Board Thread:Virtual Tribal Council/@comment-1294345-20171215132543/@comment-27638357-20171217073917

Hello, I'm back! This will probably be a brief stint, but I just wanted to provide an opposing opinion, since most people here are very "anti-gamebot" and I am very much-so "pro-gamebot."

IAmNothing712 wrote: In recent years, I've been increasingly getting annoyed by Probst, mostly for his bias to males and in general, contestants who fall for his call for "big moves."

Can you explain where you've got the "male bias" from? Sorry, I forgot.

IAmNothing712 wrote: Survivor was introduced as a social experiment, but with production constantly feeding the contestants with Hidden Immunity Idols and advantages, the show has degenerated into a mindless strategy game. A race to find these idols and advantages.

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.

IAmNothing712 wrote: It's sickening me that he and his cronies (those gamebots who fell for Probst's idea of "big moves", and Survivor writers like Dalton Ross) fail to find wisdom in stepping back, analyzing one's surroundings, before making a move.

First, that seems like a lot of vitriol for those who simply like the direction of the show. Second, I don't understand the "fell for" phrase. If they like Survivor's approach to more gameplay-centric seasons, I don't understand how it in any way relates to "falling for" Probst's "wishes". I know plenty of people who watch Survivor for the gameplay, with and without Probst's comments.

IAmNothing712 wrote: All Probst does nowadays is basically begging for suicide bombers to fuck the game up by forcibly squeeze aggressive moves for shock value.

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.

IAmNothing712 wrote: Survivor is a social game, not a race to find idols. Building social bonds is the foundation of game play.

Who has said this? It seems to me that since you believe that's how Survivor should be, that that's how Survivor is. I don't really understand how you asserting certain principles on what Survivor is makes them the definitive principles of Survivor.

IAmNothing712 wrote: All Probst did was shove these advantages to extract cheap blindsides, with players like Spencer, Zeke, Joe, Ryan, Chrissy falling for it; and punish those who choose to play under the radar with little to no airtime/edit (i.e. Michelle Fitzgerald).

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.

IAmNothing712 wrote: Of course, Survivor is way past its prime; but this is not how you move with the show. Before, survivors play to win a million dollars. Now, survivors play to compete for Probst's attention so they can play again for a future season.

Why do you think this isn't how to move on with the show? Ratings for Survivor are successful considering the general decline in cable TV consumption, so this means that Survivor is doing something right. The second part of your quote once again seems unfounded to me.

IAmNothing712 wrote: It's saddening that all we see is Probst's vision of the show, not what the show was meant to be from the beginning.

The phrase "meant to be" is ridiculous to me. Shows and games alter all the time in their vision, for the better or for the worse, and to say a TV show / game is destined to be something doesn't hold water to me. As for the "saddening" part, where, I must say a lot of other people in the community and I are enjoying this version of Survivor.

Again, just my opinion. Personally, I think this season is fantastic with its exciting gameplay and belongs in the 10-20 range. You guys are free to disagree, but I just think that the hivemind consensus here of saying "people who enjoy Survivor for the gamebots / gameplay are wrong and hypnotized" (as I have unfortunately seen many times ) is simply unfounded and incorrect. You can hardly be incorrect when watching a TV show for different reasons than someone else.