Board Thread:Virtual Tribal Council/@comment-1294345-20171215132543/@comment-1294345-20171217235459

'''Can you explain where you've got the "male bias" from? Sorry, I forgot.''' http://ew.com/article/2012/09/13/survivor-philippines-jeff-probst-women/

I agree that the show has evolved into a strategy game. I disagree that it has "degenerated" or that it has become "mindless". For example, when I listen to podcasts, I typically observe them to be significantly more action-packed and interesting in the strategically-heavy seasons. The evolution of the show cannot be ignored, but as to whether this is good or bad is incredibly subjective, and I tend to side with the "this is good" side. I'll reword my previous statement. Actually, Survivor is meant to be a strategy game, but I guess production gets in the way by focusing too much on strategy and less on character development. This is my concern particularly in this current season where I don't care for the contestants. All the attention goes to whoever is making "big moves". I think of it as like watching say an action movie peppered with too much on plot and fight scenes at the expense of actually developing the main character.

Again, not sure where the actual ground is for this? Where is the "begging"? How is it "forcibly squeezing"? Basically every part of this sentence seems speculative to me.

The Game Changers finale easily comes to my mind. You see, the whole point of Survivor (or Tribal Council at least) is to vote people out. Advantage-geddon was an example on why too much idols and advantages hurt the show. It has turned into a race on finding them. Cirie got sent home when she wasn't even voted for. Cirie was a well-developed character (you could probably see the her growth just by watching GC alone) compared to everyone (i.e. those who played idols), and with the only rootable, well-edited character getting technical'ed over those with very little story arcs. The editing in recent seasons has gotten to a point where they are just playing up with "blindsides" and "big moves" on a weekly basis. 75% of the time, #blindsides weren't as shocking as the edit is making them out to be.

IAmNothing712 wrote: Survivor is a social game, not a race to find idols. Building social bonds is the foundation of game play. If you don't think Advantage-geddon isn't an example of this, you are Helen Keller. Even a gamebot like Stephen Fishbach recognizes the value of building relationships to incorporate it into strategy. In this season, we have someone like Joe who got undone because he rubbed people the wrong way by pushing strategy way too much when he barely talked to anyone outside strategy. Any good Survivor player should know that when relationships are well-established, strategy follows. Like, how can you convince a total stranger if you can't meet halfway? How can you say "I'm not here to make friends" in a game that is won by convincing a jury?

First, and I should've established this earlier, this is a lot of pointing fingers to one man in a 100+ production crew and 1000+ member television channel.

I don't really understand the "cheap blinsides" or how "advantages" played a role in it. Take Spencer, for example, who if I'm remembering correctly possessed no advantages in either of his seasons, just his idol in Cagayan, which he used incorrectly and did not lead to him blindsiding someone. Zeke had no advantages during his seasons. As for the S35 players, I'm not sure how them getting advantages led them to execute poor blindsides.

You also referenced Michelle Fitzgerald as someone with little airtime, but I don't consider someone with the 3rd highest average confessionals per episode of the season to have little airtime (even holding the "Most Confessionals in an Episode" title twice). Reference: http://i.imgur.com/gII3FqX.png. Zeke is someone known to blindside people just for "building a resume" instead of having a logical reason why so and so had to go. Spencer had something similar, he only talked to people for strategy (remember Shirin's vote out in Cambodia?) and nothing else. Neither was invested in their peers' personal stories, hence why their peers cared just as less for them.

And about Michele. You see, I don't care much about confessional counts (I don't even put up confessional counts on this wiki and I delete them whenever I see them). All I care about is airtime quality. There was little investment on her arc (whether her edit was meant to be subtle or not is up for speculation). Basing from your count though, Michele's airtime boost was necessary because like duh, there's very few people left for her to be ignored. You can't just have Tai and Aubry be the only ones talking.

To sum it up, strategy should be character-driven, not driven by production. All I'm saying is, let the survivors play at their own pace and not force them to make "big moves".

P.S. I'll answer to your other comments later.