"XXXX isn't playing a good social game" in Survivor Sucks Forum

0 Points

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

"XXXX isn't playing a good social game"

Started By	Comment
WylDawg		#41	[-]
Posts: 21306 (12/14/09 11:36 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I can resist everything except temptation. Remove this ad Yeah I never really understood the decision to swap Alicia/Tom for Jenna/Rupert either. I understand making a deal with the latter to prevent them from teaming up with Twatwaffle's crew at the merge, but he had to know that would cost him 2 votes right there. But then again, that was Rob's biggest mistake from the get-go: being too short-sighted. He played as if the only object of the game was to advance to the next round. Though in his defense, Alicia hated him from the very beginning, so I don't know why she assumed he would be trustworthy.
JPOz		#42	[-]
Posts: 441 (12/14/09 11:43 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	WylDawg wrote: Though in his defense, Alicia hated him from the very beginning, so I don't know why she assumed he would be trustworthy. Or why someone who had seen Tina/Colby drag Keith to the end so they could have votes go their way didn't understand that it was beneficial for her to work with Shit Ann no matter how much she despised her.
Apprentice Talker		#43	[-]
Posts: 11619 (12/14/09 11:47 PM) WRP Official Spokesperson Reply Quote More Recent Posts	XXX - not necessary enough.
JaMalle		#44	[-]
Posts: 4841 (12/14/09 11:51 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I have a great amount of <3 for you Rliss (I'd hump you now if you let me lol) but I think it's a pretty pretentious thing to do to tell a juror how they should cast their vote. There's a lot of decisions I would disagree with, but when it comes down to it, everyone earned their vote through some combination of luck and/or skill, which gives them the right to vote however the hell they want. For someone who is pretty anti-religion, I'd think you wouldn't try to force your idea of morality (who deserves to win and what criteria is comprised of it) down a jury's throat. Nice post in reference to Shii-Ann and the Onion's vote JPOz.
Seyz		#45	[-]
Posts: 556 (12/14/09 11:52 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	To be honest, I feel like Amber did play a better game than Rob M. She just positioned herself very well in a way that all the blame would be on Rob M. , but yet she got herself to the finals in an unassuming, under the radar way. It was kind of like oops, before you know it , she's won the game. Amanda would have done the same thing with Todd, but Todd was just more friendly even with people he voted off. You never got the sense that anyone really hated Todd. Natalie is actually playing a game that is kind of similar to Amanda and Amber and if she makes it to the final, she might be more of an Amber than an Amanda in my opinion and that speaks credit more to Natalie's game than Russell's in my opinion. You think being nice and quiet, while at the same time getting someone stupid enough to bring you into the Finals even though you're nice is an easy strategy? I think not. Kudos to those who can pull it off.
Katy Carney		#46	[-]
Posts: 9668 (12/14/09 11:53 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Rob was not "shitty" to Lex or any of the others for beating them at the game. The argument that he should have beat them ON THEIR TERMS is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
JPOz		#47	[-]
Posts: 442 (12/15/09 12:30 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Tx JaMalle, very much appreciate it. KC - no offense IMO to use Lex to save Amber = playing the game. But to use friendship as part of the request - that's where it's a shitty way to treat someone. To break promise to Tom/Alicia = part of the game. To do it the way he did was a shitty way to handle it which is why they were pissed at him. MicroParv is good examples that it's possible to vote your allies out and still get votes from them. Did not say he has to beat them ON THEIR TERMS. No offense but you are mistaken if you think that was what I was saying. Am saying there is a way to play the game, vote people out but doing it strategically and with some finesse might get a vote or two which helps you win the game. Chris Vanuatu did it whereas Twila was more like a sledgehammer. Radical/extreme example: say one of your friends at work comes to you with a sad story and asks a favor. You are a nice person, they are your friend, you agree. The next day they use the help you gave them to stab you in the back. Obviously you made a mistake. But your so-called friends actions were a lot worse and you'd have every right to be pissed at them.
