# Survivor: HvV - Sinking Ship - OAD 5/6/10



## TampaThunder (Apr 8, 2003)

Colby: "I can honestly say I'm proud of the way I played this game."

WTF??

And Russell with a bold/risky move - one he never would've made without an immunity idol hanging around his neck. Breaks up Parvati and Danielle and pretty much forms his own tribe of which he is the only member. This can go in any direction but Sandra and Jerri are sitting pretty because they don't really have a target on their backs right now.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Getting Danielle out weakens Parvati. I hate Russell but that was a good move.


----------



## mcb08 (Mar 10, 2006)

TampaThunder said:


> Colby: "I can honestly say I'm proud of the way I played this game."
> 
> WTF??
> 
> And Russell with a bold/risky move - one he never would've made without an immunity idol hanging around his neck. Breaks up Parvati and Danielle and pretty much forms his own tribe of which he is the only member. This can go in any direction but Sandra and Jerri are sitting pretty because they don't really have a target on their backs right now.


And Sandra has an immunity idol that nobody knows about.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

gossamer88 said:


> Getting Danielle out weakens Parvati. I hate Russell but that was a good move.


I think it will drive Sandra and Parvati together.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

Couldn't stand when Rupert was doing his bi###ing about Candace, calling her greedy and what not. Duh ... you are all greedy for the million.

I've lost some respect for him this time around.


----------



## gpejsa (Jan 27, 2002)

Yeah, I agree. Rupert has gone way down in my estimation. I'm still hanging with Russell just because he has been such a good player. I do expect him to go next week though...Sandra will finally reap her revenge.


----------



## latenight (May 5, 2005)

After tonights episode I can't imagine how anyone can say Russell is not the best player in Survivor history. Not once has Russell ever wanted someone out and they survived it. Amazing.


----------



## Legion (Aug 24, 2005)

It was time for Danielle to go. She needs the time to deal with that mustache.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Russell just made extra sure no one on the jury will vote for him. He's screwed, 2nd place is the best he can hope for, and it wouldn't surprise me if he goes home next. Yeah, he was probably right about Parvity and Danielle, and he did split them up, but the cost was way too high.

Sandra is sitting pretty right now. Not only does she have the HII in her pocket, no one is talking about voting for her. She's now my odds-favorite to win.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

latenight said:


> After tonights episode I can't imagine how anyone can say Russell is not the best player in Survivor history. Not once has Russell ever wanted someone out and they survived it. Amazing.


I will say it: Russell is NOT the best Survivor ever! He is just a paranoid idiot. There was no reason to screw his alliance yet He was easily top 5, with top 3 (with Parvati & Danielle) easily in his grasp. Come jury time, he could easily point out that (1) Parvati already won and (2) Danielle just tagged along. He would have gotten a few votes on that alone.

Unfortunately, everyone will be wanting to sit next to Russell at the Final Tribal. He likely makes the final 2 or 3. But, we get watch for a 2nd time the Russell seed to go down in flames at the vote!


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

latenight said:


> After tonights episode I can't imagine how anyone can say Russell is not the best player in Survivor history. Not once has Russell ever wanted someone out and they survived it. Amazing.


IMO, Russell does not understand how to win the game.

Imagine a final 3 where Russell won't get trounced by someone at this point. The only possible chance I see he has left is against Jerri and Sandra in the final 3. And even then he'll have a tough time beating them.

If Parvati, Colby, or Rupert are in the final 3 they will beat Russell.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

latenight said:


> After tonights episode I can't imagine how anyone can say Russell is not the best player in Survivor history. Not once has Russell ever wanted someone out and they survived it. Amazing.


Except breaking up Danielle and Parvati was stupid. It seemed to me he did it because his feelings were hurt.

Weak move at this point IMHO. I think he's gone very soon.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

It was pretty good TV though. Going into the show it would have been easy to think Colby and Rupert would be gone in 60 minutes. Glad they're not. Not because I particularly like them, but it was kind of fun watching them survive.


----------



## MegaHertz67 (Apr 18, 2005)

latenight said:


> After tonights episode I can't imagine how anyone can say Russell is not the best player in Survivor history. Not once has Russell ever wanted someone out and they survived it. Amazing.


I don't think he ended up voting for Coach. Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but I remember watch at the end over the last words where they show everyone's vote and it sticking out to me that Russell's vote went elsewhere that time.

But you are right...piss off Russell for whatever you have done, or what he imagines you have done or _might _do and he will get you gone.

I stick with my analysis from last week, only Parvati, Jerri or Sandra can win this game. The boys are out of luck unless they are the final 3...and the will *not *be the final 3 with Parvati and Sandra still in this game. Parvati will stay using charm and Sandra will stay by shifting the target to someone else.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

latenight said:


> After tonights episode I can't imagine how anyone can say Russell is not the best player in Survivor history. Not once has Russell ever wanted someone out and they survived it. Amazing.


Except for Rupert, just tonight, who deked Russell into planning a split of the Villains' votes by faking possession of a hidden immunity idol.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

AJRitz said:


> Except for Rupert, just tonight, who deked Russell into planning a split of the Villains' votes by faking possession of a hidden immunity idol.


Yeah, not bad by Rupert. The editing made it seem too obvious, but Russell (and everyone else) fell for it.


----------



## danielhart (Apr 27, 2004)

Russell is gone next week.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

Breaking up Parvati and Danielle was smart, time will tell if the way he did was though. He was right that the two of them were tighter than he was with Parvati, which would have bit him later. It's not a good idea to let 2 people who are in complete lock step go too far ( Romber ). But, you need to break them up while you still have enough people and neither of them has immunity.

The more interesting thing going forward is Sandra's HII, which no one appears to know she has. Heck, while there seems to be an idea that Rupert doesn't have it, still no one looks to have a clue. And since Sandra seems to have gone off the radar, she might be around a few more weeks.


----------



## jimest (Jan 27, 2002)

I think Russel is the best player ever, but he will not be able to win the million dollars because the jury will not let him have it because what he has done to be "the best player ever"


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

I wonder what that note with the HII says. They don't normally include a note, so I wonder if there's some special rules for playing this one.

Danielle totally shot herself in the foot with her TC comments. I'm not sure that Jeri was on board with the vote until Danielle's "we're closer than you think" comment (the editing sure made it seem that way).


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

jimest said:


> I think Russel is the best player ever, but he will not be able to win the million dollars because the jury will not let him have it because what he has done to be "the best player ever"


We've had this discussion before, but doing what the jury wants is part of being the "best player ever." You can't be the best without fulfilling the one criterion there is for winning... get the most jury votes.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

latenight said:


> After tonights episode I can't imagine how anyone can say Russell is not the best player in Survivor history. Not once has Russell ever wanted someone out and they survived it. Amazing.


If he wins, I agree with you. As we've seen with him, he plays a great strategic game but his social game is still not good. With this bunch, it might be enough because I think game play might get him the win rather than personality. I think this move might have endeared him a bit with the Heroes on the jury, especially if he ends up going head to head with Parv.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

Gotta say... I loved watching Parv get all pissed off at Russell ("don't tell _me_ who I can talk to"). And her expression at TC was great. No more smug smiles.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

The more I think about Russell being the best player ever, the more I think this can't be true unless he wins. Think about a golfer who wins the first three rounds of a tournament, then loses the final. That's Russell. He plays a great game up until the point he has to be friends in order to get the votes. Remember, he doesn't know if he won last time around, and he probably assumes he did. So he's using the same strategy. Will it work this time with no friends on the jury? Who knows? The advantage he has this time around is he may be up against OTHER villains. I think if he goes up against Sandra, he loses, because she's made some moves and has been "nicer" . Parv? It's a toss up. Jerri, I think he wins unless she can prove she did something to win the game. But against either Colby or Rupert, I think he will lose.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

Idearat said:


> Breaking up Parvati and Danielle was smart, time will tell if the way he did was though. He was right that the two of them were tighter than he was with Parvati, which would have bit him later. It's not a good idea to let 2 people who are in complete lock step go too far ( Romber ). But, you need to break them up while you still have enough people and neither of them has immunity.
> 
> The more interesting thing going forward is Sandra's HII, which no one appears to know she has. Heck, while there seems to be an idea that Rupert doesn't have it, still no one looks to have a clue. And since Sandra seems to have gone off the radar, she might be around a few more weeks.


See, I disagree that breaking the two of them up was smart. He had a SOLID F3 alliance. They could have eliminated Colby and Rupert, then picked off Jerri & Sandra (the only flaw being Sandra's HII, but they don't know about it.)

But once again he proved that he is not thinking about the end game and facing the jury. He is only worried about getting to the jury. This will be his downfall.

Just a theory I had (not a true spoiler, but just in case):


Spoiler



After last season's finale, everyone thought Russell looked particularly upset. Most people, myself included, thought that was because he didn't go far in HvV and knew his only chance to win Survivor was last season. However, I am now thinking that he does make it to the jury and this jury rips on him so hard that he knows there is no way he won this season either. That is why he was so depressed, two jury vote, zero wins. He can rank himself right up there with Amanda.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

I was really surprised that Candace stepped down in the first immunity challenge. She had to know she was a top candidate to be voted off, even if she had reason to think Rupert would go first.

Was Russell's win in the 2nd challenge his first Individual Immunity in both games? I've always expected he would/should win more individual challenges, but he never seemed to do it before now.

I'm rather amazed that both Rupert and Colby survived last night.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> I'm rather amazed that both Rupert and Colby survived last night.


This is something we have seen over and over in Survivor and I am suprised players don't learn from it. When you a weak alliance/tribe on the ropes, you get rid of them now. Instead, there is "we'll vote them out next time" mentality and alliances turn on themselves to early. All of sudden the "weak" have new life and often can form new alliances.


----------



## flyers088 (Apr 19, 2005)

Danielle at tribal: "Blah, blah, blah, bah"
Me at home: "Would you just shut up, you are going to get yourself voted out!"
Danielle: "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah"
Me: "Shut up or Jerri will change her vote and you will be gone!"
Danielle: "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah"

That vote out had more to do with Danielle not knowing when to shut up then anything else. Russell may have pushed her a bit but Danielle just couldn't get out of her own way at that point. I truly thing Jeri had every intention of voting for Rupert before Danielle went off.

The best part of last night is that Russell clearly cemented his place is the ultimate loser category. He has NO shot at winning this game. He will never understand that there are more parts to the game than being a bully who can run roughshot over the weak-minded. You can not even be considered closed to the best player ever if you can't win the game. 

This is clearly Sandra's or Jerri's game to lose. At this point I give Sandra the edge with the HII in her pocket. If Sandra wins she will be the only 2 time winner giving her claim to the "Best Survivor Player Ever" title.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

jradosh said:


> I wonder what that note with the HII says. They don't normally include a note, so I wonder if there's some special rules for playing this one.
> 
> Danielle totally shot herself in the foot with her TC comments. I'm not sure that Jeri was on board with the vote until Danielle's "we're closer than you think" comment (the editing sure made it seem that way).


Worse than that IMHO, was that Danielle said that she, Parvati and Russell were always an alliance, and always together. I don't know if she said "final three" but Jerri probably heard that.

Danielle said things that I'm sure made Jerri think "I'm in 4th place in this game unless I vote out Danielle."


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

flyers088 said:


> If Sandra wins she will be the only 2 time winner giving her claim to the "Best Survivor Player Ever" title.


LOL, that would go right up the a$$ of some posters here who think she's nothing but a coattail rider. I've long said Sandra is a serious player and totally underrated.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

heySkippy said:


> LOL, that would go right up the a$$ of some posters here who think she's nothing but a coattail rider. I've long said Sandra is a serious player and totally underrated.


She's won me over a bit, but I'll never be a big fan of someone who can't win challenges and someone who sits out of them when someone has to sit.

She's one part "lay low", one part "weak team member", and one part "good player with good instincts." I think there have been much better players over the years.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> LOL, that would go right up the a$$ of some posters here who think she's nothing but a coattail rider. I've long said Sandra is a serious player and totally underrated.


Agreed. And somewhere before the tribes merged, when she was trying to figure out how to stay in the game after BR got voted out, I was telling everyone to watch out for Sandra, she's underrated. Nobody sees her game play because she's usually pretty quiet, but she's been scheming the whole time.

Best player ever? Not sure, but you can't argue with 2 wins. Russell will probably have ZERO wins for all his scheming and great game play.


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

Legion said:


> It was time for Danielle to go. She needs the time to deal with that mustache.


...and her mental issues.


----------



## stark (Dec 31, 2003)

The bad thing (for us) about Sandra having the HII is that she will play it completely defensively to avoid getting voted out.

Russell and Parvati used the HII in ways that made great television.


----------



## Magister (Oct 17, 2004)

jradosh said:


> I wonder what that note with the HII says. They don't normally include a note, so I wonder if there's some special rules for playing this one.


There is ALWAYS a note. It gives the rules for the HII, this one may have more info, but there is ALWAYS a note wrapped around it when it is found.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

That was one of the best episodes of Survivor EVER! I had Rupert going, then Candice, but because of the trickery with Colby and Rupert, they survived. Now, if they can hook up with Jerri and Sandra, they'll make an incredible final 4. I still think that Russell will be in the finals - especially after last night. He sealed his fate by going down the path he's on. The only person that he might have a chance against would be Colby - and even that might be a long shot split vote.

This is now Sandra's game to win. Parvati will go against Russell now for revenge, and like Jerri said last night, this move either makes or breaks her in the game. She's moored her boat to Russell and, IMO, chose poorly. She should have gotten together with Sandra and created a final-4 with Rupert and Colby one week sooner. As it stands now, I think next week they try to flush out Rupert's idol with Russell being the outside victim. Because Rupert doesn't have one though, he goes home and Russell is put on notice that he's a tribe of one and is a complete singleton in the game with nobody to count on or trust.

If the remaining cast is smart, they'll do anything and everything to get him to the finals because he's royally burned every single person on the jury. While this bunch is a little more objective when it comes to gamesmanship, I don't believe they'll give him the money because he focused solely on one aspect of the game and completely ignored what is actually the more important side (social).


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

The only thing more amusing to me than Danielle's inability to stop talking was the look on Parvati's face when Danielle said "we're closer than you think"

Z


----------



## natamatt (Feb 6, 2003)

Well, at least Rupert finally did something. Faking having the HII was pretty good and Russell fell for it big time and it did keep him in the game to fight another day. He's lucky Sandra found the real HII and kept it to herself or it wouldn't have worked. I think if any of the other villans had found it they would have shared that fact with at least one other person. Colby is just lucky the villans decided to split the vote to Candice instead of him. 

And Danielle must have been pretty exhausted to get so emotional at TC, that really did her in last night. If she'd had kept her emotions in check and not been so talkative I think she'd still be in the game. The villans have cracked. We'll see if Colby and Rupert can continue to take advantage of that. I see Jerri winning it all this time around though. She's played a fairly quiet game and hasn't made a lot of enemies yet. She's got to figure out how to get Colby and Rupert out before the final vote though.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

zordude said:


> Danielle said "we're closer than you think"


I must admit that conjured up a mental image that couldn't be shown on broadcast TV.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

heySkippy said:


> LOL, that would go right up the a$$ of some posters here who think she's nothing but a coattail rider. I've long said Sandra is a serious player and totally underrated.


If she wins playing like she's playing I'd say it confirms the coattail claim. Most of the time she's not "playing" but hiding in the corner. Unfortunately, you don't _earn_ the final prize, you're totally at the mercy of the whims of the jury. Playing well can get you to the final tribal.

A mediocre analogy would be a game of dodgeball where all the people hit by the ball except the last two get voted on by those who were whacked by a ball. A player cowering in the corner might survive to the last two, but would not be in the last two if the other player hadn't been out in front picking off others. The the jury votes for the person who never hit them with a ball.

There could have been a shift in power with Sandra flipping to the Heroes, but she wimped out and took the passive approach and went along, preferring to keep her head down again.

Her method might win her a million again, but only because others are out there playing while she sits on the bench. She's only around because she was on the Villains, if she'd been on the heroes she'd be picked off. Her strategy, if that's what it is, gets you a good chance at final tribal, but getting to final tribal is pure luck since you're not doing anything to get there but hiding and hoping no one notices you.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

stalemate said:


> We've had this discussion before, but doing what the jury wants is part of being the "best player ever." You can't be the best without fulfilling the one criterion there is for winning... get the most jury votes.


Yes, we have had this discussion before, and I've said it before...winning is (in my opinion) not a criteria for being the best because winning involves a lot of luck, too. We've seen that juries can reward ruthless game play, or they can hold a grudge. Unfortunately there is no way to predict how they will vote. We've seen people that get badly burned vote for the person who burned them even though we thought they'd be bitter, and we've seen people who act like they respect game play suddenly get hypocritical when they find out it's THEM on the receiving end of that game play.

So, you can never truly know how people are going to vote, and on top of that, the jury gets all this time to spend together after being voted out, and there is plenty of opportunity for them to influence each other's votes. Then, on top of that, you get all this random behavior we've seen with the logic behind the vote. Things like "I'm thinking of a number and whoever is closest gets my vote" or the people who essentially want you to read their mind and base their vote on how well your mind reading was.

So, you are free to disagree, but I don't believe something that involves so much luck is a criteria to be the best.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

LordKronos said:


> Yes, we have had this discussion before, and I've said it before...winning is (in my opinion) not a criteria for being the best because winning involves a lot of luck, too. We've seen that juries can reward ruthless game play, or they can hold a grudge. Unfortunately there is no way to predict how they will vote. We've seen people that get badly burned vote for the person who burned them even though we thought they'd be bitter, and we've seen people who act like they respect game play suddenly get hypocritical when they find out it's THEM on the receiving end of that game play.
> 
> So, you can never truly know how people are going to vote, and on top of that, the jury gets all this time to spend together after being voted out, and there is plenty of opportunity for them to influence each other's votes. Then, on top of that, you get all this random behavior we've seen with the logic behind the vote. Things like "I'm thinking of a number and whoever is closest gets my vote" or the people who essentially want you to read their mind and base their vote on how well your mind reading was.
> 
> So, you are free to disagree, but I don't believe something that involves so much luck is a criteria to be the best.


You seem to put more value in what I consider the "fluff" portions of the game. The jury is the game. The rest is just fluff or tools along the way.


----------



## natamatt (Feb 6, 2003)

Vote on Survivor's Dumbest Move at CBS

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor/vote/


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Jeff's blog - http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/05/07/jeff-probst-blog-survivor-ep-12/

We are rushing quickly to the end. Next Thursday will be the last weeknight episode. Sunday, May 16 is the final.


----------



## InterMurph (May 22, 2003)

Props to Colby for finally showing a spark: he figured out that the villains would split their vote, and when he and Rupert voted for Candace, she was gone.

Thumbs down to Russell. He's the best ever at getting what he wants, but he made two giant blunders (again) tonight, resulting in Candace and Danielle leaving. Who would you rather be sitting next to at the final TC than Candace and Danielle? His temper tantrums are going to do him in again, I believe.

