| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
agent2424 |
|||
|
Posts: 4714 (11/20/09 1:19 PM) Registered user |
such a stupid rule.... A fire making challenge between teh 2 people tied or previous votes cast would be much, much, MUCH better.
|
||
PinotEnvy |
|||
Gnosis wrote:I agree. The point of the rocks is to keep real players from "leaving it up to fate" nonsense and sticking with a tie. I also like the idea of going back to the most previous votes thing to add more strategy. That would really be incentive not to force a tie and would piss off people like John even more when their name comes up as a goat to draw votes. |
|||
chidelta |
|||
|
Yeah, that fire making tie-breaker was really exciting in the season where both players tried for an hour and still no flames.
|
|||
Mateui |
|||
|
I always wish that past votes would come into play again. It opens up a whole new layer of strategy and forces players to play a good social game from the
start because if they start receiving votes they're now at a disadvantage for potential future tied votes. It also would allow people to throw away votes
without throwing them away... marking a player to be able to oust them later on a tie. The game is all about numbers so why did they get rid of this rule? Is
it because everyone was enraged at Varner leaving because of it? That episode is a classic.. Kimmi ruined everything and practically handed the game to Ogakor.
|
|||
Mypoody2 |
|||
|
I think the problem with the past votes rule is that #1 the players dont get to see all the votes, so it's a little awkward when Jeff asks them how many
votes they have against them. #2 I think it might be a bit confusing for the people at home, unless the players in the game know how many votes they have
against them and repeat that number several times. #3.The game becomes more about the people who were already voted off, thus out of the viewers memory. I mean
who's going to remember who Mike (borassi) was and who he voted against? That's a lot for the producers to explain to the audience. #4. I think it
discourages alienating people, which makes for bad TV.
For instance... if you're in the majority, you won't want to piss off people in the minority because theyll cast a vote against you which could come back to haunt you later down the line. I think the show WANTS them to piss eachother off. |
|||
grodney |
|||
KrazyKathy S16 wrote: Original post here, including lost of follow-up posts and discussion by others: http://survivorsucks.yuku.com/topic/32166?page=111
Last Edited By: grodney
11/20/09 2:57 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
Double Edged Sword |
|||
|
Is Scout writing the Survivor rules now?
|
|||
Kubin |
|||
|
Why bringing back those fucking rocks. it should have been a fire starter challenge.
|
|||
Maniacboy888 |
|||
|
What exactly does PROD stand for? I know Purple rock but the OD?
|
|||
Beefcake |
|||
|
Purple Rock of Death.
|
|||
TheEasyOne |
|||
Mateui wrote:It wouldn't be fair for players exposed to more tribal councils. Russell went to tribal council 5 times premerge, Laura only once. It would only be fair to use this tiebreaker if Laura had gone to tribal council 4 more times as well. She could of received more votes if Galu had gone to tribal 4 more times and Russell was able to avoid getting votes. |
|||
LOLABINGO |
|||
|
I don't mind the rocks, because it does force people to choose.
What I am not so sure about is the rule that they can only vote for the same two people, AND, to a lesser degree, the rule that those same two people don't have to choose a rock. |
|||
OzarkSurvivor |
|||
|
Very interesting. I wonder about the line that very clearly states, "the final four contestants." It makes me wonder what would have happened at,
say, the Ulong James boot. They're not the final four in the game, but the last four of their tribe. Hmm.
|
|||
Francois40 |
|||
Kubin wrote:They didn't "bring back" the rocks--it has always been the rule, since season 4 (when it was used but was not supposed to). The fire-starting challenge is ONLY when a tie happens at the final 4. This week was the first time in a long time that a tie has occurred at any other stage, but the rule has been there all along (which is exactly what has kept there from being more ties along the way).. |
|||
SirCrocodilep |
|||
|
I would personally be in favor of using PROD as some sort of punishment if a team broke the rule.
|
|||
Phukdis |
|||
|
I like the rock, it forces more strategy to go into the game. John just became the first Galunatic other than the retarded Shambutt to actually have to use
some strategy. BTW- for Galu lovers, go to the Survivor site and check out the extra scenes-they really ARE that stupid, I now understand why we see so much of
Russell.
|
|||
Thailandsurvivor |
|||
Pulau Tiga wrote: |
|||
ImANewUser |
|||
|
Posts: 1794 (11/21/09 12:02 AM) Registered User |
OzarkSurvivor wrote:Near-impossible, but it can happen at 9 too, with a 3-3-3 (2-2-2 after the revote) tie or 3-3-3 (3-3-0 after the revote) tie. |
||
Maniacboy888 |
|||
TheEasyOne wrote: l Thats why immunity challenges are so important, it makes winning that much more important. Laura won more challenges, therefor did better in the game physically and should be rewarded for it by having an advantage like that |
|||
agentpf1101 |
|||
|
instead of rocks they should all mastabate into Jeff probst's face. And the last guy to bust a nut goes home.
|
|||