Yuku free message boards

COMING IN AT #9 ...














































































































This might be the longest entry yet, but it requires justification. All I ask is this: If you are going to criticize or bitch about this, which you have the right to do, please at least give this a good read and try to think of it from my view, because I don't want to repeat myself.



9. SUGAR KIPER
SURVIVOR GABON
3rd PLACE

BEST MOVE:
Convincing The onions that she played the idol to eliminate Kelly.

Sugar's game is one of the most unique, ever. To compare her straight up to more conventional players isn't an easy thing to do. The simple argument would be to put her at the bottom because she wasn't playing to win. While I can totally see that, what does that really say about her game? It's like comparing apples to oranges. By judging Sugar's game the way she was trying to play it is the neutralizes the difference between her and other players, IMO.

There is a difference to me, for someone who backstabs a bunch of people with no rhyme or reason, if they're trying to win or because they don't know it's the wrong move. That would be Guatemala Steph, or a more obvious example, Dreamz. But Sugar knew the game, and she knew exactly what the consequences of her actions were; just as someone like Colby knew exactly what he was getting himself into when he took Tina to the finals. I have never faulted Colby for that decision, so why would I fault Sugar? She didn't want to win; I think it's stupid, but she's not me. And we're not her.

If Survivor ever had a plant, it's Sugar. I think she was cast to make the game more exciting, and boy she definitely did. She was playing for fan favourite and she was playing for entertainment. She did not win fan favourite, but she came damn close, and to her, that is like runner-up and something she actually came close to doing.

Now, lets get one thing clear: I do not believe that someone who's not playing to win is a better player on average than someone who's playing to win. Because it's easier for someone to play for someone else to win than to play for yourself to win. That is why Sugar is lower than 8 masterminds who controled the game, but she does place higher than the other 20 or so that were playing to win, but didn't control the game.

One could compare Russell to Sugar. However, like I said, Russell wasn't really as in control as the edit led us to believe and he was trying to win but was very unaware of how his actions would be perceived. Sugar, for however much you might hate or dislike her or her strategy, was very aware of how her actions would affect her chances. To her, entertainment value, such as with Randy, was worth more than the million. So saying she's stupid is and she made a bad move is totally uncalled for because she knew the consequences of her actions. Simply put, entertainment was more important, and we may not agree with it, but it is what it is. How can we judge her game based on criteria she wasn't following? In my opinion, you can't, so you have to look at how she wanted to play it and how successful she was at it.

One may also compare her to Brendan. However, to me, the difference between Brendan and Sugar is that Brendan was taken in by J.T. whereas Sugar wasn't played by Bob. She actually played the game for Bob.

Let's look at Sugar's journey. She started off, not knowing what the hell she was doing there. Sugar's chances of lasting long, let alone making any impact on the game were slim to nill coming in. Much like Kathy, she got off to a bad start; she was a wreck emotionally and she was taking people's bags and ripping them apart, etc. But Sugar learned very well to play a game that she had no clue about going in.

She totally played lap dog to Ace. She let Ace “control her” so that it protected her. That was her only way to make it past Kota's first tribal council, and it was successful. She then spend day after day on exile while her new Fang tribe was not only bonding, but also losing. Given the fact that Sugar cried her eyes out, the fact that she was so weak, the fact that she was on exile while her tribe was making alliances, her being a minority Kota, and they were consistently losing (thus increasing the importance for strong people) and she still not only managed to survive one, but three, potentially four tribal councils? How can you not say that isn't impressive?

She finagled her way into the Fang fold very well, making the right move to use her idol to her benefit, by saying she could help the tribe with it. She buddied up to power player Crystal, while having a hold on Crystal's opposition, Ace.

Then the Ace blindside; some argue she was played by Kenny, and she definitely was. But she was planning on taking down Ace anyway. She was very innovative in her strategy to use an alpha male to get by and then cut him off at the knees so she didn't appear to be a coat-tail rider ... THAT IS GENIUS! I mean, you have to have an appreciation for that. Time after time we saw females ride the coat-tails of males and lose to them. Sugar's plan was a black widow one to avoid that, and it's brilliant. It shows what a great read she had on people.

