Yuku free message boards

sweEt Mauritius,

I'll address your questions, since you seem to genuinely want to understand my POV and were respectful for the most part

Quote:

---

How do you enjoy the show if you don't care about the players? Don't you like them to have some depth where you can either relate to them, admire them, hate them, etc.?

---

First off, it's not that I "don't care about the players". I definitely like depth and being able to relate to them in some way is definitely necessary for me to get attached to characters/players and enjoy the show. HOWEVER, it doesn't mean I HAVE to care about the players. Overall, they are strangers to me, and if I wanted to get to know someone, I'd go out with my friends more or spend time with my family. Our lifestyles may be different. I don't know if you live in a small town or not, but maybe you already know your neighbors well and are looking to see people with very diverse backgrounds and that appeals to you--and that's fine. If that's the case, that's totally cool. I personally live in California (which is probably why I don't hate the California recruits like most people), where I have fewer local personal relationships, and meet diverse individuals all the time. I prefer to strengthen my pre-existing bonds rather than get to much into the lives of reality show contestants. I like the show for the relationships and depth to an extent, but I mainly love its competitive aspects

Quote:

---

If you don't care about their backstories or anything, would you rather just read some strategy scenario or something like "castaway 1 makes an alliance with castaways 5 and 14 to get rid of castaway 16"

---

At times, yes. A lot of the earlier seasons gave more depth to more characters, but I personally didn't care about them that much more. I still didn't relate to a lot of them, and I was personally bored by their airtime and would've loved to have seen more strategy from them rather than, "I'm here for an adventure"

Quote:

---

I don't understand that point of view so could you please explain how that's more enjoyable than actually knowing about the people?

---

I sort of explained this already above, but just to clarify, I enjoy the multiple facets of Survivor the show. It's not just 1 or the other--I like the competitive game aspects BUT I also definitely enjoy the character depth. However, if I have to choose 1 or the other, I might go with competitive game aspects. And it's not even just competition. I like character interactions. I like to see how people interact on the macro-level with one another, just getting to know 1 individual on the micro-level. And personally, no matter how much depth you get into about a character, they're still just that--a character. You can't know about an individual just from watching a TV show. And a lot of times, viewers judge these people, and I'm not really into the moralizing and favoring 1 individual over another. If I'm going to favor someone, it's going to be someone who earned it through gameplay. Does that make sense? That's why I like the focus on gameplay. That dictates who I like in a sense, more than relatability

Quote:

---

You just can't be pleased can you

---

Hey. Watch it buddy. I totally can be pleased, if you look at my ranking. Just because I didn't enjoy the seasons you like (as much), doesn't mean I can't be pleased. It's not that I didn't like those seasons, but I just felt they were harder to get into than the latter seasons

You also have to understand my background. I didn't have a special attachment to earlier seasons, because my 1st seasons were Cook Islands, Thailand, and ASS (I know, a weird strange combo that the majority of ppl seem to hate here). So, I got into gameplay right away. When I backtracked and watched Borneo, Outback, etc. it was a lot "slower" to me, given that I was used to the newer seasons

If you look at my 1st ranking, I didn't badmouth any of the seasons or try to justify my ranking, since it's an OPINION. If you post your own OPINIONS--fine. However, when peeps start politicking for seasons like WylDawg by mudslinging, that's when I have a problem. I'm like, "Oh trust me, the seasons you like are NOT above criticism. If you wanna go there, I'll bring it". It's like, don't make me feel stupid for liking what I like you arrogant bastard. Haven't you liked a movie, and that 1 jerk tries to make you feel stupid for enjoying it?

