Sugar's strategy

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
Cassidy666		#81	[-]
Posts: 9300 (12/17/08 8:33 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Thanks! I'll try to check it out when I have the time. It's easy to say that people should always vote based on "strategy" but that line varies so much from person to person. Factors like loyalty and treating people well also weigh heavily in real juries when they have to make a decision.
PrettyGoodYear1988		#82	[-]
Posts: 1829 (12/17/08 8:37 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Well, my thinking is you can either be a ruthless gamer with no real sense of loyalty who will vote out anyone on their way to the million, or you can be a loyal member of a tight alliance, Pagong the other team, and take your friends to the end even though it might not be the strategically best thing for you. You can't be both.
Baulder		#83	[-]
Posts: 356 (12/17/08 9:06 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	PrettyGoodYear1988 wrote: Well, my thinking is you can either be a ruthless gamer with no real sense of loyalty who will vote out anyone on their way to the million, or you can be a loyal member of a tight alliance, Pagong the other team, and take your friends to the end even though it might not be the strategically best thing for you. You can't be both. What about Tina? I would say that she fits both of those descriptions and she won. She was willing to vote out anybody on her way to the million: She liked Liz and Rodger more than Keith but "ruthlessly" voted them out. She also was the second who kept Colby with her until the end even though it was a potential loss. The problem with Sugar's strategy is 1) People are letting outside factors influence their decisions and 2) There is an erroneous belief that there are a limited number of very similar ways to play strategically on Survivor. You can't say in one breath that you have to read each juror differently and adjust accordingly and then go on to say that Sugar played flawed because she changed her strategy every few days depending on who she felt was "good." Survivor is about adaptability and Sugar incorporated that into her game play...so what if she based her strategy on her changing mood and attitudes about good and evil. The other poeple's strategies were flawed for not getting rid of somebody who was so unpredictable (as somebody said earlier) and allowing her and her emotions to stick around and rule the day. Oh and who said you can't get a big carrear kick in the entertainment industry by being on Survivor, tell that to Colleen or Jerri.....just kidding.
PrettyGoodYear1988		#84	[-]
Posts: 1831 (12/17/08 9:24 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	What about Tina? I would say that she fits both of those descriptions and she won. She was willing to vote out anybody on her way to the million: She liked Liz and Rodger more than Keith but "ruthlessly" voted them out. She also was the second who kept Colby with her until the end even though it was a potential loss. That's the thing. She was loyal to Keith, even though she didn't like him as much as Elisabeth or Rodger. Sugar was the opposite. Once she stopped liking someone or deemed them the "less good" option, she dropped all loyalty to them and stabbed them in the back (Crystal, Ken, Matty). This is, I believe, a total anomaly in Survivor. Backstabbing usually is done to give yourself a strategic advantage. Sugar just did it when she felt like it, based on her emotions and assessments of people at the time.
urrout		#85	[-]
Posts: 1835 (12/17/08 9:51 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Baulder wrote: The other poeple's strategies were flawed for not getting rid of somebody who was so unpredictable (as somebody said earlier) and allowing her and her emotions to stick around and rule the day. Sugar wasn't unpredictable until the Crystal boot. She went along with every boot without fuss. The only time she flipped before Crystal was with Ace way early in the game. One flip does not make her unpredictable. The only flawed strategy was Sugar's.
Cassidy666		#86	[-]
Posts: 9301 (12/17/08 10:00 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I believe good strategy is based on the situation that is faced and the objective is to get to the end and pissing off the least amount of people doing it. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation as long as good decisions are made to balance all of that. How everyone goes about it is different, which is what makes it interesting to see.
craig		#87	[-]
Posts: 14572 (12/17/08 10:16 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Well, my thinking is you can either be a ruthless gamer with no real sense of loyalty who will vote out anyone on their way to the million, or you can be a loyal member of a tight alliance, Pagong the other team, and take your friends to the end even though it might not be the strategically best thing for you. You can't be both. The top masterminds manage to do both. They form loyal alliances with decent people they have a shot against. Todd and Parvati both did this, getting rid of James and Ozzy but choosing a solid ally like Amanda. Not a bunch of flaky goats. Sugar did neither. She played ruthlessly and betrayed alliances, but she wasn't playing to win. She wanted to play God instead. Last Edited By: craig 12/17/08 10:33 PM. Edited 1 times.
