Do bitter juries make for better or worse television? in Survivor Sucks Forum

0 Points

Do bitter juries make for better or worse television?

Started By	Comment
Jho		#41	[-]
Posts: 483 (12/27/09 08:11 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I CAN REMOVE is 100 times more important than IQ. Remove this ad It's ridiculous how people say ''she voted for the right person'', ''they voted for the wrong person''. Seriously wtf?
Ooga Ooga		#42	[-]
Posts: 3776 (12/28/09 03:05 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	SmashItWithAHamma wrote: Um... Anyone who thinks that jury members should always�vote for the better player obviously doesn't understand the dynamics of the game. Viewers can't judge the decisions of jury members unless they've actually been through the experience themselves. Your first point - that jury members don't always have to vote for the better player - is a crucial plank in any discussion involving individual jury members' voting decisions. To that, I would add that in any given season, it may well be impossible to define who is the "best player" - but the key point is that each jury member can vote however the hell they please. Personally, I think that if I were a jury member, I'm sure I would use a two-pronged approach to voting. The first prong would be a negative vote. In other words, I would never vote for anyone who I felt had done me wrong or pissed me off in some way. In other words, the first prong would eliminate those people to whom I didn't want to give my vote - for any reason. Then, if there were any others remaining, the second prong would be to vote for whomever I liked the most or whomever treated me best. In all honesty, I can't imagine anyone posessing human emotions and human frailties voting in any other way. But, I guess the point is that everyone has the right to vote however they like - for any reason. So, if I thought someone was single handedly responsible for booting me and they did that by lying to me and/or blindsiding me, my highest priority would be to ensure they never got my vote. Then of those remaining, I would be sure my vote did not go to anyone who I disliked or who pissed me off in some way. Then, my stategy would shift to the second prong. After eliminating all those people who I would not want to get my vote, I would then vote for whomever I liked the best or whoever had helped me the most. Your second point is that "viewers can't judge the decisions of jury members unless they've actually been through the experience themselves". I must disagree because if the jury members can vote in any way they wish, why can't the viewers can judge them in any way they wish? Last Edited By: Ooga Ooga 12/28/09 03:14 PM. Edited 2 times.
Darius23		#43	[-]
Posts: 462 (12/28/09 07:32 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	smellofawoman wrote: > Boring-ass juries of Guatemala and Africa LMAO. Because Judd, Cindy and Lydia were not bitter at all...
Sshaaz		#44	[-]
Posts: 804 (12/28/09 08:11 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	This is cool...something that illustrates a point that every person here is trying to drill into every other person's mind: I like Ooga, and we disagree on the result of the show. We also disagree on our criteria for voting, were we on the jury. Personally, if I went on Survivor, I would hope to be playing with people who were committed to the idea that Survivor is what it is. Any person dropped on an island and thinks they can get to the end and win without winning a challenge, without having any sort of strategy, without the personality to have anyone actually devote any trust in them...shouldn't have taken a spot from someone willing to do any of that. Too many seasons have passed and too many players have played to not expect any immoral things to happen. To be the victim of it should not surprise you. It should not make you bitter. It should not be a criteria on how you vote. You feel betrayed? Your fault...because someone had a reason. If that reason led them to F2/F3, then you better believe it was a damn good reason. My criteria is simple: do you respect the game you signed up for? Yes scores points, no loses points. Did you do anything that can be pointed at as to why you are where you are? Yes, points...no, lose points. If all else is equal, there's a list of strategies I approve of, and a list of ones that I don't. Its my opinion and I'm entitled to it. So Ooga votes for one person, I vote for the other person. We have our own justification for why we did it. Neither Ooga or I can be right or wrong. Throw in 7 other people and you get a result.
IntoTemptation		#45	[-]
Posts: 1577 (12/28/09 08:45 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	bitter juries <3 glad parv didn't have one ^_^
JPOz		#46	[-]
Posts: 722 (12/28/09 11:19 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Sshaaz wrote: This is cool...something that illustrates a point that every person here is trying to drill into every other person's mind: I like Ooga, and we disagree on the result of the show. We also disagree on our criteria for voting, were we on the jury. Personally, if I went on Survivor, I would hope to be playing with people who were committed to the idea that Survivor is what it is. Any person dropped on an island and thinks they can get to the end and win without winning a challenge, without having any sort of strategy, without the personality to have anyone actually devote any trust in them...shouldn't have taken a spot from someone willing to do any of that. Too many seasons have passed and too many players have played to not expect any immoral things to happen. To be the victim of it should not surprise you. It should not make you bitter. It should not be a criteria on how you vote. You feel betrayed? Your fault...because someone had a reason. If that reason led them to F2/F3, then you better believe it was a damn good reason. My criteria is simple: do you respect the game you signed up for? Yes scores points, no loses points. Did you do anything that can be pointed at as to why you are where you are? Yes, points...no, lose points. If all else is equal, there's a list of strategies I approve of, and a list of ones that I don't. Its my opinion and I'm entitled to it. So Ooga votes for one person, I vote for the other person. We have our own justification for why we did it. Neither Ooga or I can be right or wrong. Throw in 7 other people and you get a result. And simply labeling either one of you as bitter because the viewer didn't like your vote and/or the result dismisses the fact that you made a conscious decision based on your beliefs, values and observations. Undoubtedly there have been bitter jurors but there are also many - including some in Samoa - who weren't bitter; the fans/commentators/host who dismiss the result as bitter fail to appreciate the different facets which resulted in the final outcome.
