Winner Analysis

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
RavuRules		#2921	[-]
Posts: 1655 (05/16/08 4:39 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	And panurge, if you're looking for hearsay evidence in Tina's favor, try digging up Amber's Stuff interview from 2001. She still seemed bitter over what took place, and in attempting to denigrate Tina, actually complimented her game. She agreed with the conventional wisdom here that there was far more to Tina than what was shown on TV, that she may have seemed like a sweet, lovable Southern hausfrau, but was actually the most conniving person out there. Well we did see Amber mocking Tina to Jerri at the merge for being ultra sweet and talkative to Liz and them. Obviously she wanted Colby to win for using her and at least throwing her a pity vote . I'm sure Tina is sweet, but it doesn't mean she isn't mature, experienced, conniving, and have been around the block
RavuRules		#2922	[-]
Posts: 1656 (05/16/08 4:41 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I know that I'm still one of the few who doesn't understand this, but why does Rafe always get so much slack around here? At the final 4, it seemed obvious to get rid of Lydia because it looked like Steph would take her to the end as a goat. She had been willing to backstab every other ally, why wouldn't she backstab him? With Danni in the final 3, he had a 100% chance of going to the finals (or thought so, in reality he had a 67% other than a 50%). The move at the end on his part has always looked like he tried to do some reverse pschology on her because he was second guessing his decision to get rid of Lydia (which understandly backfired even though I still think it was the better move for him. He doesn't do that and Lydia is the worst winner in history.) And I want to hear some other response besides he didn't make. I understood that, but he put himself in a position where he had himself and Steph both working together win the final challenge instead of him HAVING to win to make the finals. I didn't understand it either, but our resident Survivor superfan SK has mentioned that Rafe used to be a Suckster or something and that they still keep in touch. According to him, they've talked and Rafe explained that Danni had been dreadfully sick and weak in the days leading up to the final challenge. So apparently, Stephenie and Rafe miscalculated and actually thought she'd be lesser competition than Lydia . Not totally excusable but at least it doesn't seem as stupid if we're to believe that
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#2923	[-]
Posts: 3602 (05/16/08 7:37 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Comments to Ravu Af for Rich, I rank him near the top not because of his reputation, but I think most people(including me when I first saw it) had an,dare I say "innaccurate" view of the game? It doesn't take a genius to take advantage of an opportunity with under excellent conditions, but because he is a "modern player" by your standards.He understands game "theory",if it can be called that. As you said, he suffered from incredibly bad luck on All Stars, so one may think,hes as not as good of a player as Will Kirby,who was under similar circumstances on BB. But I say that the conditions that Rich was under was different.He was with rather puritanical players who solidly believed in maintaining the original alliance and "booting threats" as soon as possible. If you watch Rich in Borneo,he doesn't necessarily go after "threats"(well,everyone is ultimatly a threat, but I mean the traditional image of one, either a physical powerhouse or a Jerri type who is a loose end), but he made sound,rational decisions. Gretchen would started "playing" before Greg did, because he is more of an idealist.So at final 9 Gretchen theoretically could have predicted Seans alphabet stratagy and forced a tie. Greg won immunity at f10.If he hadn't,they said he would of left, but do we know for sure? He had better connections with Greg and may have kept him. He also acted on Rudys suggestion on voting with Sean at f8 to boot Jenna. Its arguable, but Gervase was less likely to start a coup, because Kelly viewed him as a threat,as opposed to Jenna. Its possible that at f7,Jenna,Colleen and Kelly would of tried to throw a coup with Seans help(which is doomed to failure because Sean was so tight with Rich, but the girls didn't know that).He also adjusted his plan to boot Kelly at f6.When she won ic, at f4 he very well may have left.Thanks to his brute strength,which is a plus,he could win the tiebreaker over Sue. I think in the right environment,anyone can lose, and anyone might look "overrated" in such a naive group like Borneos.But he has a record of sound decision making.All the talk about Rich being a loose cannon on All Stars very well could be exaggerated. As for Tina, we've already had that debate and we reached a stalemate. As for Yul, you could say his biggest piece of luck was Jonathan.He made an emotional decision to stick witht he Aitus. I haven't read any solid tactial reasoning behind that move."I want to align with the person with the idol". WHAT?! Especially with a great player like Yul,when you have a chance to get rid of the idol and get away scot free,you take it!
