Talk:Russell Hantz/@comment-1294345-20130913100354

He says "there is a flaw in the game." There is not. Why?

The game of Survivor, the player is required to gain the respect of the people he voted out. Russell came out there rubbing salt on people's wounds when they are are already down, mock them, and when he doesn't win, he seeks every excuse possible to justify his loss.

Gaining respect of the people voted out does not necessarily translate likability. Most winners were liked and respected (Tina, Ethan, JT, Natalie, Fabio and Cochran are examples), but there are winners that were respected, but not necessarily the most likable, some of them are more despised than their eventual runners-up (Hatch, Parvati, Kim, Denise, Sandra). Therefore, Russell's argument about Natalie and Sandra winning is invalid. Both women didn't have the cards Russell played: tactics of intimidation, physical ability, and ability to make the most elaborate and ruthless of blindsides. Both Natalie and Sandra saw the game in a larger perspective, that the key to win Survivor is resilience, not close-mindedness or eliminating comrades as sophisticated as possible. In the grand scheme of things, challenges are nothing really. Rewards are only luxuries, while Immunity only grants safety. Given their body frames, neither Natalie or Sandra can afford to obtain those. What did they do? They adapted. They overcompensated for the aspects they lacked. They listened, observed and watched how Russell obliterated Galu and the Heroes while rubbing it to their faces.

In closing, why Russell lost? He brought the people who didn't play with the cards he also played and treated them as "goats". But in truth, he was the goat of both Natalie and Sandra, because he didn't gain the respect of the people he played with.