A comprehensive analysis and ranking system of the Survivor Winners

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
Pulau Tiga		#61	[-]
Posts: 2460 (10/24/07 1:47 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Michelle was the physically weakest out of those not in the dominant alliance and had shown she was not much of a team player. Rating: Good- An easy vote for Sandra. Actually, booting Shawn would have been the much more beneficial play. Michelle would have been far easier to keep loyal after the merge; all of Drake knew Shawn would jump ship the second he got the chance. Shawn was more of a post-merge threat. Shawn had an alliance running with Jon. Shawn was more of a loose cannon than Michelle would ever be. However, the counter-play by Christa, Rupert and Sandra was excellent. They pulled in the isolated Shawn and switched the target to Trish without Jonny and Trish finding out. Rating- Great: The Counter play was very well done and keeping Rupert around is a great move for Sandra. Keeping both Shawn and Jon in the game guaranteed that Morgan would have numbers after the merge, unless a big twist came (like it did). Shawn was going to abandon ship no matter what, and Jon was definitely going to once he lost his options in Trish. Sandra could have prevented Trish from making a move altogether, which would have been a much stronger play. As it stands, by booting Trish, Sandra was dooming herself to a post-merge minority position and an even worse chance of beating Rupert in the game. Rating: Great- Darrah was the only person who may have beaten Sandra in the jury vote. Booting Darrah was a terrible move. Sandra should have done everything she could to send Fairplay packing. By booting Darrah, Sandra was dooming herself to a F3 situation where she would likely have to win the challenge in order to win the game (or Lill would have to win the IC and completely change the way she had been playing the game for the past 17 days and give up her best shot at a million bucks in order to take someone who had routinely treated her like shit to the F2 just to stop Fairplay from having a shot). Had Sandra booted Fairplay, she was looking at a F3 where either player likely would have taken her to the F2. And Sandra would have beaten Darrah in the jury vote. She would have had Rupert/Christa/Lill locked (especially if D takes Sandra to the F2 over Lill). All Sandra would need would be one of Fairplay/Burton, which would have been easy enough to pull off by playing up Darrah's treachery and complete strategic uselesness, not to mention inability to play a good social game or make a stand for herself at any point. Along with Christa Sandra was the early voting leader of Drake and in the end game she showed she could get people to follow her lead. Rupert and Burton were the leaders of Drake in every sense. Burton alienated the people not in his clique, and Rupert pulled them together to make his own group of people he actually liked.
Kitty Pryde1		#62	[-]
Posts: 329 (10/24/07 3:02 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Why're you saying Sandra had Lill's vote locked? You just got finished saying that Sandra treated Lill like crap all the time. Lill was a very emotional player, and she would probably vote for Darrah if that were true. By booting Darrah, Sandra minimized the chances of losing. She went into a final 3 against Jon, who she probably thought would take her to the final 2 if he won, Lill, who would probably take her, and herself, who would probably take Jon and win. By keeping Darrah around, that would mean that if Darrah won, she'd take Sandra, but Lill would probably take Darrah. Not to mention if Sandra DID make it to the jury against Darrah, she'd have two definite votes going to Darrah from Ryno and Tijuana, as opposed to one vote from Burton for Jon or potentially none for Lill.
