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

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
SwineForkbeard		#41	[-]
Posts: 1590 (08/02/08 11:54 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	panurge46 wrote: You really want to invoke the second worst twist in survivor history to salvage your argument?! That stupid F3 twist saved Yul, Earl and Todd, none of which showed a lot of potential in winning F3 immunity, but it can't save your scenario. The F3 twist kills most of the end game strategy so I wasn't really considering it. Say we forget the F3 challenge then you still wind up with Parvati needing to be as stupidly loyal as Paschal was, opening the door to Amanda turning the tables on her. Your bias against the F3 is really no concern of mine. I'm using what actually happened on the show to illustrate the plausibility of my hypothesis. As we saw, everybody was expecting it to be a final 3. You're the one who is inexplicably imagining a different outcome from the one we saw, where the players would take into account their final 3 positioning in the expectation that it would be a final 2. If it didn't happen on the show, why should we expect it to happen in this bizarro game where the only difference is that Erik wasn't stupid enough to give up immunity (where the true outcome really was stranger than any fanfic)? More importantly, what you forget by introducing the F3 twist is that now you need Erik to be stupid to want to vote out one of the Parvati/Amanda duo. If those two are so tight, it would mean that they are likely to split votes from their former alliance. Erik would be sitting much more comfortably facing the pair instead of one of them and Cirie. But that is what Erik wanted to do. He thought Amanda was the biggest jury threat. Ya think??!! That's been my argument all along. Your scenario implies everyone being stupid enough to give Cirie the game and only now you realize it puts Cirie in a win-win situation? But that's exactly what happened. Cirie was included in everybody's final 3 plans, and Eliza has said that Cirie would easily have beaten Parvati and Amanda had James's injury not required the ad hoc switch to a final 2. It's not that they were willing to give the game to Cirie, they just underestimated her chances of beating them. Your scenario needs Erik to refuse to even consider voting out Cirie. Why would he consider that if he wanted to get rid of Amanda, and figured he could get his way by forcing a tie that would favor Cirie? If he has immunity and has nothing to lose by being aggressive, it wouldn't make sense for him to keep Amanda if he assumed a final 3 and considered her a jury threat. It requires that Amanda willingly throws away her social game to become Cirie's tool. Nonsense, neither jury that Amanda faced rewarded her for being the lesser of two evils. Had she played more aggressively and taken credit for it, her odds of winning would probably have gone up. Besides, what other options would Amanda have? Her main priority is getting to the next round. Even if voting for Cirie would be less likely to offend the jury, it would mean facing long odds in the tiebreaker, and being unlikely to make it in front of the jury anyway. It requires that Parvati doesn't even realize that Cirie can make a deal with Amanda. So now you're saying that not only is that scenario illogical but Parvati would be stupid not to expect it? If you feel like ridiculing this, at least be consistent.
panurge46		#42	[-]
Posts: 1082 (08/02/08 4:17 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	"I'm using what actually happened on the show to illustrate the plausibility of my hypothesis" Stick with the hypothetical because what actually happened doesn't help you. What actually happened on the show, in every season, is that a 2-1-1 voting scheme has never been seen and will not be seen unless players are stupid. And I mean more stupid than we've ever seen. Say a final 4 of Lisi, Billy, Dolly and Nicole might give you a chance. "So now you're saying that not only is that scenario illogical but Parvati would be stupid not to expect it? If you feel like ridiculing this, at least be consistent." You're so focused on the 2-1-1 scenario that you don't see the real situation. A big part why this scenario is illogical is that everyone in Parvati's position would expect to become a target if they say no to the duo that includes the player with immunity. Parvati doesn't need to expect a 2-1-1 scenario to fear Cirie making a deal with Amanda: She knows it could easily become a 3-1 vote against her. Last Edited By: panurge46 08/02/08 4:28 PM. Edited 2 times.
