Sshaaz wrote:But the jury was the jury. You can't change the jury after you've voted all of them out. That's the game of Survivor. The jury has no debt to you, America, Sucks, anyone. They vote however they please. Knowing this Russell should have adapted his game play. Natalie saw he was being reckless and jumped on that. She exploited Russell and their relationship. She also got along with Galu. She had strong bonds with Brett. That's what edged it out over Mick. Yeah they all could have colluded together and have said "Fuck Russell, let's all vote for Mick!" but they didn't because Natalie made a conscious effort to get to know the people. You can say that that's not that hard to do, well than why didn't Mick do it? Natalie got to know people. Maybe if Russell had gotten to know people they would have rewarded him. Some people value that. I don't remember who but someone in a past season asked the jury what their kids names were. Russell didn't care about any of that.
pjadedd: nah, but to say she knew wtf was going on is retarded. She was being honest about her chances, really. So was Russell, he admitted being humbled. Mick was the delusional one. That was Dave's question, and his "good game, mama" comment proves he had his mind made up. Is that fair? Its a judgement call. I lean towards no, since the entire purpose of the whole FTC is to gather information to make an informed decision. To not use it as such is disrespecting the process of the game. You cannot possibly argue against that. All of the "fair and square" talk makes me ill, because noone is taking the time to actually examine what that term means.
DC: I can't stress enough that I don't believe Natalie won as much as Russell lost. With that in mind, anyone could have replaced Natalie there and had become a millionaire. Everyone giving credit to Natalie and her game seems to be searching for a way to justify her win. But in the end, you have to take to heart what made Russell lose. It all revolves around the jury. So many arguments around what he did or didn't do with the jury. Nobody takes the time to look at the jury. People blindly accept their decision and don't question it because of the absolute desperate need to justify her winning. I just don't accept it. I'm not one to read a result and be comfortable with it because that's what happened. I guess I have to know why it happened. Why there is such little outrage at this jury, I'll never understand. Maybe someone can explain it to me.
I'm talking in facts. I'm talking about what happened. We can do what if all day long, but what happened is what happened. People like to debate what ifs all day long but in the long run, that doesn't matter. What happened matters.
