Yuku free message boards

Prochoice wrote:

---

hulkweazel wrote:

---

You do realize that the intent of winning jury votes actually means that the players wins jury votes? It takes WAY more than making a "perfect" speech to win votes, it's by the actions someone had during the game. You do realize by the very FACT that Natalie got more votes that MEANS she played a better social game? Because you know, playing a social game means people actually LIKE you better. You kind of need to understand that results speak a lot about how good someone is. Russell clearly did not get the results. You're like the bozos who still claim Kansas and Kentucky were the best teams in college basketball last year despite the fact that neither even made the Final Four. You can whine all you want, but it doesn't change that the actual facts prove you wrong.

BTW, you clearly have no idea what "playing to the jury" means. It means you change your game according to how the jury thinks. If the jury gets easily bitter (Which happens to be a lot of juries really) then you make sure not to do anything to piss them off.

Russell is nothing, and Parv is also nothing. People seem to forget she got owned pretty bad in Cook. I mean, WTF is she thinking voting for Yul knowing he's one of four people who could have the idol, and the other three are in her alliance? And considering they KNEW Jonathan was a two-timing bastard, yet they STILL trusted him? Fact is, Parv got owned badly by Yul and Jonathan. She did well in Micronesia because had it easy playing against first-time nobodies.

Parv = most overrated player ever.

Congratulations on contradicting yourself.

You just lost all credibility and shown yourself to be just another ignorant, run of the mill Russell / Parv hater.

Such a disappointment.

First off, someone with six posts to their name doesn't have much credibility to begin with, so you'd better do a better job of establishing credibility instead of calling names at me. It's too bad that's pretty much all you do here.

Second, where's the contradication? Yes, Parvati won Micronesia. Grats to her. But you do realize that when half the field are first time players, and the other half have played the game before, there is a huge advantage to the returners? Notice how most of the stupid decisions that season were by the new players; without experience, they don't always know what the best course of action is. And sure, they might have watched the Favorites play before, but there's a difference between watching a 45-minute episode and actually living and playing with them every day. Plus, Parvati was pretty much nonexistent in Cook until near the end when she was booted off; the only strategy they showed her doing was flirting.

First-time performances speak for more than second or third performances because everyone starts on level ground. Parvati was terrible. Her tribe had the numbers, yet still managed to lose EVERY SINGLE member before an Aitu player went down. That's just sad. But let me close with one point that you don't seem to understand. Gaining jury votes is one aspect of the game. So is first-time performances, so is making alliances, so is competing in challenges, etc. What you're doing is pinpointing one thing that Parvati or Russell is good at, while ignoring everything else that they were terrible at, to make a claim about their skill. To be one of the best players, you have to look at the whole picture. Parvati is sorely lacking when you do that.

PS. Thanks, XtremeInnovator.

XtremeInnovator420 wrote:

---

No problem. Now all you have to do is think Chris is awesome, love Guatemala, think Sugar was a terrible player, hate Corinne, and think Kenny got screwed in Gabon while Susie should've won at F3 and we'll get along just fine.

But yes, your posts show much truth to them.

I love Guatemala but I actually haven't seen Vanuatu or Gabon yet, unfortunately.

Prochoice wrote:

---

First off, someone with six posts to their name doesn't have much credibility to begin with, so you'd better do a better job of establishing credibility instead of calling names at me. It's too bad that's pretty much all you do here.

Second, where's the contradication? Yes, Parvati won Micronesia. Grats to her. But you do realize that when half the field are first time players, and the other half have played the game before, there is a huge advantage to the returners? Notice how most of the stupid decisions that season were by the new players; without experience, they don't always know what the best course of action is. And sure, they might have watched the Favorites play before, but there's a difference between watching a 45-minute episode and actually living and playing with them every day. Plus, Parvati was pretty much nonexistent in Cook until near the end when she was booted off; the only strategy they showed her doing was flirting.

