Rank the 2nd Placers

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
RavuRules		#461	[-]
Posts: 1544 (01/16/08 1:43 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	So what, you're speculating that Colby would have beaten Keith. How can you call something a blunder without speculating that there were better options available, and predicting the result of scenarios that didn't happen? There are degrees of speculation though. I'm not saying you can't speculate at all. This whole forum is about that. But something like the Colby decision where people on the jury even questioned his final decision is a lot different from the Tom/Rupert scenario, where the contestants couldn't predict the F4 challenge, where we don't know what Tom/Rupert/Jenna would've done, and how all those things would affect Romber's end-game. There are is significantly more speculation involved in that, which involves 2 rounds of gameplay plus the jury, whereas the Colby decision is mostly a matter of jury opinion and much more limited contingencies. They're not on the same level in terms of comparing the 2. It's like comparing how many permutations of different finishes a final 4 group can have versus a final 16 And if we can do that, why can't we speculate that there were better, or at least safer, options in situations where people took unnecessary risks when they should have known better? You can, but without data all people won't never come to an absolute agreement on whether something was safe, not safe, better, or worse. You can argue in circles and no one would ever know the answer much like religion. It becomes, "He said. She said. He said again. She said again. Etc.) There's no getting around the speculation, so you can't cite that as grounds to dismiss an argument. I didn't dismiss it. Just saying, that Romber booting Rupert vs. Tom speculation is far more ambiguous than the Colby's F2 decision speculation. Even if we assume it was a "bad" move overall, as I have conceded thanks to your argument from long ago, it still seems far worse than what Colby did. Rob arguably lost Tom's vote which is 1 for that decision. Colby arguably lost 0-4, but based on what jurors and fans have said, it seems like he lost at least 2 or more which is worse than what Rob did quantitatively
SwineForkbeard		#462	[-]
Posts: 1409 (01/16/08 6:53 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	RavuRules wrote: But something like the Colby decision where people on the jury even questioned his final decision is a lot different from the Tom/Rupert scenario, where the contestants couldn't predict the F4 challenge, where we don't know what Tom/Rupert/Jenna would've done, and how all those things would affect Romber's end-game. What do you mean we don't know what Tom/Rupert/Jenna would've done? We know what they would've done the same way we know what the Outback jury would've done had Colby faced Keith. Their comments after All Stars gave us no reason to doubt that they would have done exactly what you'd expect them to do. Tom insisted in his interviews that he was completely, unconditionally loyal to Romber, and Rupert was completely, unconditionally loyal to Jenna. And judging from their actions in the two games they played, they all seemed like fairly cautious and predictable players, especially Tom and Rupert. If we take their word for it, that's all the information we need to know that Romber's odds of both advancing to the final 3 would have been better had Tom been there at the final 4 instead of Rupert. The immunity challenge would probably have been irrelevant, so I don't understand how you would defend Romber's actions by pointing out that they couldn't predict what the challenge would be. All the more reason not to put their game on the line pending the outcome of that challenge. There are is significantly more speculation involved in that, which involves 2 rounds of gameplay plus the jury, whereas the Colby decision is mostly a matter of jury opinion and much more limited contingencies. It does not involve 2 rounds of gameplay plus the jury if we're just talking about Romber's ultimate goal of getting both of them to the final 2. In every instance I've brought this up, I've never given any thought to what might have happened later on had Rupert won immunity, resulting in a tie, and either Morono or Amber picked the purple rock. I always presumed neither could win against Rupert or Jenna, so if one of them were knocked out at the final 4, what happened after that wasn't really significant as far as they were concerned. Even if we assume it was a "bad" move overall, as I have conceded thanks to your argument from long ago, it still seems far worse than what Colby did. I think you mean not as bad as what Colby did, but far be it from me to correct you. Colby's move is more open to interpretion, since his priorities appear to have been different from most people's. I agree with colleenlover that Colby's state of mind and awareness of the situation he was in is significant in assessing whether what he did was right or wrong. There was an insider clip where Elisabeth speculated that he took Tina to the end because of his competitive nature. I took that to mean that a cheap, easy win against someone nobody respected wouldn't have meant as much to him, so he figured that if he couldn't win against a worthy opponent, he didn't deserve to win at all. From what he said after it was over, it sounded like the money didn't mean much to him either. When he appeared on the Howard Stern show, Howard berated him mercilessly for what he did, and insisted that Tina was a greedy, manipulative phony who had used him to get the million (I've often wondered if that was the origin of the grandiose impression of Tina many people here seem to have), and claimed that Jeff Probst had spoken to him since the show had aired and agreed with him. I seem to recall that Colby stood his ground, and argued that the million dollars wasn't enough of an incentive to make him compromise on what he felt was right at the time. Then Howard asked if he would have voted Tina out had the prize money been ten million for first and nothing for second, and Colby said he probably would have, which indicated at least that he knew that was the move to make if his main priority had been winning the money. So I would hesitate to call what he did stupid, since he was willing to accept the consequences for it, and never expressed any regret over it. All I can say is that it's not what I would have done. Last Edited By: SwineForkbeard 01/16/08 6:58 AM. Edited 1 times.
