Yuku free message boards

Hello fellow LTSers! How are you all doing? Good? Good. Anyway, this is a fascinating topic for me. Reading the opinions of people who believe there is such a thing as "best player" and deservingness has truly baffled me. I simply don't understand using speculation as a criteria for best player. Yes, Natalie may have been voted off... but she wasn't. Was she the "safest" out there? Maybe, maybe not, but it was gamble she took and it paid off in the form of a million dollar check. It was the correct strategy. People can speculate all day long and don't get me wrong I love reading the spec and hope to possibly participate in it, but it doesn't change what happened on the island. I just want people to recognize what they are doing. Speculating! The facts and what happened speak for themselves! Right?

Natalie picked the best strategy therefore she was the most strategic. Russell picked a strategy and lost with it. Natalie successfully gauged what she needed to do. Russell didn't. She was smarter and more strategic. Am I right or wrong here?

I've been debating and arguing over in Sucks because I knew I could easily find someone to go at it with but I recognize the best way to do this is start my own thread over here. I don't want to impede on the Sucksters fun with my long ranty paragraphs lol. Anyway, I wasn't sure how to start this thread so I'll quote some of my arguments that I posted from Sucks. Apologies in advance for my poor grammar and English lol. My posts my be a pain to get through but the content has some merit, or is worth reading.

Feel free to pick at my arguments. You may get me to see things in a different light you may not, but I value anyone's insight on this matter. On with a compilation of my posts...

xoDC3xo wrote:

---

There have been bitter juries in the past and juries that were open minded like China. PG was convinced by Todd, and Jamie said she originally had intended to vote for Courtney. Fiji largely had made up there mind before going in and there was no changing anyone's votes. It's the nature of the game and what makes Survivor so amazing.

The jury doesn't owe America, the finalists, or each other anything. They vote on whatever emotions, or gameplay, or arbitrary reason they want. I'd vote for gameplay. Someone else might vote for someone because they have green eyes. It really doesn't matter. They made it to the jury and have that right to vote however they see fit. You have to play accordingly and try and guess how people are going to vote.

Sometimes you can't guess how people are going to vote like Erik or this made up person who really likes green eyes, but again nature of the game.

What do people propose instead of juries since they can't be partial and are sometimes bitter?

AI style? Let America decide each week who get's voted out? Make them krump each week? Fire challenge? Stomp to the death in a runway challenge?

The jury is what Survivor is all about and has always been about. It's my favorite part of the game. There have been people who I have liked that have performed terribly at the final tribal and people who I have despised who have performed beautifully. I still like the people who did poorly, and respect the people who I don't like but win. Take example Stephanie from Gautemala.

I rooted for her that season and found her story incredibly interesting. She screwed people over needlessly. She lost it before she ever got to the jury vote. I still liked her of course, but Danni beat her fair and square and played well.

Who I like and who is the best player (the winner) is entirely different. The objective of the game is to win. If you didn't win, you're not the best player - POINT BLANK. (IMO of course lol)

xoDC3xo wrote:

---

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.

xoDC3xo wrote:

---

Sshaaz wrote:

---

What I'm gathering is that opinions stop becoming subjective as soon as the winner is announced. Then, its objectivity and a backwards justification as to why. I'm comfortable with that, just not built that way. My opinions don't ebb and flow with the tide.

I watch Survivor completely different. I like who I like, and hate who I hate. I liked Yasmin but she would have easily quit if she had to endure the rain storm. She was entertaining. I can take note of someone positioning themselves well and like them because of that or hope that a crazy personality wins. That's the thing about Survivor, for the most part all of them are vying to win. They all pick a strategy going in and as the game progresses it evolves or can stay the same. I can't make any calls on who is doing the best. Anything can happen. You can't say which one is the best until the winner is revealed, or I can't anyway.

xoDC3xo wrote:

---

Sshaaz wrote:

---

That's just it DC, of *course* you can have your opinion about who played the best right up until that last vote is read. Then its reverse justification from that point. But none of that changes your opinion, or it shouldn't, at least...