XtremeInnovator420		#2924	[-]
Posts: 1208 (05/16/08 8:18 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Yeah, SenseiKreese also said that Rafe completely overthought the entire thing and thought that Lydia would pull a Lill or a Kim J at the final TC, even though it wouldn't actually have happened like that.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#2925	[-]
Posts: 3607 (05/16/08 8:24 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Thats what I meant.Danni made the right move,but the decision was ultimatly Rafes
SenseiKreese		#2926	[-]
Posts: 2241 (05/16/08 9:42 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Yeah. I don't talk to Rafe much anymore but we used to talk all the time both before and after he was on Guatemala. He knew exactly what he was doing. The only problem was that he was scared to death Lydia was going to pull some immunity win out of her butt at F3 like Kim Johnson did in Africa. He was worried that her low center of gravity was going to be a huge advantage in a F3 type of challenge. Combine that with the fact that Danni was basically passing out from exhaustion just about every day towards the end of the game, and he and Steph decided to take a gamble and drag Danni's pathetic sick ass into the final three. They didn't think she would last very long but she did. Either because she was like Rocky Balboa and she was made of steel, or because she had duped everyone into thinking she was weaker than she was. I have no idea. But Rafe was always very consistent in explaining that's how it went down. Every time I'd give him shit about letting Danni win, he'd always say, "But you never saw how sick she was!" I'm certainly no fan of Rafe as a player, but I know him well enough to know he knew what he was doing. He wasn't the type of person who would make an idiot mistake. Before he went on Survivor, he was one of the smartest Survivor experts I knew. He knew everything.
RavuRules		#2927	[-]
Posts: 1657 (05/16/08 10:15 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Comments to Ravu Af for Rich, I rank him near the top not because of his reputation, but I think most people(including me when I first saw it) had an,dare I say "innaccurate" view of the game? It doesn't take a genius to take advantage of an opportunity with under excellent conditions, but because he is a "modern player" by your standards.He understands game "theory",if it can be called that. Honestly, I question his grasp of comprehensive Survivor strategy. I'd seen his comments on the old Survivor Live where he thought Eliza was a dreadful player, particularly for her wishy-washiness and selling her alliance down the river due to paranoia. Now from a Game Theory perspective, he's right in that it wasn't a rational move, and one can easily see that her lack of a truly stable foundation might have cost her game long-term. However, that still doesn't explain how Eliza did so well and account for the fact that there are many ways to play the game and do well, nor the significant luck factors involved in the game. He didn't even apply Game Theory in ASS. Now, you might argue he felt he had to do something drastic, because he was a winner. However, even with Game Theory, he failed the basics of getting in with a good solid allianceRegardless, his lower rank among the winners is mainly due to the weak competitive level of Borneo--not ASS. Like with Tina, ASS was just the confirmation that there Hatch wasn't extraordinarily special. Only about the final 7-8 players thought of alliance strategies in Borneo, and some of those people only realized it once they were alright marginalized and slapped in the face with hopelessness. Obviously, they didn't have the benefit of history, but there's little doubt that it still made them weak competitors. Just looking at Jenna Lewis before and after clearly shows how dramatically 1 can improve with that kind of knowledge. She didn't become dramatically more intelligent. She just was able to apply her already pre-existing intelligence with the new strategic lessons she learned in Borneo As you said, he suffered from incredibly bad luck on All Stars, so one may think,hes as not as good of a player as Will Kirby,who was under similar circumstances on BB. But I say that the conditions that Rich was under was different. The reputation excuse for ASS only goes so far. Now that we have another comeback season, the excuse looks even weaker with the additional data and other people to compare him to. Ozzy was essentially the Hatch of Micronesia. He was the closest thing to a winner, and the only runner-up in Palau. People were gunning after him pretty hardcore, constantly making him a target, and assuming he'd win for sure if he ever made the finals. Obviously neither won (nor would I expect either to), but Ozzy at least managed to make the jury and was blindsided by someone he considered to be like a sister to him (although Parvati clearly didn't see it that way). Parvati for her part, was gunned after hardcore for reputation bias too and managed to win the whole thing. Eliza's luck was quite bad as well, yet she managed to overcome her target status for awhile by keeping it simple and allying up with people. Hatch's luck seemed somewhat reasonable actually. Had he had a better social game and secured his alliances better at the start, I think he could've at least lasted longer than he did. Instead, he called people when he probably shouldn't have, ran around naked, spied on the girls, etc. He was with rather puritanical players who solidly believed in maintaining the original alliance and "booting threats" as soon as possible. That doesn't seem like the case with all of the members of Mogo-Mogo. Shii Ann seemed to want to work with him. And Mogo-Mogo had agreed to stick together. The main individual who screwed him was Colby, but this was arguably also in part because of Hatch's inability to forge a real bond or working relationship with Colby. Now, it may have just been bad luck. Maybe colby and the others would never have given him a chance no matter what. However, reputation bias only goes so far, since Hatch was tossed for ANOTHER winner--Ethan, who was SUPPOSED to be the tribe's original target. So that would suggest that Ethan is a better social player than Hatch to have managed to weasel himself above Hatch in the alliance structure despite coming from an entirely different