Survivor jury system majorly flawed. in Survivor Speculation Forum

0 Points

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Survivor jury system majorly flawed.

Started By

Comment

tarheel66

[-]

Posts: 1671

(12/21/11 01:23 PM)

I'm with STUPID!

Click here to break the ad gravity rule.
Remove this ad

Ah, didn't know about the sequestering in earlier seasons.

Coach, though, knows how ponderosa works from previous play. Should have tailored his game to it. It's the rules now.

Frankly, I like it the way it is. Makes it a true jury of peers through deliberation together. Let's people share their views to come to a better evaluation when they vote individually. Kind of like eddic. Hehe. I think the results are more accurate evaluations. But that's just me.

drowsy12

[-]

Posts: 5026

(12/21/11 01:24 PM)

Overall - even though I think it was a solid final 3 and I can imagine any of them winning for different reasons - I am satisfied with the Sophie win because she owned the jury aspect of the the game that she could control - mainly her F5 honest display of emotion, making coach look like a dummy at FTC, and her complete contempt for Cochran, which earned Savaii's love (*Cochran asked Sophie what her best move was and she told him -"well it certainly wasn't yours")

*from interviews

drowsy12

[-]

Posts: 5027

(12/21/11 01:27 PM)

tarheel66 wrote:
Ah, didn't know about the sequestering in earlier seasons.

Coach, though, knows how ponderosa works from previous play. Should have tailored his game to it. It's the rules now.

Frankly, I like it the way it is. Makes it a true jury of peers through deliberation together. Let's people share their views to come to a better evaluation when they vote individually. Kind of like eddic. Hehe. I think the results are more accurate evaluations. But that's just me.

fair enough, you're right that Coach knows. In fact from his interviews he basically says he knows from HvV that a lot of the game is decided at Ponderosa. He probably didn't like that the game was decided for Sandra in HvV and he doesn't like it now.

the thing is - i don't even think Coach was a victim of Ponderosa as much as Albert was. Coach controlled his own fate at FTC and didn't please Savaii in the way he needed to.

from a sophie interview: (great info)

How comfortable were you going into that final Tribal when you first arrived, and then how comfortable were you after the jury questions when they went up to vote?
I knew that I had a shot. The thing that shocked me was Ozzy starting it off by saying, “This game is yours to lose, Coach,” and that shocked me. Because I thought I was going to go in there with a good claim for the million, and all of a sudden I was on defense. And then after all the questions I could tell that Coach was really hammered. I mean everyone was getting hammered, but he was getting hammered the most. All they wanted was honesty, and I was the only one at the final Tribal to give them honesty. All Coach had to say was “I manipulated all of you,” and he would have gotten the million. I was the only one to own up to things. I was just brutally honest with people and didn’t just say what they wanted to hear. Cochran asked me, “What was the best move of the game?” and I immediately said, “Well, it wasn’t yours. Yours sucked!” And, you know, Albert would never say that. Albert would think that was the surest way to lose a jury vote. I could tell the jury didn’t want to be messed around with. They’re not stupid people.

PS. i don't know why this is in Spec so I apologize for contributing to it.

Last Edited By: drowsy12 12/21/11 01:40 PM. Edited 1 times.

AtlasDrugged

[-]

Posts: 625

(12/21/11 01:41 PM)

The comparisons between Survivor juries and irl juries aren't useful. In the justice system the aim of a jury is to come to a consensus, which hopefully matches the objectively correct answer to the question of whether the defendant is guilty. In Survivor, it's desirable for jurors to come to their own conclusions and not co-ordinate votes. The existence of Ponderosa also discourages players from lying about non-game stuff, as jurors have the chance to compare notes. The jury system itself isn't flawed - it's a necessary part of the game, as stupid as most jurors are - but Ponderosa is.

tarheel66

[-]

Posts: 1672

(12/21/11 08:08 PM)

I'm with STUPID!

