Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-99.237.163.16-20150715134502

I played with the idea of dealing with one concern Jeff Probst mentioned in a commentary, He mentioned that the jury chose not the best player to win, but the people they hated the least. Example, Russell Hantz is one of the best players of the game, he is the Richard Hatch of the newer generation of players, but he lost because of the social aspect, to Natalie and Sandra.

So my solution is this:

In a scenario where there is only 16 castaways.

The first voted out players would become the jury of seven. There goal will be to listen to all the tribal councils, and gather there opinions, they may have bitterness about their being voted out, but by day 39, odds are they have reflected on their time and can make a rational choice on the outplay, outwit and outlast of the final two players.

For example if we take the Borneo castaways: Sonja, BB, Stacey, Ramona, Dirk, Joel and Gretchen would make the final decision between Richard and Kelly

The next seven people voted out would have new position in Tribal Councils. They would be what I call the prosecution block. There role is two paint a picture for the jury. They will be offered a chance to talk to the castaways at Tribals sat on post being voted out. And there role in the final tribal council will be to add their comments and questions towards to final two.

Again using Borneo players: Greg, Jenna, Gervase Colleen, Sean, Sue, and Rudy would be prosecution and asked their questions to Richard and Kelly.

This I think would bring new twists to the game, and allow for the best player to win, rather than the one the people like the least.  