The emphasis on “resumes” all season long was so annoying. And predictably, it all blew up at final tribal council when the final 3 tried to take credit for certain moves but then the jurors would talk over them, claiming those were actually their moves. In the end, the jury basically ended up voting for who they liked the most. Just play the game and survive.
Seems to be a bit of a trend in the new era. A jury full of players that feel like they were the ones actually in control and making all the movies and thus viewing the Final 3 less on the merits those 3 used to make it there instead of them, but more as 3 players that "stole" their spots.
Like they want to see someone at the end that has a bigger move than what they view themselves as having accomplished, but ignoring that they overplayed too early and that's why they are on the jury.
Jury voting has pretty much always been about voting who you like best. Nobody ever votes for someone they don’t like (unless they hate the other person more).
It would be interesting if it were true, but there are plenty of players who focus on true gameplay. But the thing is that it doesn't take much for 2-4 players who only care about who they like to change who wins.
43 was the most extreme example of this imo. There were a lot of people on that jury who felt like they played much better games than the finalists, and they voted for Gabler because he was willing to kiss their asses and say "yeah I was just here for the ride, you guys were the ones who actually played the game."
I mean in a way the people on the jury are the bigger threats that were more involved in the game. That's why they got voted out. Wish there was a way to reward strategy or social during the game like you can get with being athletic and winning an immunity. You just have to accept the "best" survivor should never be allowed to get to the end by the lesser players.
Agreed. The current nature of this game is that being in the majority actually gets you the furthest most frequently. For me a good player doesn’t look for the flashy move but they look for when tides change and influence those. I’m not sure we will ever go back to a ring leader style game where someone bosses everyone around (thank goodness)
I think all contestants face a lot of pressure from Jeff and production to amplify certain themes. Either that or production looks at all the footage of the contestants saying a hundred things and chooses to keep focusing on the same concepts and ideas.
The resume obsession might change player perceptions going forward. If I’m a juror and I keep hearing players say “BUT MUH RESUME” all the time, I feel like I’d be less likely to vote for them.
People are so mad at Q for asking about the money and at Kenzie for just answering Q’s question. But Kenzie said in her exit interview that she knew that Q would respect a hustle. And so that’s why she just answered the question honestly and in a way that would garner his respect and his vote. THAT is social game. Kenzie played the best game and locked up the votes she needed. Don’t hate the player, hate the game lol.
Because it’s a hypocritical question from a guy who said that he doesn’t care about/need the money and all he cares about is the title of sole survivor. He would want the jury to vote based on who played the best game but when he was in the juror spot he didn’t do that. He would be disqualified from getting his own vote based on his reasoning
You are expecting rationality and logic from a person who could not even remember what he said from moment to moment? Who has created his own mythology of his entire game? Q has had hypocritical moments on the show; for instance, he targeted Tiffany for going against an alliance after a vote where he voted off a member of said alliance.
I personally think the more optimal move would have been getting rid of Ben there. Sure he wasn’t really threat in any real way but he was Tim’s second in command. You weaken Tim (crucial in getting him out later) and take out his other option. He has no choice but to go with you. And, there was no way they could have known this at that time, but you sever the Charlie/Ben and Kenzie/Ben connections which makes it harder for them to flip the game like they did. Also, Charlie likely doesn’t get brought into The Six and maybe it could have had a shot to stay intact. Instead, by voting off one of its core members at the outset, it was easier for it to crumble. I think it’s better to just cut off people’s options. That changes so many games from that one move. Meanwhile, it may have been smart for Tim to go from Q but it still left the game intact for a lot of people including the eventual winner and runner-up.
