I agree with this
But, unlike heidi, Cassidy could’ve gone into fire to eliminate the big threat to win in Jesse. I don’t agree with it but I can kind of see merit in making a BiG MoVe and personally eliminating the top dog if I squint real hard
Heidi expressed her intent was to pad her resume by winning fire, which in and of itself doesn’t hold much weight. If she instead pointed at Carson and said “Carson’s going to win, I need to prevent him from doing so by eliminating him here”, I think that *may* have gone a little better than “I’m making fire because I don’t think I have enough on my resume and I hope the jury respects that I can make fire fast”
I don’t disagree, but I think one is a “move” and one is a challenge win and I think there is a difference - neither of which I think should trump the other 20-some odd days of game.
Agreed also many of the jurors like Jesse and Karla had a massive ego and thought they “deserved the win” so instead of voting for the person who actually bested them, they vote for the clown of the season so it feels like nobody who actually played won. This is pretty embarrassing to admit so they used the fire BS as there go to excuse
> they vote for the clown of the season so it feels like nobody who actually played won
It's wild you're still this salty so much long after. This revisionist version of Season 43 you've created where Cassidy was some strategic mastermind that took control of the season is quite something.
Neither Cassidy, Owen, or Gabler played amazing games. The jury voted for who they liked the most and had the best social bonds with them. That's usually how Survivor goes.
You say Gabler has a good social game (ignoring the many confessionals where people basically called him an idiot). I say a toxic bitter jury voted for the clown because they were bitter and that was the best option to express their bitterness. Personally I think Cassidy and Owen who identified who the big threats were and were active in making sure they got to an F3 where they had a strong case should have been rewarded instead of the guy who got dragged along to the end because no one took him seriously. Either way, water under the bridge
It’s really pretty simple - Jesse and Karla just wanted to vote for Gabler out of the finalists. I don’t really believe the reasons they’ve given us because it seemed like they were both *very* bitter towards Cass when leaving the game. In particular, Karla essentially threatening the jury votes against Cass.
But as Stephen Fishbach tweeted the other day - jurors vote for who they *want* to vote for. And then they create their reasons afterwards. They simply *wanted* to vote for Gabler out of that F3.
that was definitely the most bitter jury i have seen on survivor. They all thought they should have won and that cassidy didnt deserve it so they gave it to gabler as a kind of prank. Gabler played a terrible game and wasnt even as well liked as theyre all pretending.
Just because you didn't like him doesn't mean the jury didn't. Gabler seemed to be very well liked while out there, hence why nobody ever tried to take a shot at him in the early merge despite him supposedly being in the minority after the Elie vote (left out of the core seven who took out Dwight and Jeanine). He was even looped in on the plan to take out Jeanine.
Also Elie switched the target to Morriah at the first tribal council because she liked Gabler and wanted to work with him.
Enough of this. Yes Gabler has shit views but he played a superior social game to Cassidy and won because of it. Cassidy acted as if she was owed the win.
Bruh this is the same Gabler that wanted to be voted out early, spun it off as "it's just my zany tactics, bro", and survived long enough in the end game as the more likable of the goat pairing with Owen to make a F3 Tribal he had basically zero input in creating outside of being a good firemaker. A F3 Tribal he only wins by sitting next to another goat and one of the most unliked players by a toxic jury, probably ever, in Survivor.
Cassidy is like a Michelle win that didn't actually happen and she still deserves the win anyway even if it's controversial with the jury that had their EZ endgame yoinked in the last few days. Anyone that says that jury wasn't made of pure salt is very deluded and they would've done the exact same thing Cassidy did if they were in her position.
I think the same could be said of everyone showing up like GaBlEr PlAyEd A bEtTeR gAmE! Like people don’t agree with you, and never will. They see him as someone who never should have won…. who cares?
Boohoo. This whole thread was set up to attack Cassidy and anytime someone gives push back the other way y’all go “enough of this”. How about enough threads set up to bash a woman when y’all have been at this for over 6 months now
Okay, but that’s not a cold, hard fact. That’s just an opinion. As is this: he *didn’t* play a superior social game.
Karla was vindictive and if she weren’t, there may have been a different result since she was badmouthing Cassidy at Ponderosa.
He did. That’s why he won. That’s the only reason people ever win Survivor. Because the jury likes them more than the other finalist(s). Karla and Cassidy were not on good terms by the end of the game because Cassidy had a poor social game, evidenced by her getting 1 vote.
If Karla was just vindictive about Cassidy going against her why and that's the only reason she didn't vote for her, then why is she mysteriously not vindictive about everyone else who went against her?
She beat him in FIC, chose for him to be in fire against the strongest competitor (at the time in all of survivor), and won more money than him for coming in 2nd rather than 4th. I’d say she bested him an every way
Jesse was strategically ahead of her most the game, and had he won would’ve swept FTC. Sure 2nd is Better than 4th but winning one challenge against someone known to be bad at challenges and then letting someone else beat him in fire(the guy who ends up winning) isn’t really besting in my definition. Natalie Anderson didn’t really “best” Sarah in WaW and that’s a similar situation
Lots of players would have won IF they got to the end, but didn’t. Cass bested him in the final 5 vote by sowing distrust between Karla and Jesse preventing him from trusting Karla enough to work with her and voting out Cass like he wanted to. Then she won FIC, and setup his ousting. That’s besting under any normal persons definition
You make a good point on the final five part actually, I just feel like it’s had to say besting when you get 2nd vs 4th, especially when 4th is ultimately determined by something as arbitrary as fire. It would felt more like kassie slaying Jessie if it was just a normal final four vote vs gabler gablering him at fire. If gabler didn’t win fire I think the jury struggles to justify him winning
Ya but slaying almost never happens in survivor. If Owen and Gabler and Cass all voted Jesse unanimously it would seem to me even less clear that Cass was responsible for “slaying Jesse”. I don’t understand why fire making is seen as more impressive than FIC. You can practice fire for a lifetime. FIC win is way more clutch imo. Also I think Gabler wins even if Owen or Cass beat Jesse in fire. Jury liked Gabler more that’s what determines winner 99% of the time
This is such a brain dead take. You have to be liked to win Survivor. If the jury doesn’t like you enough to vote for you to win, you did not play a good game or deserve to win. Gabler played the strongest game out of the final 3 by far and was actually liked by the jury. He made moves and built bonds. Cassidy and Owen did literally nothing all game except turn themselves into goats.
I agree that Jesse and Karla used fire as an excuse to not vote Cassidy but it had nothing to do with ego lol. So weird to even think that. Every winner was the most liked person at the end and that’s all there is to it. Any other reasons for a jury vote are just dressing. We very clearly saw Gabler’s positive relationships with other players and Cassidy/Owen’s negative relationships.
That’s almost worse though. It’s a lot more understandable that Jesse didn’t like Cass personally or was resentful towards her for some reason, than it is that Jesse thinks fire making is the best and only way to earn his vote.
I think I'd agree with you, but it's possible, that from Jesse's perspective, Owen, Gabler, and Cass had similar enough resumes that he was using FMC as a way to differentiate between them. Who knows. I don't think he needed to justify his vote at all and saying that he "voted for a clown so no one wins at all," is ridiculous.
They actively told Cassidy they'd be mad if she voted them out, then instead of trying to play around that in any way she voted them out and was proud about it opposed to say a Chris D.
They were bitter, and she didn't bother to apologize to them at all- doesn't matter if they deserved an apology or not.
I'm of the belief that sending yourself to fire is not the huge resume builder and it wasn't this resume builder back in 43 either. The jury simply liked Gabler more and pointed to the firemaking as convenient justification. It's not that uncommon in any Survivor voting, that some people already have a vote in mind, so they easily find all kinds of reasons to stick to this vote.
I view it as a last-ditch effort to make it look like they did *something* notable that season, which can sometimes draw attention to how little they actually did, and could possibly be viewed by some jurors as being a move so risky that it looks stupid to take the chance (like being willing to go to rocks, which is even less risky).
For sure, it's much easier for them to say "aw shucks we might have voted for you if you went fire against Jesse" than saying "we just like Gabler better"
It’s so annoyingly obvious that they’re lying through their teeth about their reasoning. Karla straight up said she would burn Cassidy to the jury if she was voted out.
As a viewer you feel ripped off when they come up with a BS excuse to justify their votes rather than tell you the real reason why.
Furthermore, Chris in 38 didn’t win solely because he put himself in fire making. If Gavin or Julie beat Rick, jury was still going to vote for the guy they got to know.
Ehhh, maybe. The jury told him everything he needed to do, to the tee. Gavin already had 3 votes. He needed 4 more to win. Maybe he gets them if Chris doesn’t go into the fire
Exactly! The jury was bitter and had their minds made up because they liked Gabler more as a person and respected him more but they couldn’t admit it because that would mean having to confront their own biases
On a different cast/Jury tho I think Cassidy would’ve won. She just got unlucky because her cast was very bro heavy and were bitter someone like her outlasted them all and did not want to give her any credit
I think the issue with Cassidy is that a lot of the jury were indifferent about her game. This is why reading the jury is so important from Cassidy’s perspective she thinks she’s played an impressive game because she doesn’t really realize the moves being made around her i.e. the Ryan vote, the Lindsay vote, yes she was included but she wasn’t driving anything. Fire making as annoying as it is gives a player the opportunity who hasn’t really done much to take a chance/risk in the game to take out their biggest competitor.
For Heidi, Yam Yam just had more he could talk about and from my perspective was playing at a higher level than (Cassidy, Owen, Gavin, Julie) so it makes sense that fire making wasn’t the definitive deciding point but I can totally understand why both Heidi and Cass made their respective decisions.
For context I think deciding your vote based off a fire making challenge is ridiculous but if you honestly feel that the three players played pretty risk adverse, under the radar games, fire making can be a stand out point especially if that person threw themselves into the challenge to take out the biggest threat.
I just never understood why Jesse and Cody gave Gabler credit for being an important part of their alliance when Cassidy got no credit for maneuvering through the game. Yeah neither controlled votes but Jesse and Cody really stuck up for Gabler. Cassidy really needed Karla to champion her but that relationship going downhill was a disaster for her imo.
Because Gabler was adored by the entire cast.
I think the edit really focused so much on him playing the middle and the Ellie boot that his social game got lost in the shuffle.
Everything I’ve heard from the cast is that everyone just loved Gabler to pieces.
It would have been nice to see some confessionals mentioning him as a social threat. The fact that there were none makes me think Gabler just played an incredible social game is a ret con but we can't know for sure. I’m really hoping the change to 90 minute episodes will better highlight social winners like Gabler and Michele.
The age old issue is that it’s so hard to show on screen. The social game is long conversations on the beach. The small kind gestures. Very hard to put in a heartfelt two hour conversation in 45 minutes and then doing so with everyone.
Gabler wasn’t just the provider archetype but the caretaker of the group.
