~ SURVIVOR Samoa ~ Season 19 ~

Why didn't they get to plead their case one more time at the end? Haven't they been able to do that before? I believe that Erik swayed all those votes with his speech and wish that Russell had been allowed to answer to that. It might have changed some minds.......maybe not, but possible.

I wondered that as well.

I felt Erick's speech was very good of any speeches I have heard in the past that was trying to sway a jury. In fact, I felt it was the best explanation of how riding coat tails shouldn't be looked down upon while playing dirty is praised.

I'd say he kind of changed my tune and as the last word, if I was on the jury--I likely would have thought, "hey, you're right!"

With the court case theming of the final vote, I did find it unfair that they don't get a final word in. I'm not sure it would help Russel's case--the women especially (Laura, Monica and what's her name) didn't seem like they could be swayed away from Russell.

I don't find Natalie undeserving.

But I also dont' find Russel undeserving either. I never understood why folks get so bent out of shape over the use of deception in this game.

My DH plays war games all the time--his mission is to destroy the enemy which often might be his brother when they play together. Though since they hate losing to each other, they team together to defeat someone else. In those games, it would be pretty pansy to whine if the other person is sinking your ships, or doing sneak attacks and what not. It's kind of the point of the game. Defeat your enemy.

That is kind of what Survivor is. You are trying to survive against all these people and come out on top. I have no idea why folks think they are going to Sunday school and everyone must follow the golden rule when it appears nowhere in the rules.

It's great when the good guys can win--but I think it is comical to get all ticked when someone tricks you as that is part of outwitting.

And FWIW--the honest people lie as well. They don't come out and tell people they are voting for them hardly ever. They are part of the deception. So even the most honest of folks are not being all that honest.

In the end it is just a game and to even compare it to business as Jaison did or to condemn someone's credility IRL b/c they use certain strategies in the context of the game is rather silly. Or to whine as Eric did before he praised Natalie how IRL he doesn't understand how the bad guy gets to the top....please.

While these folks are crying foul, they forget that prior to their demise, they were working to vote people out in a less than honest fashion.
 
Jeff Probst, the host of Survivor, also felt that Russell was robbed. So who am I going to trust more? A jury of 9 bitter people that Russell eliminated or America + Jeff?? Hmmmm...

Anyways, if you want to see what kind of a player Russell is, I suggest you wander on over to the spoilers thread if you dare.

I didn't say that he wasn't robbed.

I simply said that the only poll taken--a contest to give a survivor $100K, had no statistical relevance in the manner the poll was taken.

I think the jury voted on revenge versus who they felt was the true winner.

I also feel that Erick's speech sealed the deal and they should have allowed a final comment from the contestants.

Considering that with a different final 3, Russell would have won--I do feel they recognized good game play. They are just to po'd to recongize that. Thus why I said their decision is not necessarily indicative of public sentiment.

As I said in my post above--Survivor has never been nor will it ever be real life. How people behave in a game is not necessarily a reflection of how they are IRL. Unless they're specific rules banning certain behaviors--it is all fair game IMHO.
 
I never understood why folks get so bent out of shape over the use of deception in this game.

My DH plays war games all the time--his mission is to destroy the enemy which often might be his brother when they play together. Though since they hate losing to each other, they team together to defeat someone else. In those games, it would be pretty pansy to whine if the other person is sinking your ships, or doing sneak attacks and what not. It's kind of the point of the game. Defeat your enemy.

That is kind of what Survivor is. You are trying to survive against all these people and come out on top. I have no idea why folks think they are going to Sunday school and everyone must follow the golden rule when it appears nowhere in the rules.

It's great when the good guys can win--but I think it is comical to get all ticked when someone tricks you as that is part of outwitting.

And FWIW--the honest people lie as well. They don't come out and tell people they are voting for them hardly ever. They are part of the deception. So even the most honest of folks are not being all that honest.

In the end it is just a game and to even compare it to business as Jaison did or to condemn someone's credility IRL b/c they use certain strategies in the context of the game is rather silly. Or to whine as Eric did before he praised Natalie how IRL he doesn't understand how the bad guy gets to the top....please.

While these folks are crying foul, they forget that prior to their demise, they were working to vote people out in a less than honest fashion.

Thanks for reiterating (very well, I might add) how many of us view the game of Survivor. :thumbsup2 :thumbsup2 :thumbsup2
What you described above is the whole POINT of Survivor. Not sure why some people seem to lose sight of that.
 
