they were doing in the game 24/7 and then get to see how much or little of that made it into the show (and what their fellow contestants were up to that they may or may not have been privy to at the time). They get to find out where their blind spots were and exactly how much of a toll the exhaustion and lack of food took on them and their ability to handle stress and uncertainty. Plus, they have the opportunity to get to know other players who might return and form pre-game alliances. The results from the seasons that had a mix of new and returning players bear all this out: of the five seasons that did this (Fans vs. Favorites, Redemption Island, South Pacific, Caramoan, and the first Blood vs. Water—did I forget any?), four were won by a returning player.

Strong agreement here. I'm certain having firsthand experience of (a) how the game conditions can debilitate you and other players and (b) what does & doesn't work in overcoming the game effects is a MAJOR advantage. Also, I think it's common knowledge returning players have a larger target on their back from the word Go. If a returnee can survive all the way to FTC, I'm sure that's one factor the Jury takes into account.

Oholibamah · January 23, 2015

The results from the seasons that had a mix of new and returning players bear all this out: of the five seasons that did this (Fans vs. Favorites, Redemption Island, South Pacific, Caramoan, and the first Blood vs. Water—did I forget any?), four were won by a returning player.

Guatemala.

6 of the 6 seasons, however, featured at least one returning player in the Finals. That is a pretty overwhelming statistic.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Oholibamah

Donny Ketchum · January 23, 2015

Guatemala.

6 of the 6 seasons, however, featured at least one returning player in the Finals. That is a pretty overwhelming statistic.

Actually, seven out of seven featured that -- there was also Philippines.

Hera · January 24, 2015

I haven't seen most of the earlier seasons, so I didn't know that about Guatemala and I totally forgot that Skupin, Penner, and Russell Swan were in Philippines. So maybe playing before isn't such a leg up for winning, but it can get you deep in the game. Going back through the seasons with returning players playing with people who were new to the game, it's interesting to me that in the three seasons that had a 50/50 split (Fans vs. Favorites, Caramoan, and Blood vs. Water), the new players were shut out of the final three in two of them (Fans vs. Favorites and Blood vs. Water). In Caramoan, Cochran got all of the jury votes. In the other seasons, a returning player has always managed to make it to the end, despite starting out heavily outnumbered by new players.

Also, now that I've been reminded of Philippines, Penner could have gone much further—if not to the end (though I'm not sure he would have won)—if he hadn't had his bizarre and ill-considered, "I don't think now is the time to discuss final three," response to Lisa's offer. He has no one to blame but himself for that.

kikaha · January 24, 2015

I commented in the media thread about how the female contestants are told to say the past contestant they're most like is Parvati.

And as I showed in that same thread, this is not so. Or at least the source you said made that claim did not in fact say that.

I find it interesting that CBS sees Parvati as so integral to their brand and it doesn't surprise me that the female winner they must approve of/think will attract the most viewers is the one whose strategy they advertised as "the flirt" and "using her sexuality to get her way".

I doubt CBS sees Parv as integral to the Survivor brand. The show was a runaway hit for a dozen seasons, before she ever appeared. It has brought on women of all sorts ever since, including winners like Kim, Sandra, Denise, Sophie, Natalie -- not like Parv in personality, demeanor or appearance. It has cast women like Cirie, Kass, Tina, Lisa, NaOnka, Shambo, Taj, Nadiya.

And again, you have not supplied any evidence that CBS did (or does) what you say.

It also makes a lot of fans lionize Parvati. I'm not saying that she's not a good player, but I think that sometimes this "legendary" status makes people think that she's a better player than she was and makes her moves seem smarter, more strategic, etc. Some fans seem to forget what her gameplay was even like, all they remember is that she keeps being touted as one of the best of allll time. This is part of why I tend to think of her as overrated.

Interestingly, Corinne, the source you wrongly quote about CBS pushing Parv on the female contestants, did say that Parvati is much more multi-dimensional than simply flirting. I agree, and think that any characterization of her simply as a flirt or sexpot misses the boat by light years.

In HvV, Parvati was at the bottom of the villains tribe, from day one. She survived to the end by excelling in every aspect of the game: social, physical, strategic, personal. She pulled off one of the coolest blindsides ever, when she booted JT. She won challenges at key times (something Cirie was never able to do, and likely cost her two wins), and correctly saw that Sandra would get the Heroes' votes. She reads the tea leaves as well as anyone and then uses that to go further in the game.