RavuRules		#463	[-]
Posts: 1545 (01/16/08 9:19 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	What do you mean we don't know what Tom/Rupert/Jenna would've done? We know what they would've done the same way we know what the Outback jury would've done had Colby faced Keith. Their comments after All Stars gave us no reason to doubt that they would have done exactly what you'd expect them to do. Tom insisted in his interviews that he was completely, unconditionally loyal to Romber, and Rupert was completely, unconditionally loyal to Jenna. Assuming this is true, there are still plenty of unanswered questions that remain up in the air which is my issue with this particular speculation. First off, you have conveniently left off Jenna Lewis, who not only turned on Rupert at F3, but was a big question mark in terms of strategy, because her gameplay was nothing like her performance in Borneo. Second, it involves assumptions over who would win the F4 immunity. If Tom was in the F4, what if he won it instead? Same with F3. While I find it unlikely, it's always possible, in which case, Rob (not to mention Amber) finds himself with a very popular big Tom in the finals with him which isn't "better" for him at all. While the Colby decision involves 7 assumptions (the jury votes), the Romber decision to boot Rupert over Tom involves 7 assumptions + a bunch of other assumptions regarding outlasting, voting, and challenge performance for at least 2 rounds. They are not the same And judging from their actions in the two games they played, they all seemed like fairly cautious and predictable players, especially Tom and Rupert. If we take their word for it, that's all the information we need to know that Romber's odds of both advancing to the final 3 would have been better had Tom been there at the final 4 instead of Rupert. Again, no it isn't. First off, that's "if we take their word for it". We can know what was in their heads in retrospect, but Romber couldn't have know that out there for 100% sure. Amber, JLew, and others changed a lot, so assuming that Tom and Rupert were the same type of players as Africa and PI is not an assumption I'd simply rely on for $1 mil. 2nd, even if we do take their word for it, that still doesn't negate the possibility of Tom going on some unexpected immunity run. While I don't think he would, you just never know. But what I do know is that Rupert doesn't go on an immunity run, and Jenna Lewis turns on Rupert, so Amber's decision was good, and Rob's probably still alright overall. So what your proposing as obvious does not seem instinctual to me at all The immunity challenge would probably have been irrelevant, so I don't understand how you would defend Romber's actions by pointing out that they couldn't predict what the challenge would be. All the more reason not to put their game on the line pending the outcome of that challenge. Why would it have been irrelevant, and how should Romber have known that? BTW, I'm not defending Romber, I was commenting how Colby's decision was worse for more obvious reasons than any blunder Rob might've made at F5 It does not involve 2 rounds of gameplay plus the jury if we're just talking about Romber's ultimate goal of getting both of them to the final 2. In every instance I've brought this up, I've never given any thought to what might have happened later on had Rupert won immunity, resulting in a tie, and either Morono or Amber picked the purple rock. I always presumed neither could win against Rupert or Jenna, so if one of them were knocked out at the final 4, what happened after that wasn't really significant as far as they were concerned. If Rupert wins immunity (a what-if situation which never occurred), then we assume that there is a tie-breaker and this brings in the tie-breaker assumption. You say it would be "purple rock," but I do not know if this is for sure. Is it? I haven't seen any sources saying that ASS would've had a purple rock tie-breaker. I don't disbelieve it, but I'm not really clear that is obvious either. And if you're making what-if situations about immunity, then that same thing about Rupert winning immunity can be said about Tom winning 2 immunities. You can say that about anyone regarding any decision. "What if so-and-so won immunity? Then their decision was HORRIBLE because they would get booted!". At F4 when there are limited possibilities, it's silly to be blaming people for bad decisions if 1 person that you hand-pick for the sake of argument were to win immunity. Obviously, losing probabilities increase dramatically, when someone at F4 gets an immunity, and losing almost automatically implies that a bad decision was made somewhere down the line. What you're essentially saying is that, "If Romber made a bad decision (because Rupert won immunity), then that means they made a bad decision" which is a fallacious argument. If Rupert won F4, then their decision becomes bad in terms of results. Because Rupert did not win the F4 immunity, their decision remained good in terms of results I think you mean not as bad as what Colby did, but far be it from me to correct you. Colby's move is more open to interpretion, since his priorities appear to have been different from most people's. His priorities are not that relevant from a winning perspective. If you use that excuse, then you can say the same about Rob I agree with colleenlover that Colby's state of mind and awareness