Sophie possibly the best winner ever (gameplay-wise) in Lions, Tigers, Survivors

0 Points

Sophie possibly the best winner ever (gameplay-wise)

Started By	Comment
funtimes23		#41	[-]
Posts: 15 (12/19/11 03:10 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I'd have a photographic memory but it was never developed. Remove this ad Where exactly was she good in challenges?? I have been seeing this said ALL DAY LONG!! She carried RICE ON HER BIG OLE HEAD!! WOOOOOOOO!!! Ms "I have a book on how to build card houses" couldn't even get a stack half way up. And ozzy basically brainfarted the last challenge to her, he was ahead by a rediculous amount and had it been anyone other than Ozzy and his coconut brain she wouldn't even be in this discussion. Selective memory is terrible. Remember her trying to get up that wall? Horrible. Remember her gagging on her own spit while trying to hold coconut juice in her mouth? Where was this "great performance" you guys are speaking of? What did she actually win? A bean bag toss or something?
drowsy12		#42	[-]
Posts: 4960 (12/19/11 03:33 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	funtimes23 wrote: Where exactly was she good in challenges?? I have been seeing this said ALL DAY LONG!! She carried RICE ON HER BIG OLE HEAD!! WOOOOOOOO!!! Ms "I have a book on how to build card houses" couldn't even get a stack half way up. And ozzy basically brainfarted the last challenge to her, he was ahead by a rediculous amount and had it been anyone other than Ozzy and his coconut brain she wouldn't even be in this discussion. Selective memory is terrible. Remember her trying to get up that wall? Horrible. Remember her gagging on her own spit while trying to hold coconut juice in her mouth? Where was this "great performance" you guys are speaking of? What did she actually win? A bean bag toss or something? good one. you have a quick witted sense of humor.
Constantinople		#43	[-]
Posts: 1169 (12/19/11 03:44 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Obviously, Sophie's the greatest player ever to play the game. Proof? Day 1: Sophie is sitting on a beach with 4 other people. The CRABS are born Days 2-16: Sophie sleeps for 16 hours a day, when she's not shit talking everyone in confessionals or praying to find an immunity idol she knew that Coach already had Day 17: Sophie votes to boot Edna and keep Mikayla. Rick casts the deciding vote. Probst says "Mikayla, the tribe has spoken". Days 18-20: God knows what she's doing. Day 21: Coach convinces John to flip to Upolu and Keith is voted out. Sophie clearly spells the name "Keith" on her ballot so that Rick isn't accidentally voted off. Days 22-29: Sophie sleeps and watches some RI duels. She won 2 useless challenges that, at worst, would have merely altered the Savaii boot order had she not won them. Day 30: Rick casts the deciding informal vote to boot John and keep Edna. Day 31: Princess orders her dad what to have ready and waiting when she returns. Day 32: The CRABS pray and hold hands for Edna to beat Ozzy at the RI duel Day 35: Brandon picks Rick to eat pizza and then gives Albert the immunity necklace. Rick casts the deciding vote to boot Brandon. Day 37: Princess orders the help to cheat by dropping out of the immunity challenge and retrieve her tiles. Day 38: Ozzy has a brain cramp and loses the final immunity challenge Day 39: Scientific measurement prove that Sophie's asshole is microscopically smaller than Coach's or Albert's. Sophie then wins the "Lesser of 3 assholes" award.
funtimes23		#44	[-]
Posts: 16 (12/19/11 03:46 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I recall her wins. She guessed the correct answer at the trivia, she carried the rice, and she solved the puzzle. Kudos to her though, because it's not just about winning challenges (Ozzy) it's about WHEN you win them and she did win them. My point is, she kinda backed into this victory but it's a victory none the less. So while I'll give her that credit, I certainly won't be silly enough to point toward her prowess at challenges.
Alsatian		#45	[-]
Posts: 762 (12/19/11 03:49 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Are you serious? She ranks above Bob and Fabio but below Jenna. Her social game was AWFUL. Her gameplay was exactly like Coach's, except because Coach lied about honor, she got the votes. Had Coach never pulled the honor card he would've won. She was the lesser of three evils. One of the worst winners without a doubt.