And count me as a big Sandra fan. If you think Russell is the greatest Survivor player ever, then you probably don't think much of Sandra. But Sandra won with the perfect strategy for her season, and she is sitting in the catbird seat right now.

People complain that she doesn't do anything, just laying low. But remember what happened to Candace after she made her "bold" move; she's gone. And remember that when Sandra tried to put a bold move together, she saw that it wouldn't work, backed off, and lived to 1) see another day, and 2) find the immunity idol.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

InterMurph said:


> And count me as a big Sandra fan. If you think Russell is the greatest Survivor player ever, then you probably don't think much of Sandra. But Sandra won with the perfect strategy for her season, and she is sitting in the catbird seat right now.
> 
> People complain that she doesn't do anything, just laying low. But remember what happened to Candace after she made her "bold" move; she's gone. And remember that when Sandra tried to put a bold move together, she saw that it wouldn't work, backed off, and lived to 1) see another day, and 2) find the immunity idol.


Agree 100%. I didn't think much of Sandra during her first season but I am really enjoying her play this time around. I think I finally "get" her. She knows when to make the move and when not to.

Last night she could be seen in the background watching the drama unfold among Parvati, Danielle, and Russell. All she had to do was sit back and let them crumble. I loved it.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

I dislike Sandra mostly because she's worthless in challenges. I dislike Courtney even more. At least Sandra has a good social game.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

LordKronos said:


> Yes, we have had this discussion before, and I've said it before...winning is (in my opinion) not a criteria for being the best because winning involves a lot of luck, too. We've seen that juries can reward ruthless game play, or they can hold a grudge. Unfortunately there is no way to predict how they will vote. We've seen people that get badly burned vote for the person who burned them even though we thought they'd be bitter, and we've seen people who act like they respect game play suddenly get hypocritical when they find out it's THEM on the receiving end of that game play.
> 
> So, you can never truly know how people are going to vote, and on top of that, the jury gets all this time to spend together after being voted out, and there is plenty of opportunity for them to influence each other's votes. Then, on top of that, you get all this random behavior we've seen with the logic behind the vote. Things like "I'm thinking of a number and whoever is closest gets my vote" or the people who essentially want you to read their mind and base their vote on how well your mind reading was.
> 
> So, you are free to disagree, but I don't believe something that involves so much luck is a criteria to be the best.


But that's like saying McCain is the best President because he picked Palin, or any other number of moves he made during the campaign were just great campaign moves, but ultimately, he still lost.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

DancnDude said:


> I dislike Sandra mostly because she's worthless in challenges. I dislike Courtney even more. At least Sandra has a good social game.


The challenges are just a distraction from the real game.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

The greatest music video you'll wish you'd never seen.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

LordKronos said:


> Yes, we have had this discussion before, and I've said it before...winning is (in my opinion) not a criteria for being the best because winning involves a lot of luck, too.


You are correct. Also, I agree.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

LordKronos said:


> Yes, we have had this discussion before, and I've said it before...winning is (in my opinion) not a criteria for being the best because winning involves a lot of luck, too. We've seen that juries can reward ruthless game play, or they can hold a grudge. Unfortunately there is no way to predict how they will vote. We've seen people that get badly burned vote for the person who burned them even though we thought they'd be bitter, and we've seen people who act like they respect game play suddenly get hypocritical when they find out it's THEM on the receiving end of that game play.
> 
> So, you can never truly know how people are going to vote, and on top of that, the jury gets all this time to spend together after being voted out, and there is plenty of opportunity for them to influence each other's votes. Then, on top of that, you get all this random behavior we've seen with the logic behind the vote. Things like "I'm thinking of a number and whoever is closest gets my vote" or the people who essentially want you to read their mind and base their vote on how well your mind reading was.
> 
> So, you are free to disagree, but I don't believe something that involves so much luck is a criteria to be the best.


Luck is part of nearly every game from backgammon to basketball. And I don't think the 'luck' in the jury vote is nearly as random or arbitrary as rolling dice or the bounce of a ball. The players have the entire game to try to influence the opinions of the jury members, and it's not as if no one has ever successfullly managed the jury. But if a player doesn't even consider the jury vote in their strategy, then yeah, the only chance they have is to get 'lucky'.

IMO, the jury is a big part of the game and should be planned for. I don't think someone who ignores a crucial portion of a game can be the 'best' at that game. I also don't think someone can be the best at an individual game that they never won.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> But that's like saying McCain is the best President because he picked Palin, or any other number of moves he made during the campaign were just great campaign moves, but ultimately, he still lost.


Without getting into a political battle here:
Without winning, McCain was never a president, so he's disqualified outright. However, even without winning, Russell is still a player on the game of survivor. Were talking about the best person to play the game, not the best person to win it.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

LordKronos said:


> Without getting into a political battle here:
> Without winning, McCain was never a president, so he's disqualified outright. However, even without winning, Russell is still a player on the game of survivor. Were talking about the best person to play the game, not the best person to win it.


The whole concept that you can be the best at an individual game without ever winning it boggles my mind. I seriously can't wrap my brain around it.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Russell screwed himself last night. He lied, and lied convincingly. If you didn't see him try to break up Danielle and Parvati, you would be convinced Danielle wanted Parv gone. Now he has someone who knows how he lies on the jury, at Ponderosa, telling everyone what a slimeball he is. That will sink him. Russell's end game is terrible. He should have gone with Rupert then Colby, leaving him, Danielle, Parv, Sandra, and Jerri. Then he should have gotten rid of Parvati, and gone to the final 3 with Jerri, Sandra, or Daneille. Right now, his only chance of final 3 is with Rupert and Colby, and he loses in Jury votes to them because the jury is weighted in favor of the heroes.

Russell doesn't realize that, although he is good at controlling who goes home, the jury doesn't give him a million $ just because he tells them to.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

stalemate said:


> The whole concept that you can be the best at an individual game without ever winning it boggles my mind. I seriously can't wrap my brain around it.


Backgammon and poker players can have huge downswings where they lose frightening sums of money. They have to play thousands of games to let the odds work in their favor. You judge backgammon and poker players in the short run by the decisions they make, not their results. Same for Survivor. Judge Russell good or bad based on his decisions, not the final vote.

Or look at it this way: Phil Ivey is widely considered to be the best poker player in the world, but he has never won the WSOP main event, though several mediocre players have. One chance a year is just not very good odds. (Incidentally, this world's best player made an enormous blunder at the final table of the WSOP main event when he mucked a winning hand. But, he's still considered the world's greatest all around player.)

(I don't think Russell is the Ivey of Survivor. I don't think there is one. Maybe the Matusow, which aint bad at all.)


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

latrobe7 said:


> Luck is part of nearly every game from backgammon to basketball.


Yes, pretty much every game has an element of luck involved. However, I feel it's a much bigger element here in survivor. Luck has a way of averaging itself out over repetition. In most games there are 100 or more attempts at scoring, and while luck may influence individual attempts to score, over the course of a game it's effects become more minimal.

In the game of survivor, you've got a dozen or so regular tribal councils (depending on how much your team wins), and then it all comes down to one final vote that follows a completely different set of rules, and you have 1 shot at it. Not a whole lot of opportunity for luck to average out of the equation. If survivor were a game that people could play dozens of times in their lifetime, then you could start to average luck out of the equation.


----------



## JPA2825 (May 15, 2000)

Anyone wonder whether Rupert was actually facing a tough decision that they didn't focus on? When Colby and Rupert decide the V were going to split 3-3 on Rupert v. Colby/Candice, they decided to both vote for Candice to make it 5-3 if the V chose Candice. Shouldn't Rupert have given himself some insurance by voting for Colby? If the Vs chose Colby, he goes out 4-3-1. If they chose Candice, which they did, she still goes out 4-3-1. The way he played it, if they chose Colby it would have been a tie between Rupert & Colby 3-3-2.


----------



## sburnside1 (Jan 28, 2009)

Sandra had one good play that saved her bacon back before the merge, other than that, they dont even respect her enough to listen when she is exposing a plot.

This was a risky move for Russell, but remember, Russell is playing for the #1 spot. Hes not interested in finishing second. He may as well finish 5th. In his eyes, people viewed him and Parvati as the top players. He HAD to take out Danielle to show he was stronger then Parv and to knock her off of her game.

Parvati has an ego about as big as Russells. Thats what started their alliance crumbling. She kept an idol from Russell because she knew it would bother him. At that point, he knew she trusted Danielle more. I always saw them stalling at finial 5 anyhow. Parvati and Russell want an easy win. They saw Sandra and Jeri as non players. at 5, they would have started trying to eliminate the other anyhow.

I am thinking Colby may actually playing a decent strategy. He is playing the wounded animal. Everyone has written him off as not playing anymore. REALLY? you are just going to carry him to the last couple players because he will be EASY to beat? Perhaps his original alliance in Heroes failed because they lost too much, but I think at this point he wants to look as disassociated as possible in the game. Telling Amanda to give the clue back to Danielle last week helps to re-enforce this image. How many times have we had to watch the Athlete win every challenge toward the end, only to lose 1 and get voted off. At this rate, he may only need to win 1 or 2.

As for best player of all time, Russell? he is good, and one of the most entertaining. My pick isnt even in this cast. I have always thought the best game I saw was played by Yul Kwon on the Cook Island season were they started divided into racial tribes. He won competitions, he had a solid alliance, and they made strong decsions. In the end, he won 5-4 over Ozzy, who won about every challenge toward the end to even make it to the jury.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Backgammon and poker players can have huge downswings where they lose frightening sums of money. They have to play thousands of games to let the odds work in their favor. You judge backgammon and poker players in the short run by the decisions they make, not their results. Same for Survivor. Judge Russell good or bad based on his decisions, not the final vote.
> 
> Or look at it this way: Phil Ivey is widely considered to be the best poker player in the world, but he has never won the WSOP main event, though several mediocre players have. One chance a year is just not very good odds. (Incidentally, this world's best player made an enormous blunder at the final table of the WSOP main event when he mucked a winning hand. But, he's still considered the world's greatest all around player.)
> 
> (I don't think Russell is the Ivey of Survivor. I don't think there is one. Maybe the Matusow, which aint bad at all.)


Phil Ivey is not considered the best poker player because of the tournaments he lost. He has a body of work and though he may have never won the WSOP, he has won multiple tournaments and countless games. And if all people had to judge him on were the WSOP tournaments, he would not be that highly regarded.

It's true that there aren't many opportunities to play Survivor; but I can't give credit to Russell for "what if". Truth is, other players have managed the game better and have won, and therefore I can't rank Russell's gameplay ahead of theirs.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

latrobe7 said:


> And if all people had to judge him on were the WSOP [Main Event] tournaments, he would not be that highly regarded.


Which proves the point that you can't judge a player based on the outcome of a single tournament. Exactly why I used that example.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

LordKronos said:


> Yes, pretty much every game has an element of luck involved. However, I feel it's a much bigger element here in survivor. Luck has a way of averaging itself out over repetition. In most games there are 100 or more attempts at scoring, and while luck may influence individual attempts to score, over the course of a game it's effects become more minimal.
> 
> In the game of survivor, you've got a dozen or so regular tribal councils (depending on how much your team wins), and then it all comes down to one final vote that follows a completely different set of rules, and *you have 1 shot at it*. Not a whole lot of opportunity for luck to average out of the equation. If survivor were a game that people could play dozens of times in their lifetime, then you could start to average luck out of the equation.


What I highlighted, it where I think you are wrong. You have 39 days and 10 or so tribial councils to play the game. If you aren't thinking about the jury vote for 39 days you aren't playing the game right.

Look at Brian Hedick. He is rarely talked about, but played a masterful game in his season. He won over the jury by being able to show he had a plan the whole time. He made alliances and then sub-alliance. Once he was done with a sub-alliance, he got rid of them. But he was able to layout the plan to the jury.

Russell, if he makes the final TC, is going to have a very hard time showing he had a strategy. He seems to base his decision on who he percieves as a threat that day. He is NOT thinking ahead and the jury will see that.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

LordKronos said:


> Yes, pretty much every game has an element of luck involved. However, I feel it's a much bigger element here in survivor. Luck has a way of averaging itself out over repetition. In most games there are 100 or more attempts at scoring, and while luck may influence individual attempts to score, over the course of a game it's effects become more minimal.


Yeah, tell that to Bill Buckner or any team that has lost a game on a last second shot.



> In the game of survivor, you've got a dozen or so regular tribal councils (depending on how much your team wins), and then it all comes down to one final vote that follows a completely different set of rules, and you have 1 shot at it. Not a whole lot of opportunity for luck to average out of the equation. If survivor were a game that people could play dozens of times in their lifetime, then you could start to average luck out of the equation.


The players are together a whole lot more than just at tribal, there is ample opportunity for them to minimize random luck by influencing the other players. I don't think they need luck to "average out" anything; the players should try to minimize random chance by having a jury strategy; it's not having a strategy or not caring at all that leaves everything to chance.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Which proves the point that you can't judge a player based on the outcome of a single tournament.


If that's the case, how could anyone say that Russell is the "best"?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

LordKronos said:


> Without getting into a political battle here:
> Without winning, McCain was never a president, so he's disqualified outright. However, even without winning, Russell is still a player on the game of survivor. Were talking about the best person to play the game, not the best person to win it.


No, there's no distinction, IMO. But I suppose if you were a McCain supporter, and he lost, you could still think he was the best candidate for the job, but ultimately the people didn't agree. Your distinction is that you can play the game great, but ultimately still lose. Maybe a better analogy would be, a boxer who wins the first eleven rounds but he gets tagged with a lucky punch in the 12th and gets knocked out. He was a great boxer for 11 rounds and would have won but ended up losing on a lucky punch. Still, you can't make him the best ever, because he was susceptible to the one punch. Russell's susceptibility is the social game. And that's part of the game. He sucks at it. Hatch knew how to play it and he was a great player. But to say Russell was the "best player ever" ignores that he sucks in one major part of the game.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Backgammon and poker players can have huge downswings where they lose frightening sums of money. They have to play thousands of games to let the odds work in their favor. You judge backgammon and poker players in the short run by the decisions they make, not their results. Same for Survivor. Judge Russell good or bad based on his decisions, not the final vote.
> 
> Or look at it this way: Phil Ivey is widely considered to be the best poker player in the world, but he has never won the WSOP main event, though several mediocre players have. One chance a year is just not very good odds. (Incidentally, this world's best player made an enormous blunder at the final table of the WSOP main event when he mucked a winning hand. But, he's still considered the world's greatest all around player.)
> 
> (I don't think Russell is the Ivey of Survivor. I don't think there is one. Maybe the Matusow, which aint bad at all.)


I am not a poker fan but the difference for me is there are several chances to "win" at poker other than the WSOP.

In survivor, the jury vote is the entire point. The rest is a distraction.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

latrobe7 said:


> If that's the case, how could anyone say that Russell is the "best"?


If they wanted to make that case, they would do so based on gameplay.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

JPA2825 said:


> Shouldn't Rupert have given himself some insurance by voting for Colby? If the Vs chose Colby, he goes out 4-3-1. If they chose Candice, which they did, she still goes out 4-3-1. The way he played it, if they chose Colby it would have been a tie between Rupert & Colby 3-3-2.


Well, that's sort of along the same lines as the concept of the prisoner's dilemma. Working against your fellow prisoner gives you the greatest benefit. Your fellow prisoner working against you also gives him his greatest benefit. Of course, if you both do it, then you are both worse off.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Backgammon and poker players can have huge downswings where they lose frightening sums of money. They have to play thousands of games to let the odds work in their favor. You judge backgammon and poker players in the short run by the decisions they make, not their results. Same for Survivor. Judge Russell good or bad based on his decisions, not the final vote.
> 
> Or look at it this way: Phil Ivey is widely considered to be the best poker player in the world, but he has never won the WSOP main event, though several mediocre players have. One chance a year is just not very good odds. (Incidentally, this world's best player made an enormous blunder at the final table of the WSOP main event when he mucked a winning hand. But, he's still considered the world's greatest all around player.)
> 
> (I don't think Russell is the Ivey of Survivor. I don't think there is one. Maybe the Matusow, which aint bad at all.)


The problem with your analogy is I'm sure Ivey has won many other tourneys, just not this one (I don't follow poker, so I can't say). If he NEVER won ANY tourney, how could you ever say he's the greatest? If Tiger never won a major, nobody would be calling him the greatest. In Survivor, you only get a VERY limited chance to win. If you don't win, you aren't even in the discussion. Russell plays an entertaining game, and he's been successful in many aspects of it, but ultimately, he's a fail, because he can't win, his social aspect sucks.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Fool Me Twice said:


> If they wanted to make that case, they would do so based on gameplay.


What is this good "gameplay" that doesn't set you up to win the game?


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Fool Me Twice said:


> If they wanted to make that case, they would do so based on gameplay.


Exactly. And in the game he played he lost. Others have played and won.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

I don't think Russell "gets it." Of course, if it turns out that he wins this season I will have to reevaluate him. Right now I have him down as a short sighted bully.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

stalemate said:


> What is this good "gameplay" that doesn't set you up to win the game?





Steveknj said:


> The problem with your analogy is I'm sure Ivey has won many other tourneys, just not this one (I don't follow poker, so I can't say). If he NEVER won ANY tourney, how could you ever say he's the greatest? If Tiger never won a major, nobody would be calling him the greatest. In Survivor, you only get a VERY limited chance to win. If you don't win, you aren't even in the discussion. Russell plays an entertaining game, and he's been successful in many aspects of it, but ultimately, he's a fail, because he can't win, his social aspect sucks.


It's a more difficult concept that I thought, it seems. I haven't even tried to make the case that Russell is the best. Just that he can't be excluded from the discussion based solely on his failure to win.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Fool Me Twice said:


> It's a difficult concept, I guess. I haven't even tried to make the case that Russell is the best. Just that he can't be excluded from the discussion based solely on his failure to win.


For some of us, the discussion on who is the best is, by definition, excluded to people that have won.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

LordKronos said:


> Yes, pretty much every game has an element of luck involved. However, I feel it's a much bigger element here in survivor. Luck has a way of averaging itself out over repetition. In most games there are 100 or more attempts at scoring, and while luck may influence individual attempts to score, over the course of a game it's effects become more minimal.
> 
> In the game of survivor, you've got a dozen or so regular tribal councils (depending on how much your team wins), and then it all comes down to one final vote that follows a completely different set of rules, and you have 1 shot at it. Not a whole lot of opportunity for luck to average out of the equation. If survivor were a game that people could play dozens of times in their lifetime, then you could start to average luck out of the equation.


