Why the "Bitter Jury" Argument Sucks in Survivor Sucks Forum

0 Points

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Why the "Bitter Jury" Argument Sucks

Started By

Comment

pocket aces.anti

[-]

Posts: 222

(12/28/09 03:10 AM)

Save time... see it my way. - Said ad!
Remove this ad

JPOz wrote:

Paparazzi wrote:
Yeah, all of Foa Foa voted for all of Galu, and it's not like they were aligned, they were just trying to get ahead. It wasn't a bitter jury, it was just a jury that thought Natalie played better. I don't know why people can't fathom this...
Because some people cannot accept that everyone has a right to say no. And that jurors who decided NO to Russell and YES to Natalie had a right to make that decision. Easier to blame the jury as bitter, and attack them and Natalie, than admit Russell's shortcomings cost him the game because some are unwilling to admit there were shortcomings in his game.

That about explains it. I didnt see that as a bitter jury at all, its just so in the vivid deluded imaginations of Russwholes. I didnt really care who won but after watching the Russell meltdown cryfest during and after the finale I was glad that Natalie took it down.

Now the piece of shit is spoiling the next season.

invictus

[-]

Posts: 68

(12/28/09 05:23 AM)

JPOz wrote:

Paparazzi wrote:
Yeah, all of Foa Foa voted for all of Galu, and it's not like they were aligned, they were just trying to get ahead. It wasn't a bitter jury, it was just a jury that thought Natalie played better. I don't know why people can't fathom this...
Because some people cannot accept that everyone has a right to say no. And that jurors who decided NO to Russell and YES to Natalie had a right to make that decision. Easier to blame the jury as bitter, and attack them and Natalie, than admit Russell's shortcomings cost him the game because some are unwilling to admit there were shortcomings in his game.

This is bullcrap. I don't think anyone believes Russell played a perfect game. The problem that most Russell supporters have with the vote is that the reasons given for voting Natalie all suck. I don't think there is anyway to honestly believe that Natalie played a superior game. I certainly haven't heard any persuasive arguments in this thread.

invictus

[-]

Posts: 69

(12/28/09 05:27 AM)

forsbergacct2000 wrote:
None of this matters.

Per the rules of the game, the jury can vote for whomever they please among the finalists. Everyone playing the game knows this.

Plenty of people have dominated the "voting out" part of the game and lost the final vote. This is not a novel occurence and should not have been a surprise possibility for Russell. Maybe he will watch his mouth and behavior in general next time.

Right, but as I commented above, the reason most fans of Russell are ticked off is because Natalie's game was weak, and it's hard to make a persuasive argument that she played a better game and therefore "deserved" it more. The jury can pick names out of a hat to decide the winner, that doesn't mean that's not a stupid way to vote.

Paparazzi

[-]

Posts: 12

(12/28/09 05:56 AM)

invictus wrote:

JPOz wrote:

Paparazzi wrote:
Yeah, all of Foa Foa voted for all of Galu, and it's not like they were aligned, they were just trying to get ahead. It wasn't a bitter jury, it was just a jury that thought Natalie played better. I don't know why people can't fathom this...
Because some people cannot accept that everyone has a right to say no. And that jurors who decided NO to Russell and YES to Natalie had a right to make that decision. Easier to blame the jury as bitter, and attack them and Natalie, than admit Russell's shortcomings cost him the game because some are unwilling to admit there were shortcomings in his game.

This is bullcrap. I don't think anyone believes Russell played a perfect game. The problem that most Russell supporters have with the vote is that the reasons given for voting Natalie all suck. I don't think there is anyway to honestly believe that Natalie played a superior game. I certainly haven't heard any persuasive arguments in this thread.

I disagree. I think Natalie did play a superior game. Natalie recognized that Russell would drag her to the end, and she also recognized that he was burning bridges. She was able to sit back and let Russell do the work, while making bonds with jury. She KNEW that Russell was going to get trashed at the end, and therefore she took him to the end (Mick, Jaison and Natalie theoretically could have turned on Russell at F5 but they didn't want to because they knew they could beat him). In the end, Natalie was able to make a path to the end, AND come up with a way to convince the jury to vote for her. Russell was only able to do one. Just because her game was passive, doesn't mean it was weak, she had a plan, she was reasonably confident in it, and she stuck to it. Russell completely underestimated Natalie, and Natalie knew this, she purposefully boosted his ego and caused him to get even more cocky. When it came down to it, Natalie's perceptions of the game were right, and Russell's were wrong, therefore she completely outwitted and outplayed him.

Whether that's convincing to you or not, I don't know. But it convinced the jury, and that's all that matters.

Wild Jazie

[-]

Posts: 3807

(12/28/09 06:04 AM)

Registered User

Was Natille's game really weak?
They focused on Russell the whole season, we didn't have a chance to see her or anyone else's game playing.

Besides the whole idea of playing to win is to have the peeps you targeted vote for you to win.

JasonSiskaRulz

[-]

Posts: 108

(12/28/09 08:08 AM)

Even the jurors have said that Natalie's game was fuckin' weak!

So stop with this bullshit argument "I think she played a better game" when the people who voted for her don't even think that, and have said as much.

