Board Thread:Virtual Tribal Council/@comment-27638357-20160519221405/@comment-27638357-20160526172903

LincolnAloisio wrote: Zypker124 wrote:

LincolnAloisio wrote: And btw, we also didn't see much of Natalie White's social game, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. And in Michele's case they (Tai and Aubry) were telling us that she was well liked by the jury, so unless they made that up, it's because it was true.

The editors have to chose what kind of story they want to tell, for some reason they opted to tell us why Aubry "should" have won instead of why Michele won. Same thing happened in Guatemala and Samoa, but in those cases were why Stephenie and Russell lost. Well, since I'm relatively new to the wiki, you might not know this about me, but I do not advocate Natalie White. I'm not a strong Russell Hantz advocate, either, but I don't really have an obvious preference between the two. And I agree that just because we didn't see Natalie's social game doesn't mean it existed. However, if we didn't see it and she wins, that doesn't mean it DID exist. I've already explained in this thread on why I think winning does not equate to a good social game, so I'll save some text. But the story we saw on Samoa was the story Russell lost, and from my perspective the reasoning was sound. Russell made too many enemies on the jury and treated them poorly, and so the jury decided to give the win to Natalie. I'll refrain from using the word "bitter" to describe it, because I don't think the Samoa jury was bitter. I think there's a difference between being bitter and voting for the wrong person. But what we saw on screen was that Russell burned to many bridges, so the jury voted the other way for Natalie. This is the story. This "social game" is entirely speculative and fan fiction, and it seemed to stem off the fact that she won or from people complaining that Russell should have won. But we never saw this social game, and hardly heard about it. If you're asking to me to view their body of work and look at the hard evidence, it's hard for me to believe that Natalie played a good social game. I believe the theory sprung from people defending against all the valiant Russell supporters. But just because Natalie won and beat Russell does not mean Natalie is a good player. It could just mean that Russell is terrible and Natalie is bad but slightly better. How do Tai and Aubry know what the jury is thinking? I am advocating for Aubry here, but at the same time, if they can read the jury correctly, why did they lose? I mean, they clearly thought they could win (or at least, Aubry could.) They have no idea what's exactly in the jury's mind, so they are not the best resources. And by the way, the Guatemala story was told in that fashion because Danni hid her strategy from production when she was giving confessionals in case they spilled information to other castaways or at Tribal Council, whether production might do it on accident or on purpose. Since they couldn't get strategically meaningful confessionals from Danni, they were forced to tell the story of why Stephanie lost. If Natalie didn't have a good social game, why didn't they vote for Mick? You can't convince me that SEVEN people changed their votes at the last minute because of her FTC performance. You can't solely rely on a 45 minute episode and discard the other 4275 that don't make it.

And I know that about Guatemala, but it was still a story chosen by the editors.

First off, even though seven votes seems like a huge quantity, it really isn't. Most of these votes are becoming unanimous now because the jury talks and agrees to vote for someone, and people don't like feeling that they are the odd man out. In the past, they were comfortable with this because the value of their vote for who they want to win was more sacred to them. Nowadays, though, consensus votes are more popular. Based on the evidence we were presented with, A) Natalie won because she was the lesser of three evils and B) Mick was assigned the tribe leader role and did not perform to expectations, since Foa Foa crumbled pre-merge. This is a perfectly believable and possible scenario, and I don't see what seems so far-fetched about the story. Both points have been supported by what we saw at FTC. I don't recall them every mentioning Natalie's social game as reasons in the FTC. Obviously, they weren't voting for Russell, so that left Mick and Natalie. Mick was assigned the tribe leader role, and his tribe crumbled, so he failed to live up to the responsibility / expectations set upon him. Since Natalie didn't really do anything wrong from their perspective, she went on to win. I don't see why we have to believe Natalie had a great social game. The story we were presented with is supported by hard evidence and logically makes sense.