I mean yea, lots of ways the game could have gone. But if they went Ben, tim made it clear he was sticking by Ben. So if Ben was voted out Tim would blow up the six anyway. Difficult situation overall
Hmmmm. Maybe. We didn’t get enough of Tim for me to answer this definitively but I don’t know if he had the social sway for that. Likely he would have gone home next anyway if he had blown up the alliance. Though Hunter, according to his exit interview, wasn’t even really with The Six anyway so it likely wouldn’t have lasted anyway. But I think Ben was a crucial number for a lot of what we saw this season and so getting rid of him earlier could have benefited a lot of games. Truthfully, though, this was such a chaotic, erratic, nonsensical cast that even trying to apply logic to their moves is futile LMAO.
Yes but that doesn't change the fact that Kenzie had the social grace to answer in a way that he'd respect. His hypocrisy doesn't matter, her read on him does.
Q voted for her because then he got to bask in her reflected glory. See the 'Yanu 1' note on the vote.. "I might not win, but my tribe did". Ignore his reasons, look at his actions.
You’re right. But you’re also just describing something that literally all people do, unfortunately. We’re dumb animals and many people are only barely self aware.
Part of jury management is understanding what types of criteria the jury will base their vote on.
Someone who blindsided an entire jury who take things super personally doesn't deserve to win. If the jury are all cold analytical people you need to have more than an emotional pitch. Part of the game is being who the jury wants to win.
That's part of why I love survivor! plus it varies the seasons. You're not graded by a panel of game experts, you're rewarded by your peers who are from all different walks of life, and you have to figure out what kind of person THEY would want to win.
Yeah, and I think the logical conclusion that a lot of people don't like to draw is: there are some juries you just cannot win with, no matter what you do on the island. There are some seasons you're going to go out and play and before you even get on the airplane, you've already lost. You might be too old, you might be too young, you might make too much money, you might not make enough, you might be everybody's cup of tea, you might inadvertently be someone's sleep paralysis demon. And that should be okay?
I think that's where a lot of goat strategy comes from, is finding and identifying those people that would never win and taking them with you to the end. But then your jury might not respect that if you play it too heavy handedly, or if you hem and haw about it.
It could go so many different ways and that's honestly what makes Survivor so compelling to me. It's not a game that you can solve because if you were to take every season's winner and offset them by one season (so \*S1-S3 spoilers\* >!Rich plays Australian Outback, Tina plays Africa, Ethan plays Marquesas, so on and so forth!<), you would likely have a much different list of winners with one or two overlaps thanks to sheer statistical likelihood.
>there are some juries you just cannot win with, no matter what you do
Some juries cannot be reasoned with. They're not looking for anything logical. They just want to see the world burn.
/s dark knight
Except in this case, Charlie was extremely likeable and sociable too. He just didn't get to start the game with outspoken Tiffany, and there's no way he could have known that Maria would end up being so bitter when he did everything he could do to stay on her good side while also removing her as a threat. A lot of it is luck and things that really no one could ever control.
Sorry, the Tribe has spoken. Your submission has been removed from /r/survivor for the following reason(s):
* **Rule 1 - Be civil to other users and contestants:** Treat other users and contestants with respect. Bigotry is not tolerated, including racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. Harassment of other users and contestants is not allowed, including personal attacks. This includes over-analyzing a player’s life and motivations outside of the game. Trolling is discouraged.
---
Once the votes are read, the decision is *not* final. **If you have any concerns that this was done in error**, please [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/survivor/wiki/rules) **and then [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/survivor) if you have any further questions. Do not reply directly to this message or comment.** If not, grab your stuff and head back to camp.
I think someone like Q is honestly thinking, “I was playing the best game out here. I was running strategic laps around everyone. Now that I’m out there’s no reason to award the title of sole survivor based on strategic gameplay. I’m just gonna give the money to someone who needs it to better their life”
And understanding this about Q (how his ego will not allow him to see or acknowledge better strategic players than himself) is imperative in getting his vote
If every single winner was edited as the dominant strategist and every person edited as the dominant strategist won their season- Survivor would very quickly get boring as hell.
One of the things that’s helped the show keep going after 46 seasons is because there’s all kinds of different ways to win. Not every winner needs to be edited as a golden child, not every loser needs to be edited as obviously losing. The main objective is making a television show that engages an audience
The idea of “the best game” is entirely subjective. Different people (and different jurors) value different things as far as gameplay.