Quote:

---

You like larger casts where 2-3 people end up virtually IGNORED because there's a better chance that you'll get someone interesting, yet you don't like the first two seasons because you don't care for any of the characters. I'm curious what your definition of interesting is

---

Again, "interesting" to me is competitive gameplay. If they're "interesting" to me in terms of personality, it has to be VERY out there and unique. For instance, I found certain individuals in the earlier seasons quite memorable. I thought Hatch was quite a character. Sue would be an abrasive personality, who I just didn't really care a whole lot for. I'm not looking for any big personality, it has to be specific, and I can't even put a finger on why I like what I like. Other characters? Colby is overrated to me. He seems really arrogant. Loved Elisabeth and Rodger. Overall, nothing more special to me than latter seasons in terms of character development IMO

Quote:

---

It says a lot that people who you find some of the most interesting in any season were all white

---

Where did you come up with that conclusion? Just because I liked Candice, Parvati, and Jonathan in CI, doesn't mean I didn't like other characters from CI. And there hasn't been that many minorities from other seasons anyways. I personally really liked Sean Rector, Cirie, and Sandra Diaz, and also like other minorities like Tijuana and Lydia, so I don't know what you're talking about. In Fiji, I liked a lot of the ethnic minorities

Quote:

---

And I don't get how "seeing how ethnic minorities would fare" is interesting in the least

---

That's fine. You don't have to. I found it interesting though. It helped bring me to the show

Quote:

---

What made it interesting? And I can't think of any contestant or decision or anything that has ever been based on anything racial. What do you have to back up that statement that race is a big deal in survivor?

---

Race adds a new layer of social difference to the show--just like anything else. Age, culture (like being a nerd, being an athlete, being a mactor, etc.), lifestyle, etc. are all aspects that influence and shape the politics of Survivor--bottom line. So everything and anything always is a factor in a socio-political game like Survivor, whether people like to acknowledge it or not. Prejudice is a HUGE factor in Survivor, especially in the early phases. I'm not necessarily moralizing or saying people are racist or anything like that. Prejudice comes in many forms. For instance, you can be judged for being a pretty looking girl, like Jenna and Heidi felt judged and marginalized. When you 1st meet people, you make snap decisions based on superficial characteristics. For me, I like to see how characters overcome these early limitations and situations

In terms of race having actual impact on Survivor results, I think it definitely has. I personally feel Candice (and to a lesser extent Jonathan's) lack of trust for Aitu definitely had something to do with race. You can say it was ALL strategy or because of their RARO bond, but I know better. It would seem horrible to say that Candice felt more comfortable with her Caucasian tribemates who she spent less time with over her multiracial Aitu tribemates who ALSO brought her into an alliance, included her in the decision-making, promised her an F3 spot, and who she struggled in multiple challenges and survival aspects with--even if it's true. Does that make Candice a bad person? Absolutely not. But did race play a factor? I believe it did

In Fiji, there was a clear African-American and Latino alliance. Again, not an accident. Does that mean these individuals were racist? Not at all. But did race and culture have something to do with the way people bonded and formed social and political relationships? Yes. Alliances were built off of these foundations. Dreamz turned on the Horsemen, even though he'd spent more time with them than he did with Earl. They really WERE true to him also, so it's not like he was justified in flipping on them really. I could go on and on, but I definitely feel race is a significant factor in Survivor just as age, lifestyle, personality, etc. are key movers and shakers

I respect your opinion a lot beatles, so I definitely listen what you have to say

Quote:

---

Now this just confuses me. You say you prefer the competitive element of the game to characters, yet you don't like the super-competitive (in Outback at least) Colby but love the "lay down and let Tina and Colby win" Elisabeth and Rodger? Come on, join the dark side and start loving the character development already! ;)

---

Well, to be clear, I liked that Colby is competitive. I didn't like the moralizing he did in Outback and ASS (didn't respect UTR gameplay), and I thought he was overrated as a player, since he made multiple horrible strategic decisions throughout his career (F3 decision, running his mouth to Shii-Ann, breaking his Mogo-Mogo alliance to oust a loyal ally Hatch, etc.). It's not enough to WANT to win (although I admire that), I like players who are good. In terms of Liz and Rodger, I liked them for their character development. The reason I don't LOVE Outback is that these characters were NOT competitive as you said, and thus, aren't as good as characters who I liked from other seasons who were ALSO competitive in addition to having character development

