Author |
Message |
Tntitanfan
Member
08-03-2001
| Monday, December 06, 2010 - 6:07 pm
Finally got to Dalton's blog today! I do enjoy his take on things -
|
Lexie_girl
Member
07-30-2004
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 7:38 am
Like I posted before, the only way I can see them changing the rules regarding quitters being on the jury is they have to keep the last two survivors voted out before the jury as "alternates" at Ponderosa. That way the alternates can sit in on the tribal councils and if someone quits, the alternate can take his/her place on the jury.
|
Tntitanfan
Member
08-03-2001
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 7:46 am
Or the PTB could have a different number of jurors and manipulate the F2 or F3 so that there cannot be a tie-
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 8:15 am
I think what Tn said is the most likely scenario. Once you've been voted out, and have had a comfy place to sleep, shelter, and food, the game changes. It wouldn't be fair to bring someone back into the game like that. More likely it would be to let the quitters leave (and be forgotten), and then adjust how the finale goes (F2 or F3, in order to have an odd number of jurors).
|
Lexie_girl
Member
07-30-2004
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 9:59 am
Costa, I'm not talking about bringing anyone back into the game. I'm talking about leaving the last two people that are voted out PRIOR to the jury at Ponderosa and they attend TC with the jury. If anyone quits, the quitter goes home, the alternate juror becomes a juror and has had the benefit of attending all tribal councils and can make an informed decision as to who wins the money. It is no different than if you were selected as an alternate juror in a jury trial.
|
Mamabatsy
Member
08-05-2005
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 10:41 am
Although I understand why people are upset with quitters, I might be the only person in the world who thinks quitting is, and should be, part of the game. The game is surviving the elements and each other. The point is to outwit, outlast, outplay each other and the environment. All the quitter is saying is, "I can't do it. I lose." Is that really any different than being voted out because others don't like your social game? Instead of losing the outplay part, you're just admitting you can't outlast the situation. IMO the quitters belong on the jury just as much as anyone who made it that far but was really disliked by most of the group.
|
Spear
Member
08-06-2001
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 12:37 pm
Quitters are also not too different from players who just ask to be voted out (which I guess is what will happen in future seasons if the rules change to treat quitters more harshly).
|
Tntitanfan
Member
08-03-2001
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 12:41 pm
My memory is not a terribly reliable tool, but didn't someone ask to be voted out one time and they WEREN'T? Or at least not at the next TC?
|
Merrysea
Moderator
08-13-2004
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 1:08 pm
Why vote out someone who wants to go home? They're not a threat.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 1:43 pm
Although I was firmly thinking that people who quit shouldn't be on the jury I'm reconsidering after reading Mamabatsy's post. Part of the show is surviving until you can survive no more. If Survivor picks contestants who decide at some point that they are no longer able to continue then that is all part of the game. The point is that they survived and outlasted other people long enough to earn a place on the jury.
|
Scooterrific
Member
07-08-2005
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 1:54 pm
I'm with Jimmer....Mamabatsy makes sense.
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-02-2002
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 2:06 pm
I'm not sold. If an NFL player quits mid-game I'm sure they would be fired, let go from the team. We don't want to see a bunch of quitters on survivior. We want to see people who will fight to the bitter end.
|
Friend
Member
05-21-2008
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 2:48 pm
My butt is firmly planted on the No Quitters On The Jury Couch. If they truly can't go on for medical reasons then let a doctor say so. I'm even worse, I'm all for them forfeiting every single penny of their winnings/earnings if they voluntarily walk off.
|
Lexie_girl
Member
07-30-2004
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 3:04 pm
My butt is also firmly planted on the No Quitters on the Jury Couch. This show has been on for 10 years and 21 seasons. They have to know what they are signing up for. If they don't think they can handle it, then don't try out and give the spot to someone that wants to be in the game. I liked Alina, and as much as I disliked Marty and Brenda, they would have never quit the game. How many people tried out for Survivor and didn't make it because they put Naonka on the show because they thought she would make good TV?
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 3:36 pm
So the people who got voted out ahead of the people who quit are more deserving to be on the jury, despite the fact that the people who quit outlasted and outplayed them in the game before quitting?
|
Friend
Member
05-21-2008
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 3:43 pm
Jimmer, I understand where you're coming from but to me a quit should be a complete forfeit. It's unforgivable. Off with their heads! Okay, maybe not the last part.
|
Lexie_girl
Member
07-30-2004
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 3:50 pm
Jimmer, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who does not quit is worthy of being on the jury. That is why I have no problem with in the future letting the last two voted off before the jury starts staying at Ponderosa as alternates and attending TC and voting ONLY if someone QUITS.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 3:59 pm
The thing is though that people "quit" all the time in this game. There are lots of times where someone quits in an endurance competition for the immunity idol but I don't hear a lot of complaints about that. Similarly being on the jury is part of the game. Don't get me wrong. I don't like people quitting. It leaves a bad taste and it's frustrating for other players and the viewers. I'm just not sure that replacing them on the jury with people who didn't play the game as well they did is a satisfying solution.
|
Friend
Member
05-21-2008
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 4:08 pm
I don't think replacing the quitters with previously voted off players is a satisfying solution either. Why not just let it play out with the people who are left?
|
Dogdoc
Member
09-29-2001
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 4:17 pm
Since two quitting equals two tribal councils, how is production going to handle the lost tribal council. Does the show end a week early?
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-02-2002
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 4:37 pm
Yes, to me quit = forfeit. So they should forfeit that jury seat. That seat should remain empty. The producers must have a tie breaker plan for the final vote, so that would come into play if needed. I think production has some gaps in their schedule for this very reason. Jeff has talked about this being why they cast more players than they did in the beginning. I'm sure they had a couple of back to back tribals planned in there, and now they can just have a reward challenge day or a day when there's no challenge at all.
|
Costacat
Member
07-15-2000
| Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - 7:38 pm
Exactly... quitters are forfeiting their right to continue to play the game, to continue to receive their stipend, and to continue to be shown on MY television. Dog, I think they had double eliminations planned. So the fact that they had quitters just means that they won't have a double elim or two.
|
Kep421
Member
08-11-2001
| Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - 5:12 am
While I can see Jimmer and Mamma's points, I think "quitting without consequence" isn't a good thing, especially for some of the players. Having to consider the consequences just may help some players stay in the game during their moments of weakness (Like Holly had in the beginning)giving them more incentive to make it thru the personal rough times. I also think making it clear in the selection process that voluntarily quitting the game will have consequences, would result in players who are less likely to quit. Once a player makes it to the jury stage, I think the consequences should be more severe. They have spent significant time playing the game, they know what its about, its not like they got to the island and suddenly went, OOPS, I made a mistake and can't really do this. Usually when someone quits this late in the game...its because they don't WANT to play anymore...not because they can't. For me, that's the big difference. Nay and Kelly quit because they were just tired of playing...and that tells me they weren't in it to win it. I want to watch players who are in it to win it, I'm sure the production people who are putting out their time and resources want players who are in it to win it...and creating rules that will help ensure that those kinds of players are on the show is a good thing to me.
|