interesting news about controversial decision in Survivor Spoilers Forum

0 Points

New Poll

interesting news about controversial decision

Started By	Comment
LuvsChristaNJerri	Re: interesting news about controversial decision	#101	[-]
Posts: 1457 02/03/07 11:03 AM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	*Quote:* hey all, I was reading an article and it seemed to agree with possible speculation that someone does not vote for a winner. Read it. I hope this helps fule more discussion. It's a bit hard to vote for the winner, "HALFWAY THROUGH THE GAME" go back and actually listen to what Jeff said.
	Remove this ad
LuvsChristaNJerri	Re: controversial decision	#102	[-]
Posts: 1457 02/03/07 11:06 AM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	*Quote:* And it could be Jeff's another overhyped comments that are wearing thin with audience long, long time ago. It may not even be on the same level as the "big lie"! The first 3 thoughts that entered my head when I saw that promo 1 - Wow, I really can't wait to see what happens 2 - Bet you anything it's not even as crazy as JFPs lie 3 - Then again, Kim Ps vote out in Africa was supposed to be the most shocking, bitter, tribal council EVER. Yeah, that will always be the rats and snakes speech followed closely by my girl Tammy's speech.
Jet Jaga	Re: controversial decision	#103	[-]
Posts: 1838 02/03/07 03:52 PM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Maybe it's down to the final six and Dreamz and one other person are alligned but in the minority (ie an alliance of four vs two) and next in line to get pagonged but the RC offers an interesting dilema, would you give up a brand new car for the power to cast the sole vote at the next TC? Dreamz wins the challenge but opts to keep the car and the person he is alligned with gets the boot. Dreamz's rationale for his decision could be that a) he really needs the car and b) eliminating someone would only delay the pagonging (they would still be down three to two regardless). The next episode could have three possible scenarios dividing viewers: 1) Dreamz is voted out at the final five. Viewers debate whether Dreamz was foolish and cruel to act as he did instead of furthering the progress of his alliance or if he did the right thing given his situation. 2) Dreamz makes it to the final three, likely by winning the remaining challenges, and wins the game. Does this justify his decision or was his win just a fluke? 3) Dreamz makes it to the final three but loses. Does this justify the decision? Would he have won if he saved his partner? Another twist to add to this could be that Dreamz makes the final three but the person alligned with Dreamz refuses to vote at the final TC, perhaps because the opposing alliance treated him like crap but he couldn't stomach voting for Dreamz after what he did. How would the audience react? Just a thought.
KarenElizA	Re: controversial decision	#104	[-]
Posts: 2 02/04/07 09:55 PM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	What if the person who wins the car is asked to pick another person to give it to and refuses and the decision that HAS TO BE MADE is that by refusing - the person refusing is booted from the game? I don't see giving or not giving the car, even to an alliance as a huge ethical choice that people get all worked up about. Certainly not something the viewers are going to come down on one side or the other. Big Deal. I don't see how giving a car to either friend or foe is helpful, especially if it is early in the season.
cindidindi76	Re: controversial decision	#105	[-]
Posts: 31405 02/04/07 10:52 PM Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	That's stupid. Not only is it highly unlikely that someone would just flat-out refuse to give away a car when they are getting one too, but it is pretty clear that the decision is made by a player, not by production. Do people even think before they post?
dragonscale333	Re: controversial decision	#106	[-]
Posts: 29 02/05/07 12:18 AM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Probst has a history of exagerration things, like when overhyped last season, when he reported that there were 3 romances. He counted Billy-Candice and Nate-Parvati as romances, which no one here would do. My guess: A player finds the HII. He thinks that his ally is in danger, so he gives it to him. However, since he is now exposed, his "ally" turns on him, and he is voted out at Tribal.
Trixiego	Re: controversial decision	#107	[-]
Posts: 24078 02/05/07 07:37 AM Kiss me, I'm Adminish Reply Quote More Recent Posts	*Quote:* Probst has a history of exagerration things, like when overhyped last season, when he reported that there were 3 romances. He counted Billy-Candice and Nate-Parvati as romances, which no one here would do. Not that I disagree that Probst exaggerates but he did say re: romance that they were of "varying degrees" and he wasn't exaggerating when he said one of them was (paraphrasing) like the weirdest one he ever saw.
KarenElizA	Re: controversial decision	#108	[-]
Posts: 2 02/05/07 10:06 AM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	*Quote:* but it is pretty clear that the decision is made by a player, not by production Granted I haven't studied this but I have read through these posts...what makes it clear that it is a person and not production? Yes, I think before I post - and right now I'm thinking your an ass. A simple explanation of your POV is sufficient. I was focusing on the "had to be made" part. I'm not studying it and disecting it but when I first read it, I assumed production side from the beginning. None of the other explanations of guesses seems all that big of an ethical delima or to be all that controversial. All are more in the "so what?" category.
rower	Re: controversial decision	#109	[-]
Posts: 4370 02/05/07 09:42 PM Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	^^I don't see how giving a car to either friend or foe is helpful, especially if it is early in the season. Well first of all the car reward is NEVER given early in the season, it is at final five. As far as any of the scenerios (as you see it) not stirring up the viewers, thats a matter for debate. ANYTHING that affects and/or could affect the final outcome will be the subject of endless debate and if you ever spent any time here you would probably know that. In fact stuff that doesn't affect the end game is often endlessly discussed (Someone having a fantasy about mashed potatos and gravy comes to mind) That being said, JP says this the controversy presents a moral/ethical decision of where a person's life values end and the game begins...a fine line. Depending on how MB plays it, winning the car could present the winner with a huge moral/ethical delemnia if there are the right/wrong strings tied to it. Not saying that the controversy necessarily is connected with the car but don't discount it offhand.
RickyJ1	Re: interesting news about controversial decision	#110	[-]
