colleenlover, no matter how you look at it, he was only average level as a competitor either because of a lack of planning ability or a lack of ability to
execute a winning plan (which an outside of game decision contextualizes but does not excuse). Did you read my lengthy post? I would appreciate if you
commented on it so I know where your head is on that and understand my POV
No, I don't see it -I'm sorry. He was an above average competitor because he was able to form a plan and keep many people in check from bolting from him (Jerri and Amber, Rodger and Elisabeth) -He had people willing to vote out Keith over him -Rodger coming to him in final five to go to the end. He was able to show he could execute a winning plan -he got to the end and knew and had the power to take Keith. If he didn't take Keith and had no idea than I would say he was a bad player. He got to the point by making his moves that said, hey I know what's going on and if I do this I'll win. To me there's a big difference, and that is why I say his choice in taking Tina is irrelevent -HOWEVER, his decision to tank the jury portion speaks volumes.
Whereas in listening to Rob and Amber's commentary on the DVD -their logic made no strategic sense and put them at risk when they didn't need to be. They even say they thought based on prior games, that Jenna would have the final four advantage. And then said why are they banking on the final four immunity being something from prior seasons. And then that THEY would lose two votes if they voted out Rupert or Jenna as opposed to Tom's one vote. Which doesn't make sense to me. Rob and Amber would lose many votes if they weren't together in the final two anyway, if they vote out Jenna or Rupert, well Jenna or Rupert have to vote for one of them if they both make final two. They had Tom in check thinking he was final three, possibly final two with Rob and leveled it to rely on immunity at final four -essentially restarting the game over from the beginning. So in terms of comprehension, yes I felt Colby understood if X, Y and Z happened he would have a winning formula, and Rob and Amber didn't and got lucky that one of them won final four immunity and Jenna eventually caved in not risking a rock.
I'll read your post tomorrow, have to go to sleep -but the above is my basic logic. Colby's possibly hypocritical logic in booting some people and yet not following through with Tina to me is irrelevent because he understood the consequences of his actions. If he were advising someone who was playing Survivor he would say in the Tina/Keith scenario, well you can beat Keith but maybe not Tina who was your loyal ally so it comes down to a personal decision and I can't tell you which way you want to go that's up to you. But it has no bearing on him understanding and setting up a strategic gameboard where he benefits. (booting Jerri he thought "is the wrong move" and he was right, so we can fault him for not having enough power over Tina and Keith).
No, I don't see it -I'm sorry. He was an above average competitor because he was able to form a plan and keep many people in check from bolting from him (Jerri and Amber, Rodger and Elisabeth) -He had people willing to vote out Keith over him -Rodger coming to him in final five to go to the end. He was able to show he could execute a winning plan -he got to the end and knew and had the power to take Keith. If he didn't take Keith and had no idea than I would say he was a bad player. He got to the point by making his moves that said, hey I know what's going on and if I do this I'll win. To me there's a big difference, and that is why I say his choice in taking Tina is irrelevent -HOWEVER, his decision to tank the jury portion speaks volumes.
Whereas in listening to Rob and Amber's commentary on the DVD -their logic made no strategic sense and put them at risk when they didn't need to be. They even say they thought based on prior games, that Jenna would have the final four advantage. And then said why are they banking on the final four immunity being something from prior seasons. And then that THEY would lose two votes if they voted out Rupert or Jenna as opposed to Tom's one vote. Which doesn't make sense to me. Rob and Amber would lose many votes if they weren't together in the final two anyway, if they vote out Jenna or Rupert, well Jenna or Rupert have to vote for one of them if they both make final two. They had Tom in check thinking he was final three, possibly final two with Rob and leveled it to rely on immunity at final four -essentially restarting the game over from the beginning. So in terms of comprehension, yes I felt Colby understood if X, Y and Z happened he would have a winning formula, and Rob and Amber didn't and got lucky that one of them won final four immunity and Jenna eventually caved in not risking a rock.
I'll read your post tomorrow, have to go to sleep -but the above is my basic logic. Colby's possibly hypocritical logic in booting some people and yet not following through with Tina to me is irrelevent because he understood the consequences of his actions. If he were advising someone who was playing Survivor he would say in the Tina/Keith scenario, well you can beat Keith but maybe not Tina who was your loyal ally so it comes down to a personal decision and I can't tell you which way you want to go that's up to you. But it has no bearing on him understanding and setting up a strategic gameboard where he benefits. (booting Jerri he thought "is the wrong move" and he was right, so we can fault him for not having enough power over Tina and Keith).
