SurferZ wrote:Maybe so, but people can change themselves. Survivor is a social game. You change the personality of one contestant you completely change the game. Look at contestants on different seasons. Vast differences in some cases. There is not a social aspect to sports. Survivor hinges on the social aspect. This is the point I'm trying to make. I think I get what you are saying as well though or maybe you are trying to say something else and I'm not understanding correctly.
25 was just a number I pulled out of nowhere. As the number of games played gets higher eventually the percentages would settle. Im not a math genius but if you think of it sort of like x = # of iterations. IF you check the percentages of wins as x approaches infinity I think they would settle and some would be higher than others. For example, Ill make an educated guess that Ben and Yasmin would have 2 of the lower percentages out of the 20 contestants.
I agree with you that every winner has luck involved and there are so many factors to the game that there is no surefire way to win. But, I do think some players have traits, strategies, likability, etc... that they will win more than others.
0 Points
- Survivor Sucks
- Lions, Tigers, Survivors - Oh My!
- Survivor Spoilers
- MESS Hall Tribal Council
- MESS Hall Archive
- Survivor Speculation
- Survivor: The Future
- The Amazing Race
- Big Brother
- Big Brother - PAST SEASONS
- The Apprentice
- American Idol
- American Idol PAST SEASONS
- The Mole
- Lost
- Other Shows that Suck
- Off Topic
- Clubs that Suck. No, Really.
- The Dump
- Monster Island
- Purgatory
- FAQ
- In Memory, 9/11/01
Yes, getting the most votes means you are the best player.
| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 xoDC3xo |
|||
|
Posts: 200 (12/24/09 07:16 PM) |
|
||
|
SurferZ |
|||
|
Posts: 34 (12/24/09 07:22 PM) |
I think we understand each other and were set in our opinions. Nice discussion, we could probably go on forever for instance I would reply that ability to
change oneself would be a skill to make a stronger survivor player. Like Heidik, he's not the nicest person in the world but he was able to mask that in
his game. I dont think Ben could do something like that.
|
||
|
unduli clone |
|||
|
Posts: 8099 (12/24/09 07:22 PM) Registered User |
Okay, so basically in concept, your point is entirely valid. The person who won each season managed either to bully, slide, or ride their way into the finals where they managed to get the needed amount of votes to win; therefore, they are the best player of their season by correctly doing what they needed to in order to win. However, when we begin comparing players from separate seasons against one another, words such as "deserving" and "best" do come to mind. |
||
|
xoDC3xo |
|||
|
Posts: 201 (12/24/09 07:24 PM) |
SurferZ wrote: Actually you do bring up a good point. I agree to this point. Certain people are willing to adapt. Some are not. Adaptability is the only thing you can control in Survivor. This is a good point and I'm glad you brought it up. |
||
|
xoDC3xo |
|||
|
Posts: 202 (12/24/09 07:34 PM) |
unduli clone wrote:Hmm... depends on how you go about it. You can do it, but a way you could do it and make it more valid is if you switched winners. Would Nat have been able to play Brian's game? I'm not sure if she could have adapted. But then no Brian means no mastermind and the season is completely different, so I'm not so sure. Maybe I'm seeing this differently as you. How do you deem deserving and best in different seasons? Look I'm not trying to destroy LTS lol, but I just want people to realize that it's just fun, and that's all it is. You can't use it to take away a winners win. |
||
|
unduli clone |
|||
|
Posts: 8101 (12/24/09 07:37 PM) Registered User |
No, I agree with the main thrust of what you're saying. Natalie is the best player of Samoa because she won. We can say that as far as an aggressive strategic game she may not have played as capably as Russell, but that wasn't the type of gameplay that gave her the win and doesn't detract from her "deservingness" as a winner. However, threads where we try to rank "objectively" the winners is a different story because we are now comparing them based on their gameplay. As far as trying to determine which are better than others, I think it's important to gauge their competition, the twists in their season, the effort put forth, vital challenges won, etc, etc. But it still is ridiculously biased and nothing but fun. |
||
|
xoDC3xo |
|||
|
Posts: 203 (12/24/09 07:40 PM) |
unduli clone wrote: Agreed 100%. |
||
|
JerseyJerk |
|||
|
Posts: 4510 (12/24/09 07:48 PM) Registered user |
The winner of each season is the best castaway for that season. You are an idiot if you think any other way.
