Yuku free message boards

Bulletin Bored wrote:

---

I don't think you're being fair, gr. Every winner over the past 22 seasons has had luck on their side several times throughout the game. The point is, playing the way she did won Sophie the title. There's no reason to punish her for not acting like a spaz to entertain the masses. The way you describe it, every player would be required to use their "Shake up the game!" Card at least once per season if they value their future edit. Bullshit. Aren't we glad Survivor isn't The Hills? When I express frustration after the finale, it's usually because I'm mad at the editors for not telling the winner's story. It's definitely not because I'm angry with the winner for not sabotaging their game just to increase the speed at which I shovel popcorn into my mouf.

Bubo, there are two different issues.  I'm totally with you about Sophie not having to justify not making moves.  I acknowledge that she played a great game by not  making moves.  Her success on that score, however, doesn't mean that her interests and those of the producers necessarily coincide.  Hence my comments about the way they chose to portray not only her but all of Upolu except for Coach/Brandon.

That's the editing.  Then, however, there is the issue of what she actually did do wrong.  You didn't respond to my observations about her social game.  To be frank, it stank.  How do you compare Danni, for example, and the way she ingratiated herself with everyone with Sophie's sleeping in front of Edna as she fought for her life, the utter dismissiveness of Cochran as he fought for his, etc., etc?  When your social game is so bad that you yourself acknowledge that you needed to be humanized in front of the jury, when you've relinquished control to the extent that you rely on your main opponent imploding at the same time, then you reduce your game to long odds of 'hail mary' proportions.  

Unless, of course, she staged her own breakdown.   Had that been the case, I would have elevated her to the top three winners of all time, lol!

drowsy12 wrote:

---

getting real wrote:

---

The irony is she likely wouldn't have got it without the t.ears.

the tears were one part of many things she did to dominate coach in the jury phase of the game. 

As I said, if the tears were something she staged with the intent of softening her image, I would place her in the top three winners of all time.

However, given that there's nothing to suggest that this was the case, I would have to judge her win under the criterion that I always use:  How effective was she in placing as many factors as she could under her control and managing those factors to her advantage?    Or, to express it in its corollary, how many factors outside of her control did she rely upon to win?  Under this criterion, the fewer factors outside of their control a winner has to rely on to win, the better the win.   As an example, I agree with Probst that Rob played almost the perfect game for that reason:  He sought to minimise or eliminate as many factors as possible that lay outside of his control.

I give Sophie credit for many things, including her FTC performance, her undermining Albert in front of the jury and pegging Coach well enough to know what would eventually happen with his inner demons.    However, she had a terribel social game.  It was so bad that, until very late, she thought Ozzy would be a good opponent to take in front of the jury!  Because of her less than satisfactory social game, her win depended on three key events totally outside of her control:

1.  Albert being caught up in Brandon's immunity brouhaha;
2.  Her accidental humanizing tears;
3.  Ozzy choking in the final challenge.

Had just one of these events not occurred, it's very doubtful whether she would have won.  Because all of these were events that, with better social play on her part, might not have mattered to her game.   I should also mention the single most important event outside of her control that was crucial to her game, ie. Cochran's flip.  Yes, I credit her with being aligned withe the people who 'seduced' Cochran; however, it was just as well that this was so.  Because from what we were shown of her interaction with Cochran at the merge, it's more likely that she may have hindered her cause rather than helping it.  

Having to rely so much on late events outside of her control arguably ranks her not much higher than Fabio.



From an editing point of view, it is no coincidence that the three events described above all occurred extremely late in the game.  Given that, the editing portrayal represented the reality almost exactly.   Up until they occurred, Sophie was just a grumpy cerebral observer without any social graces - or much chance to win the game.  As I've said, again it's not a coincidence that her reunion tribute consisted of a majority of scenes that occurred in the finale.

In this light, and taking into account the season's big editing picture overall, I feel it was one of the best and most accurately edited seasons in the season's history.

drowsy12 wrote:

---

So gr im assuming you have parvati as your last place winner because of the amount of out of control things that went her way?

Although Pavarti benefited from an unusually high number of fortuitous events, she played her socks off to control the things she could in all 3 areas that mattered:  strategic, challenge and social.

Sadly, Sophie failed miserably in one of those, the social game.  Sophie supporters, I respect Sophie and acknowledge that she played a great game in the other two areas.    But, consider the following in relation to her social game:

• She claimed to have kept Brandon under control but, according to Brandon, she hardly spoke to him!
• She didn't appear to have taken the time to speak to any of the Sevaiis.  In fact, from what we saw, she was outright antagonistic.
• Most damning of all, , the two Upolus she claimed to have beeen closest with (apart from her fellow finalists) ended up voting against her (Rick & Edna)!

Sorry, there is no doubt in my mind that her social game would have negated her other strengths had those 3 things outside her control not favored her so late in the piece.  And that's what the editing reflected.

Drowsy, re. your new post, there is no bias.  I had no stake in the winner as I did not make a winner pick.  I felt that the winner would be determined by things we hadn't yet seen and I was right in that.    The comparison with Fabio relates only to the lateness of securing the win. .For the last time, I will reiterate that I acknowledge she was very good in all other areas except the social part.  In that, unfortunately, she was extremely poor.

Regarding Ozzy's choking, those are his words not mine.  Apparently, his lead was much greater than what was shown and, if the circumstances were different he wouldn't have had a problem with it.