SwineForkbeard		#43	[-]
Posts: 1592 (08/02/08 5:41 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	panurge46 wrote: You're so focused on the 2-1-1 scenario that you don't see the real situation. A big part why this scenario is illogical is that everyone in Parvati's position would expect to become a target if they say no to the duo that includes the player with immunity. Parvati doesn't need to expect a 2-1-1 scenario to fear Cirie making a deal with Amanda: She knows it could easily become a 3-1 vote against her. We've established that Erik wants to get rid of Amanda, not Parvati. If Parvati knows that Erik doesn't want to face Amanda in the final 3, and thinks a tie is enough to get rid of her, then she knows that he has no reason to compromise with Cirie and Amanda. A tie for Erik would, in all likelihood, mean getting what he wants. And there have been enough precedents on the show to disprove any notion that someone in Parvati's position would be forced to do whatever the person with immunity wanted them to. Paschal, Rudy, and Katie were all in that position at the final 4, and they stuck with the tie. If it's happened three times in the past, it should be considered well within the realm of plausibility.
panurge46		#44	[-]
Posts: 1083 (08/02/08 7:57 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	"Paschal, Rudy, and Katie were all in that position at the final 4, and they stuck with the tie. If it's happened three times in the past, it should be considered well within the realm of plausibility." We've established that Paschal was stupid to be that loyal to Neleh. Katie had nothing to fear since everyone had made a reservation for her seat in the F2. And Rudy didn't really understand the game. That's why those who didn't have immunity stuck with the tie. Still, with those prime conditions, how close did we come to a 2-1-1 vote? Did Ian come close to making a deal with Jen? Why would Jen have even considered voting out Katie, the perfect goat? Hatch and Sue could have turned around and voted Rudy out but they would have brought in Kelly to vote with them. In fact, Hatch would have insisted on it to spread the blame of backstabbing Rudy. Actually, Hatch couldn't have won if he'd turned into Sue's tool. And before getting Neleh to vote out Paschal, Kathy would have tried to get Vee in with them. Vee had no reason to keep Paschal and everything to lose by him staying. The Marquesas F4 was a total fiasco and still no 2-1-1 vote.
SwineForkbeard		#45	[-]
Posts: 1593 (08/02/08 11:55 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	panurge46 wrote: Still, with those prime conditions, how close did we come to a 2-1-1 vote? Did Ian come close to making a deal with Jen? 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've never claimed that such a plan is likely to ever happen. It would require a set of factors that we probably have yet to see to make it feasible, but I stand by my original point that one could conceive of a situation where such a plan would make strategic sense. Did Ian come close to making a deal with Jen? Why would Jen have even considered voting out Katie, the perfect goat? I agree that the context in this particular case did not make a 2-1-1 vote strategically viable. Jen must have known her chances of beating Ian in the tiebreaker were not good, but voting out Katie would have meant throwing away her chances, however remote, of winning altogether. She was pretty much screwed either way. If you alter that scenario slightly and imagine that Tom was also considered a goat (so Jen could have won against someone other than Katie), and that Ian was the only person willing to take Katie to the final 2 (which would explain why someone as physically limited as Katie would need to vote for Jen and hope Ian won the tiebreaker), then it would have made sense. Tom was so furious with Ian and so stubborn that I doubt anybody could have changed his mind about voting for him. And while Ian must have figured he had the advantage over Jen, he also knew that an upset was always a possibility, considering Stephenie had beaten Bobby Jon, so voting out Katie would have been a way of avoiding the risk of that embarrassment.
panurge46		#46	[-]
Posts: 1084 (08/03/08 12:10 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	"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 realistic. So when you write: "one could conceive of a situation where such a plan would make strategic sense" I have two objections: - The Seattle Mariners are in last place in the West, 27 games out of first but, with 50 games left, they aren't mathematically eliminated. They could, conceivably, still finish first but it isn't being realistic. - Although more realistic than a Mariners recovery, the 2-1-1 vote doesn't make overall strategic sense. There are two ways a 2-1-1 vote could happen: - Your scenario, which I'd call the offensive play, where the players have to stupidly give the game to one of the players that was in a weak position after the F4 challenge, Cirie in our example. That scenario can never make strategic sense. - The China scenario where Amanda could have voted Courtney after leading Denise to vote Todd. That's what I'd call the defensive play. This makes somewhat more sense but mainly with the F3 twist. Even then, the other two players would make fun of Amanda's lack of courage during final TC and Denise would feel that Amanda laughed at her instead of showing loyalty. In a F2 season, Amanda would have put herself in a position where she would have needed to win final immunity but, in this case, she was probably there anyway. Finally, I want to point to this: "If you alter that scenario slightly and imagine that Tom was also considered a goat" 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? Anyway, if he was a goat, Tom could have seen Koror throw a challenge to get rid of him before the merge. That's what happens when you change a parameter. Last Edited By: panurge46 08/03/08 12:18 PM. Edited 1 times.
