| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 EOrlins |
|||
|
Posts: 1956 (12/20/09 11:13 PM) Because it's just a stick!!! |
WylDawg wrote: I did that because it was fun. I love going off as a jury member, but in spite of that, I still voted for the person who I felt played the best game. Who beat me. |
||
|
fsmdud |
|||
|
Posts: 1987 (12/20/09 11:26 PM) Registered user |
WylDawg wrote: Lets not be ridiculous here. Of course we all know thats the real reason. And how dare an adult woman be kind and demure and respectful. Thats just not right. |
||
|
chapera rocks |
|||
|
Posts: 12308 (12/20/09 11:32 PM) Registered User |
Many people have won survivor playing a strategic game. And that's because they didn't play the world's worst social game.
Russell treated people like shit, disrespected people, and honestly, didn't play that outstanding of a game. Compared to these idiots, yeah, but he's no where near survivor's greatest strategists. He put way too much of a target on his back, and he was so narcissistic that he couldn't wait 1 month to tell people he was a millionaire. He gives himself way too much credit, saying he was responsible for Ben, Ashley, and Erik as votes, for example. Nope, you wanted Ashley and Liz gone the first two times, and did jackshit to take down Erik. |
||
|
kishuu |
|||
|
Posts: 2898 (12/20/09 11:33 PM) |
Point is Eliza, Russell didn't bother to build any bonds or be friends with any of the people on the jury except Shambo. A social game is also important on
Survivor. Natalie recognized that and latched onto Russell as her Boston Rob.
Natalie won by building relationships and ultimately, the jury can base their vote on anything such as need, strategic game or just whether they want to give the person their vote or not. You need a social game to win on Survivor. I'm sure you would've lost if you made it to the F2 in Micronesia with that social game of yours. |
||
|
novaya |
|||
|
Posts: 1322 (12/20/09 11:36 PM) |
WylDawg wrote: |
||
|
craig |
|||
|
Posts: 16717 (12/20/09 11:47 PM) Registered User |
I'm glad Russell won America's vote.
But how come they'll reward him but Cirie and Parv weren't even top 3 in S16? Oh yeah, they always give it to a man, and all the other guys sucked this season. -------------------------------------------- I think Galu was as bitter as the Onions - they just took it out on Russell more than the actual traitors. When a tribe dominates, they feel a sense of injustice in losing to people they consider inferior. They like to exert their collective will. Or feel that since the "deserving" people got screwed, why not vote on other criteria. |
||
|
craig |
|||
|
Posts: 16718 (12/20/09 11:51 PM) Registered User |
And this has nothing to do with Natalie being a religious whackjob?It was a very Christian jury, especially Erik. The first shall be last. Blessed are the poor in spirit. The humble shall be exalted. |
||
|
Quiddity |
|||
|
Posts: 6844 (12/21/09 12:00 AM) Registered User |
EOrlins wrote:Survivor jurors aren't bitter. If someone doesn't vote for you when you're in the F2/F3, its your fault that you didn't play better. Russell failed to realize that Survivor is much more than just voting people out and flaunting hidden immunity idols. You have to give people enough reasons to like you or respect you (or at least more so in relation to the people you're sitting against). Russell made alliances with people when it wasn't necessary. He was very arrogant and a bragger, telling people about how much he made when that wouldn't do him any good. He needlessly told people he would keep them safe, then blindsided them, even when he was at no risk of going home. While Natalie treated her fellow Survivors like real people, Russell treated them like they were nothing and just there to be stepped over in his eventual victory. The game is a lot more than just voting people out. |
||
|
Dr Will Hatch two point oh |
|||
|
Posts: 10063 (12/21/09 12:04 AM) Registered user |
Quiddity wrote: I agree with this post, excepting the All Stars jury. :P |
||
|
chapera rocks |
|||
|
Posts: 12309 (12/21/09 12:04 AM) Registered User |
Quiddity wrote:X Yep. Like people have said, there's a way to play very strategically and even cutthroat, and still win. Richard. Tina. Brian. Yul. Todd. Parvati. |
||
|
craig |
|||
|
Posts: 16720 (12/21/09 12:13 AM) Registered User |
You really think Richard and Brian played a better social game than Russell?
Pagong and Sook Jai both voted 3-1 against them, which is the same ratio as Galu (6-2). And both got flak for not getting to know people, etc. This jury wouldn't have rewarded either, especially in a F3. |
||
|
Quiddity |
|||
|
Posts: 6847 (12/21/09 12:15 AM) Registered User |
chapera rocks wrote: And when you think of these people, even though some of them were villains, how many of them can you point to them acting like Russell did? Any of them? Brian was extremely arrogant as well, but nowhere near so to the other players like Russell was. Many people have played the strategic game Russell has and have done well. You have posted the names of many of them. What those people did differently is they treated their fellow contestants like human beings (or in Brian's case faked it well enough), didn't flaunt their arrogance to absurd levels and recognized that they weren't God's gift to the show. This jury could have voted the way those juries did had Russell applied as much focus to his social game as he did his strategic one. He didn't do so, and paid for it in the end. :) |
||
|
WylDawg |
|||
|
Posts: 21474 (12/21/09 12:15 AM) Registered user |
Their arrogance almost cost them, but it didn't. Russell pushed it to a new level.
|
||
|
Quiddity |
|||
|
Posts: 6848 (12/21/09 12:17 AM) Registered User |
WylDawg wrote: Which is what I'm saying. :P I'm not denying that many of those players weren't arrogant (particularly Rich and Brian). In comparison to Russell? They weren't arrogant on anywhere the same level. He's arguably the most arrogant player in this show's history. :P |
||
|
seltzer3 |
|||
|
Posts: 1579 (12/21/09 12:18 AM) Registered User |
Brian was also smart enough to bring the biggest douchebag Clay. So even though Helen/Ted were pissed at him....there was no way they would bring themselves to vote for Clay. |
||
|
kishuu |
|||
|
Posts: 2905 (12/21/09 12:24 AM) |
seltzer3 wrote:this. Russell's inability to take Shambo with him to the end cost him. |
||
|
NickF227 |
|||
|
Posts: 12989 (12/21/09 12:24 AM) |
Eliza's twitter breakdown is like, the best thing ever.
SOCIAL GAME, MIZZ. SOCIAL. GAME. Chris and Parvati had it. Russ...didn't. |
||
|
chapera rocks |
|||
|
Posts: 12312 (12/21/09 12:29 AM) Registered User |
You really think Richard and Brian played a better social game than RussellAre you kidding me? Brian had a fucking awesome social game. That's why everyone was so pissed when they stabbed him in the back. Actually, correction. Brian's social game within CG was great. Not so much for Sook Jai. But he got the votes from CG that he needed because he was socially decent. |
||
|
Quiddity |
|||
|
Posts: 6850 (12/21/09 12:29 AM) Registered User |
seltzer3 wrote: Good point. Russell went to the end with an extremely likable person in Natalie. All this time he thought she was a coat tail rider that no one would respect, but when it came to it, he completely misread how the jury would view her. So that's definately a big strike against him with respect to his strategic gameplay. He had complete control over who he'd get to the end with, and he chose to go to the end with a very likable person in Natalie instead of potentially less likable people like Shambo and Jaison. |
||
|
WylDawg |
|||
|
Posts: 21478 (12/21/09 12:31 AM) Registered user |
And no offense craig, but I have a hard time taking someone who praised Monica's gameplay and tears down Natalie's seriously.
|
||
Message board courtesy of Survivor Sucks member support.
Benevolent dictatorship courtesy of Survivor Sucks Admin Idoits.