tribe. Yes, Hatch was a more famous and perhaps feared player than Ethan. However, the difference between 2 winners is like the difference between like Jonathan Penner's reputation and like Amanda's. Negligible If you watch Rich in Borneo,he doesn't necessarily go after "threats"(well,everyone is ultimatly a threat, but I mean the traditional image of one, either a physical powerhouse or a Jerri type who is a loose end), but he made sound,rational decisions. Gretchen would started "playing" before Greg did, because he is more of an idealist.So at final 9 Gretchen theoretically could have predicted Seans alphabet stratagy and forced a tie. Greg won immunity at f10.If he hadn't,they said he would of left, but do we know for sure? He had better connections with Greg and may have kept him. He also acted on Rudys suggestion on voting with Sean at f8 to boot Jenna. Its arguable, but Gervase was less likely to start a coup, because Kelly viewed him as a threat,as opposed to Jenna. Its possible that at f7,Jenna,Colleen and Kelly would of tried to throw a coup with Seans help(which is doomed to failure because Sean was so tight with Rich, but the girls didn't know that).He also adjusted his plan to boot Kelly at f6.When she won ic, at f4 he very well may have left.Thanks to his brute strength,which is a plus,he could win the tiebreaker over Sue. I think in the right environment,anyone can lose, and anyone might look "overrated" in such a naive group like Borneos.But he has a record of sound decision making. It's a fair point to say he had relatively sound decision making. However, most of the winners have also had sound decision making. So it's not really enough to put him above the majority of them, when you account for the naivety of the competition. Of course, he's a good player. All the winners are, so no one's really doubting that All the talk about Rich being a loose cannon on All Stars very well could be exaggerated. He clearly acted like a loose cannon. Now, he may have had reasons for it, but there's no doubt that running around nude, avoiding early game alliances, purposely not working in camp, etc. is a risky and unconventional social strategy. It was enough for his actions to get special attention and commentary in confessionals Dr. Will. As for Tina, we've already had that debate and we reached a stalemate. How so? If it's a perception issue, then yes it's a stalemate. But if you think there are facts that haven't been covered, then that's different. I haven't really talked much to you about this stuff in awhile. I do think the analogy of an atheist and someone who's religious is somewhat appropriate here. There are some who believe certain winners (Hatch, Tina, and Heidik in particular) are master manipulators yet never provide ample proof merely having faith that the TV edit failed to capture all their real abilities on camera. Now, this may be true and these believers may be right. However, like someone who believes in God, this idea is ultimately faith and assumption driven, whereas I'm asking for tangible proof and evidence to support such assertions. Additionally, if we're to give the benefit of the doubt to certain winners, that the camera "missed" showing all their abilities in their naked glory, then shouldn't we give the same kind of assumptions to all the winners? Failure to do so constitutes "bias" in my eyes, and I don't think it's an accident that many of the most popular seasons and winners hold a close correlation with opinions on winner capabilities As for Yul, you could say his biggest piece of luck was Jonathan.He made an emotional decision to stick witht he Aitus. I don't know if I'd simplify it to just that, but Jonathan was definitely a key luck factor in Yul's success. He was someone that dependent on Yul, who Yul was able to understand and manipulate, and someone who was willing to make a high risk, high reward manuever in order to win. I would say his decision was non-rational in terms of not being a low risk, high reward manuever, but I would say it was logical in that he had decent reasoning behind the move. However, he likely was also influenced emotionally to side with Aitu given their social games and moral leverage after the mutiny Simply blaming Jonathan is definitely not accurate however, as the conditions that caused Jonathan to jump in the 1st place involved just about everybody. Technically, you might say Jonathan never really left Aitu, in that he had followed Candice thanks to an impulsive twist where he had to quickly react to things. So in that sense, even if Yul got "lucky" that Jonathan went back to him, he really wasn't "lucky" in the scheme of things, because Jonathan really shouldn't have left in the 1st place. You have to consider the entire context, not just what Quiddity likes to do and assume that taking out something like the HII means everything else would play out EXACTLY the same I haven't read any solid tactial reasoning behind that move."I want to align with the person with the idol". WHAT?! Especially with a great player like Yul,when you have a chance to get rid of the idol and get away scot free,you take it! Not necessarily. First thing's first, you don't always get rid of the idol. You get rid of the idol in most scenarios, but if your ally is true to you, it hurts you to get rid of it: (1) Why get rid of an idol that's essentially helping you, even if it's indirectly doing so? I might add, this was incredibly frustrating when I was playing with you in Aruba, as I had every intention of going to F3 with you from the moment you became an Outcast, and you kept trying to get rid of it, when me having the idol would only have benefited you. It seems like you took the "get rid of the idol" lesson learned in CI and applied it to Aruba, but you have to understand that you need to apply such "rules" when the context is appropriate. You don't ALWAYS get rid of an idol in each and every circumstance! Had you been more of a complacent ally, we might've have trusted you enough to take out bigger challenge threats like Melinda before Morgan, in which case you would've been more likely to have made F3 with the rest of us (2) The biggest problem with flushing an idol out is that the idol gets re-played and may fall into enemy hands. That can obviously be WORSE, especially if you flush it out of an ally's or working relationship's hands and it goes to like your #1 enemy or