of the situation he was in is significant in assessing whether what he did was right or wrong. There was an insider clip where Elisabeth speculated that he took Tina to the end because of his competitive nature. I took that to mean that a cheap, easy win against someone nobody respected wouldn't have meant as much to him, so he figured that if he couldn't win against a worthy opponent, he didn't deserve to win at all. Yeah, that's a horrible argument. If that was his motive, then he was cocky like I said for underestimating his opponent. Then he'd rather risk losing to a worthy opponent versus going up against an easy win? That means he wasn't completely focused on the win and thinking of life concepts like sportsmanship (which I balk at anyways, considering the nature of this game). This is a game for $1 million. You mean, he'd rather lie, deceive, and tarnish his integrity in selective incidences to get himself further in the game, but he's not willing to take out a bigger competitor when he earned the right with an immunity win? Suddenly, his actions look a heck of a lot more hypocritical, manipulated, and moralizing if that is indeed his reasons for doing what he did. That brings in questions like what made Tina an inherently more worthy competitor to take to the end instead of someone like Rodger? Or Amber? Or Nick? That is why even the Outback jurors questioned his decision From what he said after it was over, it sounded like the money didn't mean much to him either. When he appeared on the Howard Stern show, Howard berated him mercilessly for what he did, and insisted that Tina was a greedy, manipulative phony who had used him to get the million (I've often wondered if that was the origin of the grandiose impression of Tina many people here seem to have), and claimed that Jeff Probst had spoken to him since the show had aired and agreed with him. I seem to recall that Colby stood his ground, and argued that the million dollars wasn't enough of an incentive to make him compromise on what he felt was right at the time. Then Howard asked if he would have voted Tina out had the prize money been ten million for first and nothing for second, and Colby said he probably would have, which indicated at least that he knew that was the move to make if his main priority had been winning the money. So I would hesitate to call what he did stupid, since he was willing to accept the consequences for it, and never expressed any regret over it. All I can say is that it's not what I would have done. Thank you for this extended information It's the 1st time you really seem blatantly biased though Swine. You come down very hard on Romber, which I assume is because you dislike them, but here you are making all kinds of allowances for Colby. First off, you have said it yourself that a lot of players justify their actions after the game is over and talk about morality because it's the only thing left they can take from the game. To me, the obvious thing to say about a decision made by a huge blunder the size of what Colby did is to talk about integrity and try to preserve his public image and personal self-image. The 2 main thing most contestants are concerned with post-game is game reputation and integrity reputation. The losers have a harder time explaining their gameplay in light of failures, but most of them feel they played with a certain degree of integrity at the least. It's the least you want to come out of the game with Now I'm not saying what Colby is saying isn't true. But I'm personally not really buying it. I saw him in Outback making numerous confessionals about how this was a game and how he was there to win. I also saw him vote out 14 other people and suffer through harsh Australia conditions. I'm supposed to believe he wasn't motivated in the least by $1 million? He seemed absolutely crushed to me at the reunion. Obviously I'm assuming just from my biases and looking at him, but he was stuttering all over the place, and he just seemed really sad. Who wouldn't be in his situation? It does not seem like he was expecting that loss at all. His happiness for Tina's win at the finale seem way too happy to the point of being weirdly forced. I can be happy for other people, but I wouldn't be ECSTATIC at MY loss for $1 million. What really hurts his credibility is those in-game confessionals though indicating that what he said outside the game was not in-line with his original intentions. His motivations might've changed out there in the Outback, but that seems less likely. If that's the case, then it still hurt his game, because it marginalized its importance to him to the extent of him being meh about it all and ruining his competitive spirit
colleenlover		#464	[-]
Posts: 7611 (01/16/08 9:36 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Ravu, I still never understand your rationale that because something didn't happen, it makes it all right for the person that it worked out for. If you were an investment advisor, I'd be pretty weary. First off, you have conveniently left off Jenna Lewis, who not only turned on Rupert at F3, but was a big question mark in terms of strategy, because her gameplay was nothing like her performance in Borneo. But from Rob and Amber's perspective, as soon as they voted out Tom they were worried about how to get around Jenna and Rupert as a unit. Again, I won't really debate with you because our thinking is so vastly different.
