Here's Your Tinfoil Hat; What's Your Conspiracy Theory?

[fishcakes]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm starting this thread because the topic of producer interference comes up every season, so we might as well have our own grassy field with a big knoll for Burnett to hide behind with a bag full of Hidden Immunity Idols to hand out to his personal favorites.

 

Pulling this over from the Cagayan Reunion thread:

 

And before you say the producers would never do this, I'd remind you that reports of them doing this very thing date all the way back to season 1.

 

 

Stacey Stillman made that claim in her lawsuit against Burnett (she alleged Dirk and Sean had been encouraged to vote her out instead of Rudy) but Dirk flat out denied it, and Sean said that he had talked to Burnett about his vote but that Burnett not only didn't try to influence him but told him to vote his conscience. Burnett countersued Stacey and the whole thing was settled out of court. So while it's been reported, it's never been substantiated.

 

Do we have a link on the whole thing with Sean?  My recollection (from a million years ago) was that he reacted to the producers saying that 'they'd never influence a vote' by saying essentially 'uh, what about you guys asking me over and over 'don't you think Rich deserves to win?''  I had no idea that he talked to Burnett personally but I think you buried the lede here; 'why the hell is the executive producer chatting with contestant while the game is still going on?  At that most important juncture in the game?'  Not proof of anything, obviously, but ... interesting.

 

Here's the USA Today article where Sean is quoted as saying he wasn't influenced to vote one way or the other.

 

Not sure why you'd say I buried the lede. Sean said he talked to Burnett, and I said that's what Sean said. Nor has it ever been a secret that Burnett talks to the contestants during the game. Hell, Burnett wrote a book detailing his involvement in the first season. Nor would I call the vote for Stacey the most important juncture in the game, considering that she was the third person voted out on Day 9.

[Guest]

I think the producer involvement has been getting worse and more obvious over the last few seasons. From things we don't see (like I'm pretty sure they are often given extra food) to things like Hidden Immunity Idols, it just seems very convenient the way things play out.

[KnitsWithRaceCars]

I'm not really a conspiracy theorist, but I call big time "bull" on Probie's failure to announce that F5 was the last time an HII could be used in Cagayan.  He failed to do something he had done in every other season that had an HII.  It may or may not have changed the outcome of the game, but it is blatant producer manipulation.

[henripootel]

Not sure why you'd say I buried the lede.

 

I was unaware that the executive producer takes it on himself to talk to the players while the game is being played but for me, the real news here is the 'while the game is being played' part.  As to why this is suspicious to me, let me tell you a story.  Back when I lived in Utah I was amazed at the blatant (to me) influence of the Mormon church in local politics.  I told one of my mormon friends who laughed and said there was no such thing, because church officials, while delivering official opinions about the various candidates and issues, then specifically said 'but we're not gonna tell you how to vote'.  For Liza, that put an end to it, but she did ask me how such issues were dealt with in my experience as an east coast catholic.  I told her 'I have no idea - because nobody ever said a word about it in church, ever. The catholic church doesn't have to pretend to not be in charge because they are not in charge.'

 

As to the article linked - it's been a while since I read it but that's not the article I remember reading.  That one said specifically that Sean hadn't been 'told' who to vote for, just asked 'Don't you think Rich played a great game?  Don't you think he deserves to win?'. So it wasn't about the Stacey vote (although it came up right about at the time of Stacey's lawsuit), it was about the end vote.  It also said nothing about Burnett nor have I read his book, but allow me to express my lack of surprise if he never said '... and I told the contestants how I wanted them to vote'.  This is the point I could never quite communicate to Liza: that's not how 'coercion' works, or at least, that's not how it has to work, nor that anything short of a direct order means nothing happened.  

 

I too see manipulation getting worse, and I have this feeling that the watershed was when they started inviting contestants back.  Which Probst once said, iirc, would 'ruin the game' before he fell in love with the idea.  With that, producers had even more powerful leverage to use with players as 'winning' might not be as lucrative as a return invite, which is solely at the producer's discretion.  Little things like that awaken my suspicions.  

Edited June 12, 2014 by henripootel

[Hanahope]

That one said specifically that Sean hadn't been 'told' who to vote for, just asked 'Don't you think Rich played a great game?  Don't you think he deserves to win?'.

 

Its like legalese.  Yeah, the producer never "told" him how to vote, but just asked questions that could be suggestive as 'maybe you should really think about voting for this guy', but "i'm not telling you how to vote."

 

Of course, these days, with the potential of returning players all the time, such players are not going to admit to the suggestiveness of the questions because then they might not be invited back to play again.  Its also quite possible their contracts prohibit them from saying certain things, like what questions they are asked on the island or any questions that mention another player's name.

[henripootel]

Yeah, the producer never "told" him how to vote, but just asked questions that could be suggestive

More than enough to qualify as 'producer manipulation' in my book, given the more-than-substantial influence they wield on their hand-picked cast.  

 

I must confess that I think I see this influence cropping up regularly - Tony's absurd 'spy shacks', cast members who spontaneously do stupid (but highly film-able) nonsense like dump the food into the fire on like the third day, stealing each other's possessions (which used to be uber-verboten, IIRC), talking smack about other contestants in their talking-head interviews.  Seems to me that the producers are now the great unseen force in the game now, and guys like Tony play to them as much as anything.  And, I suspect, get handsomely rewarded in return, and I'm talking during the game rather than just a favorable edit.  I've spent the last two seasons mulling the notion that 'playing the game hard' really means 'playing the producers hard'.  Still on the fence about that but I'm completely convinced of the 'leading questions' making the producer's wishes plain and clear.

 

ETA: I should say that I do distinguish between what I see as producer manipulation that A) has no real effect on the game even if it affects what we see, or B) shenanigans which directly influence the game and who wins.  Type A seems pretty rife to me but I don't really care - 'stacking the deck' to ensure conflict by casting crazy folks, suggesting players confront each other on camera to ratchet up the drama, even reshooting events that actually happened but they didn't get a good shot of; all seems pretty benign to me and necessary for a game show.

 

Type B now, these are the ones that interest me most.  Seems to me that PAs chatting with contestants can easily lapse into this, and as you say, who'd be the wiser?  They're not saying so-and-so wants you out or go dig under that tree, just asking if you've considered that.  

Edited July 1, 2014 by henripootel

[Netfoot]

We see Tom and Dick on a reward, secretly planning to back-stab Harry.  Then at Tribal JP says "Harry, given that Tom & Dick were on a reward together, have you considered that they might be planning to back-stab you?"  Or, "Dick, did Tom suggest back-stabbing Harry?"  Stuff like that happens all the time.  Probably perfectly legal by published game rules, but not exactly cricket!

[henripootel]

Stuff like that happens all the time.  Probably perfectly legal by published game rules, but not exactly cricket!

 

That's actually in the rules?  I don't doubt for a second that Jeffy does this very thing.  Too many times I've seen at TC 'Hey, Guy I Like, does it ever worry you that Guy I Don't Like might be thinking (lays out GIDL's secret plans filmed earlier)?'  This may seem somewhat innocuous cuz they're not actually telling people what to do but it does give the producers some pretty major leverage.  I mean you don't have to do what they obviously want you to do, but then again you don't have to get a good edit or get invited back either.

