Yuku free message boards

First, I will concede to the Russell fans that yes, there is a difference between winning and playing the best. The best player will not always win, and luck and circumstances mean that there is rarely a level playing field for the players.

That said, I think the concept of "playing the best" is not nearly as well defined as Russell fans seem to think. Russell didn't just concede the social edge to Natalie, he apparently went out of his way to antagonize the jury. That's poor play regardless of what else he accomplished in the game. There is a social element to the game, and it goes beyond merely being nice and inoffensive.

"Playing the best" will entail any number of things - protecting oneself from being ousted, controlling the votes, seizing opportunities to improve the relative situation, building relationships, neutralizing threats, and earning respect among the jurors.

Certain players feel they have to be in control, and they don't function well without it. Control is always a double-edged sword. It is the best means of protecting oneself and gives opportunities to earn respect, but it has the downside of putting a target on your back and potentially making enemies. The better control players know they have to account for the disadvantages and recognize the threats. Russell didn't seem to care if he made enemies, and he ignored the very real threat that Natalie posed to him - that's not the mark of a great player.

It would be different perhaps if control were an absolute necessity in Survivor, but it isn't. Other players are content to let others control the game as long as they can tag along to the end. An alliance with the player that is controlling the game is a very real method of protecting oneself from elimination, especially if you can develop influence with such a player. Following often avoids making enemies, but that generally isn't enough to earn votes. Players who are seen to follow too blindly are not respected. Ideally, this strategy should be joined with an emphasis on building relationships among those who will end up on the jury, as Natalie did. She may not have received much respect for her strategy, but the jurors liked her, and however much the jurors may have respected Russell's game moves, most did not respect him as a person. There isn't much evidence that Natalie influenced who Russell would target each vote, except to the important extent that he didn't target her.

Letting others lead again entails a risk of surrendering respect to the person you are following so there often comes a point when a player following such a strategy has to determine whether they can beat the leader in the end. If they cannot, then they have to make a move or they will deserve to lose. Natalie correctly judged that she could beat Russell so there was no reason to make a move. I don't know that the same applies to Mick and Jaison. In any case, they were not as well liked as Natalie and not really any more respected so they probably did need to move against Russell (but of course they couldn't because Natalie wouldn't go along even when Russell was vulnerable).

To some degree, play has to be adapted to circumstances. Not everyone will be lucky enough to get in good with the dominant alliance. (Yes, there is skill in forming the dominant alliance in and of itself, but the existence of the alliance isn't necessarily a good thing for everyone in it.) When this happens, the player has to be able to find some means of protection until the game structure opens an opportunity (via a switch, the merge, injuries, or whatever). Better, the player needs to crack the dominant alliance by some means. Sometimes, this means siding with those on the bottom to overthrow those on the top. Other times, but rarely, it means convincing those on the top to promote you past those already in the alliance. The good news for the outsider is that if they can make it to the end, they will almost always win. The jury is usually made up of fellow outsiders and people betrayed by your opponent in the final. The bad news is that winning as an outsider generally means somebody else has to make a mistake, and at least as often as not, they won't. From a skill assessment standpoint, those players who actively encourage somebody to make a mistake are better players than those who passively benefit or merely get fortunate in winning immunities.

The most difficult strategy to pull off of all is the swing vote mercenary. Basically, this player thrives by preventing the rise of a dominant alliance by taking down all rival factions, flipping the game when needed. Often, these players are those at the bottom of initial alliances and thus know they are expendable down the road. To succeed with this, the vote must always be directed elsewhere, but this player doesn't control the vote so much as decide which vote will succeed. This strategy will garner respect for gameplay generally due to its difficulty, but the potential for making enemies is high, and the risk always exists that rival factions will team up to target the player instead. As such, this often is only usable as a short term strategy, most effective in the endgame, and emphasis needs to be made that moves are not personal. (People are more likely to forgive a player that is known to be untrustworthy before the betrayal.)