Posts: 276 02/06/07 12:53 AM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	*Quote:* i still have a feeling someone told her. maybe she really did have a gut feeling, but my gut feeling tells me someone tipped her off. Of course someone told her. For crying out loud folks, this "game" is not a reality show, nor is it a game, it is a staged production!
	Remove this ad
Zep	Re: interesting news about controversial decision	#111	[-]
Posts: 255 02/08/07 11:54 AM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I hate posting when I think it could have been discussed, but haven't found it yet. Does the "car dilemma" HAVE to be the controvesial decision? Cause if Gary is out early, I'm thinking it could be a passing health thing, but he won't be sure until he leaves the island. Like this: Gary is lifting firewood or something, has serious chest pain. But to go find out if it was more than angina or heart burn, he needs to quit the game and go get tests run. The producers say its up to him, does he stay or does he go? That could be Jeff's whole "what would YOU do" situation that seems to be talked about. Gary has family at home, does he risk his life for money?
erickman	Re: interesting news about controversial decision	#112	[-]
Posts: 25704 02/08/07 12:01 PM MESS member Reply Quote More Recent Posts	thats a good idea zep, becouse if he was on the have tribe why would he quit
Planet Somewhere	Re: controversial decision	#113	[-]
Posts: 70 02/08/07 12:10 PM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Im thinking maybe one of the castaways destroys or burns down the camp knowing there time is coming up.
HayNonnyMoose2	Re: controversial decision	#114	[-]
Posts: 57 02/08/07 12:21 PM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I'm sure the "controcersial decision" is a real whopper this time. Probst has made such a big deal out of it, it just HAS to be good. Something like, maybe, a player decides to run a competition barefoot instead of wearing his sneakers. Something REALLY controversial, like that.
neworlnssteel	Re: controversial decision	#115	[-]
Posts: 645 02/08/07 04:03 PM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I think a player decides to not vote for a winner or just doesnt want to participate as a juror! They keep saying it will affect the outcome of the game.
stormy07	Re: controversial decision	#116	[-]
Posts: 1 02/08/07 05:26 PM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	[quote]Like this: Gary is lifting firewood or something, has serious chest pain. But to go find out if it was more than angina or heart burn, he needs to quit the game and go get tests run. The producers say its up to him, does he stay or does he go? That could be Jeff's whole "what would YOU do" situation that seems to be talked about. Gary has family at home, does he risk his life for money? [/quote] That's a good idea however it just could not be the "controversy" simply because Gary is believed to quit sometime earlier on in the game. Jeff has been very clear to state whatever it is happens really late in the game...I would guess that means somtime deep into the merger.
soarin22	Controversy	#117	[-]
Posts: 49 02/08/07 07:13 PM Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	My own opinion is that the controversy has to do with a decision the producers were forced to make, based upon Probst's use of the word "had". My own feeling is that someone cheats in some way and that crosses a line of safety, violence, etc. that was written into the contract the contestants sign with CBS. Whatever ever it is sounds like something that a person would never do in real life, but deemed acceptable because of the game and the producers had to draw the line as to what's acceptable and what's not. Maybe the point was reached where the producers had to define what acceptable gamesmanship is and what is cheating.
bunner6	Controversy	#118	[-]
Posts: 132 02/10/07 09:33 AM Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Um- The problem with some above scenarios is that Jeff says there is a moral/ ethical decision made -And at the end of last season they said a SURVIVOR has to make a controvertial decison. ANd that other quote of JP by by Trixigo "JP: I wish I knew and I don't. I just have one other thing I wanted to say. There's one other thing that happened late in the game. There's a big ethical decision that has to be made that I think people will care about. I think by the time it happens you will be invested in the people involved, that you will care. It's the quintessential question of Survivor. Where do ethics begin and end and where does the game begin and end? It poses that question. What is your word worth in this game and in your life and is there a difference? Would you act the same way at home? When we were out there and it happened it was a big moment. I think on the show it will probably have the same sort of significance. It's something to look out for" SO it's NOT a decison by production - and it's LATE in the game - Should be interesting...
richhong	Re: Controversy	#119	[-]
Posts: 490 02/10/07 10:13 AM Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I suggest watching the CBS video clip of JP on The Early Show where he talks about this controversial decision. It gives it a much more lighthearted tone. Reading the words as text, I once thought it was a big ethical decision with outside-the-game impact. But now I don't. JP had a big grin, and spoke of how the producers were all asking each other "what would you do?" Now you can READ that many ways, but the way he said it on-air made me think that it was a strategic decision in the game. I am now leaning with those who think that someone gives away the HII and is then backstabbed. In the Survivor world, this would be big news. As far as I can remember, no one in the history of the game has given away immunity and left him/herself exposed. If this happens, and the person is then backstabbed BY THE PERSON to whom immunity was given, that would be big Survivor news. And if the immunity was conferred because of a personal bond as well as a strategic bond, that would make it even more interesting and spark the discussion of where the game begins and ends. In the end, it IS just a game ... but the million dollars is yours in real-life. So if you backstab an ally to win, you're enriching yourself at their expense. You could be determining whether his kids (or yours) go to their first-choice college or something like that.
RobVanStratus	Re: Controversy	#120	[-]
Posts: 11610 02/10/07 12:06 PM Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Christ almighty would you retards please learn about the shit you are trying to say before you do? The Hidden idol CANNOT be stolen. To give it to someone else, it must be fully documented on camera as an exchange. God, I wish had the power to ban some of you fucknuts after your brainfarts.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

interesting news about controversial decision