something. This kind of randomness and plan-changing game factor is often best avoided. The reason why I kept holding onto my idol was specifically for this reason. I didn't feel I needed it so much as I felt like I had to prevent others from getting it. I can definitely understand why individuals like Ozzy, Jason, or James would be inclined NOT to use an idol. It seriously turns you into, "My precious!" as Dreamz put it So in Jonathan's case, what if he flushes out Yul's idol? He pisses off all of Aitu 4 for good. What if it falls into their hands again like Ozzy? Or worse someone like Nate? Then Jonathan screwed over a perfectly good F2 deal with Yul and a chance to get back in the Aitu 4's good graces, while allowing a well connected threat like Nate get the extremely powerful idol and reap all the benefits from Jonathan playing follower I have covered the "solid tactical reasoning" before but I'll do it again. A good luck factor for Yul was ironically that his competitors in CI were so strategic and threats in and of themselves, which helped Yul become a little more UTR and less threatening in Raro and Jonathan's eyes. They were undoubtedly worried not only of Aitu but also of themselves as long-term threats. Nate was already trying to position himself where he'd be able to have the upper hand in the Raro alliance, and Jonathan was clearly uncomfortable with being Candam's strategic bitch. This I might add, would be an argument FOR submissive, reactive Kingmaker gameplay. For all those who say a player should ALWAYS take charge, play hard, and control their own destiny, I would expect no complaints about what Jonathan did To recap on the soundness of the tactical decision: (1) Jonathan was the swing vote between Raro/Aitu. He tried to change the vote to a non-Yul candidate, and they wouldn't budge, given their own strategic self-interests. This was partially underestimating Yul's ability to get the idol, underestimating Jonathan's desire to control his own fate, and also more importantly worrying strategically about one another (marginalizing Jonathan in this case). Due to mutual distrust and a lack of open communication, Raro made the mistake of playing in a way that was incompatible with Jonathan's personal gameplay style (being an overt game controller). Jonathan is the type to want to have a say in votes and be involved in decisions. Jonathan did not trust Raro enough to flat out tell them Yul had an idol, and Raro for their part didn't trust him enough to negotiate around his wishes and tried to strongarm the vote in their favor (i.e. implying Adam had the idol). This can't simply be blamed on Jonathan. He'd been the deflect boot for the last 2 rounds, and apparently Raro had not properly managed him as a strategic and social ally, at times marginalizing him or being cliquish in a way that was threatening to Jonathan strategically. He's a smart guy and the guy can sense where he is in the pecking order. I'd say the majority of the responsibility here falls on Candice. Her high risk manuever created a chain reaction of events and put more chaos into the scheme that ultimately affected her game chances in an adverse way. When you make a big play like that, you have to know that a lot of factors that you can't control might occur and can't plan for will happen in reaction. In this case, she miscalculated Sundra's loyalty to her and that Jonathan would also jump at the mutiny, which affected them both long-term. This would be an example of when conservative, low risk gameplay IS good (2) Yul's F2 deal with Jonathan was the best deal given to him at that point in the game. The only other deal that was as good was Candice, but given the Candice/Adam showmance, it's easy to see why Jonathan would feel like he's actually 3rd wheel or worse (as was likely the case). Given his 5th wheel position on Raro, you should see how taking a F2 deal even under questionable circumstances is not entirely a horrible idea if you're playing to win (3) At F9 we had the following alliance structure: Adam/Candice Adam/Parvati Adam/Candice/Parvati Candice/Jonathan Adam/Candice/Jonathan Adam/Nate Parvati/Nate Adam/Parvati/Nate Adam/Candice/Parvati/Nate Adam/Candice/Jonathan/Parvati Adam/Candice/Jonathan/Parvati/Nate Nate/Ozzy Nate/Sundra Nate/Ozzy/Sundra Yul/Jonathan Yul/Jonathan/Becky/Sundra/Ozzy Yul/Becky Yul/Sundra Yul/Becky/Sundra Yul/Becky/Sundra/Ozzy The reason why the Yul vote was so controversial was that Jonathan was hedging on how he could gain leverage in the plethora of Raro alliances listed above. Out of those 11 alliances, Jonathan is only in 4 of them. Whereas Adam is in 9/11 of them and Candice & Parvati are in 7/11 of them. Nate, while only in 5/9 of them, but he also had 3 additional connections forming with Aitu possibly. With all these power players, Jonathan's only source of new options and control was Yul, who he'd had a tight connection with back on 2nd Aitutaki. In retrospect, it's easy for Sucksters to think it's moronic to not see how Yul and Aitu were the greatest threats and that all strategic priorities should be focused on marginalizing them. However, in a real-time situation without the benefit of foresight, this dynamic is not so obvious From an overt control perspective, Jonathan gained: Yul/Jonathan Yul/Jonathan/Becky/Sundra/Ozzy Jonathan got rid of: Adam/Nate Parvati/Nate Adam/Parvati/Nate Adam/Candice/Parvati/Nate Nate/Ozzy Nate/Sundra Nate/Ozzy/Sundra While knowing that Raro would be pissed, he might've thought there was a chance to keep his Raro alliances (since they'd need him): Candice/Jonathan Adam/Candice/Jonathan Adam/Candice/Jonathan/Parvati Adam/Candice/Jonathan/Parvati/Nate And ended up empowering: Yul/Becky Yul/Sundra Yul/Becky/Sundra Yul/Becky/Sundra/Ozzy In summary, his flip gained him 2 alliances, lost him 4 alliances, eliminated 7 enemy alliances, and strengthened 4 enemy alliances for a net-gain of +1 alliances. This was obviously a game-ending decision in retrospect, since Raro cut off all strategic ties with Jonathan, whereas, had he been able to keep them he'd be up +5 alliances Had he sided with Raro and flushed the idol out then: He keeps: Candice/Jonathan Adam/Candice/Jonathan Adam/Candice/Jonathan/Parvati He loses: Adam/Candice/Jonathan/Parvati/Nate Yul/Jonathan Yul/Jonathan/Becky/Sundra/Ozzy The following are eliminated due to idol deflection: Adam/Nate Parvati/Nate Adam/Parvati/Nate Adam/Candice/Parvati/Nate Nate/Ozzy Nate/Sundra Nate/Ozzy/Sundra The following still remain in play or are strengthened: Adam/Candice Adam/Parvati Adam/Candice/Parvati Yul/Becky Yul/Sundra Yul/Becky/Sundra Yul/Becky/Sundra/Ozzy This gives him net gain of 0 alliances, while also having the idol re-played, and he also shoots up to the top of Aitu 4's hit-list, while only moving up 1 spot on the Raro ladder. Additionally, it leaves room for UTR Raro puppet masters like Parvati and Adam (who pissed off nobody with a mutiny) to start working with the Aitu 4 who are already not working with Candice and would be doubly livid at Jonathan. Then you could very well have ended up with Micronesia having Parvati run the game with Becky and Sundra as her girls. Right after Nate's boot, Parvati was already trying to work them over, and if Yul wasn't around, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd tried out their options with her