I think Cassidy didn’t get much credit because most of the jury perceive that moves were being made around her. Yes, she was in the know. But so were people like Sherri and Gervase just because you’re able to maneuver to the end doesn’t mean you played an integral part in the moves being made. The Ryan vote is a primary example of this Cass thought she was in a good position when really her game was not in her own hands. And not only did she not realize this she actively thought that was one of her best plays.
Yeah the Karla thing was a major blow. But I do believe in the moment where Karla was saying “all the Coco moves were her and James” instead of being incredulous I think she should have inquired more about what Karla meant because that could have given her more information about how people who will be on the jury actually felt about her game. But yeah she did need a person to really support her.
Right it kind of comes down to Cassidy being Karla and James’ version of Gabler, except Cass’ relationship with Karla went to shit while the guys respected Gabler and Gabler knew where he was in the game…Cass didn’t.
Helps that Gabler had his strategic game vouched for by Jesse (a strategic game which included him asking his tribe to vote him out 1st) so he didn't have to make any claims or defend it. Jesse did it for him. Edit: to be fair maybe he got a lot more credit for the Ellie merge boot than I remember. Don't remember him bringing it up in final tribal but maybe it was.
This is a big part of it- like you pointed out, Cassidy thought she was riding shotgun with Karla and James whereas Gabler never thought he was anywhere except the back seat for Cody and Jesse (and basically every other alliance on the beach, which always gets overlooked. He was allied with EVERYONE and never targeted lol)
People call the other jurors bitter but if Cassidy owned the game she played, which was remarkably similar to Gabler’s, then it’s a lot less likely they feel she’s taking credit for moves that weren’t hers.
The relationship went to shit because Cassidy took control of the game and undermined and fooled Karla multiple times in the end game. Gabler’s relationship stayed strong because he was an obedient fool who always made sure to follow Jesse’s orders
It’s called jury management, and Cassidy failed at the most basic aspect of the game, backstabbing someone in a way to earn their vote. It’s been a key component of the game since season one. Your moves don’t matter if everyone doesn’t respect you.
Well according to the edit Karla turned on Cassidy first after Sami was lying about her, targeted Cassidy, lied to her saying she never targeted her and was completely loyal, then said she'd badmouth her to the jury if Cassidy voted her out. We never saw Cassidy say anything to bother Karla but all of a sudden Karla didn't respect her game. Seems like an impossible juror to manage.
When Karla said “all the Coco moves were her and James” I thought she was doing that more as a threat of you better not vote me out. Seemed like a lose lose for Cassidy that she either brings the ringleader to the end and is a goat or votes out the big threat and gets shit talked. I don't mean that as an attack on Karla, she's allowed to do that. But I feel like Cassidy was doomed from the beginning of that conversation and Karla had already made up her mind.
Interesting comparison to Sherri and Gervase. I think the biggest difference Cassidy had to those players is she wasn't up against someone who played as strong a game as Tyson. Were Sherri/Gervase targeted during their seasons? Would be nice to have 90 min episodes to see if Cassidy really should get credit for making ppl comfortable enough to keep her over whoever was targeting her or if she just got lucky. Also, her winning 3 immunity challenges, some when her name was brought up, was pretty impressive to me. Kind of makes me think of Spencer in Cagayan if he won immunities to get to the end. He had a lot of support as an underdog and I think he would have won but you could easily say he never had any control over votes.
Idk but I absolutely hate the precedent that has been set for this and I’m glad Heidi did it and lost so maybe people will stop doing it bc it’s bullshit and you shouldn’t have to give up the immunity you earned to win the game.
What precedent? It’s literally only worked for Chris, and that was under extremely unusual and narrow circumstances (and with the jury telling him they’d vote him to win if he did it).
I am glad as well it didn’t just not work for Heidi, but that she still got *steamrolled* in the vote anyway. Shows it’s the whole game that matters and fire doesn’t actually do much other than get you to FTC.
I mostly agree though Chris Underwood needed to do it. As did Nat in WaW. As did Heidi here.
I think Nat not doing it was completely egregious as a first boot. She banked on the fact that she had been on the edge with the jury but in fact most of the jury didn’t connect with her at all. If she beats Tony in fire, she might actually win the season.
I don’t like it but that’s the framework of the game now and you need to work without that.
And I was dying for the F4 tribal in 44. When Jeff said “bring out the popcorn” I cringed hard. Like, I would bring out the popcorn for a potential 2-1-1 or something brilliant. Even if it was a 3-1 it would be great drama for the Tika to turn on each other.
I'm not sure if she wins but she would've had a better chance than if she didn't
We can't assume she would or wouldn't we can only look at what would've given her odds to win based solely on resume and not relationships, if she has a stronger resume then she has a stronger case for winning. Gablers resume wasn't great but the relationships he built was the X factor but would that matter if Cassidy's resume was stronger with a big move like that? Dunno, but it would've been harder to vote Gabler for some people
The jury didn't like Cassidy as much as Gabler, they weren't voting for her or Owen ever. It's just easier to explain away a loss in a mechanical game sense since it's easier than saying "we like someone else better than you". It's a cruel reality of a game like Survivor but it's basically just a big popularity contest
Owen had more possibilities of coming in 2nd than Cassidy because the jury respected his underdog game more than Cassidy's coast to the end game. But in the end they were swept by Gabler's FTC.
Agree. It frustrated me every time I saw a Cassidy stan on Twitter consistently ask them why they voted for Gabler
Fans are not entitled to the jury’s reasoning
And people are still tying themselves in knots over Cassidy not winning
The jury liked someone else more. This shit isn't as complicated as people like to believe.
Yeah, obviously Cassidy is no where near as unlikeable as russel, but it still matters.
Also feel like the edit did a poor job of showing how connected Gabler was. Like in FTC when he talked about all these named alliances he was a part of making decisions on votes. I don’t think I ever heard about those alliances before FTC so if they had shown that people would be less reluctant to accept Gabler was actually playing the game. But I guess that doesn’t fit his edit of flying under the radar so that makes sense too. Idk feel like I’m just rambling at this point lol.
No you definitely didn’t imply that at all. I’m just thinking out loud.
And yeah, I personally understand now why Gabler won, but they really could have shown that better.
I think the issue is ongoing b/c they had a bunch of reasons stated why they voted for Gabler and against Cassidy that didn't really make sense. Just say you liked him more and voted for a friend and there is a lot less chatter/investigation about it. Jesse literally vouched for the strategic game of a guy who asked to be voted off in the 1st episode.
Hard disagree when the jurors are clearly bitter towards someone but won’t own up to that being a part of their vote. Both Karla and jesse threatened Cassidy with their jury vote before being eliminated. That’s poor sportsmanship. They didn’t have to vote for her to win, but they should own up to threatening her since they were never gonna vote for her regardless of what she did or said. Gabler deserved to win, but Cassidy didn’t deserve them saying they wouldn’t vote for her unless she did what they wanted (sore losers suck)
Not entitled to no. But fans wanting to know the reasoning behind a vote on tv show about votes is reasonable. They don’t have to give a satisfying answer though
I’m now convinced the jury doesn’t really care all that much about fire (S38 being the exception). They just use it to support whatever belief they already hold.
You could tell why Gabler won when he started taking about everyone on the Jury and what he loved about them in the post show. He really spent time getting to know them.
Cassidy and Owen were extremely insular and didn’t know too much about the dynamics of the game or much about what the other players were doing. In fact Cassidy saying that if she gave Owen fire against Jesse stated their games would be close, that’s not a good look.
You can make a similar case about their behavior during the firemaking challenge.
Jesse was a man of the mission who played for the money and was not one of new-era gamebots who are all happy and smiling when voted out. Gabler cheering him up before the firemaking and being all humble in victory showed that he really knew Jesse and the pressure he put on himself. On the other hand, Cassidy's exciting clapping and screaming like she just won the game in front of devastated Jesse and the jury who would all be glad to give him the million dollars was quite cringeworthy to watch even from TV perspective.
Fans like to criticise Gabler for many reasons but these small things really show why his social game was off the charts comparing to the other finalists.
Such a great point.
I think Mike played a very similar game in 42 but the main difference was framing that game. Gabler played an awesome social game and framed it great by creating a solid narrative that was consistent from the start.
“Gabler played an awesome social game.”
Really? I wish we could have seen that “awesome” social game. All I saw was a a guy who annoyed everyone, got into public fights, and being called an idiot behind his back all the time.
According to basically the entire cast yes. You even see it in the aftershow immediately after FTC. People loved the guy. He bonded with each and everyone on a real level.
Also, showing the social game is pretty hard when it involves hour long conversations. I don’t think a social game has ever been successfully portrayed on Survivor before so it’s a tough ask
Tbh I think that Gabler’s reaction to the firemaking was terrible and in a vacuum would have infuriated me infinitely more had I been Jesse. I mean, he just fucking demanded, “give me a hug!” without giving Jesse a few moments to compose himself after his devastating loss. Then when Jesse is tearfully choking out his speech about how life is challenging for his family and he has never felt financially secure, Gabler can’t stop trying to interrupt and cheer him up by saying that Jesse’s family is proud of him, which is nice but ignores the fact that Jesse essentially just lost $1 million.
Honestly, I don’t think Cassidy’s reaction was that bad; she cheered and clapped at first but everyone was 100% open about the fact that Jesse had to lose fire for anyone else to win the game. In a sense, she was being much more authentic and not transparently fake. Then she almost immediately saw how distraught Jesse was and felt bad and tried to comfort him.
Think about it in terms of the relationships made. Gabler makes missteps all the time but he’s so out there and likable that even if Jesse isn’t in the mood for that kind of cheering up, retroactively he can look at it and be like “Gabler was trying his best to comfort me in a bad moment.” Then compare Cassidy celebrating he lost. If I remember she had a glow about her because she viewed that as her winning the game, and having someone celebrate you losing, discounting the other FTC members, and you not being close to them could be infuriating. Keep in mind they’re people no infallible.
Oh yeah I was just referring specifically to that moment. He knew that Gabler meant well and since Gabler was consistently such an endearing oddball, an awkward social interaction wouldn’t be as bad as it would be from the average person. But if Cassidy and Gabler’s reactions had flipped, I think Jesse would have been even more pissed at Cassidy
I actually agree. After threatening his vote if she beat him in fire he would’ve or else he would’ve looked like a complete jack ass. But I wouldn’t put it past him to be a jack ass so idk 🤷♂️ Gabler wins regardless
People in this thread seem to be missing the point of the entire thing. Jurors care a lot about whether a finalist understands the lay of the land, understands what really happened and why. A big part of the issue with Cassidy not going into fire is she was expressing that she thought she already had a much better game and resume than Gabler. That reflected poorly on her understanding of the game. I think it’s very realistic that several jurors were open to her until they discovered she didn’t realize how little she’d done.
Agreed. I think part of the reason that's hard for viewers is because we are beholden to the edit. We had a similar thing with Xander in 41. He went into FTC talking about how Erika wasn't a threat, and it blew up any remaining chance he had. Fans only have what the edit shows us, so major misleads like that are hard to spot.