But I disagree the vote is luck. People vote for whatever reason, and only with one exception, has someone voted randomly. Your goal is to convince those on the jury to vote for you. If you upset the jurors (as was the case with Russell last season) you failed. If that happens again, I'd say he failed again? Who's to say that Parv, by letting Russell dig his own grave, is not a better player? Or Sandra by laying low and making strategic moves only when necessary? Or Rupert who laid VERY low the first half of the game but managed to pull of a few survival moves recently (and fleshed out that Russell wasn't on the up and up in reference to some of his moves). Yeah Russell is a master manipulator, but ultimately, he's not the best because his moves hurt him with the jury.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

I will say that Russell is very good and probably the best at playing what Russell considers to be the game of survivor. Ultimately, I don't think he really understands what the actual game is.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

stalemate said:


> For some of us, the discussion on who is the best is, by definition, excluded to people that have won.


Yes, to me winning the game is the first criteria for being considered the best. Herman Edwards taught me that.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

stalemate said:


> For some of us, the discussion on who is the best is, by definition, excluded to people that have won.


This is the error I've been trying to save you from.


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

latrobe7 said:


> Yeah, tell that to Bill Buckner or any team that has lost a game on a last second shot.


I would gladly tell him that. If his team was so much better and it was only luck that they lost, then how did their superior skills manage to only get them into a tie situation after dozens (or hundreds...not sure what sport he's in) of attempts at scoring? Now, if the tie breaker in basketball/hockey/whatever was to decide the winner with a single game of Parcheesi, then sure, I'd say luck had a huge hand in their loss.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

I could be fooled and Russell end up winning this thing. But right now how I see it is that Russell has controlled almost every single elimination that has happened for the villains or the merged tribe. Russell has decided who has gone home pretty much every single week. And here we are, at the very end game, and he has left himself with very few possible jury combinations where I think he could win. He has chosen who he is left with at this point and has IMO painted himself into a corner.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TriBruin said:


> What I highlighted, it where I think you are wrong. You have 39 days and 10 or so tribial councils to play the game. If you aren't thinking about the jury vote for 39 days you aren't playing the game right.
> 
> Look at Brian Hedick. He is rarely talked about, but played a masterful game in his season. He won over the jury by being able to show he had a plan the whole time. He made alliances and then sub-alliance. Once he was done with a sub-alliance, he got rid of them. But he was able to layout the plan to the jury.
> 
> Russell, if he makes the final TC, is going to have a very hard time showing he had a strategy. He seems to base his decision on who he percieves as a threat that day. He is NOT thinking ahead and the jury will see that.


I forgot about Brian. I had him picked to win very early on because you could see very early he knew how to master all ends of the game. That's something Russell can't do. In his mind, he thinks he can, but he has NO idea how to win the jury vote.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> I forgot about Brian. I had him picked to win very early on because you could see very early he knew how to master all ends of the game. That's something Russell can't do. In his mind, he thinks he can, but he has NO idea how to win the jury vote.


Brian is one of my favorite winners. I don't think there was ever a single vote against him. It was the weirdest thing. From about halfway in it was like assumed he was going to win. I'm still fascinated by it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Fool Me Twice said:


> If they wanted to make that case, they would do so based on gameplay.


But his game play is flawed because he doesn't know how to play the jury.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> But his game play is flawed because he doesn't know how to play the jury.


Why are you telling me this?


----------



## LordKronos (Dec 28, 2003)

TriBruin said:


> Look at Brian Hedick. He is rarely talked about, but played a masterful game in his season. He won over the jury by being able to show he had a plan the whole time. He made alliances and then sub-alliance. Once he was done with a sub-alliance, he got rid of them. But he was able to layout the plan to the jury.


But now what if Brian ended up with a bunch of people who were less appreciative of his plan and were just really bitter that they weren't a more important part of his master plan?

What if Richard Hatch made it to the end and instead of everyone recognizing his brilliant play, they were made because he didn't even try to play the same game they all did and feel he manipulated the system and resent him for it?


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

LordKronos said:


> I would gladly tell him that. If his team was so much better and it was only luck that they lost, then how did their superior skills manage to only get them into a tie situation after dozens (or hundreds...not sure what sport he's in) of attempts at scoring? Now, if the tie breaker in basketball/hockey/whatever was to decide the winner with a single game of Parcheesi, then sure, I'd say luck had a huge hand in their loss.


You can equate the jury vote to a roll of the dice or a "game of Parcheesi" if you like; but, IMO, it's just as much a part of the game as challenges or being able to find immunity idols (no luck in either of those things, huh?), and if someone wants to win the game they better pay attention to how the jury will vote.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

LordKronos said:


> But now what if Brian ended up with a bunch of people who were less appreciative of his plan and were just really bitter that they weren't a more important part of his master plan?
> 
> What if Richard Hatch made it to the end and instead of everyone recognizing his brilliant play, they were made because he didn't even try to play the same game they all did and feel he manipulated the system and resent him for it?


Then they wouldn't be in the discussion about who is the best because they would have failed to execute a strategy to get the votes from the jury that they themselves participated in creating.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

LordKronos said:


> But now what if Brian ended up with a bunch of people who were less appreciative of his plan and were just really bitter that they weren't a more important part of his master plan?
> 
> What if Richard Hatch made it to the end and instead of everyone recognizing his brilliant play, they were made because he didn't even try to play the same game they all did and feel he manipulated the system and resent him for it?


You can play what-if until the cows come home. But the simple fact is, he was able to convince them that he DID deserve to win. That is something Russell didn't do the first time around. Ultimately the game is about winning the million NOT about controlling every aspect of it, but ultimately failing.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

The jury isn't like some giant living in the hillside. It is the other players in the game.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

LordKronos said:


> But now what if Brian ended up with a bunch of people who were less appreciative of his plan and were just really bitter that they weren't a more important part of his master plan?
> 
> What if Richard Hatch made it to the end and instead of everyone recognizing his brilliant play, they were made because he didn't even try to play the same game they all did and feel he manipulated the system and resent him for it?


But they didn't. And in Brian's case (I didn't watch the first season so I can't speak on Hatch), part of the reason he won is because he thought ahead and planned for the jury vote.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

LordKronos said:


> But now what if Brian ended up with a bunch of people who were less appreciative of his plan and were just really bitter that they weren't a more important part of his master plan?


Who is to say that Brian didn't take that in to account during the season. He got to know his tribemates/jury and played them. Russell, on the other hand, seems to think that everyone should just bow to his strategic supiority. Once again, he has no social game.



> What if Richard Hatch made it to the end and instead of everyone recognizing his brilliant play, they were made because he didn't even try to play the same game they all did and feel he manipulated the system and resent him for it?


Actually, you legitmately say that Richard won Survivor on luck. It was a 4-3 vote with one vote being a "pick a number" vote. Would Survivor have been the same (or lasted 20 seasons) if Richard had picked the wrong number?


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

TriBruin said:


> This is something we have seen over and over in Survivor and I am suprised players don't learn from it. When you a weak alliance/tribe on the ropes, you get rid of them now. Instead, there is "we'll vote them out next time" mentality and alliances turn on themselves to early. All of sudden the "weak" have new life and often can form new alliances.


Which is EXACTLY how Russell got to the end in the previous season. It was more their stupidity in doing what you spelled out than anything he did.


----------



## InterMurph (May 22, 2003)

JPA2825 said:


> Anyone wonder whether Rupert was actually facing a tough decision that they didn't focus on? When Colby and Rupert decide the V were going to split 3-3 on Rupert v. Colby/Candice, they decided to both vote for Candice to make it 5-3 if the V chose Candice. Shouldn't Rupert have given himself some insurance by voting for Colby? If the Vs chose Colby, he goes out 4-3-1. If they chose Candice, which they did, she still goes out 4-3-1. The way he played it, if they chose Colby it would have been a tie between Rupert & Colby 3-3-2.


Rupert wasn't facing a tough decision, because this scenario simply didn't occur to him. Rupert is not very good at the game of Survivor. He's better at challenges than the average player, but worse at strategy than the average player.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Russell is like a marathon runner that runs the race like a sprint.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

LordKronos said:


> Without getting into a political battle here:
> Without winning, McCain was never a president, so he's disqualified outright. However, even without winning, Russell is still a player on the game of survivor. Were talking about the best person to play the game, not the best person to win it.


Excellent point. :up:


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

stalemate said:


> For some of us, the discussion on who is the best is, by definition, excluded to people that have won.


If you even remotely consider that Vecepia is a better player than Rob Mariano, you're opinion loses a lot of weight.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Necromancer2006 said:


> If you even remotely consider that Vecepia is a better player than Rob Mariano, you're opinion loses a lot of weight.


Your comment demonstrates a lack of understanding of the point of the game.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Russell is probably the most focused player Survivor has ever seen. Everything he does is calculated to get him to the end. Unfortunately, he doesn't take a long view of the social aspect of the jury. I'm surprised he stepped out of the immunity challenge last night: he usually wouldn't do something like that.

There is luck involved with Survivor, but its minimal. Getting lucky and being on a tribe that wins challenges is good. Getting luck and not getting hurt helps. And getting lucky and being dealt a group of players that respect your style of gameplay is a big one. But the skill is knowing the group of players you are with, and adapting your gameplay to their moral codes. For instance, if Russell played against Brian or Richard Hatch, and they were on Russell's jury, they would vote for Russell, since they respect that type of game. However, I can't see Rupert or Colby or Coach voting for Russell with the way he plays. Russell plays a great game, but he only plays it one way, and, while the chances of him getting to the final two or three is excellent, the chances of him winning the million is slim.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Steveknj said:


> The problem with your analogy is I'm sure Ivey has won many other tourneys, just not this one (I don't follow poker, so I can't say). If he NEVER won ANY tourney, how could you ever say he's the greatest? If Tiger never won a major, nobody would be calling him the greatest. In Survivor, you only get a VERY limited chance to win. * If you don't win, you aren't even in the discussion. *Russell plays an entertaining game, and he's been successful in many aspects of it, but ultimately, he's a fail, because he can't win, his social aspect sucks.


Completely false.

Much like poker you have to play with the cards you are dealt, and then even after that, there is luck (the flop, turn, river.) The jury vote isn't just voting FOR Russell, it's also voting AGAINST the other player. He could be a total jerk to everyone, and if there's a bigger total jerk up against him in the final vote, does that mean Russell's social game is better? That's the X factor. Russell could do everything to make the jury like him, and even then, they could "like" someone else even more. People on the jury could also not vote for Russell based on things beyond his control, where he's from, or maybe they hate the Houston Astros (his favorite team). Who knows? It's out of his hands.

Remember how Rupert at the start of the episode HATED Russell? Then when Russell wanted to vote Danielle off, he tells Rupert and they both did a fist pump in agreement? Anything can happen.

But to say "If you don't win, you aren't even in the discussion" as the best player ever is completely false. Because we're discussing him right now, aren't we?


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

heySkippy said:


> LOL, that would go right up the a$$ of some posters here who think she's nothing but a coattail rider. I've long said Sandra is a serious player and totally underrated.


I totally agree with you. As I posted in last week's thread, her decision to vote off Amanda was a great strategic move. She knows how to play this game.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Philosofy said:


> But the skill is knowing the group of players you are with, and adapting your gameplay to their moral codes.


This, exactly this. That's what I'm saying, the jury isn't some mysterious force that only shows up at the end of the game. The jury is there the whole time. You have opportunity to get to know them and figure out what makes them tick.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Philosofy said:


> There is luck involved with Survivor, but its minimal.


Luck is HUGE in Survivor.

Remember when Cerie first played Survivor? She was slated to go home on the very first week and it was simply a coin flip between her and other woman. She made it, and only after than did we learn how great of a player she was. If she was gone after week 1, we would never know.

Last year's _*winner*_? Rode the coat tails of Russell, and slipped into the win by pure luck because _*he*_ selected her for their alliance, not the other way around. If she was on the other tribe, she's not a winner, guaranteed.

Colby's first time on Survivor? He makes a bonehead move and selects Tina (because he was loyal to her) and not that cook guy that everyone hated, sealing Colby as a winner with the jury. Tina wins. Tina wins because of pure luck. She was not the best player at all. Colby was by far.

There are countless examples of luck being a huge factor in survivor. It's hardly minimal, it's HUGE.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

inaka said:


> Luck is HUGE in Survivor.
> 
> Remember when Cerie first played Survivor? She was slated to go home on the very first week and it was simply a coin flip between her and other woman. She made it, and only after than did we learn how great of a player she was. If she was gone after week 1, we would never know.
> 
> ...


Good points. I was thinking more along the lines of what make a great Survivor contestant, and luck isn't one of them (I think you'll kind of agree with me there.) Tina isn't a great player, she was a lucky player. Same goes for the winner last season. You get rated as a great Survivor contestant because you minimize the luck involved.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

inaka said:


> Luck is HUGE in Survivor.
> 
> Remember when Cerie first played Survivor? She was slated to go home on the very first week and it was simply a coin flip between her and other woman. She made it, and only after than did we learn how great of a player she was. If she was gone after week 1, we would never know.
> 
> Last year's _*winner*_? Rode the coat tails of Russell, and slipped into the win by pure luck because _*he*_ selected her for their alliance, not the other way around. If she was on the other tribe, she's not a winner, guaranteed.


But luck only got Natalie on the same tribe as Russell. Once she was aligned with Russell, she made sure to stay loyal to Russell, knowing what would happen otherwise. She used a strategy (lie in the shadows of a dominate player) to get her the finals, it won her a million dollars.



> Colby's first time on Survivor? He makes a bonehead move and selects Tina (because he was loyal to her) and not that cook guy that everyone hated, sealing Colby as a winner with the jury. Tina wins. Tina wins because of pure luck. She was not the best player at all. Colby was by far.


Colby has admitted that he blew the call. But, he also felt at the time that he couldn't beat EITHER Keith or Tina. He felt if he couldn't win, then at least some he liked (Tina) should win. Tina didn't "luck" in to the finals, she played a social game to get to the end.



> There are countless examples of luck being a huge factor in survivor. It's hardly minimal, it's HUGE.


And sometime what people see as "Luck", especially late in the game, is the result of playing the game. As people say "You make your own luck."


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

Necromancer2006 said:


> If you even remotely consider that Vecepia is a better player than Rob Mariano, you're opinion loses a lot of weight.


I wouldn't argue that. But the question is NOT "Are all Survivor winners better players than those who have not won." The question is "Can you consider a player that has NOT won Survivor (possibly twice) be considered the best player ever."

IMHO, the answer to that question is a resounding NO. Russell needs to win to be in the discussion as best player ever.


----------



## acegolfer (Jul 14, 2004)

I have not seen any analysis of Jerri's vote, which was the critical deciding factor. So I'll give you my analysis. 

Here's where she stood before TC. She was in an alliance with the villain 5. My guess is she was 4th on the ladder (Sandra being the 5th). Jerri knows that she needs to win the last immunity challenge to advance to the final 3 with the villains. She is not considering going to the final 3 with any heroes because a hero will win out easily (the same reason why Sandra voted Amanda off last week).

Russell gave Jerri a perfect opportunity to break the core villain 3 alliance. By voting out Danielle, she knows that everything becomes a fair game. Specifically, they will need to scramble a new alliance to advance and Jerri will be part of it. However, she will be really stupid to form one with the 2 heroes. 

As long as the villains need to vote off Rup and Colby, it's better for Jerri to vote off one of the Villains first.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

latenight said:


> After tonights episode I can't imagine how anyone can say Russell is not the best player in Survivor history. Not once has Russell ever wanted someone out and they survived it. Amazing.


I've been a Russell fan since the first episode of Samoa. However, I think he made a HUGE miscalculation in this episode. First, he totally underestimated how smart and savvy Parvati is. She knows he's full of crap and she called him on it. Second, he never should have turned on his alliance so early. There are still other players that need to be out first, and he got too antsy and shot himself in the foot. I don't think there's any way he wins now, and he's got nobody but himself to blame for that.


sburnside1 said:


> I am thinking Colby may actually playing a decent strategy. He is playing the wounded animal. Everyone has written him off as not playing anymore. REALLY? you are just going to carry him to the last couple players because he will be EASY to beat? Perhaps his original alliance in Heroes failed because they lost too much, but I think at this point he wants to look as disassociated as possible in the game. Telling Amanda to give the clue back to Danielle last week helps to re-enforce this image. How many times have we had to watch the Athlete win every challenge toward the end, only to lose 1 and get voted off. At this rate, he may only need to win 1 or 2.


Totally agree about Colby. We've all been ridiculing him and talking about how much his skills have eroded and how he's mentally checked out of the game. But in reality, I think those things are what have kept him in the game. The other players don't see him as a threat, so they've set their sights on others, and Colby has quietly made it nearly to the end by not making any waves and not calling any attention to himself.


Philosofy said:


> Russell is probably the most focused player Survivor has ever seen. Everything he does is calculated to get him to the end. Unfortunately, he doesn't take a long view of the social aspect of the jury. I'm surprised he stepped out of the immunity challenge last night: he usually wouldn't do something like that.


Actually, I think that's where you're wrong. Russell stepping out of the challenge was perfectly within his character, because he was cocky/confident enough to know that he wasn't in danger, so winning an II was less important than food at that juncture.

Going forward, we've got three men and three women. Russell has burned his bridge with the leader of the women (Parvati) and Sandra has never liked him. Meanwhile, it's Russell's play this time (targeting Danielle) that kept Rupert in the game. So I won't be at all surprised if next week we see men vs. women, with Jerri being the possible swing vote.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Philosofy said:


> Good points. I was thinking more along the lines of what make a great Survivor contestant, and luck isn't one of them (I think you'll kind of agree with me there.) Tina isn't a great player, she was a lucky player. Same goes for the winner last season. You get rated as a great Survivor contestant because you minimize the luck involved.


I'm with you there to a certain extent, but we're talking _winners_ that were not great players and won primarily due to luck. That to me means you can _try_ all you want to minimize luck, but luck is still a huge part of the game.

Just like in poker, you can get dealt pocket Aces at the final table, put all your money in and get beat to a totally weak hand.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

TriBruin said:


> But luck only got Natalie on the same tribe as Russell. Once she was aligned with Russell, she made sure to stay loyal to Russell, knowing what would happen otherwise. She used a strategy (lie in the shadows of a dominate player) to get her the finals, it won her a million dollars.


I disagree. Russell was the one running the show, not Natalie. She really didn't make sure of anything. It was more like Russell picked her to be by his side.

Here's the deciding factor: If Russell let it be known that he wanted her gone, she was gone. If Natalie let it be known that she wanted Russell gone, she would likely be gone.

The best player on Survivor and the "winner" are usually two different people. It just wasn't in the cards.



TriBruin said:


> Colby has admitted that he blew the call. But, he also felt at the time that he couldn't beat EITHER Keith or Tina. He felt if he couldn't win, then at least some he liked (Tina) should win. Tina didn't "luck" in to the finals, she played a social game to get to the end.
> 
> And sometime what people see as "Luck", especially late in the game, is the result of playing the game. As people say "You make your own luck."


