S35.E16: Reunion Special

[piequinn35]

Threesome ?

[Nashville]

21 hours ago, millennium said:

I call sexism on the show for the constant labeling of Chrissy as "the most immunity challenges won by a woman."  

Really?  In what way is 100% verifiable objective fact sexist?  :)

 

21 hours ago, millennium said:

They never say "the most immunity wins by a man."

“They” probably would, if the record were held solely by a woman or women.

1. As it happens, the absolute reality for all sexes of all life forms is (a) there’s a five-way tie for the record of immunity wins in a single season of Survivor, and (b) all five current record holders are male. This more than anything else makes the label “most immunity wins by a man” superfluous, because it and the label “most immunity wins” are identical - at present, no distinction between the two labels exists.  The label “most immunity wins by a woman”, however, references a totally discrete value - four wins - so specifying it separately from the others is an accurate statement of objective reality.
2. If a woman were to win five immunity challenges in a season, then the label “most immunity wins by a woman” would likewise cease to be a meaningful distinguishing specification - or, more specifically, all three labels would reference the same identical value.  The end result would be a total wash.
3. If a woman were to win six immunity challenges in a season, though...?  The labels “most immunity wins” and “most immunity wins by a woman” would still be identical/synonymous.  The label “most immunity wins by a man” would immediately become a meaningful distinction, however, as it would now reference a lesser value discrete from the others.

 

21 hours ago, millennium said:

  Honor players by their accomplishments, regardless of gender.   "By a woman" sounds patronizing.

In that case - if the above case #3 were to come to pass and a woman set a new unique record for immunity wins, would you likewise object to application of the label “most immunity wins by a man” as matronizing?  ;>

 

13 hours ago, Hpmec said:

Probst's transparent attempt to fend off criticism of the producers' gift to Ben, the final twist that kept him alive in the game, by announcing it would be repeated next season, was a shark jumping moment the likes of which hasn't been seen since Fonzie donned those water skis. 

After the first few seasons, every season of Survivor has sought to introduce at least one significant “twist” to the game.  Some twists still survive, while some have dropped by the wayside - but to the best of my recollection, every such twist has been carried forth for at least one additional season.  

What about this twist uniquely distinguishes it from those of preceding seasons, other than you feel it negatively impacts the outcome of the game?  Because I would respectfully suggest that exact same opinion has probably been held by somebody in relation to each and every twist introduced since the beginning of the series.

[Nashville]

IMHO the best thing about the Finale can be summed up in one word:

Ali.

Dayum, she looked good.  ;>

[green]

9 hours ago, spritz said:

It was kind of ironic that a person who had PTSD, because of his combat experience with explosions and firefights, had "Ben Bombs" to use as his secret weapon at TCs. 

Probably. There have been past reunions where a contestant(s), who didn't win, was given more screen time and attention. Had Ben not won and Chrissy did win, I assume Probst would have given Chrissy short shrift, and then moved on to focus on Ben and PTSD.

Top production people know who won within a minute of the vote back on the island.  Probst doesn't find out the winner for the first time on the night of the finale.  He and Burnett and a few select others have knows for months and months.  Whether they would have invited Ben's friends out if he had lost was therefore a moot point because they already knew he won. 

And a lot of seasons the contestants know too because they all talk and text with each other all the time between the end of filming and the months before the finale.  They can't let it leak to others or they face massive fines due to the contract they signed to get on the show but yeah in the past a lot of the Survivors knew in advance who won outside of the actual jury members who voted.

[JudyObscure]

Green is right, and I much preferred the way it went down during the early seasons.  The final vote was counted and the winner was read at TC on the last night.  Then the reunion show really was just a reunion.

The reaction of players who were still in the midst of all the deprivation and angst of the experience was so much better. 

I could tell Chrissy already knew she had lost from the start of the reunion show and so we get a gracious hand-holding loser.  On the island I expect it would have been temporary anger and devastation.  It's not that I want to see someone's heart break, but that is a very real, emotional reaction to the entire "Lord of the Flies," social experiment and I think we should see that.

[peachmangosteen]

I kinda miss when they announced the winner at FTC, too. Maybe I need to go rewatch old seasons.

11 hours ago, fishcakes said:

And it means that Chrissy went into FTC with an advantage over Ben because he needed to have more votes to win; she only had to tie and then let Ryan -- who she had just saved with the new twist -- give her the win.

Ryan (and Chrissy) said he would have voted for Ben if he had to break a tie. Honestly I think Ben was gonna win no matter who was in the finals with him. As much as he sucked at the game, he probably was better than Chrissy at the social aspect and that's what usually ends up counting the most.

Edited December 23, 2017 by peachmangosteen

[fishcakes]

1 hour ago, peachmangosteen said:

I kinda miss when they announced the winner at FTC, too. Maybe I need to go rewatch old seasons.

They only did it that way the first season. After that it was always announced at the Reunion to lessen the chance that spoilers would get out. They tried to do a fakeout in Season 2 and seamlessly cut from Jeff collecting the urn at FTC to reading the votes at the Reunion and they had Colby and Tina wear what they were wearing at FTC, but both had gained back a lot of weight and Tina was wearing a full face of makeup, so it fooled no one. That one's worth rewatching just to see Colby appear to gain 20 pounds in 3 seconds.

Quote

Ryan (and Chrissy) said he would have voted for Ben if he had to break a tie. Honestly I think Ben was gonna win no matter who was in the finals with him. As much as he sucked at the game, he probably was better than Chrissy at the social aspect and that's what usually ends up counting the most.