Ichiro20		#46	[-]
Posts: 3566 (12/19/11 04:12 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I'd say her win is about 40% hers, while the other 60% is b/c Coach/Albert blew it. She played an excellent UTR game and would never make a direct move that would screw himself up. But she won more because people hated Coach, and he was stupid enough to not bring Rick to the finals w/ him. Her social game was shitty, and Sandra even pissing people off knew who she needed to get votes at the end. Had she not broken down, I'm not sure if she would have won. But if she ever made an all-stars season, she would be a legit. threat to win, and not be considered a "terrible" winner like Sandra is in places outside of Sucks.
Katy Carney		#47	[-]
Posts: 14471 (12/19/11 04:25 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	She's better than Jud, Natalie, Sandra and Bob. The string of winners lately hasn't exactly set the bar super high.
PoorYorick		#48	[-]
Posts: 73 (12/19/11 04:33 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Sophie gets props for timely immunity wins (to vote out Whitney and Ozzy), and pretty good awareness of the game. She loses points for terrible social skills, and frankly, she won because the other two were so damn unlikable. Probably 17-19 in my rankings.
SurvivorNinja		#49	[-]
Posts: 4023 (12/19/11 05:19 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Alol, i love when people talk challenges. to say Sophie was not a challenge competitor is silly. She won 3 and consistantly placed in the top 3 most challenges. this is like when people said Todd sucked challenge wise too, and that Earl owned challenges. you dont have to win to be good in challenges. ive heard becky sucked at challenges too despite the fact she carried aitu through all of their pre merge puzzles. sometimes i wonder if we al watch the same show?
EverySurvivorEver		#50	[-]
Posts: 321 (12/19/11 05:42 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I'd have a photographic memory but it was never developed. Remove this ad The only contenders for that title are JT and Earl, in my opinion. You won, so you won, so your gameplay was equal to the other winners, therefore your results (votes) are the only criteria.
jonnyfairplay		#51	[-]
Posts: 1383 (12/19/11 06:06 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	EverySurvivorEver wrote: The only contenders for that title are JT and Earl, in my opinion. You won, so you won, so your gameplay was equal to the other winners, therefore your results (votes) are the only criteria. No, because JT could have easily lost immunity at F4 or F3, and then would have been voted out. What if Rudy had gotten lucky and beaten both Kelly and Richard in Borneo's F3 IC and won Borneo 7-0? Would that make him a better player than Richard?
EverySurvivorEver		#52	[-]
Posts: 323 (12/19/11 06:10 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	jonnyfairplay wrote: EverySurvivorEver wrote: The only contenders for that title are JT and Earl, in my opinion. You won, so you won, so your gameplay was equal to the other winners, therefore your results (votes) are the only criteria. No, because JT could have easily lost immunity at F4 or F3, and then would have been voted out. What if Rudy had gotten lucky and beaten both Kelly and Richard in Borneo's F3 IC and won Borneo 7-0? Would that make him a better player than Richard? Yes that's what I'm saying. I don't care how they got there. Every strategy that wins is equal. So someone who commands all votes is better than someone who won by one vote. I adore Bob's game personally, but does that make him the best? Not even close. Just because JT won by utilising immunities, an integral part of the game, doesn't mean he is worse than someone who never won.
funtimes23		#53	[-]
Posts: 18 (12/19/11 06:33 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	SurvivorNinja wrote: Alol, i love when people talk challenges. to say Sophie was not a challenge competitor is silly. She won 3 and consistantly placed in the top 3 most challenges. this is like when people said Todd sucked challenge wise too, and that Earl owned challenges. you dont have to win to be good in challenges. ive heard becky sucked at challenges too despite the fact she carried aitu through all of their pre merge puzzles. sometimes i wonder if we al watch the same show? Huh??? I am wondering now as well. Let's see here what I can pull from memory... She beat ozzy in the final puzzle, card stacking, she was 3rd... don't let it fool you, Coach was miles ahead of her in her "card stacking". She was terrible in running up the wall to get the bags, she was terrible in the coconut shootout, she was terrible in pretty much everything except carrying rice on her head. Oh... and she won "trivia" by guessing better than Whitney did. Go back and look at her face, she had NO clue what the answer was and just happened to get it correct. Sorry but being 3rd place in an individual immunity challenge is meaningless. Period. You're the second loser that's it. You're no closer to winning it then the person in second. She was an absolute TERRIBLE competitor. Yes, compared to Rick and Coach, she was a beast, but that's like calling her Carl Lewis because she beat 5 year olds in a foot race.