 

Pretty sure this kinda shiz can have much more elaborate effects.  I'm put in mind of a few seasons back when some contestant (name escapes me) spontaneously decided to give Russell Hantz an HII, even though Russell was on a different team at the time and said contestant had never actually met him before.  And such contact between tribes was (IIRC) specifically forbidden by the rules.  But this was back when Jeffy had a huge boner for Hantz, so said contestant just happened to go a the notion in his head to give his HII to a complete stranger.  Totally on his own.  Riiiiiight.  

Edited July 3, 2014 by henripootel

[Maverick]

 I don't mind much when they interfere a bit to disrupt a power alliance.  When those get too powerful and the boots become predictable week after week it gets boring (same thing on Big Brother).  I don't like it when they do it to protect whoever Probst (or Grodner) have a hard on for that season.

[henripootel]

I don't like it when they do it to protect whoever Probst (or Grodner) have a hard on for that season.

I think I just like to see Probst's efforts at stacking the deck get thwarted.  One of my favorite moments: the season where Probst explained to the new tribes that Greatness had descended among them, in the forms of two 'legendary players' (who were cumulatively 0-5 at that point).   The tribe destined to have the privilege of helping Russell Hantz win a million dollars then did the entirely sensible thing - vote his ass off the moment they could.  Probst was apoplectic and scolded them for voting off 'one of the best players ever'.  And there was happiness in the Pootel household. 

 

Of course this was also the season of Rob's Zombies and the HII that Rob got exactly when he needed it (to keep anyone from knowing he had it), having 'reasoned' where is must be based on absolutely nothing at all.  BRob won and Probst got to give him a lavish tongue bath, so I guess you can't have everything.

Edited July 6, 2014 by henripootel

[Trick Question]

One of my favorite moments: the season where Probst explained to the new tribes that Greatness had descended among them, in the forms of two 'legendary players' (who were cumulatively 0-5 at that point).   The tribe destined to have the privilege of helping Russell Hantz win a million dollars then did the entirely sensible thing - vote his ass off the moment they could.  Probst was apoplectic and scolded them for voting off 'one of the best players ever'.

 

 

I can't TOTALLY blame Probst for this since he's pretty consistently been against players throwing challenges for any reason, so throwing a challenge to vote out one of the producer favourites was just doubly bad in Jeffy's mind.  Then again, that season also had the biggest in-game producer manipulation of them all in Redemption Island, a gimmick literally signed to help more experienced "popular" players with no social games remain alive after getting voted out.

 

For all of the rules in place to regulate game shows (in the wake of the old '21' scandal), I'd wonder if Survivor is able to skirt some those rules by being a 'reality' show rather than a strict competition.  That's a terrific point made about the producers using return visits as a carrot to contestants, as it's pretty clear over the last 10-15 seasons that we're getting more and more players being characters (i.e. Sugar, Coach) as opposed to seemingly trying to actually win the million bucks.

[henripootel]

I can't TOTALLY blame Probst for this since he's pretty consistently been against players throwing challenges for any reason

I'm never too sure about what Probst really believes - witness his implacable stance on quitters, then see how he softened to the point of bringing back Colton and even admitting on tv that they knew perfectly well he'd quit the first time (which was edited to look like a 'medical evac').  Maybe Jeffy didn't know for sure that Colton was faking the first time (till after the evac) but he damn well knew it before Colton was invited back, something they'd never do for a quitter.  Serves Probst right that Colton just quit again.

 

And if memory serves, the whole 'throw the challenge to get rid of Russell' thing wasn't clearly a thing at all.  There was talk of throwing the challenge, sure, but I remember thinking it was unclear whether they actually did throw the challenge or needed to, as it seemed like they just got beat at the IC.  Of course it fit into the producer's narrative that greatness like Russell could only be ousted by underhanded tactics (no, he was doomed, at the first IC the team lost legitimately or not), and that the team's underhandedness doomed them because they went into the merge shorthanded (no, after they voted out Russell they lost a few more challenges fair and square).  That said, Probst's creative re-telling of what just happened - I don't even think of this as producer shenanigans.  Bullshit to be sure, but not actually rigging the game as far as I can tell.  This as opposed to ...

For all of the rules in place to regulate game shows (in the wake of the old '21' scandal), I'd wonder if Survivor is able to skirt some those rules by being a 'reality' show rather than a strict competition.

 

My understanding is that it is very far from clear that the quiz-show rules have anything to do with reality tv, and that absolutely nobody is keen to find out.  I know it's commonly believed that reality shows are subject to these restrictions but it's almost certainly much more complicated.  It's perfectly reasonable that some parts of the show may be covered (like challenges, which Jeffy has gone to pains to say are monitored by Standards and Practices) but others are not.  Even if the winner of the show was at least partially predetermined, it probably wouldn't violate the quiz show rules even in spirit (which were written to cover 'games of apparent skill or knowledge').  This means Jeffy could point out HIIs to his man-crushes, feed some folks but not others, offer inducements (like return invites) to get folks to vote a certain way, stack team reshuffles to protect his friends - all completely legit, albeit unsavory enough to make players sign lengthy NDAs.

Edited July 23, 2014 by henripootel

[Maverick]

 I thought Probst fought against bringing Colton back but was overruled by other producers who thought he'd make good TV.  The way he eviscerated him on his second go around kinda shows he didn't want him there in the first place.

[henripootel]

I thought Probst fought against bringing Colton back but was overruled by other producers who thought he'd make good TV.  The way he eviscerated him on his second go around kinda shows he didn't want him there in the first place.

I hadn't heard that, nor that Probst was anything but large and in charge these days as an EP.  I'm sure he doesn't perform every function in production by himself but my understanding is that the push to bring back 'star players', RI, the new emphasis on HIIs, and even the Medallion of Power - all Probst and nothing but Probst.  If so, the idea that Colton was foisted on Jeffy against his will - ludicrous.  Alternatively, if Probst is at the mercy of the other producers, why would they let Jeff's beating up of Colton (which was wonderful to behold) even air?  

 

I think the simpler explanation is this: Jeff (and thence, 'production') says a lot of shit they don't really mean.  Not only are the 'hated' quitters invited back, they're also allowed to serve on the jury.  We also know that several cast members were known to have leaked spoilers (most notably Russell Hantz), and not only were they not savaged in court for breaking their contract, they got a return invite.  

 

I'm not saying that everything that Jeff says is a lie, but I am saying that when it serves his purpose, he is utterly without shame.  And I'm not saying he shouldn't be - much as I enjoy winkling out what is actually going on vs. what Probst says is going on, he does have a show to produce here.  More power to him trying to have it both ways but more to us here for calling bullshit where we see it.

Edited July 23, 2014 by henripootel

[Trick Question]

If so, the idea that Colton was foisted on Jeffy against his will - ludicrous.  Alternatively, if Probst is at the mercy of the other producers, why would they let Jeff's beating up of Colton (which was wonderful to behold) even air?