Oh, I didn't know! That's surprising and also I wish it would have happened that way just because then we would have gotten to see Chrissy digest her own liver when Ryan's vote was read.

Edited December 23, 2017 by fishcakes

[Guest]

This is the season 6 jet ski montage I dearly love.

[Blissfool]

I was Team Ben all the way and was happy he won, buuuuuut I think it's ironic that someone that suffered from PTSD makes bomb explosion noises when gloating. 

[Ellee]

2 hours ago, Blissfool said:

I was Team Ben all the way and was happy he won, buuuuuut I think it's ironic that someone that suffered from PTSD makes bomb explosion noises when gloating. 

Me sitting here giggling .... but you have to admit it was funny.  And seeing everyone's reactions.  :D :D :D  

[LadyChatts]

8 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

This is the season 6 jet ski montage I dearly love.

I miss these days.  The other one I liked, I think was for Vanuatu, where Jeff traveled by sky diving and motorcycle to make it to the reunion.  There's definitely something missing in the shows nowadays.  This year's reunion especially made an insurance convention seem more lively and fun.  I don't know what it was, but the vibe was very subdued.  I don't even remember Ben getting a huge reaction to his win from the audience.

 

Maybe the real reason they need plants and seat fillers is no one else wanted to come.

Edited December 23, 2017 by LadyChatts

[Guest]

Though Jeff acts like he's on coke at the reunions.  

[AZChristian]

3 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

Though Jeff acts like he's on coke at the reunions.  

I actually googled to see if hyperactivity is a side-effect of having so much botox in your forehead that it doesn't move.  It's not.  

[Rachel RSL]

20 hours ago, Nashville said:

What about this twist uniquely distinguishes it from those of preceding seasons, other than you feel it negatively impacts the outcome of the game?

I think what is bothering so many people about this one isn't so much that it negatively impacted the outcome of the game, it's that it changed the basic fundamentals of the game.  It would be like playing the entire NHL season with the winners being determined by who scored the most goals, then getting to the Stanley Cup semi-finals and saying "Ok, the winner will be decided by whoever skates around the ice the fastest." Like...what?

[SVNBob]

15 hours ago, fishcakes said:

They only did it that way the first season. After that it was always announced at the Reunion to lessen the chance that spoilers would get out. They tried to do a fakeout in Season 2 and seamlessly cut from Jeff collecting the urn at FTC to reading the votes at the Reunion and they had Colby and Tina wear what they were wearing at FTC, but both had gained back a lot of weight and Tina was wearing a full face of makeup, so it fooled no one.

Actually they didn't.   I had a recent discussion about this on Reddit and thought that they tried to do the fakeout in AO too, but when I checked the footage on DVD, I saw I was mistaken.  Peachy announced the transition in that season, and took the urn to a helicopter that landed near that TC set on a cliff.  It was in the following season, Africa, that they first pulled the fake-out, and then only did it again (or something similar) for Thailand.  After that it was just the simple transitions to the live show, barring the jet-skiing in Amazon and the sky dive from Vanuatu.

Unless you and I are suffering from the same Mandela effect...

[fishcakes]

6 hours ago, SVNBob said:

Unless you and I are suffering from the same Mandela effect...

Ha. I had to Google that and now I'm disappointed that they didn't call it The Berenstain Bears effect.

Now that you've described the Outback's FTC, I do remember Peachy saying the votes would be read at the reunion and leaving. It must be Tina and Colby wearing their game clothes that made me wrongly recall it as an attempted fakeout. For some reason, I don't remember the Africa or Thailand fakeouts at all.

Edited December 24, 2017 by fishcakes

[ihartcoffee]

On 12/20/2017 at 11:01 PM, UncleChuck said:

I will prefer to believe that Ben actually found his idols and as a fellow vet, I was rooting for him, but...

I thought the special season summary focused entirely on Ben's game was a bit over the top, and then...

TPTB followed that up with a special season summary focused on Ben's PTSD.  And then...

More about Ben when his three buddies came out and gang-tackled him.

Probst and CBS REALLY LOVE survivor players who have these special backgounds (PTSD, transsexual, nerdy guy/girl).  Too bad the spring season has already been filmed or I guarantee that one (or more) of the women will be a victim of some creepy predator or groper.

 

I appreciate that you can admit it was over the top, even as a fan of his.  I started to not like him when he turned on his alliance and was really nasty about it.  I know it happens,  but he was smug. 

[greyflannel]

It seems like a lot of the problems people are having with this season have to do with the fact that it was different from previous seasons.  As others have pointed out, the game is going to change and it should. Some changes are going to be good, some not so much, but without them the game would stagnate. Maybe the reason the first couple of seasons were more exciting was because we the viewers and, more importantly, the players didn't know what to expect. Now we have players familiar with a lot of the challenges, knowing when the merge should be happening, etc.  I love it that they threw in a twist that made the final 3 not a foregone conclusion.  It made for an exciting FTC. The fact that the players entered the game with a lot of assumptions doesn't make changes to the game unfair.  At the end of the game, the jury still decided who they thought played the best game, and that was Ben. Every player there was playing season 35 of Survivor. Not season 34, when the rules were this or season 17, when the rules were that, or any other season. Season 35. Ben won it, no asterisk needed.

