Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-33309113-20171019161302/@comment-2002887-20171130175547

Greenlabrador wrote: It was pretty bad, genuine Game Changers like Ciera,Sandra,Tony,Malcolm, Jt entertaining Varner were all booted out early, and production was forced into blowing up other people's personality for more airtime like Debbie, i really coudlnt stand her the first time and she was equally vile the second time around...I also did't care much for Aubry, Tai, Zeke, Ozzy (his chapter  ended on South Pacific so i don't think he had any business coming back), and sometimes I really wanted to watch Andrea & Troyzan get the boot at times.

I also believed that Culpper should have won. Sarah just flip floped all over the place like a spineless eel and that did't really sit well with me..but of course, majority of the jury are democratic left-tards anyway so yes, that would be viewed as 'strong and independent' or 'empowering' or something like that.... Everyone is entitled to their opinion but when you start throwing out problematic terms like "lefttards", it's hard to take yours seriously. But let's dissect what you said.

Whether you like it or not, Aubry, Tai, Zeke, Andrea and Ozzy were just as worthy of being cast as Ciera and Varner. The fact that you don't have a problem with Ciera and Varner playing in a second returning player season so soon after Cambodia is interesting. Granted I wasn't thrilled Ozzy came back for a 4th time and I agree he was played out after South Pacific. Also Zeke ended up being a disappointment. Zeke had some promise in MvGX but he exposed himself as a one trick pony this season. I agree, Debbie and Troyzan are WTF casting choices. They were forced into some airtime with Debbie getting the advantages and Troyzan finding the idol but at least it was funny seeing them lose the way they did: Debbie flaming out at final 11 and Troyzan being nearly forgotten about at Final Tribal Council.

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.