Oowatanite wrote:Dude that has nothing to do with what i said. I never said that it isn't the best way to win, i just said it wasn't the only way to win. and just so you know, "ally Jenna" was no longer part of the 'dominant alliance' when she won. Neither were Sandra, Chris, Danni, and Parvati had a new alliance which was not connected to her old alliance. and you can't count Palau because of the Ulong incident.
survivorjordancontestant wrote:
Oowatanite wrote:What show are you watching? It doesn't matter if you're in a majority alliance in a dominant tribe. The goal of Survivor is to win no matter what. It's that way of thinking that got the Rotu alliance dismembered, Deena and Alex from Amazon eliminated, Rupert voted out, The women of Vanuatu gone, Judd and Stephenie losing in Guatemala, The Raro's dead, The Four Horsemen dead, and Ozzy blindsided by the women. The whole merge-majority way of thinking is so out of fashion and shows just how much you really know about the game, which is nothing.
Dude, the goal in Survivor is to be in the majority alliance of a dominant tribe who gets a numbers advantage on the lesser tribe by the merge. This is EXACTLY what the Onions did. They were screwed by the dumb last-minute twist and not due to any bad gameplay. It's that simple. Really.
Okay dumbass, you asked for it. What's the best way to win Survivor ? By being be in the majority alliance of a dominant tribe who gets a numbers advantage on the lesser tribe by the merge. This is EXACTLY what the Onions did. They were screwed by the dumb last-minute twist and not due to any bad gameplay. It's that simple. Really. This is how Tom won Palau. This is how Richard won Borneo. This is how Brian won Thailand. This is how Amber won ASS. This is how Ethan won Africa. This is how Aras won EI. This is how Todd won China. This is how Parvati won Micronesia. Any of this sinking in dumbass ?
Now let's look at your stupid "examples". The Rotu Four stupidily didn't consider that 2+3 is greater than 4. Deena stupidly targetted an ally too soon. Alex stupidly told RobC that he was to be booted at F4. Yet ally Jenna won in the end. Rupert stupidly trusted that snake Fairplay. Twice ! Yet ally Sandra won in the end. The women's alliance stupidly imploded before they finished pagonging the "Fat Five". Judd and Stephenie were stupidly hateful in Guatemala and I would compare them to Randy and Corinne. The Raros were screwed by the ridiculous bottle twist, so they can be compared to the Onions. Dumbass Dreamz betrayed the Four Horsemen and was rewarded with ZERO votes in the end for his stupidity. Ozzy was blindsided in Micronesia but Parvati, another member of the dominant alliance, ended up winning in the end.
So let's check the score now. At least twelve winners came from dominant alliances. Only Danni and Chris and Vee managed to sneak through to win, mostly due to the incompetence of the dominant alliances in those seasons. But the Rotus and the Yasurs and Steph's Crew were not screwed by a twist. Like the Raros were. Like the Onions were.
Conclusion ? The best way to win Survivor is to be in the majority alliance of a dominant tribe who gets a numbers advantage on the lesser tribe by the merge.Or do you think that stumble-fucking your way to the win, like Sandra and Vee did, is the best "strategy" to win Survivor ?
And if anything, all the successful Pagongings were that because their leaders were smart to keep all their members in line the whole time, not like the stupid Onions who pompously made it obvious that Susie was number 5. Even without the reshuffle, Susie would have still jumped ship and the Onions would still be fried. It's still shitty gameplay on their part.
And "stumble-fucking" ,as you say , to a win out of a minority situation will always be a far more impressive feat than just another dominant tribe leader getting crowned.
so, as you say, in conclusion, being in a majority alliance of a dominant tribe is not THE "goal of Survivor", it's jsut an option...and a safe, boring one at that.
