Yuku free message boards

Thailandsurvivor wrote:

---

tullfan2 wrote:

---

RobVanStratus wrote:

---

Letting the jury vote on who makes the F2 is ridiculous. They are out of the game and their only vote left is to pick the winner. Having them vote off the last person from the game removes the strategy and the reward of being the F3 IC winner and dragging along a goat. If you have a goat with you, it means you managed to get the target off their back several times or because the goat actually played smart and saved themselves each time. Get rid of that kind of gameplay and you'd end up seeing great players like Richard, Twila, Neleh, and Stephenie cut out of the final vote because of a bitter jury instead of getting a chance to prove themselves to the jury as winners and you'd see people like Jan, Denise, and Amanda sneak into the final vote because they did nothing but tag along and be painted as innocent bystanders.

As far as I'm concerned, the only times I thought there was a boring F2/3 reveal was Africa, because Ethan was clearly Jesus reincarnated, Pearl Islands because Lillian was the outcast and no jury would reward her, Palau because Tom was edited to be God himself, and Fiji because Earl was the king of the game from Day 1. So 4 out of 16 seasons had "boring" reveals to me with the other 12 being ones that could have gone either way, in my opinion.

It would be a massive mistake to incorporate that horrible F3 twist from Pirate Master. It took Jay out of the F2 that he should have been in and would have won had they not allowed a bitter jury vote to get rid of him from the game. That's like someone taking out Richard before the final vote and letting Rudy win because he was simply likeable and followed Richard to the end of the game and lucked into that twist or someone taking out Brian only for Jan to luck into facing Clay for the win. It's a ridiculous idea and should NEVER be a part of Survivor. The game is about getting someone to the end you can beat and making sure you get them with you into the F2/3. Not about following whoever fucks everyone over because you know they will get taken out before the final vote. Besides if that actually became implemented, people would no longer swap alliances. They'd stick to their tribes and strictly Pagong the other tribe. Then they'd all play the "honesty" bullshit and make the most boring endgame ever. The bottom spot wouldn't ever think about leaving because then the jury of everyone they backstabbed just takes them out before the final vote instead of getting a chance to plead their case and possibly win. No more cuthroat games, no more exciting power struggles or flips at the votes, just straight up Pagonging 24/7 and everyone playing like Gretchen, who I love, but played stupidly by trying honesty and not going for an alliance.

The reason that the Pirate Master twist sucked was that the pirates did not know that the ghost pirates were going to vote out the last person. If the pirates would have known this in advance then Jay would have played differently. Frankly, I don't see any difference between the jury voting against Rob M. and Stephenie in the Final for backstabbing everyone and the pirates voting out Jay. Twila, Stephenie and Neleh (I'll give you Richard) were not great players. The social aspect is a big part of Survivor and those 3 players that you mentioned played poor social games. The fine line between doing what you have to to get to the Finals and putting people on the jury is the key to playing Survivor as Probst says every season. Pirate Master was different than Survivor because the winner was not determined by a jury vote so you can't compare the 2. If Pirate Master had the same rules as Survivor and Jay, Christa and Ben were the Final 3 then Jay would have been guaranteed to make the Final 2 either by winning the Final expedition or by being dragged as a goat by the winner of the Final Expedition and Jay would have still lost The reason the Final 3 was introduced was that Burnett got tired of the same goat dragging crap every season which resulted in either 6-1 or 5-2 blowout Final jury votes for several consecutive seasons. By the way I prefer the Final 2 over the Final 3 but I hate seeing the same crap of someone dragging a goat to the Finals season after season. Every now and then I like seeing Colby/Tina and Yul/Ozzy Final 2 matchups where both finalists are likeable/respected and the Final vote is close.

RVS, some of your statements make no sense. Jay would probably not have won Pirate Master because if he were up against Ben in the last expedition because he was less physically capable then Ben. And how exactly did Amanda sneak into the Finals when she won the Final Immunity challenge on both seasons that she played?

It doesn't work. The jury only comes back for one reason and that's to decide who wins between the FINAL 2. Just them, nothing else. It's been that way since the beginning, and the final two scramble is always great with just players trying to get their themselves. I do think it'd be better than the final three though because I just hate the fact that three people are sitting there in the end. It felt weird all three times, and they already have to cut some of the jury questioning with only two people. So it's still not a great idea, but I just hate the final three that much.

Actually, thailandsurvivor, in no way do I prefer the Final 3 over a Final 2. My intention with my original post was that if Burnett is insistent on having the jury determine the fate of the Final 3 contestants, then it would be better to implement it in 2 stages with the jury first voting out the worst contestant and then have it revert to a Fina 2 with the full jury questioning. As you pointed out, I never liked the fact that some of the jury questioning is cut out with 3 people sitting there in the end.