Archive > Survivor: Blood vs Water

And the winner is....

<< < (6/7) > >>

IKR but some people just like to add fuel to the fire for no apparent reason  :cmas11


--- Quote from: racer on December 24, 2013, 07:21:01 PM ---
--- Quote from: Jobby on December 24, 2013, 12:36:08 PM ---Monica flipping with Tina and Ciera (I've been constantly talking about the SECOND and not first final 5) will still not affect her final three spot? Ciera will still go home that night (Tyson's immunity, Gervase's idol) and she will still be in the final 4, and Tyson will go on to still bring her to the final 3.

And then she would have made a move?

--- End quote ---

As we full well know, she did not know Gervase was playing the idol.

--- End quote ---

Well, I'm really sort of talking more about if she had indeed flipped with Ciera and Tina at the second final 5 with the case that Gervase Idol was used from the beginning, not whether or not she knows if Gervase was going to use the Idol. The whole discussion here for me is about making a move and whether or not she will still win.

--- Quote from: racer on December 24, 2013, 07:23:45 PM ---
--- Quote from: Marionete on December 24, 2013, 01:09:28 PM ---Why does Natalie White not count? :cmaslol And what about Aras, Bob and JT?

--- End quote ---

Don't forget Fabio, Sophie, Kim, Denise etc, since none of them betrayed anyone and at least two of them didn't really make any moves. :reindeer

They all count. :cmas16

--- End quote ---

I'm sort of talking about people who remained LOYAL to an alliance and got carried to the end and still WON, considering that the head or leader of the alliance isn't an obnoxious person aka Natalie, granting the person who didn't even make a move wins a million dollars. And Natalie did make a move at the F12.

Aras and JT were part of the main alliance from the very beginning, planning moves together. They got rid of potential winners such as Terry and even Taj, whereas Bob was never part of the main alliance.

And yes, racer, at least two of the players you mentioned made barely any moves, like Sophie. But then again Sophie was never placed in a position where she could make a move but didn't. So the question here goes back to my initial discussion on whether or not she would have won if she did flip, considering that she could have and the fact that she will still be in the F3 is still pretty solid.

But she didn't, and that's why she didn't win. At least I see it that way. I'm pretty sure it's a discussion and we all have different thoughts and opinions and can discuss and share our thoughts and opinions in a pretty liberal way. There's no fuel to add to the fire if there's no fire in the first place.. unless there's already a fire burning in your heart. Time to extinguish it then, it's the Christmas season. :)

Glamazon Racer:
What's very clear is that the jury in different seasons considers different factors in determining the winner. If the jury of Survivor: South Pacific was choosing between Monica, Tyson and Gervase, Monica would've won in an easy vote since those people were extremely bitter.

On the flipside, if you had a group of people similar to the BvW jury choosing the winner of SoPa, they'd choose Coach since he ran the show.

It's both the best and worst thing about this game - it makes it unpredictable since you never truly know what the jury is basing their vote on, while at the same time, certain people deserve to win but don't.

A lot of people get carried and win - Sandra did (on HvV; can't comment on PI as I haven't seen it), Sophie did, Denise did, even Tina did in all honesty. It's just that some juries are very bitter (Samoa, HvV, SoPa etc.) and some are not.

I really think a lot has to do with the social game that the different people played as well. I wouldn't say Sophie got carried through entirely, but a lot of the people that you mentioned such as Denise, Sophie, Tina and Sandra played a great social game. Monica hardly had any social game (one juror even mentioned he didn't know who she is and wanted her to bear it all and showed all her emotions, to which she did and I thought it was awesome.. but isn't it all too late)?

Throughout the whole game, all we got to see was Monica being panic, Monica being run down by people simply because of the way she reacted to people as well. She played both sides, but never once was she really interested in playing with the others except just Tyson and Gervase. Monica, IMHO, played a horrible social game. And that's why I thought without a social game, perhaps if she had made those crucial (yet useless moves, because the ending would have been the same probably), maybe it would have granted her a stronger case to win.

For example, Denise dealt with the jury questions horribly and didn't really play a strong social game, but she still won because she had the strongest case to win. She was on the total losing tribe and attended EVERY SINGLE tribal council. She would be the last person I say who got carried through actually. She had to fight for her life every single tribal council.. back to Monica, if she had actually used the case of her being in contact with various alliances, where she could play whatever she wanted but instead, was pulled down by a last minute killer comment by Tyson that she thought Monica should win because she always pretended she was at the bottom of the totem pole but was actually in a strong alliance with Tyson and Gervase, so that she can be the double agent and pass useful info to the both of them. I thought had Monica used that as a case for her to win as well, maybe she could have gathered one or two more votes, considering this isn't a bitter jury. It's always hard to play the double agent and this is so much a better argument than her saying that she's always on the outside when in fact, she's not and always tight with Tyson and Gervase.

Just a lot of perspective going on for Monica's game which I felt was lacking the social factor. But I'm glad she did came in second and not third, because Gervase was honestly useless. :cmaslol

Glamazon Racer:
Social game comes into play but not always. As I said, the jury on different seasons looks for different factors and it changes each and every year. What might work with one group of jurors will not work with another group.

If social factors were the most important thing considered this season, Gervase would have won, since it was mentioned many times how people seemed to like him more because of his personality.

On the other hand, someone like a Sugar or a Russell played great strategic games but lost because of their social game.

It varies depending on the group of people who are voting obviously.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version