Survivor Rules Reform Discussion in Lions, Tigers, Survivors

0 Points

Survivor Rules Reform Discussion

Started By	Comment
cx	Survivor Rules Reform Discussion	Lead	[-]
Posts: 3529 03/08/12 07:52 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	This is not a thread to discuss twist ideas, that's what this thread is for. Instead this thread is intended to be a discussion place for ideas and suggestions to reform the Survivor rules permanently, to correct for any perceived flaws the current rules may have. I'll start with one of my own suggestions. - Everyone who made the merge but did not win should get the same stipend amount. One problem that I have with the current rules regarding prize amounts is that too many players are willing to settle for a subordinate position in the game, knowing that they'll still receive a sizable paycheck for their high finish and not risk changing the power structure in the game. If you eliminate the incentive to play a 5th place game, players who make the merge will understand that there's nothing to play for now but 1st place, and they will actively play the game more instead of handing the game over to someone else.
	Remove this ad
PrettyGoodYear1988		#1	[-]
Posts: 9700 03/08/12 08:58 AM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Actually, I kind of agree with that. I was ready to troll this because I thought you meant changing the rules of the actual game, but this actually is a good idea. And since viewers are never explicitly made aware of the increasing consolation stipends, this change wouldn't actually affect the viewing experience at all. I feel like players like Natalie T. specifically play for third place, and the show just edits out their, "Well, I'm 19 and I'm still going to get $75,000, so who cares?" confessionals. I would suggest that quitters aren't allowed on the Jury at all. You could argue that NaOnka and Purple Kelly already took care of this, but Probst said that it'll still be at the producer's discretion, which I think it just cheap and tacky.
linesinaconversation		#2	[-]
Posts: 1 03/08/12 09:04 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	This is a decent rule change, but not as far as the finalists go. I now that half the problem that you're fighting is the Hantz types who are playing to get to the end, rather than win, but making it to the final two/three is, regardless of how one gets there, still a more impressive feat than making it to twelfth place. All jurors getting the same stipend makes sense to me though. I also feel that both non-winning finalists in F3 situations should get the same base sum (which should only be fifty or sixty thousand, btw), plus a bonus for each vote received. This could make things difficult based on the fact that some juries include 7 people and some include 9, but I'm sure there'd be a way around it.
DragonSlayerCoach		#3	[-]
Posts: 6494 03/08/12 09:33 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I would pass that bill. Excluding all FTC members though. Last Edited By: DragonSlayerCoach 03/08/12 09:35 PM. Edited 1 times.
colliefletch		#4	[-]
Posts: 51 03/08/12 09:41 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Just to play devil's advocate, don't you think creating an equal stipend could have the opposite effect in some circumstances. For example, if I make merge, and I know there is no chance in hell I am either going to make it to the end or win, I could just ask to be voted out. I'm still going to make the same money as everybody else competing, but I don't have to starve myself for the extra 20 or whatever days it is going to be.
EverySurvivorEver		#5	[-]
Posts: 3937 03/08/12 09:46 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	colliefletch wrote: Just to play devil's advocate, don't you think creating an equal stipend could have the opposite effect in some circumstances. For example, if I make merge, and I know there is no chance in hell I am either going to make it to the end or win, I could just ask to be voted out. I'm still going to make the same money as everybody else competing, but I don't have to starve myself for the extra 20 or whatever days it is going to be. I actually agree with this. If a person believes they aren't going to win the million in either scenario, they will make less of an effort because they can't try to at least increase the amount they will earn.
spanellers1		#6	[-]
Posts: 2014 03/08/12 10:13 PM Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	As an aside, does BB already have this rule implemented? Maybe not for every season, but I thought that during BBAS, anyone who made jury was guaranteed a $3k stipend for all ten weeks of in-house+sequester, making everyone in F9 minus the finalists even at $30k for the run. And I'd be prone to agree with this, although I'd want to mull over it more. The main issue would be with the late endgame, I'd think, because 4th-to-3rd (and I'd not be surprised with 5th-to-4th, as well) is a $20k increase overnight, so someone who isn't immediately next on the block might be more weary to ruffle feathers.
Ginger ale		#7	[-]
Posts: 1809 03/09/12 03:02 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	spanellers1 wrote: As an aside, does BB already have this rule implemented? Maybe not for every season, but I thought that during BBAS, anyone who made jury was guaranteed a $3k stipend for all ten weeks of in-house+sequester, making everyone in F9 minus the finalists even at $30k for the run. . Yes. Your stipend is doubled in the jury house, so basically the first member of the jury will end up making more money than the third place finisher.
Ginger ale		#8	[-]
Posts: 1809 03/09/12 03:10 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	As another rule, the jury should be separated from one another and allowed no contact with eachother. Allowing them to trade notes is a major flaw in the game, especially with the introduction of the f3 (since it encourages people to vote for their second choice, if they find out that their primary choice is unlikely to recieve any other votes). The possibility of jury tainting is just too great, and somebody who played a great game shouldn't have to suffer just because they have enemies on the jury spreading lies at ponderosa (great example of this is bitter Helen telling Ted that Clay called him the N word... that probably cost Clay the million).
EverySurvivorEver		#9	[-]
