Yuku free message boards

Sandra amazes me. She pulls off meta-honesty (i.e. i'll lie to you, but i've already established that i'll do what it takes to get ahead, even if that includes lying, so you can't be too mad about it) like nobody's business.

It's a game determined by the impressions you make. Some, the players can't help. If you perform poorly in the challenges and thus other players don't see you as a threat, that's fine. Nothing to hold against a player. Sandra may suck in challenges, but the fact that this might HELP her isn't something to hold against her. It's what she does w/ these elements out of her control that I take into consideration.

Some people love to deify the dominating player, the one who is ALWAYS in control. Others knock them down a few pegs for playing against sheep. Both perspectives are correct, or wrong, or both. Boston Rob played against people I consider to be mostly poor players on R.I., but that's not his fault. It shouldn't be about who had the hardest battle to fight because they were playing against the "toughest players."

For me, there's a social savviness to a good player. They understand -- on some level -- the impressions they are giving off, and they understand how other people will react in various situation.

Brian was masterful at it on one level, and don't give me the sheep argument. Sheep are made, not born. But Heidik also gambled a lot. It was reckless in that he had to make deep cuts in the end. It paid off, but I'm not sure it was necessary to cut that deeply. Chris is a similar example, even though to some he may seem the opposite, since he was rarely in control of the game. But they both made relationships SO strong and then severed them so hard that they lost a lot of blood in the process. "Bitter juries" are fictions, just ways of justifying why someone we wanted to win lost. Hurt feelings from betrayal are par for the course on Survivor. Sure, you can say that the bitter jurors should know better, lying and backstabbing is the name of the game in Survivor. Well, so should the finalists, as hurt feelings are the flip-side of the name of that game. Complaining that someone "only lost to a bitter jury" is like saying you're up a few strokes in golf "only because of that damn sandtrap." What I love about Richard Hatch's gameplay is that, sure, he made his enemies, *but not really.* He was just kind of annoying. But, at the end of the day, he didn't betray anybody. The jury really wasn't that bitter toward him.

I used to think coattails were fiction, but after Redemption Island, I revise that theory. Natalie rode them so hard she must have burns on her thighs. BUT, there is a difference between what this Natalie did and what Natalie White did. Natalie White was conscious of the fact that being told what to do in certain situations and just following orders might be a clever way of winning. I don't care if you're the one dictating orders or the one following orders, either one can be cleverly applied in a way that analyzes how it will be perceived in relation to the coattail provider. Following the orders of someone like Russell, and realizing that this is what you're doing and that people will perceive it to be as such, but also realizing that Russell is a giant asshole who will burn a lot of bridges, that's a good move. Go Natalie White. But you have to know when to break away, when to impress upon people that you're at least reflexive about the process, as Natalie Whoever-She-Is didn't do tonight. And you have to make sure you're in the end against someone unlikeable. In other words, you can drag a goat to the end and it be considered strategically sound, but you can also let a goat drag you to the end. Just make sure they're a goat -- not a fox. For all her failings, Lillian displayed a streak of Survivor acumen in Pearl Islands. "Just tell me what to do," she says to a series of preening, vain men who think they can boss her around. And they can. And they, time and again, treat her like she's an idiot and reveal to her that she's not in their core alliance. And she breaks away. It was a similar strategy to Sandra's, in a since. "Tell me what to do." Just know when it will work and when it won't.

Fabio/Jud may have needed immunity to make it to the end, but throughout the game he displayed a keen awareness of tribal dynamics, at least. I was consistently impressed with his gameplay out there. Sometimes you need to win immunity, even if you're a great player. Rob Cesternino did, Cirie did, Kathy did. Needing immunity wins is fine, as long as you need them for reasons beyond your control.

Also, having people fight to take you to the end is always the mark of a great player. Hatch did it, Sandra did it, Vecepia did it. But one that really impressed me is that Tina did it. The others were taken to the end because they were easier to beat. Keith and Colby (and Lis, at F4) wanted to take Tina to the end because they just liked her more. That's pretty amazing. She may have left quickly in ASS, but hearing her in post-game interviews, and of how hard she lobbied for Rudy and Rupert, I respect her game pretty hardcore. The woman is smart.

Hatch, Tina, Vecepia, Sandra, Yul, Todd, Parvati -- through me any season, and my money's on one of them. Sandra more than anyone.

BlindsidedNICE wrote:

---

Richard- A: the original Survivor strategist. Did a really good job in early stages of making himself valuable as a food provider despite somewhat obnoxious personality. Cemented the first truly strong and long-term oriented alliance. Played well with his allies and made them like him enough to want him to win at the end.

Tina- B-: Played a good social game, was well liked by everybody. Didn't really stand out in terms of controlling, relying heavily on her good relationship with Colby. Always was in a powerful position from the point that Colby defected from Jerri's alliance as a result of liking her better than that group. Benefitted from the fact that it was only the second season so people felt they had to be completely loyal to their tribe and not get creative. Also lucky in how early it was in Survivor history by the fact that Colby didn't betray her like he should have in final three, in a later season that wouldn't have flied.

Ethan- C+: Another well liked player and key player within his tribal alliance and sub-alliance with dominant strategic player Lex. Very passive player, didn't make any big moves in the game but at the same time didn't really need to. Was lucky like all Borans that Samburu was such a bitterly divided tribe. His likability got him through but wouldn't have succeeded in a more cut throat game.

Vecepia- D: She wasn't particularly well liked by anybody in the game or make any moves that advanced her within the game or demonstrated at any point a plan to get her to the end. She was extremely passive and benefitted as a result of being completely under the radar that she was never a target for anybody. Fortunate game circumstances lead to her victory.

Brian- A+: Completely dominated every aspect of his tribe and built an alliance that was completely loyal to him and only him. He built strong enough relationships with every player that they believed their friendship with him superceded anything on a game level. Kept his tribe from waking up to his BS by spreading fear about the members of the other tribe despite their efforts to wake them up. Made all the right moves by bringing a weak lady to the final three and dislikable grunt to final two to get enough votes despite his manipulative game.

Will do rest later, if I feel like it.

So Tina was "lucky" to be in an early season where people weren't backstabbing, but Richard wasn't "lucky" to be in an early season where people weren't forming alliances?  You can't punish someone for playing a game in an early season.