Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 8:02:38 GMT -5
So apparently (the source is a Reddit comment, but it's a guy who is a Survivor historian), Fabio was going to win like 7-2, but some people decided to vote for Chase to make sure he finished second instead of third, and enough did so that it nearly flipped the outcome. I'm not 100% on this, but this does raise an interesting question that also came up in Winners at War when at least four jurors had planned to vote for Michele so that she would finish second but ultimately decided to vote for Tony to make sure that he won the season because they feared that Natalie might win if they didn't. And it came up in both Blood vs. Water seasons, as Vytas and Reed voted for Monica and Jaclyn, respectively, to ensure that they finished second. I think it's a small flaw in the game that the jury doesn't also vote for second place. I think the best thing to do would be for them all to have the traditional vote for the winner, but then they also vote separately for second and third place. This second vote probably wouldn't even need to be revealed in most cases (it would only be relevant if there was a tie of first-place votes between the two finalists that didn't win), but I'd like to eliminate situations where jurors are voting for people that they don't actually think played the best game because they're trying to get second-place money to one of the other finalists. I believe that for the most part - the players in the later seasons are more willing to view Survivor as a game of strategy and not some sort of social experiment that values honesty and honor. which is where we now get "BiG MoVeS" from. which is fine. I prefer this style of play vs what we get from like Big Brother now. I think Sarah's game in GC really shows this style of play and how it can be perfected. I think one could argue she had the best winning social game (for one season), ever combined with her aggressive style of play. Minus Game Changers shenanigans, it really is a brilliant season.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 24, 2020 8:33:35 GMT -5
So apparently (the source is a Reddit comment, but it's a guy who is a Survivor historian), Fabio was going to win like 7-2, but some people decided to vote for Chase to make sure he finished second instead of third, and enough did so that it nearly flipped the outcome. I'm not 100% on this, but this does raise an interesting question that also came up in Winners at War when at least four jurors had planned to vote for Michele so that she would finish second but ultimately decided to vote for Tony to make sure that he won the season because they feared that Natalie might win if they didn't. And it came up in both Blood vs. Water seasons, as Vytas and Reed voted for Monica and Jaclyn, respectively, to ensure that they finished second. I think it's a small flaw in the game that the jury doesn't also vote for second place. I think the best thing to do would be for them all to have the traditional vote for the winner, but then they also vote separately for second and third place. This second vote probably wouldn't even need to be revealed in most cases (it would only be relevant if there was a tie of first-place votes between the two finalists that didn't win), but I'd like to eliminate situations where jurors are voting for people that they don't actually think played the best game because they're trying to get second-place money to one of the other finalists. And - if several jury members at WoW thought that Michelle was better than Tony - then, oh my... Just to clarify, I don't think these jurors thought Michele played a better game than Tony. They thought she played a better game than Natalie (I agree with them). So they were tempted to vote for Michele so that she would get second place instead of Natalie. But they knew that Natalie was going to get some votes to win, so they were worried that if they voted for Michele instead of Tony, they would risk Natalie actually winning, so they couldn't do it. This is what I was talking about when I suggested that perhaps they should have another vote for second place that is really just used to determine who gets more money.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 24, 2020 9:10:56 GMT -5
