Yuku free message boards

Quiddity wrote:

---

OrsNaz wrote:

---

JackSparrowBauer wrote:

---

EOrlins wrote:

---

ShanesThinkingSeat wrote:

---

XtremeInnovator420 wrote:

---

Uh....to be quite honest, Chris WAS the best player in Vanuatu, so you can't use Eliza voting for him as an example, really.

X

Chris was down 6-1. Chris was a huge underdog who fought back to make it to the Final 2. Chris deserved to win, as the best player.

X. I don't know if I've ever said this, Eliza, but thanks for voting for Chris! Still my favorite winner ever =]

Russell's loss was completely his fault. When you pointlessly make alliances with everyone and tell them you're going to take them to the Final 2, and you treat everyone like crap and not respect them at all, then you honestly can't expect them to vote for you to win a million dollars. He made almost no effort to win jury votes from those people, and it cost him. Great strategic game (other than having to rely on a HII, which that alone would've made me vote for someone else), but horrendous social game. Ultimately, Survivor is about winning jury votes, and Russell failed at that.

The thing that is most frustrating with jurors is that, yes Russell played pretty sad social game, he was arrogant, obnoxious and even treated human beings like game pieces, however, that is what the game is about. (1) You are supposed to lie, cheat and steal to win. Yes, he could have been humble and far nicer to the people he was voting out but (2) as fans of the game, we would have voted differently. I mean the guy went 8 against 4, found 3 idols without a clue and eliminated every single threat in the game. He had his entire alliance feeding out of his hand. However, best player ever? Hardly. He should have known the jury would have been bitter and thus taken Jaison and Shambo to the final 3. That was his biggest flaw in the game, he became too cocky and it clouded his judgement. I love Natalie, I am happy she won because of her as a person but (3) Russell played the better game by far.

In the end, people who understand the game and care about the game would have voted a winner based on strategy and respect for that strategy. Natalie's strategy of riding Russell to the end and letting the jury vote against him simply does not match the absolute domination of a game that result played.

Russell losing would be like Richard Hatch losing the first season. It just doesn't sit right and I know you all agree that Rich deserved it.

1) Says who? There is no one set way to win this game. There are many different ways you can win, and I'd say after 19 seasons we've seen many different ways someone can win, and many don't involve playing like Russell did.

2) Its very easy for us people outside the game who weren't personally effected to say that. You weren't there, you weren't personally effected by Russell's gameplay (you didn't lose your chance to win a million because of him), and you didn't have Russell treating you like garbage. You can say one thing here on a messageboard having no personal connection to the game whatsoever, but when you're out there, things are completely different and you haven't been paying attention for 19 seasons if you don't think that way.

3) I don't even have to say much, you articulated pretty well why Russell lost. Yet you still call him the better player? The social game is part of the game. Russell failed miserably at that. He needed multiple immunity idols to get as far as he did. Natalie didn't need any. He made poor strategic moves towards the end and brought the wrong people to the finals with him. So he lost. And hence is not the best player this season.

1) In terms of a strategic point of view, Russell played the better game. Socially, you can say he played a bad game but no matter how you look at it Russell needed to make the aggressive moves in order for his alliance to Survive and regardless he would have been knocked down because of it. The rest of his alliance were very passive and did absolutely nothing when threatened to be eliminated. In order to Survive, Russell needed to be aggressive and threatening and especially eliminate without remorse. Yes, he didn't have to be so damn cocky and laugh at them when they got eliminated but as Russell said, Natalie and Mick expressed themselves the same way. You don't see what goes on behind the scenes and clearly the jury did not like Mick, or to a lesser extent, Natalie's behavior either. They just blamed Russ for everything, because he was the reason they were in the jury and voted against him.

2) Great points. I clearly do not know everything however from what I do know, the jury was bitter and voted with their emotions instead of who played the best. Yes, that's what can happen in the game and Russell should have been prepared but it isn't any less frustrating.

3) I seem to recall Natalie needing those idols just as much as Russell did, no? Russell made a few poor choices compared to the large amount of great choices, his biggest being that he put too much faith in the jurors and should have suspected they would have voted based on their emotions.

We can debate this back and forth but I you show no evidence as to why Natalie is even close to as strategic as Russ. She won, but that doesn't mean she was more strategic or the better player, aka Bob via Gabon. Winning =/= best player. However, I do love Natalie and I am happy for her win. I cheered her on, but I do believe that Russ was robbed.

Quiddity wrote:

---

Your problem is you think that playing better strategically automatically makes you the best player. It doesn't. His decisions of who he'd be at the end with aside, Russell probably was the better strategic player. But the game is more than just voting people out. Its voting people out and making sure that they still like you when you do so. Russell voted people out and people hated him. Natalie voted the exact same people out, she had the identical voting record to Russell's, yet people liked her a lot better. And thats what got her the win. Voting strategy and controlling the boots is only one part of the game. The social part of the game is a huge factor as well, particularly with respect to the jury vote, and there, Natalie clearly was a much better player than Russell. Russell was not robbed at all. If he truly is a fan of the show he'd know that his style of gameplay would not get him the win when someone much more likable was sitting next to him in the end.

I said he was the best strategic player, which he was. Socially Natalie wasn't much better, im sorry. The jury were attacking her just as much as they were attacking Russ. However, Russ was the reason they were all on the jury and they knew it. He was behind everything because he was very vocal about it. His approach was "Hey, I dominated, I am the reason you all lost and considering I am the best player in this game, give me the million bucks". However, the jury were too mad at him for taking them out and thus voted against him. Look at the videos of they commentary, it is evident there. Natalie did not play this fantastic social game as you suspect she did. She played a nice, quiet and non threatening game which worked fine for her because Russell HAD to do everything in order to pull them further. His approach to the jury was risky, it was like Parvati's approach and it worked for her.

No matter how nice Russell was, he was the reason they were there and therefore when facing the jury his actions would have been scrutinized. He could have faced up to his actions or lied, made excuses and come across fake. Either way, it really depended on how the jury was voting.