 

Because by that time Colton had quit again and the other producers soured on him too, so they aired the footage of Probst throwing him under the bus.

 

I should've clarified my "Probst hates quitters" stance to omit S21, since while he NaOnka and Kelly were indeed allowed to be on the jury, the show was stuck in a hard place given that booting the two entirely would've meant a very short-handed jury.  I can see Probst and company literally not having a plan for such an occurrance since it was so far-fetched to have TWO quitters in the final eight, so they were forced to have them on the jury through gritted teeth.  Probst has also been pretty soft on players who quit because they're seemingly going through some type of trauma (I'm thinking of Kathy from S16) as opposed to people who quit since they're seemingly just tired of being out there (i.e. NaOnka, Kelly, Osten, Colton, etc.)

 

Speaking of the hated S21, the biggest off-screen development to occur during that season was Sash's alleged attempt to bribe Jane, which was never shown or alluded to on the actual show.  It was discussed off-camera at Tribal Council and contributed to why Sash grew to be so hated amongst the other players, yet presumably that's another case where nothing could be done since they couldn't just evict Sash and thin the jury ranks even further.  With this in mind, you have to wonder if any other players have tried to use real-life promises (money or something) to buy votes in the past and it's been covered up or otherwise quietly buried by the producers. 

[Oholibamah]

since they couldn't just evict Sash and thin the jury ranks even further.

 

All the while, Alina, Brenda and Marty were sitting over on the jury while everybody else in the game either quit, sucked at it, or just floated through. Nicaragua rivals Gabon for worst season ever, IMO.

[henripootel]

Because by that time Colton had quit again and the other producers soured on him too, so they aired the footage of Probst throwing him under the bus.

I'm not sure there's much to choose from between 'Probst works with liars who sometimes make him have to clean up when they do things contradictory to Jeff's stated position' or 'Jeff is himself a liar who simply lies to have things both ways'.  I'm sure Jeff does hate quitters - they disrupt the production process and draw attention to the fact that most of the contestants are wanna-be celebs cast for their 'roles', not just ordinary folk who want to play the game.  But he can't say that so he talks about 'disrespecting the game' or 'not deserving to be on the jury' or other such nonsense.  But he obvious doesn't mean it.  Casting.  TV show.  That tells you all you need to know, or most of what actually matters. 

 

NaOnka was a good example of this.  She was a frankly bizarre character who suddenly developed a burning rivalry with people she just met like five minutes ago.  She also stole food and when nobody made a big enough deal about it, admitted it just so she could shove it in people's faces to try and outrage them.  Cast characters like Naonka act in a way that makes no sense to me except in light of one fact - they're cast characters hired to play a role.  And they sometimes get tired of the role and quit.  No sense trying to appeal to their sense of gamesmanship or fair play or whatever - they're not there to play a game.  They're cast, they wanted to be on tv and they accomplished that, and now they just want a cheeseburger.  This is what rankles Jeffy - that his cast characters sometimes trade his carefully-plotted production plan for a cheeseburger.  I'd be mad too.

you have to wonder if any other players have tried to use real-life promises (money or something) to buy votes in the past

 

Easy money says they have - the temptation is simply too great.  But then this is another area that the producers officially contradict themselves.  Witness the 'Blood v Water' thing - it practically ensures that at some point, somebody is gonna cast a vote for their (brother, wife, whatever) simply on the basis of the fact that if that person wins, the voter will get some part of that money too.  They must know this will happen, they don't care.  Witness also Rob and Amber, where Rob's statement that he'll either 'win a million dollars or share Amber's' (when they got married), which reeks of exactly the same collusion.  Now I'm all for love as much as the next guy but the producers could have held to the 'rules' about collusion if they wanted to - have Rob or Amber recuse themselves from the contest.  What they actually did was celebrate this rule-breaking as one of the best things that ever happened on Survivor.

 

For those who hadn't heard about the Sash thing, I should mention that season 21 was spoiled accurately and in great detail, and two sources mentioned this brouhaha (which of course, never aired).  At FTC Jane said on camera that finalist Sash offered her a share of his prize money for her vote (actually offering to help pay the mortgage on her farm, I think).  He apparently did this while they were out swimming, the one and only place the cameras couldn't follow them.  Jeff stopped the taping, spent some time conferring with the other producers, and then came back and did a thorough investigation of the accusation, in fairness to the other contestants who hadn't broken the unforgivable rules and to preserve the 'integrity of the game'. 

 

Ha, I kid - Jeff came back, started the filming again and did absolutely nothing.  And judging by the fact that the irascible Jane never ever mentioned this again, like as not somebody had a word with her to shut the hell up about the whole incident.

 

My conclusion: the 'rules' mean pretty much nothing.  The producers don't consider themselves bound by them (to say nothing of enforcing them), but they are willing to cover up transgressions.  Jeff is either a stooge for liars or (more likely) is one himself.

Edited July 28, 2014 by henripootel

[kikaha]

I'm confused about Colton's first season.  I thought the Survivor doctor declared him unfit to continue, and took him out of the game.  That didn't happen?

 

henri, as usual, you make interesting points that require thought, at least from me. 

[henripootel]

I'm confused about Colton's first season.  I thought the Survivor doctor declared him unfit to continue, and took him out of the game.  That didn't happen?

In a word, no.  You'll have to forgive me, kikaha, for going on at length, but I'm also summarizing stuff that came out over the years in the forums at TWoP (now sadly lost).  

 

What happened was that first, there was a spoiler that in Colton's season, there was a late quit that was re-branded as a 'medical evacuation'.  This sparked lively debate about whether or not the producers would ever do such a thing, what with their stated hatred of quitters and all.  The seasons aired and mid way through, Colton laid down in the woods with 'abdominal pain'.  Medical was called.  

 

What came next was an awkward sequence where the show's doctor examined Colton and couldn't really find anything obviously wrong with him.  I'm sure the first thing they did was check for appendicitis, which is potentially deadly and for which there is a variety of field tests.  Had Colton failed any of the tests, he'd have been whisked away without preamble.  But he wasn't.  

 

Instead they lingered and said things like 'well he says he's in pain, so it could be appendicitis ...'.  There was some talk about how Colton's pulse rate went up when they were examining him, possible confirmation that he was indeed in pain.  This struck me and others as odd, like they were looking for evidence that Colton wasn't actually faking, rather than that he was actually in peril.  I mean they're medical, they say he might be in danger, he goes, right?  But this seemed like the elaborations of a bad lie rather than a medical emergency. Speaking as a guy whose mom's appendix burst while on the table being prepped for surgery and still nearly died, I know minutes count.  Better safe than sorry, and time for yammering later.

 

In the end, they sorta decided 'maybe could be appendicitis' and that he should be removed, but not until after Colton filmed a scene where he said goodbye to his tribe mates.  He also (hilariously) decided to take his HII with him as a souvenir rather than give it to his alliance-mate who was now in a bit of a jam with his departure.  