Dictatorship		#2928	[-]
Posts: 2621 (05/16/08 10:36 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Curses to whoever bumped this thread and got this troll going again.
Thailandsurvivor		#2929	[-]
Posts: 736 (05/16/08 11:34 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	As you said, he suffered from incredibly bad luck on All Stars, so one may think,hes as not as good of a player as Will Kirby,who was under similar circumstances on BB. But I say that the conditions that Rich was under was different. The reputation excuse for ASS only goes so far. Now that we have another comeback season, the excuse looks even weaker with the additional data and other people to compare him to. Ozzy was essentially the Hatch of Micronesia. He was the closest thing to a winner, and the only runner-up in Palau. People were gunning after him pretty hardcore, constantly making him a target, and assuming he'd win for sure if he ever made the finals. Obviously neither won (nor would I expect either to), but Ozzy at least managed to make the jury and was blindsided by someone he considered to be like a sister to him (although Parvati clearly didn't see it that way). Parvati for her part, was gunned after hardcore for reputation bias too and managed to win the whole thing. Eliza's luck was quite bad as well, yet she managed to overcome her target status for awhile by keeping it simple and allying up with people. Hatch's luck seemed somewhat reasonable actually. Had he had a better social game and secured his alliances better at the start, I think he could've at least lasted longer than he did. Instead, he called people when he probably shouldn't have, ran around naked, spied on the girls, etc. Based on past seasons Ozzy was the least deserving male there (I guess you can make an arguement for James, but at least he was an entertaining dumbass). I actually think that he's the second least total (next to Parv) but the fact that JAYE targetted Parv OVER Ozzy says alot about how much his game in CI was respected. The reason he was targetted later on was because he was being an arrogant douchebag to half of the cast (in addition to him being stupid enough to tell people that he had the idol). Hatch on the other hand had 0 chance to make it past the first vote. Go rewatch that tribal council and everyone elses facial expressions as they were about to take down the master of the game.
RavuRules		#2930	[-]
Posts: 1658 (05/17/08 12:05 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Curses to whoever bumped this thread and got this troll going again Maybe if I ignore this attention whore he'll get some real friends and leave Based on past seasons Ozzy was the least deserving male there (I guess you can make an arguement for James, but at least he was an entertaining dumbass). Your dislike for him aside, Ozzy was 1 of the most popular post-ASS castaways and widely seen as 1 of the most deserving runner-ups ever I actually think that he's the second least total (next to Parv) but the fact that JAYE targetted Parv OVER Ozzy says alot about how much his game in CI was respected. Well, he's an alpha male. As in, an asset to the tribe and the Favorites own self interest. His social game was actually alright at the start, and the reason why Parvati was targeted first isn't really saying anything bad about Ozzy but saying a lot about Parvati The reason he was targetted later on was because he was being an arrogant douchebag to half of the cast (in addition to him being stupid enough to tell people that he had the idol). The idol aside, he clearly was targeted for being a huge jury threat not being a "douchebag". They said so in the TV show edit and elsewhere. You clearly don't like the guy, and I mean, he was irritating based on the TV edit. I'm not interested in re-writing history here though Hatch on the other hand had 0 chance to make it past the first vote. Go rewatch that tribal council and everyone elses facial expressions as they were about to take down the master of the game. Before Colby actively started trying to get him out, it seemed like he was fine. Naturally, there's a part of everyone who wanted to get rid of him given his reputation, but let's not blow things out of proportion. The entire tribe agreed to take out Ethan 1st and stick together. The plan got actively changed. It didn't simply happen on its own and the decision for that vote was far from conclusive with us getting special confessionals from Kathy about how she was surprised to have become the swing vote
Thailandsurvivor		#2931	[-]
Posts: 737 (05/17/08 12:29 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	The way Tracy talked about him, the way Ami left, the way Jason was calling him cocky and arrogant, and the way his boot episode was all about him being too confident? Maybe it is just my bias, but my point was that Ozzy and Hatch can't compare in any way. Everyone in Micronesia was booted for a reason in this game. None of the favorites were voted off because of how well they did in the past (unless you want to say Yau, but he brought his boot onto himself.) In ASS, the editing made it look like Ethan was the boot, but I really doubt there was any way Hatch could survive just like Rob C. had zero chance. The better players were targetted in the first ASS. There were also pre game alliances in that season, but none of that crap happened here. The excuse can be used in ASS, but as much as I like Yau, Ami, and Eliza it can't be used here.