ANDand19		#48	[-]
Posts: 9898 (12/15/09 12:37 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	^ Lex used his frindships with Colby, Ethan, and Jerri. What's the difference? And the same argument can be used for Pearl Islands. While Lill had a pivotal role in the game-changing moves, (even if they were emotion driven) she had an awful social game. And IMO Sandra fully deserved her win.
Katy Carney		#49	[-]
Posts: 9670 (12/15/09 01:13 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Games ≠ real life. If I play Monopoly or poker or wii or w/e with any of my friends, I'm playing to win. Just because I wouldn't force my friends into bankruptcy in real life doesn't mean I won't slaughter them at Monopoly. My plan is to beat them. It's the same with Survivor. In order to win you have to beat everyone else. Lex's plan was to beat Rob and everyone else. If Lex didn't think that keeping Amber would give him an advantage in the game, he wouldn't have done it. Lex expected that it would help him. That's not at all outside the game. That was a game move based on game rationale. If it wasn't a game move then Lex has no reason to be mad. If he did it for friendship and not for a return on his investment, then he wasn't screwed out of anything. Lex's plan was to capitalize on friendships to get him further in the game. He said so himself. He wasn't treated poorly, he was just beaten at a game he claimed as his own long before Boston Rob did. It's not unfair that Lex voted against Rob, but in this particular situation I think it says a lot more about Lex and who he is than it does about Rob or his game.
JPOz		#50	[-]
Posts: 444 (12/15/09 01:29 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I can resist everything except temptation. Remove this ad ^Lex earned Twatwaffle nic in part to the hypocrisy he showed in both seasons he played. Rob did to him what he did to others. ASS is screwy because all the pre-game plans/relationships were part of the equation which effected people's behavior and votes. But the way Rob handled things he didn't get the fourth vote he needed for the win. As Katy pointed out, Amber did things which Shii Ann identified with whereas Rob's treatment of Shii Ann didn't so Amber got the fourth vote she needed. MicroParv showed you can burn some votes (James, Ozzy) but you need to do your best to get enough of the others to win. ETA: My impression is Lex claims move was made out of friendship. He thought Tom would vote with the 4 Mogo if they merged at 9 so he did not need Rob or Amber. Would Amber have been saved if Rob had not spoken? No. But I agree Lex is full of shit. He thought he could use Rob/Amber to guarantee majority post-merge so he sacrificed Jerri. The move was made in part out of friendship and part game strategy. He believed he would get a return on his friendship and his game investment. Instead Rob laughed in his face and walked away because Tom wasn't going along with Lex's plan and Rob knew he had the numbers. I believe part of Tom's anger was he had thrown away HIS plans with Lex to run with Rob and then Rob double crossed him as well. The moves are a reflection both personally and strategically on all 3 of them, in my opinion. Last Edited By: JPOz 12/15/09 02:07 AM. Edited 1 times.
Shion is Queen		#51	[-]
Posts: 994 (12/15/09 01:47 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	NlGHTCRAWLER wrote: Shion is Queen wrote: NlGHTCRAWLER wrote: You know who played a great social game? Becky. I think one of the three confessionals she had in that season was her saying as much, too. Did she really say that?! LMAO! Yes. When they got back from voting Sundra out, Becky talked about being excited to be in the finals and she said something to the effect of "I think I have a good shot at winning because I have played a VERY social game." I'm sure they left that bit in for irony.
SuperJude		#52	[-]
Posts: 15799 (12/15/09 03:31 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Rob saved Amber, not the other way around. For me, the way I view the show, if I need to save your ass but you don't ever need to save mine, didn't I play a better game? Rob's ONE mistake was Big Tom. He could have coddled him a bit more, maybe swapped out him and Rupert, whatever. Sooth the big guy, he wins. Doesn't matter, the backlash from Amber winning has been EPIC, even if it assured most casual American viewers that a hard player will always lose to a quiet mousy female. Sorry but this is the perception of the show to the general public. -SJ™