I also note that great as Cirie is -- and I think she is one of the top few strategists/manipulators ever -- she got booted early in HvV because of her own mistaken judgement.

I view Parv as the best player ever, because like Corinne says, she IS so multi-dimensional. The most complete package ever, who has dominated many of the best to play Survivor, and who is a threat to go deep and win every time she steps onto the beach. Boston Rob, btw, is the male Parvati, and 2nd best in my book.

Oholibamah · January 24, 2015

The most complete package ever, who has dominated many of the best to play Survivor, and who is a threat to go deep and win every time she steps onto the beach. Boston Rob, btw, is the male Parvati, and 2nd best in my book.

I have a hard time disagreeing with this. If we use the "run 100000 possible permutations of the game in different space-time dimensions" approach, Rob and Parvati would have among the best win ratios. (I would possibly give Kim the edge overall, but we've only seen her play once).

But Rob is an interesting case, having gone home pre-jury twice and made it to the end twice. Rob's game is very much all-in. I don't think his average placing in 100000 games would be the best, but he would probably win a lot. Sandra would possibly go home early in a lot of her scenarios, too, depending on how well her tribe performs in challenges.

Miss Scarlet · January 25, 2015

And as I showed in that same thread, this is not so. Or at least the source you said made that claim did not in fact say that.

I doubt CBS sees Parv as integral to the Survivor brand. The show was a runaway hit for a dozen seasons, before she ever appeared. It has brought on women of all sorts ever since, including winners like Kim, Sandra, Denise, Sophie, Natalie -- not like Parv in personality, demeanor or appearance. It has cast women like Cirie, Kass, Tina, Lisa, NaOnka, Shambo, Taj, Nadiya.

And again, you have not supplied any evidence that CBS did (or does) what you say.

Interestingly, Corinne, the source you wrongly quote about CBS pushing Parv on the female contestants, did say that Parvati is much more multi-dimensional than simply flirting. I agree, and think that any characterization of her simply as a flirt or sexpot misses the boat by light years.

In HvV, Parvati was at the bottom of the villains tribe, from day one. She survived to the end by excelling in every aspect of the game: social, physical, strategic, personal. She pulled off one of the coolest blindsides ever, when she booted JT. She won challenges at key times (something Cirie was never able to do, and likely cost her two wins), and correctly saw that Sandra would get the Heroes' votes. She reads the tea leaves as well as anyone and then uses that to go further in the game.

I also note that great as Cirie is -- and I think she is one of the top few strategists/manipulators ever -- she got booted early in HvV because of her own mistaken judgement.

I view Parv as the best player ever, because like Corinne says, she IS so multi-dimensional. The most complete package ever, who has dominated many of the best to play Survivor, and who is a threat to go deep and win every time she steps onto the beach. Boston Rob, btw, is the male Parvati, and 2nd best in my book.

I already replied to the part about casting in the media thread, but will reiterate in this thread that even if the casting people did not directly say that, the handler said that's what the casting people want and what female players need to say to get on the show. The fact that this came from a handler instead of Lynne Spillman doesn't matter. The fact is people who work at CBS in the casting process are saying it.

I think Parvati is a good player and I agree that she has the potential to go pretty far in any season. However, she is extremely overrated.

She's okay, sometimes good, strategically, but not great. All of the great moves in Micronesia were Cirie's. Again, I will point out that these moves were shown to be initiated and carried out by Cirie, despite the fact that Parvati was getting a winner's edit and the show was trying to make her look as good as possible. I think that says a lot. If she hadn't won it probably would have been made very explicit that she had little to do with most of these moves. The only big move she made in H vs. V was the double idol play. I thought this was exciting and courageous of her, but it wasn't as smart as it seemed initially. If Sandra had successfully turned on the Villains then Parvati would have been out two idols, had no way to protect herself and would have been picked off soon after. If that had happened, her move would have been thought of along the lines of JT's idol move and called one of the dumbest moves of all time. She's very lucky the idol play worked out for her as it did. She gets a lot of credit from people for reading that situation well and knowing to play the idols for other people because she could read Amanda. Again, this was very exciting and courageous, but I don't think being able to tell when your friend is lying makes you a great Survivor player. If Amanda had been a stranger that Parvati had not known outside of the game then it would have been much more impressive.

