Yuku free message boards

RichPrick wrote:

---

invictus wrote:

---

Right, but the whole thing comes down to the strength of the arguments put forth. I find the "Natalie deserved to win" crowd incredibly lacking in any substantive discussion of actual reasons for her being a better player than Russell. Generally, their arguments boil down to "she won, get over it" or "winning proves she was the better player", both of which, are pretty ridiculous reasons for why she was the superior player. Like I said before, the jury could draw names out of a hat and vote based on the results. That doesn't mean that's a good way to determine the winner.

Post of the year nominee

Sshaaz wrote:

---

Amber was utterly worthless, no not as worthless as Natalie on S19, but very close. Her game play consisted of two things: jack and shit. Their entire contributions consisted of taking a shit in the woods, looking pretty and being fortunate to be sitting next to the dominant player in front of a bitter jury.

I watched Samoa, then intentionally watched All-Stars right after to understand why people make the comparison. I noticed very distinct parallels and very distinct differences. In the end, I couldn't justify why either of them could be said to be better or worse than the other, honestly. Both chose the bullet-proof vest on day one, both wore that vest to the finals, both needed to be saved by their vest, both performed admirably at challenges, both faced bitter juries, and both gave the best FTC performance of their season. I can go into detail on any of these points, so if you are interested, just message me.

The differences were easily distinguishable if you watch them back to back. Minor difference include the quality of the competition. No need to explain my feelings on people who respect the game versus those that don't. Another difference is the quality of the goat each sat next to. Rob was hardly as objectionable as Russell. The biggest difference was the jury. Amber played with All Stars. Natalie played with rookies who couldn't form a strategy on how to fart. Rob's social game was built before the game started and was his to destroy. Russell started from square one and built and burned bridges as he went along. How that affected voting is up for constant debate, so it is subjective. Nat and Amber had the same strategy, Amber's just happened to be visualized easier based on lopsided edits. Amber had a lot of gushy confessionals, but we were shown Rob and Amber discussing the game. It's hard to remember any actual discussion of strategy between Russell and Natalie. Finally, based on the quality of alliances, I would say that both Russell and Rob were the 'lions' of their season. Russell's alliance could be viewed as the pride that fed on the meat of the carcass. Rob's alliance could be viewed as the vultures who picked whatever they could, looking out for themselves.

In the end, I have to ask: What makes the winning lioness better or worse than the winning vulture, when both bellies are full?