Loopholes in Challenge Rules

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (Francois40) — Thu, 08 May 2008 20:48:17 GMT

why don't people just team up in certain challenges? In the last challenge, I'm not surprised the girls didn't just shoot the bottles of a single girl.

Or as in the case of this IC, just have all three of them work on one person's ropes--three times as fast to dig, etc.

I found it interesting that Parvati was allowed to talk to Cirie during the trivia RC. Seems like they could just feed each other answers......

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (unduli clone) — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:42:02 GMT

I was actually thinking that in this IC it'd be easiest to simply avoid the ropes and eyeball it. From the diggings and slack rope it looked as if the puzzle pieces weren't directly under where the ropes matched up, so I think you'd do just as good eyeballing it, and it would save a ton of time. But it'd be a bigger risk if you lost your spot because you have a higher chance of being off.

I found it interesting that Parvati was allowed to talk to Cirie during...

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (OnlyMatthew) — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:34:53 GMT

why don't people just team up in certain challenges? In the last challenge, I'm not surprised the girls didn't just shoot the bottles of a single girl.

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (WylDawg) — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:31:57 GMT

About tonight's IC. I definitely would've messend with other people's ropes (unhooked them, move them and stuff). I don't know if they were allowed to do that.

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (SurvivorQT) — Thu, 08 May 2008 03:03:34 GMT

marquesas: they had to dive down to unclip the box, but instead they pulled it up. or tipping the rocks out

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (Francois40) — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:48:01 GMT

Oh, and another semi-example for the thread: I thought it was a little shady that Jonathan was verbally helping solve the puzzle when he wasn't one of the puzzle solvers. Didn't he say/yell something like "there's got to be an overall pattern"? If there are specific puzzle solvers, then the others shouldn't be allowed to say anything. But I guess you get away with whatever you can.

In that case, Eliza wasn't the "specific...

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (cindidindi76) — Wed, 07 May 2008 11:43:19 GMT

That was what I thought too, that she just forgot to do it, not that she only did it that once because of Julie.

Oh, sure...this has happened a lot, most recently on the "Great Wall of China" reward that was "won" by Courtney, only because other people shot her squares (though probably not intentionally).

Didn't Denise win that because Courtney had about 50 arrows and gave it to her? Thus causing Denise to not...

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (speedyforme) — Wed, 07 May 2008 07:12:05 GMT

I always thought rescrambling them was the thing you HAD to do, I mean why leave them completed? I saw most of them putting the puzzle together everytime so I think Twila just forgot to scramble the puzzle

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (solesurvivor01) — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:56:42 GMT

speedyforme wrote:
yeah there were 6 stations and you needed 5, of course someone CAN Be blocked if say Twila was holding one of 2 that Julie needed while someone else was in the other one Julie needed, she'd be screwed...

Well something like that kind of happened. Twila was about to leave a station that Julie was waiting to go into, and once Twila saw that Julie was waiting to come in, she turned right...

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (speedyforme) — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:19:16 GMT

yeah there were 6 stations and you needed 5, of course someone CAN Be blocked if say Twila was holding one of 2 that Julie needed while someone else was in the other one Julie needed, she'd be screwed...

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (solesurvivor01) — Mon, 05 May 2008 13:20:59 GMT

grodney wrote:

PKFA wrote:

You're saying there were (for instance) 6 or more stations, and you only had to complete 5 of them to be done with the challenge? I don't recall that ever being the case.
It's happened before. In Africa, there were seven stations, but only five answers were needed to win....

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (grodney) — Mon, 05 May 2008 13:13:57 GMT

PKFA wrote:

You're saying there were (for instance) 6 or more stations, and you only had to complete 5 of them to be done with the challenge? I don't recall that ever being the case.
It's happened before. In Africa, there were seven stations, but only five answers were needed to win.

I'll take y'alls' word for it, but now you've got me curious about...

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (PKFA) — Mon, 05 May 2008 12:16:27 GMT

You're saying there were (for instance) 6 or more stations, and you only had to complete 5 of them to be done with the challenge? I don't recall that ever being the case.

It's happened before. In Africa, there were seven stations, but only five answers were needed to win.

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (grodney) — Mon, 05 May 2008 12:08:40 GMT

speedyforme wrote:

1) most of those stations have 6+ stations and you only need 5 so it's trickier to hog the stations and make someone lose cause there should always be one free

You're saying there were (for instance) 6 or more stations, and you only had to complete 5 of them to be done with the challenge? I don't recall that ever being the case.
...

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (speedyforme) — Mon, 05 May 2008 07:11:53 GMT

solesurvivor01 wrote:
I don't know if this counts as a loophole, but in the very first challenge of PI, Sandra/Christa/Rupert talked on the commentary about how they were ahead and wanted the Morgans to help clear the path, so that caused a hold up in the race. Apparently Jeff got mad at the Drakes too, which is pretty hypocritical seeing as he said that whoever was ahead controlled how fast it would go. Still, I don't...

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (speedyforme) — Mon, 05 May 2008 07:09:47 GMT

chad6 wrote:

XtremeInnovator420 wrote:
Mhm. There's also the fact that Terry's platform was affected by the waves much more than Aras's was. Aras' platform had the waves already broken by both Terry and Danielle's platforms by the time they reached his, so I'd imagine he had a much easier time dealing with it than Terry did. The...

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (speedyforme) — Mon, 05 May 2008 07:03:30 GMT

grodney wrote:

Francois40 wrote:
One thing I would expect to see more of is "teaming up" in individual challenges; when there is one person (such as Terry) whom clearly the opposing alliance wants to lose, I would expect to see more "defensive" play in some challenges, where some of them jettison their own game just to try to thwart the...

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (kenc333) — Sun, 04 May 2008 22:07:02 GMT

maxmartin33 wrote:
Not really a loophole, but the Vanuatu F3 IC definately favoured a man, especially with upper body strength. As did the Exile F3 favouring a smaller person. But I guess pretty much all challenges are favoured in some way towards one type of person.

And that person would be Ozzy.

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (maxmartin33) — Sun, 04 May 2008 20:57:15 GMT

Not really a loophole, but the Vanuatu F3 IC definately favoured a man, especially with upper body strength. As did the Exile F3 favouring a smaller person. But I guess pretty much all challenges are favoured in some way towards one type of person.

Re: Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (Zesty66) — Sat, 03 May 2008 04:31:01 GMT

Yeah and it was originally going to be 3 rounds but after half an hour Probst stopped the challenge and asked if everyone was OK with just one round. Evereyone screamed, "YES!".

Loopholes in Challenge Rules

feeds@yuku.com (grodney) — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:19:51 GMT

So, the strategy of having Eliza (and Parv) crouch on the pole thingy while James (and others) carried it was clearly not how the challenge was conceived. But they obviously didn't cover it in the rules, so it's all good.

What other instances of finding loopholes, or circumstances not covered, have there been?

Wasn't it in ASS that Boston Rob's team had somebody step onto a balance beam and immediately drop into the water so his turn would come back up...