Socially, she can endear herself to people and charm them, but she also has a tendency to alienate people. She made fun of Eliza and Jason a lot and not just in confessionals, but around camp, where they could see her doing it. There's that scene after the merge in Micronesia where she's making fun of Eliza with Amanada when Eliza was within earshot of them. How is that having a good social game? Several of the jury members in Micronesia thought she was mean and were going to vote for Amanda before Amanda totally bombed at final tribal. Parvati actually acknowledged this as weakness because in interviews before H vs. V she said that one thing she wanted to do differently was have a relationship with each of the players on the jury, since that had almost cost her the win before. So she was even admitting that her social game needed improvement.

She likes to blame her loss in H vs. V for external reasons out of her control, like Sandra having kids, or the female jurors being jealous of her and her guilt by association with Russell. If she was such a great social player she would have noticed the jealousy and guilt by association before final tribal council and tried to address them. Either she wasn't perceptive enough to notice these things or she noticed them and did nothing about them. She read JT's letter with Russell and laughed about it over and over again in front of the Heroes. That is not good gameplay. She doesn't like to admit, but that had a lot to do with how she lost and why her social game is especially overrated. That isn't even the only example of her social game being poor in H vs. V. At the merge feast she got annoyed that everyone was talking and having fun with each other instead of paying attention to her. Instead of trying to work her way into the group and use her "charm" on people, she went off into a corner, sulked and cried. That is not good gameplay. Then there's also the fact that she couldn't get along with Jerri in the beginning and alienated her, despite that fact that she needed Jerri's vote and allegiance.

People like to point how charming she is and how that helps her in the game. It's interesting that several players have pointed out that her charm is incredibly fake and transparent. People dismiss these opinions by saying "oh, those are female players that are jealous of her", but male players, like Yul and Jonathan saw through it too. I'm not sure how this idea of her as this incredible vixen/black widow really got built up. She promotes herself that way because it's self-serving. It makes her seem "hot" and desirable, which then acts in a cycle where talking about how appealing she is to guys makes people think "oh, there must be something really great about her", which then makes her seem even more appealing. I think she loves the image of herself as the Angelina Jolie of Survivor and will promote it whenever she can, even if it's basically a facade. So I understand why she does it, but I don't understand why other people believe it. This image of her hasn't been supported by the results on the show. Other than Russell, no guy has ever changed their vote for her or made a move in the game because of her flirting. The only two male jury members that have voted for her were Jason and Coach. Jason voted for her because Amanda was a disaster at final Tribal and Coach voted for her because of her immunity wins. So again, not sure where her man-eater reputation is coming from other than her talking about that ad nauseum because it's part of her self-promotion.

It's also interesting that when Cook Islands aired most people online thought her flirting was laughably bad and made fun of her for it. Her strategy and gameplay changed during the next 2 season she was on, but her flirting never did. Yet now a lot of people who thought her flirting was awful think her flirting is great and effective. This probably has more to do with the fact that, even though her flirting didn't change, her reputation did. Now everything she does seems better than it did before she ever won the show and people assume that it contributed to her winning the game. I think the viewer perception of her is really interesting because it has a lot to do with manipulative, self-promotional and CBS constructed narratives and recency effects.

Of course we're all going to different opinions on the show, like different players, etc. It would be great if we could discuss them without getting antagonistic or abrasive. There is no need to chastise posters for interpreting information differently or even in a way that you feel is wrong (e.g. the handler/casting points), to dismiss and invalidate other people's opinions when they don't align with yours or to demand that someone provide what you feel is sufficient evidence to support what they're saying. We're not lawyers arguing our cases in court. We're just posters trying to have some fun, and sometimes analytical, discussions about a TV show.

Edited January 25, 2015 by wudpixie

Trek · January 25, 2015

But Rob is an interesting case, having gone home pre-jury twice and made it to the end twice. Rob's game is very much all-in. I don't think his average placing in 100000 games would be the best, but he would probably win a lot. Sandra would possibly go home early in a lot of her scenarios, too, depending on how well her tribe performs in challenges.

I agree with you about the “all-in” but I think he’d actually go far in most games he plays in your 100000 simulations for two big reasons:

1) The luck factor should even out over the course of the statistical samples and those that benefited from some good luck would get some bad, and those with some bad would get some good.