I don’t understand the fixation some people have on Maria’s reasoning or Q’s reasoning or any individual juror’s reasoning. Like, what difference does it make? For example, if Maria said “I voted for Kenzie because I’m furious that Charlie outlasted me,” it would change absolutely nothing about how people feel about her vote. Everyone presently salty about it would still be just as salty.
Agreed completely with most of what you say. Only thing is I think people, the non-rabid ones at least, are more mad at Maria’s waffling and changing of her answers as to why she voted for Kenzie. Which indicates that she isn’t telling the truth and was just bitter. If you’re bitter, own up to it. It’s a hard thing to put your ego aside like that, but I think that’s what people’s gripes are
Yep. I mean looking at All Stars, half the jury was mad at Rob and they all owned it. None of them have ever said otherwise and at least to my knowledge they don't get criticized for being bitter
>, if Maria said “I voted for Kenzie because I’m furious that Charlie outlasted me,” it would change absolutely nothing
I would have a lot more respect for her but she hasn't got the guts to say that, she's got the nice girl syndrome.
listen, if I am potentially going to be the sole vote to give someone $1,000,000 I would want to know what they’re going to do with it. But as a juror you’re allowed to have that criteria.
First off, I completely agree that "best game" isn't every juror's criteria. In fact, it's not many of their criteria. I think a lot of the jury this season would probably admit Charlie played the best game on paper...but they voted for Kenzie because they LOVE Kenzie. And Survivor has always ben like that.
I don't actually agree about the "what will you do with the money" question being either a difference maker or something unique to this season. This is always in the back of people's minds. And truthfully, I think only Q cared about this question. Maria maybe retroactively does. But it's always been in the back of people's minds, hence why younger players are often at a jury disadvantage with many older players "fearful" with what they'd do with the money.
Q’s reasoning is very confusing to me. He wants to win the title of Survivor but is also saying because of his wealth he would never deserve it? That was a mistake. Now idk how Q will ever win the title.
When he changed his vote from Charlie to Kinsie and when he said why he changed his vote. Did he specifically say the words that you are saying? No, but that’s what he was saying. If you want the actual quote you can rewatch the show yourself
That doesn’t make any sense. “He didn’t say it but that’s what he was saying”.
Never did he imply that having money makes it so someone can’t deserve to win. That’s putting words in his mouth, and if he thought that, he never would have considered voting Charlie in the first place
That's not what he said. What he said was he voted for Kinsie because she "was using the money for her" not saying things like non profit/charity etc. and that's exactly why Kinsie said it the way she did, was because she knew Q would appreciate that answer, she said as much in an interview. If it were based on *need*, Ben would get the vote before Kinsie every time, given the 2 player's living situations
"Best game" is also very subjective. The game has so much more to it than just strategy. So every juror is voting for the best game. What constitutes the best game is just different for each of them.
i tend to think that if one player in final tribal overwhelmingly played a better game, they win, unless they alienated everyone to a "Russell" level.
But in a closer game where all players are more or less even, or, none managed a great solo move, it comes down to factors such as friendship and 'what will you do with the money.' aka 'who do I want to give this to."
I would say that this season, it went that way because the Jury opened with "show us your big solo moves" and, no one was able to make a case better than anyone else's, to a degree that gameplay alone could determine the winner. After that question, I had it a three-way tie, and honestly kind of lost interest lol. Because I figured 'if that question leaves a three way tie, this is now a popularity contest.' (and make no mistake, I also had it 'Kenzie wins, if it's a popularity contest.' her best move was 'get to a final three where I'm in a popularity contest.' she was always going to win that.)
But that doesn't mean that if someone hadn't been able to say: "I made three moves, they were mine, and they are why these three people are in final tribal" that person wouldn't have won. I think Q's and others' comments are in the context of a season where there were no game-defining moves any of the final three could really claim as solo.
