Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (Raydawggie) — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:23:15 GMT

The only case where I could see it happening was if the immunity holder essentially just froze everyone out, refusing to talk strategy at all. This could happen if they were on the receiving end of a nasty blindside of their alliance partner in the final five, but it's still unlikely.

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (TheEasyOne) — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:16:22 GMT

Thailandsurvivor wrote:

doc wrote:
I can't believe this thread hasn't died yet. Even though 2-1-1 is so unnatural (unlike 3-1 and 2-2) I hate to say it will never happen because so much freaky stuff happens, but it is so far out, ya it'll never happen in real world Survivor land.
10 bucks it happens in Gabon just because you said...

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (doc) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:59:03 GMT

You're on. You can pay me thru paypal I guess

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (Thailandsurvivor) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:50:40 GMT

doc wrote:
I can't believe this thread hasn't died yet. Even though 2-1-1 is so unnatural (unlike 3-1 and 2-2) I hate to say it will never happen because so much freaky stuff happens, but it is so far out, ya it'll never happen in real world Survivor land.

10 bucks it happens in Gabon just because you said that.

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (doc) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:37:11 GMT

I can't believe this thread hasn't died yet. Even though 2-1-1 is so unnatural (unlike 3-1 and 2-2) I hate to say it will never happen because so much freaky stuff happens, but it is so far out, ya it'll never happen in real world Survivor land. Cirie's 3-2-1 was mentioned but the difference of just 2 extra people is huge. Options are really limited at 4, too win you really need to put things in motion earlier, and it's too wild to pull something like that off so...

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (SwineForkbeard) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:50:04 GMT

panurge46 wrote:
But, if you are being serious, how would Katie, at F4, know that was Tom's plan?

Let's just say that Jen and Katie are roughly equal in terms of their popularity with the jury and Tom is very close to Jen but not Katie. Everybody won't always plan to face the same person at the final 4. It's common knowledge at this point that Ian wants to take Katie and Tom wants to take...

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (panurge46) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 05:30:20 GMT

SwineForkbeard wrote:

For the same reason that Kim Johnson would take the more likeable Ethan. If he couldn't win against anybody, he could just take whoever he liked better.

That's funny! Thanks for the laugh.

But, if you are being serious, how would Katie, at F4, know that was Tom's plan?
And, if Tom is so beatable, why would Ian have wanted him out at F4? Wasn't...

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (Kitty Pryde1) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:52:03 GMT

Yeah, but there's only four players left. What else are they going to do other than talk? In order for a 2-1-1 plan to work, players A and B would want player C out while immune player D wants player A out. Basically, player A would have to tell player C that he planned on voting out player B. Then player B would basically have to act resigned to her fate and not make a show of trying to get player C not to vote her out. And all of this hinges on the idea that player D just votes on...

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (SwineForkbeard) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:24:26 GMT

It wouldn't matter if the two single votes talked to each other, since they would both be expecting to be on opposite sides of a tie. It's not like Cirie's convoluted 3-2-1 plan where she had to keep track of all the different lies she was telling people. All the "2" have to do to keep the "1s" in the dark is go on pretending that it will be a tie.

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (Kitty Pryde1) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:02:56 GMT

I don't see any way for a 2-1-1 vote being effective because it essentially assumes that the two single votes would never talk with each other. Let's say you have an alliance of three versus a solo opponent. If that solo opponent wins immunity, then obviously the three-person alliance has to turn on one another. The immunity winner has the power because obviously, whoever they vote for is in a lot of danger. A tight three-person alliance would obviously find out who the outsider...

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (SwineForkbeard) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:19:31 GMT

For the same reason that Kim Johnson would take the more likeable Ethan. If he couldn't win against anybody, he could just take whoever he liked better.

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (panurge46) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:50:14 GMT

To SFB: Why would Tom take the more likeable Jen?

To TS: I'm not thinking Kathy was gonna lose, I know she lost.

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (SwineForkbeard) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 18:29:28 GMT

panurge46 wrote:
If Tom was a goat, everything changes. There wouldn't be a 2-1-1 vote either because now Katie would vote with Tom and Jen to get rid of Ian. She'd have someone that she could beat. Why give the nerdy dolphin trainer a chance to win it all?

I already covered this. Katie would not have voted out Ian in this bizarro world scenario because she would know that she had virtually no chance...

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (Thailandsurvivor) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:40:36 GMT

Kathy would have done it anyways, she talked with Vee about how she shouldn't have voted out Sean. And you really think that she was going to lose? Really?

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (panurge46) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:42:07 GMT

"Kathy did it"

Kathy won the jury vote? That's news to me!!! Kidding aside, Kathy didn't have a choice since Vee was immune at F4 otherwise, she always voted with Paschal and Neleh. In your scenario, Jenna is immune at F4 since she's the only one you didn't mention as a target. So Tom would have willingly betrayed Romber to join Rupert and Jenna then he would have willingly betrayed Rupert and Jenna. That's a lot of...

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (Thailandsurvivor) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:01:28 GMT

panurge46 wrote:

"Something like this could have been possible in All Stars had Tom sided with Jenna and Rupert at the final 5, and Rob had left. Tom would want Rupert out..."

I see you are still grasping at straws. First, I don't see why Jenna wouldn't get Rupert to vote out Tom. Second, you realize that by voting with Jenna and Rupert at F5, Tom lost...

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (SurvivorSurvivorSurvivor) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:49:11 GMT

What about having some bastard-prick like myself bringing out the 2-1-1 vote for the hell of it? If you were the immunity winner at F4 and everyone was going to vote out the obvious winner (say, Yau-Man), you could ask Yau-Man which of the other two he's voting for and then vote for the other person. Nobody would ever expect you to do as such. Strategically, it makes sense because then you can give the F4 bootee a pity vote by not writing one in...

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (panurge46) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:38:15 GMT

"Something like this could have been possible in All Stars had Tom sided with Jenna and Rupert at the final 5, and Rob had left. Tom would want Rupert out..."

I see you are still grasping at straws. First, I don't see why Jenna wouldn't get Rupert to vote out Tom. Second, you realize that by voting with Jenna and Rupert at F5, Tom lost Romber's jury votes and now you want Tom to betray Rupert and Jenna, costing him two more...

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (Thailandsurvivor) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 12:25:50 GMT

One situation where it is possible is if person A (who is allied with B) is targetting person D while D (who is allied with C) is targetting B. (C is immune by the way). Now B, who doesn't want to have to win a tiebreaker may go to C (who has immunity) to vote off his ally A. A and D are too stubborn because of a fight that happened recently, but B and C come together to vote off A. B has backstabbed A, but they arn't risking a firemaking challenge, and C is backstabbing D, but now C...

Re: Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (panurge46) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 12:10:10 GMT

"I never said they were prime conditions, but only brought it up to point out that ties at the final 4, the necessary set up for this hypothetical blindside, are not uncommon."

I wanted to point out that "Prime conditions" and "necessary set up" sound awfully synonymous to me.

But I think we covered the situation. I'll end by saying that there is a difference between what is conceivable and what is...

Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4?

feeds@yuku.com (Thailandsurvivor) — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:38:02 GMT

This is just a random question, but it's been bugging me today. Why has there never been a 2-1-1 vote at the final 4? It does seem uncommon, but in 16 seasons, shouldn't there have been an alliance pair in the final 4 that has wanted a sure way to not go into a tiebreaker?