If I were running a 20 mile race and reached mile 18 while everyone else was at mile 10 and then I became dehydrated and subsequently lost does that mean I really am the best because I was in the lead the longest? No it does not. The votes for winner matter as much as the votes cast to boot someone. If you are not going to agree with one you can't agree with the other so just stop watching because you obviously do not understand the game. (to no one in particular...just Russ fans) When it comes to debating who is better across seasons...well you can only say who you like better....Survivor is basically the same but different every season. Who's to say that if Russell was in Africa he would have become dehydrated and passed out or just plain not been able to deal with the heat....OR who's to say if Osten was in a dry land local like Gabon or China he would have succeeded at challenges and had an overall better moral and thus go on to win.....OR whos to say if Brian, Rich, and Fairplay were all on an original tribe together they wouldn't have been seen as a small alliance of strategic assholes and been voted out 1-2-3. |
||
|
thehalford |
|||
|
Posts: 1 (12/24/09 08:04 PM) |
JerseyJerk wrote: Completely agree with this. The best player of a season may not be the best player for a season. Bob was the best player for Gabon because he won.Was he the best player in Gabon? Almost certainly not - players like Ken, Marcus and even Corinne (much as she's a wicked unenjoyable bitch) would, I suspect, do better on average playing the game multiple times than the man who just helped with the shelter and stayed well away from any strategy that wasn't based in being likeable by everyone (but hey, it worked). Natalie won Samoa. She is the best player for the Samoa season. Russell is presumably the most strategic player, Brett the challenge beast, but Natalie got the majority of votes from the jury, and it doesn't matter one way or the other why that is the case. The simple fact is, she did. |
||
|
xoDC3xo |
|||
|
Posts: 204 (12/24/09 08:10 PM) |
thehalford wrote: Hmmm... I have to think about this one. For me the best player of and for a season is someone who won. I mean they all go in with a set strategy and it can change or evolve, but Bob's strategy ultimately prevailed. So he was the best player of and for Gabon. Please rip my post apart if I misinterpreted. I agree that someone like Bob might not be willing to adapt though. **EDIT** I think we are saying the same thing. I just didn't understand, initially. I should really think before I post sometimes lol. I type faster than I think.
Last Edited By: xoDC3xo
12/24/09 08:22 PM.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
JerseyJerk |
|||
|
Posts: 4514 (12/24/09 08:29 PM) Registered user |
xoDC I don't think "Thehalford" read my post before he agreed with it. I agree with you that all that matters is who is the winner. Natalie is
the best player in Samoa just like Bob was the best player in Gabon. If you win you are the best player or else winning does not matter
|
||
 Kirblar |
|||
|
Posts: 8638 (12/24/09 08:30 PM) Registered user |
"Best Player" and "Winner" really are two different things. Survivor is a game, and with any game there's a lot of luck involved.
However, getting more votes than another finalist does likely mean that you "played better" than them. |
||
|
thehalford |
|||
|
Posts: 3 (12/24/09 08:32 PM) |
xoDC3xo wrote:We... sort of are, lol. But should one thing change in Gabon (no initial switch, Kota winning F10 IC, Ken not overthinking at F7 and just booting Matty), then Bob more than likely would not have won, and as such would not be considered the best player for the season. But all those things did happen, and Bob was lucky/smart enough to take advantage of those things. Same with JT. Stephen wins the last immunity, we see a probable 6-1 vote in his favour against Erinn instead of the 7-0 whitewash. I'm not disagreeing with the notion that Natalie was the best player in Samoa, FYI. I'm saying that she attained that status with an amount of luck - more or less than a different winner? I couldn't say. But she used the conditions, people and jury correctly enough to win. |
||
|
xoDC3xo |
|||
|
Posts: 205 (12/24/09 08:33 PM) |
JerseyJerk wrote:Right I agree with this but he mentioned on average. On average Bob might not be someone who would be willing to adapt so I wasn't sure if that's what he meant. **EDIT** ACK! Too many posts for my puny little brain. I'm extremely tired and need a while to think about what you guys have posted. In the meanwhile feel free to pick apart anything I've said or contribute anything else. Hopefully my thread doesn't die by tomorrow. 
Last Edited By: xoDC3xo
12/24/09 08:37 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
JerseyJerk |
|||
|
Posts: 4515 (12/24/09 08:35 PM) Registered user |
We... sort of are, lol. But should one thing change in Gabon (no initial switch, Kota winning F10 IC, Ken not overthinking at F7 and just booting Matty), then Bob more than likely would not have won, and as such would not be considered the best player for the season. But all those things did happen, and Bob was lucky/smart enough to take advantage of those things.But what happened happened.....switches take place...who ever deals with the game the best is the best.... |
||
|
xoDC3xo |
|||
|
Posts: 206 (12/24/09 11:17 PM) |
JerseyJerk wrote:I agree with this. I LIED! I know I said I was going to sleep but I just thought of a way to respond to this post. In my compilation of posts someone proposed to me a what if scenario for Russell. I responded that I easily could do what if's in favour of any of the contestants. Now you are using logical what ifs and this is fair and you may value it. Fine, but let me use wild hypotheticals to put it into perspective for you. "WHAT IF THE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI HAD WASHED UP PROBST AND THE CAST?!?! NO MORE SURVIVOR!!!!" "WHAT IF BRETT AND MICK HAD GAY SEX ON THE ISLAND AND MAGICALLY THEY HAD A BABY AND THIS BABY WAS GRANTED THE ABILITY TO PLAY AND WON!!! OMG!!!" What do both of our what ifs have in common? Neither of them happened and are therefore useless to use in terms of using it as a criteria for a deserving winner. You may value it, like I said, and may prefer Brian to Bob which is fine, but what you proposed didn't happen. It's just speculation.