Kitty Pryde1		#2932	[-]
Posts: 4163 (05/17/08 12:51 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Yeah, Ravu. If anything, you can apply your same "It was an early season so people didn't know any better" to Micronesia vs. ASS. The first All-Stars, people didn't know how to play, so you had idiots like Lex voting off every strong member of his own tribe. This season, there was a lot more positioning and less trying to take people out early based on previous reputations.
RavuRules		#2933	[-]
Posts: 1659 (05/17/08 12:51 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	The way Tracy talked about him, the way Ami left, the way Jason was calling him cocky and arrogant, and the way his boot episode was all about him being too confident? That's the classic mid-game karma edit that plenty of Survivors have had like Rotu 4, Candice, or the Horsemen. No one had a problem with him over at Ponderosa, and he got along fine with all those people. Ami said she was rooting for him in post-game interviews as well Maybe it is just my bias, but my point was that Ozzy and Hatch can't compare in any way. Everyone in Micronesia was booted for a reason in this game. Same with All-Stars. The #1 reason why Ozzy was booted was that Parvati felt she couldn't win against him if she sat next to him on the jury. Cirie and just about everybody felt the same way. That's reputation and it's totally comparable. Everyone feared him None of the favorites were voted off because of how well they did in the past (unless you want to say Yau, but he brought his boot onto himself.) With comeback seasons, it's a mixture of both. People are voted off for reputation, past games, and of course the current game. Reputation or past history may create a scapegoat justification to target somebody, but ultimately, their ability to deal with and mitigate that threat status is determined by their abilities in the game. It's bias to give everybody in ASS a bye for reputation and not Micronesia, just because everybody's been giving them that excuse for so long In ASS, the editing made it look like Ethan was the boot, but I really doubt there was any way Hatch could survive just like Rob C. had zero chance. The "I" part is your bias. If something looks like A, why would you automatically assume B? Why would you take B as fact, when the evidence suggests A? I'm not saying you can't be right, but doesn't it make more sense to go with A? If you're siding with B out of faith or instinct, especially in the face of contrary evidence then that indicates "bias". Now if you have solid evidence to back up B it's a different thing. Guesses, theories, and home-spun alone do not count as "evidence" though The better players were targetted in the first ASS. There were also pre game alliances in that season, but none of that crap happened here. The excuse can be used in ASS, but as much as I like Yau, Ami, and Eliza it can't be used here. The "better" players were targeted in the 1st ASS? Or the higher ranked folk just happened to be knocked out earlier and then people are applying the "reputation" excuse? Rudy was knocked out 2nd due to his foot problems, not because he was a threatening 3rd place finisher. Jenna Morasca, 1 of the winners quit because of her Mom. The correlation of her placement and early evacuation was a coincidence. And as we know Chapera, who had the most lowest rankers of ASS dominated the competitions, increasing the chances that the "better players" went home earlier. There are clear reasons why the people went home earlier went home, and chalking it all up to reputation alone just isn't cutting it I don't see how pre-game alliances has to do with the reputation thing. While I believe they may have existed, I still haven't heard any verified accounts of actual pre-game alliances Yau-Man was targeted by Cirie both for in-game and past-game reasons. She knew he was a likeable threat, he was clearly the most popular Favorite in the entire game, and 1 of the main reasons why he was ousted was that he was aligned with Jonathan, and she didn't trust him, because of HIS reputation. Reputations played a HUGE role in this game. Eliza, was targeted by the Couples alliance right off the bat, because Ozzy had heard that she was shifty and unreliable from her Vanuatu floater game. Again, past reputation, even if it's not involving ranking specifically. Ami, not so much. I don't think that came into play for her as much, besides everyone kind of knowing she'd probably be aligned with Eliza
panurge46		#2934	[-]
Posts: 1016 (05/17/08 1:18 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	SwineForkbeard wrote: That's a pretty nebulous thing to give somebody credit for. Strictly speaking, Parvati contributed little to Airai's immunity streak. And if you're going to credit her for unquantifiable factors like "team spirit" it's worth remembering that Eliza probably contributed more to those immunity wins than anybody else, and she called Parvati a "mean person" who made fun of her. First, I think the whole tribe deserves credit for being able to work together compared to NuMalakal who let conflicts grow. Concerning Parvati's own role, it wasn't so nebulous as far as Game Theory goes. In Malakal, Parvati was running the show with Ozzy. In NuAirai, according to Kathy, Jonathan was calling the shots as far as challenge strategy was concerned. For someone to let a rival take the lead and not make waves is very important. Parvati could have tried to lead a revolt to take over and probably signed her own death warrant. Instead, she changed roles, played the follower and that could only have helped create the bond with Nat and Alexis who were also followers, not leaders. Once more, Parvati "Let the King Sit Pretty". "It sounded like Airai had an obvious pecking order, and was hardly a stereotypical happy tribe where everybody felt included." You're almost right: A stereotypical happy tribe is usually happy because they don't have a pecking