Tina totally lucked out. You said it yourself. Colby admitted he blew the call. If he felt at the time that he could beat Tina by selecting Keith, then he selects Keith. In other words, the play is completely out of Tina's hands. It was luck that Colby blew the call, otherwise she doesn't win.

In poker, heads up if pocket aces loses to 7-2 offsuit, one can always revise history and say that the winner holding 7-2 offsuit "just had a feeling that it was going to win and it did, so they made their own luck". It's false. There is luck, and you can't "make your own luck" otherwise it isn't luck at all. You're using the ends to justify the means. Tina won because of the luck of Colby blowing it completely.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

inaka said:


> I'm with you there to a certain extent, but we're talking _winners_ that were not great players and won primarily due to luck. That to me means you can _try_ all you want to minimize luck, but luck is still a huge part of the game.
> 
> Just like in poker, you can get dealt pocket Aces at the final table, put all your money in and get beat to a totally weak hand.


We agree, then. Winners who only got lucky (last season, whatshername) would not be considered a great player. But Russell, who is a great player, isn't better than Brian, who manipulated everyone, including the jury.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Totally agree about Colby. We've all been ridiculing him and talking about how much his skills have eroded and how he's mentally checked out of the game. But in reality, I think those things are what have kept him in the game. The other players don't see him as a threat, so they've set their sights on others, and Colby has quietly made it nearly to the end by not making any waves and not calling any attention to himself.


Again, people are using the end results to justify/influence what actually happened. He gave up..._literally_. If James didn't get hurt, Colby was gone. The heroes only kept him because James was hurt. Colby did nothing to stay and mentally checked out. If Colby was gone and didn't even make the jury (at the time James left) would you still be talking about what a great game he's playing? Nope.

If I'm Russell, I would try to keep Colby in the game as long as possible. Russell's best chance of winning is having himself up against Colby. He could then at least make a stand that he outplayed them all and Colby didn't even play and gave up. But if Colby won the entire game in that scenario, is he the best player this season? Heck no. And this isn't a Russell love fest going on because Sandra and Parv have played a MUCH better game than Colby.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

flyers088 said:


> Danielle at tribal: "Blah, blah, blah, bah"
> Me at home: "Would you just shut up, you are going to get yourself voted out!"
> Danielle: "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah"
> Me: "Shut up or Jerri will change her vote and you will be gone!"
> ...


Totally agree with these points. People are overlooking that Jerri was the swing vote. Her vote, and her vote alone, decided Danielle went home. I also think her mini-breakdown (the crying jag) cost her. Jerri is a stoic player. I think she was going to vote for Rupert until Danielle broke down, at which point her disgust (they showed it briefly) made her flip her vote to Danielle. If she had shut up, she'd be playing next week.

Russell made his move too early. He may have felt it tore apart Danielle/Parvati; I think it ripped apart his alliance. He has zero shot of winning after that move. Too many stepped on feelings/people to overcome when the jury meets.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Russell also mouthed to Jerri "Danielle" or something like that. And what was with J.T. giving them a wink?


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> But that's like saying McCain is the best President because he picked Palin, or any other number of moves he made during the campaign were just great campaign moves, but ultimately, he still lost.


I don't follow that logic. I think he lost _because_ he picked Palin.



stalemate said:


> I will say that Russell is very good and probably the best at playing what Russell considers to be the game of survivor. Ultimately, I don't think he really understands what the actual game is.


It goes deeper than to say that Russell does not really understand what the actual game is. At the time we are watching now in this season, he _doesn't even know_ that he does not understand what the game is because he doesn't know he lost last season yet. He probably assumes he won, so he thinks he has the game all figured out!

I think playing back to back seasons without knowing the results, has put him at a disadvantage. He doesn't know that he needs a social game to go along with his strategy.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

markz said:


> It goes deeper than to say that Russell does not really understand what the actual game is. At the time we are watching now in this season, he _doesn't even know_ that he does not understand what the game is because he doesn't know he lost last season yet. He probably assumes he won, so he thinks he has the game all figured out!
> 
> I think playing back to back seasons without knowing the results, has put him at a disadvantage. He doesn't know that he needs a social game to go along with his strategy.


This is a really good point.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

inaka said:


> I disagree. Russell was the one running the show, not Natalie. She really didn't make sure of anything. It was more like Russell picked her to be by his side.
> 
> Here's the deciding factor: If Russell let it be known that he wanted her gone, she was gone. If Natalie let it be known that she wanted Russell gone, she would likely be gone.
> 
> ...


In both cases, you have completely dismissed what the player did and call it luck.

In Natalie's case, you claim it is luck that Russell never decided to get rid of her. I argue that she kept herself in the game by NEVER giving Russell a reason to vote her out. We have seen for two seasons that if Russell wants you out, you are likely gone. It wasn't luck that kept Natalie in the game, it was knowing how to keep Russell from turning on her.

In Tina's case, I stated right in my post, that Tina was picked by Colby was NOT luck. She put herself in that position by being a likely person (especially compared to Keith.)


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

markz said:


> It goes deeper than to say that Russell does not really understand what the actual game is. At the time we are watching now in this season, he _doesn't even know_ that he does not understand what the game is because he doesn't know he lost last season yet. He probably assumes he won, so he thinks he has the game all figured out!
> 
> I think playing back to back seasons without knowing the results, has put him at a disadvantage. He doesn't know that he needs a social game to go along with his strategy.


This exactly. Russell was so sure of himself (especially at the beginning fo the season) that he saw no reason to change his game. Had he know that he lost, maybe he would have figured out the social side of the better.

Also, as noted on Jeff' blog on EW:



Spoiler



You can tell that toll of back to back seasons is starting to wear on Russell. I think that after nearly two straight months of playing Survivor, he is not as mentally focused.


----------



## TampaThunder (Apr 8, 2003)

The thing that will allow these "greatest player" arguments to go on ad nausem is that it is always the _losers_ in this game that pick the winner. No matter how well you play this game your fate is decided by a bunch of losers that always have their own criteria for awarding the million bucks. Doesn't make any difference if you outwit, outlast, outplay everybody on the jury and whoever's sitting next to you, if the jury doesn't like you for whatever reason, you won't get their vote. So it really should be outwit, outplay, outlast, outkiss ass.

That's the frustrating part of Survivor and the beauty of it at the same time.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

TriBruin said:


> In both cases, you have completely dismissed what the player did and call it luck.
> 
> In Natalie's case, you claim it is luck that Russell never decided to get rid of her. I argue that she kept herself in the game by NEVER giving Russell a reason to vote her out. We have seen for two seasons that if Russell wants you out, you are likely gone. It wasn't luck that kept Natalie in the game, it was knowing how to keep Russell from turning on her.
> 
> In Tina's case, I stated right in my post, that Tina was picked by Colby was NOT luck. She put herself in that position by being a likely person (especially compared to Keith.)


In both examples, they were at the mercy of the guys choosing them. That's luck on their part. Even more so in Colby's case since he even admitted it was the wrong move. If he played it correctly, Tina loses. That's luck on her part that Colby messed up.

I'll say it again, here's the deciding factor: If Russell let it be known that he wanted Nataline gone last year, she was gone. If Natalie let it be known that she wanted Russell gone, _*she*_ would likely be gone. She was at Russell's mercy and he was in control. The fact he picked her was his choice and her luck.

In Samoa, if Russell won the final challenge, and selected Mick, you could use your exact same argument saying how well Mick played and how he made it so Russell picked him. In other words, you're filling in the blank of the winner at the end to justify the best player, ignoring the actual game play of who is in control, and/or playing the best game.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

TampaThunder said:


> The thing that will allow these "greatest player" arguments to go on ad nausem is that it is always the _losers_ in this game that pick the winner. No matter how well you play this game your fate is decided by a bunch of losers that always have their own criteria for awarding the million bucks. Doesn't make any difference if you outwit, outlast, outplay everybody on the jury and whoever's sitting next to you, if the jury doesn't like you for whatever reason, you won't get their vote. So it really should be outwit, outplay, outlast, outkiss ass.
> 
> That's the frustrating part of Survivor and the beauty of it at the same time.


Exactly this.

Which is why the jury is a total X factor. There's no formula that guarantees you a jusy vote "win"...even if you kiss their ass. The person sitting next to you in the finals may have kissed their ass more, or for that season, the jury doesn't want its ass kissed and respects gameplay, etc.

*You never know.*

So all one does know is to stay alive another day, and get to final vote.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

inaka said:


> Exactly this.
> 
> Which is why the jury is a total X factor. There's no formula that guarantees you a jusy vote "win"...even if you kiss their ass. The person sitting next to you in the finals may have kissed their ass more, or for that season, the jury doesn't want its ass kissed and respects gameplay, etc.
> 
> ...


I think I would love to play survivor against someone with this philosophy.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

inaka said:


> Again, people are using the end results to justify/influence what actually happened. He gave up..._literally_. If James didn't get hurt, Colby was gone. The heroes only kept him because James was hurt. Colby did nothing to stay and mentally checked out. If Colby was gone and didn't even make the jury (at the time James left) would you still be talking about what a great game he's playing? Nope.
> 
> If I'm Russell, I would try to keep Colby in the game as long as possible. Russell's best chance of winning is having himself up against Colby. He could then at least make a stand that he outplayed them all and Colby didn't even play and gave up. But if Colby won the entire game in that scenario, is he the best player this season? Heck no. And this isn't a Russell love fest going on because Sandra and Parv have played a MUCH better game than Colby.


I wasn't saying Colby is playing a great game. Far from it. All I'm saying is that it's Colby's lack of game this time around that has allowed him to remain. Which is yet another data point in the argument for why getting deep into the game doesn't necessarily mean you're a good player.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

stalemate said:


> Your comment demonstrates a lack of understanding of the point of the game.


Believe what you want, but I'd be willing to bet I'm a bigger student of the game than you.

Maybe I'm not understanding your point. Are you claiming that only the 19 winners of the game are eligible to be in the discussion of greatest players of all time?

If you are, you're more than entitled to have that opinion, you''re just sadly mistaken. Not only in my eyes, but also the eyes of the actual players (also including Probst) themselves. Feel free to assert that though, it only serves to reinforce how silly that position actually is.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Necromancer2006 said:


> Are you claiming that only the 19 winners of the game are eligible to be in the discussion of greatest players of all time?


No. I am saying you can't be "the best" without winning it. You can be great, sure. The best, or the greatest, no way.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Necromancer2006 said:


> Believe what you want, but I'd be willing to bet I'm a bigger student of the game than you.


It doesn't matter how much of a student of the game you are. The entire point of the game is to get to the end and get the jury votes. If you aren't doing that, and you think some of this other stuff is more important, you are missing the point.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

stalemate said:


> It doesn't matter how much of a student of the game you are. The entire point of the game is to get to the end and get the jury votes. If you aren't doing that, and you think some of this other stuff is more important, *you are missing the point*.


...and the million dollars!


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

inaka said:


> Colby's first time on Survivor? He makes a bonehead move and selects Tina (because he was loyal to her) and not that cook guy that everyone hated, sealing Colby as a winner with the jury. Tina wins. Tina wins because of pure luck. She was not the best player at all. Colby was by far.


Incorrect. Tina was a much bigger social player than Colby was. It was revealed after the season and on the talk show circuit that Colby wanted to see if his dominating physical accomplishments would be enough to sway the jury his way as opposed to Tina's strategic gameplay and getting to know the jury members on a personal level as friends. Tina was a force to be reckoned with - the members of that tribe at the merge (Jerri, Amber, Keith, Tina, and Colby) all said so during their interviews. Tina was the crafty one who had all the game moves lined out, and Colby was the physical monster.

Best player strategy-wise that season was Tina. The strongest physical power was Colby (although Skupin was giving him a run for his money and things would have been completely different had he not been medically evacuated or if Kimmie hadn't spilled the beans about Jeff having votes during previous Tribals).


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

I still think Russell would have a chance if he were in the final 3 with Rupert and Colby, but if he's in the final 3 with any of the other Villains, he loses.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

markz said:


> It goes deeper than to say that Russell does not really understand what the actual game is. At the time we are watching now in this season, he _doesn't even know_ that he does not understand what the game is because he doesn't know he lost last season yet. He probably assumes he won, so he thinks he has the game all figured out!
> 
> I think playing back to back seasons without knowing the results, has put him at a disadvantage. He doesn't know that he needs a social game to go along with his strategy.


I think he's more of the mind that Russell believes that the jury will look at just the strategic aspect and give him the title JUST on that particular aspect of the game. And, if the game was ONLY about the strategy of getting people out when you want them out the way you want them out then yes - Russell is right up there with Hatch and Heidik in those terms. Where Russell fails is the mental massaging/manipulation that Hatch and Heidik made sure happened. To be looked upon favorably by enough jury members to get their vote.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JETarpon said:


> I still think Russell would have a chance if he were in the final 3 with Rupert and Colby, but if he's in the final 3 with any of the other Villains, he loses.


I'm not sure about that. I think Russell has burned a lot of bridges and will have a hard time winning against anyone. But I think the one he'd want next to him the most would be Jerri, since she's done almost nothing. Then the other one would have to be a choice from among Sandra, Rupert, or Colby, and I'm not sure he could beat any of those three, unless the Jury is specifically voting against Sandra because she's already won.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not sure he could beat any of those three, unless the Jury is specifically voting against Sandra because she's already won.


I don't know if this particular jury would vote against someone just because they have already won. There will be some on this jury that _are_ previous winners.

Now if this were Fans v Favs I could see the fans voting against favs that had won before.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

markz said:


> I don't know if this particular jury would vote against someone just because they have already won. There will be some on this jury that _are_ previous winners.
> 
> Now if this were Fans v Favs I could see the fans voting against favs that had won before.


Which is why I said I'm not sure Russell has a chance at all. I'm just saying that if he has to take someone to the finals out of Sandra, Rupert or Colby, perhaps Sandra is the best choice for that reason. Maybe a former winner (like JT) will specifically not vote for her because a winner for the second time will overshadow all previous winners, while a new winner would just be on the same level with all previous winners.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I still think Russell has a great shot at winning against most of these players. 

PLEASE LET US HAVE A PARVATI/RUSSELL FINAL 2!!!!

I would love to see the fireworks from that last TC!!!


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

And props to Rupert for finally doing something in this game!


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

stalemate said:


> No. I am saying you can't be "the best" without winning it. You can be great, sure. The best, or the greatest, no way.


That's ridiculous.

This isn't golf where you need to make the putt.
This isn't basketball where you need to make the shot.
This isn't baseball where you need to hit the home run.

This is a game where a _jury_ decides your fate.

You can do all you want to sway them, but that's not definitive like making a putt or hitting a home run. This is why I've always seen Survivor more analogous to poker. You put your money in with the hand you're dealt, and hopefully, you have the best hand at the time. After that, it's up to the poker Gods...i.e. luck IMO.

The "best player ever" can _only_ be from the short list of winners? 
That's laughable.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Russell shouldn't have called Rupert a dumbass, and he probably needs a tad more tact in his other conversations. But I too think he could sway some votes. I'm not a Russell fan at all, and I dislike the man. 

But even I'll concede he's made some amazing game moves and could certainly be deserving.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

inaka said:


> That's ridiculous.
> 
> This isn't golf where you need to make the putt.
> This isn't basketball where you need to make the shot.
> ...


It is funny. I think the idea that a non-winner can be the best player ever is even beyond laughable and ridiculous. It boggles my mind.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

inaka said:


> That's ridiculous.
> 
> This isn't golf where you need to make the putt.
> This isn't basketball where you need to make the shot.
> ...


I agree with Stalemate.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

uncdrew said:


> Russell shouldn't have called Rupert a dumbass, and he probably needs a tad more tact in his other conversations. But I too think he could sway some votes. I'm not a Russell fan at all, and I dislike the man.
> 
> But even I'll concede he's made some amazing game moves and could certainly be deserving.


Dude, but you'd totally vote for the other person if she was hotter and if Russell hurt your little feelings.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

uncdrew said:


> Dude, but you'd totally vote for the other person if she was hotter and if Russell hurt your little feelings.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

Necromancer2006 said:


> Incorrect. Tina was a much bigger social player than Colby was. It was revealed after the season and on the talk show circuit that Colby wanted to see if his dominating physical accomplishments would be enough to sway the jury his way as opposed to Tina's strategic gameplay and getting to know the jury members on a personal level as friends. Tina was a force to be reckoned with - the members of that tribe at the merge (Jerri, Amber, Keith, Tina, and Colby) all said so during their interviews. Tina was the crafty one who had all the game moves lined out, and Colby was the physical monster.
> 
> Best player strategy-wise that season was Tina. The strongest physical power was Colby (although Skupin was giving him a run for his money and things would have been completely different had he not been medically evacuated or if Kimmie hadn't spilled the beans about Jeff having votes during previous Tribals).


I agree with everything you're saying about Tina. The thing is, her winning was entirely dependent upon Colby picking her. If he doesn't pick her, she doesn't win. Thus, she could easily have been the best social player (and I agree with you), but without the luck of having Colby pick her, she's gone.

When your fate is totally in someone else's hands and they admit they made a mistake (Colby), then I see that as luck. If you think she used a brilliant super social game to _make_ Colby pick her, it seems like revisionist history to me, because if he doesn't pick her we'd never be talking about it. If he does, then it's _her_ play? The move was Colby's not hers.

Just like last season in Samoa. Russell won the final immunity, balancing that statue on the pole. It came down to that young kid Brett, and Russell. 
Russell won the challenge and Brett was voted out. Brett played a brilliant social game much like Tina did with Colby. Brett even made some valid arguments in keeping him around. Russell was actually torn, even saying something like he was the type of kid he wanted his kids to marry, etc. But ultimately, when Russell won the final immunity, he chose to vote off Brett. Are we talking about how great Brett's game was? Nope. Why? Because Russell prevented him from going to the finals. It was Russell's choice to make against Brett. However, if he picked Brett, Brett would have likely won (easily could have happened with last year's jury), and he would then be in the same boat as Tina. Winner, and great social game. So it was Russell that prevented that from ever materializing, and that's my point. You can play an excellent game with the cards you're dealt, but winning alone doesn't mean you're the best player, and certainly the "greatest player ever" would never have to come from only the small pool of winner.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

stalemate said:


> It is funny. I think the idea that a non-winner can be the best player ever is even beyond laughable and ridiculous. It boggles my mind.


Sounds like you probably think the winner of a poker tournament is always the best player.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

inaka said:


> Sounds like you probably think the winner of a poker tournament is always the best player.


I have such little interest in poker that these poker analogies are not really all that compelling to me.

But, this one especially doesn't seem to fit.

A better translation of my survivor belief into poker terms would be "A player can't be the best poker player ever if they never win a single tournament."

Although, I don't even know how a poker tournament works to know if that is a valid comparison. Do people even play poker without being in a tournament? I don't know. I will say you have to win SOMETHING to be the best. I'm not sure if it has to be a tournament or not because I don't know how poker is played.