Baulder		#88	[-]
Posts: 357 (12/17/08 10:18 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Cassidy666 wrote: I believe good strategy is based on the situation that is faced and the objective is to get to the end and pissing off the least amount of people doing it. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation as long as good decisions are made to balance all of that. How everyone goes about it is different, which is what makes it interesting to see. This would mean that players like Becky are the best players. She adapted to the situation and didn't piss people off. That is not interesting to see at all. Your argument basically supports people riding coattails the whole way and then pissing off one person by eliminating the person who let them tag along the whole season. I also think that the other people could clearly tell that Sugar was a hot emotional mess. She may not have backstabbers a ton of people until the end but it was clear that she was playing the game emotionally and not rationally which marked her a threat. One of my biggest problems with people questioning Sugar's strategy is we just watched a season where the winner admitted that he didn't outwit or outplay anybody. Sugar at least had a strategy, even if people think it was a bad one. I want people on Survivor to do more than breath to earn them the million (obvs I am exaggerating but you could have substituted Bob with a cardboard cutout and it would have won). I would take a mactor like Sugar any day over another Bob. I'm not worried about the precedent she set either because people are not going to try and be like her because 1) They would have to get far in their seasons which would be unlikely and 2) Sugar would have to get some type of deal out of this season and I doubt that she will that would entice others to follow in her footsteps.
Kirblar		#89	[-]
Posts: 7195 (12/17/08 10:30 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Baulder wrote: Cassidy666 wrote: I believe good strategy is based on the situation that is faced and the objective is to get to the end and pissing off the least amount of people doing it. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation as long as good decisions are made to balance all of that. How everyone goes about it is different, which is what makes it interesting to see. This would mean that players like Becky are the best players. She adapted to the situation and didn't piss people off. That is not interesting to see at all. Your argument basically supports people riding coattails the whole way and then pissing off one person by eliminating the person who let them tag along the whole season. I also think that the other people could clearly tell that Sugar was a hot emotional mess. She may not have backstabbers a ton of people until the end but it was clear that she was playing the game emotionally and not rationally which marked her a threat. One of my biggest problems with people questioning Sugar's strategy is we just watched a season where the winner admitted that he didn't outwit or outplay anybody. Sugar at least had a strategy, even if people think it was a bad one. I want people on Survivor to do more than breath to earn them the million (obvs I am exaggerating but you could have substituted Bob with a cardboard cutout and it would have won). I would take a mactor like Sugar any day over another Bob. I'm not worried about the precedent she set either because people are not going to try and be like her because 1) They would have to get far in their seasons which would be unlikely and 2) Sugar would have to get some type of deal out of this season and I doubt that she will that would entice others to follow in her footsteps. A strategy is a course of action designed to try and get a win. Sugar's "strategy" was to act as a walking hand of god, striking down those she disliked.
cindidindi76		#90	[-]
Posts: 14107 (12/18/08 2:43 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I'm not worried about the precedent she set either because people are not going to try and be like her because 1) They would have to get far in their seasons which would be unlikely and 2) Sugar would have to get some type of deal out of this season and I doubt that she will that would entice others to follow in her footsteps. I'm pretty sure that if casting actively seeks out people wanting to make Survivor their audition tape, with no plans on trying to win, and we end up with 5 of these people on every season, it would suck donkey balls. Whether Sugar gets a big deal because of this or not is irrelevant, if someone is cast to be an actor and put on a show, that's what they will do. Every mactor thinks they will be the one to get their big break from a reality tv show, that's why they keep trying to get on them.
colleenlover		#91	[-]
Posts: 8900 (12/18/08 4:09 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	they try to get on them now because they take up a huge percentage of the programing broadcast. they're not a lot of options, and you take what you can get. When Survivor first came out there was not the push on actors, but over the years it has changed. I get breakdowns from my agent about casting for reality shows and so do many of my friends. It's the norm now.
craig		#92	[-]
Posts: 14582 (12/18/08 10:17 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I'm afraid the F3 could become a factor is people not playing to win, because for many to takes away any realistic shot. So might as well help your friends win or people you like win.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Sugar's strategy

Quick Reply