[peachmangosteen]

13 minutes ago, greyflannel said:

Now we have players familiar with a lot of the challenges, knowing when the merge should be happening, etc.  

That's why they should throw a real twist at them and not have any, or at least as many, idols and advantages.

[Tammee]

2 hours ago, greyflannel said:

It seems like a lot of the problems people are having with this season have to do with the fact that it was different from previous seasons.  As others have pointed out, the game is going to change and it should. Some changes are going to be good, some not so much, but without them the game would stagnate. Maybe the reason the first couple of seasons were more exciting was because we the viewers and, more importantly, the players didn't know what to expect. Now we have players familiar with a lot of the challenges, knowing when the merge should be happening, etc.  I love it that they threw in a twist that made the final 3 not a foregone conclusion.  It made for an exciting FTC. The fact that the players entered the game with a lot of assumptions doesn't make changes to the game unfair.  At the end of the game, the jury still decided who they thought played the best game, and that was Ben. Every player there was playing season 35 of Survivor. Not season 34, when the rules were this or season 17, when the rules were that, or any other season. Season 35. Ben won it, no asterisk needed.

Very well said.  One thing I didnt care for much, that makes a return every now and again, is Redemption Island.  I like the different clues, especially when its a double burn like the one I think it was Lauren got.  That essentially sealed her fate.

[Nashville]

On 12/23/2017 at 10:25 PM, Rachel RSL said:

I think what is bothering so many people about this one isn't so much that it negatively impacted the outcome of the game, it's that it changed the basic fundamentals of the game.  It would be like playing the entire NHL season with the winners being determined by who scored the most goals, then getting to the Stanley Cup semi-finals and saying "Ok, the winner will be decided by whoever skates around the ice the fastest." Like...what?

Ok - I can appreciate that position, even if I don't agree with it. :)  

My main point of disagreement with your comparison is pretty basic: the TC in question was not the Stanley Cup.  The correspondent in your example to the Stanley Cup would be the FTC, not the F3 TC - or any other TC leading up to the FTC, for that matter.  

IF Production were to introduce some method of awarding the final prize OTHER than the established Jury system WITHOUT notifying contestants beforehand, then I would be inclined to agree with you - such a twist would have a substantial material effect on how contestants should play the game from its very onset, and should be declared beforehand.  That's not what this was, though.  This was simply one of the TCs leading up to FTC - and to the best of my knowledge no twists are off-limits to Production right up to and including the point of *selecting* the final contestants who will face off in the FTC.

[KimberStormer]

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 9:44 AM, NeverLate said:

Fire happened in Cook Islands too. Both contestants were so bad they broke their flints, then had to move onto matches, before one of them ran out of matches and had to sit and watch the other one struggle to burn the rope to raise their flag.

Fire happened but a) after A VOTE and b) that was bullshit also because Yul had a free pass to the FTC with his ridiculous super-idol.  Of course without that it would have been Yul voted out, a million-dollar beach vacation for Ozzy, and a very much less fun Micronesia.

IF you can manipulate two people into keeping you at F4, you deserve the final 3; IF, like Cirie, you can only convince one moron to keep you, then a fire-making challenge seems an eminently fair semi-random ritual chance to make it through, and fair enough if you win or lose.  IF you can't convince anybody, then get the fuck on the jury with all the rest of the losers,  you LOST THE GAME.  You had 38 goddamn days to win it in, you don't get any more chances.  Why, if Ben "deserves" a "fair shot" with some ass-pull fire challenge (Probst's explicit reason for this nonsense is to save the ass of the loser who can't play the fucking game but that Jeff likes) doesn't every single other player deserve that shot?  Why not have every vote go to fire?  They all failed the exact same way, people voted for them to leave.

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 0:23 PM, Kerri Okie said:

One thing that hasn't changed since season 1 is that the winner is still chosen by the jury. 

The winner is chosen out of the 2 or 3 who survived the votes. Not out of a random selection of contestants who conform to Probst's political ideals.  Those who survived the votes.  It's kind of in the title.  If there's no vote you're playing Candy Land.  Why not have a group of people sitting around a table doing fuck-all and then after a while they decide which of them was them they liked best and give them a million dollars?  Hey, they're still picked by a jury!  EXACT SAME GAME.  Jeff Probst is not going to stop moving the goalpost backwards to save his favorite manly men -- remember the Final 3 was debuted the moment that Terry Deitz lost -- until it is at the starting line, so they can't ever get voted out.

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 11:32 PM, Nashville said:

What about this twist uniquely distinguishes it from those of preceding seasons, other than you feel it negatively impacts the outcome of the game?  

Honestly, I know you are one of the smartest people on this board and I can't really understand why you don't see what the problem is for those of us who dislike this twist.  However, I will say again, it is not unique, because Cooks was just as terrible.  But they changed the idol rules after that shitshow and to get to F3, you still had to SURVIVE the fucking VOTE.

It's a beautiful game.  It's very simple.  You get people to vote other people out.  Then you get them to vote for you to win.  If you don't have to get through the votes to win, then THERE IS NO GAME.

Edited December 26, 2017 by KimberStormer

[Nashville]

56 minutes ago, KimberStormer said:

Honestly, I know you are one of the smartest people on this board and I can't really understand why you are acting this obtuse. 

That's ok, because I'm kinda feeling the same about you at the moment.  :>

 

56 minutes ago, KimberStormer said:

However, I will say again, it is not unique, because Cooks was just as terrible.  But they changed the idol rules after that shitshow and to get to F3, you still had to SURVIVE the fucking VOTE.

