But it doesn't do a good job of explaining why Natalie truly deserved to be Survivor.
Because she didn't treat the people she was voting out like shit.

| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Kirblar |
|||
But it doesn't do a good job of explaining why Natalie truly deserved to be Survivor. Because she didn't treat the people she was voting out like shit. |
|||
aiharaindropsotr |
|||
|
I like the point raised by someone else; ie, Natalie was such a coat-tailer that she couldn't even deliver her own case and had to have someone else (Erik)
do it for her.
Without Russell, Natalie would have gone no where. Not so in the reverse. And it works at every step, I think: IF Russell hadn't won the last immunity challenge, Natalie would not have won 1 million dollars; if Russell hadn't found and used the hidden immunity, Foa Foa would have been ousted, and so on and so forth. |
|||
aiharaindropsotr |
|||
|
"Because she didn't treat the people she was voting out like shit."
Which is hardly an accomplishment for the smaller team going into a merge. Mick didn't treat the other team like shit, neither did Jaison -- and, arguably, neither did Russell. Relatively speaking, I'll grant that Russell did treat the other team like shit but I already know and can accept why Russell lost. But the logic- the paradox- is that he should have won precisely because nobody else deserved to win. Natalie was such a generic coattailer. |
|||
Cassidy666 |
|||
|
I've heard of the infamous Miss Alli. That was her?
I do agree with the article completely, no matter who the author of it was. Russell was just too arrogant and blind to everything. What he thought was the game was not how people who win play it. He played something that only existed in his head since there is no right way to play it all the time but there are several very definitevely wrong ways. His is one example. |
|||
ShamboWow |
|||
|
The only player who played with the correct mindset was Shambo. The true crime of the season was Russell breaking his promise to her .
|
|||
WildCard88 |
|||
aiharaindropsotr wrote: What exactly would you have suggested she done then? She executed her strategy and it worked to perfection because it got her to the place where all Survivors want to be, in front of a jury. There is no denying that her strategy is not going to be a popular one but it is a strategy nonetheless. In fact, she even had a strategy on how to win in the end and that was be a more desirable option than giving the title to Russell. With some juries, it would not have worked but in this case, it did. |
|||
Olmec Donald |
|||
|
Miss Alli's generally an irrational idiot, but everyone can agree with irrational idiots on certain issues. For example, Rush Limbaugh also loves America.
So I don't have a problem praising her article. She hits the nail on the head here.
Beefcake wrote: And how do you think Jaison became a Fulbright scholar, you fucking moron? Because of what he achieved academically i.e. for what he did rather than who he is. Similarly, Natalie won based on what she did, which was being able to work people over subtly. Russell wouldn't know subtlety if it hit him in the face. Your opinion is complete shit, so get your worthless ass back to OT immediately. |
|||
Archibald C |
|||
aiharaindropsotr wrote:1. Did you watch the final tribal council? You know, the one where Natalie herself told many of the jurors exactly what her strategy was throughout the entire game? 2. Did you also not read the interviews, where Natalie, Mick, and Jaison all said that part of what we didn't see was them constantly defending Russell from getting voted off, both at Foa Foa and Aiga? Or Mick's (or maybe Jaison's) comments that when they thought about pulling Natalie in to vote off Russell, that she wouldn't budge? Or in episode 2 when a plot was hatched to oust him, Natalie put a stop to it? And maybe, just maybe, if Russell didn't both sabotage his own tribes camp, and vote out one of their strongest competitors (Marisa) over their weakest (Mike), they possibly not only wouldn't have lost the second immunity challenge AND wouldn't have lost someone due to medical injury. Remember, because of Russell's actions, Foa Foa was down to seven members by the end of episode 2. If Russell hadn't done that, maybe he wouldn't have had to dig himself out of the giant hole he created for himself and his tribe. |
|||
omgusuk |
|||
aiharaindropsotr wrote:So what? Russell wouldn't have won either; Brett would have won. And you're right that Foa Foa would have been voted out if Russell hadn't found the immunity--Russell would have been the first one. That's Natalie's (and Mick's and Jaison's) game. She didn't have to do any scrambling because she had a socially inept goat to do it all for her. It's not like Russell did all that work just to save his teammates; he had to save himself, while his teammates put themselves in the ideal position of being carried to the finals by the goat. That's what Miss Allicunt is arguing, and, surprisingly, I agree. Now go kill yourself. (ETA: I also agree with everything Archibald C said.)