Sshaaz		#47	[-]
Posts: 805 (12/29/09 12:35 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Ooga's entire criteria is bitterness, as is mine. In my criteria, if you've lost points, I'm bitter about it. If you have a strat that I don't approve of, I'm bitter that you are even in the finals. I'd venture to say that any juror who asks for a number between x and y to vote, or any juror that actually flips a coin to vote could be viewed as non-bitter, but the fact is, they could also be viewed as equally bitter at each finalist and can't actually decide after weighing one against the other...
TallBill		#48	[-]
Posts: 37 (12/29/09 02:38 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	JPOz wrote: And simply labeling either one of you as bitter because the viewer didn't like your vote and/or the result dismisses the fact that you made a conscious decision based on your beliefs, values and observations. Undoubtedly there have been bitter jurors but there are also many - including some in Samoa - who weren't bitter; the fans/commentators/host who dismiss the result as bitter fail to appreciate the different facets which resulted in the final outcome. I don't actually think this is a case where one player back-stabbed and therefore got labeled the bad guy by the jury. It's a case where an alliance of 4 scratched and clawed their way to eliminate everyone in an alliance of 8, and where really only one person got back-stabbed by the 4 (or 3 of the four, I should say) -- and that was Jaison. And in his case, it was only because they were forced to boot one of their own, so he was the chosen back-stabbed person when one of them absolutely had to be. Shambo's flip wasn't a real back-stabbing, because she wasn't viewed by Galu as a real member of their alliance. The girls couldn't stand her and were not particularly subtle about it. The tribe sent her to visit Foa Foa twice so they wouldn't have to give up a reward spot to the person they liked/valued the least. It was made clear to her where her position on the totem pole was. The only major back-stabbing was done by members of the jury -- Galu against other Galus in an effort to jockey for position in the dominant tribe, which caused their downfall. That's why I think of this as a bitter jury. If you consider both the jury speeches and the video confessionals from jurors (linked on another thread), you hear a lot about what the "moral" choice would be, what behavior they should "reward", and impassioned pleas for "why don't we give it to the nice girl". You can't play the game the way those guys did and then posture as the moral police who are "above" this dirty play when it comes time to vote. There's an unusually powerful whiff of self-delusion I get from players like Laura and Dave, on that jury. Also, let's consider how the jury would approach this if indeed they were most interested in the morally superior candidate winning. They have three choices, all of whom are part of the alliance that came after their tribe and defeated them. Of those three: 1. Russell is clearly the most conniving, having told multiple members of the jury they would be part of his final two or three. 2. Natalie is the next most conniving, as the person who handled the social ploys involved in the critical Erik boot. 3. Mick is the least conniving, as someone who benefited from these moves, voted with the group, but didn't actively engineer them. So if certain members of the Galu jury follow through on their professed "moral" and "rewarding good behavior" standards, the clearest candidate for a "nice" member of the jury is Mick. And that's the case he made for himself, however lamely, at tribal council. I think what really happened is some or all of the following: 1. Several members of the jury have too big of an ego to admit they were beaten. So they lashed out at the person who made the strongest claim to having actually played the game skillfully. 2. Brett had some influence "prayer buddy" perception of Natalie, and argued that she was the "moral" choice. So a jury that played like the devil flipped it to a Christian game when it came time to choose a winner, and chose to set aside the professed Christian's sneaky play. There's a bunch of brands of bitterness in all that. I don't have any more respect for the jury in how they deliberated than I do for how they played the game.