It's a beautiful game.  It's very simple.  You get people to vote other people out.  Then you get them to vote for you to win.  If you don't have to get through the votes to win, then THERE IS NO GAME.

Wonderful sentiment, to be sure.  It would carry more impact if it were true, though, and it isn't - not 100%.  Survivor precedent for eviction without a vote was set waaayyy back in Season 10 (Palau), when Jonathan Libby and Wanda Shirk (remember Singing In the Front of the Boat Lady?) were both evicted without a vote - without ever making it to a single TC, even - simply for being the last two remaining after a Tribe-defining schoolyard pick.  Hell, they didn't even get the chance to compete to stay in the game.  Bet they would have LOVED the chance to make fire to stay in, don't you?

So yeah, Devon's eviction was different - but in terms of being a non-vote eviction, it wasn't unique.  And at least Devon had the chance to compete and stay.

[peachmangosteen]

4 hours ago, KimberStormer said:

... (Probst's explicit reason for this nonsense is to save the ass of the loser who can't play the fucking game but that Jeff likes)...

I had started to feel less irate about the twist, but then Probst gave his reason for why they decided to do it and I got pissed off again. But I guess I have to admire that he would pretty much just outright say it's because he wants to save the people he likes best lol.

[ljenkins782]

Quote

 

However, I will say again, it is not unique, because Cooks was just as terrible.  But they changed the idol rules after that shitshow and to get to F3, you still had to SURVIVE the fucking VOTE.

It's a beautiful game.  It's very simple.  You get people to vote other people out.  Then you get them to vote for you to win.  If you don't have to get through the votes to win, then THERE IS NO GAME.

Quote

Wonderful sentiment, to be sure.  It would carry more impact if it were true, though, and it isn't - not 100%.  Survivor precedent for eviction without a vote was set waaayyy back in Season 10 (Palau), when Jonathan Libby and Wanda Shirk (remember Singing In the Front of the Boat Lady?) were both evicted without a vote - without ever making it to a single TC, even - simply for being the last two remaining after a Tribe-defining schoolyard pick.  Hell, they didn't even get the chance to compete to stay in the game.  Bet they would have LOVED the chance to make fire to stay in, don't you?

 

I actually think this example proves KimberStormer's point a bit. The reason those 2 didn't get to play is because they weren't chosen by the other players in the schoolyard pick. Whether it because they were a singing weirdo who made the others uncomfortable or a standoffish buff guy who apparently rubbed people the wrong way (Angie's remarks at the reunion alluded to this), they didn't achieve the goal of getting the others to vote them INTO the game. They weren't eliminated randomly upon hitting the beach, they all had time to mix and mingle before that twist was announced and the people who used the time to connect with others made it into the game. 

Quote

IF you can manipulate two people into keeping you at F4, you deserve the final 3; IF, like Cirie, you can only convince one moron to keep you, then a fire-making challenge seems an eminently fair semi-random ritual chance to make it through, and fair enough if you win or lose.  IF you can't convince anybody, then get the fuck on the jury with all the rest of the losers,  you LOST THE GAME.  You had 38 goddamn days to win it in, you don't get any more chances.  Why, if Ben "deserves" a "fair shot" with some ass-pull fire challenge (Probst's explicit reason for this nonsense is to save the ass of the loser who can't play the fucking game but that Jeff likes) doesn't every single other player deserve that shot?  Why not have every vote go to fire?  They all failed the exact same way, people voted for them to leave.

Ben had his chance to stay at F4, knowing that any alliance mates he might have had along the way was either on the jury or now against him, and that was at the immunity challenge. Once that failed, yeah, his game should have been over. 

[Hanahope]

So as to the argument that the jury gave, particularly to Chrissy, that the tribe should have been following Ben 24/7 when he went idol hunting.  Ok, what good would that have done? 

Ben's first idol was found right after the loved one's visit.  AT that time, there was no tribe decision to vote out Ben.  That decision wasn't even solidified until the tribal council, when Ben correctly sussed out that he did need to play it, and Lauren went home.  After that, every single follow up TC, everyone knew Ben would be voted out unless he won immunity, or found an idol. 

And lets say people did follow him while he searched for an idol.  That wouldn't have stopped Ben from searching for an idol.  He knew he needed one, he was going to search regardless of whether someone was following him or not.  Its not like if they knew he had an idol they'd not vote for him.  They clearly would have voted for him if he hadn't given the idol right away to Jeff and say "I'm playing this."

The only thing following Ben would have done is maybe someone else would have found it and/or the tribe would have known about the idol a few hours earlier.  It would not have changed anything that the tribe did.  And lets say Ben's follower saw Ben digging for the idol and tried to dig too.  Ben probably still would have gotten the idol, Ben was bigger and stronger than the rest of them.  Maybe Devon could have wrested it from him, but maybe not.  

So who cares that people didn't follow Ben in his idol hunt.  Nothing different would have happened.

[PreBabylonia]

On 12/21/2017 at 11:39 AM, hyukx3 said:

you're offended if you think that's obnoxious gloating, if you think that's not necessary, which says that you don't like it. i think it's harmless.

 

On 12/21/2017 at 11:43 AM, hyukx3 said:

Ben didn't blow up his game. I don't see the Survivors being irked by Chrissy tralalala. If you're talking about the people here, I'm not sure but I don't think the posters here are irked because of that.

