Yuku free message boards

Sshaaz wrote:

---

JPOz, to say Russell benefitted from a 5-6 hour headstart in finding the idol, thus making it unfair is also saying Natalie benefitted from a bitter jury making it unfair. You can't deny that she benefitted from a bitter jury...you just can't.

I hadn't seen your last post before my last post on the prior page, and no I wouldn't say it has anything to do with tits and Jesus.

Like most things, I've mixed thoughts about the "bitter jury" concept. Both Dave and Luara's post-game interviews mentioned the time problem with the second HII. Much easier to blame the producer than admit it would not have been an issue if they handled the situation correctly. If failing to take responsibility for their mistake is what you consider bitter then yes, the HII story contributed to jury bitterness. But I consider that immaturity for not taking responsibility for one's actions. May be splitting hairs there but that's how I see it.

I see a difference between saying no and being bitter.
Would I ever vote for Russll? No. Is it bitterness? No. Is it his wealth? No Is it Russhate? No. It's because I have had a Cat 1 Hurricane pass directly over my neighborhood. Because I have crouched under a desk as the wind howls through the rafters, the windows shake and bend, the doors rattle in their frames. Because I have gone outside the next day to find 4x4 fence posts sheared at the base and 10 foot sections of tree tops completely sheared off and missing- not in the yard, the neighbor's yard, or road. Just gone. Because I know people who ended up homeless, standing in food lines and going to Goodwill to put clothes on their backs. Because I boarded up the house for the next hurricane...and for 3 months lived in a tomb. Because I've known someone who lost everything in Hurricane Andrew and years later was still suffering from it.

The worst part - the success he's had the past few years is probably in part due to being able to step into a void created by Katrina, Rita and Ike's destruction of oil companies/rigs in the Gulf.

So for me it's pretty easy to see a jury might say no to Russell's behavior and it isn't bitterness. It's just that sometimes something is so wrong you're just going to say no. Ever break up with someone? Is it because you are bitter? Nope. It's because something is so wrong you just say no more and walk away. That is your right and it is the jury's right to say no to any castaway for any reason they want.

Does that mean there was no bitterness? Nope. Jaison, Shambo and Erik seemed to have bitterness. Jaison not by his speech but by other comments. John, by his vote and comment, was not bitter toward Russell. Brett and Laura votes - based on off air comments - were most likely for Natalie's qualities and against Russell for the qualities he did and did not demonstrate.

We only saw a fraction of anybody's questions and can't know how much bitterness there was. What we were shown was included to show us something: Brett was used to show Mick didn't relate to the Galu, Monica to show Mick did not have passion to win, Laura to show Russell didn't know the people on Galu, Dave to show Russell knew he miscalculated and Kelly to rehabilitate Russell's public image.

You asked can I admit there was bitterness - yes there was. But it wasn't just bitterness that compelled them to vote for Natalie and not for Russell. It was also people saying yes to good things Nat did and no to things Russell did - in spite of the many good things he did in the game strategically. If you think that's a stretch - Dave Ball/jury broke game into 4 parts (physical/challenge, strategic, social, camp duties/life) and used that framework to rationalize their decisions.

Sshaaz wrote:

---

JPOz, I love that post. I'll try to show the way I see it. Natalie's strong social game matched Russell's strong strategic game. Natalie's weak strategic game matched Russell's weak social game. Its point/counterpoint. Did Nat's strategy involve orchestrating Erik's boot? I say no. It wasn't her idea, plus she didn't *turn* anyone. But the pro-Nat coalition *needs* that to bolster their argument. Did Russell's social game result in John flipping for him and subsequently voting for him? Did Russell's social game garner "implicit trust" from Shambo? Did Russell's social game keep Foa Foa so tight knit that they overcame an 8-4 deficit? Its hard to argue against it. Did Russell's social game have Erik pumping his fist and doing everything but masturbating at Tribal Council? The pro-Nat coalition *needs* to ignore these things because becoming Prayer-Warriors is the way to win Survivor. There are pros and cons to each person's strategic and social game. Something turned the tide. We have to look at the jury. We know that Monica promised to poison the jury. Does that bolster anything Natalie did? No. We know that Dave Ball had his mind made up before he opened his mouth. We know that Erik was the most bitter person to ever sit on a jury, and has claimed that the voting is now so arbitrary. We know Jaison was a hypocrite because he wasted his time at FTC talking about who made money, when he's a lawyer and his family are bazillionaires. We know that Brett voted for whoever Laura told him to, so he used his FTC time to try to pick Mick up for a date. We know that Kelly tried to compare herself to Natalie and took out her anguish at not being able to prove it by punishing the person in the Final 3 that who caused it. The jury was embarrassed. I was embarrassed for them. They had the chance to redeem themselves and they failed. Everyone here knows it, but can't nut up and admit it because they would, in turn, be embarrassed.

Thanks. I'm trying to be as concise and putting some thought into itinstead of just flailing away at the keyboard.
Agree there are pro's and con's to social and strategic game of both and both coalitions should give credit where credit is due. That being said, somebody posted a\this comment about jury: those who considered strategy the most important criteria - John and Shambo - voted Russell. Those who valued relationship building voted Natalie. In essence, people voted for the qualities they valued, jurors voted for gameplay they identified with. I think in most elections voters will choose the person they identify with most. But Survivor each voter is already a loser in the election. The loss is a blow to the ego. Having someone like them win softens the pain of that loss - kind of like "well I didn't win but at least it was someone whose gameplay I understand, not some asshole from the other tribe."

Re the Erik boot - viewers were told she was primary force behind this boot several times, by Probst voiceover. His authority makes it easy to cling to as one of her accomplishments.

For me, re jury:
Jaison - speech was intended to help Russell but also make up for being the leak about his wealth. Says his vote was pro-Nat, and do believe he approved of her gameplay more, but other comments show betrayal bitterness.
Shambo - bitter to Mick and Natalie, but I think the both knew he had her vote. A feckless attempt to make a memorable FTC speech.
Brett - the Mick question was not a homo pass but to show Mick didn't build relationships Brett's primary strategy was build relationships. Natalie built, Mick didn't build, Russell built and burned. Brett's vote was an approval vote, not a bitter vote and not just following Luara.
Monica-were not shown how Nat handled ? so don't know if she earned vote or not. Based on what we did see the Monica vote would seem to be mostly a NO to Russell vote, based on his wealth and the way he treated her/others and not necessarily a bitter vote.
Kelly - interesting question - was she trying to find out if Russell was wealthy because he was an ass in real life or trying to make him prove his behavior was just game play. Seemed like his answer didn't resolve the question in her head but she didn't want to discuss/argue and gave up. Can't say if her vote was bitter, yes Nat or No Russ, seems most likely she just went along with the group.
John - our brilliant rocket scientist had already decided to vote Russell because he was smarter than the group and was going to show he wasn't an idiot like these morons who cannot process things. (Sorry, gonna hurl, it hurts to type that). So, he lobs a nice slow-pitch softball to both Mick and Nat so they can belt it out of the park...because these inferior morons need help phrasing a question and the INCORRECT answers Mick and Nat have given didn't clear things up for the jurortards. How the hell did they ever get through 18 seasons without John? (P.S. not a bitter vote)
Danger Dave - a trick question to see how cocky and arrogant Russell's self-assessment would be. Russell fell into the trap. Didn't really matter, Dave had already decidied Nat. Believe vote was part yes Nat, part No Russell with cause
Laura - her ? seemed to be trying to figure out how much of Russell's impression of her was based on things Shambo said and how much did he actually get to know her...and he showed the only thoughts he had about her were game related. At reunion she said she would have voted Shambo over Russell and she don't like Shambo. Something happened between Laura and Russell or the job/money lie was too reprehensible for her. My impression, more than any of the others (including Jaison) is that this was a NO FUCKIN WAY Russell vote with cause, not just because of bitterness and also a definite YES Natalie vote, Laura would appreciate Natalie's handling of Russell.
Erik - Lie - was that re job/money? Cheat/steal -is he referring to HII? Erik was out when HII#2 happened; he's mad about something that didn't involve him and not taking responsibility for mishandling the HII he held. Bitter, immature, ? going along with group vote.

To me, from what I saw, Russell said he would use people until he no longer needed them. He repeatedly emphasized how stupid everyone else was. Once he had John and Shambo he did not need anyone else from Galu and he treated them like the inferior morons he thought they were. When he Shambo was no longer useful he crapped all over her, behind her back. After Brett and Jaison were gone he was insulting and disrespectful to Mick and Natalie at camp. In front of the jury - and even now in the press -he tried to make it clear that he and he alone accomplished everything. He needed help from the Foans, John and Shambo to accomplish what he did. He could not have done it alone. No disrespect - yes, there was some bitterness BUT there was also a lot of reason for these people to say we are not giving you the money which wasn't just being a sore loser or we don't like you, it was because for this jury that behavior did not earn their vote. That's what people were shown, that is why they do not see the jury the way you do.