order. They boot who annoys them at the time or who messes up a challenge. Think of Zhan Hu, Raro, Ulong and Pagong. A tribe with an obvious pecking order need not be happy; they have a leader who isn't necessarily liked by all. It's almost "do your job and shut up". Think of Fei Long, Koror and Tagi. But Airai was in neither of those situations. Airai was a tribe with 2 leaders, two pecking orders, and sometimes those tribes go up in flames. Think of Samburu. Parvati and Jonathan both had their pecking orders. My point above was that Parvati can be credited for going along with Jonathan to make Airai work together and win a few challenges. Playing the game by stages and not rushing anything gave Parvati enough time for her social game to become effective. Soon, Jason became the biggest target. As far as Outback is concerned, I've decided to let Ravu do his own digging. It's his "thesis", it's his credibilty so he should do the work. I had brought him an interview by Mitchell where he gave an almost minute by minute description of events that led to Tina deciding to vote him out and Ravu still thinks Keith was the mastermind. What can be done with that? Last Edited By: panurge46 05/17/08 1:47 PM. Edited 1 times.
XtremeInnovator420		#2935	[-]
Posts: 1214 (05/17/08 1:50 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	You know, I have to say, the comparison between the 2 tribe types is kind of interesting. It makes me wonder how you'd rank Casaya, lol. Also, almost sounds like having 2 leaders for 2 different aspects helped the tribe a lot instead of hurting it.
panurge46		#2936	[-]
Posts: 1017 (05/17/08 2:08 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	We saw that Casaya was a leaderless tribe at first, a ship without a rudder that was on a losing streak against the ideal, 1 leader tribe of LaMina. The recap episode showed what was Casaya's turn-around when they elected Aras as their leader. From that moment, Casaya was the weirdest, most conflicted, sort of ideal tribe ever!! But they listened to that 1 leader... most of the time. The Crazy Casayans were fun to watch. Having a leader in challenges and 1 deciding the voting order could be beneficial but you need a special kind of leader, read a blind one, to accept leading a tribe in challenges but not controlling the votes. The best example was Lopevi where Sarge built up the team for challenges but didn't know how to break it down. Chris took that role, for better (mostly for himself) or worse (for everybody else). Usually, tribes with 2 leaders have huge conflicts and few survive. Ogakor was one of the ones that survived because Tina was able to take the power away from Jerri without destroying the tribe. Samburu and Yasur weren't so lucky.
RavuRules		#2937	[-]
Posts: 1660 (05/17/08 2:09 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	As far as Outback is concerned, I've decided to let Ravu do his own digging. It's his "thesis", it's his credibilty so he should do the work. I've already done the work. I've looked all around for stuff on Outback and it's just an old season. We've covered this all many times. If there's extra or new information that needs to be brought to light, then obviously that'd be on you and anyone else. If you have such a strong opinion that contradicts the TV edit, then it would indicate that you have some solid counter-evidence (and you've brought up some stuff but none of them really contradict it) or that you just have a heavy emotional bias which makes you stand by your faith like a Christian to the Bible's truth I had brought him an interview by Mitchell where he gave an almost minute by minute description of events that led to Tina deciding to vote him out and Ravu still thinks Keith was the mastermind. What can be done with that? And I DID address it. Quite a bit I might add. That was Page 127 and probably some other ones too. The key contribution of that interview was that Tina figured out who Kimmi voted for which would later break the tie-breaker. Other than that, none of the account actually contradicts the TV edit where we saw Keith doing all the dirty work for the alliance. Until I see a blatant sign that Tina was the mastermind who had already mapped out that she was going to turn on Jerri/Mitchell/Amber and had purposely been controlling Keith/Colby from the start, I'm obviously going to go with what I saw with my own eyes. From the TV edit, Tina didn't start really taking countermeasures to Jerri/Amber/Mitchell until AFTER Jerri called out their friendship at TC, and even then, it seemed more like a cooperative effort between Keith/Colby with Colby being the best positioned of the 3 (and 6 for that matter), and Keith doing all the scrambling. Your interviews don't contradict any of this at all
panurge46		#2938	[-]
Posts: 1018 (05/17/08 2:37 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Ravu, you weren't there, either in the Outback or even watching week to week and reading all the interviews. I don't want to get into it again. If you think I'm blinded by faith, at times you sound like you think the earth is flat. I'll just add the following: - Do you know what it took Tina to get Colby to vote with Keith against Mitchell? She had to promise him that Keith wouldn't be given a chance to win the million. Kinda also explains why HE couldn't take Keith at the end. - It wasn't Jerri talking about her friendship that forced the move. It was the losing streak. That's what convinced Tina first and then Colby it had to be done. Just before leaving for TC, you hear Colby saying Keith has no idea he's going. Then you hear Tina voting and saying, something happended on the walk to TC. That, right there, should tell you the TV edit was incomplete. The internet went looking everywhere for what happened. Finally, Mitchell told us and now you what happened. You've ignored it. Tina's scheming happened during the walk. Last Edited By: panurge46 05/17/08 2:43 PM. Edited 1 times.