I believe that for the most part - the players in the later seasons are more willing to view Survivor as a game of strategy and not some sort of social experiment that values honesty and honor. which is where we now get "BiG MoVeS" from. which is fine. I prefer this style of play vs what we get from like Big Brother now. I think Sarah's game in GC really shows this style of play and how it can be perfected. I think one could argue she had the best winning social game (for one season), ever combined with her aggressive style of play. Minus Game Changers shenanigans, it really is a brilliant season. Hmm, Sarah's win was very impressive, but I don't think I'd say it was the best social game ever because she did burn some jury votes. Even by aggressive player standards, I'd rank Tony in WaW ahead of Sarah or just about anyone else. The only votes he didn't get were either close real-life friends of Natalie (Jeremy and Tyson) or people he never met in the game (Parvati and Ethan--this is more of an indictment of Edge of Extinction than anything else). I agree that "big moves" is more fun than the boring super-alliance style of this season of Big Brother. Fundamentally, it's much riskier and therefore much more interesting to watch. At least as often as a big move works out, it blows up in the player's face. And that's good TV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 9:23:58 GMT -5
which is where we now get "BiG MoVeS" from. which is fine. I prefer this style of play vs what we get from like Big Brother now. I think Sarah's game in GC really shows this style of play and how it can be perfected. I think one could argue she had the best winning social game (for one season), ever combined with her aggressive style of play. Minus Game Changers shenanigans, it really is a brilliant season. Hmm, Sarah's win was very impressive, but I don't think I'd say it was the best social game ever because she did burn some jury votes. Meh. Sierra was always going to vote for Brad. Debbie was close to Brad as well and their "fighting" was all fake. And Ozzy did not like the style that Sarah had played, which would be fine if he didn't actively campaign against strategic players in the FTC in all of his seasons (Yul in CI (obvious but still), against Parvati in Micronesia, Sophie in SP (tho he did vote for her since she was responsible for his elimination), and Sarah's "deceitful" gameplay in GC) Sarah was never getting that vote. I think it's more testament to Sarah's social game that she was able to get the votes that she did. Her point about strategic females being given a different outlook than males in the game has a very valid point. Tony's social game in WaW was great, but he wasn't as aggressive as Sarah was and certainly didn't have the "look" or "expectations" Sarah had or would have.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 24, 2020 9:37:45 GMT -5
Hmm, Sarah's win was very impressive, but I don't think I'd say it was the best social game ever because she did burn some jury votes. Meh. Sierra was always going to vote for Brad. Debbie was close to Brad as well and their "fighting" was all fake. And Ozzy did not like the style that Sarah had played, which would be fine if he didn't actively campaign against strategic players in the FTC in all of his seasons (Yul in CI (obvious but still), against Parvati in Micronesia, Sophie in SP (tho he did vote for her since she was responsible for his elimination), and Sarah's "deceitful" gameplay in GC) Sarah was never getting that vote. I think it's more testament to Sarah's social game that she was able to get the votes that she did. Her point about strategic females being given a different outlook than males in the game has a very valid point. Tony's social game in WaW was great, but he wasn't as aggressive as Sarah was and certainly didn't have the "look" or "expectations" Sarah had or would have. I guess. I think it was Sophie said that a "big move" isn't necessarily a smart move, and she's right. Tony played effectively a perfect game. If he had played more aggressively than he did (especially early), he would have been voted out. Even among aggressive women, I think Natalie's game in SJDS was probably better than Sarah's also because A) she never got her name written down and B) she got every vote than was possible except for Reed's, and I can't even really blame her for that because his vote was really a vote against Missy to ensure that she finished third--he thought Natalie played the best. Also, it seems that Sarah may have lost to at least a couple people if they made it to the end, whereas Tony and Natalie lose to nobody in their games. Also, I'm not 100% sure on what you mean in your last sentence. Tony's game in Cagayan was at least as cutthroat as Sarah's in Game Changers. Yes, he did flame out in Game Changers also, but he was still a feared player (to the point that many people making pregame predictions thought that he had almost no chance to actually win), which is why he intentionally lowered his threat level in the first half.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,569
|
Post by bluepenquin on Sept 24, 2020 9:40:37 GMT -5
I don't necessarily value final vote count as being hugely important. In theory, you could have a very close final 2, but all 9 people on jury narrowly found one better than the other. Or you could have 4 jurors think one person was clearly better than the other while the other gets the vote of 5 people that felt both were equally valuable.
The best players (IMO) may have had their personal relationship with someone destroyed to the point they would never vote for them.
