Board Thread:New on Survivor Wiki/@comment-11184708-20130624063859/@comment-26047483-20150914121541

89.176.63.75 wrote: Just three random ideas I had

1) 20 people start, two get voted out immedeatly (like in tocantins) but they don't leave the game entirely, they return at the day of the merge, so they can shake things up and have their revenge on their tribe, or forgive them.

2) The people who were already voted out can occasionaly come back into challenges, not to compete, but to help and advise some tribe/person or try to sabotage their game (not in any drastic way of course, like challenge advantages that can be won or bought already)

3) At the last day of the game the final two/three leave the island after the remembering of the other players and the final tribal councel with all talking and voting takes place AFTER the season airs, before the reunion. I think it would result in much more deserved victory, because both people and the jury would see the entire game from all perspectives and really see who is the better player and who deserves to win 1. This is basically a combination of the Schoolyard Pick Elimination from Palau and the Outcasts twist from Pearl Islands, both of which are generally looked down upon as terrible. Also as in the Outcasts twist, the two people are either going to be voted out or spurned by the jury unless they somehow both make it to a final 2 together.

2. Is this newbie season? If so I'm not sure how useful the advice of two people who have never played and presumably have some sort of obvious flaw that made them first boots at the start. You've heard of "the blind leading the blind?" This is kind of ike the blind leading the moderately vision-impaired.

3. While this would certainly make the end result more "fair" to the finalists, there are a few reasons it might not work. Firstly, it would completely overturn at least 30 seasons' worth of tradition. This is more of a reason why it would likely never happen on the show than a strike against it as a concept, but it should be mentioned. Secondly, part of the challenge of the game is to convince people within the game that you should win at the finals. When the jury's initial perspective is altered by the producers' editing it could be an issue because there are often "Winner's edits" given to people to make them look good, and these may conflict with reality somewhat. Finally, are you unsatisfied with most of the winners we've had these past 30 seasons? For me personally I would replace Amber with Rob, Natalie with Russell, Sandra with Parvati, and Fabio with Sash (although tbh I didn't think anyone from Nicaragua's finals should've been there). 4 out of 30 is a pretty good record for the current form of voting, and had people been given time to watch the season I think all of those votes would have ended up exactly the same. I don't know how often you've felt a different finalist should win, but I doubt it's more than 10/30.