star jumper		#53	[-]
Posts: 45987 (12/15/09 05:00 AM) I'm an ugly Yeti King Reply Quote More Recent Posts	SuperJude wrote: Rob's ONE mistake was Big Tom. He could have coddled him a bit more, maybe swapped out him and Rupert, whatever. Sooth the big guy, he wins. Then Rupert and Jenna would have been pissed and voted for Amber. It realy wasn't a good idea to make three different final four deals. Espeically when 2/3 of them will be on jury. That is bad gameplay.
SuperJude		#54	[-]
Posts: 15806 (12/15/09 05:25 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	No, they were all haters! But seriously, I do hope people realize that while we get the realities of whoever won deserved to win, the casual television viewer saw Hatch win, was confused by Tina winning, stopped watching, watched again for All Stars, was confused by Amber winning, stopped watching, maybe thought about coming back for Fans vs Faves but then another mousy female won and that's that. It's okay, it insured that we would be destined to watch tons of shitty twists and crappy Mactors as CBS tries to add flavor to a game that didn't really need changing in the first place. -SJ™
mtj1282		#55	[-]
Posts: 3253 (12/15/09 06:44 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	this is by no means aimed at anyone in this thread but one thing i dont understand about sucks posters is that you would think with sucks posters being suck big fans of the show that they would understand the game a little better and understand that social politics are just as important if not more important than making strategical moves. you can make all the moves you want but if the jury doesnt like and respect you, then your probably not going to win. It seems like most sucks posters think that the person who made moves and strategized deserves the win. If the person who made moves and strategtize also played the best social game, than yes, id agree. But if there social game sucked and they lost as a result of it, then no, they didnt deserve to win. Last Edited By: mtj1282 12/15/09 06:48 AM. Edited 1 times.
gervasemyman		#56	[-]
Posts: 1630 (12/15/09 06:50 AM) I'm with STUPID! Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Punctuation is key.
SuperJude		#57	[-]
Posts: 15818 (12/15/09 06:51 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	mtj, Sucksters like to bitch. Simple as that. -SJ™
JPOz		#58	[-]
Posts: 446 (12/15/09 07:15 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	star jumper wrote: SuperJude wrote: Rob's ONE mistake was Big Tom. He could have coddled him a bit more, maybe swapped out him and Rupert, whatever. Sooth the big guy, he wins. Then Rupert and Jenna would have been pissed and voted for Amber. It realy wasn't a good idea to make three different final four deals. Espeically when 2/3 of them will be on jury. That is bad gameplay. Thanks, to both of you. That was mainly the point I was trying to make. You have to make deals and promises to have majority at early merge votes but you will have to burn some folks along the way. You can get away with burning one or two and hope they'll be like Kathy or MicroEliza but you can't count on that. Last Edited By: JPOz 12/15/09 10:47 AM. Edited 1 times.
GrenadeJumper85		#59	[-]
Posts: 14863 (12/15/09 09:24 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I really don't know what Rob could have done differently because all his really douchey comments were in confessionals. He didn't treat anyone badly, he just beat them. I think Rob would have won the game if he hadn't of made that last minute F2 alliance with Alicia, then burned her two rounds later. I think Alicia's vote cost him the game in the end.
Joaqenix		#60	[-]
Posts: 4835 (12/15/09 09:42 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I can resist everything except temptation. Remove this ad Katy Carney wrote: Lex's plan was to capitalize on friendships to get him further in the game. He said so himself. He wasn't treated poorly, he was just beaten at a game he claimed as his own long before Boston Rob did. It's not unfair that Lex voted against Rob, but in this particular situation I think it says a lot more about Lex and who he is than it does about Rob or his game. srsly. Lex was just a jealous whiny cyounexttuesday cause Boston Rob beat him at his own game. Pathetic. But I don't really care who won between Rob and Amber since essentially they both won <3

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

I can resist everything except temptation.
Remove this ad

Message board courtesy of Survivor Sucks member support.
Benevolent dictatorship courtesy of Survivor Sucks Admin Idoits.