And for me, it isn't about 'Big Moves'. This is the catchphrase among the competitors, but the defining big move doesn't necessarily mean that much to me. For me, I want to see control of the game, a complete understanding where everyone else stands and where they are voting, someone that is leading with voting strategy, not always following.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,569
|
Post by bluepenquin on Sept 24, 2020 9:56:06 GMT -5
Meh. Sierra was always going to vote for Brad. Debbie was close to Brad as well and their "fighting" was all fake. And Ozzy did not like the style that Sarah had played, which would be fine if he didn't actively campaign against strategic players in the FTC in all of his seasons (Yul in CI (obvious but still), against Parvati in Micronesia, Sophie in SP (tho he did vote for her since she was responsible for his elimination), and Sarah's "deceitful" gameplay in GC) Sarah was never getting that vote. I think it's more testament to Sarah's social game that she was able to get the votes that she did. Her point about strategic females being given a different outlook than males in the game has a very valid point. Tony's social game in WaW was great, but he wasn't as aggressive as Sarah was and certainly didn't have the "look" or "expectations" Sarah had or would have. I guess. I think it was Sophie said that a "big move" isn't necessarily a smart move, and she's right. Tony played effectively a perfect game. If he had played more aggressively than he did (especially early), he would have been voted out. Even among aggressive women, I think Natalie's game in SJDS was probably better than Sarah's also because A) she never got her name written down and B) she got every vote than was possible except for Reed's, and I can't even really blame her for that because his vote was really a vote against Missy to ensure that she finished third--he thought Natalie played the best. Also, it seems that Sarah may have lost to at least a couple people if they made it to the end, whereas Tony and Natalie lose to nobody in their games. I thought Natalie played a very good game. But still view Sarah's game in gamechangers to have been better and one of the best seasons. For one thing - I thought the quality of players on gamechangers was very good. And it was a series of very small moves that Sarah made that was why she was so good. (Natalie also made a lot of important small moves). For Sarah (and it has been a while so I don't remember everything) - she forged the personal connection with Sierra that got her the legacy reward. It was her observation to see the reward/idol sitting under Michela's legs at a challenge. It was her ability to navigate among always changing alliances in that game - I really thought that cast was one of the best of all-time: Brad Culpepper - I thought he played a very good game and could have won. He improved greatly from his 1st season. Troyzan - his gameplay was a bit questionable, but he wasn't a horrible player. He also had the great sense of awareness at FTC to realize he had no chance of winning and just told the jurors it was fun. Tai - maybe not the best strategic players, but still a player that had some excellent qualities. Aubry - I still think she would have won S32 - is a much better player than Michelle. Cirie - Great player Michaela - I think she was a very good player in both her seasons. Andrea - Another very good player. Sierra - maybe not a great player - but still good. Zeke - excellent player Debbie - well... Ozzy - terrible strategic player and his view of the game is different than mine, but he also has specific game talents that are unparalleled in the game's history. Hali - okay not much there. That is just those that made the jury. Among those that didn't even make the jury: Tony - best player of all-time Sandra - she at least won twice. J.T. - some consider to have played the perfect game in a prior season Malcolm - Ciera - not one of my favorites, but still someone that was pretty active at 'playing' the game.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 24, 2020 9:57:22 GMT -5
I don't necessarily value final vote count as being hugely important. In theory, you could have a very close final 2, but all 9 people on jury narrowly found one better than the other. Or you could have 4 jurors think one person was clearly better than the other while the other gets the vote of 5 people that felt both were equally valuable. The best players (IMO) may have had their personal relationship with someone destroyed to the point they would never vote for them. And for me, it isn't about 'Big Moves'. This is the catchphrase among the competitors, but the defining big move doesn't necessarily mean that much to me. For me, I want to see control of the game, a complete understanding where everyone else stands and where they are voting, someone that is leading with voting strategy, not always following. Hmm, well, we all have different criteria for ranking players. Personally, I think the final vote total is pretty relevant, since getting the most jury votes is the entire point of the game. A 5-4 win counts just as much as a 9-0 win, but it's hard for me to look at the two exactly the same way. The level of competition also comes into play. So JT getting every vote over Fishbach is more impressive than Adam getting every vote against Hannah and Ken.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 24, 2020 9:59:23 GMT -5