Actually, I don't think that you are speaking for most of the posters here, given that nobody has liked your posts. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and that's really why we're here, to discuss our differing points of view.

[MissEwa]

12 hours ago, KimberStormer said:

Fire happened but a) after A VOTE and b) that was bullshit also because Yul had a free pass to the FTC with his ridiculous super-idol.  Of course without that it would have been Yul voted out, a million-dollar beach vacation for Ozzy, and a very much less fun Micronesia.

IF you can manipulate two people into keeping you at F4, you deserve the final 3; IF, like Cirie, you can only convince one moron to keep you, then a fire-making challenge seems an eminently fair semi-random ritual chance to make it through, and fair enough if you win or lose.  IF you can't convince anybody, then get the fuck on the jury with all the rest of the losers,  you LOST THE GAME.  You had 38 goddamn days to win it in, you don't get any more chances.  Why, if Ben "deserves" a "fair shot" with some ass-pull fire challenge (Probst's explicit reason for this nonsense is to save the ass of the loser who can't play the fucking game but that Jeff likes) doesn't every single other player deserve that shot?  Why not have every vote go to fire?  They all failed the exact same way, people voted for them to leave.

The winner is chosen out of the 2 or 3 who survived the votes. Not out of a random selection of contestants who conform to Probst's political ideals.  Those who survived the votes.  It's kind of in the title.  If there's no vote you're playing Candy Land.  Why not have a group of people sitting around a table doing fuck-all and then after a while they decide which of them was them they liked best and give them a million dollars?  Hey, they're still picked by a jury!  EXACT SAME GAME.  Jeff Probst is not going to stop moving the goalpost backwards to save his favorite manly men -- remember the Final 3 was debuted the moment that Terry Deitz lost -- until it is at the starting line, so they can't ever get voted out.

Honestly, I know you are one of the smartest people on this board and I can't really understand why you don't see what the problem is for those of us who dislike this twist.  However, I will say again, it is not unique, because Cooks was just as terrible.  But they changed the idol rules after that shitshow and to get to F3, you still had to SURVIVE the fucking VOTE.

It's a beautiful game.  It's very simple.  You get people to vote other people out.  Then you get them to vote for you to win.  If you don't have to get through the votes to win, then THERE IS NO GAME.

I liked this and I would like it again if I could because it is exactly my feeling. 

Honestly, I hate to break it to Jeff, but this is not going to change anything anyway. All that happened when they went to F3 is that the big jury threats went at F4. All that's going to happen now is they'll go even earlier because people know there's no guarantee they can be booted at F4. You might get the odd Ben/Mike who either idols or challenge-wins their way through, sure, but it won't be long before the F4 is made up of the controlling player or two, their goat and someone who's terrible at survival and will be an easy beat at fire-making, because the Bens and Mikes aren't allowed anywhere near it. They'll start going pre-merge because that's the safest time to get rid of them.

On the bright side, it might reverse the MvGx/HHH trend of getting rid of the women early, and that will cause Jeff's brain to explode and then it'll all have been worth it.  

[Nashville]

5 hours ago, ljenkins782 said:

I actually think this example proves KimberStormer's point a bit. The reason those 2 didn't get to play is because they weren't chosen by the other players in the schoolyard pick. Whether it because they were a singing weirdo who made the others uncomfortable or a standoffish buff guy who apparently rubbed people the wrong way (Angie's remarks at the reunion alluded to this), they didn't achieve the goal of getting the others to vote them INTO the game.

Spin it any way you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that a schoolyard pick and a TC vote are two totally different animals - opposites, even:

• Schoolyard picks are selections to retain; TC votes are selections to evict.
• Schoolyard picks are individually effective; individual TC votes are effective only as part of a plurality consensus.
• Schoolyard picks are immediately effective; TC votes are not effective until the cumulative vote tally.

The only common ground between schoolyard picks and TC votes, in fact, is that each is a form of selection criteria.  So if your argument is this single point of commonality makes the two equivalent, then you de facto concede ANY selection criteria - including competition-based selections such as firemaking comps - is every bit as valid.

Or, you can simply concede the point a schoolyard pick isn’t the same as a vote.  ;>

[KimberStormer]

I mean, if you want me to say that Tom's win is baloney because of the admittedly stupid Palau twist, by all means, I am happy to.  Truthfully, though, I consider that twist to be an extension of casting, not a part of the game at all really.  Wanda and Whatsisface weren't really a part of the season any more than an alternate waiting at Ponderosa for a pre-game medevac is.  They were just on TV.

[Nashville]

@KimberStormer: 

1. Initially, I was responding to your stated position - votes being the sole determinant of whether a player is evicted is part of the basic foundation of Survivor - and simply pointing out that precedent exists for methods other than votes to be determinants of player eviction.
2. Then I find myself responding to responses suggesting the alternate eviction processes are identical to votes, and (hopefully) demonstrating how they are not.
3. And now I’m starting to get bored with the whole subject - it’s kinda moot anyway.

...but I will agree to agree with you about Tom - that bitch’s mindfuck games with Ian righteously pissed me the hell off.  

Edited December 27, 2017 by Nashville
Typo

[peachmangosteen]

15 hours ago, MissEwa said:

On the bright side, it might reverse the MvGx/HHH trend of getting rid of the women early, and that will cause Jeff's brain to explode and then it'll all have been worth it.  