First-time performances speak for more than second or third performances because everyone starts on level ground. Parvati was terrible. Her tribe had the numbers, yet still managed to lose EVERY SINGLE member before an Aitu player went down. That's just sad. But let me close with one point that you don't seem to understand. Gaining jury votes is one aspect of the game. So is first-time performances, so is making alliances, so is competing in challenges, etc. What you're doing is pinpointing one thing that Parvati or Russell is good at, while ignoring everything else that they were terrible at, to make a claim about their skill. To be one of the best players, you have to look at the whole picture. Parvati is sorely lacking when you do that.

You tried to paint Natalie as a worthy winner, and then went on to insult Parvati, in spite of the fact that Parvati played a better game than Natalie. I agree that Parvati is overrated, and got lucky several times. I would also argue that Cerie deserved to win Micronesia. However, by your logic, the fact that Cerie didn't make it to the finals, but Parvati did, and got the votes, that would make her the better player / worthy winner, regardless of circumstances to how she got there.

That's how you contradicted yourself.

Also, this is my second troll account. I deleted one recently that had about 600 posts. Not that that's relevant, though, because someone's credibility should be determined by the merit of what he says, and not by the number of posts he has.

Not only is a troll account the pure definition of lack of merit, but the fact is, your other post lacked content to begin with. Calling me ignorant --> Ad hominem --> not credible. Again, I really don't see merit in name calling. You do not question someone else's credibility when you yourself lack it. Either post on your main or put some more thought into your posts, although I'd prefer it if you did both.

And you're really grasping at straws with your "argument" anyway by using two very different circumstances to try to argue a contradiction. Let me make this a little more clear for you. Natalie was on Survivor once. Parvati was on survivor going on three times, and when she won, it was her second time. Players have a distinct advantage their second time, being able to learn from previous mistakes, especially if they're playing against first-time players. You're comparing Parvati's second appearance to Natalie's only appearance. Funny, I seem to recall Parvati's dismal performance at Cook that you are ignoring, yet again. So let me remind you, and any other Parv supporters, that yes, Parvati did in fact play Survivor in Cook Islands, and not only did she finish sixth, but she also managed to help blow an 8-on-4 advantage, making some incredibly stupid decisions along the way. I'm really not sure what kind of Survivor revisionist history you're looking at to forget this event happened.

But you really don't stop there. You go all out trying to twist my words, because you then say that I "contradicted" myself because Parvati did better than Cirie? First off, Cirie never even entered this discussion; I don't see how I can contradict myself about Cirie when I never even talked about her. But I can see what you're trying to do - you've strawmanned my argument into something along the lines of "Results are the only thing that matters in determining who is the best survivor" which is, of course, something that I would never really agree to. But let me restate my argument, because it appears you are having problems with very selective memory (Such as, for example, Parvati's performance on Cook).

In order to compare survivor winners fairly, you need to look at every aspect of their game, from performing in challenges, strategy, forming alliances, gaining jury votes, etc. You cannot simply compare players in one aspect (Such as strategy) to determine who the best players are, because there are so many other aspects of the game. Of course a player's results help determine how strong a player is, but never did I say it was the only thing. See, results are the only thing that is pure objective fact; everything else is speculation. However, results can only be used in a direct comparison. Natalie and Russell's jury votes can be directly compared. Cirie and Parvati, on the other hand, are much more difficult to compare directly for several reasons: One, they both played before (Cirie finished fourth on Panama and Parvati finished sixth on Cook; yes, Parvati really was in Cook Islands, in case you forgot) and two, because Cirie was at the hands of Amanda. But thankfully, because this is completely off topic, I don't even have to make a decision on this, so that's the end of that. But when someone says that Russell really did play to the jury, of course I would raise an eyebrow. Because I look at the results and it certainly doesn't look like he played to the jury, and that makes the point that much harder to argue.

Oh and by the way, Parvati played in Cook and she finished sixth. Just saying.