In terms of Wyl, I don't think I'm reading into him, because I've seen his multiple posts in various threads, where he's constantly bashing Cook Islands, and it's just a bit much for me. Like here and there, I can understand. But it's like, "CI sucks" over and over and over again in every thread where there's a season ranking/discussion, and it's like--WTF is his agenda? What's with the hate? I give people the benefit-of-the-doubt, but if they cross a line too much, then I speak my peace. As you can see in this thread, he gave his opinion more than once, so he's clearly politicking

A lot of people really enjoyed CI right after it finished, but at Sucks, I noticed there was a lot of (unnatural) hate for it. I feel mudslingers like him poison collective opinion on seasons, especially when they try to justify their subjective attitudes with 1-dimensional logic, and that bothers me since I really enjoyed the season. It gets to the point where other people start ridiculing you if you like something different from them, and I hate that atmosphere

Quote:

---

I hate to say it but if someone is so weak minded that people on a message board sway them that much then that's on them. I like Rupert and people on here think he's the anti christ yet I still find him entertaining. Thailand was one of my favorite seasons and most people on here don't like it but I just got through re watching it and still enjoyed it just the same.

---

Yeah, I agree that it's on them. I just don't wanna have to deal with the pawns/sheep, so I'd rather call out the sheep herder/leader and help curb the problem (in this case, hate and an atmosphere of intolerance for CI and other seasons like ASS) right then and there

Quote:

---

This is a thread where people rank the seasons and explain why they like/dislike certain seasons. They're going to post their opinions, obviously. And their opinions are probably going to come up in other threads, as well. I don't see anyone forcing anything down anyone else's throat

---

Well, you're not offended by the opinion, because you AGREE with it Pulau. I say it's forced down the throat, because certain people feel it's necessary to make MULTIPLE posts saying things like,

"I'm still baffled that some people defend Cook Islands"

"Just plain sucked"

Like, it's 1 thing to post your ranking list and maybe add a couple of negative and positive opinions. It's another thing, to add another post specifically to denounce CI and why it's an evil entity sent from hell to destroy Survivor. And the thing is, the CI haters (yourself included Pulau), do this in multiple threads, and after awhile, it's kind of hard not to notice and be annoyed. It's like--AGENDA. I didn't like Borneo, but you don't see me going around shit-talking the season and going on and on about it

Quote:

---

But they're also such boring characters that not many folks can care about them all. Yul and Ozzy filled their plot purposes and provided some nice stereotypes. Same with the Raro tribe as a whole. But as individual characters, I don't really see how any viewer could give a damn what happened to them. They just weren't dynamic enough.

---

I gave a damn, and I thought they were dynamic, so stop trying to make me feel stupid for liking what I like. Can you see how I'd see such a statement as an indirect personal attack or see you as arrogant for trying to factualize your SUBJECTIVE opinion?

Quote:

---

The gameplay is driven by personal relationships...And when your characters are lacking, how can you be engaged by the strategy? Maybe it's more amusing to see someone execute a complicated 3-2-1 vote than a straightforward Pagonging, but it's really difficult to care about that 3-2-1 boot if you haven't been given ample time to develop an opinion about the players involved. A Pagonged minority alliance member can mean something in terms of the season if that member was a well-crafted character; the ramifications of their boot are more clear, the motivation behind the strategy is more comprehensible, the impact of their game is more engaging to consider. But if you boot a very poor character in a hugely convoluted (or completely brilliant) voting strategy, none of that is the case.
I'm all for complex strategizing. I'd much rather see the 3-2-1 vote than the majority Pagonging. But more than the complex strategy, I want to see a character whose impact is clear and whose characterization has some sort of effect on the season as a whole. Otherwise, their boot and the strategizing behind it means nothing. They're an anonymous number that was eliminated in a faceless numbers game. There's no fun or entertainment in that

