If you are going for the win, who do you want for the last person left with you?
The ClubHouse: Archives: If you are going for the win, who do you want for the last person left with you?
Wink | Monday, April 09, 2001 - 06:28 am  Just goes to show that Jerri really did show her true colours all along. She's not making even a small effort to repair the reputation she acquired and obviously so richly deserved. KEITH RULES - GO KEITH |
Tukuul | Monday, April 09, 2001 - 08:14 am  Jerri is trying to be like Susan to get some airplay. I bet she even goes overboard with a speech during the final show. I'm certainly watching for it. |
Fruitbat | Monday, April 09, 2001 - 08:33 am  The popularity poles are from the viewers. Their experience of each other, not only could be but probably is, very different. That is noble of you Karuuna but I would be there to win and hope to go up against Keith. Some have issues with his control and certainly there are others the jury respects and like more. I'd say he was on the bottom of the list in popularity with those that are now left. There are spoilers having Keith win. I am not ready to rule anyone out from the final round yet. After Thursday it will be much easier to guess the final 2. This TC is crucial to the outcome. It should be one of the best episodes yet. |
Karuuna | Monday, April 09, 2001 - 09:52 am  I think there are a lot of ways to "win". Winning the game by using methods that don't align with integrity, even if those methods are allowed by the rules, wouldn't be a "win" to me. Richard Hatch won, but I wouldn't want to be the kind of person he is, not for a million dollars. Lance, you pose an interesting philosophical dilemma. I disagree that the game is set up in such a way that the "best" folks get to the end, unless you mean "best" in terms of the game rules alone. I agree that Kelly accomplished a great deal by winning the immunity challenges. But Richard won, and I don't think much of his values, or his ego. He did seem to be almost the sole source of food, and he was great at manipulating people. The first I admire, the second skill which also contributed greatly to his win, I don't admire at all! I also think that the set up where one team votes the other team off after the merger means right from the get-go that your chance of winning may well be dictated by the luck of being on the overall better team to begin with. Alicia, tho a bit thorny at times, was a great competitor and contributor. She went first from the Kuchas simply because she was the biggest threat. As far as contributions to the survival of the group, Roger and Elizabeth have done the most, it appears, to try to feed the group, with Keith possibly third because of his grasshoppa wrangling prowess. But if the voting alliances hold, Roger and Liz will be gone next. My best guess is that Colby also won't make it to the end, simply because he is a threat to win and fairly popular. Sooner or later the others will gang up on him, and vote him off so that they have a better chance at winning themselves. Unless of course he wins a streak of immunity challenges. So I don't think the rules are set up in such a way that the "best" person wins, at least not according to my definition of best. Bat, I agree we don't see everything or experience things the way the participants do. Yet, I also think the editing has been reasonably fair. It was clear that Jerri was largely disliked by the others (as well as the viewing audience), no matter what she says about bad editing. If you don't say those kinds of things, and people don't get ticked off at you for saying them, the editing can't create them from nothing. I do think Keith is on the bottom of the popularity list, again both outside and inside. Overall, I think we can get a pretty good feel for what folks are like, even thru the little glimpses we get in an hour of tv. |
Bijoux | Monday, April 09, 2001 - 10:21 am  I don't agree that it is set-up that one team votes out the other after the tribes merge. Suppose it had been Kucha 6 and Ogakor 4 when the teams merged, if I was on Ogakor I would have assumed that 6 people cannot win and looked to see who was paired up and who wasn't. There would have been a window of opportunity to form new alliances. This is a game about developing a plan and alliances to get you to the end of the game. I don't agree that anyone who plays that type of game well is, by definition, not most deserving to be in the final two. |
Lancecrossfire | Monday, April 09, 2001 - 10:34 am  Karuuna, I agree to some extent that the game isn't set up to have the 2 "best" players at the end in every case--that was why I said I hope the game would be set up that way. lol What we have is the need for entertainment and suspense getting in the way of a great pure game. The rules allow for twist and turns and unexpected events. The rules allow for those things some of us consider unethical. (lying, manipulation, etc) The big one is the tribe voting issue. People get picked off because they are in a minority (number wise), even though they may be a "better player" in some respects. The idea of what a better player is within the context of the game is what allows the Richard type tactics though. Out wit Out play Out last I looked at