Hmmm, a silver lining. I like it! But Probst will just get pissed after it happens a couple times and decide to announce a new twist to get him what he wants. Maybe he'll juts give up all pretense and do all-male casts.

[ljenkins782]

13 hours ago, Nashville said:

Spin it any way you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that a schoolyard pick and a TC vote are two totally different animals - opposites, even:

• Schoolyard picks are selections to retain; TC votes are selections to evict.
• Schoolyard picks are individually effective; individual TC votes are effective only as part of a plurality consensus.
• Schoolyard picks are immediately effective; TC votes are not effective until the cumulative vote tally.

The only common ground between schoolyard picks and TC votes, in fact, is that each is a form of selection criteria.  So if your argument is this single point of commonality makes the two equivalent, then you de facto concede ANY selection criteria - including competition-based selections such as firemaking comps - is every bit as valid.

Or, you can simply concede the point a schoolyard pick isn’t the same as a vote.  ;>

No. Votes/selection processes made by human beings and fire-making competitions are not the same and no amount of lawyer language, underlining, or bolding will make it so. 

[Nashville]

10 hours ago, ljenkins782 said:

No. Votes/selection processes made by human beings and fire-making competitions are not the same and no amount of lawyer language, underlining, or bolding will make it so. 

Not lawyering, just explaining - but I reckon we'll have to agree to disagree.

[fishcakes]

Eh. Voting is not the only way people go out. HII bouncebacks and drawing rocks result in someone who wasn't voted out being eliminated as well. The argument that those occur after a vote and not instead of a vote is a distinction without a difference because they both result in an elimination that wasn't the will of the majority of the remaining tribe. Nor does it make a difference to me that they didn't know about in advance; it's not any more unfair than the first-ever tribe shuffle in Season 3, the fake merge in Season 5, or the surprise switch from F2 to F3 in Season 13. I think this is a pointless and uninteresting twist, but not an unfair one. I'm not going to be mad about it.

[peachmangosteen]

25 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

I think this is a pointless and uninteresting twist, but not an unfair one.

That's it. 

It takes away the things I like about the show and adds another element of the part I don't give a shit about, so for me it's both boring and awful.

[Jextella]

I'm drawing a blank.  How did the final three used to get picked?  One wins immunity but what about 2 & 3?  I should know this as I've watched most seasons (there were a few pre-Russell Hantz I didn't get to, though).

[fishcakes]

40 minutes ago, Jextella said:

How did the final three used to get picked?  One wins immunity but what about 2 & 3?

It was just a normal vote by the final 4. If it tied 2-2, then there'd be a fire-making challenge to break the tie. They've done the tiebreaker challenge three times that I can remember, in Cook Islands between Sundra and Becky, Worlds Apart between Carolyn and Rodney, and in Kaoh Rong between Aubry and Cydney. Honestly, I can't believe they didn't retire that tiebreaker after Cook Islands because it went for two hours with the flint and finally Jeff just made them stop and gave them matches. And even then Sundra couldn't do it; she ran out of matches before she got anything going. It was painful.

Edited December 28, 2017 by fishcakes

[Jextella]

1 hour ago, fishcakes said:

It was just a normal vote by the final 4. If it tied 2-2, then there'd be a fire-making challenge to break the tie. They've done the tiebreaker challenge three times that I can remember, in Cook Islands between Sundra and Becky, Worlds Apart between Carolyn and Rodney, and in Kaoh Rong between Aubry and Cydney. Honestly, I can't believe they didn't retire that tiebreaker after Cook Islands because it went for two hours with the flint and finally Jeff just made them stop and gave them matches. And even then Sundra couldn't do it; she ran out of matches before she got anything going. It was painful.

Thanks Fishcakes!

I have to say, I'm sorta with Jeff on this one.  I read that the idea was introduced because he didn't like the idea of a goat being so easily taken to the end.   I agree with that.  Plus, it gives the person with immunity too much power.  Seems he/she would control two positions which seems too much.  I like the idea of the players having to battle it out for the third spot.  I'm not sure I would mind if they had to battle it out for the second spot either.  

What I haven't liked this season are the random advantages.  It makes "rules" meaningless and gives way too much power to producers to control players' fates.  It's pretty shady, actually. 

I'd also like to see Survivor come clean about when and where idols and advantages are hidden.  I've read that they have a legal team onsite to ensure challenges are handled fairly but I don't think that same team is involved when planting idols and advantages, but it should be though.   Until I hear that Survivor distributes these two things without prejudice, my opinion of the show has been tainted.

Edited December 28, 2017 by Jextella

[marys1000]

On 12/26/2017 at 10:25 AM, peachmangosteen said:

I had started to feel less irate about the twist, but then Probst gave his reason for why they decided to do it and I got pissed off again. But I guess I have to admire that he would pretty much just outright say it's because he wants to save the people he likes best lol.

But that presupposes that they go into the taping of the season without the twist, don't like the outcome, add in the twist mid game? end of game?, come back,

edit it all so it looks right and basically its ALL RIGGED.  In which case Survive is ALL RIGGED ALL THE TIME.  

I do try to remind myself that reality shows aren't reality and that most do what they can to increase drama (cast selection on), or at least hype it in editing.  

And while I can understand not liking the twist, because I think it gives one contestent a lot of power to change things things (Chrissy got to ruin Devon's shot basically) I can't see how this was all done just so Ben would win.  I think the complexities of shooting scenes, and editing and production lawyers and coroporate meetings just don't move that fast.  I mean I suppose its possible, they might vet a whole bunch of different twists and pull them out when they need them but I certainly don't think they wing things by putting up twists as they go along just to accomodate one player.  Too much can go wrong.  