 

All this seemed to jibe exactly with the spoiler, but it wasn't till Colton was re-cast and re-quit that we found out for sure.  As Jeffy himself said, here he was quitting again, as 'now it can be revealed' that his first medivac was in fact Colton quitting.  They gave him a second chance and this is how he repaid them.  I'm sure Probst was mostly concerned with really humiliating Colton (who richly deserved it) but what Jeff really did was admit that production faked a medivac and that their position on quitters is ... somewhat more flexible than previously indicated.  

Edited July 27, 2014 by henripootel

[loki567]

It's always hard for me to get behind the, "Colton quit the first time," angle because why? His position was really good. Had the majority on his tribe at the time and was likely to have a majority after the merge. Also had the HI. 

[KimberStormer]

Well, why would NaOnka and Purple Kelly quit?  They were in a solid alliance and pretty much guaranteed to go to the end as Sash's goats.  It's hard out there.

[Isuzu]

Now I'm all for love as much as the next guy but the producers could have held to the 'rules' about collusion if they wanted to - have Rob or Amber recuse themselves from the contest.

 

I don't really think they could do it. I mean, there's a difference between sharing the money in exchange for votes or whatever and actually making the commitment to marry someone. Because at that point, it's not just her newfound million, it's all of her and his assets that are being shared. Were Rob and Amber skirting the letter of the rules? Sure. But I don't think that they were really violating the spirit of them. And it does make for a great story, especially after such a glum ending to the season. Frankly, between players settling for place money and a pre game alliance they can't speak about (between Lex, Kathy, Tom and Rob M.), All Stars needed something like that to take the stench off of it a little.

 

people who quit since they're seemingly just tired of being out there (i.e. NaOnka, Kelly, Osten, Colton, etc.)

 

The fact is, Osten was legitimately sick. He had like seven infections if I recall. Of course it's his fault for selling his clothes but still. NaOnka had joint pain because of Anemia (why would she go on Survivor then but they really had one of the worse weathered season ever if I recall). And Kelly made the great point that all she had to protect herself was a flimsy sundress that the producers made her wear. As for Colton, I'm willing to believe it was more of a Mediquit like Dana. I don't doubt that he was in pain, but it would have been probably solved with a shot of antibiotics and an IV of saline solution. I hated a lot of things about the French version of Survivor but at least if the medical condition was something easily treated, they would do it and allow the person to go back into the game.

 

Ha, I kid - Jeff came back, started the filming again and did absolutely nothing.

 

Well, it was her word against his, they had no proof whatsoever and Jane may have wanted to poison the jury against him. 

[Oholibamah]

Now I'm all for love as much as the next guy but the producers could have held to the 'rules' about collusion if they wanted to - have Rob or Amber recuse themselves from the contest.

 

This rule is designed to prevent strategies predicated on "help me win and I will give you half".

 

By the time Rob proposed, the game was effectively finished. It was the equivalent of Jaime and Erik getting hitched after filming wrapped but before the finale aired.

 

Who? Exactly. Nobody cares because they didn't win and the proposal wasn't on-air. But it has the exact same effect. Which, is nada.

 

I guess you could make an argument that they were insinuating marriage during the game, but that would be harder to prove, and I doubt the producers would want to discourage showmances and they would have been one another's best ally whether they were using one another or not. Besides, there are such things as pre-nuptials.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Oholibamah

[henripootel]

Sure. But I don't think that they were really violating the spirit of them.

Pretty sure the 'spirit' of the rule was all they did violate. If it'd been a clearer 'this for that' exchange, we wouldn't be having this conversation (because it'd never have seen the light of day).  It might be useful to think of this situation shorn of its obvious romantic angle.  What if they'd been a gay couple?  Would everyone have been so inclined to look the other way (or production to spring for the wedding)?  What if Rob had stayed married for 5 minutes then taken his half of the communal assets, yelled 'suckers!' at Burnett Productions (whom, if I recall, paid for his wedding), then used his half of the money for hookers and blow?  Pretty sure the attitude towards this whole thing would be different, but what actually happened (rules-wise) would be exactly the same.  The romantic vision here shouldn't matter - rules are rules.  Agreeing to split the money should be wrong no matter how cute the story used to justify it, if, that is, one is actually concerned with the rules.

By the time Rob proposed, the game was effectively finished.

True, but (and correct me if I'm wrong - it's been a million years) I seem to recall a shot of Rob saying well before FTC that he'd 'either win the million or they'd share her's'.  This 'strategy' was well in place while significant parts of the game were still to be played and most certainly affected the outcome, even if only a little. This is what the rule is designed to prevent, players gaming the rules in order to change what 'winning' means.   As I said before, it should not matter that Rob and Amber were pure of heart and have a nice marriage now, what matters is how production dealt with this collusion.  

 

Rob's admission (if my memory is right) that he was gonna get paid either way not only got put on film, it made the edit, and continues to be celebrated as one of the great moments in Survivor history.  The producers did not have to do that, but they chose to because it made for good tv.  I'm fine with that but I am brought back to the main thesis - the producers do not consider themselves (or players they like) to be bound by the rules.  Or, if you prefer, they sometimes care but sometimes not, which is another way of saying that there are no real 'rules', just production notes.  This make me wonder about other stuff production says they care about (but may well not).

Well, it was her word against his, they had no proof whatsoever and Jane may have wanted to poison the jury against him.

That could be true but we don't know that, and likely never will. We don't know what the other players did or didn't know, but (if the info that leaked out about this incident is accurate), the producers don't know either, and quite possibly don't want to.  Far as I know they made no effort to investigate, even to ask Sash if he'd said any such thing.  Speculation here, but I'd bet this reticence had nothing to do fairness or lack of evidence and everything to do with the producers covering their own asses.

 

If they had investigated, they might have heard stuff they didn't want to hear.  What if Sash said 'sure, I offered to pay her mortgage', or someone else said 'I was there - Sash made that offer'.  What does production do then?  Now that they 'know' something happened, they may be obliged to actually do something about it, if for no better reason than that word might slip out that the knew damn well what'd happened and did nothing.  In many ways it's easier and safer not to ask, and just leave it a 'he-said, she-said' kinda thing, but this very far from saying that this actually was a he-said / she said thing.  This may be the judicious move but yet again, further support for the idea that the 'rules' aren't exactly binding, which means that they aren't actual 'rules'.  The rules given to contestants are just a foolie, and the only thing that really matters is whatever the producers want at any particular moment.

Edited August 22, 2014 by henripootel

[Kel Varnsen]

My understanding is that it is very far from clear that the quiz-show rules have anything to do with reality tv, and that absolutely nobody is keen to find out.  I know it's commonly believed that reality shows are subject to these restrictions but it's almost certainly much more complicated.  It's perfectly reasonable that some parts of the show may be covered (like challenges, which Jeffy has gone to pains to say are monitored by Standards and Practices) but others are not.  Even if the winner of the show was at least partially predetermined, it probably wouldn't violate the quiz show rules even in spirit (which were written to cover 'games of apparent skill or knowledge').  This means Jeffy could point out HIIs to his man-crushes, feed some folks but not others, offer inducements (like return invites) to get folks to vote a certain way, stack team reshuffles to protect his friends - all completely legit, albeit unsavory enough to make players sign lengthy NDAs.

My understanding is exactly the same. Linda Holmes (the former Miss Alli) wrote an article for a legal journal about the legalities of producer interference in survivor. From the sounds of it, it would seem that those games show laws are written pretty specifically so that cheating in a game show (ie giving someone the answers on Jeopardy) would be illegal. It is not as cut and dry for an entertainment show like survivor, especially when you consider how many different factors can affect the outcome of the game. And it sounds like as long as a season wasn't completely fixed ahead of time with the player winning being in on it, no one at the federal government would really care.

[henripootel]

Linda Holmes (the former Miss Alli) wrote an article for a legal journal ...

I remember reading that article and thanks for linking it - man, that lady can write.  For me, that article put paid to the idea that Survivor producers couldn't rig the game (cuz it'd be illegal), and a few notable incidents laid to rest the notion that the wouldn't.  My list of things I'm pretty sure the producers do has grown, and at this point I'm almost as interested in the things I think the producers won't interfere with.  I think this list is fairly short.

 

One guess: I'll bet the don't flat out fix the voting.  Part of this is that Jeffy has been clearly pissed in the past about who won and who got voted out (which is always hilarious), and partially because I think that outright rigging would simply be too explosive were it to leak.  They also explicitly state the rules for voting so fixing it could bring unwanted attention.  Even if it's just a test cast to see if the rules apply to reality shows, the news would likely be a death knell to the series.  Better to let these chips at least fall where they might.  Well, mostly.  

[Kel Varnsen]

My list of things I'm pretty sure the producers do has grown, and at this point I'm almost as interested in the things I think the producers won't interfere with.  I think this list is fairly short.

That is what I am sort of thinking too. They probably wouldn't completely fix an entire season. But fixing a tribal outcome by asking loaded questions, of course. Fixing a single stage of the game by either modifying or changing challenges so that one team or player has an advantage, probably. Fixing a season so that returning player have a gigantic advantage over new players, seen it happen more than once. 

[henripootel]

They probably wouldn't completely fix an entire season. But fixing a tribal outcome by asking loaded questions, of course.

 

 

I think they might want to but unless they're willing to flat-out tell folks whom to vote for, I think they're stuck living week-to-week.  I've seen way too many 'star' players get saved by 'chance' to doubt that they do this (most recently, Tony the Cop and the Withheld Idol-Expiry Warning).

Fixing a single stage of the game by either modifying or changing challenges so that one team or player has an advantage, probably. 

 

Yep.  I just happened to be rewatching Nicaragua recently (where I wasn't staring at Brenda.  Stop accusing me.  Okay, I was staring at Brenda) and I came on the 'random' selection of teams for an obstacle course that ended up women vs. men.  With like 5 on each team.  Highly unlikely result, that.  With obstacles you needed large body mass to punch through.  I don't know why they might want to fix the race for the men but that's pretty much what they did.  

Fixing a season so that returning player have a gigantic advantage over new players, seen it happen more than once.

Rob's Zombies comes directly to mind of course, but the one I'm curious about is collusion between returning vets before they even get to the island.  It is my understanding that returning players likely know each other, and they know whom else is gonna be out there with them this next time.  I wonder if it's even technically illegal for them to make agreements beforehand, I mean they're not on the island yet, so who's to say?  And it's potentially a HUGE advantage, particularly if the agreement includes splitting a bit of prize money.  I've meant to watch carefully to see if vets often get in strong alliances with other vets but I haven't payed close enough attention.  I'll bet there've been enough seasons that this would be amenable to statistical analysis.  Hmmm.

[Trick Question]

the one I'm curious about is collusion between returning vets before they even get to the island.  It is my understanding that returning players likely know each other, and they know whom else is gonna be out there with them this next time.  I wonder if it's even technically illegal for them to make agreements beforehand, I mean they're not on the island yet, so who's to say?  And it's potentially a HUGE advantage, particularly if the agreement includes splitting a bit of prize money.  I've meant to watch carefully to see if vets often get in strong alliances with other vets but I haven't payed close enough attention.  I'll bet there've been enough seasons that this would be amenable to statistical analysis.  Hmmm.

 

 

In response to the Rob/Tom/Kathy/Lex pre-game alliance from All-Stars, the producers have used some trickery in other seasons when at least half the cast is returning players.  For Fans vs. Favourites, I believe they cast 20 veterans who all believed it would be another 'All-Stars' season but then cut 10 of them just before filming and introduced the newbies instead. 

 

While we can assume that 'most' of the ex-Survivors know each other from media and fan events, there are also obviously a large group of former players who aren't nearly as social in that world and thus are still somewhat immune to pre-game deals.  Now, CBS is most prone to re-cast the more outgoing veterans so some alliances can't be avoided, but there's also the option of bringing back players who have mostly stayed off the radar since their original appearance.  Someone like Chris Daughtery apparently is somewhat of a hermit who may or may not even have internet connectivity or even a phone on his farm, so I doubt he's exactly making the rounds at fan events.

The most recent pre-game alliance apparently just happened, if you believe the scuttlebutt that Tina, Katie, Vytas and Aras all had a pre-game deal planned.  This still, however, doesn't strike me as particularly shady given the nature of both the season (the new blood vs. water rules) and the fact that Tina and Aras are both winners.  Tina's previous appearance in S8 saw her voted out first solely because she was a former winner, so I could see her teaming with Aras as a united front against this happening again.  Other seasons have also seen veterans targeted (I'm thinking of S25 when Jeff Kent was gung-ho about eliminating returning players, which forced Penner and Skupin to team up) so I can't blame them for joining forces or having an unspoken agreement going into the show.  It also depends on who the specific veterans are --- Amanda didn't want to team with Parvati again in S20 since she'd already lost to her once, there's no way Rob and Russell would've teamed up in S22, etc.

[Kel Varnsen]

Yep.  I just happened to be rewatching Nicaragua recently (where I wasn't staring at Brenda.  Stop accusing me.  Okay, I was staring at Brenda) and I came on the 'random' selection of teams for an obstacle course that ended up women vs. men.  With like 5 on each team.  Highly unlikely result, that.  With obstacles you needed large body mass to punch through.  I don't know why they might want to fix the race for the men but that's pretty much what they did.

 

I remember years ago, I am thinking maybe amazon or one of the seasons just after that one where one of the challenges right before the end had a component that was filling a cylinder with water so you could reach a floating key. Of course this kind of challenge gave a huge advantage to a woman with really skinny arms.

 

It is funny how there is all this talk about this kind of stuff, when I remember back to season 1 there was a kind of low level scandal about how they did some reshoots after a challenge was done to get some extra footage so it would look good for TV. It was something like an aerial shot of the teams swimming across water. CBS had to make a statement about how the footage was reshot after the challenge was over and it had no effect on who won. I remember because it actually made the news on Entertainment Tonight.  

[kikaha]

Fixing a single stage of the game by either modifying or changing challenges so that one team or player has an advantage, probably.

