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 has two people who will take them to the finals. So it does benefit the two of them. They don't go and tell D because of their
hatred for B, and D would probably not believe it anyways.
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 (if they were still fighting) while Rupert would want Amber because he is loyal to whatever his alliance is. While this is going on Amber might have came to Jenna to vote out Tom instead of facing a tie.
It isn't that likely, but yeah, it could happen.
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 (if they were still fighting) while Rupert would want Amber because he is loyal to whatever his alliance is. While this is going on Amber might have came to Jenna to vote out Tom instead of facing a tie.
It isn't that likely, but yeah, it could happen.