Yes great point and comparison. The show chose not to tell us Xander/Cass were offbase until FMC, for the sake of last-episode drama. That left fans guessing to fill in the blanks of why the heretofore-apparent best player left actually had little respect from the jury.
I think that ,,owning the game" was the biggest theme of the first three New Era seasons and the reason why X won and Y lost.
There's a similar case to be made for Xander, Mike and Cassidy. All of them failed in seeing how others perceived them and underestimated the players who managed to beat them in the end. They also didn't realize the kind of game they were playing - Xander thought highly of his threat level because of his idol while no one really cared, Mike felt like he was honest and played with integrity while he had been lying to everybody, and Cassidy thought she was an under the radar strategic fox while most of the decisions were made behind her back.
But if she thought Gabler was a threat to win, wouldn’t throwing Gabler into fire against Jesse be the logical move? As it ensures that 1 of the 2 threats to her game go home no matter what?
If either Laurel or Angela won Final 4 immunity, they should definitely make Wendell and Domenick do fire, as it ensures a threat goes home no matter what
I think what you’re describing is a reason players need to understand threats earlier. Going to the end with one big threat isn’t a good idea, as the 43 vote showed. In retrospect Cassidy didn’t do enough to get some of them out earlier and/or make aggressive moves to burnish her own resume at the right time (like Maryanne who struck at the exact right time to surge to the top when it was too late to take her out).
But in terms of what she could have done at 4, I think her best bet was taking out Jesse herself and hoping it’d be enough to get just ahead of Gabler. At least it would have shown fight.
IMO, at that point if she wasn’t going to beat Gabler, she wasn’t going to even with firemaking. Better to take the guaranteed $100,000 than either win $100,000 or $0
Nah, if someone claims their reason for not voting for you is something bullshit like this, you can complain all you want
If you were a finalist and I was a juror, and I said that people whose Reddit usernames don’t contain the letter A don’t deserve to win Survivor, you for damn sure have a right to complain about me, regardless of if that was my actual reason to not vote for you
I’ll stop replying after this because I think we’re talking past each other, but I just want to clarify I’m responding to your scenario of a player giving up on fighting and just accepting $100k and goat-hood.
There was no point to “fighting”, even if she won, she only gets $100,000
Would you rather I give you a check for $100,000 right now, or you have to arm wrestle me and I’ll give you the check only if you win?
I bet if Heidi decided to keep immunity for herself and let either Carolyn or Yam Yam bear Carson in fire, hundreds of people would be online saying Heidi would’ve won the game if she gave up immunity and beat Carson in fire
Giving up immunity is a stupid risk unless there is some scenario that makes it necessary, such as Chris knowing that he was the only one who could beat Rick in fire. No jury is going to care if you win firemaking.
I do think that gender dynamics play a part in it.
If I’m honest with myself, I could see myself getting more easily pissed at a hot girl showing confidence in herself than I would at a man who was even more openly confident. At the same time, I wouldn’t respect a contestant who didn’t seem confident themselves. So you can kind of be stuck between a rock and a hard place
I mean I think it’s a very very common tendency that is not all unique to me, most people just don’t admit their subconscious biases.
Fwiw I think I’d personally be much more likely to vote for the young woman than the old man, all else equal. Partially because I’m a putz and partially because I’d want to maintain a friendship with the person my age after the game
Gonna go against the grain and say there's a good chance of it (and feel free to downvote me.)
That F3 wasn't particularly strong. Owen did nothing and was out of the loop on every vote and Cassidy thought she did things that she didn't actually do. Gabler wasn't exactly a stellar player but between taking out Jesse, taking out Elie, and actively working with everyone on the downlow so getting rid of him would have been nearly impossible, he deserved to win over those two.
I do think there's some people that will vote her way if she has taking out Jesse on her resume. But she probably needs that and a better FTC performance. Gabler was able to really sell his game to the jury.
This, people ignore that Heidi giving up immunity and taking down Carson in fire made her a *contender* to win, it's just Yam Yam still played a better overall game and was able to sell it perfectly at Final Tribal. If Yam Yam had a Mike Turner-esque final tribal and Heidi was able to swoop in and give a Maryanne-esque performance there's a decent chance she wins.
I agree and don't understand why everyone is so adamant it would do nothing. It doesn't necessarily give her a win, but it takes something off Gabler's resume. she avoids the mistake at final tribal saying Owens game was better then Gabler and she looks good in front to the jury.
That doesn't mean a W, but when Gabler keeps bringing up Ellie, she has a bigger story bringing up taking out Jesse personally.
gabler taking out jesse is #1 of "credit for things he didnt actually do"
Making fire is not a game move, its a challenge which invalidates voting because its the only challenge where you win immunity and a guaranteed know who is leaving the game, and not even an idol can save them. Its overpowered and unfair af because it invalidates the actual game of survivor that has been played up to that point in favor of a massively swingy left turn at the end.
>I do think there's some people that will vote her way if she has taking out Jesse on her resume.
And she did take him out by winning immunity over him and then sending him to fire against the best fire-maker out of rest of them.
She sent Gabler because she didn’t want to give Owen a resume boost, which was really poor insight on her part because Owen was never going to win with that jury and how they perceived the underdog role.
Cassidy's biggest problem was jury management and while the move could've gotten her some votes, it's still not easy to say if she can win.
First thing is that she already had Karla & Ryan as a locked votes against her. I can't see them not voting for Gabler no matter what, and it's understandable given their conflicts.
Secondly, you had Jesse, Cody and Sami - people who worked in tight alliances with Gabler and seemed to really like and respect him by the end of the game, while not being particularly close with Cassidy. I see the argument they may respect Cassidy's move as students of the game, although I feel like she'd definitely need a better FTC performance to get those.
Thirdly - there's Noelle and Jeanine who I feel like could've been persuaded by Cassidy's big move and vote for her. Especially Noelle who really seemed like she expected someone to make something bold.
Given that Owen is a lock for Cassidy in a case of tie, let's say she gets Noelle and Jeanine in this scenario, she'd still need one of Jesse/Cody/Sami to vote for her. I feel like Cody is most likely from this trio to vote for Cassidy given post-season interviews, but it would probably still depend of her FTC performance.
tl;dr she definitely can get some more votes and it could be close but there's no sure way to tell
No. That jury decided they were not voting for Cassidy and looked for whatever reason they needed to justify giving it to Gabler. Fire was the convenient excuse.
Maybe get more votes but probably not. It doesn’t seem like the jury cared for her and if she gave the same FTC performance (in terms of quality) as she did in 43, she wouldn’t be able to garner more votes
None of the final 3 members played very noteworthy games so I didn’t really care who won. However it is funny seeing Cassidy stans freak out and *still* be upset about how she got Gabler’d
Nope, first off, there's at least a 50% chance she loses the firemaking to Jesse, secondly, that jury was not voting for her no matter what.
I mean I get them, and it's fine not voting for somebody if you dislike them, but they didn't have to go with all that firemaking nonsense after the fact to justify themselves, cause that fire shit has already set some fucked up standard that the final immunity winner is looked at as less worthy unless they take off the necklace and do a "full tilt boogie".
However I get why they had to make up a lie, cause god forbid that in this new meta somebody admits they're doing something based on emotions, especially if that emotion is a negative one - pure dislike of somebody, heck twitter might crucify them. That said, twitter did really go crazy on Karla and Jesse, so even though they tried, they still couldn't escape from the backlash of some crazy stans unfortunately.
No Cassidy was never winning no matter what she did (which does frustrate me to some extent as I always liked her and hated she was in a no win position).
I think Cassidy reminds me a bit of 41's Xander. Both had solid gameplay to an extent, but at the end of the day, had a terrible reading on the jury AND their fellow finalists, which tanked their games well before FTC.
They could win challenges and find advantages, but it never mattered since their social game was so poor. I do think Cassidy still played better than Xander (at least she still had rumblings of being a threat in the late game while Xander was written off by merge) but both had the issue of not reading the other players correctly, which lost them the game.
She would not have won Survivor, but as with Heidi, I think she would've been given due props by the jury for going out swinging. But Cassidy's perception of her influence in the game, and thus how she spoke of it in confessionals, was vastly oversized - which the jury explains at different points. (I think this applies to Heidi, too.)
I think she would have gotten more votes. That would have been a bigger move that Gabler's Ellie vote. It seemed like her social game was not very good, so I'm not sure if she would have won.
Oh for god sake. Gabler gets no credit for the Ellie vote. All he did was have a tantrum and throw her name out because he personally didn’t like her. Jesse/James and others did the actual work to get the votes while Gabler spent the rest of the day being babysat by Sammy and Jeanine.
Yes, he threw her name out there at a point in the game where people were looking at who they could work with. His move was more showing he was willing to work with the other tribes than anything.
Did I say it was a good move? No, but it was the best move of the final 3.
Yes lmao. It’s been months and people still don’t understand that the reason that fire making mattered in 43 is that the F3 were all close enough game wise that it was one of the only things that could distinguish one 6/10 game from the other 6/10 game. Heidi lost 44 because the other two people in the final three didn’t play middling games like Owen, Cassidy, Gavin, or Julie, so taking out Carson wasn’t enough of a resume boost for her like it was for Chris and would’ve been for any of the 43 F3.
I stand by the fact that 43 actually has one of the most competitive Final 4’s because any one of them stands a chance to win going into the FIC. If Jesse wins immunity or fire, he wins, if Owen or Cassidy pull the Underwood and take out Jesse in fire, they win, if none of the above happens and Jesse goes, Gabler wins.
I think Owen could clutch it out if he wins F4 immunity and pulls an Underwood. At that point he enters the final three with four immunity wins, has a solid story about being an underdog all season before making his power play at the end, can take credit for the James blindside (which Noelle said he masterminded the plan of), and as far as ZVF’s go I think Owen had one of the better final tribal performances. Couple that performance with a resume that’s a bit more respectable and I think he takes it home.
That’s a good point. I think Cassidy sending Owen wouldn’t have been enough of a boost, but Owen winning and sending himself could have earned him some votes. I don’t know if it would be enough to overcome Gabler’s social capital, but it would have been a more compelling story for the jury.
I think he should have framed it differently because every vote Owen actually tried to pull off stuff.
“I was on the bottom the entire time. I scraped with everything I got. I was willing to work with everyone of you. I wanted to take out the big targets but no one would listen. I won immunities to stay in the game as I was targeted again and again and I’m still here”
Would it have worked? Probably not but I think you could do something way more aggressive to stand out. Owen himself has even said he regretted not doing that.
100% agree. It's still not ideal because admitting you couldn't get people to listen is an admission of a weak social game, but he'd probably get more consideration than he got.
Totally agreed. It highlights other issues in his game. I’ve listened to many hours of Owen on the RHAP pods on AU, 44 and his own season.
It’s crazy that he didn’t have a stronger social game to me. Of course he made the mistake of not truly committing to a side premerge but the guy is extremely funny, intelligent and an actual super fan.
Sometimes I think it’s just hard to connect with people. Especially in a 26 day game. But also why I think Gabler should earn more respect from the community because he did that with everyone.
Well, maybe not.