Jeffieboi		#54	[-]
Posts: 670 (12/19/11 06:54 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	funtimes23 wrote: SurvivorNinja wrote: Alol, i love when people talk challenges. to say Sophie was not a challenge competitor is silly. She won 3 and consistantly placed in the top 3 most challenges. this is like when people said Todd sucked challenge wise too, and that Earl owned challenges. you dont have to win to be good in challenges. ive heard becky sucked at challenges too despite the fact she carried aitu through all of their pre merge puzzles. sometimes i wonder if we al watch the same show? Huh??? I am wondering now as well. Let's see here what I can pull from memory... She beat ozzy in the final puzzle, card stacking, she was 3rd... don't let it fool you, Coach was miles ahead of her in her "card stacking". She was terrible in running up the wall to get the bags, she was terrible in the coconut shootout, she was terrible in pretty much everything except carrying rice on her head. Oh... and she won "trivia" by guessing better than Whitney did. Go back and look at her face, she had NO clue what the answer was and just happened to get it correct. Sorry but being 3rd place in an individual immunity challenge is meaningless. Period. You're the second loser that's it. You're no closer to winning it then the person in second. She was an absolute TERRIBLE competitor. Yes, compared to Rick and Coach, she was a beast, but that's like calling her Carl Lewis because she beat 5 year olds in a foot race. I don't see how winning challenges makes someone more or less deserving to win the whole game. If anything, I would say people who NEVER win immunity are more deserving if they get to the end because they never got to play the game with that kind of protection.Winning every immunity challenge isn't playing the strategic part of the game, which IMO, is the most important.
EverySurvivorEver		#55	[-]
Posts: 328 (12/19/11 07:07 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Jeffieboi wrote: funtimes23 wrote: SurvivorNinja wrote: Alol, i love when people talk challenges. to say Sophie was not a challenge competitor is silly. She won 3 and consistantly placed in the top 3 most challenges. this is like when people said Todd sucked challenge wise too, and that Earl owned challenges. you dont have to win to be good in challenges. ive heard becky sucked at challenges too despite the fact she carried aitu through all of their pre merge puzzles. sometimes i wonder if we al watch the same show? Huh??? I am wondering now as well. Let's see here what I can pull from memory... She beat ozzy in the final puzzle, card stacking, she was 3rd... don't let it fool you, Coach was miles ahead of her in her "card stacking". She was terrible in running up the wall to get the bags, she was terrible in the coconut shootout, she was terrible in pretty much everything except carrying rice on her head. Oh... and she won "trivia" by guessing better than Whitney did. Go back and look at her face, she had NO clue what the answer was and just happened to get it correct. Sorry but being 3rd place in an individual immunity challenge is meaningless. Period. You're the second loser that's it. You're no closer to winning it then the person in second. She was an absolute TERRIBLE competitor. Yes, compared to Rick and Coach, she was a beast, but that's like calling her Carl Lewis because she beat 5 year olds in a foot race. I don't see how winning challenges makes someone more or less deserving to win the whole game. If anything, I would say people who NEVER win immunity are more deserving if they get to the end because they never got to play the game with that kind of protection.Winning every immunity challenge isn't playing the strategic part of the game, which IMO, is the most important. What?? The social game is the most important part. If you can use immunity wins to your advantage, that's just as good as someone not being able to win at all.