----------



## Legion (Aug 24, 2005)

Mustache! Danielle had a mustache!


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

stalemate said:


> I have such little interest in poker that these poker analogies are not really all that compelling to me.
> 
> But, this one especially doesn't seem to fit.
> 
> ...


People play cash poker games all the time.
Some people never play tournament poker, and vice versa. 
Some people play online and can't play well in person, and vice versa.

The discussion of poker here and Survivor is an interesting one being that the "old strategy" of Survivor (players like Richard, Hatch, Boston Rob, etc.)
is very similar to the old school way of playing poker, (raising with the best hand, making bets of certain amounts at certain times, etc.) Survivor is being challenged by a "new strategy" from Russell, much the same way online poker has changed the traditional old school way people play it too. (In poker, the online style is far more aggressive, betting any amount at any time with any cards, playing the player not your own hand, etc.)

There are pro poker players like Phil Hellmuth who have 11 championship bracelets who don't do very well against younger "new" aggressive players like Tom Dwan (who have never won a WSOP tournament as far as I know). The older players can't read them because they never know what they have. Much the same way Boston Rob said to Russell, "I don't think you play the game that way" when he was talking right in front of Sandra and Courtney that they should go next.

So your comment is a little hard to discuss since you don't follow poker much. But I can say that if my life depended on it, I would bet on Tom Dwan over Phil Hellmuth any day. Much like I would bet on Cerie over Vecepia any day as well.

I'll take it one step further, sometimes the best play in poker is a *fold*, not winning the pot. Winning isn't a sign of being the best ever in poker, or Survivor in my book.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

I am going to ignore the poker analogy for now because I don't know anything about it and can't speak to it much at all.

I think we'll never agree on survivor because I think you put quite a bit of value on things that to me range from (at best) a setup for the primary goal of the game to (at worst) a distraction from the primary point of the game. Russell is a great example. Some people think he's great because of all these moves he is making. I think some of these moves could end up being his flaw in the long run. There is no way I can say these moves he is making mean he is the greatest player ever if I end up thinking they are the very moves that cost him the game. To me, there is 1 goal of playing survivor. To win. If you aren't winning it you ultimately are not the best.

In fact, is is almost hard for me to even have a concept of who is a "great player" or the "best player" in general (I mean, looking across seasons) because I think so much of being good is situation dependent and does not necessarily translate from one season to the next or from one group of people to the next. It is too complicated and dependent on the social dynamic.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Each season, the best player wins. That is the entire point. Tina was a better player than Colby since she played a better game. Yes, that decision was in his hands, but there was nothing she could do about that except make sure that he picks her. Are you really saying that the best player is always the winner of the last immunity challenge? Was Kelly Wigglesworth a better player than Richard Hatch? That decision was in her hands.

I think Natalie outplayed Russell last year by winning. I know that everyone says that it was only due to Russell picking her that she made it to the end, but Russell approached several of the girls on his tribe. She played the situation better than they did.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

inaka said:


> People play cash poker games all the time.
> Some people never play tournament poker, and vice versa.
> Some people play online and can't play well in person, and vice versa.
> 
> ...


I will I have no idea who Tom Dwan is, but can you give me one tangible reason he is "better" than Phil Hellmuth? If we can't use success, what else is there.

Would you also argue that the Colorado Rockies are a better franchise than the New York Yankees? I guess there many World Series Championships mean nothing?



> I'll take it one step further, sometimes the best play in poker is a *fold*, not winning the pot. Winning isn't a sign of being the best ever in poker, or Survivor in my book.


But a fold is a single hand. In Survivor that would be the equivalent of a single Tribal Council. Would you judge any player based upon a single Tribal Council. By that logic, Rupert was a better player than Russell. Rupert had Russell convinced that he had the HII. Rupert got the best of Russell.

You may judge Russell to be the best player, but I challenge to provide me and OBJECTIVE reason for this decision. You may feel he is the best player, but until he has something to show for it (i.e. the Winner). And, despite his bravado, I bet Russell believes the same thing. Otherwise, he was so desperate to get Natalie to call him the "Sole Survivor" after he lost last season?


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

realityboy said:


> Each season, the best player wins. That is the entire point. Tina was a better player than Colby since she played a better game. Yes, that decision was in his hands, but there was nothing she could do about that except make sure that he picks her. Are you really saying that the best player is always the winner of the last immunity challenge? Was Kelly Wigglesworth a better player than Richard Hatch? That decision was in her hands.
> 
> I think Natalie outplayed Russell last year by winning. I know that everyone says that it was only due to Russell picking her that she made it to the end, but Russell approached several of the girls on his tribe. She played the situation better than they did.


I disagree. Each season, the winner wins. Doesn't mean they were the best player.

Sometimes the person who played the best actually wins, like Brian and Richard. Sometimes the person who didn't play the best wins, like Vecepia and Natalie. It happens.

If you watch Big Brother, Evil Dick won even though he didn't want to. He was doing everything in his power to piss people off and try to set it up for his daughter to win. Yet the jury gave it to him anyway.

I agree that Russell has a huge flaw in his game in that he doesn't know how to get rid of someone and still get their vote. But Natalie didn't "DO" anything to try and win. It was Russell who "DID" something that caused him to lose. Doesn't really make Natalie a good player in my mind.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)




----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

betts4 said:


> Russell also mouthed to Jerri "Danielle" or something like that. And what was with J.T. giving them a wink?


I assumed the wink was to Rupert as it was becoming possible that he not be voted out.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

The best player can, but does not always, win. It is a sad and frustrating fact for many athletes.

There are always outside factors involved that _will_ affect the outcome...and that often do not have anything to do with the actual skill of the player.


----------



## Dnamertz (Jan 30, 2005)

TriBruin said:


> Unfortunately, everyone will be wanting to sit next to Russell at the Final Tribal. He likely makes the final 2 or 3. But, we get watch for a 2nd time the Russell seed to go down in flames at the vote!


What? You don't think this group of all stars will admire his game play a lot more than last season's jury did? Russell is more responsible for the current jury members being voted out than anyone. If they vote emotionally, then Russell probably won't win, but if they say "hey Russell, you got me...you out played me", then he probably will win.


----------



## Dnamertz (Jan 30, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> Agreed. And somewhere before the tribes merged, when she was trying to figure out how to stay in the game after BR got voted out, I was telling everyone to watch out for Sandra, she's underrated. Nobody sees her game play because she's usually pretty quiet, but she's been scheming the whole time.
> 
> Best player ever? Not sure, but you can't argue with 2 wins. Russell will probably have ZERO wins for all his scheming and great game play.


How come Russell won't win because of his "social game", but Sandra has already won, and now you think she can win again. She hates everyone, and is not likable...talk about lacking a social game.


----------



## jbernardis (Oct 22, 2003)

Dnamertz said:


> She hates everyone, and is not likable...talk about lacking a social game.


this!!!

I do not like Sandra. She always has a scowl on her face. I don't think I can tolerate her winning, but with her having the HII, it's looking like more of a possibility.

But then again, maybe it's just that she reminds me of my old boss


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

bryhamm said:


> I disagree. Each season, the winner wins. Doesn't mean they were the best player.
> 
> Sometimes the person who played the best actually wins, like Brian and Richard. Sometimes the person who didn't play the best wins, like Vecepia and Natalie. It happens.
> 
> ...


Perfectly said. :up:


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

The sum total of Russell's action lead to his 2nd place finish. Natalie's lead to the win. What should she have changed? They both benefitted from luck in the form of Laura & the other Russell's injury. 

To me, the game is about adapting and using the tools available. Russell Hantz was the biggest tool available.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

I do agree about EvilDick, but that conversation is for another thread. His win can be credited to America.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

The editing is pathetic. Bad enough they give the guy a now obvious advantage, then they edit the show and promote him positively, because Russell isn't all that. 

Heaven forbid King Russell is made to look bad so they put in two eliminations so as to show how smart he is once again.

The next season should have an immunity idol that is in the shape of the producers of this show on their knees kissing Russell's ass.

He has made some incredible blunders and stupid guesses. He has a negative persona, too negative for tv in general and even a reality show like Survivor, but it sells.

Even Jeff's blog is a joke in defense of King Russell. Jeff goes on for paragraph's mentioning this reason or that, more like excuses, for Russell's behavior, attitude and game play. Either the guy is the "greatest" and that good or he isn't. Now since Russell isn't as in control and is making poor moves and showing who he really is, I guess Jeff has to do some damage control and splaining to do for how CBS promos him and how he is hyping him in his blog. Interesting how some claim Boston Rob or Coach were whiny and just sour grapes when they made stupid moves and got booted when they *****ed about Russell and his having the advantage. I guess it is ok for Russell to whine, like he did last season when he lost, or for Jeff to make excuses for Russell, which to me sounds like the same whiny defense and sour grapes.

Russell sealed his fate last night, but some of us knew this already based on his arrogant and egotistical persona. People don't like that. Even those playing the game with him may say they respect his game, but like last season, very few people actually like a Russell. There is no doubt RUssell made a "good" strategic move trying to come between parv and danielle, but that was good for the short term and near sighted which will cost Russell long term and jury. Not many like to see or take pleasure in seeing someone bully or force another into crying, especially doing that to a woman, an attractive woman no less, even if they didn't actually force them to cry as the other person has their own mind, but it is perceived as being forced or bullied. Human compassion outweighs just about anything, even on a reality game show where part of the game is being ruthless. This is why Russell failed last season and has again this season. One thing most of us despise are bullies and one thing most of us really like and want to defend are underdogs. Russell creates a whole lot of underdogs who get to spend time with and sympathize with each other. At Ponderosa you can even hear JT say they would give Russell the silent treatment if he shows up there. 

Jeff's, in his blog also doesn't get why Rupert and COlby feel the way they do towards Candace. He is only seeing the show like we are, but they are with her and know that she was a pathetic player who flipped. The flipping is huge and why they are pissed. Jeff doesn't get that. JT giving away the idol. AManda running to Parv. Candace flipping when it could have made a huge difference. I am sure a short while after the merge they heard how many of the villains went down when Russell got them to flip, so the lack of loyalty they have witnessed grates on them and they know that lack of cohesion cost them the game. So, excuses for RUssell, well that is why COlby and RUpert are pissed...tired, hungry, angry and now even more angry when someone lied to your face after you tell them if it doesn't work we will know who f'ed it up. Candace f'ed it up. I don't blame her either, again had she seen Russell's game play, like he seen her's, which is why he went to her... He knew how to get her to fold and how she would react and she was clueless as to his actions and reactions.

The advantage to Russell didn't stop at the merge when JT turned over the idol, it continued through Candace and finally some are now aware enough, but it is too late.

The editing and favoritism of Russell by the Producers and the marketing hype in Probst blog are an easy read, but pathetic.

Having said that it is still entertaining.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

hughmcjr said:


> Jeff doesn't get that.


It's hilarious to me that any of us think we're qualified to say something like that.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

realityboy said:


> The sum total of Russell's action lead to his 2nd place finish. *Natalie's lead to the win.* What should she have changed? They both benefitted from luck in the form of Laura & the other Russell's injury.
> 
> To me, the game is about adapting and using the tools available. Russell Hantz was the biggest tool available.


But the word lead is incorrect here and is my point. Lead implies that she did something. Substitute Natalie for a box of rocks. Same result in that the box of rocks won because the jury didn't want to give Russell his vote, but the box of rocks didn't do anything to get the win. So "lead" is the wrong word imo.

If she had even hinted that she was letting Russell do all the moves so he would look bad and she wouldn't, then I would agree with the word "lead".


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

I don't think Natalie is a better strategist than Russell, she did fall into her win; but she did do something, she stayed in Russell's good-graces and made sure she got to the end with him. 

Thing is, it's Russell's fault that he lost. Russell is the guy that beats someone at something - whether it's chess, HORSE or tiddily-winks - and dances around the room and whoops it up until everyone has had enough and is rolling there eyes. You don't have to be obnoxious about winning. If he'd been more low-key and less abrasive, he would have gotten the respect of the other players and won.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

realityboy said:


> Each season, the best player wins. That is the entire point. Tina was a better player than Colby since she played a better game. Yes, that decision was in his hands, but there was nothing she could do about that except make sure that he picks her. Are you really saying that the best player is always the winner of the last immunity challenge? Was Kelly Wigglesworth a better player than Richard Hatch? That decision was in her hands.
> 
> I think Natalie outplayed Russell last year by winning. I know that everyone says that it was only due to Russell picking her that she made it to the end, but Russell approached several of the girls on his tribe. She played the situation better than they did.


That argument only works if you think Natalie would have won anyway if Russell were not there. She wouldn't.

To me, best means one thing. Who did the MOST right things, not just the LAST right thing.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> To me, best means one thing. Who did the MOST right things, not just the LAST right thing.


Agreed. The idea that the best Survivor player ever has to be one of the 19 prior winners is just crazy.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

jbernardis said:


> this!!!
> 
> I do not like Sandra. She always has a scowl on her face. I don't think I can tolerate her winning, but with her having the HII, it's looking like more of a possibility.
> 
> But then again, maybe it's just that she reminds me of my old boss


The HII is only useful if you know the vote is coming for you. Ask James, having and using the HII are not the same.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> That argument only works if you think Natalie would have won anyway if Russell were not there. She wouldn't.
> 
> To me, best means one thing. Who did the MOST right things, not just the LAST right thing.


The winner did the most right things. Or at least the best things or the least wrong things.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

E! asked Danielle the question about whether Russell is the best _Survivor_ player. Her answer: Winning the million dollars is being the best player in the game.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> The HII is only useful if you know the vote is coming for you. Ask James, having and using the HII are not the same.


I don't think Sandra could ever be blindsided. She's way too cagey for that.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

latrobe7 said:


> Thing is, it's Russell's fault that he lost. Russell is the guy that beats someone at something - whether it's chess, HORSE or tiddily-winks - and dances around the room and whoops it up until everyone has had enough and is rolling there eyes. You don't have to be obnoxious about winning. If he'd been more low-key and less abrasive, he would have gotten the respect of the other players and won.


EXACTLY! I agree 100% that this is Russell's failing, and why he's not the champ that he could have been with just a minor change in attitude.

Diane


----------



## TampaThunder (Apr 8, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> E! asked Danielle the question about whether Russell is the best _Survivor_ player. Her answer: Winning the million dollars is being the best player in the game.


Well, I guess the argument is settled. We all know Danielle is a great player in her own right and she has the final say. Of course she is being totally objective and not letting her personal feelings regarding Russell influence her opinion. 

Dr. Will on Big Brother played a game that was just as despicable as Russell's with one huge difference - he was incredibly charming as he stabbed you in the back and was upfront and honest about how he was going to lie to and betray everybody. Nowadays you can't play that style and hope to win. You'll get voted out early. If you play the way Russell plays you'll piss too many jury members off and they'll bend over backwards trying to justify not giving you the money when all it really comes down to is personal grudges.

No, now you have to play the Natalie game and ride coattails and hope you stay under the radar and don't give anybody a reason to target you. Nothing wrong with that strategy I guess, but it's too passive for my tastes.

Russell won't win this season either. Everybody hates him though I think he'd get JT's vote. But he certainly plays the game better than anybody else. Unfortunately for him, that doesn't matter anymore.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

heySkippy said:


> Agreed. The idea that the best Survivor player ever has to be one of the 19 prior winners is just crazy.


While being a previous winner doesn't automatically get in the "best" conversation; how can you possibly rank someone who lost while controlling the game almost the entire way over someone who controlled it the entire way through and won? On what basis could you put, say, Russell, over say, Yul or Brian? Or even above someone like Colby (until this season), who ran the game, but then choose to come in second; or Ozzie who would have won if not for being on the same season as Yul?


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

latrobe7 said:


> On what basis could you put, say, Russell, over say, Yul or Brian?


I'm not one of the people insisting that Russell is the best ever, although I do think he'd be in any top 5 list. Yul played his season masterfully and would be a good pick as the best ever. I just don't think winning is a prerequisite to being called the best player.

On the other hand, Russell wins as most entertaining player hands-down, and if you want to get right down to it, the real job of the cast of Survivor is to entertain their audience.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

heySkippy said:


> I'm not one of the people insisting that Russell is the best ever, although I do think he'd be in any top 5 list. Yul played his season masterfully and would be a good pick as the best ever. I just don't think winning is a prerequisite to being called the best player.
> 
> *On the other hand, Russell wins as most entertaining player hands-down, and if you want to get right down to it, the real job of the cast of Survivor is to entertain their audience.*


This. Even if he doesn't win, he's still the best "character" the show has ever had. Without Russell the last two seasons would not have been nearly as fun to watch. Like him or hate him, Russell makes good TV. Sort of the Antithesis of Sandra, who goes out of her way to make BAD TV. You can put Russell into any future "All Star" type Survivor as far as I'm concerned. If I never see Sandra again, it will be too soon.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

heySkippy said:


> I'm not one of the people insisting that Russell is the best ever, although I do think he'd be in any top 5 list. Yul played his season masterfully and would be a good pick as the best ever. I just don't think winning is a prerequisite to being called the best player.


Bob, Parvatti, Yul, Brian, Tom, even Chris from Vanuatu... all winners, all better than Russell - if you don't think so, why not? JT blew it this season and Colby is a shadow of his former self, but they both played better than Russell in their first time out; I think Ozzie was a better player, as well...



> On the other hand, Russell wins as most entertaining player hands-down, and if you want to get right down to it, the real job of the cast of Survivor is to entertain their audience.


Russell is fun to watch, I know I certainly enjoy his antics; and entertainment is ultimately what the producers and CBS want, and that is a great criteria for "favorite" Survivor contestant, not not "best" - IMO. It is a game and the contestants are there to win, not just entertain.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

Dnamertz said:


> What? You don't think this group of all stars will admire his game play a lot more than last season's jury did? Russell is more responsible for the current jury members being voted out than anyone. If they vote emotionally, then Russell probably won't win, but if they say "hey Russell, you got me...you out played me", then he probably will win.


Early in the game, I might have thought that, but with this week, Russell made it VERY personal (especially with Danielle). I would also argue that getting rid of Danielle now was a very STUPID move that was motivated more by Russell's ego than any strategic play. He broke up his alliance because he couldn't accept that HE wasn't in control (worse a "dumbass" chick was in control, mighty Russell could not allow that.)


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

stalemate said:


> The winner did the most right things. Or at least the best things or the least wrong things.


Not at all.

Sorry for the poker analogies, but when you bet all your chips with the absolute worst hand (7-2 off suit) and some guy calls you with pocket aces, you made a horrible play. If the flop comes 2-2-2 and you end up winning, it doesn't mean you did the right thing at all...you just lucked out and won.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

TriBruin said:


> Early in the game, I might have thought that, but with this week, Russell made it VERY personal (especially with Danielle). I would also argue that getting rid of Danielle now was a very STUPID move that was motivated more by Russell's ego than any strategic play. He broke up his alliance because he couldn't accept that HE wasn't in control (worse a "dumbass" chick was in control, mighty Russell could not allow that.)