RavuRules		#465	[-]
Posts: 1547 (01/16/08 10:07 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Ravu, I still never understand your rationale that because something didn't happen, it makes it all right for the person that it worked out for. If you were an investment advisor, I'd be pretty weary. Your investment analogy doesn't make much sense to me, and somewhat offensive (although I know it's unintended) to me since I'm working in that field. I didn't say it's entirely excusable, but "results" would suggest that probabilities favored the plan that the one who benefited from was successful or optimal. The problem I have is that people are assuming worst case scenarios and trying to use that to justify the decisions that were made. Well yeah, if you do that, then the decision is going to be flawed if you're already assuming the worst case scenario. It's sort of circular logic and thus a fallacy First off, you have conveniently left off Jenna Lewis, who not only turned on Rupert at F3, but was a big question mark in terms of strategy, because her gameplay was nothing like her performance in Borneo. But from Rob and Amber's perspective, as soon as they voted out Tom they were worried about how to get around Jenna and Rupert as a unit. Again, I won't really debate with you because our thinking is so vastly different. No I see what you're saying, and I've said that was probably a blunder for Rob in terms of taking the on-paper optimal strategic move. That still doesn't compare to Colby's though. Rob's calculations required significantly more assumptions and ambiguity. Saying that Rob didn't understand his situation versus Colby doesn't really mean much to me given the contrast in complexity in the 2 games they both had to play (Rob had twists galore, outside relationships to contend with, and a confusing F5 situation involving challenges and votes that could go multiple ways)
Kitty Pryde1		#466	[-]
Posts: 1975 (01/16/08 12:28 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Colby's blunder wasn't THAT bad by comparison to Rob's. He went from a 100% chance against Keith that he would've been unsatisfied with, to what he thought was a 75-80% chance against Tina that he WOULD have been satisfied with. He couldn't have known what the jury would've done. He probably thought that Tina was just his coattail rider, while he was the up-front challenge winner and dominator. Too bad he didn't realize that Tina had been controlling the game the whole time. Rob and Amber put themselves in a very precarious position with much worse odds, especially Amber. By getting rid of Tom, they only pissed off one person instead of two, but that meant that the two people would vote for Rob over Amber. That's two votes Amber lost because of this decision. Also, by getting rid of Tom, that gives them a fifty-fifty shot of getting to the final 3 together, because Jenna and Rupert might stick together and vote off whoever loses the immunity challenge. They had no way of knowing that Jenna would be as stupid as them, putting her fate in the final immunity challenge. Things worked out for them, but it was still a horrible move that could've easily gotten one, or both of them voted off before the final 2. Either way, they have no chance at winning.
panurge46		#467	[-]
Posts: 819 (01/16/08 12:40 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Ravu, you seem to forget part of the context of Colby's decision. Remember that it was Tina that had to promise Colby that Keith wasn't going to the end when they voted out Mitchell. The third loss in a row was what forced Tina and Colby to break up the alliance of 5. From the start, Colby insisted that Tina promise him not to let Keith make it to the end. Things changed somewhat and Colby got along with Keith for most of the game and the edit made it look even more that way. By the F5, we heard Colby talk very negatively about Keith. Didn't it seem to come a bit out of nowhere? His feelings against KantKookKeith went all the way back to the start of the game. How could Colby take Keith instead of Tina after all that?
XtremeInnovator420		#468	[-]
Posts: 759 (01/16/08 12:44 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Since we're talking about the F4 situation, does anyone know whether or not Rupert would've forced a tie at F4 had he won immunity? Has he ever commented on this?
Kitty Pryde1		#469	[-]
Posts: 1977 (01/16/08 12:50 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Rupert's fiercely loyal, to the point where, even though he disliked Jenna, he never wanted to vote her out, because she was his ally.
XtremeInnovator420		#470	[-]
Posts: 760 (01/16/08 1:08 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	So that would be a "Yeah, he probably would've" answer, then?
RavuRules		#471	[-]
Posts: 1551 (01/16/08 1:17 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Colby's blunder wasn't THAT bad by comparison to Rob's. He went from a 100% chance against Keith that he would've been unsatisfied with, to what he thought was a 75-80% chance against Tina that he WOULD have been satisfied with. Well, it apparently WAS that bad since that 75-80% chance he thought he had was really 0% in terms of results. Also, somehow, I think the poor guy would get over his dissatisfaction with compromising his promise to Tina when he would be lauded as the champion of Outback with $500,000 in his pocket He couldn't have known what the jury would've done. He probably thought that Tina was just his coattail rider, while he was the up-front challenge winner and dominator. Too bad he didn't realize that Tina had been controlling the game the whole time. Technically, no one knows for sure what any jury will do, but there are certain patterns and trends that seem pretty consistent. 1 is that many juries prefer to vote based on who they feel "deserves" to win the game and despite bitterness, many are at least somewhat elastic in their ethical expectations from the finalists. Colby's mistake is understandable now that we have a historical track-record and data to figure out what constitutes good jury management. That doesn't excuse the severity of his mistake from a comparative standpoint however. For his time, Colby's decision was justified. If we compare him to others from different seasons though, naive Outback Colby made 1 of the worst moves in the history of Survivor--if not the worst. From a fatalistic standpoint, Colby almost never stood a chance at winning because he wasn't mentally prepared enough to make the proper decision at the end. It's a lot like Amanda in terms of choking and it being a problem with just not knowing how to close the deal Rob and Amber put themselves in a very precarious position with much worse odds, especially Amber. By getting rid of Tom, they only pissed off one person instead of two, but that meant that the two people would vote for Rob over Amber. Hmmm. I never thought of it this way. So maybe Rob did NOT make a bad