In other words, we have to factor out luck in the same way that a large statistical sample would automatically do – and by luck I mean anything that affects the outcome but in which the player has no influence or control over, whether it’s picking buffs out of a hat, or a key ally getting medivaced etc. For example, by my calculation, the chance that Yau Man would be screwed again by a twist that eliminated Michelle is only 1/9 * 1/29 (or once in every 261 simulations) so his overall record should improve with multiple simulations. On the flip side, Kim say, is very unlikely to again benefit from the opposing tribe going to tribal despite winning immunity (through no doing of her own whatsoever) since it has only occurred once in 29 seasons and if it does occur again then it is her tribe that’s going to be filled with buffoons and does it, undermining her game. (Heads or tails evening out in the long run to 50:50).

In the case of BRob specifically, he’s actually been a pretty unlucky player. Heck, even in TAR, after dominating his season - most legs won (5), highest average placing (11 legs in the top 3) - he ended up getting a shitty cab driver for the last leg while the decidedly average Uchenna and Joyce lucked out on a superb one. Anyways:

In ASS, out of all the possible permutations with 10 players left, the chance that Amber and only Amber would be swapped was miniscule. If there had been no swap or if it had been anybody else other than Amber being swapped, he wouldn’t have made the two deals (one with Lex and one with Alicia as his backup plan) that directly cost him their two votes. BRob wins ASS, easily.

In the Marquesas, the swap was a disaster not because it put him badly down in numbers (although that certainly wasn’t good, but since his tribe were down in numbers going in, that was statistically probable –not bad luck) but because it also left the Rotu 4 completely intact (which was statistically highly improbable). If any of the Rotu 4 had been split up with one or more of Kathy/Paschal/Neleh remaining, it most likely would have been a completely different ball game even with the numbers disadvantage.

In HvV, the Heroes couldn’t win a challenge when the BRob and Tyson were in the game while the Villains couldn’t win one without them. (Actual number was villains win 7/9 before and 1/5 after). The crucial turning point of the game – Tyson voting himself off- is well remembered by all. However, what people forget is that the villains should not have been at tribal at all because they won the preceding challenge. It occurred because of an idiot twist where both teams had to vote off a tribe member. They did not lose a challenge - a precondition for a team going to tribal in what, I don’t know, maybe 180-200 of the pre-merge tribals before and since in 29 seasons? Without that twist, BRob and Tyson would almost certainly have made the merge and the merge numbers would probably be something like 8 villains/2 heroes. What happens then is anybody’s guess but if we accord that twist with its correct distribution in a simulation - say once or twice every 100 tribals,- the chances of BRob making it to the merge if he is in a “strong in challenges tribe” is extremely high.

Which brings us to challenges…

2) IMO, Boston Rob is the best challenge asset in the game, ever. Unlike many other challenge beasts who excel only in their specific leg of a challenge, Boston Rob not only does that (and is probably also the most well rounded – including puzzles) but brings out the best of the entire team as well. Examples vs other "highly rated" challenge performers.

Strength challenge vs James (and or Tom)

HvV: Make stairway with huge heavy cubes. BRob not only does most of the heavy lifting but solves the puzzle as he is doing it. Villains gushing with praise, Tyson says, “we need you, man, we really need you.” Meanwhile, Tom on the other team is looking completely befuddled while James does very little lifting and uses most of his energy yelling at Steph to “shut up, Shut up!”

Agility/sports vs JT

In the catch the slingshot ball challenge, JT is all kinds of heroic even loses a tooth trying to make a catch. His team loses. When BRob had this same challenge in RI, he specifically instructs Nat to fire short to Grant and Grant only, meanwhile he would act as a “free safety” in the entire backfield (not just his own pole) to compensate for the mismatches in other positions e.g. Ashley vs Mansweater. Grant catches 4 balls, while of the opposition balls, BRob swats away 4 and intercepts 1 for a perfect 5-0 victory. Ability + team strategy trumps ability alone every time.