JPOz		#49	[-]
Posts: 729 (12/29/09 02:49 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Sshaaz wrote: Ooga's entire criteria is bitterness, as is mine. In my criteria, if you've lost points, I'm bitter about it. If you have a strat that I don't approve of, I'm bitter that you are even in the finals. I'd venture to say that any juror who asks for a number between x and y to vote, or any juror that actually flips a coin to vote could be viewed as non-bitter, but the fact is, they could also be viewed as equally bitter at each finalist and can't actually decide after weighing one against the other... And I accept with your bitterness and Ooga's as well. My point is the viewer/commentator/host who dismisses the entire vote/jury/verdict as bitter overlooks those who weren't bitter and fails to appreciate some of the factors that led to the decision. Some, like you and Ooga, voted out of bitterness and openly acknowledge it; some like Jaison appear to have voted bitterly but don't acknowledge it. Some like, Erik and Shambo, give a performance that makes no sense and others, like Brett, Dave, John and Laura cast a vote with no bitterness.
JPOz		#50	[-]
Posts: 730 (12/29/09 03:22 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I CAN REMOVE is 100 times more important than IQ. Remove this ad TallBill wrote: I don't actually think this is a case where one player back-stabbed and therefore got labeled the bad guy by the jury. It's a case where an alliance of 4 scratched and clawed their way to eliminate everyone in an alliance of 8, and where really only one person got back-stabbed by the 4 (or 3 of the four, I should say) -- and that was Jaison. And in his case, it was only because they were forced to boot one of their own, so he was the chosen back-stabbed person when one of them absolutely had to be. Shambo's flip wasn't a real back-stabbing, because she wasn't viewed by Galu as a real member of their alliance. The girls couldn't stand her and were not particularly subtle about it. The tribe sent her to visit Foa Foa twice so they wouldn't have to give up a reward spot to the person they liked/valued the least. It was made clear to her where her position on the totem pole was. The only major back-stabbing was done by members of the jury -- Galu against other Galus in an effort to jockey for position in the dominant tribe, which caused their downfall. That's why I think of this as a bitter jury. If you consider both the jury speeches and the video confessionals from jurors (linked on another thread), you hear a lot about what the "moral" choice would be, what behavior they should "reward", and impassioned pleas for "why don't we give it to the nice girl". You can't play the game the way those guys did and then posture as the moral police who are "above" this dirty play when it comes time to vote. There's an unusually powerful whiff of self-delusion I get from players like Laura and Dave, on that jury. Also, let's consider how the jury would approach this if indeed they were most interested in the morally superior candidate winning. They have three choices, all of whom are part of the alliance that came after their tribe and defeated them. Of those three: 1. Russell is clearly the most conniving, having told multiple members of the jury they would be part of his final two or three. 2. Natalie is the next most conniving, as the person who handled the social ploys involved in the critical Erik boot. 3. Mick is the least conniving, as someone who benefited from these moves, voted with the group, but didn't actively engineer them. So if certain members of the Galu jury follow through on their professed "moral" and "rewarding good behavior" standards, the clearest candidate for a "nice" member of the jury is Mick. And that's the case he made for himself, however lamely, at tribal council. I think what really happened is some or all of the following: 1. Several members of the jury have too big of an ego to admit they were beaten. So they lashed out at the person who made the strongest claim to having actually played the game skillfully. 2. Brett had some influence "prayer buddy" perception of Natalie, and argued that she was the "moral" choice. So a jury that played like the devil flipped it to a Christian game when it came time to choose a winner, and chose to set aside the professed Christian's sneaky play. There's a bunch of brands of bitterness in all that. I don't have any more respect for the jury in how they deliberated than I do for how they played the game. No disrespect but there was one guy who backstabbed and was far more duplicitious and got labeled by the jury as the bad guy: Russell. Yes, Natalie and Mick cast the same votes. Yes, Natalie raised Erik's name with the GaluGirlsClub. Yes Mick loaded and pointed the gun at John. But Russell actively misled John, Dave, Shambo, Jaison and Brett. Mick and Natalie, on the other hand, were very straightforward with Dave and Brett and we did not see them being duplicitous with John, Shambo or Jaison. IMO to simply disregard Dave/Brett/Laura voting for Natalie because she was a "Christian" overlooks other facts/elements of her game. Yes, all 4 scratched and clawed to overcome 8, but they did not do it the same way. Mick and Natalie were pretty straightforward, get all the Galu out while Russell kept overstategizing, entertaining wild changes of course and ultimately - with the exception of the Monica vote - the person voted out at each vote was decided by someone other than Russell.
Sshaaz		#51	[-]
Posts: 807 (12/29/09 03:37 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	"like Brett, Dave, John and Laura cast a vote with no bitterness." Brett was bitter that Mick actually thought he'd enjoy talking about girls on their date. Dave was bitter that the fire hydrant wasn't an apple. John was bitter that the tribe he got stuck with weren't rocket scientists. Laura was bitter at Shambo, who went before her and voted for Russell. all speculation ;)
NickName		#52	[-]
Posts: 2 (12/29/09 03:41 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Bitter juries make better TV. PI's FTC > Australia's for example.