move by getting rid of Tom. Either way, when people criticize Romber for booting Tom at F5, you can't really knock both of them for that. You're sort of either knocking either Rob or either Amber, because we're talking about jury votes with Tom or Jenna/Rupert tipping the scales towards 1 or the other. In this case, I think Amber still benefits the most from that, because there's no telling whether Jenna and Rupert still vote for Rob to win even after a backstab. I think the moral of the story is that there's a lot of speculation involved with Romber and what was the most optimal move, while with Outback, the answer is a lot more clear-cut on what Colby should've done TO WIN That's two votes Amber lost because of this decision. Also, by getting rid of Tom, that gives them a fifty-fifty shot of getting to the final 3 together, because Jenna and Rupert might stick together and vote off whoever loses the immunity challenge. She also won a vote, so it's a net loss of 1 vote. That means Amber won a jury vote with perhaps suboptimal gameplay which isn't too shabby, and it also means Rob was a better runner-up than some are giving him credit for. The whole Jenna/Rupert thing is understandable, but as we saw, less probable in terms of results, so Romber made a good call on that one. If they didn't predict it, then they still get credit for making it happen They had no way of knowing that Jenna would be as stupid as them, putting her fate in the final immunity challenge. Jenna had the choice between banking on the PROD and maybe having a better chance in the final immunity challenge versus being ensured into a F3. If in fact, she survived the PROD, and Rupert did NOT go home, then she's up against Rupert and Amber in the F3, and she has to hope that she or Amber wins. If Rupert won and took her to F2 with him she loses. So it's a matter of: 33% chance of surviving F4 + 66% chance of getting desired F3 outcome vs. 100% chance of surviving F4 + 33% chance of getting desired F3 outcome It's not really clear cut, and I think her decision was somewhat reasonable. Even against, her desired F3 outcome with Amber taking her to F2, and Amber having to vote Rupert out, then we have the following jury scenario: Amber = Shii Ann, Rob, maybe Alicia Jenna = Kathy, Lex, Tom, Rupert, maybe Alicia I'd assume Jenna would win over Amber, but it's possible Alicia and Tom's in-game distaste for Jenna might carry over into the final vote. And Lex and Tom were mostly upset at Rob, so they might not have given Amber the same wrath as they did him. Rob was the one who made the promise to Alicia, and Alicia disliked Jenna during the game, so I think she'd voted for her Outback mate Amber, but I really don't know what she'd do This is of course, assuming that Amber must vote Rupert out. Maybe Amber is the one to pull a Hatch and not Jenna, and Jenna must win the final immunity and take Amber, in which case she is the 1 who has to break her promise to Rupert, and then Amber gets his vote In conclusion, maybe we should perhaps thanks Jenna for saving us from the most unpopular F2 ever and perhaps worst case-ASS scenario possible and ending to most fans lol Things worked out for them, but it was still a horrible move that could've easily gotten one, or both of them voted off before the final 2. Either way, they have no chance at winning. Then it's not "horrible" by definition. It's "risky". It's horrible when a bad occurrence is highly probable or evident due to said decision. And almost anything is potentially a mistake that can turn sour. The problem with their jury situation was largely due to the context of their game (twists) more than anything they did to earn a goat status because of poor social ability or strategic moves
RavuRules		#472	[-]
Posts: 1552 (01/16/08 1:28 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Ravu, you seem to forget part of the context of Colby's decision. Remember that it was Tina that had to promise Colby that Keith wasn't going to the end when they voted out Mitchell. The third loss in a row was what forced Tina and Colby to break up the alliance of 5. From the start, Colby insisted that Tina promise him not to let Keith make it to the end. Things changed somewhat and Colby got along with Keith for most of the game and the edit made it look even more that way. By the F5, we heard Colby talk very negatively about Keith. Didn't it seem to come a bit out of nowhere? His feelings against KantKookKeith went all the way back to the start of the game. I don't know all this behind-the-scenes stuff. How verified is all this? I believe you for the most part but just want to make sure How could Colby take Keith instead of Tina after all that? Um easy. A million dollars. It's not his place to judge Keith as a person anyways. Let the jury make those tough decisions on "deservingness". I did it in my online Survivor game. I took a goat to the end over a game player I respected more, and it was hard because I didn't want to potentially lose to that person. It'd be like a slap in the face, and probably the person I wanted to see least win that game of the merge group. But I knew those were just my emotions, that technically anyone is deserving, and I made the rational choice. I basically applied the lesson that Colby's mistake taught me
unduli clone		#473	[-]
Posts: 2425 (01/16/08 6:07 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	colleenlover wrote: Kim should be ranked low as a player not because of her age which she has no control over, but because she kept walking into moves that would end her game life. Supporting the Kelly boot for one with Lex and Tom having more votes against them. And then Lex TELLING her to her face that he hopes he and Tom can salvage their friendship so they can continue on to the end together (THIS IS IN THE FINAL FIVE OR FOUR!) Her telling us "as much as those guys SAY they want to go to the end together..." -So she has knowledge and the power to weed out the guys without malice and pure cause, and she doesn't. She was constantly working against herself when it mattered most. Ethan is also in the same boat. Africa is such a boomerang season where everyone in the first half is operating on all cylinders and then throw everything away. Okay, fair enough. My gripe is that she's easily as good as Ethan, but I guess both were fairly shoddy players. Honestly though, Kim J never should've turned on Old Boran. She was in a solid alliance of four and would've been in a worst position if she had swung at the F5, F6, or F8. In her Old Boran alliance she was guaranteed fourth; Lex wanted to take Tom to the F2 (booting Kim then Ethan), but Ethan would've been a dumbass to not force a tie at the F4 and boot Tom, since he knew Lex's future gameplan. Kim knew she just had to win the F4 IC and was guaranteed a 2/3 (or probably a 3/3) shot at the F2. If she had swung to the other side it would've taken more than just that one immunity to get to the finals.