panurge46	Analyzing with Game Theory	#63	[-]
Posts: 654 (10/24/07 5:13 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Hello MonkeyHunt and Ravu. I'm enjoying that debate you are having. As always, Ravu can express his points and I appreciate that MH has the know-how to make him realize some things many have pointed to. As fun as theoretical debates are, when talking Survivor, examples are always nice to fall back on. I have a very different way than Ravu in analyzing winners and it relies on Non-Cooperative Game Theory. As a reference, here's a link: http://survivorsucks.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/10010 Ravu sees it as outdated but since the premise is understanding tribal dynamics and individual behavior, it applies to Survivor, past, present and future. I see you argued a lot about mistakes and I think everyone gets too bogged down in them. As both of you pointed out, there are so many details that we don't know, so many factors that the players aren't aware that it's often hard to determine what is a mistake. Even saying: "Since it wasn't a mistake, that's why it worked" is a short-cut to analyzing the situation. For example, Ravu's ranking of Amber got bogged down by posters saying the Tom boot at F5 was a big mistake. Ravu's point was that, since Amber won, it wasn't that much of mistake. As Monkeyhunt said, it does stop all arguments but what is gained in understanding Amber's win? Well, Ravu uses benefit-of-the-doubt to say that Amber was smart in booting Tom because it infuriated the man and earned her the winning jury vote. It didn't seem to matter to Ravu that all we've heard from Amber was that they voted out Tom to avoid having 2 angered jury members instead of only 1. I don't look at the minutia of every boot like most do and like Survivor Survey relies heavily on. I ask: What was Amber's game? Pre-merge, Amber followed Rob who did a good job in uniting Chapera. Going against two fractured tribes in Mogo Mogo and Saboga made it relatively easy to compete. Amber never had to worry about players like Colby and Hatch who didn't make the merge mainly due to the format of that season. After having an easy ride up to the switch, Amber was saved then in large part by the previous friendships Lex and Kathy had with Rob. How much was due to Rob, how much to Amber herself? We'll never know for sure but we know it wouldn't have worked without prior friendships. (One could say right there that Amber's ability to win in many different formats is in doubt but it was a weird twist.) Then came the merge and Chapera had the game in hand. The tribe had a known solid pair but no one challenged them. All-Stars? Really?? In every prior seasons, followers had only won jury votes when they had faced other followers in front of the jury so one would've expected that Amber needed to get rid of Rob to win the vote. But it was All-Star with its giant egos and Rob wasn't the most diplomatic leader. Not having to overthrow the leader made Amber's win too easy to be highly rated. If only she had worked to make the jury hate Rob but, instead, she tried to smooth things over whenever she could, even trying to save Lex. Strangely, from two opposite directions, Ravu and I both rank Amber at or around 10^th place compared to other winners so there has to be something good in each of our approaches! SS isn't too far off. I'd just like to address one we don't agree on and where I completely disagree with SurvivorSurvey: CHRIS DAUGHTERY Chris is not the second worse winner ever. He's not as high as #4 either, but Chris played a pretty good game. Here's how I anlyze his game: The first thing Chris had to evaluate was the FORMAT: The gender division told him two things: 1- The challenges would require brain more than brawn. 2- There would certainly be a tribal switch before the merge. Next he looked at TRIBAL DYNAMICS and CAST COMPOSITION: Immediately apparent is that Lopevi has 4 young, athletic men and 4 older, more or less out of shape men. In the middle, stood a man who presented himself as Sarge. It wasn't hard to figure that Sarge would want to decide how things got done. Chris was smart to get close to Sarge and do what Sarge asked when it came to work. Chris became Sarge's right hand man and the rest of the Flab5 fell in place. When Sarge said: "I'm used to build up teams not break them down" Chris offered his help. If Sarge was the camp life leader, Chris was the voting Leader. As such, his strategy was to unify the tribe and eliminate threats to his leadership. Then came STRATEGY: Chris could convince Sarge that the young men weren't needed to beat the women. His influence was made clear when he told Sarge: "We will deal with Rory but now is not the time." Even if I don't usually do a boot by boot analysis, this is SurvivorSurvey's thread so I'll go over some of his points: Booting Brook: SS Rating: Dubious - Chris should have gone after the leader of the other alliance and taken out John P. Personally, I think SS shows a bias against Chris right off the bat. Chris was the target and not only did he save himself but he got the player he feared the most to be booted out. Brook was the only member of Lopevi besides Chris who truly knew Survivor. Brook was the best choice and it robbed John P. of the numbers. How long did John last after that? Exactly. Booting Brady: SS Rating: Mistake - This tribe is sliding fast and Chris is just ignoring it. Here SS shows again his bias against Chris but also a misunderstanding of both his strategy and of the game. Booting Brady was the best move Chris made before being part of the Leann