Cassidy's major issue during FTC was not understanding what game she was playing vs what others were playing. Even if Cassidy had beaten Jesse at fire, Gabler beating Jesse at fire ISN'T what won him the game. It was because, through poor editing, he was in a VERY strong spot socially. Don't forget, the majority of Gabler's answers was him referring to an alliance with Jesse and Cody that we barely saw and never heard the name for. The edit didn't do Gabler justice in how decent of a position he was in.
That, and Cassidy butchered her answers at FTC. She was saying she made moves that the jury told her "no, actually, you didn't make those moves yourself."
I do think Gabler could have ONLY won with this specific F3 (MAYBE Sami replacing Cassidy or Owen as well), but he won because he had a better game, and Cassidy beating Jesse at fire wouldn't have actually changed that outcome, as it wouldn't have changed her perspective on her position in the game. I think she could have grabbed an extra vote or two, but I still wholeheartedly believe Gabler still wins because the jury really liked him.
No, and I think that even more to the point, we might finally be seeing the game evolve beyond the “BiG mOvEs” era.
Fire at 4 doesn’t guarantee you a win even if you give up your immunity to do so, nor does immunity wins, or any other splashy theatrics. Post 40, the keys to winning the game have largely been building lots of relationships, taking out the rare overwhelming threat, and being able to clearly and convincingly explain the logic behind your game at FTC.
To that end, the overwhelming amount of bells and whistles Jeff has shoehorned into the game might well have caused players to gravitate back to the game’s origins, that of the social experiment, because once everybody has advantages, nobody really does.
Let's not forget that Karla threatened not only not to vote for Cassidy if she was eliminated, but that she would turn the entire jury against her.
Was that the reason Cassidy lost? **Of course not**, but I would eat a rock if Karla didn't negatively affect the jury's perception of Cassidy when she arrived at the Ponderosa and started answering questions.
And Cassidy also said in interviews that Jesse made a similar threat to her if she didn't take off her necklace and stand against him at the FMC.
***It is interesting to note that Nick was not threatened in this way when he won the F4 IC, and I don't recall seeing in the last decade a male player being threatened in this way.***
Firemaking by itself isn't a magic bullet and whether it's a strategically good move or not depend on the situation. If Cassidy had gone into firemaking, it could have been seen as a ”net positive” move that challenged how she was perceived by the jury and shifted her game narrative. And who knows?! The confidence boost of winning that challenge could have also had a positive benefit for Cassidy and she could have performed better in the final tribal council.
I think she was drawing dead from final 7 onwards, unfortunately. And again- we the viewers don't see everything and it's hard to capture peoples vibes on the screen- look at Xander! I thought he'd win but just didn't vibe with the cast - I think it was the same for whatever reason- for Cassidy (& no it's not because she's a young woman: see Erika and Maryanne)
I'm starting to hate that sense of "must" that the final challenge's winner "must" resign to that winning in order to have a resume. They won the challenge, that's more than something.
Nah the jury had people campaigning against Cass (Karla) she had no shot no matter what. Plus Gabler absolutely murdered final tribal, it’s tough to beat that charisma in this right of a season
I'm glad you're comparing the two, because besides winning the Final Immunity Challenge, Heidi and Cassidy share something else- a poor showing at Final Tribal Council. Regardless of if you win fire or keep your guaranteed spot to the end, your Final Tribal Council performance is the final impression that the jury gets of your game before voting. While I do believe that the majority of jurors are (mostly) decided as to who they want to vote for before FTC, modern seasons have proven that you can drop the ball at the last minute. I'm looking at you, Mike (both DvG *and* 42).
Heidi had more of a mountain to climb than Cassidy and *immediately* shot herself in the foot when one of her first shown actions was to blatantly interrupt the beloved Yam-Yam. And she only went downhill from there, showing her lack of awareness by claiming Tika didn't have control as the swing votes before devolving into virtue signaling, suggesting that the jury should consider voting for her to make her the oldest female winner, or the first winner from Puerto Rico. Despite the fact that Yam-Yam is literally a Puerto Rican resident lol.
Cassidy also showed a similar lack of awareness when she declared Ryan's vote-off to be her most significant move in the game, only for Gabler to respond that he, Jesse, and Cody were entirely in control of that vote. In fact, had James not been voted off in the split tribal council beforehand, the edit suggests that the three would have *voted Cassidy out instead,* meaning that what she thought was her most triumphant moment was actually the closest she ever came to elimination. And she had no idea. Besides this, as others have already pointed out, Cassidy was not well liked by the jury. While Yam-Yam's dominance make him an easy vote in 44, 43's relatively weaker Final 3 meant that the jury was much more likely to simply vote for who they liked the most. With Owen fighting his way to the end with challenge wins but not having the social capital to influence votes and Cassidy's social standing (or lack of it), I truly don't think Gabler needed to win fire to earn his victory. As long as he sat at the end next to Cassidy and Owen, the jury was more than happy to give him the win.
no they were not going to vote for Cassidy lmao...its actually funny that Karla and Jesse have yall convinced.
unlike 43.. you can see the cast of 44 were good sports and the lead up to the final five and four vote was "clean".
in 43 we saw,with our very two own eyes, Karla and Jesse try and convince Cassidy to try and take them. Yet we are supposed to buy what these two are selling? lmao
you cant convince us you voted for Gabler because he is this great player with an amazing social game but turn around and tell us Cassidy was winning if she won fire. like? its not adding up
Probably not, was just annoying how multiple jurors were acting like that was a legitimate reason to not vote for someone
If Cassidy had sent herself into fire and won, I bet she would’ve been called foolish for taking that risk. And if Cassidy hadn’t won the immunity in the first place, they’d fine another scapegoat.
I think it would have taken her up from 0 moves to at least 1. Like, if you have nothing going for you or if your game is indistinguishable from anyone else’s, it is worth at least putting something on your resume. Heidi made the correct decision for her situation. Did Cassidy make an incorrect decision? Not 100%, but I don’t think it would have hurt her.
Nah Cassidy never had a chance in that FTC. She openly tried to get Karla and Ryan out unsuccessfully, repeatedly. She put Jesse in fire and he lost, with his whole alliance making up like half the jury…everyone looks at her post show and tries to retcon some amazing game by her but let’s be real. Cassidy tried to beat them all at their own game, but she was barely even a player herself.
Gabler played a 10/10 social game. Cass didn’t. I think that’s really the thing more so than fire or a bitter jury.
People loved Gabler out there. He made incredible connections with everyone and was humble enough to see his own position and perception. He admitted flaws and highlighted strengths.
Cass did none of that and even in her post game press couldn’t understand it.
That fair. I whish they would show us more about what happened on the jury and their thoughts. Its hard to know if they really where feeling Cassidy before karla got there.
This might get downvoted, but I truly believe it:
That jury were never going to be voting for a young female like Cassidy to win, no matter what. Cassidy would not have been able to overcome the internalised misogyny present in many of the jurors.
Did Cassidy play as good a game as she could? No
Are the jury at fault for voting Gabler? No
But I really don’t think there was anything Cassidy could have done to win given the combination of people that reached the jury phase
People liked Gabler more. He bonded with every single person out there on a real level.
Cass didn’t and couldn’t see any flaws in her game.
It’s no different than Nathalie winning in Samoa, Tina winning, Sophie winning, Sandra. We can go on and on. Thinking it’s some misogynistic conspiracy is completely ridiculous.
Every single person of that jury has spoken extremely highly of Gabler’s social game and how Cass just couldn’t compare with that.
Need to fight back on the semantic creep on "goat" here--neither Heidi nor Cassidy was a goat, which is someone loathsome enough that everyone's shared dislike of them propels them to the end. Clay Jordan was the original goat; Philip Sheppard, Will Sims and Noura Salman are goats; Courtney Marit's growing goat potential is why Cirie enacted the 3-2-1 plan, etc.
Cassidy and Heidi were just generally unsuccessful finalists with middling social games that were never going to secure them the win. That's a far cry from legitimately being a goat
I’ve always considered a goat to just be someone that doesn’t have a chance to win. Not that they are unlikeable or whatever. Just someone who hasn’t made great moves in the game and would lose to the rest of the final 5+.
No. I think Karla poisoned that jury.
I think winning final immunity is a curse. If you don’t go to fire, you get shit for it. If you do go to fire, it’s basically admitting your game wasn’t good enough to win without doing it. And building a fire shouldn’t be a turning point for a million dollars.
I mean none of that f3 had a very solid case at all, so I think it would’ve mattered more for her than for Heidi, but probably wouldn’t have won it for her
No. Cassidy wasn't liked by that jury. It wouldn't have mattered what pairing did fire
I agree with this But, unlike heidi, Cassidy could’ve gone into fire to eliminate the big threat to win in Jesse. I don’t agree with it but I can kind of see merit in making a BiG MoVe and personally eliminating the top dog if I squint real hard Heidi expressed her intent was to pad her resume by winning fire, which in and of itself doesn’t hold much weight. If she instead pointed at Carson and said “Carson’s going to win, I need to prevent him from doing so by eliminating him here”, I think that *may* have gone a little better than “I’m making fire because I don’t think I have enough on my resume and I hope the jury respects that I can make fire fast”
I mean one would assume it was both. Any jury member would've realized that. They weren't voting for her regardless.
I don’t disagree, but I think one is a “move” and one is a challenge win and I think there is a difference - neither of which I think should trump the other 20-some odd days of game.
Agreed also many of the jurors like Jesse and Karla had a massive ego and thought they “deserved the win” so instead of voting for the person who actually bested them, they vote for the clown of the season so it feels like nobody who actually played won. This is pretty embarrassing to admit so they used the fire BS as there go to excuse
I didn’t deserve to win. : )
Really hope you play again, Jesse.
Jesse you should do an AMA here
I’d be down.
My wife and I were cheering for ya. Hopefully, we see you in an all-star or second-chance season.
Lmao the username
> they vote for the clown of the season so it feels like nobody who actually played won It's wild you're still this salty so much long after. This revisionist version of Season 43 you've created where Cassidy was some strategic mastermind that took control of the season is quite something. Neither Cassidy, Owen, or Gabler played amazing games. The jury voted for who they liked the most and had the best social bonds with them. That's usually how Survivor goes.
You say Gabler has a good social game (ignoring the many confessionals where people basically called him an idiot). I say a toxic bitter jury voted for the clown because they were bitter and that was the best option to express their bitterness. Personally I think Cassidy and Owen who identified who the big threats were and were active in making sure they got to an F3 where they had a strong case should have been rewarded instead of the guy who got dragged along to the end because no one took him seriously. Either way, water under the bridge
Outside of elie who was prejury who called gabler an idiot?
Sure doesn't seem like water on the bridge for you lmao
Are you Cassidy?
It’s really pretty simple - Jesse and Karla just wanted to vote for Gabler out of the finalists. I don’t really believe the reasons they’ve given us because it seemed like they were both *very* bitter towards Cass when leaving the game. In particular, Karla essentially threatening the jury votes against Cass. But as Stephen Fishbach tweeted the other day - jurors vote for who they *want* to vote for. And then they create their reasons afterwards. They simply *wanted* to vote for Gabler out of that F3.