JPOz		#53	[-]
Posts: 732 (12/29/09 03:43 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Sshaaz wrote: "like Brett, Dave, John and Laura cast a vote with no bitterness." Brett was bitter that Mick actually thought he'd enjoy talking about girls on their date. Dave was bitter that the fire hydrant wasn't an apple. John was bitter that the tribe he got stuck with weren't rocket scientists. Laura was bitter at Shambo, who went before her and voted for Russell. all speculation ;) Is it possible Dave is bitter that he can't rationalize the apple being a hyrdrant so he can plug the hyrdrant with his hose and demonstrate his amazing sex ninja skills? Erik was bitter and justifiably so...he only had one merge TC to make wild speeches and hand gestures...no wonder he gave such a FTC performance, it was all pent up.
mtj1282		#54	[-]
Posts: 3266 (12/29/09 03:55 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	bitter jury is part of the game. its up to the contestants to try and make things better with the jury. Todd is a great example of this. Between the backstabbing and the smug smirks at tribal you would think hed be hated by the jury, yet the only one really pissed at him was denise. Its not that chinas jury wasnt bitter and understood/respected the game more, its that todd knew what to say and how to make the jury feel better about his gameplay and their decision.
JPOz		#55	[-]
Posts: 733 (12/29/09 04:20 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Todd got his licks in but also made people laugh.
Fart Party		#56	[-]
Posts: 373 (12/29/09 04:40 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Bitter juries rule. Stupid juries are the kind that make for worse television.
mtj1282		#57	[-]
Posts: 3269 (12/29/09 05:01 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	ElmoEmo wrote: Bitter Juries make deserving guys suchs as Boston Rob and Russell not win but they are very entertaining. So yeah, they make good television. if they werent able to get the jury to get over it and vote for them how can they be deserving...
Sshaaz		#58	[-]
Posts: 809 (12/29/09 05:02 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	You don't even need to spend time on an island to understand this: If someone walked up to you and gave you a briefcase with a million dollars in it and then said "You can't keep it, give it to anyone you want..." you would immediately be bitter... Eating squid nuts and having to listen to your season's Jenna Lewis only add to the bitterness...
TallBill		#59	[-]
Posts: 38 (12/30/09 01:01 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	JPOz wrote: IMO to simply disregard Dave/Brett/Laura voting for Natalie because she was a "Christian" overlooks other facts/elements of her game. Let's consider just Laura, for a moment, in her perspective on the three Foas in the finals: She clearly has no respect for any of the three finalists. She literally seems to think they did nothing in the game. The thing that seems to drive her the strongest is her belief that she was not beaten in the game. So all three of these people are utterly illegitimate as finalists. Now, these are three of a group of four people who held together consistently, worked as a team to find and exploit cracks in the Galus, found three immunity idols (two of them without clues), and defeated Brett in a final immunity challenge that would have delivered the game to Brett otherwise. I think it's fair to say the four of them were strategically very active, while also doing the other things that matter in the game. She looks at the three of them -- the tribe that beat her -- and insists they did not do so. Bitter, I say. When presenting yourself at tribal council, the only way I see to appeal to Laura's perspective would be to concede that you are undeserving and that you sort of lucked into your spot. When it reaches that point -- that you can't argue that you played the game skillfully -- then I say the probelm is with the juror and not the finalists.
TallBill		#60	[-]
Posts: 39 (12/30/09 02:07 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I CAN REMOVE is 100 times more important than IQ. Remove this ad Consider Kelly and Dave, too. Kelly apparently shared Laura's (in my view, incorrect) opinion that Natalie did not do anything in the game. In several places, I think you can hear echoes of Laura's opinions in Kelly's comments, which sort of reinforces my impression of Laura as both a vocal person and a bit of an opinion leader for her clique. Kelly seems to think even Mick played more of a strategic game than Natalie. Kelly and Laura both make a lot out of the physical side of the game -- like some of the more physical people should have gone farther. But they both somehow manage to avoid giving Russell any credit in this area, in spite of his critical final immunity win and the obvious intensity with which he played all the challenges. Why? They're not thinking about who warrants a win. They're more or less nullifying the game by voting for someone they see as completely undeserving in game play. Dave also shares the view that Russell was the best player of the game, but convinces himself to vote for Natalie because she's a "nice girl": Finally, we have John's read on the jury and his take on what was going on around camp that last day or two. He nails it:

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Do bitter juries make for better or worse television?