Yuku free message boards

Katy Carney wrote:

---

It's better, in my opinion, to take the chance at a bitter jury than to just roll through to the finals with no hope of winning. Ozzy vs. Parvati in front of a jury of Ozzy's biggest fans Alexis, Erik, Jason and Amanda? Seriously? No. She may still lose, but she's doing what she can. Everyone left in her alliance should thank her for getting out the one person no one can beat in the end and doing it without their help. The person who benefitted most from Ozzy's departure and the way Parvati did it? Amanda.

But the thing is that nobody forced Pavarti really to with Ozzy in the first place. Yes, Eliza, Jonathon, Yau-man were trying to get her out, but she could have gone to them and made a deal...And if your going to get an alliance with someone you know that you cannot beat, then at least have a deal with your other alliance members to take that person out. Case in point, Amanda turned on James who was an alliance mate (but their alliance was probably more like a Cirie/Ozzy one) However, she got everyone in her alliance to backstab James. Thus, it was only one person who got backstabbed, not three, which was the case in Pavarti's decision.

I like Pavarti, and I think some of the criticism of her on this board has been unfair. There is no evidence whatsover that Pavarti is a mean girl, or one of those cool kids that's mean to the not so cool people. (Yes, she was rude to Jonathon, but consider the circumstances. This being said considering the way Pavarti has played this game, one has to wonder if we should ask her if some of her attitudes towards Jonathon were unfair)

Still, I think Pavarti deserves criticism for her treatment with James. I'm sorry but it's fine to make an alliance and backstab them that's part of the game. But it's not cool to toy with a person's heart, all the while planning to backstab them.. I think that goes way behind just Survivor and gets to real life, and that's not okay.

My point is that in Survivor it's a good idea to not backstab everyone in the game.

AnneZob wrote:

---

Katy Carney wrote:

---

It's better, in my opinion, to take the chance at a bitter jury than to just roll through to the finals with no hope of winning. Ozzy vs. Parvati in front of a jury of Ozzy's biggest fans Alexis, Erik, Jason and Amanda? Seriously? No. She may still lose, but she's doing what she can. Everyone left in her alliance should thank her for getting out the one person no one can beat in the end and doing it without their help. The person who benefitted most from Ozzy's departure and the way Parvati did it? Amanda.

Yes, if you were thinking strategically and dispassionately. Unfortunately for Parvati, Amanda, Ozzie and maybe James are thinking emotionally. This is not a matter of fair or unfair. In Survivor you have to expect that there will be people on the jury who will vote emotionally and work your way around it. It's part of the game. Notice Cirie managed to avoid Ozzy's ire if his post-game interviews are anything to go by. He *only* mentions Amanda, Parvati and James as people who would vote against if he finds out they voted for him and explicitly states he doesn't see Cirie's voting against him as a betrayal.

If Parvati was unable to work out early on who would vote emotionally out of betrayal and who would vote strategically and work that into her strategy she has failed in an important part of the game. It also means she is not that good at reading people.

We don't know that Amanda won't vote against Pavarti yet. It looks like from previews that Amanda manages to stay rational enough to immediately join the Girls alliance. But honestly, one could argue from a strategic perspective that backstabbing everyone isn't good game play. Some is necessary surely, but not everyone. I mean Probst once said that the game is based on Nash's Screw You, (Make deals, the deals are non binding) but they added the final screw you, but letting all the people who you screwed, get their revenge. I think if you look at it in context, it's perfectly acceptable for someone to be like. You screwed me out of a million dollars, I might seriously consider giving someone else a million. So then, hey buddy in the outside world we are even.

Katy Carney wrote:

---

There's nothing you can do about people who are going to be bitter on the jury. The options are A) have them in the jury or B) sit next to them at the end. There's no C. Since B had no chance of success, Parvati chose A, which does have some chance of success. Nobody said anything about fair or unfair. If Ozzy chooses to use his vote to punish someone for not letting him win that's his business, but it doesn't change my opinion that she did the only sensible thing. She has every reason to believe that he could win every challenge until the F3.

As far as James' heart....let's get serious. Parvati and James were not in love. They were allies and they flirted, the end.

We don't know that. James might have had deeper feelings for Pavarti than that. Alexis made a comment in her blog about playing with a guy's feelings, and using that. (She thought it was wrong) The website clues, talk about how James/Pavarti's flirtation turns to bitterness. Seeing as James and Amanda are clearly quite close, it suggests that James feels a bit more personally betrayed by Pavarti's actions. We don't know how far Pavarti's flirting went.

And there is option C which I suggested which is not to allign yourself as closely as Pavarti alligned herself with Ozzy, with someone you know you can't beat. \Basically Cirie did this, she never promised Ozzy final Four. Nobody took a gun to Pavarti's head and forced her to allign with Ozzy.

Jedijake wrote:

---

From almost everything we've ever been shown, people in their 20's almost ALWAYS vote out of emotion in this game.

If people like Ozzy, James, or Amanda (if on the jury) vote for Parvati, they would have NO reason for voting for anyone else. It's kind of like Helen voting for Brian in S5. She was betrayed, but hated Clay. I suppose the same could be said for Julie and Eliza in Vanuatu. It was their despise for Twila that swayed their vote more than their respect for Chris. Clay and Twila were shown to be very much unlikeable due to personality from the beginning of their seasons.

We're being shown that the only way Parvati could beat Cirie is if Cirie becomes so detestable that the jury would vote for Parvati out of protest.

Such is not the case now and time is running out. Parvati is losing friends quickly (Eliza, Ozzy, Amanda). Cirie has gained a few favors in the past couple of episodes.(Erik, Jason)

I can't see Pavarti choosing to go against Cirie in the finals. And given Ami's comments about Cirie regretting her decision, and Eliza's I could have helped someone out, I don't think Cirie makes it. I could be wrong, but I'm just saying. But your point is the point I was trying to make earlier. If your going to backstab, it's a good idea to make sure your not the only backstabber.

Take for instance Todd. He backstabbed Denise, JR, and James.. However, he ended up in the Finals with Courtney/Amanda, who also voted exactly the same as Todd and broke similar promises (except it seems for Courtney who didn't break a promise to Denise) Todd wasn't dumb enough to think that he could waltz in to the finals with Pei Gee and Erik, and still win the game. And he did basically stick with his core alliance for the whole game. He didn't turn on three people at once. (And make promises to 7/8 people)

Pavarti's problem is that she positioned herself to go into the finals, with people who are going to be deemed as less responsible then her. Another thing about Todd and Will from Big Brother was that they were honest with people. They were honest that they were players, everyone said they knew Todd would turn on them. So nobody felt that angry when Todd did because they were expecting it. Yes, backstabbing is necessary in the game, but a lot of it is HOW you backstab,