Jeffieboi		#56	[-]
Posts: 674 (12/19/11 07:12 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	EverySurvivorEver wrote: Jeffieboi wrote: funtimes23 wrote: Huh??? I am wondering now as well. Let's see here what I can pull from memory... She beat ozzy in the final puzzle, card stacking, she was 3rd... don't let it fool you, Coach was miles ahead of her in her "card stacking". She was terrible in running up the wall to get the bags, she was terrible in the coconut shootout, she was terrible in pretty much everything except carrying rice on her head. Oh... and she won "trivia" by guessing better than Whitney did. Go back and look at her face, she had NO clue what the answer was and just happened to get it correct. Sorry but being 3rd place in an individual immunity challenge is meaningless. Period. You're the second loser that's it. You're no closer to winning it then the person in second. She was an absolute TERRIBLE competitor. Yes, compared to Rick and Coach, she was a beast, but that's like calling her Carl Lewis because she beat 5 year olds in a foot race. I don't see how winning challenges makes someone more or less deserving to win the whole game. If anything, I would say people who NEVER win immunity are more deserving if they get to the end because they never got to play the game with that kind of protection.Winning every immunity challenge isn't playing the strategic part of the game, which IMO, is the most important. What?? The social game is the most important part. If you can use immunity wins to your advantage, that's just as good as someone not being able to win at all. That's what I said. I may have worded it poorly though. I meant to say the social aspect is most important.
EverySurvivorEver		#57	[-]
Posts: 330 (12/19/11 07:19 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Jeffieboi wrote: EverySurvivorEver wrote: Jeffieboi wrote: I don't see how winning challenges makes someone more or less deserving to win the whole game. If anything, I would say people who NEVER win immunity are more deserving if they get to the end because they never got to play the game with that kind of protection.Winning every immunity challenge isn't playing the strategic part of the game, which IMO, is the most important. What?? The social game is the most important part. If you can use immunity wins to your advantage, that's just as good as someone not being able to win at all. That's what I said. I may have worded it poorly though. I meant to say the social aspect is most important. Oh, okay you said strategy was most important but my apologies.
Archibald C		#58	[-]
Posts: 284 (12/19/11 07:37 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Here's the thing, the notion that the person who controls the game, makes big moves, and gets the most screen time is the best player is an incorrect one. How many times do we have to get winners like Ethan, Vecepia, Jenna, Sandra, Amber, Danni, Aras, Bob, Natalie, Sandra 2, and Fabio to realize that playing a quiet, solid, UTR game is just as valid, if not better, than playing a dominant bombastic one. Furthermore, to say that Sophie only won because Coach and Albert sucked, or wasn't a good challenge performer is absurd. Sophie won because she deliberately made and stuck to her final 3 alliance with 2 other terrible players. Sophie won challenges because she was a good challenge performer. She went head to head with Ozzy and smoked him. I'm unsure as to why that is so difficult to grasp?
NotGregBuis		#59	[-]
Posts: 671 (12/19/11 08:58 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	^Well said. JT is the best winner, he played the only perfect game and is the most charming and likeable to ever play. End thread.
Katy Carney		#60	[-]
Posts: 14472 (12/19/11 09:31 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I'd have a photographic memory but it was never developed. Remove this ad Posters in general have had a bizarre attitude about winners since Natalie won and there was a backlash against the backlash of her win. Now people use those results to whitewash any criticism of a player who also happens to be a winner as if every move, decision and asswipe they made was a conscious, carefully planned inch towards victory. Winners aren't impressive just because they won. There have been a lot winners. Someone always wins. Winners have always played the correct game, in hindsight, for the situation, but they have not always played spectacularly or even necessarily well. If someone sleeps all day for 39 days and isn't voted out ever because they aren't threatening, and then wins because the jury hated the racist on Sleepy's right and the overweight rich bossy asshole on Sleepy's left, they've played the correct game and have earned the W. But it's still not some dazzling display of skill. Sometimes winners are more or less just the least offensive leftovers on the plate and that's the summation of their positive contribution. Sometimes the jury is just not interested in rewarding someone, but rather not rewarding someone. I don't think this is true for Sophie as much as it is most winners, actually. I just hate seeing people justify a players skills by working backwards from their win, as if any merit or lack thereof is wholly dependent on what side of the bed a couple of jury members woke up on that day.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Sophie possibly the best winner ever (gameplay-wise)