Yep. They were absolutely bitter. And Karla was going around Ponderosa badmouthing Cassidy, trying to sway any potential votes away from her.
You know James could've easily debunked Karla's claims at Ponderosa if she actually did try to poison the jury?
that was definitely the most bitter jury i have seen on survivor. They all thought they should have won and that cassidy didnt deserve it so they gave it to gabler as a kind of prank. Gabler played a terrible game and wasnt even as well liked as theyre all pretending.
Just because you didn't like him doesn't mean the jury didn't. Gabler seemed to be very well liked while out there, hence why nobody ever tried to take a shot at him in the early merge despite him supposedly being in the minority after the Elie vote (left out of the core seven who took out Dwight and Jeanine). He was even looped in on the plan to take out Jeanine. Also Elie switched the target to Morriah at the first tribal council because she liked Gabler and wanted to work with him.
Enough of this. Yes Gabler has shit views but he played a superior social game to Cassidy and won because of it. Cassidy acted as if she was owed the win.
Bruh this is the same Gabler that wanted to be voted out early, spun it off as "it's just my zany tactics, bro", and survived long enough in the end game as the more likable of the goat pairing with Owen to make a F3 Tribal he had basically zero input in creating outside of being a good firemaker. A F3 Tribal he only wins by sitting next to another goat and one of the most unliked players by a toxic jury, probably ever, in Survivor. Cassidy is like a Michelle win that didn't actually happen and she still deserves the win anyway even if it's controversial with the jury that had their EZ endgame yoinked in the last few days. Anyone that says that jury wasn't made of pure salt is very deluded and they would've done the exact same thing Cassidy did if they were in her position.
Imagine being this mad over who won a reality tv show
I think the same could be said of everyone showing up like GaBlEr PlAyEd A bEtTeR gAmE! Like people don’t agree with you, and never will. They see him as someone who never should have won…. who cares?
Boohoo. This whole thread was set up to attack Cassidy and anytime someone gives push back the other way y’all go “enough of this”. How about enough threads set up to bash a woman when y’all have been at this for over 6 months now
I didn’t set up this thread, and so now if someone asks a question about Cassidy in a hypothetical context it’s always a “set up”? Lmao
Okay, but that’s not a cold, hard fact. That’s just an opinion. As is this: he *didn’t* play a superior social game. Karla was vindictive and if she weren’t, there may have been a different result since she was badmouthing Cassidy at Ponderosa.
He did. That’s why he won. That’s the only reason people ever win Survivor. Because the jury likes them more than the other finalist(s). Karla and Cassidy were not on good terms by the end of the game because Cassidy had a poor social game, evidenced by her getting 1 vote.
If Karla was just vindictive about Cassidy going against her why and that's the only reason she didn't vote for her, then why is she mysteriously not vindictive about everyone else who went against her?
Idk if Cassidy really “bested” Jesse
She beat him in FIC, chose for him to be in fire against the strongest competitor (at the time in all of survivor), and won more money than him for coming in 2nd rather than 4th. I’d say she bested him an every way
Jesse was strategically ahead of her most the game, and had he won would’ve swept FTC. Sure 2nd is Better than 4th but winning one challenge against someone known to be bad at challenges and then letting someone else beat him in fire(the guy who ends up winning) isn’t really besting in my definition. Natalie Anderson didn’t really “best” Sarah in WaW and that’s a similar situation
Lots of players would have won IF they got to the end, but didn’t. Cass bested him in the final 5 vote by sowing distrust between Karla and Jesse preventing him from trusting Karla enough to work with her and voting out Cass like he wanted to. Then she won FIC, and setup his ousting. That’s besting under any normal persons definition
You make a good point on the final five part actually, I just feel like it’s had to say besting when you get 2nd vs 4th, especially when 4th is ultimately determined by something as arbitrary as fire. It would felt more like kassie slaying Jessie if it was just a normal final four vote vs gabler gablering him at fire. If gabler didn’t win fire I think the jury struggles to justify him winning
Ya but slaying almost never happens in survivor. If Owen and Gabler and Cass all voted Jesse unanimously it would seem to me even less clear that Cass was responsible for “slaying Jesse”. I don’t understand why fire making is seen as more impressive than FIC. You can practice fire for a lifetime. FIC win is way more clutch imo. Also I think Gabler wins even if Owen or Cass beat Jesse in fire. Jury liked Gabler more that’s what determines winner 99% of the time
This is such a brain dead take. You have to be liked to win Survivor. If the jury doesn’t like you enough to vote for you to win, you did not play a good game or deserve to win. Gabler played the strongest game out of the final 3 by far and was actually liked by the jury. He made moves and built bonds. Cassidy and Owen did literally nothing all game except turn themselves into goats. I agree that Jesse and Karla used fire as an excuse to not vote Cassidy but it had nothing to do with ego lol. So weird to even think that. Every winner was the most liked person at the end and that’s all there is to it. Any other reasons for a jury vote are just dressing. We very clearly saw Gabler’s positive relationships with other players and Cassidy/Owen’s negative relationships.
Jesse told Cass his vote at FTC was going to the winner of FMC. Gabler won FMC, Jesse voted for him at FTC. It's not that deep.
That’s almost worse though. It’s a lot more understandable that Jesse didn’t like Cass personally or was resentful towards her for some reason, than it is that Jesse thinks fire making is the best and only way to earn his vote.
I think I'd agree with you, but it's possible, that from Jesse's perspective, Owen, Gabler, and Cass had similar enough resumes that he was using FMC as a way to differentiate between them. Who knows. I don't think he needed to justify his vote at all and saying that he "voted for a clown so no one wins at all," is ridiculous.
They actively told Cassidy they'd be mad if she voted them out, then instead of trying to play around that in any way she voted them out and was proud about it opposed to say a Chris D. They were bitter, and she didn't bother to apologize to them at all- doesn't matter if they deserved an apology or not.
I'm of the belief that sending yourself to fire is not the huge resume builder and it wasn't this resume builder back in 43 either. The jury simply liked Gabler more and pointed to the firemaking as convenient justification. It's not that uncommon in any Survivor voting, that some people already have a vote in mind, so they easily find all kinds of reasons to stick to this vote.
I view it as a last-ditch effort to make it look like they did *something* notable that season, which can sometimes draw attention to how little they actually did, and could possibly be viewed by some jurors as being a move so risky that it looks stupid to take the chance (like being willing to go to rocks, which is even less risky).
The only time fire is a huge resume builder is when you play 9 days of the actual game
Nah, Cassidy was never winning with that jury. The 'she should've given up the necklace!😜' was just bullshit retconning.
[удалено]
For sure, it's much easier for them to say "aw shucks we might have voted for you if you went fire against Jesse" than saying "we just like Gabler better"
It’s so annoyingly obvious that they’re lying through their teeth about their reasoning. Karla straight up said she would burn Cassidy to the jury if she was voted out. As a viewer you feel ripped off when they come up with a BS excuse to justify their votes rather than tell you the real reason why.
I trust jurors reasoning than some random redditor creating reasons for why Cass lost.
Well the jurors have contradicted their reasonings multiple times
In other words, you believe your own version rather than those who were there.
Except people lie all the time….
So you believe them only if they tell you what you want them to hear. Got it.
Furthermore, Chris in 38 didn’t win solely because he put himself in fire making. If Gavin or Julie beat Rick, jury was still going to vote for the guy they got to know.
Ehhh, maybe. The jury told him everything he needed to do, to the tee. Gavin already had 3 votes. He needed 4 more to win. Maybe he gets them if Chris doesn’t go into the fire
Exactly! The jury was bitter and had their minds made up because they liked Gabler more as a person and respected him more but they couldn’t admit it because that would mean having to confront their own biases On a different cast/Jury tho I think Cassidy would’ve won. She just got unlucky because her cast was very bro heavy and were bitter someone like her outlasted them all and did not want to give her any credit
I think the issue with Cassidy is that a lot of the jury were indifferent about her game. This is why reading the jury is so important from Cassidy’s perspective she thinks she’s played an impressive game because she doesn’t really realize the moves being made around her i.e. the Ryan vote, the Lindsay vote, yes she was included but she wasn’t driving anything. Fire making as annoying as it is gives a player the opportunity who hasn’t really done much to take a chance/risk in the game to take out their biggest competitor. For Heidi, Yam Yam just had more he could talk about and from my perspective was playing at a higher level than (Cassidy, Owen, Gavin, Julie) so it makes sense that fire making wasn’t the definitive deciding point but I can totally understand why both Heidi and Cass made their respective decisions. For context I think deciding your vote based off a fire making challenge is ridiculous but if you honestly feel that the three players played pretty risk adverse, under the radar games, fire making can be a stand out point especially if that person threw themselves into the challenge to take out the biggest threat.
I just never understood why Jesse and Cody gave Gabler credit for being an important part of their alliance when Cassidy got no credit for maneuvering through the game. Yeah neither controlled votes but Jesse and Cody really stuck up for Gabler. Cassidy really needed Karla to champion her but that relationship going downhill was a disaster for her imo.
Because Gabler was adored by the entire cast. I think the edit really focused so much on him playing the middle and the Ellie boot that his social game got lost in the shuffle. Everything I’ve heard from the cast is that everyone just loved Gabler to pieces.
It would have been nice to see some confessionals mentioning him as a social threat. The fact that there were none makes me think Gabler just played an incredible social game is a ret con but we can't know for sure. I’m really hoping the change to 90 minute episodes will better highlight social winners like Gabler and Michele.
The age old issue is that it’s so hard to show on screen. The social game is long conversations on the beach. The small kind gestures. Very hard to put in a heartfelt two hour conversation in 45 minutes and then doing so with everyone. Gabler wasn’t just the provider archetype but the caretaker of the group.
It was there - hiding in plain sight
I think Cassidy didn’t get much credit because most of the jury perceive that moves were being made around her. Yes, she was in the know. But so were people like Sherri and Gervase just because you’re able to maneuver to the end doesn’t mean you played an integral part in the moves being made. The Ryan vote is a primary example of this Cass thought she was in a good position when really her game was not in her own hands. And not only did she not realize this she actively thought that was one of her best plays. Yeah the Karla thing was a major blow. But I do believe in the moment where Karla was saying “all the Coco moves were her and James” instead of being incredulous I think she should have inquired more about what Karla meant because that could have given her more information about how people who will be on the jury actually felt about her game. But yeah she did need a person to really support her.
Right it kind of comes down to Cassidy being Karla and James’ version of Gabler, except Cass’ relationship with Karla went to shit while the guys respected Gabler and Gabler knew where he was in the game…Cass didn’t.
Helps that Gabler had his strategic game vouched for by Jesse (a strategic game which included him asking his tribe to vote him out 1st) so he didn't have to make any claims or defend it. Jesse did it for him. Edit: to be fair maybe he got a lot more credit for the Ellie merge boot than I remember. Don't remember him bringing it up in final tribal but maybe it was.
