Yuku free message boards

panurge46 wrote:

---

Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote:

---

What I am trying to get at is that there are no inherently "good" traits you have to do to survive, other than the goal of winning. And since that is the point, long held values like doing x isn't a justified meter for determining who is best. The only goal is to win, and if we follow through on this, we come to the conclusion that the only rational way to vote and play is totally amorally, and the only justified way for a juror to vote the rational best player. So that means players who vote emotionally or for any other motives other than winning and honoring the virtue of egoism, is voting irrationally.

What useless garbage.

First of all, you should know the definition of the words you use:

"Amoralism is the complete disbelief in any sort of morality or ethical code, instead insisting that each person should live his or her life in the most pleasurable manner."

If we consider the part about "pleasurable manner" then Gabe and Flicka are some of the best amoral players.

"Morality: A code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong."

I'm guessing you must mean immoral, which is simply a synonym to dishonest or wicked. So, people have to lie to play Survivor. And you consider this news???!!

Guess what, if you are going to lie to win Survivor, you need people to believe you. In other words, your behavior must appear to be honest, you must show good qualities to con people. You need a moral code and know when and how to cross over from one side to the other.

The funniest part is your jury blabber: If you are insisting that players should be immoral or amoral, why should it change when they land on the jury? We have morals because we have reason. Why would the immoral or the amoral suddenly honor any virtue, even if that "virtue" is egotism? The immoral player would vote for the worst result (Becky wins CI, Dreamz wins Fiji), the amoral player would vote for the funniest result (Courtney wins China).

Anyway, the reason why Survivor works is that it confronts ordinary people with the code of conduct they follow in everyday life. What you are proposing is a game with robots. That sounds so much better.

What exactly is a twist? I define it as anything that occurred after the first season. Does this mean that certain attitudes and behaviors can be considered twists? I would say so, as one who plays in the game isn't aware of who they are facing until they are actually playing. And the winner of course, as it is always pointed out, is the one who adapts to the elements best, of which the elements are not just the environment you play in, but more importantly the cast. A person does not have to be aware that they are adapting or even playing the game, as there are possibly an infinite amount of interactions someone can determine to be important to winning. So it's not correct to say that a twist is unfair.

Despite this, certain twists betray the foundations which Survivor rests on, which is egoism and adaptability. Not that they are illegitimate in the sense that they don't allow people a fair shot at winning, but that they discourage egoist behavior. The final 3 as opposed to the final 2 encourages team based game play. As we could see with Amanda on Micronesia, she being someone not fully aware of how to rationally play Survivor, had a crying fit because she expected another final 3 to occur. Becky also displayed this type of behavior with her total lack of interest in trying to win Survivor:Cook Islands. If there had been a final 2, Becky would have had the opportunity to argue her case fairly against either Yul or Ozzy. In the former case, she could argue against Yuls use of the Hidden Immunity Idol. With the latter, Becky could easily have argued that she played the game more overtly and had better control over the game than Ozzy.

Speaking of which, the Hidden Immunity Idol is even worse in its construction. No matter which version you are using, aside from the prototype Guatemala version, it gives the holder an unnatural advantage and makes strategy convoluted and redundant. It is clearly a device used by the lazy Survivor team so they don't have to be creative with the editing and can just make someone a "hero" for finding the HII. Also, in the long term, it really doesn't affect who the best player is. Micronesia would have been almost identical without any. So, as I said, the HII and Final 3 are not immoral in nature, but the reason they exist are immoral, and majorly irritating.