The comparison is useful to the degree that there is group deliberation in both. That's the real thing I was comparing. Obviously there's hopefully a consensus in judicial juries, but there can also be hung juries, and each person does get their vote. But, you're right, yes, they're trying to reach consensus, and revote until they can or can't. Survivor gets one vote one time from each of them, but they still form a group result. And, as it's set up now, deliberation is encouraged. In that sense, there is some comparison.

I don't think it's desirable for them to come to their own conclusions without comparing notes or conferring with each other. Why is it better to draw conclusions without the resource of other perspectives on the game from other players in the same game? It's a social game. Part of that is convincing not an independent set of individual relationships, but a 'tribe' of people. Honestly, I think it gives the game much better chances of having winners with the most merit from the ones that are in the Final. Often that's been shown by people coming to a more objective understanding of who played best, because they could get out of the game a bit, chill, and put it in context with the help of others who'd just gone through the same thing.

The affect that these interactions can have on their decisions are many. Doesn't have to be a 'bitter jury' result...can sometimes be people getting outside of their individual butthurt to see things in a bigger picture, with the help of other jurors.

A game where players can leave people in a state of mindfuck, sequestered, without processing it or getting supplementary information, is, to me, a weaker game in finding the best winner in what is, overall, a social game. A good social and strategic game has to stand up to note comparing, to basically figuring out what really happened. I think it gives a chance for a variety of playing styles to win, and comes down to performances at later tribal councils, and how those players represent to the jury their command of the game, and their understanding of the game they're playing, since the jurors, now figuring it out as a group, aren't snowed anymore.

In this regard, Sophie did quite well, and Albert and Coach stunk. She distinguised herself from the other two in game approach, and in owning and understanding her play. According to her interviews (most of them great reads), she began in the last several tribal councils to be more active in front of the jury (it wasn't shown much to us), as she and Albert began to fracture. She could see what would be flaws to the jury system for him, and started throwing him under the bus about them in front of the jury. (the Cochran massage being one). Rather than trying obviously to manage the jury in the 'butter up' way Albert was doing (which wouldn't work upon note comparing), she started seeing that was a problem for him, and pointed it out more and more in front of them. She, on the other hand, reached them through acknowledging the truth about what they were already going to figure out. That, and becoming sincere and real to them, became a big part of her win. It's just a different, more direct and forthright form of jury management, and acknowledging the jury process as it is. Which I think is a good one requiring no change without changing the game for the worse.

The game has better winners that are true social game victors as it is now. The jury, as group note comparers and arbiters, becomes a stronger force that distills the real winner better. It's a good truth serum in the way it is now.

Either way, it's not going to change, and I don't think it should.

Last Edited By: tarheel66 12/21/11 08:22 PM. Edited 1 times.

neonrain

[-]

Posts: 24

(12/21/11 08:27 PM)

Sophie is ugly.

JLK Name

[-]

Posts: 19930

(12/21/11 10:33 PM)

America should get a percentage on should win!

bearthur

[-]

Posts: 1639

(12/22/11 01:04 AM)

neonrain wrote:
Sophie is ugly.

Not nearly as ugly as your soul.

seltzer3

[-]

Posts: 2014

(12/22/11 01:30 PM)

Registered User

I think the jury format is mostly good right now.
The only bone that I can pick is that I don't like how jury members now can just address the finalists (or ranting), and then not allow the finalist to defend themselves. (Whether its valid or not)
-Alex shutting up Cassandra.
-Everyone shutting up Phillip
Or how they just completely ignore one of the finalist. For example, like how 6 out of the 9 jury members never addressed Becky in Cook Islands. That is utter bs.

I remember in Borneo or the earlier seasons, where majority of the finalists were able to address both finalists, and give them space to respond. Even Sue Hawk's speech, Kelly was able to respond to that.

Coldnights

[-]

Posts: 405

(12/22/11 09:48 PM)

Click here to break the ad gravity rule.
Remove this ad

Players go into every season knowing what the jury rules are. To bitch about the rules, after losing the season is a bit cowardly. You play the game knowing the rules, you don't tailor the rules ad hoc based on how you lost the game.