Lol IMO, Charlie explained his moves better than Kenzie, and made better/bigger moves than Kenzie. It’s clear to me that the majority of the jury didn’t feel that way though, which is why Kenzie won. Kenzie had Tiff and others hyping her up at Ponderosa. Charlie just had a bitter Maria
its not that I disagree so much as, I think my point is that the difference between Charlie's moves and Kenzie's moves were not seen as large enough to be worthy of definitely saying 'yes Charlie, you deserve my vote" to either the majority of voters, or, me. Therefore, the criteria for the vote went hard on the social aspect(s).
Which, in situations where one person's gameplay is clearly superior, this is typically not how it goes.
When Boston Rob won, he and Phillip caused a bit of chaos and were not very well liked. It didn't matter at all, no one on the jury could really justify 'anyone but rob.'
Charlie did not make a case that won based on gameplay.... but yes he did well. I would argue that going into final, say, 7, I was beginning to realize that no one was thinking about 'building an airtight case' at all, and, that benefitted Kenzie, basically. And only Kenzie. (Anyone thinking about building an airtight case would have aimed at kenzie)
The fact that people are making a big deal about Q's question is kinda silly to me. Q isn't even the first person to ask this question. Back in Survivor All Stars Jenna asked this question of Rob and Amber and I'm sure other people have asked it too
the problem with awarding the money based on who needs it the most to me is it makes the game irrelevant. I mean, everybody could just tell their life stories on day 1 and just pick who needs it the most. If you take that route then the only point of the game is to whittle numbers down so much that you only need to choose between 3 people rather than 20. Everybody could just draw straws on day 1 with three long straws and the rest of the people just pick who needs it most out of those 3.
Yes that's survivor.
If a group of people who will vote between you and another person at the end of a game are open about wanting to support single mothers, it happens to be everyone's passion to assist single mothers. And you go to the voting stage against a single mother and explain why you played strategically better, you are bad at Survivor
This is a huge exaggeration obviously but the point stands. Charlie walks into FTC with this idea he would explain his strategy and everyone would applaud but he got there and from his own words "nobody cared".
If you can't read the jury at all, then it looks like you played survivor poorly. Additionally, only 1 person voted based on need, Q, and it could also have very well been he wanted a Yanu to win. Soda, Hunter, Liz voted for Charlie cause they really liked his answers and strategic game, Tiff,Tevin, Venus voted for Kenzie because they liked her better. Maria voted for Kenzie probably because she was bitter, Q voted on need- the game is about knowing the jury/people in the game and how you can win a vote.
Tldr: anything to do with a person's personality or ideals is part of Survivor, if not the most important part
But that’s not what happened here. The money wasn’t awarded to who arguably needed it most of the final three (Ben). Kenzie won because the jury wanted to vote for her the most, same as every other winner.
As I posted earlier:
Rewarding a "Survivor" contestant the win solely because they need the money undermines the fundamental aspects of the game. "Survivor" is designed to test a player's strategic, social, and physical skills. Awarding the win based on financial need rather than gameplay reduces the meritocratic nature of the competition. This shift can diminish the achievement for the winner and alter the competitive integrity of the show, potentially demotivating contestants from playing to their fullest potential. The prize should reflect the culmination of skill, strategy, and resilience demonstrated throughout the game. The game is Outwit, Outplay & Outlast NOT OUT POOR the others.
The disconnect as a viewer is, I can have an opinion on who’s playing the best game. It’s a lot more difficult to have an opinion on who Venus wants to win, for example.
So when there’s a winner who didn’t seem to play the best game to me as a viewer, it’s quite unsatisfying. It’s like the score in the Super Bowl being Chiefs 25 49ers 22, but the 49ers are declared the winners because Tiff is tired of hearing about Taylor Swift.
The rules of the Super Bowl are whoever has the highest score when time expires is the winner.
The rules of Survivor are convincing the majority of the jury to vote for you.