But he might be right. His alliance was only as good as the final three. After that, Parv would take Danielle, Danielle would take Parv to the finals. He'd be out. So he had to make the move now while he could, had immunity and could actually pull it off.

His best bet now is to win immunity and/or team up with Colby and Rupert, IMO. We shall see.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

inaka said:


> Not at all.
> 
> Sorry for the poker analogies, but when you bet all your chips with the absolute worst hand (7-2 off suit) and some guy calls you with pocket aces, you made a horrible play. If the flop comes 2-2-2 and you end up winning, it doesn't mean you did the right thing at all...you just lucked out and won.


You keep using poker analogies, but you are confusing single plays versus a tournament. You don't get to the final table with one hand, you get there by playing multiple hands and playing strongly. Certainly luck can play a part in getting you farther, but luck will NOT get you all the way to the final table.

Same thing in Survivor. Yes, luck plays a part in the game, even Russell has been lucky at times. But to discount any winner as "just lucky" is ludicrous. They put themselves in a position to win and got they jury to vote for them. If the winner is just lucky, maybe they should eliminate the jury phase and just pull rocks for the winner.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

inaka said:


> But he might be right. His alliance was only as good as the final three. After that, Parv would take Danielle, Danielle would take Parv to the finals. He'd be out. So he had to make the move now while he could, had immunity and could actually pull it off.


Final three is all he needs. After that, it's in the hands of the jury. I think what Russell realized is that he can't beat Parvati at the jury so he had to shake things up.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

inaka said:


> But he might be right. His alliance was only as good as the final three. After that, Parv would take Danielle, Danielle would take Parv to the finals. He'd be out. So he had to make the move now while he could, had immunity and could actually pull it off.
> 
> His best bet now is to win immunity and/or team up with Colby and Rupert, IMO. We shall see.


So he is #3 on the Rupert/Colby group now? You think Rupert would EVER take Russell to a final 2? (In his mind, a Hero must win). And I doubt Colby would either. The only slight advantage he has is that he probably has a better shot at winning Final Immunity, but Russell has never shown that he is much of a challenge threat.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

TriBruin said:


> You keep using poker analogies, but you are confusing single plays versus a tournament. You don't get to the final table with one hand, you get there by playing multiple hands and playing strongly. Certainly luck can play a part in getting you farther, but luck will NOT get you all the way to the final table.
> 
> Same thing in Survivor. Yes, luck plays a part in the game, even Russell has been lucky at times. But to discount any winner as "just lucky" is ludicrous. They put themselves in a position to win and got they jury to vote for them. If the winner is just lucky, maybe they should eliminate the jury phase and just pull rocks for the winner.


First, I'm not discounting ANY winner, I'm discounting _some_ winners, like Natalie last year. Sometimes the best player wins, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes a player catches a serious break and wins. That's why comprising "a best player ever" from only past winners is insane.

It really is similar to poker which is why the analogy fits. You could do everything right in poker all the way to the final table, go in with the best hand possible (Aces) and if someone calls you with the worst hand possible (7-2 offsuit )and you LOSE, you still made the right play. There's no way you can say they made the right play just because they won. Same with Survivor. Just because someone won, doesn't mean they made the best plays all the time, or even most of the time. It's a game based on many factors and some people slide into things (like Colby this year) even when they were _asking_ to be voted out.

So if Colby wins, he played the best this season? Hardly.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Natalie is the best player Survivor has ever seen. Think of it, she beat Russell, who, many are arguing, is the best strategic player ever. Who did Brian beat? Clay? Come on. And Richard Hatch barely beat Kelley, it was only picking a number which got him the win. Nope, to be the best, you've got to beat the best, and Natalie did that. How can anyone argue differently?


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

inaka said:


> First, I'm not discounting ANY winner, I'm discounting _some_ winners, like Natalie last year. Sometimes the best player wins, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes a player catches a serious break and wins. That's why comprising "a best player ever" from only past winners is insane.
> 
> It really is similar to poker which is why the analogy fits. You could do everything right in poker all the way to the final table, go in with the best hand possible (Aces) and if someone calls you with the worst hand possible (7-2 offsuit )and you LOSE, you still made the right play. *There's no way you can say they made the right play just because they won. *Same with Survivor. Just because someone won, doesn't mean they made the best plays all the time, or even most of the time. It's a game based on many factors and some people slide into things (like Colby this year) even when they were _asking_ to be voted out.
> 
> So if Colby wins, he played the best this season? Hardly.


Exactly. That's being results oriented.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I have faith that this jury won't be like the last...if Russell makes it to the end, I think he wins.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pmyers said:


> I have faith that this jury won't be like the last...if Russell makes it to the end, I think he wins.


Partially agree, partially disagree.

While I do think this jury will better appreciate the strategy that Russell used how in control he seemed to be, I disagree that he will win. I still think he's burned too many bridges with jury members and acted too cocky at tribal council in front of the jury.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

inaka said:


> First, I'm not discounting ANY winner, I'm discounting _some_ winners, like Natalie last year. Sometimes the best player wins, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes a player catches a serious break and wins. That's why comprising "a best player ever" from only past winners is insane.


Your conclusion does not match your first statement. I don't remember ANYONE saying that the best players are always the winners (I know I certainly didn't.)

However, IMHO, you can not be considered THE BEST player in Survivor history if have not won a season. I certainly accept that some of the top players have never one (Russell, Rob M, Rob C for example.) But winning (at least in my opinion) a HUGE factor and should be considered. If you can't win the Jury vote, your game had a hole in it. Calling the Jury vote wrong or saying the jury was bitter is a cop out. The best winners (Brian, Yul, Tom, even Richard) were able to get the votes of people they voted out.



> It really is similar to poker which is why the analogy fits. You could do everything right in poker all the way to the final table, go in with the best hand possible (Aces) and if someone calls you with the worst hand possible (7-2 offsuit )and you LOSE, you still made the right play. There's no way you can say they made the right play just because they won. Same with Survivor. Just because someone won, doesn't mean they made the best plays all the time, or even most of the time. It's a game based on many factors and some people slide into things (like Colby this year) even when they were _asking_ to be voted out.


Again, you are focusing on ONE HAND of poker. Unless you believe that the person sitting at the final table had one of helluva streak of luck, he must have made some very good plays during the tournament. Do you honestly believe a person who makes the WRONG decision every time can get lucky enough to win the tournament?



> So if Colby wins, he played the best this season? Hardly.


No, never said I would. I never said the best player wins every season. But I also wont say his win was "lucky" either. Luck is only a small part of this game. You don't get to the end on luck.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

pmyers said:


> I have faith that this jury won't be like the last...if Russell makes it to the end, I think he wins.


I think it is kind of naive to assume that just because the jury is made of multiple season players that they will automatically vote for the most strategic person. Look what happened in the original All-Star season. Rob M was the obvious mastermind, but some on the jury (Lex) could not look past their feelings and voted for Amber.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

bryhamm said:


> But the word lead is incorrect here and is my point. Lead implies that she did something. Substitute Natalie for a box of rocks. Same result in that the box of rocks won because the jury didn't want to give Russell his vote, but the box of rocks didn't do anything to get the win.


what I am reading here is that Russell is worse at survivor than a box of rocks.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

I just have a fundamental different view of this than some of you. It is hard for me to express it. The jury is never wrong or never rewards people for the wrong reasons. The jury defines who the best player is and it is impossible to see except in retrospect. I can't explain it very well but this is all very fundamental to me. Losing the jury vote is never the same as having statistically strong poker hand and losing to luck. Moments in survivor aren't repeatable defineable events with odds. They are slices of time that happen once only and if you didn't win you weren't the best.


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

TriBruin said:


> Again, you are focusing on ONE HAND of poker. Unless you believe that the person sitting at the final table had one of helluva streak of luck, he must have made some very good plays during the tournament. Do you honestly believe a person who makes the WRONG decision every time can get lucky enough to win the tournament?


Of course I'm focusing on one hand of poker, because it only takes one hand to knock you out of the event completely. Just like it takes one tribal council move to knock someone out of Survivor. If Russell didn't give Parv the idol way back when, and it backfired, then he could have been gone. It was the perfect move and a risky one. Russell also played along with the other side, took their idol and "swore on his children" that he was telling the truth to make them believe him. It worked again. He then thought that Danielle and Parv were closer than people thought and he wouldn't beat them in the final three so he wanted Danielle gone. It worked again, and so on.

Again, if Colby wins it all, has he made similar moves risky moves that paid off yet? Nope. Did he roll over and give up at one point, even though James was hurt and went home? Yup. If Colby wins, did he play the game better than Russell, Parv or Sandra this year? Heck no.

I'm not using absolutes and saying that the person who won made the "WRONG decision every time". I'm saying that there are times when someone else clearly made more correct moves that worked, and they still didn't win. So limiting the "best ever" to simply those who have won in the past is insane to me, but hey, to each his own.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

stalemate said:


> I just have a fundamental different view of this than some of you. It is hard for me to express it. The jury is never wrong or never rewards people for the wrong reasons. The jury defines who the best player is and it is impossible to see except in retrospect. I can't explain it very well but this is all very fundamental to me. Losing the jury vote is never the same as having statistically strong poker hand and losing to luck. Moments in survivor aren't repeatable defineable events with odds. They are slices of time that happen once only and if you didn't win you weren't the best.


I just remembered something from last season's Tribal Council that I think was a very valid point at the time.

One of the juror members (I don't remember who) made the point that why was Natalie's strategy less valid than Russell's?

Look at some of the winning strategies that have won Survivor:

Richard - Make an alliance, stick with it to the end.

Brian H - Make multiple alliances, discard alliance as not needed.

Sandra - "Anyone but me"

Tom W - Dominate both Challenges and be the leader in the tribe

Natalie - Hook up with a strong player and let him take the heat for decisions.

Ask almost any Survivor fan and Richard, Brian , and Tom will generally be brought up and some of the best players. Sandra & Natalie will be called "lucky to win." But their strategy won them the same million dollars Richard, Brian, and Tom won. Who are we to say their strategy was wrong?


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

We see the game differently. Big deal. No one is right or wrong here. The whole discussion is subjective from the start. 

Kind of getting tired of being called insane though.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

stalemate said:


> We see the game differently. Big deal. No one is right or wrong here. The whole discussion is subjective from the start.


It's not subjective. You just don't understand a rather subtle but powerful concept (that concept being that the best player won't necessarily win, not that Russell is a good or bad player.) Not trying to be rude, but that's a fact.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Fool Me Twice said:


> It's not subjective. You just don't understand a rather subtle but powerful concept (that concept being that the best player won't necessarily win, not that Russell is a good or bad player.) Not trying to be rude, but that's a fact.


I think you are taking an extremely simple and narrow view of the game.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Fool Me Twice said:


> It's not subjective.


And seriously? A discussion about who is the "best player" isn't subjective? You have to be joking.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

stalemate said:


> The winner did the most right things. Or at least the best things or the least wrong things.


Balderdash. The winner has to do only one thing right. Last. In her first try Sandra was invisible and did nothing to win except hide. Same for vecepia. I'll never be convinced that either was the best player of their seasons.

I'll entertain the discussion of whether russell is the best ever but winning isn't , or shouldn't be a criteria. Btw, the answer us Richard Hatch cause everyone since has played his game.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

Fool Me Twice said:


> It's not subjective. You just don't understand a rather subtle but powerful concept (that concept being that the best player won't necessarily win, not that Russell is a good or bad player.) Not trying to be rude, but that's a fact.


If it is not subjective, please provide a list of OBJECTIVE criteria to judge the "best" player on.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

stalemate said:


> And seriously? A discussion about who is the "best player" isn't subjective? You have to be joking.


Understand that there are at least two arguments here. One is whether or not players who do not win can be considered the best. The other is who is the best player. I've not entered into the second argument (though others have obviously), though the first argument effects the second.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> The winner has to do only one thing right. Last.


To last is *the* only point. There is nothing else. The rest is irrelevant. There is nothing else that can be done correctly or incorrectly. The other things are just steps along the way or ingredients in the recipe of lasting. To last longer is to do the right thing.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

TriBruin said:


> If it is not subjective, please provide a list of OBJECTIVE criteria to judge the "best" player on.


I think we're getting somewhere, see the above post.
Edit: See the post above the above post. Damn you, Stalemate, you're quick!


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

stalemate said:


> To last is *the* only point. There is nothing else. The rest is irrelevant. There is nothing else that can be done correctly or incorrectly. The other things are just steps along the way or ingredients in the recipe of lasting. To last longer is to do the right thing.


If you don't see it this way you aren't right or wrong. But it does explain this entire discussion I think.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

stalemate said:


> I think you are taking an extremely simple and narrow view of the game.


Who is being narrow minded?

Best player doesn't mean best winner. History is full of competitions where better player did not win. By your definition Tiger Woods would win all contests. He is , for now, still the best player and yet, even he, wins less than one fourth of his entries.

Winning requires a lot of stuff in Survivor but the final vote is not about being the best. It's about winning the final vote and nothing else.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

stalemate said:


> To last longer is to do the right thing.


This is a common argument at poker tables, and why the poker analogy is useful. The error (as mentioned above) is called results-oriented thinking.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Who is being narrow minded?
> 
> Best player doesn't mean best winner.


Remember two discussion: (1) Is the best player of the season the winner and (2) can the BEST player of all time be someone who has never won?



> By your definition Tiger Woods would win all contests. He is , for now, still the best player and yet, even he, wins less than one fourth of his entries.


No one said you have to win everytime to be considered the best player, but would we still consider Tiger the best if he NEVER won a tournament? Doubtful.

Also remember, a player only get one or two (or a very rare three) chances to win survivor. Tiger plays in many tournaments a year. He is not expected to win everytime.



> Winning requires a lot of stuff in Survivor but the final vote is not about being the best. It's about winning the final vote and nothing else.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

Fool Me Twice said:


> This is a common argument at poker tables, and why the poker analogy is useful. The error (as mentioned above) is called results-oriented thinking.


I am going to try this philosophy at my work. It's not the results that matter, just how they feel about me. Wanna bet how well that works out?


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

TriBruin said:


> I am going to try this philosophy at my work. It's not the results that matter, just how they feel about me. Wanna bet how well that works out?


Feel? You're not even trying to understand.


----------



## stalemate (Aug 21, 2005)

Fool Me Twice said:


> This is a common argument at poker tables, and why the poker analogy is useful. The error (as mentioned above) is called results-oriented thinking.


the whole point if survivor is to last. The rest is fluff. I do not see it as being the same as poker. There is no right move except the one that brings about lasting. There are no odds. It is a one time event that is never repeated. It is not the sane as having a poker hand with an established right way to play the odds.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

stalemate said:


> It is not the same as having a poker hand with an established right way to play the odds.


You rarely have exact odds in poker. It's a game of incomplete information (you don't know your opponents cards), unlike chess, for example, where the best player wins every time.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

stalemate said:


> There are no odds. It is a one time event that is never repeated.


Win you understand why this is wrong, you will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Fool Me Twice said:


> ...unlike chess, for example, where the best player wins every time.


No, they don't.


----------



## IamMBS (Jul 14, 2002)

I believe the only way to definitively determine who is the best player is to put it to a vote. Not a jury vote, but a vote determined by viewers (us). Having a large sampling of voters would account for all the different theories as to what constitutes being the "best" player.

I think it would be interesting for someone to put together a poll. The poll could consist of two rounds. 

1st Round - Nominations
Viewers could nominate the player they think is a candidate for being the best player. Once a player has been nominated by a few (3-5) voters, they would be added to the poll.

2nd Round - Actual Poll
Viewers would vote based on a Poll of all players that made it past the Nomination round. The player with the highest percentage of votes is deemed the "best" player.

Does anyone think this would be interesting? Has anyone seen a poll to determine who is the best? Is anyone willing to host (or put together) a poll like this?


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

Fool Me Twice said:


> ...unlike chess, for example, where the best player wins every time.





latrobe7 said:


> No, they don't.


Fine. Unlike chess, for example, where the person who plays the best game wins every time.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Fine. Unlike chess, for example, where the person who plays the best game wins every time.


That's better.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Here's a pretty good discussion from another forum regarding "best Survivor contestant ever."


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

There are other forums?


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

I still think Natalie is the best, and nobody has tried to disprove me.


----------



## martinp13 (Mar 19, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Partially agree, partially disagree.
> 
> While I do think this jury will better appreciate the strategy that Russell used how in control he seemed to be, I disagree that he will win. I still think he's burned too many bridges with jury members and acted too cocky at tribal council in front of the jury.


I think in this season we are finally seeing why Russell didn't win last season. He got such a favorable edit last time that we were dumbfounded when he didn't win in a landslide (and didn't win at all!). He truly has no idea how to play the social game. He and Parvati are so alike in their game skills, but she has people skills while Russell resorts to bullying.

Unfortunately, he had to play two seasons of Survivor without knowing how either one would ultimately end.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Feel? You're not even trying to understand.


OK, once I again I ask the question:

How do you OBJECTIVELY measure the best player? You say winning doesn't matter, so how do you measure it?


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

IamMBS said:


> I believe the only way to definitively determine who is the best player is to put it to a vote. Not a jury vote, but a vote determined by viewers (us). Having a large sampling of voters would account for all the different theories as to what constitutes being the "best" player.
> 
> I think it would be interesting for someone to put together a poll. The poll could consist of two rounds.
> 
> ...


This would be worse. We only know what they show us.


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

TriBruin said:


> OK, once I again I ask the question:
> 
> How do you OBJECTIVELY measure the best player? You say winning doesn't matter, so how do you measure it?


You don't. There is no set criteria for doing so.

It's like saying who is the greatest basketball player of all time. Some will say Chamberlain. Some will say Russell. Some will say Jordan. Some will say Oscar. But there is no way to actually measure it and come with with a "right" answer. It depends on what you use for criteria in your own mind. Obviously some people here think winning is one of the criteria that must be used. Others, myself included, do not.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

bryhamm said:


> You don't. There is no set criteria for doing so.


That's right, it's a subjective conversation; I think that was his point.



> It's like saying who is the greatest basketball player of all time. Some will say Chamberlain. Some will say Russell. Some will say Jordan. Some will say Oscar. But there is no way to actually measure it and come with with a "right" answer. It depends on what you use for criteria in your own mind. Obviously some people here think winning is one of the criteria that must be used. Others, myself included, do not.


While there is not 'right' answer, there is general consensus - most people would say Jordan or Chamberlain - and all those players you list did win. So, who would be in the discussion of best basketball player ever, but never won?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

TriBruin said:


> I would also argue that getting rid of Danielle now was a very STUPID move that was motivated more by Russell's ego than any strategic play.