---

I'm not disagreeing with this. But the difference is you're moralizing and trying to play God when you're basically asserting that YOU (and those who agree with you) decide who is entertaining, complex, and worthy of being cared for. I thought CI had a very complex cast, and I was very invested with the results. Whereas, I was not as interested in the result of seasons like Borneo, Africa, etc. It's PERSONAL PREFERENCE. Stop trying to factualize it

And anyways, like I said, I like to root for players 1st and foremost. Background helps to make me love certain characters over others, but I don't like to moralize, judge, and choose characters, because the bottom line is that most of these people are all good, deserving individuals. When I watch the show, I tend to love/hate characters a LOT less than the general public I notice. I'm somewhat impartial that way, and if you look at a lot of my analyses, I think you should be able to tell that. Like, I may not have really cared for Vecepia or Danni on a personal level (due to their bland edits), but they played the best games for their season, so I automatically like and respect them because of that over big personalities like Judd and Shane. That's just me. Most would disagree, but that's what I like personally

Quote:

---

More chances for duds as well. If casting could just weed out those duds and stick to the 16 interesting players, the cast would be much better because we wouldn't have as many characters without any development or impact. I'd rather see Palau without Ibrehem/Gregg/Ashlee/Janu, simply because that leaves us with 4 less episodes where someone is booted and there's no way to give a damn about it.

---

Well, technically, the episode count remains about the same, because people are weeded out by twists like double-councils. So it generally means, we have more chances for good players

Quote:

---

But the casting for the Hispanics and Asians certainly did, because active recruiting had to be done to fill those positions and that led to far more players who simply did not care about the game or their role in it.

---

Um--no. Those racial groups weren't represented at all, except for like 4 seasons prior to CI, so even if there were supposed duds, that's better than not having any

Quote:

---

Thing is, race played a much more interesting part in seasons before CI. When the minorities were actually minorities - that's when the social dynamics actually surfaced. When things were dealt with like they are in the real world - that's when the social dyamics actually surfaced. People like Sean Rector brought those social dyanimcs to the forefront, and that's because he was an ethnic minority who actually made up a minority in the cast, and because his related situation was nothing more than the result of people being brought together in an intense magnification of the normal social settings we experience every day. When you force the issue of race and make it such a huge deal, the issue fizzles altogether. The minorities weren't minorities at all. People were forced to look at skin color and react to that situation, and when you do that, the reactions are simply going to be as politically correct as possible. That's why race played such a minor role in CI. That's why you get something similar to Thailand, where ethnic differences played a role time and time again because they weren't being forced to and everyone was acting as they normally would in such a social setting

---

I see what you're saying. But I liked it that the ethnic minorities weren't the minority for once. That's what I found interesting. Like how would normally marginalized individuals fare in a more equitable game environment? In a sense, if you assumed that everyone in their ethnic group were allies with one another (which I sort of did in CI), doesn't it make for a very interesting dynamic? Like, I was interested who'd come out on top in both Raro II and Aitu II, given that both tribes had all 4 ethnic groups in them, but there were different ratios within them. Maybe you didn't see color, but to me, I was very interested to see how it'd play out

Quote:

---

Er, yes, that's what hurt it so much in the long run. Those weren't good gasps. They were gasps of surprise and disappointment.

---

Well, my gasps were for excitement, because I was an impartial viewer (having not seen any original season before ASS except Thailand). So I couldn't be "disappointed" since I didn't have expectations. I was surprised that the supposed high-level players were the early boots however

Quote:

---

It was cool to see a mastermind booted, but then you stopped and looked at what that meant for the game, and there was nothing to be excited about. Cool, Cesternino was outplayed. But unfortunately, that means the remaining players all suck and it means none of those masterminds are going to win

---

How does that mean "the remaining players all suck"? 1 doesn't logically follow the other. And anyways, it seems like you and most other people labeled the non-stars as "sucky" from the get-go, so of course you were setting yourself up for disappointment with the result. Of course, you were going to be shattered when reality didn't support yours

I didn't make those kind of assumptions, so the show was like any other season to me, and I loved it