I guess. I think it was Sophie said that a "big move" isn't necessarily a smart move, and she's right. Tony played effectively a perfect game. If he had played more aggressively than he did (especially early), he would have been voted out. Even among aggressive women, I think Natalie's game in SJDS was probably better than Sarah's also because A) she never got her name written down and B) she got every vote than was possible except for Reed's, and I can't even really blame her for that because his vote was really a vote against Missy to ensure that she finished third--he thought Natalie played the best. Also, it seems that Sarah may have lost to at least a couple people if they made it to the end, whereas Tony and Natalie lose to nobody in their games. I thought Natalie played a very good game. But still view Sarah's game in gamechangers to have been better and one of the best seasons. For one thing - I thought the quality of players on gamechangers was very good. And it was a series of very small moves that Sarah made that was why she was so good. (Natalie also made a lot of important small moves). For Sarah (and it has been a while so I don't remember everything) - she forged the personal connection with Sierra that got her the legacy reward. It was her observation to see the reward/idol sitting under Michela's legs at a challenge. It was her ability to navigate among always changing alliances in that game - I really thought that cast was one of the best of all-time: Brad Culpepper - I thought he played a very good game and could have won. He improved greatly from his 1st season. Troyzan - his gameplay was a bit questionable, but he wasn't a horrible player. He also had the great sense of awareness at FTC to realize he had no chance of winning and just told the jurors it was fun. Tai - maybe not the best strategic players, but still a player that had some excellent qualities. Aubry - I still think she would have won S32 - is a much better player than Michelle. Cirie - Great player Michaela - I think she was a very good player in both her seasons. Andrea - Another very good player. Sierra - maybe not a great player - but still good. Zeke - excellent player Debbie - well... Ozzy - terrible strategic player and his view of the game is different than mine, but he also has specific game talents that are unparalleled in the game's history. Hali - okay not much there. That is just those that made the jury. Among those that didn't even make the jury: Tony - best player of all-time Sandra - she at least won twice. J.T. - some consider to have played the perfect game in a prior season Malcolm - Ciera - not one of my favorites, but still someone that was pretty active at 'playing' the game. Yeah, you make a fair point about the quality of the competition. It was definitely better on Game Changers than in SJDS. I think Natalie's game was definitely superior to Sarah's in a vacuum, but when the level of competition is factored in, I could be persuaded that Sarah's was better. This is also one of the reasons why I view Tony's game in Winners at War as the best ever--for him to dominate against the best competition ever was incredible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 10:26:27 GMT -5
Meh. Sierra was always going to vote for Brad. Debbie was close to Brad as well and their "fighting" was all fake. And Ozzy did not like the style that Sarah had played, which would be fine if he didn't actively campaign against strategic players in the FTC in all of his seasons (Yul in CI (obvious but still), against Parvati in Micronesia, Sophie in SP (tho he did vote for her since she was responsible for his elimination), and Sarah's "deceitful" gameplay in GC) Sarah was never getting that vote. I think it's more testament to Sarah's social game that she was able to get the votes that she did. Her point about strategic females being given a different outlook than males in the game has a very valid point. Tony's social game in WaW was great, but he wasn't as aggressive as Sarah was and certainly didn't have the "look" or "expectations" Sarah had or would have. Also, I'm not 100% sure on what you mean in your last sentence. Tony's game in Cagayan was at least as cutthroat as Sarah's in Game Changers. Yes, he did flame out in Game Changers also, but he was still a feared player (to the point that many people making pregame predictions thought that he had almost no chance to actually win), which is why he intentionally lowered his threat level in the first half. I think Tony in Cagayan wasn't necessarily as "cutthroat" as it was, for a lack of better word, "spectacular". Tony's game revolved around his antics. Sarah carefully crafted relationships in GC and used those relationships to her advantage (which influenced Tony's WaW game). She was never outlandish or obnoxious in a way to affect her gameplay or image. Sarah got the negative image as well. Just look at how Tony was viewed during/after WaW compared to Sarah during/after GC. One was adored, the other got a lot of criticism. The game, and further more society, don't view a lying, "advantage taking" female, the same way they view a lying, advantage taking male. That's why I give Sarah a lot more kudos than Tony. She did it first and overcame more. Tony is one of the greatest to ever play, but I don't think his WaW game is the single best game played by a survivor. There's a lot of variables and that's a discussion for another day. He mightily benefited from having his greatest ally on his tribe from the get go. Sarah and Tony together is one of, if not the, most powerful duo to ever play the game. That lowered his threat level, he had someone to share it with. He was also saved by the fire making twist. It's a part of the game yes, but on any other season pre-HHH, Tony goes out at that vote and Sarah most likely wins. This is probably just me rambling but oh well lol
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Sept 24, 2020 10:32:31 GMT -5
