Board Thread:Virtual Tribal Council/@comment-27638357-20160519221405/@comment-1294345-20160523034800

Zypker124 wrote:

IAmNothing712 wrote:


 * I initially didn't get Michele winning because I felt Aubry I felt had a more well-rounded story. However, as little presence she had all-season, mattered. She always conveyed consistently reliable information to us. That subtle edit is always a pleasant surprise to me. However, the audience seemed to not appreciate such edits, forgetting how my boo Sandra won TWICE. They say Michele is undeserving which is infuriating. This is exactly the fan reaction to Natalie winning against Russell. Viewers keep on forgetting it's the players who make the outcome of the season. They vote for different reasons, and while their reasons for voting Michele wasn't so much profound, she got the objective down. She rolled with the punches, and for it, she got enough votes to win. She used that reward advantage to its fullest extent (I personally believe Neal would've voted Aubry anyway). Jeff is right, "Nobody saw that coming." In a good way? I don't know. Is Michele's win invalid? Still no. Personally, she's as facially emotionless as Amanda but she turned everything Amanda did wrong right. Livid Michele <3
 * Before you scream Michele doesn't deserve the title, this article is for you, it's made by a good friend Mario Lanza, the author of the Funny 115: http://www.funny115.com/psychologyofajury.htm
 * About next season: The most uninspired logo and theme I've ever seen. I'm completely turned off by Sunday's speech about spending seven years in school and not care of my parents paying my tuition. I study in an ivy league university, a state university. Not everyone graduates on time. Heck, I couldn't graduate because of a damn chemistry course and got diagnosed with clinical depression for it. From what I've watched, I want Sunday out first.
 * One last frustration I needed to vent out: I wish Survivor changes how it portrays women. Recent female winners had since been edited as boring. Women can get loud too (WTF?!).

Kaoh Rong, great season overall. I don't think the edit for Michele was subtle at all, personally. I'm not one of the people who said that they figured out Michele was the winner at Episode 3, but coming down the stretch it felt like Michele was getting a lot of confessionals when it just wasn't necessary at the time. I know people have already beat this horse, but Aubry is no Russell Hantz. I'll just leave that point at that. In addition, I believe Michele received a lot more content and gave us more insight into her game, which I believe actually decreases her equity since she's never really speaking in a tactically or socially savvy manner or giving that type of content. I will concede that she managed to have objective down, but that doesn't mean she did anything to nail the objective down. Go back to my cookie analogy: "Let's say someone baked 10 cookies, and one was chocolate chip while all the others were oatmeal raisin, and there were 10 kids who were tasked with trying to select the chocolate chip. Then let's say each of them grabs a cookie within five seconds, and one of them gets the chocolate chip cookie. Do we revise history with hindsight and say "Oh, that person must have know it was chocolate ship based on odor and texture?". No. There's a high possibility he just happened to get lucky." I disagree with some of the points made in the link. I agree with point 1, but I don't agree with point 2. There's no single objective in Survivor; Survivor is not a binary game, so therefore there are multiple objectives. I agree that winning the jury vote is essential, but another part is maximizing the chances that you even get to the jury vote. Would you not say that's a good thing to be doing? The person who wrote this article seems to be inconsistent. He says in point 2 that the jury can be applauding someone's game for the first 38 days and then change their mind on the 39th, but then says the jury is reactive to the game at hand, which doesn't seem consistent at all. I agree with Point 3, but just because they didn't want the runner-up to win doesn't mean that they wanted the winner to win; they just wanted the winner to win more than the runner-up. Point 4 is what makes this game so interesting. You can have a great social game, but if people realize you're a social threat, you're done, boom. Naturally, you're going to have to incorporate tactics somewhere to ensure your safety in this game. I think Point 5 is also inconsistent with the objective of the game. The point says that the jury votes against people. Well, in the FTC, Probst tells the jury to vote for the person they want to win. So if the jury isn't playing by the rules, it's naturally unfair, at least in my opinion. Point 6 makes sense conceptually, but in practice it doesn't work as well. There's just too much margin of error. Someone had this hypothetical that I thought perfectly describes how there are unfair juries: "Let's say on the morning of Day 39, everyone drinks way too much and all agrees to flip a coin or roll a die to determine who they're voting for." Would you not say this is unfair? There's just little way to counter that, and the ways you can counter that involve sacrificing your equity in the game. Here's another example: "Let's say that you are a female player, won the F3 immunity and are choosing between a boy and a girl. The girl is a far superior player, with a better tactical and social game, and is more well-liked by most of the jury. The boy, on the other hand, is hated by most. However, there are 2 jury members in there that decide that they want a guy to win, no matter who the guy is. [There have been people who actually use this as their criteria.]" WOuld you not consider this unfair? Even if you could change those two eliminations to pre-jury, that likely means burning all your stock in the game, which you shouldn't have to be doing. Besides, the jury is supposed to be voting on how the person played, not on superficial qualities such as what chromosomes they have.

Anyways, that's my pit of darkness, so I'm just going to agree that the Millennials vs Gen X logo is so uninspired, and takes elements from different logos and just mashes them together. I am NOT looking forward to the pre-merge of this season, where the editors will definitely try to shove down our throats that our generations are so different and it's this cold war, and will be very WA-like where they try and edit it this way, but in all the exit interviews the castaways agree that it doesn't really matter. The community is already trashing each other down with stereotypes, such as "Cell Phone and Soft Millennials" and "Unmovable Gen X-er's", which is just a recipe for disaster. I'm definitely rooting for Mari to win, however, since I recognize her from Smosh Games and she's a video gamer, so at least I have someone to root for.

Have the female winners been edited as boring? I mean, Michele probably got her loudest confessionals in, with "Bro, I know" and those kinds of things. Natalie A. seemed to have a lot of great emotional content and really drived the season in the merge, and showed a passion for the game. Denise was fantastic, especially with her voting confessionals and stuff [which they don't have the show]. Kim is not a loud player, I think we can agree on that. I've never heard her say "I hate this player" on or off screen. I agree that Sophie needed more content, though, especially since she seemed like an interesting character. This line was Michele's subtle edit started and the moment I started to take notice of her. She's more perceptive than she let on, that's why I didn't ignore her while everyone else did.