Panasi

[-]

Posts: 195

(12/22/11 10:21 PM)

America should get a percentage of the vote!

getting real

[-]

Posts: 2910

(12/23/11 01:51 AM)

Registered User

There is another aspect of the jury system that I don't think has been explored yet. It's the capacity of the jury to influence the remaining players' decisions.

For example, Sophie has said that, although she originally thought Ozzy was disliked and would be a good one to bring to the finals, the jury's applause when he won immunity convinced her otherwise.

What, then, if the jury had known that and tried to influence her decision accordingly? What if, instead of applauding, the jury had helped Ozzy's cause by pretending to be hostile towards him with the usual arsenal available to them (eye-rolls, head-shakes, etc.)? Quite conceivably, this might have influenced Sophie and Coach to take Ozzy to the finals, which is what the jurors wanted in the first place!

The jurors are not permitted to talk but what is to stop them from sending the signals they wish to the players remaining in an effort to influence those players' decisions?

cindidindi76

[-]

Posts: 28446

(12/23/11 03:51 AM)

Registered User

Or how they just completely ignore one of the finalist. For example, like how 6 out of the 9 jury members never addressed Becky in Cook Islands. That is utter bs.

Some of that is just editing, with a f3 and a bigger jury, there's not enough time for them to show 3 answers for everything, so they edit out more of the irrelevant stuff. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Becky was actually ignored by most of the jury.

Coldnights

[-]

Posts: 407

(12/23/11 08:38 AM)

getting real wrote:
There is another aspect of the jury system that I don't think has been explored yet. It's the capacity of the jury to influence the remaining players' decisions.

For example, Sophie has said that, although she originally thought Ozzy was disliked and would be a good one to bring to the finals, the jury's applause when he won immunity convinced her otherwise.

What, then, if the jury had known that and tried to influence her decision accordingly? What if, instead of applauding, the jury had helped Ozzy's cause by pretending to be hostile towards him with the usual arsenal available to them (eye-rolls, head-shakes, etc.)? Quite conceivably, this might have influenced Sophie and Coach to take Ozzy to the finals, which is what the jurors wanted in the first place!

The jurors are not permitted to talk but what is to stop them from sending the signals they wish to the players remaining in an effort to influence those players' decisions?

I actually think the jury applauding when Ozzy won immunity to be quite foolish, assuming they wanted him to win outright. In any case, I believe that was the first time the jury interacted with the contestants in such an overt manner, and probably crosses the line. Would be interesting to read the rule that governs jury behavior at tribal council.

JT4ever

[-]

Posts: 827

(12/23/11 08:47 AM)

This is all I have to say about the usual bitching and moaning about Survivor's jury system that follows the crowning of UTR winners:

Last Edited By: JT4ever 12/30/11 02:03 PM. Edited 4 times.

getting real

[-]

Posts: 2914

(12/23/11 02:46 PM)

Registered User

Coldnights wrote:
getting real wrote:
There is another aspect of the jury system that I don't think has been explored yet. It's the capacity of the jury to influence the remaining players' decisions.

For example, Sophie has said that, although she originally thought Ozzy was disliked and would be a good one to bring to the finals, the jury's applause when he won immunity convinced her otherwise.

What, then, if the jury had known that and tried to influence her decision accordingly? What if, instead of applauding, the jury had helped Ozzy's cause by pretending to be hostile towards him with the usual arsenal available to them (eye-rolls, head-shakes, etc.)? Quite conceivably, this might have influenced Sophie and Coach to take Ozzy to the finals, which is what the jurors wanted in the first place!

The jurors are not permitted to talk but what is to stop them from sending the signals they wish to the players remaining in an effort to influence those players' decisions?
I actually think the jury applauding when Ozzy won immunity to be quite foolish, assuming they wanted him to win outright. In any case, I believe that was the first time the jury interacted with the contestants in such an overt manner, and probably crosses the line. Would be interesting to read the rule that governs jury behavior at tribal council.

Yes, it certainly was foolish - and counter-productive to their objectives. As I suggest, had they gone the opposite route of showing displeasure, they just may have succeeded in convincing Coach and Sophie to bring Ozzy to the FTC. I think it's a dynamic that may/should be explored further in future. Regarding jury rules, I think they only one is that they can't speak or get out of their seats, so there's a lot that can be done within those parameters.

