
New Poll
| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
PrettyGoodYear1988 |
|||
|
God, Russell was an asshole who was intentionally mean to everyone just so he could get camera time. That's why he lost and it's why he deserved to
lose. He was basically a more proactive version of Katie. It's not that he wasn't particularly "social," it's that he was actually nasty
to people. And guess what, how you treat people in Survivor is a huge part of strategy. It's not all about votes. And Russell failed at that strategy.
|
|||
PrinceBiscuit |
|||
|
basically u nid a perfect social and strategy game to win it all......juz take a look at brian hedik frm survivor thailand.....
btw congratz to natalie.....she may not have a good strategy game.....but still honestly no 1 in this season have played a social and strategy good enuf......so natalie is da most deserving 1......
Last Edited By: PrinceBiscuit
12/22/09 01:57 PM.
Edited 2 times.
|
|||
Oowatanite |
|||
crocophile wrote: |
|||
roxbury123 |
|||
PrinceBiscuit wrote: Are you being sarcastic? Brian won by getting 4 votes from people who LIKED HIM BETTER! Ted called Clay a racist for crying out loud! If you want to make an argument for people who won without the best social game it can be said for i believe only two people Todd (i think Courtney was more liked) and Vecepia. And still its not like Vecepia and Todd were hated like Russell was. If you dont play a good social game = you cant be a good player. AND THIS JURY DID NOT "VOTE AGAINST RUSSELL" They VOTED FOR Natalie, the person they liked better. The person they felt was "the better person". We didnt have a situation like ASS where jurors like Alicia and Big Tom, vote Amber and never even mentioned her name name when voting they just said why they were not voting Rob. |
|||
reddawg |
|||
|
Basicly if you are a weak player you need a wussy jury to make you the winner. If you are a good player you need a jury that is not full of weak people. This
survivor was nothing but weak players, except for Russell. Russell had no chance. Weak people tend to stick with weak people. That is what happened with the
jury vote!
|
|||
Coachocd |
|||
reddawg wrote: Insult the jury if you want, but that still doesn't change the game that each juror picks their own criteria for picking who they want to win. The jury's game does not end when they are voted off. Their vote is to reward or punish whoever they wish for whatever reason they wish. Campaigning for jury votes is part of winning. It's not just about scheming and plotting your way to the final 2 or 3. "If you backstab your way to the top, you are playing for second place" - Tom Westman, winner of Survivor: Palau. If you do backstab your way to the top, you need to take a bigger goat than you are to the finals and/or keep your fingerprints off of as many of the weapons as possible. The audience also can choose who they want to win and so they did. The really fun part is that Russell will probably go through all of S20 thinking he won S19 and do the exact same strategy, for probably the same result when we hear the same posts bitching about the jury for playing the game all the way till the end. |
|||
WildCard88 |
|||
|
Ironic choice of words to start your last post Coach, "Insult the jury if you want." In fact, I think that was Russell's key downfall. He
believed he could show the jury up and act condescending to them and still gain their votes based on "superior" gameplay. He seems more likely to
lose the second time around if he is of the belief that he has no culpability in his loss and blames everything from Samoa on a "bitter, embarassed
jury".
|
|||
seltzer3 |
|||
|
According to Natalie and a couple of other people, Russell would taunt and make fun of the people that got voted off. I think they
cited Laura as one of the examples.
If that was true, then no wonder Russell lost. Way to ensure not getting votes idiot. |
|||
Peteybird |
|||
|
He wasn't even condescending, he just didn't sugar coat it.
|
|||
JaimeCat22 |
|||
|
Yeah, but to be fair, most of those jurors deserve to be taunted.
|
|||
Battlekid |
|||
JaimeCat22 wrote: As Rusell deserves to be taunted now. (I still like him though) BTW, could you do me a favor, and put up your FUCKING NATALIE AV? You made a deal, keep your word. |
|||
JaimeCat22 |
|||
|
You never replied to me when I offered the avatar bet. I assumed you weren't interested. Just imagine a blonde wig on Colby and pretend it's Natalie.
|
|||
crocophile |
|||
seltzer3 wrote: Oh come on now, publically humiliating people is the surest way to win them over. :rolleyes No doubt this 'strategic genius' will continue his 'game plan' into S20 (without the needed psychiatric help he can't stop himself) and get pretty much the same treatment from that Jury...as he would have from 18 other Juries.
Last Edited By: crocophile
12/23/09 04:42 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
JLK Name |
|||
|
Congrats Natalie!
I like the good person defeated the evil person. I mean seriously if Russell H won he would just be richer and he will brag about it everytime and Jeff of course will be like "best winner ever best survivor ever" |
|||
craig |
|||
According to Natalie and a couple of other people, Russell would taunt and make fun of the people that got voted off.Dave's jury question about how confident are you, was a direct response and payback for something Russ said to Laura just before she was voted off. |
|||
swine flu sally |
|||
|
RealityBBQ reported that Russell pulled Natalie over for a private convo which wasn't so private after the live finale and asked her to tell him he was the
rightful sole survivor, and she refused, laughed and walked away.
|
|||
spyzsrvvrcharmd |
|||
|
Remember ERIK's FTC speech? Perception is not reality; Reality is Reality. The fact is Natalie won. So she played a better game than Russell. Remember
Survivor at its core? It was and is a social game. All these idols, gimmicks, and twists were just added to add complexity to the show. But it has always been
a social game since the first season to the most recent. That, Russell, failed to realize. Merry Christmas!
|
|||
abrahammy |
|||
|
This is the premise of Survivor:
First you vote everybody else off. Then, as Probst puts it, you are held accountable for your actions - you have to convince the audience to vote for you anyway. If you are able control the game AND the final vote, you will be a satisfying winner of Survivor. If you control the game, but make the jury despise you in the process, you will not win (and then there is likely to be an unsatisfying winner, but that is not the winner's fault.) You HAVE to do both. Russell was such a revolting pile of dog poo I quit watching this season about half way through. He was the whole show, and he was the single most unappealing person the show's ever had - and that's saying a lot. Worse than Fairplay. MUCH worse than Coach ever thought of being. It's no surprise at all to me that he lost. I can only hope this bitter loss makes him think a bit about how he treats people. |
|||
seltzer3 |
|||
|
The problem with Russell is that he thinks that the jury is entitled to vote for him, when that is so far from theo truth. The reality is that the jury is entitled to vote whoever they feel like it. They can vote for person A base on person A played a better game, was nicer, worked harder, is hot etc. The point is to try to figure out what criteria is the jury voting...and try to appeal to them. Russell could have emulate the following winners: Chris S9-He could have bawled and cried and say he was sorry (even if he didn't mean it) to get back into the jury's good graces. I actually respect Chris a lot more as a winner after watching this season. Chris kept sucking up to the likes of Julie, and that's what helped him won. Brian S5-Drag a "goat" that sucked socially. The point was that even though Helen and Ted were so pissed off him, there was no way they would have voted for Clay, because on a social level they loathed him. Russell did have an equivalent of Clay, and that was Shambo and Jaison (to a lesser extent). |
|||
ParvatiFan27 |
|||
|
Go Natalie! My favorite all season. Flawless social game. You can say without Russell she wouldn't be there, but if it wasn't for her Russell
would've been on the Jury too.
|
|||