Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-33309113-20171019161302/@comment-27391152-20171226093601

Ivanornels wrote: As for who deserved to win, even though there are some runners up I personally liked more than the winners (for example, in Tocantins I was a Stephen fan), whoever the jury chooses to win deserves to win. That's the object of Survivor. It doesn't matter if Russell makes 20 moves to get him to the end if many of them were unnecessary and made with little regards to jury management, where as Natalie made the most she needed to make and kept her relationships with the jury in tact. Sarah did a better job explaining her moves than Culpepper did. Also, Sarah only needed immunity for one vote (final 6) where as Culpepper needed most if not all of his individual immunity wins to stay in the game. Lastly, if the juror voted based on political lines (which has NEVER happened in Survivor history), Sarah mentioned in the Varner boot that she was Conservative, so it wouldn't make sense for Michaela, Zeke, Andrea, Tai, etc to vote for Sarah to win if that was the criteria. But it's not, this is Survivor. The jury votes based on not only who played certain aspects of the game the best but based on social game who they want to see as the winner. I agree with all of this comment. People need to realise that it doesn't matter how many moves someone makes, if they can get the jury to vote for them, then they deserve the win over their two opponents, and are frankly better players. Even if somebody did absolutely nothing and still got to the end and won, they're still better than their opponents since their opponents must've actively done something wrong which resulted in their loss.