 

While that makes sense to me logically, the counter-examples make me wonder.  e.g. Malcolm was a clear producer favorite.  Seemed like a shoo-in to win the FIC his first season.  But the producers ran one of the only challenges at which: a) Malcolm sucked, and b) the advantage he bought gave him no real advantage. 

 

That's also why I question the charge that producers help their favorites find HIIs.  If anyone needed an HII it was Malcolm in his second season.  Yet even though he had a clue -- even though he spent hours searching -- he never found it.   

 

Another example is Terry.  He was winning every challenge in sight. 6 or 7 in a row IIRC.  Another Probst favorite.  But the FIC was set up strongly against him and he lost.  

 

Same with Oz in his last season.  While the FIC had two parts, the puzzle part was far more important, and took far more time.  Big disadvantage for Oz. 

 

And another example is last season's winner, Tony.  Post-merge, one challenge after another had a puzzle in it.  Tony sucked at puzzles.  He also was a clear producer favorite.  So why didn't the producers change the challenges, to give him more of a chance?  Same question in those other seasons, if TPTB really do influence outcomes this way. 

 

I do think Survivor made a conscious choice the past several seasons to make the challenges less physical.  They now include far more puzzles.  Too many for my taste. 

 

 

Fixing a season so that returning player have a gigantic advantage over new players, seen it happen more than once.

Rob's Zombies comes directly to mind of course

 

Problem with that example is that Rob was randomly assigned to his tribe.  He could just as easily have gotten the other tribe, in which case he likely would have gotten the boot early.  Also, I don't think the producers are that omniscient.  They don't know how people will actually do in the game, till they are there, playing.  i.e. while I agree Rob ended up on a compliant tribe, I think that was the luck of the draw, that the producers could not predict. 

 

In general I think TPTB should not mix newbies with vets in the same season.  Two reasons: experience is so important in Survivor, and most of the vets were real good players their earlier season(s).  Worst of all is when a whole tribe of returning players go up against newcomers. 

[Kel Varnsen]

Problem with that example is that Rob was randomly assigned to his tribe.  He could just as easily have gotten the other tribe, in which case he likely would have gotten the boot early.  Also, I don't think the producers are that omniscient.  They don't know how people will actually do in the game, till they are there, playing.  i.e. while I agree Rob ended up on a compliant tribe, I think that was the luck of the draw, that the producers could not predict. 

 

He was randomly assigned. But at the same time the way the season was set up with no reward challenges and redemption island he had a huge advantage compared to the new players. And I am not so sure he would have been voted off right away, he is a lot more charismatic than Russel plus he is a hard worker around camp, enough so that I could see them keeping him for a few weeks.

[henripootel]

While that makes sense to me logically, the counter-examples make me wonder.

I agree that there're plenty of times when obvious faves perished when they might have been aided, but I'm not sure what this implies.  Just because the producers don't always intervene doesn't imply that they never intervene.  Short of outright scripting they can't absolutely guarantee anything, and I think they're wise to avoid outright scripting.  They're mostly working with semi-professional actors at best and often flat-out amateurs, so getting anything like an authentic performance out of them requires a certain degree of authenticity.  

 

Another problem with counter-examples is that attempted producer shenanigans are not always successful.  Example: Redemption Island.  I'm not sure RI qualifies as 'producer shenanigans' (because they're pretty open about how it's supposed to work) but I do agree that production has their own reasons for wanting it.   I think they were hoping it'd guarantee maximum exposure for their returning stars, but it hasn't always worked out that way.  Russell went to RI and lost on his first try, wherein he suffered the true death, and cried about it.  Ha.

 

On the other hand, there's an argument to be made that RI also aided Rob's efforts to win (by making it difficult for anyone to conspire against him), but I'm not entirely convinced.  I kinda wonder if this wasn't a happy side-effect for the producers.  They clearly really, really wanted Rob to win but in order for this plan to work, Rob will still have to be able to keep his tribe in line.  I'd agree that they gave him a bunch of folks who seemed compliantly committed to vying for second place (behind Rob), but Rob still had to work it some.  And I expect that they probably tried to set Russell up with a similarly well-prepped group, and see how that turned out.  My guess is that even while the producers try to quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) nudge things in directions they like, they don't always get what they want.  

Edited August 22, 2014 by henripootel

[KimberStormer]

 

Okay, I was staring at Brenda) and I came on the 'random' selection of teams for an obstacle course that ended up women vs. men.  With like 5 on each team.  Highly unlikely result, that.  With obstacles you needed large body mass to punch through.  I don't know why they might want to fix the race for the men but that's pretty much what they did.

 

This is actually my favorite example to prove that the selection really is random.  There is no reason they could possibly have wanted the men to win a reward challenge, no reason they would ever want a challenge blowout where there's no suspense whatsoever.  Jeff was clearly annoyed by the teams, for just this reason, I am pretty sure.  Everyone likes a challenge which is incredibly close, like Woo being one split-second from losing the challenge and winning the game.  Nobody likes a blowout challenge, and even if they were trying to rig it for somebody, there's no way they would want to rig a pointless reward challenge. 

 

Unlikely results happen in random chance--if I flip a coin ten times and it's heads ten times, that's not a good sign that the coin is rigged but rather the opposite.  If I were betting on a rigged coin flip, I'd want it to come up heads six times.  I still win and nobody suspects a thing.

 

I think they do their best to manipulate things, but in obvious ways like RI, not by dicking around behind the scenes.

[henripootel]

Unlikely results happen in random chance--if I flip a coin ten times and it's heads ten times, that's not a good sign that the coin is rigged but rather the opposite.

Actually, it's a pretty good sign that the coin toss is rigged.  Very good in fact - if you performed this test repeatedly, you'd expect this to happen less than 1/10th of 1% of the the time (1/2^10 = 0.0009765625). That's less than 1 time in 1000.  Even 6 times in a row is unusual - about 1.5 times in a hundred.  Anybody who knows a bit about probability would be very suspicious. 

There is no reason they could possibly have wanted the men to win a reward challenge, no reason they would ever want a challenge blowout where there's no suspense whatsoever.

 

You're assuming that what the producers want from this challenge is an exciting race, close right up to the end, but in this case they were stymied by an unlikely (and boring) coin-toss result.  The problem is that there are myriad reasons why the producers might want the men to win.  They might want the men to have some time alone to maybe form a male alliance and bust up a boring and predictable outcome.  If, for instance, there was a mixed-sex alliance which held an advantage in numbers, say 6 of 10 folks left, that's 4 boring votes they'd have to sit through before the 6 have to turn on each other.  I honestly don't remember if that's what was going on here, but at least in theory, there's a perfectly fine reason why the producers might engineer a maybe-alliance busting (albeit at the cost of one blow-out challenge) if it saves them a month of predictable eliminations.  Heck, even the guys getting together and saying that they might form an all-male alliance could provide enough misdirection to make the vote seem less certain.  That could be worth it right there.

[KimberStormer]

I meant six out of ten -- that's just barely unlikely.  If you're cheating that's exactly what you want.  See what I mean?  The suspiciousness of ten in a row is exactly why you wouldn't do it.  But if the coin is fair, it happens, very rarely.  I know I've flipped a coin and gotten the same side ten times in a row before.