craig		#2939	[-]
Posts: 13157 (05/17/08 2:58 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Parvati was the 3rd best player in challenges for New Aariai, behind Eliza and Jason. Eliza won it with a comback in the puzzle portion of the ep 5 and 7 ICs and her and Jason did all the real work in the ep8 IC (Parv sitting out was just letting her friend Nat have a turn, it's not like swinging the bags was hard). In ep6 IC it was a combo of James's strength and Eliza\Parv balancing on the poles. Eliza\Parv were also the MVP of the ep5 cat and mouse RC which got the winning streak started. Jonathan only played in one IC for them. Parv also didn't give 100% in the Final IC because she new both girls would take her and didn't want to boot one of them off. She alos found the idol but didn't bring it back for stategic reasons.
RavuRules		#2940	[-]
Posts: 1661 (05/17/08 3:07 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Ravu, you weren't there, either in the Outback or even watching week to week and reading all the interviews. I don't want to get into it again. If you think I'm blinded by faith, at times you sound like you think the earth is flat. It's why I've given you as much leeway as I have. But saying that the burden of proof is on me? Is that reasonable given that you know I don't have access to those interviews? Clearly, you are convinced that she is Benedict Tina for a reason. I'm asking for concrete ways in which she was the mastermind. Tell me techniques, or specific instances of manipulation, etc. Simply saying she was a mastermind vaguely isn't enough though, and playing the "You weren't around. You're disqualified from any kind of judging of early seasons" card obviously isn't going to sit well with me. If I'm misinformed about things, then it'd be your job to get me up to speed appropriately I'll just add the following: - Do you know what it took Tina to get Colby to vote with Keith against Mitchell? She had to promise him that Keith wouldn't be given a chance to win the million. Kinda also explains why HE couldn't take Keith at the end. So you're saying that she offered Colby a F2 deal. It doesn't excuse why he didn't simply break the deal for the $500,000 though, especially since that deal favored her more than him as we saw - It wasn't Jerri talking about her friendship that forced the move. It was the losing streak. That's what convinced Tina first and then Colby it had to be done. I'm sure it was a bit of both. I mean, Tina flat out said that was a motivating factor in the TV edit. Anyways, we know the losing streak is partly a result of your "Game Theory" of booting Kel out so early Just before leaving for TC, you hear Colby saying Keith has no idea he's going. Then you hear Tina voting and saying, something happended on the walk to TC. That, right there, should tell you the TV edit was incomplete. Well we know that. The TV edits are always incomplete (hence, the "edit"). They do it to create suspense and arguably to create story lines. However, that also doesn't make them completely fictional by default either. Just because there is no proof against God doesn't mean he exists and vice versa. Ultimately, Colby was the swing vote in that scenario, and the decision and power was his. At best, Tina could have been the 1 to manipulate and sway his mind at the last minute, but we don't have any clear support for that, nor would it be a particularly amazing accomplishment given that we know Colby's strategic intuitions are somewhat average The internet went looking everywhere for what happened. Finally, Mitchell told us and now you what happened. You've ignored it. Tina's scheming happened during the walk. Again, even if I accept that, at best Tina would get credit for social game. And we've already seen how her social game has limits. If Colby made all his Outback blunders because of Tina, then that's basically the extent of her abilities. She had no real emotional foothold on Jerri or Amber in Outback, and she couldn't sway Rupert/Rudy in ASS. I wouldn't expect her too. It's really tough to have natural connections to everybody Even if Tina has been a mastermind, most of the winners have been "masterminds" in terms of results. I would imagine that if I'm underrating her, then at best, she is like Cirie's level of social and strategic game. There will numerous scenarios where Tina won't be able to finish or make her way into the jury, whereas other winners could do just about the same as she can and also possibly win immunities when necessary

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Winner Analysis

Quick Reply