After Ace was blindsided, Sugar and Matty were put into a minority on New New Fang. This is where yet another genius plan was concocted; I believe it was Sugar who wanted to tell the Onions that she played the idol the night Kelly left. Genius. She used her feud with Kelly to create a plausible scenario to throw off the so called smart players, which truly changed the face of the game and cinched a Fang victory, IMO. Not only did Randy crash and burn on the basis that the idol was gone, but had Fang lost that F10 IC, Sugar's alliance would still have the numbers because Matty would play the idol that CCR didn't think he had because of their lie.

Once the merge happened, Sugar's game began to devolve from one of genius to one of genius for different reasons. Bad for her winning chances, but again, if she's not trying to win, why would I judge her game as one regarding winning? She was in the middle of Kota and Fang, and sided with. She didn't get taken in by Corinne, and she got a majority.

The infamous cookie incident. Sugar decided that taking out Randy in an epic blindside was more important than winning. I will stress again: we may not agree, but the fact is, she wasn't playing to win. Sorry, but it wasn't her goal. She still played the situation perfectly for what she wanted to do, cornering Bob just as she should have and shocking the shit out of him and Corinne at tribal council.

After that comes the Crystal blindside. Like I said, on it's own, I don't think it was horrible; I mean, it would have been smarter to do Kenny, because against Crystal/Kenny, she couldn't claim strategic superiority because they would have carried her. But she was playing it up to the cameras regarding being the good guy. One big criticism is that Crystal was fully trusting of Sugar, so the move was done. Well, everyone at that point but Susie had a huge trust for Sugar, so I don't buy that argument.

Sugar got the job done; she orchestrated four votes for Crystal. “Let me do the thinking.” Like her strategy or not, she dominated the game. She decided pretty much how the game would go down. The only thing that didn't go her way was a Susie immunity win.

Even though she dominated the game, she still didn't play perfectly; for example, if she wanted to win fan favourite, why angle to keep Matty and Bob, two potentially popular characters? Especially since if she did her homework, she'd know that America has a short term memory, and the longer those two stayed, the less chance she had to win it. That is why I consider her runner-up in some ways.

Never the less, what Sugar wanted, Sugar got. She played Kota. She played Crystal. She played Kenny, twice. I mean, she got Kenny to fall right back in her trap after blindsiding Crystal; that takes good strategy, like it or not. She had Matty and Bob doing exactly what she said. She also came up with other brilliant strategies, like wearing the idol to TC under the pretense that she was playing it. Basically ensuring no one would vote for her, and ensuring that she could give it to X player.

Sugar dominated the game strategically, and she got her desired outcome: herself and Bob in the final three. Now, I can understand why you'd all put her low, I do. But for *me*, ranking Sugar just like everyone else makes no sense because it's apples and oranges. Judging her based on what she understood and what she was trying to do is what I'm judging her on to make it look like apples to apples. It's still an inferior apple compared to one that dominates the game and plays to win, but to me, she showed potential and strategy above someone who tried to win the game but made poor decisions or didn't know what they were doing.

To me, people who praise Jonny Fairplay and hate Sugar's game have a double standard because the only way Jonny Fairplay was going to win was against Lill, and that required an outcast twist and that wasn't even his intended end game plan. He wanted to go with Burton who would kick his ass. However, using my method, I think Jonny played a horrible social game because he wanted to be the biggest villain ever. Which is why he'd get a decent ranking because he made that choice consciously.

JackSparrowBauer wrote:

---

I get that Sugar controlled Gabon, but like I said earlier: If you don't try to win, you suck. If you actively try to NOT win, you suck even more. I just could never rank anyone with such retarded motives this high. I get that it's like comparing apples to oranges, but would you honestly take that stance even if you didn't like Sugar?