According to Danielle, she and Pavarti were actively planning on eliminating Russell:I think he knew me and Parvati had a really tight alliance and were going to get him voted off next. That was the plan. Me, Parvati and Sandra spoke about it, right before we went to Tribal Council, that we needed to get Russell offnow was the time. I think he sensed that.​Doesn't seem so stupid now, does it?


----------



## bryhamm (Jun 30, 2004)

Amnesia said:


> According to Danielle, she and Pavarti were actively planning on eliminating Russell:I think he knew me and Parvati had a really tight alliance and were going to get him voted off next. That was the plan. Me, Parvati and Sandra spoke about it, right before we went to Tribal Council, that we needed to get Russell offnow was the time. I think he sensed that.​Doesn't seem so stupid now, does it?


wow


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

Wow - this thread is the equivalent of having a TiVo and being able to FF through all the "Best Survivor ever argument" drivel! Objective, subjective, whatever - with more than three people involved any such discussion, you're never going to have everyone agree on a single "Best" no matter what criteria you use.

Five pages and not one mention of Danielle completely losing her bikini bottom when her tank spilled?!? Another great argument for an uncensored version on DVD!


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Even more funny was Jeri (?) laughing at her about it.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

martinp13 said:


> I think in this season we are finally seeing why Russell didn't win last season. He got such a favorable edit last time that we were dumbfounded when he didn't win in a landslide (and didn't win at all!). He truly has no idea how to play the social game. He and Parvati are so alike in their game skills, but she has people skills while Russell resorts to bullying.
> 
> Unfortunately, he had to play two seasons of Survivor without knowing how either one would ultimately end.


I'm not sure how he and Parvati are alike in their game skills. She does it with flirting, innuendo, innocent little girl vibe and he seems to will people to do what he wants. Not to mention last years ridiculous run at HIIs. She works what she has well, but he has to work harder for the same result. Guys are dumb when a flirty girl starts working on them.

The problem with Russell's plan this show was that he could have had the same result if he had just talked to the Heroes to get them to vote Danielle and swayed Jerri without having Parvati and Danielle even know about it. A true silent blindside of Danielle.

Frank


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

Amnesia said:


> According to Danielle, she and Pavarti were actively planning on eliminating Russell:I think he knew me and Parvati had a really tight alliance and were going to get him voted off next. That was the plan. Me, Parvati and Sandra spoke about it, right before we went to Tribal Council, that we needed to get Russell offnow was the time. I think he sensed that.​Doesn't seem so stupid now, does it?


Not stupid, but maybe calculated with Parvati's support?

Did anyone this season hear Parvati say we need to vote Russell out?

This is copied from a poster at the CBS foru. Take it for what it's worth:

*Parvati and Russell with the help of a CBS staffer cheated a bit and it ended up having a pretty big influence on the game. On a separate note Russell is not really a millionaire and actually lived in a mobile home. There's no proof CBS actively or knowingly played a part in any of this but they know now and have been trying to cover all of it it up. Several players know about the cheating as do a few reporters who have been tracking these stories.

During Samoa filming Parvati and Survivor casting director Erika Shay who are friends vacationed on the island together. http://junketdrawer.com/surviv
or20/ParvatiErika.jpg Parvati got info from her friend Shay on Russell and subsequently Parvati and Russell had an alliance before S20 even started filming. Shay was in the doghouse but is now back to work. She helped find the new super star Russell so a little cheating is being over looked because it all made for exciting tv.

Sugar outright accused her but the interview was cut off by CBS at that point.

On Russell and what anybody knew before the season started:
Certain people might have inside people who might know more about what's really going on and they're best friends with people... It's life, it's "Survivor," it's Hollywood. People did know certain things [ coughsParvaticoughs ].
That's exactly who I was thinking of. She made some comments in an interview during the show that seemed like she knew more about Russell --
Yeah. Well, all they told us, the common players, was that Russell was on the last season, he obviously did something important or big enough for them to bring him back and when he was placed on the Villains team we knew he was a villain and probably went really far in the game. But some other people maybe knew some things... [ At this point, the interview is cut off by CBS ]

http://blog.zap2it.com/fromins
idethebox/2010/02/survivor-he r o-jessica-sugar-kiper-on-the- c olby-flirtation-inside-russel l -info.html

EDIT:Someone forwarded me the following recently.

Reality TV World: There's been a lot of speculation and rumors that Parvati somehow knew something about Russell or maybe had some kind of interaction with him before Heroes vs. Villains was filmed [even though his
Samoa season hadn't aired yet] Given you were their ally, are you aware of anything like that?
Candice Woodcock : Can't answer that
Danielle DiLorenzo : We can't answer that.
Reality TV World: Okay, everyone else [I've asked about it so far] has, but that's fine.
Candice Woodcock : Well, we're not.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: After the interview, a CBS spokesperson insisted the network did not tell Candice and Danielle they could not answer such questions. "It's not that they can't answer, it's that they didn't want to answer," he said.]

Page will just not accept this link so if you want to see it gotta cut and paste.

http://www.realitytvworld.com/
news/exclusive-danielle-dilor e nzo-talks-about-survivor-hero e s-vs-villains--10909.php

Russell has hinted in interviews that he went in expecting to be in an alliance with Parvati and Danielle.

The two principal sources for the S20 spoilers were originally Survivor Sucks posters missyae (who some say is Russell's wife but I have seen no proof of that altho his wife has posted spoilers on Facebook like that she visited him on HvV ergo he made final 6 in HvV) and survivrcruz. They were posting correct details as far back as October I believe and have been proven to be about 80 or 90% accurate. They indicated that Shay tried to take credit for discovering Russell, she and Russell became tight and Parvati is or was Shay's bff. SS poster missyae, said Parvati got filled in on Russell's gameplay in S19 and Parvati and Russell 'hooked up' (meaning formed an alliance) before S20 even started filming and that Russell bragged about this, other players know about it and are prohibited by CBS from talking about it.

Amanda said the game was not 'pure' anymore, she'd never play again, something really messed up happened but she is not allowed to talk about it.

tvwatch.people.com/2010/05/03/
survivor-amanda-kimmel-heroes - villains-russell-hatch/*


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Hugh, you are way out of line posting all that here. At the least you should Spoiler it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Wow, I wish I would have looked who the poster was before I read that. Had I known it was hughmcjr, I would have completely skipped it. He's been nothing but a sore loser this entire season in the Survivor threads, because he doesn't like Russell. Dude, get over it. Either watch and enjoy, or don't watch. But don't watch and get your panties in a bunch and then come here and think we're going to help you unstick your snuggie.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> Hugh, you are way out of line posting all that here. At the least you should Spoiler it.


The only part that is a spoiler is 


Spoiler



who some say is Russell's wife but I have seen no proof of that altho his wife has posted spoilers on Facebook like that she visited him on HvV ergo he made final 6 in HvV


.

The rest is all just speculation and irrelevant.


----------



## hughmcjr (Nov 27, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Wow, I wish I would have looked who the poster was before I read that. Had I known it was hughmcjr, I would have completely skipped it. He's been nothing but a sore loser this entire season in the Survivor threads, because he doesn't like Russell. Dude, get over it. Either watch and *enjoy, or don't watch*. But don't watch and get your panties in a bunch and then come here and think we're going to help you unstick your snuggie.


don't tell me what to do, you can ask...

Watch and enjoy or don't watch? ok, I got it. All or nothing. 

And the best you can do is make a personal comment/attack? Funny in my post, I don't recall mentioning you or anyone's name. Second and more important, you are completely wrong. Why? I don't hate Russell and I am no more a sore loser than Russell or the fans who claim he is the best and should have won. Talk about sore losers. Put it where it counts. I don't like the way he plays or his arrogance and ego, but I don't hate him. I can separate and I am not an all or nothing person. I dislike the way CBS promotes and edits things in his favor and yes I do get disgusted when people fall all over someone who has been promoted in such a way as to suck the gullible into believing it is a completely real reality show.

And as a regular poster on forums you should know not to read into or assume anything. So thinking I am getting angry and excited and panties in bunch, is so far from reality. I watch, comment and don't get into some emotional tirade.

from your post I highlighted in red, again fine for you, but I don't watch with ignorant bliss and say if it upsets me or I don't like it or parts of it I shouldn't watch. If I did that there are a lot of movies, tv shows and other entertainment that I would never watch or listen to. 

PLease, before you comment on something you didn't like to see, which is what your post is really about, and the fact you admit you don't like my posting, at least have the decency to be accurate when making claims or attacks.

I don't make any personal attacks or mention you or others in my posting with condescending or negative comments. I would appreciate the same. Let's move on.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

hughmcjr said:


> So thinking I am getting angry and excited and panties in bunch, is so far from reality. I watch, comment and don't get into some emotional tirade.


Dude, your panties are so bunched that they can be seen from space.

I think you should read the sticky at the top of the forum page regarding posting content from other sources and thread crapping.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

stalemate said:


> I am going to ignore the poker analogy for now because I don't know anything about it and can't speak to it much at all.
> 
> I think we'll never agree on survivor because I think you put quite a bit of value on things that to me range from (at best) a setup for the primary goal of the game to (at worst) a distraction from the primary point of the game. Russell is a great example. Some people think he's great because of all these moves he is making. I think some of these moves could end up being his flaw in the long run. There is no way I can say these moves he is making mean he is the greatest player ever if I end up thinking they are the very moves that cost him the game. To me, there is 1 goal of playing survivor. To win. If you aren't winning it you ultimately are not the best.
> 
> In fact, is is almost hard for me to even have a concept of who is a "great player" or the "best player" in general (I mean, looking across seasons) because I think so much of being good is situation dependent and does not necessarily translate from one season to the next or from one group of people to the next. It is too complicated and dependent on the social dynamic.


How about a football analogy then.

Dan Marino vs. Trent Dilfer.

Make the argument that Trent Dilfer is the best QB between those two...


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

heySkippy said:


> It's hilarious to me that any of us think we're qualified to say something like that.


Because Jeff says so himself?


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

latrobe7 said:


> While being a previous winner doesn't automatically get in the "best" conversation; how can you possibly rank someone who lost while controlling the game almost the entire way over someone who controlled it the entire way through and won? On what basis could you put, say, Russell, over say, Yul or Brian? Or even above someone like Colby (until this season), who ran the game, but then choose to come in second; or Ozzie who would have won if not for being on the same season as Yul?


Colby wasn't running Australia. Tina was. Colby was #2 in the Tina, Colby, Keith alliance. Everyone on that tribe (and alliance) said so during the CBS Early Show (exit) interviews.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

bareyb said:


> This. Even if he doesn't win, he's still the best "character" the show has ever had. Without Russell the last two seasons would not have been nearly as fun to watch. Like him or hate him, Russell makes good TV. Sort of the Antithesis of Sandra, who goes out of her way to make BAD TV. You can put Russell into any future "All Star" type Survivor as far as I'm concerned. If I never see Sandra again, it will be too soon.


You're forgetting about Coach. I'd say that Coach is a better "character" than Russell - though only by an extremely slim margin.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

latrobe7 said:


> Bob, Parvatti, Yul, Brian, Tom, even Chris from Vanuatu... all winners, all better than Russell - if you don't think so, why not? JT blew it this season and Colby is a shadow of his former self, but they both played better than Russell in their first time out; I think Ozzie was a better player, as well...


I notice that you did not put Vecepia on that list there... She's a winner. Because of that, is she better Survivor player than Russell? (I have a feeling I know what the answer will be)


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

pmyers said:


> I have faith that this jury won't be like the last...if Russell makes it to the end, I think he wins.





DevdogAZ said:


> Partially agree, partially disagree.
> 
> While I do think this jury will better appreciate the strategy that Russell used how in control he seemed to be, I disagree that he will win. I still think he's burned too many bridges with jury members and acted too cocky at tribal council in front of the jury.


This.

I don't think that this particular group of players is all that worried about being lied to - they actually recognize it as being part of the game. The difference is, I think that they'll take offense with the manner Russell did so and openly castigate him for not playing a better social side. I think that they are big enough to understand and praise his strategic decisions and moves, but they'll also be quick to point out that is only one aspect of the game and I believe this jury will award that player who did the most with all aspects of the game rather than just excelling at one.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

late to the party but...

anyone also almost barf watching Parv sitting at tribal council like the Queen of Sheba while Russell and Danielle fought over who loved her more (and who was closer to her)?

if Parv wins this season, I don't know if I'll be able to hold any food down for weeks...


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Necromancer2006 said:


> I notice that you did not put Vecepia on that list there... She's a winner. Because of that, is she better Survivor player than Russell? (I have a feeling I know what the answer will be)


I don't think anyone said _every_ winner is a better player than every loser; I know I certainly didn't.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Necromancer2006 said:


> Colby wasn't running Australia. Tina was. Colby was #2 in the Tina, Colby, Keith alliance. Everyone on that tribe (and alliance) said so during the CBS Early Show (exit) interviews.


OK... so you can replace Colby on that list with Tina, then...


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Damn, I really do want to know what Amanda knows (that soured her from Survivor forever).


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Most all of the All-Star Survivor players have pre-existing relationships with each other eather from the show or from getting to know each other post-show.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

pmyers said:


> Most all of the All-Star Survivor players have pre-existing relationships with each other eather from the show or from getting to know each other post-show.


Russell, on the other hand, would not have had that kind of "luxury" since he went straight from the end of his season straight into Heroes Vs. Villains.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

uncdrew said:


> Damn, I really do want to know what Amanda knows (that soured her from Survivor forever).


Me too. Unfortunately, she's probably already said more than she should have, and I'm sure CBS's lawyers have reminded her about the $5 million penalty for breaching her non-disclosure agreement.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

uncdrew said:


> Damn, I really do want to know what Amanda knows (that soured her from Survivor forever).


Where did you hear that? Or did I miss it in the five page who's a playa argument?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Where did you hear that? Or did I miss it in the five page who's a playa argument?


It's comments like these that he's talking about:


Spoiler



http://www.fansofrealitytv.com/forums/survivor-heroes-vs-villains/86327-survivor-interview-amanda-i-would-have-ripped-thing-shreds.html
You made a comment last night that you were glad to be gone. Did you lose your fight in this game?

Yeah, I had a hard time getting really into it because of a lot of different things that I dont want to go into. But it was really hard for me to put my heart and soul into this season.

Did that have to do with James?

It was a multitude of things, it was...a lot of different things. Let me put it that way. A lot of things I cant discuss.


and


Spoiler



http://tvwatch.people.com/2010/05/03/survivor-amanda-kimmel-heroes-villains-russell-hatch/?xid=rss-topheadlines&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+people%2Fheadlines+%28PEOPLE.com%3A+Top+Headlines%29
Your fire seemed to have gone out long before Jeff snuffed your torch. Had you given up?
For sure. Because of certain things that happened that I wont discuss I wasnt passionate about the game anymore.

If your buddy James had stayed, would it have made a difference?
Maybe. He was the one person that I was like, If I have to be here, at least Im here with him. But there were still things that happened that made me not want to play anymore.

Would you play again?
I will never play Survivor again. Russell has changed the game in a way Im not interested in either. The show isnt pure on any level anymore. When I left, I said, Good riddance. I was glad to be done with him.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> It's comments like these that he's talking about:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


She's free to have an opinion but her real beef is with the HII, it completely changes the way the game HAS to be played.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> She's free to have an opinion but her real beef is with the HII, it completely changes the way the game HAS to be played.


I am not sure how you can be so confident about what Amanda is implying? Do you have more information than the rest of us? There have always been rumors, going all the way back to S1 and Richard Hatch, that the producers have "encouraged" certain votes and helped people stay in the game. It may just be smoke, but I have to wonder if there is fire behind the smoke.

IMHO though, Russell has changed the game and not for the better. I remember when I would root for the good guys (Tom, Yul, even Rupert). Now the favorite player is someone who will sabatoge his own tribe and out and out bully his tribemates.

I only hope that Russell is a two time shot only. If the producers start to look for the new "Russell" every season I am not sure I will want to watch anymore.


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> Where did you hear that? Or did I miss it in the five page who's a playa argument?


I take it that it is the info in post #227 above, relating to Russell and Parv.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

TriBruin said:


> ...IMHO though, Russell has changed the game and not for the better. I remember when I would root for the good guys (Tom, Yul, even Rupert). Now the favorite player is someone who will sabatoge his own tribe and out and out bully his tribemates...


I root for good "players". Sometimes that the good guys and sometimes its not.


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

Plus, if people see that Russel's behavior doesn't win the game they would be stupid to use the same strategy.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Necromancer2006 said:


> I notice that you did not put Vecepia on that list there... She's a winner. Because of that, is she better Survivor player than Russell? (I have a feeling I know what the answer will be)


No one thinks Vecepia is better than Russell. Even if you think like me that the winner is the best player each season (or played the best game if that distinction helps), there is just no way to compare across seasons. Vecepia is a better player or at least played a better game than Kathy, Neleh, Paschal, Sean, etc. (Yes even Rob M., a 10th place finish doesn't put him in the discussion of best ever, and he wouldn't be in that discussion at all if not for all-stars)


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

My opinion is Russell will inspire a new type of player who will try to meld his tactics with a more social game. It will be a good thing.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

IJustLikeTivo said:


> She's free to have an opinion but her real beef is with the HII, it completely changes the way the game HAS to be played.


You did miss several posts.

It was implied that some Survivor employee is best friends with Parvati and told her all about Russell and his season, and even hooked the two up prior to filming of this season.

Sounds like there's a lot of things going on that would upset someone like Amanda, and I agree with her.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

uncdrew said:


> ...Sounds like there's a lot of things going on that would upset someone like Amanda, and I agree with her.


I don't really buy that. How could that bond be stronger than her and James. Almost everyone of these players know each other outside of this game. I'ts no different.


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

pmyers said:


> I don't really buy that. How could that bond be stronger than her and James. Almost everyone of these players know each other outside of this game. I'ts no different.


Yeah, but you sense and expect the partnership alliances of people who knew each other from being on the same season together. Parvati getting exclusive non-game time to set up an alliance with Russell is different.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

uncdrew said:


> You did miss several posts.
> 
> It was implied that some Survivor employee is best friends with Parvati and told her all about Russell and his season, and even hooked the two up prior to filming of this season.
> 
> Sounds like there's a lot of things going on that would upset someone like Amanda, and I agree with her.


I read them but it was clear that this was the reason she was upset. If ANY of that is true it really changes what is happening. To the point where it invalidates what is happening completely. Anyone having ex parte knowledge of the game is just too much of an advantage. It would explain how Parvati allied with Russell so quickly.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

TriBruin said:


> I only hope that Russell is a two time shot only. If the producers start to look for the new "Russell" every season I am not sure I will want to watch anymore.


No, you still need to look for a Russell. You pick a variety of personality types like always, including a "Russell," and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

uncdrew said:


> You did miss several posts.
> 
> It was implied that some Survivor employee is best friends with Parvati and told her all about Russell and his season, and even hooked the two up prior to filming of this season.
> 
> Sounds like there's a lot of things going on that would upset someone like Amanda, and I agree with her.