Posts: 3937 03/09/12 02:28 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Ginger ale wrote: As another rule, the jury should be separated from one another and allowed no contact with eachother. Allowing them to trade notes is a major flaw in the game, especially with the introduction of the f3 (since it encourages people to vote for their second choice, if they find out that their primary choice is unlikely to recieve any other votes). The possibility of jury tainting is just too great, and somebody who played a great game shouldn't have to suffer just because they have enemies on the jury spreading lies at ponderosa (great example of this is bitter Helen telling Ted that Clay called him the N word... that probably cost Clay the million). Absolutely agreed on the separation because of people like Mick. And I totally believe Helen lost Clay's game. Something like that shouldn't be able to happen again.
	Remove this ad
RobVanStratus		#10	[-]
Posts: 11610 03/09/12 02:59 PM Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Disagree on sequestering the jury. A jury is allowed to discuss cases in real life during deliberations, I see no reason why Survivor should be any different. What's the difference between someone saying something at the final TC that slanders a finalist and costs them a vote to win the game and doing it at loser lodge? I think juries should be encouraged to discuss the game if they want to, but no one should be forced to discuss if they don't want to. It's still a social game and if burning a juror that eventually creates a strong enough case for you to lose, then you have failed at the social game. However you should not be able to give up tribal immunity, that should definitely be a rule. Individual immunity is fine because you win it on your own and it can be a power play move to gain votes. At the tribal stage, it just means you can force someone to go to TC and vote them off after they should have been safe with Immunity.
Taterman		#11	[-]
Posts: 1695 03/09/12 03:17 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	RobVanStratus wrote: However you should not be able to give up tribal immunity, that should definitely be a rule. Individual immunity is fine because you win it on your own and it can be a power play move to gain votes. At the tribal stage, it just means you can force someone to go to TC and vote them off after they should have been safe with Immunity. But if everyone agrees (as I believe was the case this season) then it shouldn't be an issue, because even the person being voted off is volunteering to go to Tribal Council. Noone is actually being forced.
I keep trying		#12	[-]
Posts: 33 03/09/12 09:37 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	RobVanStratus wrote: Disagree on sequestering the jury. A jury is allowed to discuss cases in real life during deliberations, I see no reason why Survivor should be any different. What's the difference between someone saying something at the final TC that slanders a finalist and costs them a vote to win the game and doing it at loser lodge? I think juries should be encouraged to discuss the game if they want to, but no one should be forced to discuss if they don't want to. It's still a social game and if burning a juror that eventually creates a strong enough case for you to lose, then you have failed at the social game. However you should not be able to give up tribal immunity, that should definitely be a rule. Individual immunity is fine because you win it on your own and it can be a power play move to gain votes. At the tribal stage, it just means you can force someone to go to TC and vote them off after they should have been safe with Immunity. I disagree, you can't compare a real life jury with Survivor. A real life jury is a bunch of strangers that know nothing about the case involved & have no reason to not be impartial. In Survivor you have people who were directly involved in the game & some are mad at people still in the game & try to change peoples votes based on their experience in the game.
Ginger ale		#13	[-]
Posts: 1809 03/09/12 10:37 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	RobVanStratus wrote: Disagree on sequestering the jury. A jury is allowed to discuss cases in real life during deliberations, I see no reason why Survivor should be any different. What's the difference between someone saying something at the final TC that slanders a finalist and costs them a vote to win the game and doing it at loser lodge? I think juries should be encouraged to discuss the game if they want to, but no one should be forced to discuss if they don't want to. The survivor jurors aren't comparable to real life jurors. They're more comparable to real life witnesses, because they've actually played a direct role in the "case". Witnesses gathering together to get their story straight before the trial isnt allowed, nor should it be allowed on survivor.
CirieSurvivor		#14	[-]
Posts: 1209 03/09/12 11:05 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Very true. Survivor juries are able to say "God...I HATE Russell because he voted me out after using an idol." and then another person says "Yeah! Russell used an idol on me too! Let's not vote for him!" While it is a social game, it is very different from a real life Jury. Sequestering jury members might result in a better winner in some cases but it might just make Russell types win far too often.
FistOLegend		#15	[-]
Posts: 2739 03/09/12 11:08 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Except that it's a group decision, forfeiting tribal immunity is no different in principle than giving up individual immunity (or simply throwing a challenge) and should be allowed. There's also nothing wrong with Ponderosa. If someone there is poisoning the jury against you then you did something wrong.
probstisonfire		#16	[-]
Posts: 5079 03/09/12 11:46 PM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Great thread. The point made in the OP is very valid and I agree with it. I disagree with a separate jury. The contestants on the jury all go through something that only others who went through the same thing can relate to. Separating them would just intensify votes based on emotion.
raceguy120390		#17	[-]
Posts: 204 03/10/12 07:25 AM Reply Quote More Recent Posts	I actually agree with this. If a person believes they aren't going to win the million in either scenario, they will make less of an effort because they can't try to at least increase the amount they will earn. Cutting the loser prizemoney could work? If there's less incentive to play for second, players are more likely to play for a prize that's even more significantly higher than anything else they could win, right?
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Survivor Rules Reform Discussion

Survivor Rules Reform Discussion