Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
WylDawg		#21	[-]
Posts: 15921 (07/28/08 2:34 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I always wanted to see a final four where everyone votes for someone different, resulting in a 4 way tie.
Thailandsurvivor		#22	[-]
Posts: 1105 (07/28/08 2:44 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	WylDawg wrote: I always wanted to see a final four where everyone votes for someone different, resulting in a 4 way tie. That works well with immunity in the mix. And yeah, it's risky, but for a good strategist that doesn't want a tie, it shouldn't be that hard to pull off. The first one who manages to do it will definitely win the game.
Kitty Pryde1		#23	[-]
Posts: 5122 (07/28/08 3:49 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	The only time where a 4 way tie was possible was PI, and that wound up being a 3-1 vote too.
panurge46		#24	[-]
Posts: 1076 (07/29/08 3:59 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Thailandsurvivor wrote: WylDawg wrote: I always wanted to see a final four where everyone votes for someone different, resulting in a 4 way tie. That works well with immunity in the mix. And yeah, it's risky, but for a good strategist that doesn't want a tie, it shouldn't be that hard to pull off. The first one who manages to do it will definitely win the game. Wow! You guys play too many on-line games, read too many fanfics and don't spend enough time in the real world. TS, how could that even be considered strategy? A strategists gets people to vote his way, not against his vote. A 4 way tie would require NO strategy, simply 4 individuals unable to talk it over to come up with a plan and just voting randomly. A lot like Pagong, by the way!! Great strategist there.
WylDawg		#25	[-]
Posts: 15922 (07/29/08 4:06 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Kitty Pryde1 wrote: The only time where a 4 way tie was possible was PI, and that wound up being a 3-1 vote too. Also in Thailand (Erin's boot episode)
Thailandsurvivor		#26	[-]
Posts: 1115 (07/29/08 4:49 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	panurge46 wrote: Thailandsurvivor wrote: WylDawg wrote: I always wanted to see a final four where everyone votes for someone different, resulting in a 4 way tie. That works well with immunity in the mix. And yeah, it's risky, but for a good strategist that doesn't want a tie, it shouldn't be that hard to pull off. The first one who manages to do it will definitely win the game. Wow! You guys play too many on-line games, read too many fanfics and don't spend enough time in the real world. TS, how could that even be considered strategy? A strategists gets people to vote his way, not against his vote. A 4 way tie would require NO strategy, simply 4 individuals unable to talk it over to come up with a plan and just voting randomly. A lot like Pagong, by the way!! Great strategist there. What? I quoted him saying that it's never going to happen. The second sentence on was talking about a 2-1-1 vote, and all I'm asking was why hasn't it happened yet because it doesn't seem that hard to pull off for a good strategist.
Kitty Pryde1		#27	[-]
Posts: 5127 (07/29/08 6:39 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	A good strategist would go for the 3-1 vote rather than 2-1-1.
panurge46		#28	[-]
Posts: 1077 (07/30/08 3:45 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Kitty Pryde1 wrote: A good strategist would go for the 3-1 vote rather than 2-1-1. Exactly.
SwineForkbeard		#29	[-]
Posts: 1584 (07/30/08 3:59 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Not necessarily. It could be a way of thwarting the person with the immunity, since that person always has the most leverage. Let's say player A has immunity. He doesn't have to worry about the consequences of a tie and wants to break up B and C, so he could agree to vote with player D against B and put pressure on C to vote for B in order to avoid the tie. Instead of rolling over for A, B could make a deal with D to vote for C, since they presume that C is voting for D and A is voting for B. That way, B and D could get rid of C without having to kowtow to A, who wanted to get rid of B. Last Edited By: SwineForkbeard 07/30/08 4:03 PM. Edited 1 times.
SwineForkbeard		#30	[-]
Posts: 1585 (07/30/08 4:06 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Something like this could have happened had Erik not given up immunity and then won immunity at the final 4. Erik would know that Parvati and Amanda would want to get rid of Cirie and he would want to get rid of Amanda, so he makes a deal with Cirie to vote for Amanda and pressure Parvati to vote with them to avoid a tie. If Parvati refuses to sell out Amanda, Amanda could make a deal with Cirie to vote for Parvati, since Parvati and Erik's votes will be split.
panurge46		#31	[-]
Posts: 1078 (07/30/08 9:53 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	SwineForkbeard wrote: Something like this could have happened had Erik not given up immunity and then won immunity at the final 4. Erik would know that Parvati and Amanda would want to get rid of Cirie and he would want to get rid of Amanda, so he makes a deal with Cirie to vote for Amanda and pressure Parvati to vote with them to avoid a tie. If Parvati refuses to sell out Amanda, Amanda could make a deal with Cirie to vote for Parvati, since Parvati and Erik's votes will be split. Typical virtual world reasoning that doesn't make sense in the real world: Parvati and Amanda want Cirie out. Parvati doesn't want to betray Amanda so, because of that, Amanda betrays Parvati and votes with Cirie???? Not only people aren't your pawns but that is a great way to lose jury votes for Amanda who looks like Cirie's tool. And why wouldn't Cirie get Erik in on the deal to solidify her alliance with him in case he wins final immunity?
