Yuku free message boards

Sshaaz wrote:

---

I honestly believe that Jaison's vote was a NO to Russell because he was stabbed in the back. The jury speech had to evolve from Ponderosa talk. He basically said "I know you guys are voting against Russell because he's wealthy, but before you do, don't ignore the fact that none of them are poor. By the way, Russell is the wealthiest one of them all..." Its definitive and bitter. What makes Brett's point moot about bridges Natalie built and Russell burned is the fact that Natalie burned those same bridges. She wasn't innocent in anything that was going on. Whatever lie Russell told, Natalie told the same one. His vote was part of the group decision. Kelly's question is the most ignorant question you can raise at Tribal Council. If you believe someone is a liar, how do expect to gain anything from anything that is said? This is basically what should have happened: Kelly "You're a liar in the game...make me believe you aren't one outside the game in three words..." Russell: "I. am. Russell." Kelly's vote was part of the group decision. Same with Dave. He could have walked up and said "Beep Bop Boop" and nothing would have changed. Was entirely No Russell. As far as I'm concerned, Laura was the ringleader of the voting block. She's an amazing hypocrite and probably held the record for the person least likely to receive an ounce of spittle if she was on fire. Then Erik opened his mouth and ripped that title right out of her grasp.

What all this equates to is this simple question: If you don't respect a jury, are you only bound to respect their decision because that's the one they made? Conversely, if you don't respect the decision they made, are you bound to respect those that agree with it?

Last long post, I promise! There is thought in this one. Less flailing. Or more of it, if you want to look at it that way.

Yes, you are bound to respect that they had the decision. Simply put, the jury has the power. Unless a points system is implemented, or a machine is used to replace the jury, the jury will always be variable in terms of the type of people in it. Different people equates to different outcomes. There is nothing changing this. You may have a hand in the make-up jury, you might not. This will always be the case. You have seen how much our opinions differ on Survivor. It's not hard to see how people would vote differently in terms or criteria for a winner. You don't have to like the people in it or think they made the right decision, but it's the nature of the game and has always been this way. Survivor has always been about the jury. To not factor in the people on it is a mistake in game play, or was for Russ.

You're still entitled to feel Laura is a hypocrite, Jaison is a backstabber etc. but these were the people on the jury. I'm just stating facts. You might claim "Well then there was nothing Russell could have done", and you know what I'd agree. It was who he was that lost the game. There is no changing that fact. We watched it happen. Could he have changed himself? Well he didn't.

I'm not sure what else you suggest to prevent bitter juries? Get rid of it all together? I ask because you continue to analyze the Galu's isn't going to change the fact that they probably were bitter or just plain ol' didn't like Russ. Yes, there was an anti-Russ sentiment on the jury but he brought it all on himself.

Unfortunately for Russell, he was handed the Samoan cast. The castaways did not care for him as a person. Would he have done better on China? I don't know but he may have had a better chance with the players we saw on that season. What we do know is that he was not able to get the respect of the people on the Samoa jury which he had a hand in the make-up of and had a hand in alienating and ridiculing.

Remember, a vote cast AGAINST someone is still a jury vote. You claim it's not legitimate and devalues Natalie's game. That would be fair BUT, I just do not for the life of me get what people who thought Russell deserved to win, suggest Natalie do to deserve her win? Play a similar game to Russell and possibly lose? I am not understanding here. We already know what happened and we know the winner. She played the right game. The better one.

***BAAASSSICCCAALLLYY***

You don't have to respect the people in the jury, or the decision they made, but you have to respect that there is a jury, and people will be on it. Real live people. They choose. Not you. Play accordingly.