Thanks for reiterating (very well, I might add) how many of us view the game of Survivor. :thumbsup2 :thumbsup2 :thumbsup2
What you described above is the whole POINT of Survivor. Not sure why some people seem to lose sight of that.

Well--I can only speak for my husband, but I do know that in his work life, he isn't out trying to disable vehicles and pillage and plunder their offices as he might do in his Pirate computer game.

Not too many grownups who play grand theft auto or equivilant would outrun police at 100mph.

So I doubt--with the exception of Richard Hatch--that folks in the game of survivor are out to utilize the deception of the game to get ahead IRL.
 

Those type of votings are statistically insignificant. The reason--individuals can vote multiple times including all the people that any survivor is related to or knows. The results will always be skewed, but it doesn't matter since it is a contest and not meant to have any statistical meaning.

I do believe that if one were to take a statistical sampling, you would find a more even split than what occurred on the show with the jury. Whether or not Russell would have a real majority is unknown.

and what would you base that assumption on?
 
and what would you base that assumption on?

Nothing--it is just an assumption based on a feeling of which I can provide you no proof. :)


As for the prize that Russel got, those are not contolled polls to assure accurate assessment of public opinion. They are popularity contests plain and simple with few if any limitations on how the voting can take place.
 
I think Russell's biggest mistake was not being able to play the social game as well as the lying, deceiving, and manipulating. If he had put his arrogance aside, he would have been able to persuade the others into respecting his game play. People don't respect people who treat them poorly and act like they are better than they are. If you think you are better than the others, the last thing you should do is let them know it.

I think the game of survivor is the total package. You can't just play one part and expect to win. Look at Ozzy, who played an awesome physical game, but when it came down to it, the jurors didn't think that was enough.

I think one of the best game players I have ever seen is Will on Big Brother. He is able to lie and deceive, yet he is so charming you can't help but like the guy. Now that's a great game player.

My favorite player was Ethan. He was a nice guy and didn't finish last in the game. I hate that he is battling cancer now.
 
You don't vote, you don't count. Just like in a presidential election.

There is no proof at all to the statement that you made. You have no idea if the majority of people thought Russell played the better game or not. All that you know is that he received the most votes out of those that were able to vote. What about the millions of people that do not have service with Sprint or are unwilling to pay for text messages?

Comparing Survivor to a Presidential election is like comparing apples to oranges. Whoever wins on Survivor will not impact the lives of the majority of Americans.
 
Well if people care enough to vote one thousand times for their favorite player, that has to say something right?

It says they really want someone to win.:confused3

The jury only gets one vote pp. IF they had 2 hours to vote via phone in or texting--those who can get more dialing done in a specified time period, will have greater influence on the outcome.

It's why I think it is silly when shows like AI go crazy b/c they got millions of votes. While a lot of people watch the show, they market that as some litmus test of popularity. But in reality--it's greatly affected by those who spend teh entire 2 hour time frame voting.

It is simply statistically insiginficant. While Russell is alleged to have had 46% of the votes, it is not evidence that he has 46% of viewer support. Though he might, but him winning $100 grand is not proof of that no matter how Jeff and Russell spin it since the survey is flawed in its method.
 
I think the game of survivor is the total package. You can't just play one part and expect to win. Look at Ozzy, who played an awesome physical game, but when it came down to it, the jurors didn't think that was enough.

I thought Ozzie got the boot and was on the jury. He was eliminated due to his physical strength.
 
Nothing--it is just an assumption based on a feeling of which I can provide you no proof. :)


As for the prize that Russel got, those are not contolled polls to assure accurate assessment of public opinion. They are popularity contests plain and simple with few if any limitations on how the voting can take place.

Which makes it no better than the poll that you discounted.
 
Which makes it no better than the poll that you discounted.

How so?

Are you suggesting that if people can vote more than once, that the result is an accurate representation of public sentiment?

Any statistics course would demonstrate the flaws in that argument.
 
The fan vote wasn't necessarily for the best player. It was for the fan's favorite player. The most interesting, fun to watch...and Russell was that and a bag of chips.

If I was on the jury, I wouldn't have voted for Russell either. I can hold a grudge for a long time.
 
That was Fan v Favorites--his second season. His first season he was in the final 2 and lost to Yul by 1 vote.

And I don't consider that an upset. I thought Yul played a good game that was different from the good game that Ozzie played.
 
Survivor is not like most games or sports. The winner is decided by individuals who can be as subjective, illogical and biased as they want. Besides the motto "outwit, outplay, outlast", there is no rules for what factors the jury uses to decide who wins. The dynamic of each jury is different.