Water challenge vs Ozzie

In ASS, there was a challenge when players had to dive down to a boat, remove 2000lbs of ballast to bring the boat up, bail the water out and paddle the boat back to the finish line. As the boats come up to the surface everyone starts furiously bailing with buckets… except Chapera. BRob tells his team to haul the boat up upside down onto the platform and even instructs Amber to sit atop the back to prevent it from flipping over prematurely. Only then do they flip it over and, in so doing, clear the water completely from the boat in one shot without having to bail at all. Chapera wins by a huge margin. Ozzie in such a situation may have dived a little faster (and even that is questionable considering that BRob prime could outswim Colby, Lex, Ethan and so-called fisherman king Rupert) and help them that way but Ozzie doesn’t have the ability to come up with the huge winning strategy for the team that BRob does pretty consistently and would just be cussing out the team for not bailing/paddling fast enough when they lose.

The point being that while there are many players who are great at challenges individually (including BRob himself), in terms of team contribution he is IMO, by far, the best. In a schoolyard pick, I’d take him first every time. Specifically, this makes him very valuable to keep to the merge, whereas for others who are only individual challenge threats, that’s a good reason to get them out before the merge.

Methinks BRob's average placing in 100000 runs is going to be pretty darn high.

ETA: Yikes! sorry for the wall of text.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Trek

BigRedCheese · January 25, 2015

I think Parvati is a pretty great player, a bit underrated I would say since there are those that just chalk it up to flirting. I do buy that the show might encourage female players to cite her as a role model for the game, she's one of their better known female winners, and they may be grooming her for hosting in case Probst ever decides to call it quits.

Oholibamah · January 25, 2015

I agree with you about the “all-in” but I think he’d actually go far in most games he plays in your 100000 simulations for two big reasons:

1) The luck factor should even out over the course of the statistical samples and those that benefited from some good luck would get some bad, and those with some bad would get some good.

In other words, we have to factor out luck in the same way that a large statistical sample would automatically do – and by luck I mean anything that affects the outcome but in which the player has no influence or control over, whether it’s picking buffs out of a hat, or a key ally getting medivaced etc. For example, by my calculation, the chance that Yau Man would be screwed again by a twist that eliminated Michelle is only 1/9 * 1/29 (or once in every 261 simulations) so his overall record should improve with multiple simulations. On the flip side, Kim say, is very unlikely to again benefit from the opposing tribe going to tribal despite winning immunity (through no doing of her own whatsoever) since it has only occurred once in 29 seasons and if it does occur again then it is her tribe that’s going to be filled with buffoons and does it, undermining her game. (Heads or tails evening out in the long run to 50:50).

In the case of BRob specifically, he’s actually been a pretty unlucky player. Heck, even in TAR, after dominating his season - most legs won (5), highest average placing (11 legs in the top 3) - he ended up getting a shitty cab driver for the last leg while the decidedly average Uchenna and Joyce lucked out on a superb one. Anyways:

In ASS, out of all the possible permutations with 10 players left, the chance that Amber and only Amber would be swapped was miniscule. If there had been no swap or if it had been anybody else other than Amber being swapped, he wouldn’t have made the two deals (one with Lex and one with Alicia as his backup plan) that directly cost him their two votes. BRob wins ASS, easily.

In the Marquesas, the swap was a disaster not because it put him badly down in numbers (although that certainly wasn’t good, but since his tribe were down in numbers going in, that was statistically probable –not bad luck) but because it also left the Rotu 4 completely intact (which was statistically highly improbable). If any of the Rotu 4 had been split up with one or more of Kathy/Paschal/Neleh remaining, it most likely would have been a completely different ball game even with the numbers disadvantage.

In HvV, the Heroes couldn’t win a challenge when the BRob and Tyson were in the game while the Villains couldn’t win one without them. (Actual number was villains win 7/9 before and 1/5 after). The crucial turning point of the game – Tyson voting himself off- is well remembered by all. However, what people forget is that the villains should not have been at tribal at all because they won the preceding challenge. It occurred because of an idiot twist where both teams had to vote off a tribe member. They did not lose a challenge - a precondition for a team going to tribal in what, I don’t know, maybe 180-200 of the pre-merge tribals before and since in 29 seasons? Without that twist, BRob and Tyson would almost certainly have made the merge and the merge numbers would probably be something like 8 villains/2 heroes. What happens then is anybody’s guess but if we accord that twist with its correct distribution in a simulation - say once or twice every 100 tribals,- the chances of BRob making it to the merge if he is in a “strong in challenges tribe” is extremely high.