I question the hooking the two up prior to the current season. Russell only got two weeks off between the end of his filming and the start of Heroes vs. Villains. Perhaps information was shared, but actually getting them together so they could form some kind of strong pre-tape relationship/alliance is unlikely.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

How many episodes are left? Is it just Thursday and then the finale/reunion on Sunday?


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

gweempose said:


> Is it just Thursday and then the finale/reunion on Sunday?


Yup.


----------



## TomK (May 22, 2001)

Were the other Survivors told anything about Russell before S20 started filming?

I really don't mind if Parvati was told about Russell before S20 was filmed. He shouldn't be at a disadvantage for forming alliances, etc. because he is unknown to the others. Also, he shouldn't have an advantage over everyone else because they don't know his true nature (a la J.T. and the HII).


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

Necromancer2006 said:


> I question the hooking the two up prior to the current season. Russell only got two weeks off between the end of his filming and the start of Heroes vs. Villains. Perhaps information was shared, but actually getting them together so they could form some kind of strong pre-tape relationship/alliance is unlikely.


I dunno, all it takes is getting them to the same airport for a 1 hour layover on their way to the island.

We'll never know I suppose...


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

gweempose said:


> How many episodes are left? Is it just Thursday and then the finale/reunion on Sunday?


How does that work?

Aren't there like 6 people left (at least)? How many gets cut tonight?


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

TomK said:


> Were the other Survivors told anything about Russell before S20 started filming?


I believe they were all told (Heroes and Villains alike) that he was selected to be one of the top 5 male Villains of all time out of all the Villains available and they should read into that what they will.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

uncdrew said:


> How does that work?
> 
> Aren't there like 6 people left (at least)? How many gets cut tonight?


Parvati
Sandra
Jerri
Russell
Colby
Rupert

Thursday night, 1 should get sent home. Sunday, it will have to be two people going home to make it 3 before the final tribal council. I just don't see them voting out 3 people before a final tribal on Sunday. Seems like there just wouldn't be enough time.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

uncdrew said:


> I dunno, all it takes is getting them to the same airport for a 1 hour layover on their way to the island.
> 
> We'll never know I suppose...


The contestants are directed to not talk until given permission to do so and are kept sequestered during the day or two leading up to their departure from LA. Sure, it could happen, but I find it highly suspect.


----------



## TomK (May 22, 2001)

uncdrew said:


> How does that work?
> 
> Aren't there like 6 people left (at least)? How many gets cut tonight?


Thursday (one hour) - one survivor is voted off, five are left
Sunday (two hours) - two survivors are voted off, leaving three, then the final tribal council is held and the jury decides the winner.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I found this very strange...in the interview with Amanda (linked to, above)



> Q. After you got back from the reward challenge, did you try to follow Danielle around to see if she was looking for the immunity idol?
> 
> A. We actually put Rupert on it, because everyone was watching me. So Rupert was trying to follow her.
> 
> ...


WTF? they talk about stuff that happened that was not shown all the time during these interviews! where did that come from? something really strange is going in this season...I don't like it...I don't like it one bit...


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

TomK said:


> Thursday (one hour) - one survivor is voted off, five are left
> Sunday (two hours) - two survivors are voted off, leaving three, then the final tribal council is held and the jury decides the winner.


This is supposition, though. For all we know, four could get voted off on Thursday.


----------



## TomK (May 22, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> This is supposition, though. For all we know, four could get voted off on Thursday.


For sure, I assumed they will have a three person finale but I could be wrong.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I'm going to be sad to see this season end. It's really been a delight to watch. Say what you will about Russel, but he has upped the entertainment quotient big time. These last two seasons have been among the best ever, and I fear that it will be a long time before we see something like this again.


----------



## ibergu (May 9, 2004)

I think I read somewhere that Russell has signed up to be a perpetual contestant of the show. He'll become the "sole survivor" by hook or by crook.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Anubys said:


> I found this very strange...in the interview with Amanda (linked to, above)
> 
> WTF? they talk about stuff that happened that was not shown all the time during these interviews! where did that come from? something really strange is going in this season...I don't like it...I don't like it one bit...


There was another interview with Candice and Danielle where they claimed they couldn't answer something either. There was definitely some strange stuff going on behind the scenes with this season.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> There was definitely some strange stuff going on behind the scenes with this season.


I think it would be absolutely fascinating to know exactly what goes on behind the scenes of the show. There are just so many things I have always wondered about. For example, does CBS pay some of these top names to return for a second or third time? I'm assuming they do. I really think most viewers would be shocked by all the manipulation that is done by the producers. How great would it be if someone who has logged a lot of game time like Parvati or Rupert wrote a tell-all book? Sadly, this is unlikely to happen due to the NDAs, but one can dream.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

gweempose said:


> I think it would be absolutely fascinating to know exactly what goes on behind the scenes of the show. There are just so many things I have always wondered about. For example, does CBS pay some of these top names to return for a second or third time? I'm assuming they do. I really think most viewers would be shocked by all the manipulation that is done by the producers. How great would it be if someone who has logged a lot of game time like Parvati or Rupert wrote a tell-all book? Sadly, this is unlikely to happen due to the NDAs, but one can dream.


well, the NDA carries a $5 million penalty...if a publisher is brave enough, maybe they can take that hit...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

After the first season, there was a lawsuit, and some of the contestants were deposed. I remember reading the deposition of Dirk Been and there were some very interesting allegations in there. I chalked it up to the producers being new at this and not understanding how to let the dynamic play out. I'd think that after 20 seasons, they'd know to keep their hands off and just let it happen. But maybe I'm being naive, and maybe the producers have been meddling ever since.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> After the first season, there was a lawsuit, and some of the contestants were deposed. I remember reading the deposition of Dirk Been and there were some very interesting allegations in there. I chalked it up to the producers being new at this and not understanding how to let the dynamic play out. I'd think that after 20 seasons, they'd know to keep their hands off and just let it happen. But maybe I'm being naive, and maybe the producers have been meddling ever since.


Based upon what has been said by Big Brother contestants, I wouldn't be surprised if similar things are happening in Survivor. It doesn't even have to be direct malipulation, it could be a subtle as ensuring the contestants are given alternate scenarios to consider.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'd think that after 20 seasons, they'd know to keep their hands off and just let it happen. But maybe I'm being naive, and maybe the producers have been meddling ever since.


My guess is that they have significantly changed the terms of the contract since those early days, and it is now perfectly within their legal rights to meddle any way they want.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> After the first season, there was a lawsuit, and some of the contestants were deposed. I remember reading the deposition of Dirk Been and there were some very interesting allegations in there. I chalked it up to the producers being new at this and not understanding how to let the dynamic play out. I'd think that after 20 seasons, they'd know to keep their hands off and just let it happen.


There has to be some "meddling" even if it is just "recreating" a challenge so it looks better on TV. (For example, I remember one during Survivor Outback where the players had to find five objects and bring them all back to the host, and the one who looked like he was going to win dropped one somewhere - and the cameraman that was following him "just happened" to focus on the object laying on the ground.)

-- Don


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

That Don Guy said:


> There has to be some "meddling" even if it is just "recreating" a challenge so it looks better on TV. (For example, I remember one during Survivor Outback where the players had to find five objects and bring them all back to the host, and the one who looked like he was going to win dropped one somewhere - and the cameraman that was following him "just happened" to focus on the object laying on the ground.)
> 
> -- Don


I've got no problem with recreating scenes. I never understood why there was such an outcry about this back when Burnett disclosed it. What I'm talking about is what was discussed in Dirk Been's deposition, where he said that Mark Burnett recommended that he not vote for Rudy, and instead vote for Stacy Stillman. If Burnett and others are specifically suggesting that certain players be targeted or saved due to who is more entertaining, then that's pretty weak.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Am I correct in remembering shows like this are classified as "unscripted dramas" instead of game show?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> Am I correct in remembering shows like this are classified as "unscripted dramas" instead of game show?


I've never seen anything official as far as the FCC's game show rules are concerned, but I think that's correct. There's no way the typical game-show rules can be applied to these types of reality competition shows.

More specifically, the rules in question are found in Section 508 of the Communications Act of 1934. That statute seems to specifically apply to "bona fide contests of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance." I don't think anyone would claim that Survivor is a test of intellectual knowledge, intellectual skill, or chance. It's never claimed to be any of those things and nobody in the viewing public has been led to believe that the outcomes are based on any of those things.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

One thing that I've always thought is very susceptible to rigging is when they build the challenges and there is a specific setup for each tribe. Like the red tribe goes on the red setup and the blue tribe goes on the blue setup. The challenges are built with rough materials and constructed in unique ways. It would be trivial to make one setup a little harder to complete, even if unintentially. For instance, if the blue tribe is dominating everything, the crew may make the blue setup a little tougher. They may not even be conscious of their internal bias.

To be fair they should build two setups and make it a random choice as to which tribe goes on which setup. That way the producers can't control which tribe uses which setup.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

they draw straws for spots. and the challenges are run by the challenge crew multiple times - there would have to be a LOT of people involved in having one tribe's side more difficult than the other.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

warrenn said:


> One thing that I've always thought is very susceptible to rigging is when they build the challenges and there is a specific setup for each tribe. Like the red tribe goes on the red setup and the blue tribe goes on the blue setup. The challenges are built with rough materials and constructed in unique ways. It would be trivial to make one setup a little harder to complete, even if unintentially. For instance, if the blue tribe is dominating everything, the crew may make the blue setup a little tougher. They may not even be conscious of their internal bias.
> 
> To be fair they should build two setups and make it a random choice as to which tribe goes on which setup. That way the producers can't control which tribe uses which setup.


I've always wondered about that too, especially on the challenges where they're following a rope through a maze. In order to make those equally fair, the ropes should follow the exact same path for each team/player.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

hell, there are challenges designed for certain types of people...that standing on a little piece of wood holding a pole was designed for skinny girls...guys had ZERO chance to win...


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Anubys said:


> Hell, there are challenges designed for certain types of people...that standing on a little piece of wood holding a pole was designed for skinny girls...guys had ZERO chance to win...


Which is why we could very well see an immunity challenge this coming Thursday which plays to Russel's strengths. My guess is that the producers want to see him in the final three.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

Anubys said:


> hell, there are challenges designed for certain types of people...that standing on a little piece of wood holding a pole was designed for skinny girls...guys had ZERO chance to win...


...conversely, there are challenges that require incredible feats of strength... girls had ZERO chance to win...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Necromancer2006 said:


> ...conversely, there are challenges that require incredible feats of strength... girls had ZERO chance to win...


like what?


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

there was one where they were required to draw a bow and hold it without piercing a piece of paper, there were a couple that involved holding onto a rope with a weight attached to the end of it, there was the coconut pile-on challenge (granted, not an individual immunity challenge, but girls stood no chance), there was also a challenge involving something similar to that though I can't remember which season off the top of my head, I'd need to go looking.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Necromancer2006 said:


> there was one where they were required to draw a bow and hold it without piercing a piece of paper, there were a couple that involved holding onto a rope with a weight attached to the end of it, there was the coconut pile-on challenge (granted, not an individual immunity challenge, but girls stood no chance), there was also a challenge involving something similar to that though I can't remember which season off the top of my head, I'd need to go looking.


it has to be individual...for all others, they make sure there are the same number of male/females...

I believe the weight holding ones were rationed by body weight (i.e. each one held a percentage of their weight)...the bow one is a stretch


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

How do they film some of these challenges? For example, the challenge where they follow the rope through a winding maze. When they show the long shots, no camera crew is in sight, yet they cut to closeups all the time.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

wendiness1 said:


> How do they film some of these challenges? For example, the challenge where they follow the rope through a winding maze. When they show the long shots, no camera crew is in sight, yet they cut to closeups all the time.


Long shots are recreations/stand ins. They film the challenges multiple times, once with the contestants and then maybe a shot or two with the stand ins.


----------



## KyleLC (Feb 6, 2002)

Actually they use video -- not film.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Yep, they've really got it down to a science. They even have a way of making it seem like the challenges are really close sometimes when I'm sure they aren't. At this point, the Survivor production is a well-oiled machine. I'm hard pressed to come up with any other reality show that is nearly as slick.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

maybe they use zoom!


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

they actually run the challenges multiple times with the Dream Team to check angles etc. prior to the Survivors getting there. They then make adjustments and run it again until they've got it down. Here's a clip from a couple of seasons ago:






There's a video from either TVGuide or ET where they filmed the breakdown for how they would shoot the challenge that eventually got Russell Swan pulled from the game in the first Samoa but I can't seem to find it now.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

MegaHertz67 said:


> I don't think he ended up voting for Coach. Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but I remember watch at the end over the last words where they show everyone's vote and it sticking out to me that Russell's vote went elsewhere that time.


Right, he and Danielle were arguing about whom to vote out, and each of them ending up voting the opposite of what they had been arguing - Russell for Courtney, and Danielle for Coach.



JLucPicard said:


> Five pages and not one mention of Danielle completely losing her bikini bottom when her tank spilled?!? Another great argument for an uncensored version on DVD!


Well, it was blurred out, what was there to discuss? But yeah, :up::up: to an uncensored version. Well, how about selective censoring... like for Tyson and Richard Hatch?

I think all the poker analogies are flawed because you can generally make a lot of money making deep runs in poker tournaments without ever winning. You don't necessarily *need* a strong heads-up game. Survivor is winner-take-all (I've heard there are some smaller prizes for other places but they rarely talk about them, only one I can really remember is Colby's $100K). But it's pretty much all-or-nothing.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Everybody on the cast makes money, with opportunities for more money to come. I've heard they're paid to attend the reunion show, there's usually a very large "fan's choice" prize, and of course a graduated scale of prize money for lesser place finishes.

Plus, being an all-star season, I'll bet there was additional money put out there that we'll never hear about.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

jeff125va said:


> Right, he and Danielle were arguing about whom to vote out, and each of them ending up voting the opposite of what they had been arguing - Russell for Courtney, and Danielle for Coach.


that was just strategy for the jury...Russell knew Coach was a goner with or without his vote...he voted for Courtney so he can look Coach in the eye and tell him he didn't vote for him (just like he promised)...


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

Anubys said:


> that was just strategy for the jury...Russell knew Coach was a goner with or without his vote...he voted for Courtney so he can look Coach in the eye and tell him he didn't vote for him (just like he promised)...


And if I'm remembering correctly, Russell actually signed his vote for Courtney so there was no question who cast it.


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

Anubys said:


> that was just strategy for the jury...Russell knew Coach was a goner with or without his vote...he voted for Courtney so he can look Coach in the eye and tell him he didn't vote for him (just like he promised)...





JLucPicard said:


> And if I'm remembering correctly, Russell actually signed his vote for Courtney so there was no question who cast it.


Both correct probably. I just remembered the votes rather easily since they both went the opposite of what they were arguing earlier on.


----------



## scarpent (Feb 16, 2010)

Anubys said:


> that was just strategy for the jury...Russell knew Coach was a goner with or without his vote...he voted for Courtney so he can look Coach in the eye and tell him he didn't vote for him (just like he promised)...


Ha! As if Russell has any problems looking people in the eye and shamelessly lying.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

Necromancer2006 said:


> they draw straws for spots. and the challenges are run by the challenge crew multiple times - there would have to be a LOT of people involved in having one tribe's side more difficult than the other.


Aren't the drawing for spots just done when there is only one course or after the merge? I'm pretty sure that when there are 2 tribes and 2 courses, there's a specific course built for each tribe. The Red tribe runs on Red course and the Blue tribe runs the Blue course.

There is no way that the two courses can truly be identical. For instance, in a course with lots of knots to untie, the tightness of the knots can vary greatly. The knots are tied by crew members using their hands. They don't apply a force meter to make sure the knots are equally tight. They just use their hands and tie it as tight as they feel is appropriate. A crew member can easily vary the tightness of the knots, even if unintentially.

The fact that the tribes are forced to run a course built specifically for them means that bias or rigging can affect which tribe wins a challenge. But if the courses were assigned randomally, the bias would be eliminated.


----------



## vman (Feb 9, 2001)

gweempose said:


> Yep, they've really got it down to a science. They even have a way of making it seem like the challenges are really close sometimes when I'm sure they aren't. At this point, the Survivor production is a well-oiled machine. I'm hard pressed to come up with any other reality show that is nearly as slick.


And don't forget the editing for how they show us the challenges - for instance, earlier this season in the ruby-like challenge to bring the sack across your "goal line," one of the TV reviewers who was on set described how it was shown completely out of order.


----------



## vman (Feb 9, 2001)

Late to the party this week (and in general). I haven't watched in several seasons. What would have happened if the voting at the first tribal council had gone 3 for Rupert, 3 for Colby, and 2 for Candace? Afterward it seemed like this is what Russell was arguing for (since he was so mad the girls insisted on voting for Candace) as a way to draw out Rupert's possible HII, but what would have happened in that sort of tie? Do we know, or does it change season to season?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

vman said:


> Late to the party this week (and in general). I haven't watched in several seasons. What would have happened if the voting at the first tribal council had gone 3 for Rupert, 3 for Colby, and 2 for Candace? Afterward it seemed like this is what Russell was arguing for (since he was so mad the girls insisted on voting for Candace) as a way to draw out Rupert's possible HII, but what would have happened in that sort of tie? Do we know, or does it change season to season?


I think in that scenario, they'd have a revote, with Rupert and Colby being the only possible names to write down, and Rupert and Colby being excluded from voting. If there were then a tie after that round, then the tribe members (excluding Rupert and Colby) would draw rocks and the odd person out would go home. This is to incentivize the players to make concrete decisions and not 
be wishy washy. They know that if they don't change their vote, they could end up going home.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

warrenn said:


> Aren't the drawing for spots just done when there is only one course or after the merge? I'm pretty sure that when there are 2 tribes and 2 courses, there's a specific course built for each tribe. The Red tribe runs on Red course and the Blue tribe runs the Blue course.
> 
> There is no way that the two courses can truly be identical. For instance, in a course with lots of knots to untie, the tightness of the knots can vary greatly. The knots are tied by crew members using their hands. They don't apply a force meter to make sure the knots are equally tight. They just use their hands and tie it as tight as they feel is appropriate. A crew member can easily vary the tightness of the knots, even if unintentially.
> 
> The fact that the tribes are forced to run a course built specifically for them means that bias or rigging can affect which tribe wins a challenge. But if the courses were assigned randomally, the bias would be eliminated.


You got quite a conspiracy theory there. I believe all reality tv has some type of producer bias in it, especially in the 1 on 1s producers can "plant seed" into the minds of contestants but contestants should be smart enough to do their own gameplan and not listen to what little (or great) direction the producers may inadvertently share. The only time in which I felt the producers may be stepping in a little too much was this year's Celeb Apprentice but at the same time it is all going to charity so I can let that slide for some good TV.


----------