colleenlover		#474	[-]
Posts: 7612 (01/16/08 6:33 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Yeah, but I believe Ethan said he wasn't going to -the three guys in the end, and even if Ethan won the final immunity he was going to take Lex. I think Ethan was a terrible player too though. I though Kim J should have at least taken a shot of weeding the guys out at final six and then attempted to go back to them -but I think she has said she always knew she wasn't going to win so that's why she stuck with her boys. ravu, my point with Colby was he was always setting himself up to stay in the game, and had protection, whereas Rob put himself in a position (final 4) where he was sweating it out while he knew Jenna and Rupert would force the tie. Jenna and Rupert if they won immunity have stated they would have voted together. Now of course, Keith said he would have taken Tina to the end, and we don't fully know what Tina would have done -during Outback I thought Colby was the biggest idiot because he was helping Tina and Keith get to the end (the show always made it seem like Keith and Tina were the duo)
RavuRules		#475	[-]
Posts: 1555 (01/16/08 6:42 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	ravu, my point with Colby was he was always setting himself up to stay in the game, and had protection, whereas Rob put himself in a position (final 4) where he was sweating it out while he knew Jenna and Rupert would force the tie. Jenna and Rupert if they won immunity have stated they would have voted together. Now of course, Keith said he would have taken Tina to the end, and we don't fully know what Tina would have done -during Outback I thought Colby was the biggest idiot because he was helping Tina and Keith get to the end (the show always made it seem like Keith and Tina were the duo) I understand that, but I believe Rob was setting himself up well too. Colby had put himself in a strategically vulnerable situation too, so saying that Rob was vulnerable IF we're supposed to apply certain fantasy scenarios to the players, then we have to do the same to Colby. Had he not gone on an immunity streak, then theoretically, Tina/Keith could've chosen to take a weaker F3 competitor with them instead of him at F4. Same with F3 it Keith or Tina happened to win it. Tina was matched up with either Colby or Keith, and I wouldn't be shocked had she taken Keith as an easier competitor. You're picking out the worst case scenarios for Rob, and I'm saying if we do that, you have to do the same for Colby
colleenlover		#476	[-]
Posts: 7614 (01/16/08 7:02 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I know -I thought that too, and can see your point. But we have the documentation that Jenna and Rupert would have voted together at four -it was their strategy, and Rob had Tom taking him to the final two, so Rob put himself in a situation based on his knowledge at the time that he or Amber had to win immunity. As soon as Tom was voted out, they started working on Jenna, not before. From Colby's point of view, he thought he had a block of Tina and Keith and felt secure in it. Rob did not feel secure with Jenna and Rupert -and I guess you could say well, he didn't feel secure with Tom either. I mean we both basically agree, and niether of us are stupid -just look at things differently. I thought Rob played a great game, but when he voted out Tom I thought it was the stupidiest move from such a sharp player- sending his hard work down the drain and resetting it to zero where the outcome is basically a 50/50 shot.