Which brings us to challenges…

2) IMO, Boston Rob is the best challenge asset in the game, ever. Unlike many other challenge beasts who excel only in their specific leg of a challenge, Boston Rob not only does that (and is probably also the most well rounded – including puzzles) but brings out the best of the entire team as well. Examples vs other "highly rated" challenge performers.

Strength challenge vs James (and or Tom)

HvV: Make stairway with huge heavy cubes. BRob not only does most of the heavy lifting but solves the puzzle as he is doing it. Villains gushing with praise, Tyson says, “we need you, man, we really need you.” Meanwhile, Tom on the other team is looking completely befuddled while James does very little lifting and uses most of his energy yelling at Steph to “shut up, Shut up!”

Agility/sports vs JT

In the catch the slingshot ball challenge, JT is all kinds of heroic even loses a tooth trying to make a catch. His team loses. When BRob had this same challenge in RI, he specifically instructs Nat to fire short to Grant and Grant only, meanwhile he would act as a “free safety” in the entire backfield (not just his own pole) to compensate for the mismatches in other positions e.g. Ashley vs Mansweater. Grant catches 4 balls, while of the opposition balls, BRob swats away 4 and intercepts 1 for a perfect 5-0 victory. Ability + team strategy trumps ability alone every time.

Water challenge vs Ozzie

In ASS, there was a challenge when players had to dive down to a boat, remove 2000lbs of ballast to bring the boat up, bail the water out and paddle the boat back to the finish line. As the boats come up to the surface everyone starts furiously bailing with buckets… except Chapera. BRob tells his team to haul the boat up upside down onto the platform and even instructs Amber to sit atop the back to prevent it from flipping over prematurely. Only then do they flip it over and, in so doing, clear the water completely from the boat in one shot without having to bail at all. Chapera wins by a huge margin. Ozzie in such a situation may have dived a little faster (and even that is questionable considering that BRob prime could outswim Colby, Lex, Ethan and so-called fisherman king Rupert) and help them that way but Ozzie doesn’t have the ability to come up with the huge winning strategy for the team that BRob does pretty consistently and would just be cussing out the team for not bailing/paddling fast enough when they lose.

The point being that while there are many players who are great at challenges individually (including BRob himself), in terms of team contribution he is IMO, by far, the best. In a schoolyard pick, I’d take him first every time. Specifically, this makes him very valuable to keep to the merge, whereas for others who are only individual challenge threats, that’s a good reason to get them out before the merge.

Methinks BRob's average placing in 100000 runs is going to be pretty darn high.

ETA: Yikes! sorry for the wall of text.

I love walls of text, especially when they relate to Survivor.

My only issue with this analysis of luck as they relate to twists is that we're hinging Kim and Yau Man's games on one single event; we're not considering how things may have gone had things turned out differently. For example, Yau Man could very well have been voted out sooner since Earl/Michelle/Cassandra would have had the advantage over the Horsemen sooner, rendering Yau Man expendable sooner. For Kim, I am fairly confident that she would have found a way to maneuver around going to TC the week Bill went home and losing Monica one week sooner. In essence, luck plays a huge factor, but the relative skills of each Survivor alongside the massive sample size will flatten the effect that luck has at different rates. (In English: in all 100000 permutations, Kim will be better able to manage her bad luck better than, say, Sekou).

I love Rob, but his all-in, balls-to-the-wall play style will always attract enemies. The "spin", so to speak, of bad luck is worse for Rob than somebody like Natalie White who plays from the shadows. I would argue that Rob does a decent job negating bad luck (ability to win challenges, charismatic), but makes himself a target with his boisterous gameplay. With the way he plays, he needs to play perfectly, and in Marquesas/HvV, he made key errors unrelated to his bad luck (i.e. poor social game in Marquesas and mishandling of Tyson and Jerri in HvV).

Specifically re: Marquesas, the Rotu 4 being split up may have been even worse for Rob's game. What made Rotu penetrable was the very clear 4/3 split they had on their tribe. If say Pappy had remained with John/Tammy/Zoe with the General on the other side with Kathy/Neleh, I wouldn't be surprised if the lines had remained murky enough to get them to the F7.

Edited to add one last minor quibble: I despise Ozzy, and do not go out of my way to say anything positive about him, but if memory serves, he was pretty good at finding creative approaches to challenges.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Oholibamah

Sign In

Most and Least Favorite Past Contestants

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Cricketoo

Nutjob

simplyme

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment