This is an attempt to summarize my philosophy on game play in Survivor and the justifiable behavior that people can and should operate therein. Also it is
an attempt to analyse certain twists and attitudes, and to see if those are justified as well.
To start out with, the one unavoidable truth about the game is that the ultimate winner by definition is the best player. The best player of a season is the
winner, and determining how good a player was can only logically be defined by how close they came to winning.
When one talks about making a good play, whether it be strategical, social or otherwise, they are talking about factors to a players success, and not the
epitome of their game. For example, Boston Rob on All Star Survivor lost because he failed to properly manage the jury, despite excelling in all other areas of
play. If one person is an adept at a certain component of the game, such as the aforementioned Rob was at lets say conjuring up loyalty from his alliance
partners, but lacking in others, they are traditionally thought of to be a flawed player. My thoughts on the game are not so cut and dry, as each group of
players is somewhat unique from another group of players. As we can see with our own eyes, cast composition is of the up most importance. RavuRules called cast
composition one of the nine or so elements in his "luck factor". The luck factor is indeed the most important part of ones game, as it is impossible
to be unlucky and win. So to win, you must be lucky that your respective cast, your environment, the various challenges, twists and other nonsense meet your
needs to win the game. Otherwise, you are simply one of natural selections unfortunate mistakes.
Unlike RavuRules, I wouldn't base my winners ranking on compatibility to other seasons. As each cast and environment is unique, and the timing of the
events of which it took place can't be replicated, certain thoughts and reactions can't be taken for granted. I base my winner ranking list, and my
thoughts on how well someone played, on the individual season and don't cross reference it. I do however, take into account how a player deals with the
elements in their respective season, and in the end I can pretty much see every castaway on a balanced scale. In other words, is it really fair to say that Sue
Hawk is a lesser player than Natalie Boltman because the latter had more to deal with? I don't think so. I'm not saying that this line of thinking has
anything to do with the topic at hand, but it is a personal preference I have, and I want people to know that certain frames of references like these hold
equally true to cross referencing.
Now on to the controversial parts.
1. I hold it that since players are defined by their potential to win the game, and the fact the winners ranking as best can not be breached at all, there is
no justifiable reason to say that anyone is a better player than the player who won their season.
That means that no arguments such as "Cirie Fields was robbed of a chance at winning in Micronesia" really hold true. The producers of Survivor, even
if they had not preplanned for there to be a final 2, are within their rights to plan such twists. As Cirie could not adapt, she failed at her goal of winning.
However, players on certain seasons may be compared to players on other seasons, and averaged speculatively. Because they cannot breach the winners ranking,
comparing a later season losing player to an earlier season winner leads to infinite regress.
2. Since the only justified way to determine a good player is by determining how close they came to winning, the only justified way to play Survivor is to play
it as an egoist.
The only rational way of course, is not the only way. After all, the game is only worth the sum of what you think of it. If the adventure, the therapeutic
nature of being in an environment remote from your usual life, the chance at fleeting, probably minuscule fame or any other excuse means more to you than
winning the game, I can actually sympathize. I personally would value the lifelong memories of being with your friends at the Masai Mara more than any amount
of money.
If we are discussing cold, hard game play though, we can't make apoligies for even those that we may like, or have liked. We also cannot excuse behavior
that doesn't coincide with ones outlook on the game. For example, you can't say that Lex Van Den Berghe was justified in his bitter jury vote against
Boston Rob. And on the same token, you can't lambast Sue Hawk or Corinne Kaplan to name a couple, for bitterness at certain finalists. The difference
between Lex and the latter two is that Sue and Corinne based their jury votes on a temperment of game play.In their eyes, Kelly W and Sugar respectively were
not deserving enough of their votes. This is different than Lex's vote, because he uses the fallacy of ethics as a rationale. It was not because Rob
somehow failed at a certain aspect of the game in Lex's eyes, it's because he failed to defer to him.
The only way to not be a hypocrite on Survivor, in other words, is to play the game without morals. The only way to be a hypocrite on Survivor, is to play with
altruism. This is different from being Machiavellian, because in such an arena as Survivor, everyone is equal. If everyone in the game played rationally, there
would be no need for the pretenses of "morality" or "good people", whether as being Machiavellian requires the naivety of a group of people
you are trying to control.
3. There is no such thing as an inherently deserving player
No one starts the game off on equal footing, as someone will always logically be booted within a group. This does not mean, however, that some players are
naturally better. This is called the luck factor. Winning certain challenges, or finding great alliance mates also counts as luck. The skill involved in any of
these activities merits consideration as a good player, but they are still only components of the larger goal, which is winning. If one person has greater
control over the game than another person, this makes them a better player, but not an inherently better one because they may fail at jury management, among
other skills not considered by someone such as "Coach" Wade.
That is all for now, I have to go to bed, but I will update this.