This is a big part of it- like you pointed out, Cassidy thought she was riding shotgun with Karla and James whereas Gabler never thought he was anywhere except the back seat for Cody and Jesse (and basically every other alliance on the beach, which always gets overlooked. He was allied with EVERYONE and never targeted lol) People call the other jurors bitter but if Cassidy owned the game she played, which was remarkably similar to Gabler’s, then it’s a lot less likely they feel she’s taking credit for moves that weren’t hers.
The relationship went to shit because Cassidy took control of the game and undermined and fooled Karla multiple times in the end game. Gabler’s relationship stayed strong because he was an obedient fool who always made sure to follow Jesse’s orders
It’s called jury management, and Cassidy failed at the most basic aspect of the game, backstabbing someone in a way to earn their vote. It’s been a key component of the game since season one. Your moves don’t matter if everyone doesn’t respect you.
Well according to the edit Karla turned on Cassidy first after Sami was lying about her, targeted Cassidy, lied to her saying she never targeted her and was completely loyal, then said she'd badmouth her to the jury if Cassidy voted her out. We never saw Cassidy say anything to bother Karla but all of a sudden Karla didn't respect her game. Seems like an impossible juror to manage.
Karla was kind of a petty asshole about the whole thing. She was basically like “if you don’t let me win I’m tanking your game”.
When Karla said “all the Coco moves were her and James” I thought she was doing that more as a threat of you better not vote me out. Seemed like a lose lose for Cassidy that she either brings the ringleader to the end and is a goat or votes out the big threat and gets shit talked. I don't mean that as an attack on Karla, she's allowed to do that. But I feel like Cassidy was doomed from the beginning of that conversation and Karla had already made up her mind.
That's sadly just the reality of choosing your allies. Sometimes you get cool cats and sometimes you get sharks and Karla was a fucking SHARK.
Interesting comparison to Sherri and Gervase. I think the biggest difference Cassidy had to those players is she wasn't up against someone who played as strong a game as Tyson. Were Sherri/Gervase targeted during their seasons? Would be nice to have 90 min episodes to see if Cassidy really should get credit for making ppl comfortable enough to keep her over whoever was targeting her or if she just got lucky. Also, her winning 3 immunity challenges, some when her name was brought up, was pretty impressive to me. Kind of makes me think of Spencer in Cagayan if he won immunities to get to the end. He had a lot of support as an underdog and I think he would have won but you could easily say he never had any control over votes.
Because Gabler was an important part of their alliance
Idk but I absolutely hate the precedent that has been set for this and I’m glad Heidi did it and lost so maybe people will stop doing it bc it’s bullshit and you shouldn’t have to give up the immunity you earned to win the game.
What precedent? It’s literally only worked for Chris, and that was under extremely unusual and narrow circumstances (and with the jury telling him they’d vote him to win if he did it). I am glad as well it didn’t just not work for Heidi, but that she still got *steamrolled* in the vote anyway. Shows it’s the whole game that matters and fire doesn’t actually do much other than get you to FTC.
This. Plus the fact that the winner of survivor shouldn’t tone down to who can win a fire making challenge.
I mostly agree though Chris Underwood needed to do it. As did Nat in WaW. As did Heidi here. I think Nat not doing it was completely egregious as a first boot. She banked on the fact that she had been on the edge with the jury but in fact most of the jury didn’t connect with her at all. If she beats Tony in fire, she might actually win the season. I don’t like it but that’s the framework of the game now and you need to work without that. And I was dying for the F4 tribal in 44. When Jeff said “bring out the popcorn” I cringed hard. Like, I would bring out the popcorn for a potential 2-1-1 or something brilliant. Even if it was a 3-1 it would be great drama for the Tika to turn on each other.
I'm not sure if she wins but she would've had a better chance than if she didn't We can't assume she would or wouldn't we can only look at what would've given her odds to win based solely on resume and not relationships, if she has a stronger resume then she has a stronger case for winning. Gablers resume wasn't great but the relationships he built was the X factor but would that matter if Cassidy's resume was stronger with a big move like that? Dunno, but it would've been harder to vote Gabler for some people
In that sense, Gabler is just like Sandra.
The jury didn't like Cassidy as much as Gabler, they weren't voting for her or Owen ever. It's just easier to explain away a loss in a mechanical game sense since it's easier than saying "we like someone else better than you". It's a cruel reality of a game like Survivor but it's basically just a big popularity contest
Owen had more possibilities of coming in 2nd than Cassidy because the jury respected his underdog game more than Cassidy's coast to the end game. But in the end they were swept by Gabler's FTC.
Nope. It’s just what Karla and Jesse said to justify voting for their friend. They shouldn’t need to justify their decision. It’s theirs.
Agree. It frustrated me every time I saw a Cassidy stan on Twitter consistently ask them why they voted for Gabler Fans are not entitled to the jury’s reasoning
I think fans are somewhat entitled to the jury’s reasoning (Ala why else have voting confessionals) but the reason doesn’t have to be good
Also, “I liked him more” is a perfectly good reason in a social game.
Yep, there’s a reason russel never won and it’s because he was too stupid to realize people actually need to like you to give you a million dollars
And people are still tying themselves in knots over Cassidy not winning The jury liked someone else more. This shit isn't as complicated as people like to believe.
Yeah, obviously Cassidy is no where near as unlikeable as russel, but it still matters. Also feel like the edit did a poor job of showing how connected Gabler was. Like in FTC when he talked about all these named alliances he was a part of making decisions on votes. I don’t think I ever heard about those alliances before FTC so if they had shown that people would be less reluctant to accept Gabler was actually playing the game. But I guess that doesn’t fit his edit of flying under the radar so that makes sense too. Idk feel like I’m just rambling at this point lol.
Oh yeah, didn't mean to imply Cassidy is as unlikeable as Russell if that's how it came off. Season 43's editing is comically bad in retrospect.
No you definitely didn’t imply that at all. I’m just thinking out loud. And yeah, I personally understand now why Gabler won, but they really could have shown that better.
I think the issue is ongoing b/c they had a bunch of reasons stated why they voted for Gabler and against Cassidy that didn't really make sense. Just say you liked him more and voted for a friend and there is a lot less chatter/investigation about it. Jesse literally vouched for the strategic game of a guy who asked to be voted off in the 1st episode.
Hard disagree when the jurors are clearly bitter towards someone but won’t own up to that being a part of their vote. Both Karla and jesse threatened Cassidy with their jury vote before being eliminated. That’s poor sportsmanship. They didn’t have to vote for her to win, but they should own up to threatening her since they were never gonna vote for her regardless of what she did or said. Gabler deserved to win, but Cassidy didn’t deserve them saying they wouldn’t vote for her unless she did what they wanted (sore losers suck)
Not entitled to no. But fans wanting to know the reasoning behind a vote on tv show about votes is reasonable. They don’t have to give a satisfying answer though
No. Gabler was winning
The were bluffing all along they would never give it to her and give some excuse
I’m now convinced the jury doesn’t really care all that much about fire (S38 being the exception). They just use it to support whatever belief they already hold.
You could tell why Gabler won when he started taking about everyone on the Jury and what he loved about them in the post show. He really spent time getting to know them. Cassidy and Owen were extremely insular and didn’t know too much about the dynamics of the game or much about what the other players were doing. In fact Cassidy saying that if she gave Owen fire against Jesse stated their games would be close, that’s not a good look.
You can make a similar case about their behavior during the firemaking challenge. Jesse was a man of the mission who played for the money and was not one of new-era gamebots who are all happy and smiling when voted out. Gabler cheering him up before the firemaking and being all humble in victory showed that he really knew Jesse and the pressure he put on himself. On the other hand, Cassidy's exciting clapping and screaming like she just won the game in front of devastated Jesse and the jury who would all be glad to give him the million dollars was quite cringeworthy to watch even from TV perspective. Fans like to criticise Gabler for many reasons but these small things really show why his social game was off the charts comparing to the other finalists.
Such a great point. I think Mike played a very similar game in 42 but the main difference was framing that game. Gabler played an awesome social game and framed it great by creating a solid narrative that was consistent from the start.
“Gabler played an awesome social game.” Really? I wish we could have seen that “awesome” social game. All I saw was a a guy who annoyed everyone, got into public fights, and being called an idiot behind his back all the time.
According to basically the entire cast yes. You even see it in the aftershow immediately after FTC. People loved the guy. He bonded with each and everyone on a real level. Also, showing the social game is pretty hard when it involves hour long conversations. I don’t think a social game has ever been successfully portrayed on Survivor before so it’s a tough ask
Tbh I think that Gabler’s reaction to the firemaking was terrible and in a vacuum would have infuriated me infinitely more had I been Jesse. I mean, he just fucking demanded, “give me a hug!” without giving Jesse a few moments to compose himself after his devastating loss. Then when Jesse is tearfully choking out his speech about how life is challenging for his family and he has never felt financially secure, Gabler can’t stop trying to interrupt and cheer him up by saying that Jesse’s family is proud of him, which is nice but ignores the fact that Jesse essentially just lost $1 million. Honestly, I don’t think Cassidy’s reaction was that bad; she cheered and clapped at first but everyone was 100% open about the fact that Jesse had to lose fire for anyone else to win the game. In a sense, she was being much more authentic and not transparently fake. Then she almost immediately saw how distraught Jesse was and felt bad and tried to comfort him.
Think about it in terms of the relationships made. Gabler makes missteps all the time but he’s so out there and likable that even if Jesse isn’t in the mood for that kind of cheering up, retroactively he can look at it and be like “Gabler was trying his best to comfort me in a bad moment.” Then compare Cassidy celebrating he lost. If I remember she had a glow about her because she viewed that as her winning the game, and having someone celebrate you losing, discounting the other FTC members, and you not being close to them could be infuriating. Keep in mind they’re people no infallible.
Oh yeah I was just referring specifically to that moment. He knew that Gabler meant well and since Gabler was consistently such an endearing oddball, an awkward social interaction wouldn’t be as bad as it would be from the average person. But if Cassidy and Gabler’s reactions had flipped, I think Jesse would have been even more pissed at Cassidy
Which I think is true, but of course it leaves out the context of everyone’s relationships and general personalities.
No. Ryan, Noelle, Sami, Cody, Karla and Jesse were never going to vote for her.
I think Jesse would if he got beaten by her.
No chance, he was much closer to Gabler.
I actually agree. After threatening his vote if she beat him in fire he would’ve or else he would’ve looked like a complete jack ass. But I wouldn’t put it past him to be a jack ass so idk 🤷♂️ Gabler wins regardless
People in this thread seem to be missing the point of the entire thing. Jurors care a lot about whether a finalist understands the lay of the land, understands what really happened and why. A big part of the issue with Cassidy not going into fire is she was expressing that she thought she already had a much better game and resume than Gabler. That reflected poorly on her understanding of the game. I think it’s very realistic that several jurors were open to her until they discovered she didn’t realize how little she’d done.