boot. This moment was crucial and needs a little background: At this point, Lopevi is booting the 5^th player out of Vanuatu. With 13 left after that night, a switch had to be coming soon. The biggest fear Chris had was to be switched to a tribe that would have a majority of women with himself and Brady. Who would the women choose if they had to decide between Brady and Chris? Chris had no illusions. John K wasn't so much a concern since John was lazy and Chris knew that the older women were in charge. John was young to click with them. Chris had a shot against John and any of the Flab 5. As SS says, the tribe may be sliding but Survivor is an individual game. Chris being able to convince Sarge to boot Brady was remarkable. Brady was ex-military and had many affinities with Sarge. Booting John K.: SS Rating: Blunder - The most foolish decision ever made by a player who went on to win. Again, although this one didn't turn out right, it wasn't a mistake. Others have commented on it but to add my voice: Lopevi was finally a united tribe except for John who TOLD Chris they should vote out Chad, proving he had no loyalty to the guys. Twila wasn't lying when she said she was happier in Lopevi than she was in Yasur. Chris believed her because Twila believed it herself. Chris also knew that Julie wasn't in the faction with Ami but had been with Mia and Lisa who had been voted out. Julie was an outsider to the burly girls' alliance. For all he knew, Chris had his 6 with Rory and he had working deals with everyone. Here you just have to say that Julie tricked him by bluffing Twila. Then Ami did a masterful job of charming Julie back into the women's alliance with that body-paint session. Chris was fooled but he never stopped playing. He did a good job of stoking the women's paranoïa. When the opening happened, he regained control of the game. The little dialogue SS transcribed is both misleading and false. SS transcript: Twila: You know what player is the key in this? Chris: Ami? Twila shakes her head. Chris: Julie? Twila is starting to get frustrated. Chris (doubtfully): Eliza? Twila nods Yup, a real rocket scientist The real events: Twila: "For the last three days you've held the key by talking to one person: Chris: "Scout?" Twila: "No" Chris: "I'm talking to you" Twila: "No" Chris: "Eliza?" Twila: "Think about it." Chris: "You are so right." Chris never mentioned Ami or Julie. Twila WAS the key and Scout WAS the brains. By her hesitation in the prior votes, Twila had shown that she was the one in the position to flip the game. Chris wasn't wrong on that point. How could Chris know that Scout was going to even want to vote with Eliza? How was he supposed to think he'd be the best one to convince Eliza since she'd need to trust Scout and Twila? It was a very big move and the discussion with Twila lasted less than a minute. I don't think it takes much away from Chris' abilities, especially since it led to one of Survivor's all-time biggest decisions. I rank Chris solidly in the middle of the winners. Even if he proved he could Outwit and Outlast against tough odds, he wasn't that good in the Outplay part of the game.
RavuRules		#64	[-]
Posts: 1046 (10/24/07 6:27 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I see you argued a lot about mistakes and I think everyone gets too bogged down in them. As both of you pointed out, there are so many details that we don't know, so many factors that the players aren't aware that it's often hard to determine what is a mistake. Even saying: "Since it wasn't a mistake, that's why it worked" is a short-cut to analyzing the situation. I agree. That's my short-answer when I get lazy or have already discussed a topic in-depth but a new poster is bringing it up again as if we never talked about it before For example, Ravu's ranking of Amber got bogged down by posters saying the Tom boot at F5 was a big mistake. Ravu's point was that, since Amber won, it wasn't that much of mistake. As Monkeyhunt said, it does stop all arguments but what is gained in understanding Amber's win? Well, Ravu uses benefit-of-the-doubt to say that Amber was smart in booting Tom because it infuriated the man and earned her the winning jury vote. It didn't seem to matter to Ravu that all we've heard from Amber was that they voted out Tom to avoid having 2 angered jury members instead of only 1. Hey. I DID indulge that topic of conversation, and didn't just stop at, "Results" or "Wasn't that much of a mistake". I listened to what Swine had to say about that topic in particular, and there are 2 main scenarios: (1) Giving Amber the benefit-of-the-doubt, she booted Tom as a Good Cop strategy. Since she actually DID point out the fact that she had betrayed him less than Rob in her jury answer to Tom specifically, I do think it's a fair assumption that she'd considered that in her decision. It's not like she's only said the "2 angered jury members" thing only. She actually did talk about her Good Cop plan during the finals, and she's also said it in different places. I recall reading somewhere that her plan is to always stick like glue to a Bad Cop and then find a new one if that person gets eliminated. So its a conscious strategy on her part (2) Not giving Amber the benefit-of-the-doubt, we say she lucked out that Tom happened to vote in her favor, because she didn't get him on the jury as part of a strategy by as a by-product of a different type of plan. In that sense, it's a non-optimal move type mistake. Not a mistake in that the move was horrible or against her self-interest, but a mistake in that there was a potentially better move to be made