SwineForkbeard		#32	[-]
Posts: 1586 (07/30/08 11:02 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Cirie was an expert in making fire. Then Amanda knows that she would have little chance of winning the tiebreaker against her, so that would be her reason for backstabbing Parvati to avoid the tie. And why wouldn't Cirie get Erik in on the deal to solidify her alliance with him in case he wins final immunity? Because they don't trust him, and he might tell Parvati about it.
panurge46		#33	[-]
Posts: 1079 (07/31/08 8:19 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	SwineForkbeard wrote: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Cirie was an expert in making fire. Then Amanda knows that she would have little chance of winning the tiebreaker against her, so that would be her reason for backstabbing Parvati to avoid the tie. And why wouldn't Cirie get Erik in on the deal to solidify her alliance with him in case he wins final immunity? Because they don't trust him, and he might tell Parvati about it. For argument sake? OK, but I think that argument is dying! Let me get this straight: Erik is immune, Cirie could teach Cao Boi and Yau Man how to make fire, making her unbeatable in a tie-breaker. They tell Parvati that they are voting Amanda out yet Parvati refuses to vote out Amanda even if it's a lost cause. Yeah!!! That works only if Parvati is more dumbly loyal to Amanda than Paschal was to Neleh. And even if it does happen that way, now you want me to believe that Cirie, (after trusting Erik enough that she went to Parvati with him), would go to Amanda alone to vote out Parvati and wouldn't tell Erik because she doesn't trust him???? And she fears that he would tell Parvati to vote with him after Parvati had refused to do so the first time. Really?
SwineForkbeard		#34	[-]
Posts: 1587 (07/31/08 10:43 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	panurge46 wrote: They tell Parvati that they are voting Amanda out yet Parvati refuses to vote out Amanda even if it's a lost cause. Yeah!!! That works only if Parvati is more dumbly loyal to Amanda than Paschal was to Neleh. It would work because Parvati would assume that Amanda would lose the tiebreaker anyway, so she'd vote for Cirie to keep her hands clean and not risk losing Amanda's jury vote. And even if it does happen that way, now you want me to believe that Cirie, (after trusting Erik enough that she went to Parvati with him), would go to Amanda alone to vote out Parvati and wouldn't tell Erik because she doesn't trust him???? Yep. The whole point of doing it that way would be so Amanda and Cirie could get themselves through to the final 3 without bothering with the pressure and risk of a tiebreaker challenge. It's not really any different from what Cirie did at the final 6 in EI, where her alliance prevailed with 3 votes by keeping their opposition divided. And she fears that he would tell Parvati to vote with him after Parvati had refused to do so the first time. Really? Erik wants to get rid of Amanda, and would be unlikely to want to compromise when he has immunity and expects to get his way. If Cirie and Amanda told him they wanted to vote for Parvati, Erik could tell Parvati about it, and change her mind about staying loyal to Amanda. Why take that risk when they don't need his vote anyway?
panurge46		#35	[-]
Posts: 1080 (08/01/08 4:19 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Swineforkbeard wrote: It would work because Parvati would assume that Amanda would lose the tiebreaker anyway, so she'd vote for Cirie to keep her hands clean and not risk losing Amanda's jury vote. So, not only Parvati is dumbly loyal to Amanda but she antagonizes the other two people she faces in the F3, making final immunity a must win situation. Anything is possible considering how dumb our average survivor player is but, come on, be serious. "Erik wants to get rid of Amanda, and would be unlikely to want to compromise when he has immunity and expects to get his way. If Cirie and Amanda told him they wanted to vote for Parvati, Erik could tell Parvati about it, and change her mind about staying loyal to Amanda. Why take that risk when they don't need his vote anyway?" Remember that, originally, Cirie wanted Amanda out and now you say she wouldn't want to risk having Erik convince Parvati to vote out Amanda!! Do you see how illogical your scenario becomes?
SwineForkbeard		#36	[-]
Posts: 1588 (08/01/08 5:21 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	panurge46 wrote: So, not only Parvati is dumbly loyal to Amanda but she antagonizes the other two people she faces in the F3, making final immunity a must win situation. Anything is possible considering how dumb our average survivor player is but, come on, be serious. You seem to be forgetting that everybody was expecting it to be a final 3, and since this is strictly hypothetical, we haven't established that it wouldn't be. The only person Parvati would be worried about antagonizing was the one about to be voted onto the jury. Remember that, originally, Cirie wanted Amanda out and now you say she wouldn't want to risk having Erik convince Parvati to vote out Amanda!! Do you see how illogical your scenario becomes? I never said Cirie wanted Amanda out, but in her initial desperation, was willing to do that just so it wouldn't be her. She thought the tie against Amanda was her only move, but decided she liked Amanda's idea better. And for the sake of argument, we'll say that between the two of them, she considered Parvati the bigger threat, and didn't want to roll over for Erik just because he had immunity. It would be a win-win-win situation for Cirie: she avoids the tiebreaker, gets rid of the person she wants to get rid of, and makes a fool out of the guy who thought he could force her to vote the way he wanted her to.
Kitty Pryde1		#37	[-]
Posts: 5149 (08/01/08 5:32 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	But at the final 4, the immunity winner is the most important player in the game. Either two players will team up with that person to avoid a tie, since they're safe and have nothing to lose by forcing a tie, or the winner teams up with the outsider to force a tie since again, he/she has nothing to lose by forcing a tie. At the final 4, you only have four people, so obviously everyone is going to talk to everyone unless you're dealing with someone like Jan in Helen's case. Forming some plan to split the vote into a 2-1-1 decision just wouldn't work.
llamasq		#38	[-]
Posts: 1 (08/01/08 6:00 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	In reality, the 2-1-1 vote is possible but unlikely. A good strategist will want a 3-1 vote. If that's not possible, obviously there's a 2-2 split. However, the 2-1-1 vote could be an awesome blindside against your long-term ally and pick up a short-term one. Let's take V, Neleh, Kathy, and Paschal into consideration. With V winning immunity, she has the option of 3-1, 2-2, and 2-1-1. 3-1 is obvious. Vecepia joins Neleh and Paschal in voting out Kathy, resulting in Kathy being pissed that Vecepia voted for her (she knew Neleh and Paschal would). V could potentially create a bitter juror against her. 2-2 is obvious. It's what we saw. No real consequeces for V. She also pockets Kat as an ally to F2. 2-1-1 is more risky. Neleh and Paschal vote for Kathy, Kathy votes for Neleh, anVecepia votes for Paschal. Has the same 3-1 consequence for Kathy, but Kathy may not necessarily be as bitter as a juror. However, V sets herself up for needing to win the F3 immunity challenge. shrug. It's like Amber's argument to Tom in ASS. She only broke her word to him a little bit. The vote for Paschal is an indirect vote for Kathy, without Kathy really feeling the sting of 3-1. shrug Unlikely, but possible.
XtremeInnovator420		#39	[-]
Posts: 1327 (08/01/08 7:03 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Pretty much, a 2-1-1 is something that, to be done, the player would likely have to be either a Kelly W wishy-washy type or an Amanda type. It provides a sort of technicality as was explained above. The person can say "Well, I promised I'd never write your name down to vote you out, and technically I kept that promise". Of course, I can see the jury consensus about it being "man...you're both a pussy AND a douchebag".
panurge46		#40	[-]
Posts: 1081 (08/02/08 1:08 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Swineforkbeard wrote: "You seem to be forgetting that everybody was expecting it to be a final 3, and since this is strictly hypothetical, we haven't established that it wouldn't be. The only person Parvati would be worried about antagonizing was the one about to be voted onto the jury" You really want to invoke the second worst twist in survivor history to salvage your argument?! That stupid F3 twist saved Yul, Earl and Todd, none of which showed a lot of potential in winning F3 immunity, but it can't save your scenario. The F3 twist kills most of the end game strategy so I wasn't really considering it. Say we forget the F3 challenge then you still wind up with Parvati needing to be as stupidly loyal as Paschal was, opening the door to Amanda turning the tables on her. More importantly, what you forget by introducing the F3 twist is that now you need Erik to be stupid to want to vote out one of the Parvati/Amanda duo. If those two are so tight, it would mean that they are likely to split votes from their former alliance. Erik would be sitting much more comfortably facing the pair instead of one of them and Cirie. "It would be a win-win-win situation for Cirie" Ya think??!! That's been my argument all along. Your scenario implies everyone being stupid enough to give Cirie the game and only now you realize it puts Cirie in a win-win situation? Your scenario needs Erik to refuse to even consider voting out Cirie. It requires that Amanda willingly throws away her social game to become Cirie's tool. It requires that Parvati doesn't even realize that Cirie can make a deal with Amanda. If everyone is stupid enough to do what is best for Cirie, then your scenario works.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

Quick Reply