Yuku free message boards

Oowatanite wrote:

---

I think Nat meant that she didn't play TO the cameras like Russhole - ie, she was not purposely outrageous in her confessionals.

So Mick played a really good social game, yet still received zero votes ? More proof of juror collusion at Ponderosa.

I wondered about that - a lot. I recall in the earliest editions of Survivor, the host of the reunion (Bryant Gumbel did a couple) asked the jury if they talked about who to vote for after they were booted. They all said, "no, absolutely not..."

But if you see the Ponderosa clips (fun to do in a single sitting after the reunion, btw) it's clear they go over the minutiae of the game, who did what, who said what... they definitely compare notes. Maybe they don't come right out and say, "Screw the bastard - I'm voting for Natalie, how 'bout you?" But I bet there are people whose "minutiae" they discuss certainly sway people in one direction or another.

I've figured this for a few seasons, in fact - ever since they started doing the ponderosa thing on the cbs website. What does this mean? If you spread promises and alliances around willy-nilly it will be known. Everything you say "in confidence" to one person who's on the jury will be ultimately known by every other jury member.

I think any serious player of the game should take this into account. You diss Player X mercilessly to player Y, if both Y and X get to the jury, X will know you savaged her. Is this fair or unfair? It doesn't matter - it happens. And you should take this into account.

In other words, be circumspect. I bet this never occurred to RH, or he didn't give a crap.