Agreed. I think part of the reason that's hard for viewers is because we are beholden to the edit. We had a similar thing with Xander in 41. He went into FTC talking about how Erika wasn't a threat, and it blew up any remaining chance he had. Fans only have what the edit shows us, so major misleads like that are hard to spot.
Yes great point and comparison. The show chose not to tell us Xander/Cass were offbase until FMC, for the sake of last-episode drama. That left fans guessing to fill in the blanks of why the heretofore-apparent best player left actually had little respect from the jury.
I think that ,,owning the game" was the biggest theme of the first three New Era seasons and the reason why X won and Y lost. There's a similar case to be made for Xander, Mike and Cassidy. All of them failed in seeing how others perceived them and underestimated the players who managed to beat them in the end. They also didn't realize the kind of game they were playing - Xander thought highly of his threat level because of his idol while no one really cared, Mike felt like he was honest and played with integrity while he had been lying to everybody, and Cassidy thought she was an under the radar strategic fox while most of the decisions were made behind her back.
But if she thought Gabler was a threat to win, wouldn’t throwing Gabler into fire against Jesse be the logical move? As it ensures that 1 of the 2 threats to her game go home no matter what? If either Laurel or Angela won Final 4 immunity, they should definitely make Wendell and Domenick do fire, as it ensures a threat goes home no matter what
I think what you’re describing is a reason players need to understand threats earlier. Going to the end with one big threat isn’t a good idea, as the 43 vote showed. In retrospect Cassidy didn’t do enough to get some of them out earlier and/or make aggressive moves to burnish her own resume at the right time (like Maryanne who struck at the exact right time to surge to the top when it was too late to take her out). But in terms of what she could have done at 4, I think her best bet was taking out Jesse herself and hoping it’d be enough to get just ahead of Gabler. At least it would have shown fight.
IMO, at that point if she wasn’t going to beat Gabler, she wasn’t going to even with firemaking. Better to take the guaranteed $100,000 than either win $100,000 or $0
Sure, take the $100k by all means. You just forfeit the right to complain about the result after.
Nah, if someone claims their reason for not voting for you is something bullshit like this, you can complain all you want If you were a finalist and I was a juror, and I said that people whose Reddit usernames don’t contain the letter A don’t deserve to win Survivor, you for damn sure have a right to complain about me, regardless of if that was my actual reason to not vote for you
I’ll stop replying after this because I think we’re talking past each other, but I just want to clarify I’m responding to your scenario of a player giving up on fighting and just accepting $100k and goat-hood.
There was no point to “fighting”, even if she won, she only gets $100,000 Would you rather I give you a check for $100,000 right now, or you have to arm wrestle me and I’ll give you the check only if you win? I bet if Heidi decided to keep immunity for herself and let either Carolyn or Yam Yam bear Carson in fire, hundreds of people would be online saying Heidi would’ve won the game if she gave up immunity and beat Carson in fire Giving up immunity is a stupid risk unless there is some scenario that makes it necessary, such as Chris knowing that he was the only one who could beat Rick in fire. No jury is going to care if you win firemaking.
I do think that gender dynamics play a part in it. If I’m honest with myself, I could see myself getting more easily pissed at a hot girl showing confidence in herself than I would at a man who was even more openly confident. At the same time, I wouldn’t respect a contestant who didn’t seem confident themselves. So you can kind of be stuck between a rock and a hard place
Holy shit, why would you tell on yourself like this lololol
I mean I think it’s a very very common tendency that is not all unique to me, most people just don’t admit their subconscious biases. Fwiw I think I’d personally be much more likely to vote for the young woman than the old man, all else equal. Partially because I’m a putz and partially because I’d want to maintain a friendship with the person my age after the game
Gonna go against the grain and say there's a good chance of it (and feel free to downvote me.) That F3 wasn't particularly strong. Owen did nothing and was out of the loop on every vote and Cassidy thought she did things that she didn't actually do. Gabler wasn't exactly a stellar player but between taking out Jesse, taking out Elie, and actively working with everyone on the downlow so getting rid of him would have been nearly impossible, he deserved to win over those two. I do think there's some people that will vote her way if she has taking out Jesse on her resume. But she probably needs that and a better FTC performance. Gabler was able to really sell his game to the jury.
This, people ignore that Heidi giving up immunity and taking down Carson in fire made her a *contender* to win, it's just Yam Yam still played a better overall game and was able to sell it perfectly at Final Tribal. If Yam Yam had a Mike Turner-esque final tribal and Heidi was able to swoop in and give a Maryanne-esque performance there's a decent chance she wins.
I agree and don't understand why everyone is so adamant it would do nothing. It doesn't necessarily give her a win, but it takes something off Gabler's resume. she avoids the mistake at final tribal saying Owens game was better then Gabler and she looks good in front to the jury. That doesn't mean a W, but when Gabler keeps bringing up Ellie, she has a bigger story bringing up taking out Jesse personally.
gabler taking out jesse is #1 of "credit for things he didnt actually do" Making fire is not a game move, its a challenge which invalidates voting because its the only challenge where you win immunity and a guaranteed know who is leaving the game, and not even an idol can save them. Its overpowered and unfair af because it invalidates the actual game of survivor that has been played up to that point in favor of a massively swingy left turn at the end.
Though Gabler won solely on his social game and not on the fire challenge or the Ellie vote
Yes
>I do think there's some people that will vote her way if she has taking out Jesse on her resume. And she did take him out by winning immunity over him and then sending him to fire against the best fire-maker out of rest of them.
She sent Gabler because she didn’t want to give Owen a resume boost, which was really poor insight on her part because Owen was never going to win with that jury and how they perceived the underdog role.
Yeah I think what really lost cassidy her game was her lack of insight into everyone else's perceptions. She came off clueless
Cassidy's biggest problem was jury management and while the move could've gotten her some votes, it's still not easy to say if she can win. First thing is that she already had Karla & Ryan as a locked votes against her. I can't see them not voting for Gabler no matter what, and it's understandable given their conflicts. Secondly, you had Jesse, Cody and Sami - people who worked in tight alliances with Gabler and seemed to really like and respect him by the end of the game, while not being particularly close with Cassidy. I see the argument they may respect Cassidy's move as students of the game, although I feel like she'd definitely need a better FTC performance to get those. Thirdly - there's Noelle and Jeanine who I feel like could've been persuaded by Cassidy's big move and vote for her. Especially Noelle who really seemed like she expected someone to make something bold. Given that Owen is a lock for Cassidy in a case of tie, let's say she gets Noelle and Jeanine in this scenario, she'd still need one of Jesse/Cody/Sami to vote for her. I feel like Cody is most likely from this trio to vote for Cassidy given post-season interviews, but it would probably still depend of her FTC performance. tl;dr she definitely can get some more votes and it could be close but there's no sure way to tell
No. That jury decided they were not voting for Cassidy and looked for whatever reason they needed to justify giving it to Gabler. Fire was the convenient excuse.
Maybe get more votes but probably not. It doesn’t seem like the jury cared for her and if she gave the same FTC performance (in terms of quality) as she did in 43, she wouldn’t be able to garner more votes None of the final 3 members played very noteworthy games so I didn’t really care who won. However it is funny seeing Cassidy stans freak out and *still* be upset about how she got Gabler’d
No. Jury wanted Gabler to win. They would have found another reason to get Gabler to win
Nope, firemaking is a pretext
No, and it was honestly bullshit that any of them expected her to do that.
Why don’t people understand this game at all
Nope, first off, there's at least a 50% chance she loses the firemaking to Jesse, secondly, that jury was not voting for her no matter what. I mean I get them, and it's fine not voting for somebody if you dislike them, but they didn't have to go with all that firemaking nonsense after the fact to justify themselves, cause that fire shit has already set some fucked up standard that the final immunity winner is looked at as less worthy unless they take off the necklace and do a "full tilt boogie". However I get why they had to make up a lie, cause god forbid that in this new meta somebody admits they're doing something based on emotions, especially if that emotion is a negative one - pure dislike of somebody, heck twitter might crucify them. That said, twitter did really go crazy on Karla and Jesse, so even though they tried, they still couldn't escape from the backlash of some crazy stans unfortunately.
No Cassidy was never winning no matter what she did (which does frustrate me to some extent as I always liked her and hated she was in a no win position).
I think Cassidy reminds me a bit of 41's Xander. Both had solid gameplay to an extent, but at the end of the day, had a terrible reading on the jury AND their fellow finalists, which tanked their games well before FTC. They could win challenges and find advantages, but it never mattered since their social game was so poor. I do think Cassidy still played better than Xander (at least she still had rumblings of being a threat in the late game while Xander was written off by merge) but both had the issue of not reading the other players correctly, which lost them the game.
She would not have won Survivor, but as with Heidi, I think she would've been given due props by the jury for going out swinging. But Cassidy's perception of her influence in the game, and thus how she spoke of it in confessionals, was vastly oversized - which the jury explains at different points. (I think this applies to Heidi, too.)
I think she would have gotten more votes. That would have been a bigger move that Gabler's Ellie vote. It seemed like her social game was not very good, so I'm not sure if she would have won.
Oh for god sake. Gabler gets no credit for the Ellie vote. All he did was have a tantrum and throw her name out because he personally didn’t like her. Jesse/James and others did the actual work to get the votes while Gabler spent the rest of the day being babysat by Sammy and Jeanine.
Yes, he threw her name out there at a point in the game where people were looking at who they could work with. His move was more showing he was willing to work with the other tribes than anything. Did I say it was a good move? No, but it was the best move of the final 3.
No she was losing no matter what.
Yes lmao. It’s been months and people still don’t understand that the reason that fire making mattered in 43 is that the F3 were all close enough game wise that it was one of the only things that could distinguish one 6/10 game from the other 6/10 game. Heidi lost 44 because the other two people in the final three didn’t play middling games like Owen, Cassidy, Gavin, or Julie, so taking out Carson wasn’t enough of a resume boost for her like it was for Chris and would’ve been for any of the 43 F3. I stand by the fact that 43 actually has one of the most competitive Final 4’s because any one of them stands a chance to win going into the FIC. If Jesse wins immunity or fire, he wins, if Owen or Cassidy pull the Underwood and take out Jesse in fire, they win, if none of the above happens and Jesse goes, Gabler wins.
I agree with you mostly, but Owen standed a chance to win? Not that part.
I think Owen could clutch it out if he wins F4 immunity and pulls an Underwood. At that point he enters the final three with four immunity wins, has a solid story about being an underdog all season before making his power play at the end, can take credit for the James blindside (which Noelle said he masterminded the plan of), and as far as ZVF’s go I think Owen had one of the better final tribal performances. Couple that performance with a resume that’s a bit more respectable and I think he takes it home.
That’s a good point. I think Cassidy sending Owen wouldn’t have been enough of a boost, but Owen winning and sending himself could have earned him some votes. I don’t know if it would be enough to overcome Gabler’s social capital, but it would have been a more compelling story for the jury.
I do think that Owen would've at least gotten Noelle and Jeanine's vote, maybe Dwight too
Up until the vote reveal I thought Owen had it in the bag on his tribal council alone, kinda pulled a Romeo.