 

Nicaragua was such a mess and so formless that I don't even know what they could possibly expect to happen that would be good for 'drama' from all the men (except Chase who sat out and decided for some reason to bet on the women) going on some zip-line/BBQ reward together.  There was basically no top or bottom for anyone to be on.  I don't know why anyone would be interested in a dude alliance when the dudes were a bunch of charisma-free morons such that Marty and Fabio ended up being the most memorable men of the season.  If the producers wanted anyone to win I believe it would be Jane.

 

However I doubt we'll ever agree on this; I've had this discussion before about random draws on this show and it never gets anywhere!

[Oholibamah]

Flipping ten heads in a row is no less likely than flipping heads-heads-tails-heads-tails-tails-heads-tails-tails-heads. Having Jane and 4 men is the same probability as having all five men. And like KimberStormer said, I find it hard to believe the producers would somehow want to limit Brenda, Holly, NaOnka and Jane's chances in the game given that they were the only members of the F10 giving any quality soundbites or gameplay.

 

Another interesting example is how everybody in ASS ended up on the opposite tribe except Amber. If everybody is reaching into a bag, I just can't see how they would rig the results.

 

The closest I've seen is Jeff passing a tray of eggs to the Fans and Favs in Caramoan. The way he alternated and held out the tray could have subtly effected the fan/favorite demographic of each tribe, or even the strong/weak demographic. But who knows.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Oholibamah

[henripootel]

Flipping ten heads in a row is no less likely than flipping heads-heads-tails-heads-tails-tails-heads-tails-tails-heads. 

Right but wrong.  Flipping 10 heads in a row is very unlikely to happen, this if you're stipulating 10 heads in a row from the get-go.  The chance would be the same for the specific sequence you mention, but the sequence isn't important when you're picking teams.  For many outcomes, there are any number of ways (and sequences of coin tosses) that'd yield the same sex ratios on a team (for instance, for one female and 4 males, it could happen FMMMM, MFMMM, MMFMM, MMMFM, MMMMF).  And that's just for '1 female/4 males' teams - the probability space grows much larger for 2 female-3 male teams as there are so many sequences that'd yield this same result.  

Having Jane and 4 men is the same probability as having all five men.

Nope.  For all five men to be on the same team, there is only one way this could happen - all the men (ABCDE) have to get a head (or a tails).  If you want 4 men (out of the 5) and Jane (and only jane, not just any woman), then there are 5 possible outcomes that'll make this happen  (JABCD, JABCE, JABDE, JACDE, JBCDE).  Having Jane and any four men is five times more likely than having all men, even given all the other possible outcomes.  The probability is even worse if you allow for any of 5 women to end up with 4 men, as this introduces another 20 possible outcomes.

 

Having all the men end up on one team and all the women on the other is a complicated problem, mostly because we don't know the exact procedure they used.  Fair to say though that this is a quite unlikely outcome given all the other possibilities.  Even Jeff alluded to this (calling it 'amazing') although this didn't make me less suspicious.  

And like KimberStormer said, I find it hard to believe the producers would somehow want to limit Brenda, Holly, NaOnka and Jane's chances ...

That's an entirely separate issue, whether or not we can discern why the producers might want an all-girl team.  I can think of reasons (to give Marty some time with the guys to plot and possibly save himself), but that doesn't change the fact that getting an all-girl team by chance alone is highly unlikely, nor that this pretty much called the game (because the women were too small to smash through obstacles easily).  

Edited August 27, 2014 by henripootel

[Oholibamah]

Fair enough - I am not much of a statistician. But we are culling 6 men between two groups of 5. It is statistically unlikely, but I just don't see it as being so unfathomable as to be evidence of producer manipulation, especially with much more flagrant machinations in other seasons.

 

We don't know the methods, but Jeff usually says "we drew for spots", so I can't imagine it's as blatantly questionable as Tim Gunn "randomly" assigning teams out of sight of the players. If I'm not mistaken, the swap in Allstars would have had similar stats - 6 men/Chapera, 5 women/Mogo Mogo with one of the majority the odd man out.

[KimberStormer]

Don't forget there were more men than women, thus Chase ended up sitting out; I'm sure this affects the probabilities (there were six different all-male configurations, one with each man sitting out...right?), not that it really matters in my opinion.  The very obviousness of the unlikelihood is what makes me absolutely certain it was random, and it's clear that this is something that can't be settled with math.  It's one of those unbridgeable divides.

Edited August 30, 2014 by KimberStormer

[henripootel]

The very obviousness of the unlikelihood is what makes me absolutely certain it was random, and it's clear that this is something that can't be settled with math.

Kimber, if your objection is that 'they'd never fix something in so obvious a manner', you should (as Oholibamah suggests) check out Project Runway.  Far as I can see, they can't be bothered to even pretend to not be fixing things over there, from the outcomes (which often, but not always, looked fixed) to the bits of the competition (pairing couples for obvious drama 'at random', changing stated procedure mid-stream to spare favored players).  Those guys routinely pull shit that'd make Jeff Probst blush, and calls for a term stronger than 'blatant'.

[KimberStormer]

I've watched a lot of PR, and it is indeed a whole 'nother thing.  But we're talking about Survivor here.  And all of PR's funny business has a clear and obvious desired outcome, whereas messing with the random draw for an early merge reward challenge does not.

[henripootel]

And all of PR's funny business has a clear and obvious desired outcome, whereas messing with the random draw for an early merge reward challenge does not.

Sure it does.  In the case in point (the Mysterious Challenge of Boys vs. Girls), Marty was doomed.  Doomed is boring when the person has no hope of alliance-busting, so Marty got a chance to eat and strategize with the boys.   It didn't work but they got film of folks agreeing (in principal if not in fact) on a 'boy's alliance' against the girls.  Reason enough right there - production might not have wanted to save Marty (and might not have been able to short of rigging the vote) but they wanted to at least to pretend he had a chance.  

 

Witness what happened just the next week - Brenda was next on the chopping block and (so went the narrative) didn't struggle enough to save herself.  She later said she did try, it's just that she knew she was doomed and didn't feel like begging for her life.  Production went so far as to edit a glance at Sash (implying that Brenda was asking for his HII, which she knew he had) which Brenda later said never happened (they'd edited in her 'asking nod' from earlier).  Brenda got the boot and Jeffy bollocked Brenda a bit for just 'giving up'.  

 

This is what the production guys do - craft a narrative that at least tries to draw attention away from obvious results.  I do recall having suspicions about other stuff they did when there was an obvious pagonging in progress, and I can see why: predictable votes are boring.

Edited August 31, 2014 by henripootel

[KimberStormer]

henri, I've tried to say it before, but we're not going to agree on this one.  I am officially putting a sock in it.