the rules in the Survivor site. As long as you don't beat up someone, or go into the porduction area, this thing is a free-for-all! There aren't many things these folks can't do. Oh, not plotting to set up an alliance so the money can be split. For me, I wouldn't consider it a win if I use the tactics that Richard/Susan/Kelly/Rudy used, specifically setting up an alliance, then lying about it when asked in TC. That is just me though. We all have a set of standards and eithic we live by, and as long as I played within mine, I would consider that a win of sorts. My approach would not be to form an alliance outside of the tribe set up, and would vote based on who I thought should be booted and for the reasons I had. I wonder if the additional versions will show that a person can't win unless they participate in an allliance?? I hope that is not the case, as it will limit how one can play and hope to win. |
Fruitbat | Monday, April 09, 2001 - 11:07 am  First, I agree about the importance of operating with integrity. What that means in a game of this sort opposed to real life can be very different. I don't want to debate Richard, but those that voted for him saw that he, in fact, did operate with integrity. The major factor: his intent was clear, he never wavered. Kelly lied, Rich did not. Like him or not. Interesting that popularity did not play a part in that. It will in S2 I think. In board games, I forget the one where deception is the only way to win and is expected, card games like "I Doubt it" etc there is an agreement that anything goes. In Survivor, your word is where the integrity lies. You make an alliance then respect it. Kelly failed here. This thursday there will be some shifting and how it is handled will be key for the jury. Amber is not in an alliance, not solidly anyway. I see her as a free agent. She can move easily to Liz and Rodger. Should Tina and Keith turn on Colby with no indication that all bets are off now.......that will be trecherous. |
Bijoux | Monday, April 09, 2001 - 11:23 am  Lance, you raise an interesting perspective. In going outside my "tribe" it would depend on who I considered my tribe. I don't think I would consider my tribe to be the people I was arbitarily placed with by the producers. Any one I had given my word to would be my tribe however, and I wouldn't betray that tribe. If I had been placed in the tribe with Jerri, then no I would not consider her as being in my true tribe. Also, people I had only known for 2 1/2 weeks before the tribes merged would not have a greater alligiance to me than my family and friends back home, and that would also be a consideration. I may be playing as an individual, but I come from a community. |
Lancecrossfire | Monday, April 09, 2001 - 12:07 pm  That concept is what makes Survivor (and BB) so unique. Survivor even more so. You have to interact well as a team, including performing tasks and tests. You have to perform well as an individual too--in both tasks and tests. Yet you vote one another off. A great concept for a game. The tribe issue--I agree that tribe could mean anything, although in Survivor the tribes they set up are where you get to know someone (or don't if you aren't in their tribe). So there are chances for bonds, or lack of chances because of the game. At least in BB, everyone is together from the outset. I see this as one of the biggest limiting factors of Survivor...at least limiting in terms of how voting will typically go once all are together. Of course it's easy to sit here and banter back and forth all of these issues. I wonder what it woudl feel like to be there, having to deal with it. I sure hope that above all I'd be myself and stay true to what I believed in. Out wit Out play Out last I give Richard credit--he said he looked at those three flags everyday and approached the game with them in mind. Why bother to go if you aren't going to play to win--however it is you feel it should be done. |
Seamonkey | Monday, April 09, 2001 - 12:40 pm  I think it is a great game that pits community vs individual. At many points you must be a teamplayer to avoid being vulnerable, as a group, to tribal council and to stay fed and sheltered. And it seems that after merger, there is still group alliance required to stay in the game, but at the same time the challenges are set up for them to win as individuals.. for rewards, for immunity. And of course they throw in at times the factor of requiring the winner of a challenge to name someone to share the reward, which of course affects feelings and alliances. Not a game I would want to play. So, do I judge these people by how I would play, or by how they play the game within the rules? My choice, if I'm on that jury. And the fascination is observing all of this on the show and with all the info and misinfo in the media and of course all the people outside of the game .. us! .. and our reactions. Richard played the game well; he won the prize. He didn't win some of our hearts but I guess that wasn't his goal. In SII there is already a difference in that they came in with all of them considering alliances as important (some gave it more weight than others). The master manipulator is gone (Jerri) so we watch the rest unfold. Now, when will it be Thursday??? that |
|