Thailandsurvivor		#47	[-]
Posts: 1140 (08/03/08 12:25 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	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.
panurge46		#48	[-]
Posts: 1085 (08/03/08 1:38 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	"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 votes. You really think it makes sense?
SurvivorSurvivorSurvivor		#49	[-]
Posts: 5760 (08/03/08 1:49 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	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 their direction while also showing that the other three people that made it this far were all within one vote from being ousted, making the argument that you were the only one in control infallible.
Thailandsurvivor		#50	[-]
Posts: 1145 (08/03/08 4:01 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	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 Romber's jury votes and now you want Tom to betray Rupert and Jenna, costing him two more votes. You really think it makes sense? Kathy did it, and alot of people thought Chris should have done it, so why can't Tom?
panurge46		#51	[-]
Posts: 1086 (08/03/08 4:42 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	"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 jury votes down the drain. He may still pull it out but you haven't addressed my first objection: Why would Jenna leave Rupert in the dark about the change of plan? Your scenario leads to a 3-1 vote against Tom. "alot of people thought Chris should have done it" A lot of people are dumb!
Thailandsurvivor		#52	[-]
Posts: 1149 (08/03/08 5:40 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	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?
SwineForkbeard		#53	[-]
Posts: 1594 (08/03/08 6:29 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	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 of winning the final immunity, and Tom and Jen planned to take each other. It would be like Cirie voting out Aras at the final 4. She needed Ian to be in the final 3 so Tom would take her if he won the final immunity. If Ian was gone, she would have no way of advancing to the final 2 without winning immunity herself.
panurge46		#54	[-]
Posts: 1087 (08/03/08 7:50 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	To SFB: Why would Tom take the more likeable Jen? To TS: I'm not thinking Kathy was gonna lose, I know she lost.
SwineForkbeard		#55	[-]
Posts: 1595 (08/03/08 8:19 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	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.
Kitty Pryde1		#56	[-]
Posts: 5162 (08/03/08 9:02 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	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 was voting for and vote that way to protec the other two. If one pair is tighter with each other than with their third ally, then obviously that ally will feel unsafe and vote with the immunity winner. A 2-1-1 vote basically requires players too stupid to talk to each other and too blind to realize the closeness of the twosome.
SwineForkbeard		#57	[-]
Posts: 1596 (08/04/08 12:24 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	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.
Kitty Pryde1		#58	[-]
Posts: 5166 (08/04/08 12:52 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	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 his own for no reason other than to prove a point and thus throws him away. It also requires player C to just accept player A's idea on his word and not perhaps sticking with player D. Your plan requires a final 4 or two retarded players of Jan levels up against two genius players like Cirie. It's 99% impossible and even then, it's a stupid move.
panurge46		#59	[-]
Posts: 1089 (08/04/08 5:30 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	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 their fight your "necessary set-up"? With Tom so unlikeable, Ian and Kathy vote with him for Jen as was planned. End of discussion.
SwineForkbeard		#60	[-]
Posts: 1597 (08/04/08 10:50 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	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 Jen, just like Aras wanted to take Cirie and Terry wanted to take Danielle. Situations like that do happen. And, if Tom is so beatable, why would Ian have wanted him out at F4? Wasn't their fight your "necessary set-up"? With Tom so unlikeable, Ian and Kathy vote with him for Jen as was planned. You're grasping at straws here. Ian's secret plan to get rid of Tom had nothing to do with whether he could beat him in the final 2, since there was no way they were both going to be in the final 2. He wanted to get rid of him because they had agreed not to take each other and he didn't want to compete with him for the final immunity.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

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

Quick Reply