Yuku free message boards

Sshaaz wrote:

---

alright, enough with the google image search icon war...back to the topic:

This is only my opinion, therefore you don't have to agree with it. I actually don't mind if you don't. Just realize that the points I'm about to make are 100% valid. I've read every opinion on the internet about this result, including this board, and have come to a simple conclusion: There is no such thing as a "deserving" winner of Survivor. Here's why...

- Every argument you can make about one person's game can be made for or against any other game that's been played.
- Every style of play can work for one person and totally fail for a different person.
- There is no formula for how the game is played, therefore there is no right or wrong way to play.
- There is no tried and true strategy, as every person that sat in front of a jury had a different one...but they still sat in front of the jury, so it worked for them.
- Every jury member that has played the game has been bitter at something. Be it how they played, how they got treated, how they got used, how someone else's game differed from their own, how someone else's game *resembled* their own, yet they are still on the jury... This is why bitterness can be argued for or against any person that has sat in front of a jury.
- Survivor is the real life, observable example of the Butterfly Effect. Every word, action, plan, thought, feeling can change every potential winner. This is what leads to the proverbial "what-ifs" that come out at the end of the season.

In the end, the only thing that changes each season, which has any bearing on who ends up with 1 million dollars, is: the jury itself. To believe, in your heart, that you know how they will feel, think, vote...its a fallacy. You don't have any idea what they will ask, you don't have any idea how your answer will affect anything, and you even have *less* of an idea on how they will vote. You can't claim you know what a juror will respect as opposed to what they will not respect. It would take more than 39 days with that juror to be able to even *begin* to think you have a bead on it. There is one thing that every person who has ever sat in front of a jury has in common: You play the game, then you hope you win. The only thing Erik Cardona has said since FTC that I have totally agreed with is "its arbitrary."

Because the game is arbitrary in nature, there's no argument for someone doing anything "better" than another. The only argument is that people did things "different." Had Russell lost 6-3, Natalie would still be a millionaire, and we'd be examining how that one other person evaluated the "differences" in each person's game. Had Russell won 5-4, we'd be examining, further, the "differences." An easy way to look at it is this: The 39 days don't change at all, everyone plays like they did and end up where they did. Natalie wins 5-4. People argue Natalie played "better" than Russell. Then imagine Natalie wins 9-0. Nothing changed about the way she played, its the same show we watched 15 episodes of... Do you say she played an "even BETTER" game than Russell? Its hard to argue since nothing changed but the evaluations by the jury.

Sshaaz wrote:

---

I sorta stopped that already, most of my posts have been anti-jury, lately. I guess you could say by hating the jury, I hate their decision, therefore hate Natalie...but it isn't necessarily true. Consider me disappointed and lets go from there.