One question or concern that I have is that the jury is not supposed to discuss the vote with the other jury membesr beforehand, but I think it happens and this year it seemed more apparent than in the past. Both Dave and Jaisen praised Russell's game in their exit speech and ended up voting for Natalie.

I think Russell dominated the game and clearly should have won. However, there were 8 members of the jury that were stupid enough to somehow lose 8-4 advantage since the merge, so they clearly were not very smart. Here is a breakdown of how I see the jury,

Hypocritical Jury Members
Eric - Was completely arrogant when he was in the game and talked about how lying and cheating were big parts of the game. In short, he was similiar to Russell, but not nearly as good. Every week that he was on the jury, he was cheering Russell's moves. His speech and vote made no sense based on how he acted previously.

Jaison - Praised and followed every move Russell made, until Russell voted him out. Then Russell became immoral. I especially did not like his comparision to the office because 1. A game is different than real life 2. Russell did not sit around and play, Russell did more than his share of the work.

Christian Jury Members
Laura and Brett-Both bonded with Natalie over religion

Laura's Followers Jury Members
Kelly and Monica - Both were heavily influenced by Laura, who as mentioned above, bonded with Natalie based on both being strong Christians.

Crazy Jury Members
Dave - This guy was supposed to have the highest IQ in the history of Survivor. However, he never made any sense and always seems way out there. Completely unpredictable.

Shambo - Was the Gilligan of the game. She was wacky, incompatent, emotional and steadfastly loyal to Russell. Her declaration for Russell in front the jury did not help Russell with Laura and her followers.

Rational Jury Member
John - Seemed to be the logical member of the jury.

I think Russell's down fall was not recognizing the bonding that Natalie was forming with Laura and Brett over their religous beliefs and that Natalie made her living as a Saleperson and had excellent people skills. Russell should have voted Natalie out instead of Shambo or Jaison.

Russell gave the jury too much credit thinking they would vote rationally rather than letting their bitterness and friendship factor into their decision.
 
Survivor is not like most games or sports. The winner is decided by individuals who can be as subjective, illogical and biased as they want. Besides the motto "outwit, outplay, outlast", there is no rules for what factors the jury uses to decide who wins. The dynamic of each jury is different.

One question or concern that I have is that the jury is not supposed to discuss the vote with the other jury membesr beforehand, but I think it happens and this year it seemed more apparent than in the past. Both Dave and Jaisen praised Russell's game in their exit speech and ended up voting for Natalie.

I think Russell dominated the game and clearly should have won. However, there were 8 members of the jury that were stupid enough to somehow lose 8-4 advantage since the merge, so they clearly were not very smart. Here is a breakdown of how I see the jury,

Hypocritical Jury Members
Eric - Was completely arrogant when he was in the game and talked about how lying and cheating were big parts of the game. In short, he was similiar to Russell, but not nearly as good. Every week that he was on the jury, he was cheering Russell's moves. His speech and vote made no sense based on how he acted previously.

Jaison - Praised and followed every move Russell made, until Russell voted him out. Then Russell became immoral. I especially did not like his comparision to the office because 1. A game is different than real life 2. Russell did not sit around and play, Russell did more than his share of the work.

Christian Jury Members
Laura and Brett-Both bonded with Natalie over religion

Laura's Followers Jury Members
Kelly and Monica - Both were heavily influenced by Laura, who as mentioned above, bonded with Natalie based on both being strong Christians.

Crazy Jury Members
Dave - This guy was supposed to have the highest IQ in the history of Survivor. However, he never made any sense and always seems way out there. Completely unpredictable.

Shambo - Was the Gilligan of the game. She was wacky, incompatent, emotional and steadfastly loyal to Russell. Her declaration for Russell in front the jury did not help Russell with Laura and her followers.

Rational Jury Member
John - Seemed to be the logical member of the jury.

I think Russell's down fall was not recognizing the bonding that Natalie was forming with Laura and Brett over their religous beliefs and that Natalie made her living as a Saleperson and had excellent people skills. Russell should have voted Natalie out instead of Shambo or Jaison.

Russell gave the jury too much credit thinking they would vote rationally rather than letting their bitterness and friendship factor into their decision.

You're not serious...Russell never gave ANYONE in the game any credit at any point. He was constantly talking about how dumb and stupid they were, so why would they be any less dumb or stupid on the jury??

I think he gave HIMSELF to much credit at the end.
 












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top