from the standpoint of challenge threat Rupert I consider both those scenarios, and sort of average them together, and the net result is that my opinion of Amber hasn't changed a whole lot either way. It doesn't mean I didn't consider the subject matter, but it's 1 of those not-that-important-in-the-scheme-of-things type deal and also too ambiguous to take a strong stance on the matter Then came the merge and Chapera had the game in hand. The tribe had a known solid pair but no one challenged them. All-Stars? Really?? In every prior seasons, followers had only won jury votes when they had faced other followers in front of the jury so one would've expected that Amber needed to get rid of Rob to win the vote. But it was All-Star with its giant egos and Rob wasn't the most diplomatic leader. Not having to overthrow the leader made Amber's win too easy to be highly rated. If only she had worked to make the jury hate Rob but, instead, she tried to smooth things over whenever she could, even trying to save Lex. Strangely, from two opposite directions, Ravu and I both rank Amber at or around 10^th place compared to other winners so there has to be something good in each of our approaches! SS isn't too far off. Meh, coincidence . J/K. I don't think we're necessarily coming from different directions though. I ranked her in that tier for the same reasons you basically articulated. I've said she was the luckiest winner (but that doesn't make her the least skilled or capable of winning). I just don't villainize her like others do, and give her more credit than most. I think people often mistakenly think she's ranked higher on my list than she is, because I'm 1 of the only people defending her (along with some others like CR I think) I'd just like to address one we don't agree on and where I completely disagree with SurvivorSurvey: CHRIS DAUGHTERY Yeah, seriously. His ranking is a little too much like how Sucks used to think of all the winners (people hated Chris, Sandra is seen as lucky, Tina is ranked at the top, etc.) to make me think this isn't mostly subjective. Even using SS's ranking standards, Chris is 1 of the best strategists in Survivor history, so he should be ranked a lot higher
SurvivorSurvey		#65	[-]
Posts: 56 (10/24/07 8:16 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Actually, booting Shawn would have been the much more beneficial play. Michelle would have been far easier to keep loyal after the merge; all of Drake knew Shawn would jump ship the second he got the chance. Shawn was more of a post-merge threat. Shawn had an alliance running with Jon. Shawn was more of a loose cannon than Michelle would ever be. After just booting Burton there was no way that Drake could afford to lose the strength that Shawn offered. In terms of jumping ship they were in a lose-lose situation here. Michelle would have also jumped ship if given the chance and as she offered less in challenges than Shawn did booting her was a good choice. Keeping both Shawn and Jon in the game guaranteed that Morgan would have numbers after the merge, unless a big twist came (like it did). Shawn was going to abandon ship no matter what, and Jon was definitely going to once he lost his options in Trish. Sandra could have prevented Trish from making a move altogether, which would have been a much stronger play. As it stands, by booting Trish, Sandra was dooming herself to a post-merge minority position and an even worse chance of beating Rupert in the game. I really don't think that Sandra had the power to convince Trish not to make the play. I re-watched this scene and read a Trish interview and it really did seem like she was set on voting that way. Therefore Sandra had the choice of either losing Rupert or booting Trish and she made the right choice there. Trish was just as unlikely to stay loyal then Shawn or John and had more social skill to pull off a coup. Booting Darrah was a terrible move. Sandra should have done everything she could to send Fairplay packing. By booting Darrah, Sandra was dooming herself to a F3 situation where she would likely have to win the challenge in order to win the game (or Lill would have to win the IC and completely change the way she had been playing the game for the past 17 days and give up her best shot at a million bucks in order to take someone who had routinely treated her like shit to the F2 just to stop Fairplay from having a shot). Had Sandra booted Fairplay, she was looking at a F3 where either player likely would have taken her to the F2. And Sandra would have beaten Darrah in the jury vote. She would have had Rupert/Christa/Lill locked (especially if D takes Sandra to the F2 over Lill). All Sandra would need would be one of Fairplay/Burton, which would have been easy enough to pull off by playing up Darrah's treachery and complete strategic uselesness, not to mention inability to play a good social game or make a stand for herself at any point. I could see your point on the other votes but I can't see it here. Firstly, Lill had shown that she was sick of how Fairplay and Burton were playing her and the game and she didn't want Fairplay to win. Also, Darrah would not have taken Sandra to the final two over Lill. Darrah would know that Sandra has at least 3 votes locked while against Lill she would win easily. I agree that Sandra probably would have beaten Darrah but she, out of anybody in the final 4, would have been Sandra's closest competition. Getting rid of Darrah meant that she had the game won if she or Lill won the final challenge. Getting rid of Fairplay meant she only had the game locked if she won the challenge.
SenseiKreese		#66	[-]
Posts: 1557 (10/25/07 9:21 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	If you guys are debating Chris as a winner, you should scoll back about five months and find the thread I started entitled "Chris Daugherty spills the beans." I wrote a very detailed summary of a conversation I had with Chris, where we talked about many of these issues you bring up, and what his take was on them. I only say that because some of the Chris arguments you guys are bringing up aren't completely accurate. Sarge was not the guy making most of the strategic decisions on Lopevi, and the Flab5 didn't specifically set out to exclude the younger guys at the start of the game. Oh, and Twila and Scout were completely handcuffed at the end of the game and couldn't have done anything without Chris's help. He was the only one who had any sort of relationship with Eliza, and without his ability to charm every single player in the game, they would have been toast.
SenseiKreese		#67	[-]
Posts: 1558 (10/25/07 9:24 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Ah and here is the link. Although you might have to actually go to my My_Space page to read the whole thing. http://survivorsucks.yuku.com/topic/1008
panurge46		#68	[-]
Posts: 656 (10/25/07 10:31 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Sensei, that conversation you reported with Chris was interesting. Just watching the show was enough to see that Sarge wasn't deciding Lopevi's strategy but it's always nice to get direct confirmation. If I remember your post, Chris said the older guys were already split against the younger guys even before the game started so I'm not sure what you're saying about not setting out "to exclude the younger guys at the start of the game." Are you refering to the line I wrote about Chris' strategy? "Chris could convince Sarge that the young men weren't needed to beat the women" I didn't mean that Chris immediately told Sarge: "Let's get rid of all the young guys". I tried to be brief but I'm sure it was much more like: "We don't need his muscles so we can get rid of Brook" and Chris repeated a similar line with each upcoming vote. What I wrote about Chris hesitating when it came time to talk with Eliza was because Scout had been extremely mean to Eliza from day 1. Chris had to wonder if he could convince Eliza to vote with Scout without the two burying the hatchet first. I rewatched the DVD and it still amazes me that he did!! Last Edited By: panurge46 10/25/07 10:33 AM. Edited 1 times.
SenseiKreese		#69	[-]
Posts: 1560 (10/25/07 10:42 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I just bumped my original thread so you can read it through if you want. Basically what I was talking about with the "young guys vs. the old guys" was that those battle lines had been drawn before the players even started the game. The young guys had been exchanging looks and passing notes during the sequestering/pre-game part of Vanuatu. And it was so obvious that the old guys had no choice but to bond together. The minute they showed up at Camp Lopevi, the four young guys all went down to the beach to talk alliance, and the five guys left at camp were like, "So wait? They're outnumbered 5 to 4, and they deliberately decide to make an alliance in full view of the majority?" After that happened, the four young guys were doomed. John P was supposed to be first, but the older guys decided to spare him because he was actually making fire. So he was spared and they took out Brook. John P was next because he was easily the most dangerous. Rory would have been next (because Sarge was annoyed by him) but Chris persuaded Sarge to stick to the plan and take out Brady instead. Sarge had good ties to Brady, plus Brady was a hard worker, so this was a hard sell. But since Chris made most of the boot choices on Vanuatu anyway, he was able to do it. So Brady went next. John K. was the last member of the young four standing, and that had always been the plan. Why? Because John K didn't seem to care about the game and really didn't appear to be all that smart. They weren't worried about him at all. And the only reason they started becoming worried about him later was when he met the girls at the twist, and started flirting. Once they saw that John K WAS interested in the game for a change, and was certainly interested in the females, they knew they could no longer trust him. But according to Chris, that old vs young division was set in stone before the game even started. Chris and Sarge and the other guys had no intentions to exclude the young members of their tribe. That strategy was pure survival, and it was pretty much forced upon them. And Chris still laughs that the young guys' decision to gather on the beach that first night was one of the stupidest things he had ever seen in his life.
Kirblar		#70	[-]
Posts: 4664 (10/25/07 10:58 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	The blame for the male tribe in Vanuatu really lies with the producers, who left such a ridiculous natural divide there. I thought one of the reasons that occurred was because they picked the cast before deciding on the Men v. Women split.
SenseiKreese		#71	[-]
Posts: 1561 (10/25/07 11:04 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I would agree with that. I think the producers made some big mistakes with their setup for Vanuatu. They practically guaranteed that the females would Pagong the males with that whole gender-baiting opening ceremony in the first episode. That whole season was designed for a woman to win. The younger males, in particular, were doomed. And that's why it ended up being one of my favorite seasons, because in the end, Chris et al pulled off an ending that was not supposed to have happened. They completely screwed up a season that the producers had already screwed up pretty badly in the first place. And it always made me laugh when I realized how pissed off CBS must have been that a guy like Chris won the "Women rule!" season.
Kirblar		#72	[-]
Posts: 4665 (10/25/07 11:06 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Well, it was gender-baiting, but I don't think they were unhappy with a male winner, given they had 3 female winners in a row before that.
PJMichaelangelo		#73	[-]
Posts: 49 (10/26/07 7:14 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I think last night's episode provides a good counterpoint to your position, Ravu. If Zhan Hu had thrown the challenge as they initially planned and gone to TC, everyone would have voted for James, and his playing of the HII would have sent Jaime packing. But for whatever reason, they decided to go all out and wound up winning immunity, thereby saving Jaime another 3 days. By your rationale (or at least what appears to be your rationale, and please correct me if I am incorrect), ZH's decision to not throw the challenge was a "good move" for Jaime because it prevented her from leaving. But I think where most of us would diverge is that ZH's decision to play the challenge straight up is independent of the result, which was sparing Jaime's game. The result here has no impact on judging whether Jaime and the rest of ZH made a "good move" or not. They made their decision without any knowledge that James had the HII, so that wasn't a factor in their thinking (or at least from what we saw on the show). The overall result was good for Jaime, but it was an unintended consequence of their decision. I applaud and appreciate your decision to attempt to quantify in some form how the winners played, and I've always understood your distinction in your rankings of the winner's ability to win again in different game scenarios, as opposed to how most people judge the winners, via strategic ability. But I do think you place too much of a premium on luck and how it impacted results. Obviously, every winner had to have some sort of luck to get to the Final TC. But there's a reason that the phrase "dumb luck" is a part of our lexicon. Sometimes, a person gets lucky for absolutely no reason, and to give that person credit gameplay-wise for being lucky is a bit charitable.
RavuRules		#74	[-]
Posts: 1067 (10/27/07 4:36 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I think last night's episode provides a good counterpoint to your position, Ravu. If Zhan Hu had thrown the challenge as they initially planned and gone to TC, everyone would have voted for James, and his playing of the HII would have sent Jaime packing. But for whatever reason, they decided to go all out and wound up winning immunity, thereby saving Jaime another 3 days. By your rationale (or at least what appears to be your rationale, and please correct me if I am incorrect), ZH's decision to not throw the challenge was a "good move" for Jaime because it prevented her from leaving. But I think where most of us would diverge is that ZH's decision to play the challenge straight up is independent of the result, which was sparing Jaime's game. The result here has no impact on judging whether Jaime and the rest of ZH made a "good move" or not. They made their decision without any knowledge that James had the HII, so that wasn't a factor in their thinking (or at least from what we saw on the show). The overall result was good for Jaime, but it was an unintended consequence of their decision. So how would this be a counterpoint to my position? I've already explained that I'm not a, "Good results justify anything" type of individual. In this case, whether consciously planned or not though, not throwing the last challenge was a good move for Jaime. Does she deserve credit for saving herself when she had no idea what James's plan was? Probably not. We wouldn't give her strategic credit for saving her butt here, but we wouldn't go saying she is a horrible player, because that move was "bad" when it wasn't. She got lucky here, but the move still remains "good" Where she does get a bit of credit is being willing to change directions, and not wanting to risk losing the challenge after their interactions with Sherea/Frosti. ZH decided that they "had to win," and I believe the fight they gave at the last TC made James feel guilty and feel compelled to finish off the balut. Really, there was nothing stopping him from losing that challenge but himself. He could've waited forever until Denise finished her portion up. So ZH's new plan to now possibly stick with James or at least not make him a total enemy which was conscious was what basically saved Jaime here. We wouldn't give her credit for her move in terms of foresight and exact identification of why she should win that challenge, but she would get some credit for wanting to win that challenge instead of losing it I applaud and appreciate your decision to attempt to quantify in some form how the winners played, and I've always understood your distinction in your rankings of the winner's ability to win again in different game scenarios, as opposed to how most people judge the winners, via strategic ability. But I do think you place too much of a premium on luck and how it impacted results. I don't put that much of a premium on luck. It just becomes more important when we're evaluating the winners who are all skilled. Luck is a huge part of the game whether we like to admit it or not. People like Aaron and Michelle have gotten absolutely screwed, and it was mostly not their faults, although you can always blame them a bit. But for the most part, not appreciating the role of luck leads to ridiculous idealization for the winners like "Lord & Master Heidik" or "Benedict Tina". That's why people were crushed when ASS came out and proved people dead wrong, and Amber came out on top. You are not a manipulative mastermind when you are the 1st boot of any season. You are unlucky for sure, but clearly you are no Houdini--You are just a good player who only can do well with the proper amount of luck just like anyone else. My analysis allows an understanding for some of the inherent contradictions in the logic of other posters and adequately explains all the results of any season. There have been no paradoxes. I am able to explain how the ASS winners did horrible, but still remain as great players. I explained how Sandra did well, the role of production luck, Amber's victory despite an initial 6th place loss, etc. Other people's rankings just don't make sense. In this one, Tina is ranked first, yet the other winners who were on ASS (Hatch, Morasca, Ethan) ALL finished ahead of her. You can't have blame "bad luck" because they were all in the same boat. The only way you can rank her higher with that clear result is by making the excuse that she had even worse luck than them, throwing out ASS out completely and conveniently (like SS and other Tina lovers have), and by assuming that her 1st victory was still somehow less lucky than all of theirs, which I definitely don't think is the case. SS has still not addressed my previous points about Outback--probably because he can't Obviously, every winner had to have some sort of luck to get to the Final TC. But there's a reason that the phrase "dumb luck" is a part of our lexicon. Sometimes, a person gets lucky for absolutely no reason, and to give that person credit gameplay-wise for being lucky is a bit charitable Yeah, but I don't give people credit for dumb luck, UNLESS I think that individual will get that same dumb luck in a variety of scenarios given something inherent about them which can be skill or not. For instance, old females will usually be naturally UTR if they make a merge due to demographic luck and the context of the game. We wouldn't say being an old female is "skill" per se, but we also wouldn't disregard it as a prominent aspect of their skill set. It's like an alpha male employing their strength. Here, a "weak" female exploits her "weakness" as leverage in a game where the weak often gang up against the strong. You can't really take away an alpha male's "strength" or a weak female's "weakness" just because it's "dumb luck". It's a part of who they are, and why certain players would do well in almost any scenario. Ethan outlasted Tina because of this. We need an explanation of Ethan outlasting Tina, and the best one is that he was an alpha male on a tribe which needed him. He's not smarter than Tina. No one is saying that. But we still need an explanation
panurge46	Context	#75	[-]
Posts: 662 (10/27/07 1:34 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	"We need an explanation of Ethan outlasting Tina, and the best one is that he was an alpha male on a tribe which needed him. He's not smarter than Tina. No one is saying that. But we still need an explanation." Well before you first posted, every person who watched Survivor All-Star knew that the main reason why Ethan outlasted Tina was because his tribe needed his strength. We added the fact that Tina was more feared as a strategist than Ethan, that she had a bigger reputation, but that reason was always very secondary. Still, that explanation means nothing outside the context of All-Star. ASS had 3 teams of only 6 players and Saboga had Rudy who, it was sad to see, was too old to compete. Of course they needed to keep their 2 strong men. Every tribe, besides Manihiki, would have done the same thing. But, besides having reputations, ASS also was the first seasons with such small tribes. They couldn't know if it would last to the merge like that or not. Put Tina and Ethan on a tribe of 8 or 9, be it on day 1 or day 6, imagine that no one knows each other, and then analyze how their skills would come into play if the experiment is iterated many times: If Tina is on a small tribe and loses an early immunity, she could be in immediate danger again. I'd still estimate that she'd make the merge slightly more often than not. Unless he gets "Aaroned", I'd say Ethan almost always makes the merge. Really, this is where the lesson of ASS ends: ASS doesn't tell us that Ethan is a better winner than Tina, it tells us that, in multiple tries, he has better odds of making the merge than Tina. The game doesn't end at the merge! Of the times he makes the merge, I then have to say that Ethan has much less chance of surviving or being the last victim of a pagonging than Tina if their tribes don't have the numbers. Taking all that into considerations, I'd estimate that Tina and Ethan would reach the F6 about as many times. From there, Tina showed she could strategize and trick people while Ethan's skills in those department are still in doubt. That is why most people classify Tina ahead of Ethan. I have to say that you misunderstood the reactions to ASS, at least mine. It wasn't, as you wrote: "That's why people were crushed when ASS came out and proved people dead wrong, and Amber came out on top." ASS didn't prove us wrong, it disappointed us that the strategy of the weaker players ganging up on the "stars" was so easy to implement. We know that, in every season, the weak can vote out the strong. When it's done smartly, it can be fun to watch. When it's done stupidly, it can lead to very predictable seasons. When it's done using the excuse "they already have a million" as in ASS, it's a let down. PS to Ravu: I was amused that you used the "mob rules" argument about leaders in the China thread! Wasn't I the one who said using the term of leader was preferable because everyone uses it instead of your OGC or your WSGC? It's nice to see you're on board! You know what, I have called Dave a leader before. Unless the context made it clear, I usually added an adjective like "Failed" or "Poor" or "Foolish" to the term leader in his case as in the case of others like Jolanda for example. See, for me the term "Tribe Leader" is different from let's say "Tribe Representative". The word Leader creates images of action, actually more than just action, accomplishment. Did you ever see the Seinfeld skit about "Reservations"? To borrow from Seinfeld: There are two parts to being a leader. The first part is giving directions. Everyone can give directions. The second part is getting people to follow those directions and that's really the important part, getting people to follow. When I write that a player was a leader for his tribe, I've consistently refered to the ones that got their allies to vote along their directions. You'll just have to add the word "good" when you see me write the word leader. I think it's often superfluous. For me, an adjective is necessary only when refering to wannabe leaders or camp life leaders.
SurvivorSurvey		#76	[-]
Posts: 57 (10/28/07 7:34 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	After listening to Panurge's argument and reading the interview that Mario posted I am going to have another look at my rating for Chris. However, those who said I am bias against Chris right off the back are wrong because Chris is my favourite winner ever and I rooted for him the entire game. I just think that his game had a number of strategic holes but reading the interview has given me a couple of things I should add. He will not move up to the top of the lost but he may jump 1 or 2 places. Thankyou Mario for posting that interview. Panurge is exactly right about what he said about All Stars. The only reason Ethan made it further than Tina was that his tribe needed his strength. There is no other reason and it should not affect either of these two rankings.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

A comprehensive analysis and ranking system of the Survivor Winners

Quick Reply