Also, I'm not 100% sure on what you mean in your last sentence. Tony's game in Cagayan was at least as cutthroat as Sarah's in Game Changers. Yes, he did flame out in Game Changers also, but he was still a feared player (to the point that many people making pregame predictions thought that he had almost no chance to actually win), which is why he intentionally lowered his threat level in the first half. I think Tony in Cagayan wasn't necessarily as "cutthroat" as it was, for a lack of better word, "spectacular". Tony's game revolved around his antics. Sarah carefully crafted relationships in GC and used those relationships to her advantage (which influenced Tony's WaW game). She was never outlandish or obnoxious in a way to affect her gameplay or image. Sarah got the negative image as well. Just look at how Tony was viewed during/after WaW compared to Sarah during/after GC. One was adored, the other got a lot of criticism. The game, and further more society, don't view a lying, "advantage taking" female, the same way they view a lying, advantage taking male. That's why I give Sarah a lot more kudos than Tony. She did it first and overcame more. Tony is one of the greatest to ever play, but I don't think his WaW game is the single best game played by a survivor. There's a lot of variables and that's a discussion for another day. He mightily benefited from having his greatest ally on his tribe from the get go. Sarah and Tony together is one of, if not the, most powerful duo to ever play the game. That lowered his threat level, he had someone to share it with. He was also saved by the fire making twist. It's a part of the game yes, but on any other season pre-HHH, Tony goes out at that vote and Sarah most likely wins. This is probably just me rambling but oh well lol These are some pretty interesting thoughts. I think I disagree with a lot of it, actually, but it is interesting. Thanks for elaborating.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 10:45:13 GMT -5
I think WaW turns out drastically different if we switch Natalie and Sarah's positions on the starting tribe (which should've been done)
It's not fair to them or to their competitors to have those duos together right away.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Sept 24, 2020 16:19:52 GMT -5
I thought Natalie played a very good game. But still view Sarah's game in gamechangers to have been better and one of the best seasons. For one thing - I thought the quality of players on gamechangers was very good. And it was a series of very small moves that Sarah made that was why she was so good. (Natalie also made a lot of important small moves). For Sarah (and it has been a while so I don't remember everything) - she forged the personal connection with Sierra that got her the legacy reward. It was her observation to see the reward/idol sitting under Michela's legs at a challenge. It was her ability to navigate among always changing alliances in that game - I really thought that cast was one of the best of all-time: Brad Culpepper - I thought he played a very good game and could have won. He improved greatly from his 1st season. Troyzan - his gameplay was a bit questionable, but he wasn't a horrible player. He also had the great sense of awareness at FTC to realize he had no chance of winning and just told the jurors it was fun. Tai - maybe not the best strategic players, but still a player that had some excellent qualities. Aubry - I still think she would have won S32 - is a much better player than Michelle. Cirie - Great player Michaela - I think she was a very good player in both her seasons. Andrea - Another very good player. Sierra - maybe not a great player - but still good. Zeke - excellent player Debbie - well... Ozzy - terrible strategic player and his view of the game is different than mine, but he also has specific game talents that are unparalleled in the game's history. Hali - okay not much there. That is just those that made the jury. Among those that didn't even make the jury: Tony - best player of all-time Sandra - she at least won twice. J.T. - some consider to have played the perfect game in a prior season Malcolm - Ciera - not one of my favorites, but still someone that was pretty active at 'playing' the game. Yeah, you make a fair point about the quality of the competition. It was definitely better on Game Changers than in SJDS. I think Natalie's game was definitely superior to Sarah's in a vacuum, but when the level of competition is factored in, I could be persuaded that Sarah's was better. This is also one of the reasons why I view Tony's game in Winners at War as the best ever--for him to dominate against the best competition ever was incredible. It was Sarah's second time though. I think that cancels out or equals the fact that the level of competition was supposedly higher. IMO, Game Changers had the weakest all-returnees cast ever. Given the cast, it was also misnamed.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Sept 24, 2020 16:34:06 GMT -5
@avid when did you start watching Survivor? I also really disagreed with bbg95 's tiers (which is not me saying that they are wrong) but I thought back to this post where bbg shared he watched WaW first, is avoiding older seasons, etc. I think if I watched WaW first, I would also think Tony is the most impressive winner ever. If I didn't watch old seasons first, I would probably value strategy over the social game. It's definitely an interesting discussion to think about how the order we watch the seasons (and to remember that there are FORTY seasons and TWENTY years of television) affects our ranking/impressions of the seasons and winners.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 16:48:02 GMT -5
@avid when did you start watching Survivor? I also really disagreed with bbg95 's tiers (which is not me saying that they are wrong) but I thought back to this post where bbg shared he watched WaW first, is avoiding older seasons, etc. I think if I watched WaW first, I would also think Tony is the most impressive winner ever. If I didn't watch old seasons first, I would probably value strategy over the social game. It's definitely an interesting discussion to think about how the order we watch the seasons (and to remember that there are FORTY seasons and TWENTY years of television) affects our ranking/impressions of the seasons and winners. Fiji was the first season I remember watching on tv. Didn't "seriously" watch until Philippines I think.
|
|