Last Edited By: xoDC3xo
12/24/09 11:28 PM.
Edited 3 times.
|
||
|
JerseyJerk |
|||
|
Posts: 4521 (12/24/09 11:27 PM) Registered user |
Or even more subtle what if's like "What if they didn't shake up the tribes in Vanuatu? What if they shook up the tribes in Samoa? What if they
didn't do "Battle of the Sexes" in Amazon?
|
||
|
Schadenfreude |
|||
|
Posts: 820 (12/25/09 12:38 AM) MESS member |
I so completely agree with this. One crucial aspect of this game is playing in such a way that people WANT TO VOTE FOR YOU TO WIN THE GAME. Someone that played
a brilliant game but lost to a supposedly "weaker" opponent misjudged or ignored the jury, and I can't say I have much sympathy for them.
I think the Russell loss is the freshest in our mind, but, truthfully, he severely misread the jury. I think that a key skill is determining what criteria a jury is likely to vote on: strategy, "social game" which is code for "popularity contest" or "not behaving like a jackass" , ability to dominate in physical competitions, and work ethic around camp. Russell banked on #1, Natalie banked on #2 and won. Other players that severely and notoriously misjudged the jury: Kelly W (she assumed, falsely, that her social game would get her the win, not realizing that most of the Pagongs whose votes she was courting were planning to vote for Richard), Brian (who made the same faulty assumption that Russell did that a jury would be as cold and logical as he was, and nearly lost to Clay because of it), Matt (who had the unenviable choice between facing the highly popular Jenna or the respected strategist Rob, and he was... hardworking and good at physical challenges, which were not criteria the jury seemed to care about), Neleh (whose reluctance to admit to actually strategizing cost her the game... I believe that both John and the General would have at least been willing to vote for her had she not been ashamed of actually strategizing), Danielle (who lacked the awareness that, in the final four, she was, in fact, the goat) and Stephenie (who falsely assumed that America's love for her from Palau would carry over to the jury, not realizing that half the jury was aligned with Danni and the other half was pissed off at her.) |
||
|
Antithesys |
|||
|
Posts: 25850 (12/25/09 01:10 AM) Gadabout |
Yeah I've been saying this for years.
The best player in a given season, by definition, is the player who wins that season. It may be that if we played the season a thousand times, Russell might win nine hundred ninety-nine of them. But we can't do that; all we've got is this one instance. If you only see one baseball game your entire life, and Babe Ruth is playing, and people tell you "Babe Ruth is the greatest ballplayer of all time", and Ruth proceeds to strike out four times, is he the best player of that game? Of course not. You could make the argument that he's the best player who played in the game, but in the context of that singular game, he did not stand out at all. Russell could very well be the Babe Ruth of Survivor. For all we know, he was the best player who played in Samoa. But he didn't play the best game in Samoa. That's all there is. People are free to speculate about coulda-woulda-shoulda and what-if possibilities, that's why we have forums. But objectively, the best player in Samoa was Natalie, case closed. |
||
|
Cyberball2072 |
|||
|
Posts: 636 (12/25/09 03:41 AM) I love ShiiAnn |
I would not say that getting the most votes from the jury makes you the best player.
It does make you the winner, though. Or in Shii Ann's case, the loser again. |
||
- Survivor Sucks
- Lions, Tigers, Survivors - Oh My!
- Survivor Spoilers
- MESS Hall Tribal Council
- MESS Hall Archive
- Survivor Speculation
- Survivor: The Future
- The Amazing Race
- Big Brother
- Big Brother - PAST SEASONS
- The Apprentice
- American Idol
- American Idol PAST SEASONS
- The Mole
- Lost
- Other Shows that Suck
- Off Topic
- Clubs that Suck. No, Really.
- The Dump
- Monster Island
- Purgatory
- FAQ
- In Memory, 9/11/01
Message board courtesy of Survivor Sucks member support.
Benevolent dictatorship courtesy of Survivor Sucks Admin Idoits.