[Hera]

A bit late to the party, but I wanted to comment on the challenge where the random draw came out with each team being all one sex. I don't think it proves that the draw was rigged at all, even though it's a very unlikely result. With 10 people, there are 252 ways of picking a team of five (and once one team has been picked, the other is set as well). There are two configurations that are going to leave a perfect men/women split (you pick the team of all women, leaving the team of all men, or you pick the team of all men, leaving the team of all women), so we'd expect to see that result about 0.79% of the time—a rare outcome. However, it has only happened once in all of Survivor's 28 seasons, many of which have involved randomly allocating an equal number of men and women into two teams. If you expand the pool to include all of the various international versions of Survivor and all of their seasons, I wouldn't be surprised if there are one or two more examples of it happening.

 

If you perform a large number of trials—in this case, allocating teams from a pool of people—then you will see results that are rare now and again. The fact that you observe a very improbable event once does not mean that anything is amiss. If this sort of split kept happening each season (or even every other season), then I think suspicion would be warranted. But for the first time after 20 seasons and then not again for another 7? That looks way more like a fluke to me than it does like producer manipulation.

[Oholibamah]

However, it has only happened once in all of Survivor's 28 seasons, many of which have involved randomly allocating an equal number of men and women into two teams.

 

The Allstars Tribal swap had the same result - 6 Chaperas/6 men and 5 Mogos/5 women resulting in a homogenous 5-5 split, with Chase/Amber the odd one out.

 

The difference is they picked buffs from a bag onscreen in Allstars. But I still don't think the producers rigged the Nicaragua IC.

[henripootel]

However, it has only happened once in all of Survivor's 28 seasons

We don't know this.  There are many other was of 'fixing' something without it being boys vs. girls.  I remember another 'random' choice which ended up with all (or nearly all) the old folks on one team and the younger ones on the other (although I'm damned if I can recall which season).  I also recall a few other tribe reshuffles where one small group facing pagonging in their own group got shuffled off to another group (en mass) and now the elimination vote is uncertain.  

 

This seems to me to be is the same issue - a 'random' pick that reduces the chance of a predictable, boring outcome.  I've not been paying attention to this systematically but I'll bet I've never watched a season without raising my eyebrows at an unlikely (but useful) outcome.  Unlikely things do happen but they seem to happen quite a lot on this show, which is proof of nothing but if you're looking for proof, you're reading the wrong thread.

[Hera]

The Allstars Tribal swap had the same result - 6 Chaperas/6 men and 5 Mogos/5 women resulting in a homogenous 5-5 split, with Chase/Amber the odd one out.

 

The difference is they picked buffs from a bag onscreen in Allstars. But I still don't think the producers rigged the Nicaragua IC.

I haven't seen All Stars, but looking at what happened, it's not quite the same as the situation from Nicaragua. According to Wikipedia, there were six Chapera and four Mogo Mogo before the swap, so at least one of the original members of Chapera was going to stay put, and at least one was going to switch. The probability of someone from Chapera as the only member of original Chapera on his or her new tribe was 4.76% (2.38% if you want to impose the condition that everyone else had to switch tribes).

 

This seems to me to be is the same issue - a 'random' pick that reduces the chance of a predictable, boring outcome.  I've not been paying attention to this systematically but I'll bet I've never watched a season without raising my eyebrows at an unlikely (but useful) outcome. Unlikely things do happen but they seem to happen quite a lot on this show, which is proof of nothing but if you're looking for proof, you're reading the wrong thread.

I agree that these random allocations are done to prevent a boring result and could qualify as producer manipulation in their own right (especially since there doesn't seem to be a limit to how many of these random draws they can do). I disagree that producers necessarily rig the results of these random draws to fix the game, though I acknowledge they might be—who knows whether or not the buffs are properly mixed up in the bag and whether or not people are grabbing random ones or just the one at the top of the heap? However, in most cases, a random draw would be enough. For instance, in the example from All Stars above, there was a 52.4% chance that at least three of the original Mogo Mogo would have ended up on a tribe together after the swap. If the producers were worried about Mogo Mogo getting pagonged that season, then a truly random draw to reallocate the tribes would have given them a [slightly] better than even chance of surviving. Not to mention that tribal switches mess with alliances and sometimes force people from opposing alliances (or teams) to work together, so people at risk of getting voted off might be saved through one of these other circumstances.

 

Throughout any season, Survivor will "randomly" allocate players to teams for challenges, or arrange a "random" reallocation of tribes. It happens so often that you're (and here, I mean the general "you", and not you personally, henripootel) not going to register it until you see a result that strikes you as unusual—and your perception of how unusual something is might not reflect its actual probability. You also won't remember just how many unremarkable results there were between the unusual ones. Furthermore, we only see what happened; we don't see all the alternate possibilities for how things could have shaken out and still worked to a particular player's (or players') advantage.

 

Anyway, I'll stop babbling now. Believe it or not, this is the shortened version of this post. In my offline life, I do a lot of work with statistics (if only the probabilities were as easy to calculate as the results of random draws on Survivor!), so this kind of analysis is fascinating to me, but I'm aware that it probably isn't to anyone else and anyway, I think I've said all I want to say.

[henripootel]

I agree that these random allocations are done to prevent a boring result and could qualify as producer manipulation in their own right

 

True, but I think of this as somewhat benign manipulation, even when there seems to be intent on the producer's part to aid some folks over others.  I'm not sure there's even an argument to be had that they do this.

 

I'm 'in the trade' myself, and I'm aware of the potential for ascertainment bias on my part (I think they're crooked so I fixate on the one or two suspicious incidents and fail to register the 20 perfectly innocent ones).  But at least a little in my defense, I don't think they fix everything, I mean why bother sometimes, right?  Also, there's the possibility that something is 'obviously' fixed right in front of me but I don't see it because I'm not paying enough attention to see what was up (say, some alliance that'll crush all is suddenly split into two, vulnerable pieces).  I prefer to lavish my suspicions events that are at least potentially amenable to statistics but truth be told, we don't know enough about how they actually do anything.  

 

And you and I both know, Hera, that in the real world, there are innumerable ways of 'cooking the books' to get any result you want.  If, for instance, they do a truly random pick, there's no reason they can't throw out the result and simply do another pick until they get what they want.  Then, even if Jeff was concerned about his nose growing long, he could honestly say the result came from 'a random pick'.  This, in effect, happens all the time in the social sciences (and in medical research, frighteningly enough), and this with folks who should know better. 

Edited September 3, 2014 by henripootel

[Trick Question]

Re: the All-Star tribal swap.  Probably the single most influential tribe swap in Survivor history, no?  If it's ANYONE other than Amber who is the one person stuck with the other tribe, Rob doesn't make the personal appeal to Lex to save them, if it's Alicia, Rupert or Jenna going over, they instantly get voted out.  That potentially keeps the Rob/Lex/Tom/Kathy alleged pre-game alliance intact into the merge and who knows what happens then when things really start breaking down and Amber gets added to the mix.  Maybe Tom, Kathy and Lex realize that Rob and Amber are an unbreakable unit and break them up at F5 or even earlier.

Ah well, that's just general alternate-reality Survivor chatter.  I like the conspiracy theory that the first Fans vs. Favourites season came about specifically because the producers wanted to bust up any pre-game alliances, so they cast 20 returning players and then cut 10 at the last minute, dropping the remaining 10 into the game with the ten newcomers.