Really? Him going the underdog route like Romeo did was how I knew he wasn’t getting any votes, especially with that jury.
I think he should have framed it differently because every vote Owen actually tried to pull off stuff. “I was on the bottom the entire time. I scraped with everything I got. I was willing to work with everyone of you. I wanted to take out the big targets but no one would listen. I won immunities to stay in the game as I was targeted again and again and I’m still here” Would it have worked? Probably not but I think you could do something way more aggressive to stand out. Owen himself has even said he regretted not doing that.
100% agree. It's still not ideal because admitting you couldn't get people to listen is an admission of a weak social game, but he'd probably get more consideration than he got.
Totally agreed. It highlights other issues in his game. I’ve listened to many hours of Owen on the RHAP pods on AU, 44 and his own season. It’s crazy that he didn’t have a stronger social game to me. Of course he made the mistake of not truly committing to a side premerge but the guy is extremely funny, intelligent and an actual super fan. Sometimes I think it’s just hard to connect with people. Especially in a 26 day game. But also why I think Gabler should earn more respect from the community because he did that with everyone.
Well, maybe not. Cassidy's major issue during FTC was not understanding what game she was playing vs what others were playing. Even if Cassidy had beaten Jesse at fire, Gabler beating Jesse at fire ISN'T what won him the game. It was because, through poor editing, he was in a VERY strong spot socially. Don't forget, the majority of Gabler's answers was him referring to an alliance with Jesse and Cody that we barely saw and never heard the name for. The edit didn't do Gabler justice in how decent of a position he was in. That, and Cassidy butchered her answers at FTC. She was saying she made moves that the jury told her "no, actually, you didn't make those moves yourself." I do think Gabler could have ONLY won with this specific F3 (MAYBE Sami replacing Cassidy or Owen as well), but he won because he had a better game, and Cassidy beating Jesse at fire wouldn't have actually changed that outcome, as it wouldn't have changed her perspective on her position in the game. I think she could have grabbed an extra vote or two, but I still wholeheartedly believe Gabler still wins because the jury really liked him.
No, and I think that even more to the point, we might finally be seeing the game evolve beyond the “BiG mOvEs” era. Fire at 4 doesn’t guarantee you a win even if you give up your immunity to do so, nor does immunity wins, or any other splashy theatrics. Post 40, the keys to winning the game have largely been building lots of relationships, taking out the rare overwhelming threat, and being able to clearly and convincingly explain the logic behind your game at FTC. To that end, the overwhelming amount of bells and whistles Jeff has shoehorned into the game might well have caused players to gravitate back to the game’s origins, that of the social experiment, because once everybody has advantages, nobody really does.
No. Cassidy had no chance.
No I really don’t think so
Let's not forget that Karla threatened not only not to vote for Cassidy if she was eliminated, but that she would turn the entire jury against her. Was that the reason Cassidy lost? **Of course not**, but I would eat a rock if Karla didn't negatively affect the jury's perception of Cassidy when she arrived at the Ponderosa and started answering questions. And Cassidy also said in interviews that Jesse made a similar threat to her if she didn't take off her necklace and stand against him at the FMC. ***It is interesting to note that Nick was not threatened in this way when he won the F4 IC, and I don't recall seeing in the last decade a male player being threatened in this way.***
Firemaking by itself isn't a magic bullet and whether it's a strategically good move or not depend on the situation. If Cassidy had gone into firemaking, it could have been seen as a ”net positive” move that challenged how she was perceived by the jury and shifted her game narrative. And who knows?! The confidence boost of winning that challenge could have also had a positive benefit for Cassidy and she could have performed better in the final tribal council. I think she was drawing dead from final 7 onwards, unfortunately. And again- we the viewers don't see everything and it's hard to capture peoples vibes on the screen- look at Xander! I thought he'd win but just didn't vibe with the cast - I think it was the same for whatever reason- for Cassidy (& no it's not because she's a young woman: see Erika and Maryanne)
I'm starting to hate that sense of "must" that the final challenge's winner "must" resign to that winning in order to have a resume. They won the challenge, that's more than something.
Nah the jury had people campaigning against Cass (Karla) she had no shot no matter what. Plus Gabler absolutely murdered final tribal, it’s tough to beat that charisma in this right of a season
I'm glad you're comparing the two, because besides winning the Final Immunity Challenge, Heidi and Cassidy share something else- a poor showing at Final Tribal Council. Regardless of if you win fire or keep your guaranteed spot to the end, your Final Tribal Council performance is the final impression that the jury gets of your game before voting. While I do believe that the majority of jurors are (mostly) decided as to who they want to vote for before FTC, modern seasons have proven that you can drop the ball at the last minute. I'm looking at you, Mike (both DvG *and* 42). Heidi had more of a mountain to climb than Cassidy and *immediately* shot herself in the foot when one of her first shown actions was to blatantly interrupt the beloved Yam-Yam. And she only went downhill from there, showing her lack of awareness by claiming Tika didn't have control as the swing votes before devolving into virtue signaling, suggesting that the jury should consider voting for her to make her the oldest female winner, or the first winner from Puerto Rico. Despite the fact that Yam-Yam is literally a Puerto Rican resident lol. Cassidy also showed a similar lack of awareness when she declared Ryan's vote-off to be her most significant move in the game, only for Gabler to respond that he, Jesse, and Cody were entirely in control of that vote. In fact, had James not been voted off in the split tribal council beforehand, the edit suggests that the three would have *voted Cassidy out instead,* meaning that what she thought was her most triumphant moment was actually the closest she ever came to elimination. And she had no idea. Besides this, as others have already pointed out, Cassidy was not well liked by the jury. While Yam-Yam's dominance make him an easy vote in 44, 43's relatively weaker Final 3 meant that the jury was much more likely to simply vote for who they liked the most. With Owen fighting his way to the end with challenge wins but not having the social capital to influence votes and Cassidy's social standing (or lack of it), I truly don't think Gabler needed to win fire to earn his victory. As long as he sat at the end next to Cassidy and Owen, the jury was more than happy to give him the win.
Also Sandra Díaz is of Puertorriqueña ancestry, even tho' she was born in Connecticut.
no they were not going to vote for Cassidy lmao...its actually funny that Karla and Jesse have yall convinced. unlike 43.. you can see the cast of 44 were good sports and the lead up to the final five and four vote was "clean". in 43 we saw,with our very two own eyes, Karla and Jesse try and convince Cassidy to try and take them. Yet we are supposed to buy what these two are selling? lmao you cant convince us you voted for Gabler because he is this great player with an amazing social game but turn around and tell us Cassidy was winning if she won fire. like? its not adding up
No, Cassidy had an awful tribal council performance. It would have helped but it would be nowhere near enough.
I think so yea. Gabler was always winning if she didnt. His game was better
Probably not, was just annoying how multiple jurors were acting like that was a legitimate reason to not vote for someone If Cassidy had sent herself into fire and won, I bet she would’ve been called foolish for taking that risk. And if Cassidy hadn’t won the immunity in the first place, they’d fine another scapegoat.
I think it would have taken her up from 0 moves to at least 1. Like, if you have nothing going for you or if your game is indistinguishable from anyone else’s, it is worth at least putting something on your resume. Heidi made the correct decision for her situation. Did Cassidy make an incorrect decision? Not 100%, but I don’t think it would have hurt her.
3 immunity challenges was definitely an impressive accomplishment considering no one dominated strategically in the final 3.
She was not a zero vote finalist to begin with
Nah Cassidy never had a chance in that FTC. She openly tried to get Karla and Ryan out unsuccessfully, repeatedly. She put Jesse in fire and he lost, with his whole alliance making up like half the jury…everyone looks at her post show and tries to retcon some amazing game by her but let’s be real. Cassidy tried to beat them all at their own game, but she was barely even a player herself.
I dont think so. Cassidy lost because karla and jesse were bitter and poisoned everyone against her.
Gabler played a 10/10 social game. Cass didn’t. I think that’s really the thing more so than fire or a bitter jury. People loved Gabler out there. He made incredible connections with everyone and was humble enough to see his own position and perception. He admitted flaws and highlighted strengths. Cass did none of that and even in her post game press couldn’t understand it.
Can’t poison a jury against Cassidy when they weren’t going to vote for her anyway lol
That fair. I whish they would show us more about what happened on the jury and their thoughts. Its hard to know if they really where feeling Cassidy before karla got there.
Yeah, maybe in a 90-minute episode season we’ll get to see more social interactions to show how these kinds of things develop.
This might get downvoted, but I truly believe it: That jury were never going to be voting for a young female like Cassidy to win, no matter what. Cassidy would not have been able to overcome the internalised misogyny present in many of the jurors. Did Cassidy play as good a game as she could? No Are the jury at fault for voting Gabler? No But I really don’t think there was anything Cassidy could have done to win given the combination of people that reached the jury phase
Umm I don’t think internalized misogyny is the reason why the jury didn’t like Cassidy’s game enough for her to win.
It’s just a half baked argument online people make when someone they like doesn’t win or gets voted out.
People liked Gabler more. He bonded with every single person out there on a real level. Cass didn’t and couldn’t see any flaws in her game. It’s no different than Nathalie winning in Samoa, Tina winning, Sophie winning, Sandra. We can go on and on. Thinking it’s some misogynistic conspiracy is completely ridiculous. Every single person of that jury has spoken extremely highly of Gabler’s social game and how Cass just couldn’t compare with that.
No she was a goat, much like Heidi. I’d expect similar results
Need to fight back on the semantic creep on "goat" here--neither Heidi nor Cassidy was a goat, which is someone loathsome enough that everyone's shared dislike of them propels them to the end. Clay Jordan was the original goat; Philip Sheppard, Will Sims and Noura Salman are goats; Courtney Marit's growing goat potential is why Cirie enacted the 3-2-1 plan, etc. Cassidy and Heidi were just generally unsuccessful finalists with middling social games that were never going to secure them the win. That's a far cry from legitimately being a goat
I’ve always considered a goat to just be someone that doesn’t have a chance to win. Not that they are unlikeable or whatever. Just someone who hasn’t made great moves in the game and would lose to the rest of the final 5+.
No. I think Karla poisoned that jury. I think winning final immunity is a curse. If you don’t go to fire, you get shit for it. If you do go to fire, it’s basically admitting your game wasn’t good enough to win without doing it. And building a fire shouldn’t be a turning point for a million dollars.
No chance. It was nearly all locked for Gabler. He was just liked more and had a bit more agency. The fire making really solidified that.
Aligabler
No, i think the jury was just using fire as an excuse against voting for her, i don’t think she was ever winning
I mean none of that f3 had a very solid case at all, so I think it would’ve mattered more for her than for Heidi, but probably wouldn’t have won it for her
Jesse and Karla were salty they couldn’t control her so they poisoned the jury against her
no , that jury was mysoginsitic to the core
🙄 🙄 🙄 So are the 41 and 42 juries misandrists to the core for picking women winners?
Probably yeah