RavuRules		#477	[-]
Posts: 1556 (01/16/08 7:18 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I know -I thought that too, and can see your point. But we have the documentation that Jenna and Rupert would have voted together at four -it was their strategy, and Rob had Tom taking him to the final two, so Rob put himself in a situation based on his knowledge at the time that he or Amber had to win immunity. As soon as Tom was voted out, they started working on Jenna, not before. From Colby's point of view, he thought he had a block of Tina and Keith and felt secure in it. Rob did not feel secure with Jenna and Rupert -and I guess you could say well, he didn't feel secure with Tom either. I mean we both basically agree, and niether of us are stupid -just look at things differently. I thought Rob played a great game, but when he voted out Tom I thought it was the stupidiest move from such a sharp player- sending his hard work down the drain and resetting it to zero where the outcome is basically a 50/50 shot. Yeah, but we weren't comparing Rob's outlasting with Colby's outlasting. We were comparing Rob's outlasting strategy with Colby's jury strategy. Whereas, Rob might've made a non-optimal decision at F5, Colby made the worst possible decision he could've made. Not only that, whereas Rob never really victory due to luck factors, Colby had it, and let it slip through his fingers. I mean, if you really think Rob's move of not securing a win is comparable to Colby's outright losing a win, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Rob never had victory thanks to the game format, but Colby had it and gave it away
colleenlover		#478	[-]
Posts: 7615 (01/16/08 8:00 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	We were comparing Rob's outlasting strategy with Colby's jury strategy Oh, we were? I didn't realize that, honestly. Colby's jury strategy was horrible even if he wanted to face Tina or not -"Honestly, I don't think I played better..." etc, "I have nothing else to say..." etc. Yes, I agree Rob was fighting like nothing in the jury, he was going for it full tilt. I thought Colby's outlasting strategy was more secure than Rob's though. I think if you and I were playing in an online game and teamed up (which would probably happen) and we had a third patsy we wouldn't discard him at five to gamble on two variables that started out on the same tribe. Now if your viewing it that Tom was not a patsy and would have voted differently than Rob than I can see your point, and that is where our difference of opinion stems from I think. From Colby's point of view, he thought he had Keith and Tina as a block. If Rob didn't think he had Amber and Tom as a block, then he should have worked harded to get that three person block to get him through the final four. Rob actually had two definite people from his point of view taking him to the final two -Amber and Tom. Colby only had one- Tina, and Keith (from Colby's point of view) taking Tina
SwineForkbeard		#479	[-]
Posts: 1410 (01/16/08 8:25 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	RavuRules wrote: Assuming this is true, there are still plenty of unanswered questions that remain up in the air which is my issue with this particular speculation. First off, you have conveniently left off Jenna Lewis, who not only turned on Rupert at F3, but was a big question mark in terms of strategy, because her gameplay was nothing like her performance in Borneo. Second, it involves assumptions over who would win the F4 immunity. If Tom was in the F4, what if he won it instead? Same with F3. While I find it unlikely, it's always possible, in which case, Rob (not to mention Amber) finds himself with a very popular big Tom in the finals with him which isn't "better" for him at all. While the Colby decision involves 7 assumptions (the jury votes), the Romber decision to boot Rupert over Tom involves 7 assumptions + a bunch of other assumptions regarding outlasting, voting, and challenge performance for at least 2 rounds. They are not the same I left off Jenna Lewis because there might have been a slight chance Romber could have convinced her to turn on Rupert had she won immunity, but I doubt it. We saw her hesitate dramatically in the voting booth, saying she didn't know what to do, and this was a situation where trying to save Rupert meant putting herself at risk. From what we saw, and from her comments afterward, she only turned on Rupert because she was afraid of the purple rock. Had she won immunity, she would have had nothing to lose by forcing a tie to save Rupert, so she would have been far less likely to turn on him. That's why I only brought up the possibility of Rupert winning immunity, because the resulting tie would have been all but inevitable. Had Tom been there in his place, and won it instead, who cares? His loyalty was to Romber, and he hated Jenna. First off, that's "if we take their word for it". We can know what was in their heads in retrospect, but Romber couldn't have know that out there for 100% sure. The same goes for the Outback jury. Why would it have been irrelevant, and how should Romber have known that? It's simple game logic. If they're in the final 4 with Rupert and Jenna, they know their opposition is united if one of them wins immunity. With Tom and Jenna, their opposition is divided as far as they know. There is no evidence, on or off the show, that they had an alliance, so if one won immunity, they could still vote off the other one. If Rupert wins immunity (a what-if situation which never occurred), then we assume that there is a tie-breaker and this brings in the tie-breaker assumption. You say it would be "purple rock," but I do not know if this is for sure. Is it? That's what they were expecting it to be, so in a way, it doesn't matter whether that's what it would have been or not. I don't disbelieve it, but I'm not really clear that is obvious either. And if you're making what-if situations about immunity, then that same thing about Rupert winning immunity can be said about Tom winning 2 immunities. Romber have never suggested that they were worried about Tom winning 2 immunities, so I don't think that had anything to do with it. Obviously, I can't prove that he wouldn't have, anymore than you can prove anyone would have voted for Colby over Keith. His priorities are not that relevant from a winning perspective. If you use that excuse, then you can say the same about Rob It's not an excuse, the two situations are contextual and not really equivalent. I believe you've defended Becky against people who criticized her for being too loyal to Yul and never making a move against him. You seem to get that people don't necessarily have this single minded focus on winning the game over everything else, so it isn't always fair to judge their actions on that basis alone. If the Morono/Amber/Jenna/Rupert alliance were somehow comparable to the Aitu 4, where they were conflicted by an emotional, counterstrategic goal of getting to the final 4, that would put the situation in a different light. But unless I'm much mistaken, Romber had no other agenda apart from getting to the final 2. Yeah, that's a horrible argument. If that was his motive, then he was cocky like I said for underestimating his opponent. Then he'd rather risk losing to a worthy opponent versus going up against an easy win? That means he wasn't completely focused on the win and thinking of life concepts like sportsmanship (which I balk at anyways, considering the nature of this game). I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not as quick to judge him for it. It's the 1st time you really seem blatantly biased though Swine. You come down very hard on Romber, which I assume is because you dislike them, but here you are making all kinds of allowances for Colby. Think whatever you want. I was never crazy about Colby either, so I don't see this as a contest to establish that Colby > Romber. You've admitted that you're a Romber fan, which has never made me doubt your intellectual honesty or think you were unwilling to share my point of view out of stubbornness.