Edited December 28, 2017 by marys1000

[ProfCrash]

1 hour ago, Jextella said:

Thanks Fishcakes!

I have to say, I'm sorta with Jeff on this one.  I read that the idea was introduced because he didn't like the idea of a goat being so easily taken to the end.   I agree with that.  Plus, it gives the person with immunity too much power.  Seems he/she would control two positions which seems too much.  I like the idea of the players having to battle it out for the third spot.  I'm not sure I would mind if they had to battle it out for the second spot either.  

What I haven't liked this season are the random advantages.  It makes "rules" meaningless and gives way too much power to producers to control players' fates.  It's pretty shady, actually. 

I'd also like to see Survivor come clean about when and where idols are hidden.  I've read that they have a legal team onsite to ensure challenges are handled fairly but I don't think that same team is involved when planting idols and advantages.  It should be though.   Until I hear that Survivor distributes these two things without prejudice, my opinion of the show has been tainted.

The problem is that this won't work. The people that are feared will simply be taken out as soon as possible because no one will want to risk them getting to the fire making competition. So the big players that Jeff wants to protect will be voted out even sooner then they are now. So your Ben's and Ozzy's and the like will have to win immunity all the way to the end and be able to build a fire. Essentially, all this stupid fire making challenge does is increase the odds that the people Jeff wants to protect and get to the end will be voted out even sooner.

People are suppose to be voted out. The Producers have put penalties into play to try and force people to do just that. The Purple Rock of Death was developed to force people to choose to vote someone out or risk their own game. It makes for good drama when people have to draw rocks but that is mainly there to force people to choose between voting out an ally or risking their own shot in the game.

Yes, there have been stupid twists that have removed people without the vote (the school yard pick that one season that left two people out) but they tend not to reappear. They tend not to reappear because they were awful and people responded to them poorly.

The core of the game is that you find away to stay in the game, either through winning immunity and being safe from the vote, or through an alliance that keeps you safe from the vote. I remember people disliking the hidden immunity idol when it was first introduced because it mucked with the game too much. The hidden immunity idol has been tweaked to reduce it's power because it was initially far too strong and was used perfectly by Yul and Becky. The idea that someone is able to "win" their way into the final tribal is so far outside the norms of this game it is disgusting. Cirie (sp) was bounced without a vote because of too many idols and advantages. People were pretty darn annoyed with that and I think that the advantages this season were structured to prevent that from happening again. All the advantages, save for one, had to be played and had to be played at a specific tribal. That had to be to prevent a ton of advantages from hanging around until one tribal when they all get played.

This fire making thing is BS, you need to find a way to stay in the game to the final tribal. Rob C was voted out before final tribal and he didn't complain about it. A lot of folks who finished third, later fourth, knew what they game was and knew that it sucked but that was the game. Ben knew that was the game. Ben knew he was going home because he didn't win immunity. Ben should have gone home. That is the game. I don't blame Ben, he played what was in front of him and won by the rules of the season, but Ben knows he was suppose to go home.

So next season, the Ben/Tony/Ozzy type character will go home before the merge or at the merge. The bigger characters that are playing well and who are known to be playing well will go home far sooner because no one wants to risk them being at the final tribal. Which just means that the end of seasons are going to be more of a grind because the better players are going to go far sooner because the others are not going to risk them winning fire at the final four.

Stupid, stupid twist.

[green]

8 hours ago, Jextella said:

Thanks Fishcakes!

I have to say, I'm sorta with Jeff on this one.  I read that the idea was introduced because he didn't like the idea of a goat being so easily taken to the end.   I agree with that.  Plus, it gives the person with immunity too much power.  Seems he/she would control two positions which seems too much.  I like the idea of the players having to battle it out for the third spot.  I'm not sure I would mind if they had to battle it out for the second spot either.  

What I haven't liked this season are the random advantages.  It makes "rules" meaningless and gives way too much power to producers to control players' fates.  It's pretty shady, actually. 

I'd also like to see Survivor come clean about when and where idols and advantages are hidden.  I've read that they have a legal team onsite to ensure challenges are handled fairly but I don't think that same team is involved when planting idols and advantages, but it should be though.   Until I hear that Survivor distributes these two things without prejudice, my opinion of the show has been tainted.

This change ASSURED the goat would always get into the final three.  Not the opposite.  Had Ben won immunity he would have chosen Ryan as well.  A goat would ALWAYS be chosen no matter who had the choice.

And silly of using the Outplay and Outlast and Outwit bits in the final jury session if it just comes down to "Outflint" in the end.  Hate hate HATE this "change".

[Nashville]

11 hours ago, fishcakes said:

Eh. Voting is not the only way people go out. HII bouncebacks and drawing rocks result in someone who wasn't voted out being eliminated as well. The argument that those occur after a vote and not instead of a vote is a distinction without a difference because they both result in an elimination that wasn't the will of the majority of the remaining tribe. Nor does it make a difference to me that they didn't know about in advance; it's not any more unfair than the first-ever tribe shuffle in Season 3, the fake merge in Season 5, or the surprise switch from F2 to F3 in Season 13. I think this is a pointless and uninteresting twist, but not an unfair one. I'm not going to be mad about it.