Agree to disagree, I guess. You can say what you personally would have valued as a jury member, but it doesn't change the people who are on the jury. The people that are cast are the people you get to play with. In Guatemala I would have voted for Steph. Do I think she deserves to win? No. She lost it fair and square. It would have been nice for Steph if I was cast on the season, but those were not the cards she was dealt. Plus there are the people who didn't make the jury. You can try and guess how they would have voted and play accordingly.

xoDC3xo wrote:

---

Sshaaz wrote:

---

Bleh, DC...I guess I'm not getting my point across. I know that "my" opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to awarding the winner. I would just hope that finding out that your opinion didn't match the ones that mattered doesn't change your opinion. Example: I'm of the opinion that Rob played the best in ASS. I found out that the jury didn't think so. Should I change my opinion? I don't think I should...

No, I got your opinion. I just don't think the way you do. In my opinion the best player is the winner. For other people the best player is someone who I guess is always making bold moves and is always in control, or something to that effect.

There have been 19 winners and they have all played differently and some similarly. Since I believe the winner is the best player I don't believe there is one way to win. Really the style of game play you should play depends on the season and the cast. If you can play Brian's game and win? Good on you, but sometimes you can't. I don't respect one style of game play over the other. If you can play it like Sandra, Danni, Bob, Vecepia, or Natalie and get the jury to vote for you. Great! That's what I love about Survivor personally, there isn't one way to win and hypothetically anyone can win.

xoDC3xo wrote:

---

ThrowMeGabon wrote:

---

Yeaster wrote:

---

You Russtards can argue until you're blue in the face, but the results speak for themselves. Natalie won. Russell didn't. End of story.

So you've always been equally satisfied with each winner? Because if not, there's more to it than "X won. End of story."

There is a difference between satisfaction and good game play in my opinion. I may have loved Steph and was heartbroken she lost, but she did, and Danni won. I may have been crushed when Cirie lost and damned the producers for the final two twist, but Parvati put herself in a good position where both people would bring her. Luck was on her side. For me I can divorce liking someone and the best player ie the winner.

xoDC3xo wrote:

---

Sshaaz wrote:

---

I apologize profusely if this comes off as a slam against you DC, because I have to say...you are one of the few people who have argued your point to and T and have done it maturely...so absolute respect. But I have to ask this: Do you watch Survivor and ultimately *need* 7-9 people to form your opinion for you?

Based on my criteria of what the best player is, then I can safely give you a yes to this question. I know it might be strange thought process for you. The thing is for me is that the producers have admitted to intentionally hiding winners. We wouldn't have known watching Amazon that indeed Jenna's social game outweighed Matt's. It was shown that Matt was unstable, but it was thought to be that Jenna was unlikeable and that no one liked her. This wasn't the case. It's not like a figure skating competition. Yeah, Michelle Kwan is a great skater and she might do well in most competitions, but twice in the Olympics she screwed up. I saw her make mistakes. The judges penalized her accordingly. I can't make those judgments on a game as complicated as Survivor. I can only go with facts and who won. Hopefully I'm explaining myself.

xoDC3xo wrote:

---

ThrowMeGabon wrote:

---

What I don't get is Natards saying end placement means everything, and then saying Russell was a shitty player. If where you placed is the only thing that matters, Russell was the 2nd best. Why aren't you complaining about Marisa? Mick?

Why I disparage one and not the other is based purely on "delusional grandeur". Marisa stated "Fuck this, I'm not playing this game Russell sucks." She wasn't willing to be the slave or appear to be the slave. It's what she needed to do at the point but she refused. She might think that if she stayed she would have gotten rid of Russell... she may have.