Axie.rsfd

[-]

Posts: 308

(12/28/09 08:14 AM)

WHo cares? What truly matters is that Russhole got owned on live TV. <3

JPOz

[-]

Posts: 720

(12/28/09 08:44 AM)

invictus wrote:

JPOz wrote:
Because some people cannot accept that everyone has a right to say no. And that jurors who decided NO to Russell and YES to Natalie had a right to make that decision. Easier to blame the jury as bitter, and attack them and Natalie, than admit Russell's shortcomings cost him the game because some are unwilling to admit there were shortcomings in his game.

This is bullcrap. I don't think anyone believes Russell played a perfect game. The problem that most Russell supporters have with the vote is that the reasons given for voting Natalie all suck. I don't think there is anyway to honestly believe that Natalie played a superior game. I certainly haven't heard any persuasive arguments in this thread.

The bullcrap is your reply and you certainly will not hear any persuasive argument when you refuse to accept facts. There are statements all over this forum which document how these jurors perceived the game and that their decision was based on their comparison of how each finalist performed in those different aspects of the game.
Real life fact: people do have a right to say no. This is not bullcrap. This is the way life is. This jury said yes to the overall gameplay of Natalie and no to Russell's gameplay. That does not make them bitter, it means they exercised their free will, as was their right.

ETA: NOTE: If someone supported Hillary Clinton's candidacy and refused to vote Obama because he beat her for nomination their behavior is bitter; if they chose to vote McCain because they thought he was a better candidate their behavior is not bitter.

Last Edited By: JPOz 12/28/09 08:52 AM. Edited 1 times.

Survivor Boy

[-]

Posts: 7100

(12/28/09 01:06 PM)

Registered User

Has the final tribal council voting video been posted on CBS.com?

I want to know what each of them said when casting their votes.

Michael Scotch

[-]

Posts: 122

(12/28/09 01:53 PM)

Save time... see it my way. - Said ad!
Remove this ad

Galu and Jaison were damn bitter about losing the game and blamed Russell for their collective downfall. If they really thought Natalie deserved the million dollars then why did they discredit her gameplay so much at final tribal and why did Erik vote for RATalie.

What's worse in real life, an asshole or a hypocrite? A person that admits they are a jerk or someone who pretends to be nice, but goes along with the jerk.

Mick and Natalie have no spine and did nothing to make it to the finals. I rewatched some of the premerge episodes and they were truly pathetic people, whereas Russell did not let the brutal environment affect his gameplay and work ethic.

Anyone who honestly believes Natalie played a better game is an idiot. The jury didn't vote for her, they voted against Russell. What bothers me is not the fact that russell didn't win the money, why the fuck should I care about that asswipe. What bothers me is the jury not voting who they believed was most deserving.

DragonSlayer

[-]

Posts: 13

(12/28/09 02:06 PM)

Michael Scotch wrote:
...Anyone who honestly believes Natalie played a better game is an idiot. The jury didn't vote for her, they voted against Russell...

damn right!
just look at natalie's stupid facial expression when russel corrected her on her "best move" comment, she's just an undeserving dumb ass girl

she and mick truely had no spine what so ever!
she didn't even have the guts to give the title sole survivor to russell, what she should have done without a doubt.

this was the most pathetic jury decision in survivor history... PERIOD!!!

Bulletin Bored

[-]

Posts: 21339

(12/28/09 02:14 PM)

Registered user

If you are going to call the jury bitter, you have to acknowledge that the 2 votes for Russell were "bitter jury votes" as well.

Shambo loved Russell because he helped her vote out all of the people who ostracized her. She was pissed when she was voted out but she was also happy because she won the portion of the game that was most important to her.

John hates people. John knew people were voting for Natalie. I'm sure he took great pleasure in voting for Russell, knowing he was smarter than all the other idiots voting for Natalie. John also had a Shambo-esque personal victory when Russell helped him turn on Galu, the very people who voted out Erik and were offering him up to be voted for at that night's tribal.

It's all bitter and it's all personal and it's ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY.

Pay attention.

Michael Scotch

[-]

Posts: 124

(12/28/09 02:22 PM)

The only other time a jury was this bitter was on ASS and no one cared to complain as much because technically Rob and Amber BOTH won.

The Gabon jury was bitter against Sugar but she cost herself a chance to win by bringing Bob to finals and screwing Matty. Also, she gave a terrible jury performance whereas Rob and Russell both explained their strategies well.

DragonSlayer

[-]

Posts: 14

(12/28/09 02:31 PM)

Bulletin Bored wrote:
If you are going to call the jury bitter, you have to acknowledge that the 2 votes for Russell were "bitter jury votes" as well.

Shambo loved Russell because he helped her vote out all of the people who ostracized her. She was pissed when she was voted out but she was also happy because she won the portion of the game that was most important to her.

John hates people. John knew people were voting for Natalie. I'm sure he took great pleasure in voting for Russell, knowing he was smarter than all the other idiots voting for Natalie. John also had a Shambo-esque personal victory when Russell helped him turn on Galu, the very people who voted out Erik and were offering him up to be voted for at that night's tribal.

It's all bitter and it's all personal and it's ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY.

Pay attention.

nonsense