Last Edited By: omgusuk
12/22/09 12:04 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
aiharaindropsotr |
|||
|
omgusuk,
It's stinking obvious that Natalie is a just a fucking coat-tail. That's what you're praising, you turd. Just call it like it is. I'm OK with Russell losing, and that would be due to his not ultra brown-nosing Galu. But let's not pretend that Natalie was anything but a coat-tailer, and a completely expendable, interchangeable nonentity at that, who had no power to survive, win, or strategize other than be a little coattailer. Again that's what you're praising. Miss Alli's article only works for explaining why Russell's loss was rational in the grand scheme of Survivor, but in the end it does nothing to particularly vindicate Natalie's win.
Last Edited By: aiharaindropsotr
12/22/09 12:28 AM.
Edited 2 times.
|
|||
bryanpasa |
|||
|
LOL, when Russell is so aggressive....you can't find a way to eliminate him. He'll eliminate you....he eliminated all the girls in her tribe. eek. So
Natalie has no other choice instead to go with Russell since Mick & Jaison are such pussies to go against Russell. Then Brett keeps getting immunity....so
who'll get targetted? It'll be Natalie had she not stick with Russell.
|
|||
aiharaindropsotr |
|||
|
"1. Did you watch the final tribal council? You know, the one where Natalie herself told many of the jurors exactly what her strategy was throughout the
entire game?"
I'm rewatching it right now and, boy!, does Natalie look like an airhead judging by her opening statement. She's almost as dumb as Palin, and hasn't said a single thing of substance. ...I've just finished rewatching the final tribal council in full. The only thing that's worth any substance from Natalie can be phrased like this: "Oh noes, aggressive females are getting booted, better not be aggressive", which reads like such a lame excuse in defense of her being a coattail. Truth is, she had no choiice about anything. She's a coattail by nature and had no power to win or survive or strategize outside of others in the game. She was as others said "never in the field." "2. Did you also not read the interviews, where Natalie, Mick, and Jaison all said that part of what we didn't see was them constantly defending Russell from getting voted off, both at Foa Foa and Aiga? Or Mick's (or maybe Jaison's) comments that when they thought about pulling Natalie in to vote off Russell, that she wouldn't budge? Or in episode 2 when a plot was hatched to oust him, Natalie put a stop to it? " Well, you have a point but it works the other direction in Russell's favor. If Russell didn't have a social game (he didn't have an ultimate social game -- he didn't see the forest, of course), he wouldln't have had allies protecting and working to his benefit. That's the point of such alliances. People do what is in their mutual benefit to do. Russell positioned himself in a way that was best for him. Russell created the relationships that gave him protection from his enemies. That's his credit too. |
|||
aiharaindropsotr |
|||
|
Sorry, very very very very few people come close to moronese that comes out of Palin's mouth. Natalie is far away from that. So I take that gratuitious
comparison back.
|
|||
Miles Edgeworth |
|||
|
Still dont explain what makes natalie more deserving than mick since they both played the same game.
|
|||
underYa |
|||
|
Awesome article!!
|
|||
RobVanStratus |
|||
|
If someone is burning bridges left and right at the end-game, it's in your best interest to keep that person around for the final 2/3. The jury, who was
burned by the player, will be pissed off and likely vote against them because of being burned.
That's not playing the social game, it's called others recognizing that someone is going to get roasted by the jury and deflecting votes away from them so they can make it to the finals with that person and win the game by not being the dick that burned people. If Russell was well liked by everyone and wasn't targeted, like Natalie was, he'd have gotten credit for his social game. But as we saw in the finale, Russell taunted his opponents and was arrogant, which rubbed people the wrong way. It's one thing to play a strategic game like Todd did and be able to own your game in the final TC. But when you flaunt your game arrogantly from day 1 to day 39, you will piss people off and they will remember it. It's not just about finding idols and organizing votes against your biggest threats, it's about forming relationships with other people to put them on the jury to vote for you. |
|||
pushingjate |
|||
|
Natalie/Russell (not factoring in Mick since many people saw him as non-existent) is similar to Guatemala in that Danni took Steph cause she knew the jury
hated her/wouldnt reward someone whos playing for a 2nd time versus someone for the first time. Natalie did the same with Russell.
|
|||
V |
|||
|
Irrespective of who won or deserved to win the game, this was a terrible jury. Most of their questions/comments during the final tribal council were either
stupid or just plain vindictive.
I hope most of the jurors in Survivor have an attitude like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhk8Uff9fuE&feature=channel But it's not likely.. |
|||
ImCrushingYourHead |
|||
|
All the same arguments back & forth. Social game/no social game, blah blah blah.
The great thing the article points out so well is that the editing was VERY slanted. We'll never really know who 'deserved' to win. |
|||
ThrowMeGabon |
|||
ImCrushingYourHead wrote:At the end of the day, I guess this is true. I just think inventing an alternate reality where Natalie dominated the game is worse than buying the Russell mastermind edit like a sucker. The editing was awful, half of them could have been masterminds and we'd never know. |
|||