Excellent summation.  By no means was I a fan of this season's final firemaking twist, but neither did I think it inherently unfair - or, more specifically, any more unfair than most other twists in the game.

 

3 minutes ago, green said:

This change ASSURED the goat would always get into the final three.  Not the opposite.  Had Ben won immunity he would have chosen Ryan as well.  A goat would ALWAYS be chosen no matter who had the choice.

I prefer the notion of a one-goat lock, versus two goats.

[Jextella]

47 minutes ago, green said:

This change ASSURED the goat would always get into the final three.  Not the opposite.  Had Ben won immunity he would have chosen Ryan as well.  A goat would ALWAYS be chosen no matter who had the choice.

And silly of using the Outplay and Outlast and Outwit bits in the final jury session if it just comes down to "Outflint" in the end.  Hate hate HATE this "change".

I'm missing something 'cause I don't see this at all.  The person who wins immunity can still pick one person - a goat or not.  Having 3rd and 4th duke it out only means the person with immunity can only take one, rather than two, goats.

[KimberStormer]

14 hours ago, Jextella said:

Seems he/she would control two positions which seems too much.  I like the idea of the players having to battle it out for the third spot.  I'm not sure I would mind if they had to battle it out for the second spot either.  

Guess what?  They do have to battle it out, in the real game, without the twist.  You battle it out BY GETTING THE VOTES.  That is the game, that is the whole game!  Why does the person with immunity control two positions?  They don't.  They get one vote, same as everyone else, same as every other vote the whole game long.  I have no tears for anyone who can't get to the end.  They failed at the game.  They had two chances: they could win immunity, or they could get the fucking votes like everyone else.  Why not have to battle it out for seventeenth place?

The problem is that for some weird reason, for the entire history of the game of Survivor, people have somehow seen the votes as illegitimate.  That getting people to vote with you doesn't count, that it's cheap and unfair.  The first story in the first season was How Dare Richard Actually Get the Votes.  Gosh, poor Terry, he couldn't get the votes, it's so unfair.  Gosh, how awful that everyone voted the way that Todd wanted.  Well, Todd was better than Terry.  That's not a flaw, that's the game.

We don't lament and change the rules because Usain Bolt runs faster than Justin Gatlin and gee, Probst just likes Gatlin and why doesn't he ever get a chance to win?  Why don't we have Bolt stop ten feet from the finish line and then we have a game of rock paper scissors to decide who wins?  Then it'll be a real battle for the Olympic gold medal!  They should really battle it out!  We have to give them a fighting chance to win, don't we?  It's just not fair otherwise, when the fastest man can always win the race.  But suddenly in Survivor, because the votes are illegitimate, getting people to vote your way is not a real skill, just a refuge for cheats and scoundrels, of course this is totally cool, it's more real, it's a 'battle' they 'deserve'.

And this season, it's even more ridiculous -- suddenly the whistle blows, and they say to Bolt, good news, we gave you a great advantage, you don't have to worry about those last ten feet!  We'll even give you the first throw in the rock-paper-scissors game, as your reward for being ahead...

Edited December 29, 2017 by KimberStormer

[legaleagle53]

10 hours ago, Jextella said:

I'm missing something 'cause I don't see this at all.  The person who wins immunity can still pick one person - a goat or not.  Having 3rd and 4th duke it out only means the person with immunity can only take one, rather than two, goats.

But only a moron would fail to take at least ONE goat with him or her.  That was Colby's fatal mistake in Season 2 (I think it was).  He took Tina (one of the most popular players among the fellow tribemates) instead of Clay, whom everyone hated and whom he could easily have beaten, simply because of a pact he had made with Tina.  If he had chosen Clay as his goat and just explained to Tina at Final Tribal Council that he didn't honor his pact with her because he needed to have someone at the end with him whom he knew he could beat, she and the other jurors would have respected that, and he'd have won in a landslide.

Edited December 29, 2017 by legaleagle53

[cherrypj]

1 hour ago, legaleagle53 said:

He took Tina (one of the most popular players among the fellow tribemates) instead of Clay, whom everyone hated and whom he could easily have beaten, simply because of a pact he had made with Tina.

Brian, Season 5, did take Clay, and Brian did win (which is why Brian is considered a master player, even though no one likes him). Colby should have taken Keith, the chef.

[peachmangosteen]

Just word to @KimberStormer's entire post.

21 hours ago, marys1000 said:

I can't see how this was all done just so Ben would win.  I think the complexities of shooting scenes, and editing and production lawyers and coroporate meetings just don't move that fast.  I mean I suppose its possible, they might vet a whole bunch of different twists and pull them out when they need them but I certainly don't think they wing things by putting up twists as they go along just to accomodate one player.  Too much can go wrong.  

Watching Big Brother tells you all you need to know about how far a reality tv show Production will go to get what it wants/what it thinks is good TV.

20 hours ago, ProfCrash said:

The problem is that this won't work. The people that are feared will simply be taken out as soon as possible because no one will want to risk them getting to the fire making competition. So the big players that Jeff wants to protect will be voted out even sooner then they are now. So your Ben's and Ozzy's and the like will have to win immunity all the way to the end and be able to build a fire. Essentially, all this stupid fire making challenge does is increase the odds that the people Jeff wants to protect and get to the end will be voted out even sooner.

Right! Probst is so fucking stupid. He doesn't even understand the game he's been hosting for like 15 years lol.

Edited December 29, 2017 by peachmangosteen