Board Thread:Virtual Tribal Council/@comment-1294345-20160428081722/@comment-1294345-20160429112532

Tanglefrost wrote: IAmNothing712 wrote: Just because someone doesn't have any nutritional TV value doesn't translate to him/her being a terrible winner. I hate it when so called Survivor "fans" (more like casual viewers for me) say they hate a winner because he or she wasn't as loud or visible as some others. They play to win, not to necessarily give you entertainment. I tend to rewatch a season to find out any subtle cues the editors might've thrown along the way, so if a player who wasn't really good TV all season long wins, I get some context behind his/her win (perfect example is Natalie White).

I hate to say it, but if loudness of character is your criteria of a great Survivor winner, you're a very dense person. '''It's not Michele's edit. She's literally done nothing but float this far, relying on the moves of other people. ''' Were Sophie or Natalie actually THAT reliant to their louder allies? No.