In any case, from a production point of view, such overt displays make for good television. There have been similar displays in the past where they weren't shown because of their effect on the story.

m1k2

[-]

Posts: 180

(12/27/11 02:47 PM)

Oowatanite wrote:
marshal99 wrote:
The only thing that is flawed are the ones who lost. Russhole will never win and Coach lost it by himself , Ozzy said it best at the beginning of FTC , it's for Coach to lose and he lost spectacularly by not owning up to his own actions and hypocrisy.
Yeah, Stephen 'owned up' after being badgered by Debbie in Tocantins and look where that got him .... a 7-0 shellecking.

The FACT of the matter is that in every season, the jury has already decided who they are voting for before they step into the FTC. Everything else is just grandstanding and posturing .........

Ben came at the FTC from the perspective of having played the game before. According to one of his post game interviews, he saw Russel "own" his game and get completely shut out.

Having to been to one now, he probably has a better idea how to comport himself.

In regards to Ozzy, part of the bitterness towards him is Coach saying he'd of given him his vote as a returning player of the roles were switched.

I can only speculate, but based on what we've seen, the Savaii players were not going to let Ozzy get to the final if they made it past the merge with numbers, and they decided not to let Coach win as well. Their being returning players probably had something to do with that.

cindidindi76

[-]

Posts: 28455

(12/27/11 05:33 PM)

Registered User

Omar would be the best winner ever.

tarheel66

[-]

Posts: 1693

(12/28/11 07:38 PM)

I'm with STUPID!

m1k2 wrote:
Oowatanite wrote:
marshal99 wrote:
The only thing that is flawed are the ones who lost. Russhole will never win and Coach lost it by himself , Ozzy said it best at the beginning of FTC , it's for Coach to lose and he lost spectacularly by not owning up to his own actions and hypocrisy.
Yeah, Stephen 'owned up' after being badgered by Debbie in Tocantins and look where that got him .... a 7-0 shellecking.

The FACT of the matter is that in every season, the jury has already decided who they are voting for before they step into the FTC. Everything else is just grandstanding and posturing .........

Ben came at the FTC from the perspective of having played the game before. According to one of his post game interviews, he saw Russel "own" his game and get completely shut out.

I think he referred to the wrong season. He should have referenced Vanuatu, for tips on what to do or not do at FTC once you've stepped over the line with people.

linesinaconversation

[-]

Posts: 7264

(12/28/11 10:14 PM)

Click here to break the ad gravity rule.
Remove this ad

I'm way late to the party on this thread, but I will say this:

It's not as if Sophie, Coach, Albert, and everyone else didn't come into this game with the knowledge of how the jury system and everything else within the game works. (recruits, I know but bear with me) Coach should be especially aware of this, as he has served on the jury twice before and was, in one instance, on the jury for EIGHTEEN DAYS. They know that the jury is not sequestered from each other, they know that they are going to talk, and they know that this can adversely affect their chances in the F3.

Therefore, regardless of whether the system would work better if the jury was kept separate from each other, the conditions in which the jury is to live under is a factor within the game just as much as anything else. If you consider that, good on ya. If you don't consider it, it is at your own peril.

And as for the argument about whether or not it would have been helpful for Coach to own his game or not, that is something that should be considered a lot more carefully than Coach or Russell did. The Samoa jury was filled with a great many emotionally-influenced people (Laura, Kelly, Dave, Monica, Jaison) that would not want to hear about how badly they were "owned" by the self-professed "mastermind" of the game, but the South Pacific jury was not necessarily like this. Perhaps if Coach had owned up to his lies and "atoned for his sins" instead of completely denying and/or omitting them, he could have pulled in the couple more votes he needed.

Jury management does not stop at the elimination of each given juror. It includes putting the jurors in a position and mindset where they will not group-think your chances into oblivion too. If Coach, or Russell, or Albert, or Mick, or anyone else cannot see that, that's their own fault.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Survivor jury system majorly flawed.