Russell chose to do everything he did and acted surprised at the results.

xoDC3xo wrote:

---

Sshaaz wrote:

---

Yeah, you are. I see where you are coming from, but in the end, you don't think Michelle Kwan isn't a great skater, right? Does your opinion change if Michelle falls, gets some 7.0s and then Tanya Harding comes out, shaves her legs with a skate, take a swing at Dorothy Hamill and then gets 10.0s across the board?

The way you're using skating and Survivor doesn't really work for me. Like I said there is no criteria for winning Survivor other than getting the jury to vote in your favor, whether it be out of spite or "earning it". In reality there is no best Survivor player, for me personally. If Todd and Parvati played a million times sure they might do better than Vecepia or Natalie. Or they might not...

Vecepia and Natalie might lose for the first 100 rounds and adapt and learn to play like Todd and Parvati, which is the style generally respected. Todd and Parvati may lose the last 100 because they were so arrogant they won the first 100. It's all hypothetical anyway. We all don't live in a vacuum. Look at Rich in All Stars. He was voted out early and "bamboozled". Does that take away his win in Borneo? Absolutely not, but he couldn't adapt in that situation.

In skating you are on your own. Fuck those other stank bitches. You could act like the snobbiest bitch in the world. There is a way to measure a good skater. There is not a way to measure the best Survivor. It's all hypothetical. I mean don't get me wrong. It's fun to do. I love reading the "What if Shii Ann had stayed in Thailand!" or the winners lists but it's futile to use it as a criteria for a winner. Each season is different. All the people in the casts are different. Change one thing you change everything. Change Marisa to Eliza and who knows maybe she would have banded to get Russell out.

All we know is who won in their respective season and that's what I use as best player.

xoDC3xo wrote:

---

ThrowMeGabon wrote:

---

xoDC3xo wrote:

---

ThrowMeGabon wrote:

---

What I don't get is Natards saying end placement means everything, and then saying Russell was a shitty player. If where you placed is the only thing that matters, Russell was the 2nd best. Why aren't you complaining about Marisa? Mick?

Why I disparage one and not the other is based purely on "delusional grandeur". Marisa stated "Fuck this, I'm not playing this game Russell sucks." She wasn't willing to be the slave or appear to be the slave. It's what she needed to do at the point. She might think that if she stayed she would have gotten rid of Russell. She may have.

Russell chose to do everything he did and acted surprised at the results.

Will you at least admit, by your standards, Russell is a better player than Mick? He got 2 more votes than him, and the jury is the all-knowing seer of deservingness.

Yes. I agree to this. I'm not saying he isn't a bad player. It's just that he could be amazing and he doesn't see it the way I see it. Whether you agree with me or not on what a good winner is, no question, it would benefit his game to play for the jury or simply take them into consideration.

xoDC3xo wrote:

---

Sshaaz wrote:

---

Ok, pretending he didn't find any idols without any clues...lets say he got the clues necessary to find just one so we can downplay what actually happened... Giving stock to Natalie's incredible accomplishment of making Galu turn on each other, Foa Foa is still down 7-4. How did it go to 6-4? Russell. Let's downplay that accomplishment by pretending Kelly was medivac'ed out. How did it get to 5-4? Russell, but you've already downplayed that because Mick could have done it. How did it become 4-4? Russell, but lets downplay that by saying Shambo *didn't* 'implicitly' trust Russell and she was flipping to Foa Foa even if it consisted of Kel and 3 packs of beef jerky. Cut to final 4. How does Brett not become the first male winner of Survivor without a beard? Russell. Cut to Final 3. How does Natalie find herself in a position to win a million dollars? Russell. You're right, he wasn't as bad a social player when you compare it to his piss poor strategic game.

You are doing what ifs in his favour. I can easily do what ifs in Kelly's favour. Or Erik's. Or Monica's. I mean there is a difference for me in doing what ifs and knowing who the winner is and knowing what happened. I don't feel like I explained that well enough. My grammar and English sucks, lol. Yeah those things could have happened but they didn't. That's how I see things.

***NOTE***

His original post wasn't actually directed towards me but what I responded with still is valid.