RavuRules		#480	[-]
Posts: 1558 (01/16/08 9:44 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	That's what they were expecting it to be, so in a way, it doesn't matter whether that's what it would have been or not. It does, because regardless of their plans and knowledge, we must consider the results of their action to figure if their move was "good" or "bad" Romber have never suggested that they were worried about Tom winning 2 immunities, so I don't think that had anything to do with it. It doesn't really matter. If Tom won 2 immunities because they let him slide by, it was a bad move whether they considered it or not. Of course, it's worse if they didn't consider it at all, but I'm sure they can think more than 2 rounds ahead with only 5 players left and nothing else to do It's not an excuse, the two situations are contextual and not really equivalent. We consider the context, but I'm saying the context doesn't excuse the poorness of the decision from a winning perspective I believe you've defended Becky against people who criticized her for being too loyal to Yul and never making a move against him. That was because people were bashing her ridiculously with several key differences: (1) Becky probably wouldn't have won if she backstabbed Yul. So she wasn't "too loyal" since her optimal game was probably being loyal to him. That is a big difference between Colby and Becky. Where Colby had a shot at the million but his decision screwed that chance, Becky never had a clear path to the mil without certain things falling into place like Yul being removed without her having to backstab him and probably no F3 twist (2) I wasn't so much defending her gameplay with the contextual factors but explaining why she might choose life priorities over doing everything she could to outlast in light of her inability to win the game anyways. Whereas Colby had already achieved making the finals, Becky had not. People are criticizing why Becky did not Dreamz her way into the finals, but that is very different from Colby who was already there and would've won had he changed his decision. In short, you don't see me bashing Colby's character. I criticize his game move, but not him as a person. I am glad to see people with consciences who aren't necessarily completely driven by money all the time. I admire Becky and Colby for those reasons. What I think is kind of messed up is when people don't even give them credit for the life decision and bash them as people. You can bash the gameplay, but at least give them the dignity they sort of sacrificed the money for You seem to get that people don't necessarily have this single minded focus on winning the game over everything else, so it isn't always fair to judge their actions on that basis alone. If the Morono/Amber/Jenna/Rupert alliance were somehow comparable to the Aitu 4, where they were conflicted by an emotional, counterstrategic goal of getting to the final 4, that would put the situation in a different light. But unless I'm much mistaken, Romber had no other agenda apart from getting to the final 2. I never compared them to the Aitu 4. It wasn't the same, and I imagine Romber was mainly trying to go to the end with each other Think whatever you want. I was never crazy about Colby either, so I don't see this as a contest to establish that Colby > Romber. You've admitted that you're a Romber fan, which has never made me doubt your intellectual honesty or think you were unwilling to share my point of view out of stubbornness So because I openly have expressed that I am a fan of someone that automatically eliminates my opinion about critiquing their gameplay? Well I can understand being cynical of my analytical abilities with that bias, I'd prefer you take a look at the argument rather than be biased by my biases. I am open about my biases so you can critique whether I'm being too biased in favor of someone or not. I sort of had a feeling you were bringing this up, because I know you tend to like arguing about Romber with me and I think it was CR (or was it craig?) to play Devil's Advocate. It seems you are playing Devil's Advocate to a ridiculous degree so much so that you're proposing left-field arguments relying on several assumptions just to challenge things for the sake of challenging them. Maybe I shouldn't be honest and open about my biases, because apparently you think that makes me LESS "intellectually honest". I should probably claim I have no favorites/preferences/biases like some people to fake objectivity and come off more credible, since you seem to buy that much more. Anyhow, I have conceded on the points that you made that did make sense, but obviously on other ones, I don't see things your way as much. I don't think that's really being stubborn

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Rank the 2nd Placers

Quick Reply