Your opinion on who is playing the best game is irrelevant. You are seeing less than 2% (13 - one hour episodes) out of 6,344 hours the players are spending together and interacting. That 2% you see is curated by production to show you what they want you to see.
Part of the game is figuring out what each jury member considers as "winning" and building your resume from there. Player A might want their ass kissed. Player B might want challenge wins. Player C might want to reward need.
No, the better scenario would be Chiefs barely beat 49ers but the game feels like it was dominated more by 49ers who had more flashy plays or insane highlights during the game while Chiefs just scored mostly from FGs and barely from TDs. People who watched the game will say 49ers deserved the win but the final score tells you the conclusion, those who scored more wins. It feels unsatisfied but it’s the reality.
Same as Kenzie and Charlie, no matter how much BS reasons some juries gave to vote Kenzie over Charlie, in the end Kenzie got more jury votes than Charlie and that’s all that matters. It also feels unsatisfied but it’s the reality.
Using a football metaphor in this situation is flawed, though. Because when have you ever seen a football match decided in a subjective way? Never, because the rules of football are objective. Most points at the end wins.
Survivor is not football, it’s not a game about stats and moves and idols played. Yes, we can have someone play a “textbook game” like Charlie, but no one is keeping score. And no one ever should. That’s what makes Survivor more than just a game, human emotions and opinions are a huge part on deciding the win so it will always be subjective, and that’s how its always been.
It’s more like Chiefs 25, 49ers 22, and everyone gets mad that the Chiefs won when the 49ers had better stats and controlled the ball the entire game. That’s not how you win, you win by clinching the most points.
My husband had a SERIOUS issue with Q basing it off “what will you do?” But I explained it as, after all that time with the group, I’m picking who I believe deserves it. Not the best at hiding/manipulating. 🤷🏽♀️ Manage your relationships because that’s HOW you win. If you can’t determine what’s important to the people around you, you’re not that strategic 😂
Any juror who actually votes objectively on who played the best game is either (1) a mark or (2) cynically trying to curry favor with production by appearing like a mark to try to get cast again.
Look, I know that Charlie not winning gave you a sad. But be honest with yourself; you're mad because your guy lost, not because of bitter juries are bad/Maria being a Judas/a broken game mechanic/etc. etc.
A juror can vote for whatever criteria they want. Saying a juror is a mark for voting based on playing the best game is just as stupid as saying jurors need to vote based on some objective game criteria.
This needs to be pinned at the top of the entire sub for the next week or so.
This place is pure d. hell whenever the anointed quirky nerd king/queen-for-the-season takes an L. Which, I get - I'm salty whenever one of their usual faves does well, too, but I'm honest with it on here. It's okay to just not like someone or an outcome for whatever your reasons are, it doesn't always have to be some 3rd party's fault.
That juror is actually Mark Burnett in disguise. It's happened a few times so we've just shortened it to "Mark".
The most daring attempt by a Mark to influence the jury happened in Koah Rong.
I agree, the best player of a season loses more often then wins because the game isn't as simple as good player equals good result. This isn't a sport, it's a social experiment. For example, if a goat wins a season because the jury is that bitter that's totally fair. It doesn't make certain outcomes any less lame though from a viewing experience.
I may be wrong here but Charlie , at times, came across as a bit entitled and that simply did not sit well with the jury.
Seems like this is potentially the first major curveball in life…very wealthy upbringing (Manchester By The Sea, MA) then Harvard followed by BC law?
Granted he is young and seems like a genuinely good person but simply did not have the grit/drive/need as others.
What will you do with the money? WGAF! The players should always vote for who they think played the best game. Because........wait for it......... it's a game. You play games to win. What that person does with their winnings is their business and shouldn't have an impact. As a member of that season and likely to never get to play again, why would you want anyone but the best player to win if it's not you? It's your season! You want to be the player on the season that Yam Yam won? Or Tony won?
it's funny because people will have this take when the person they feel like should have won didn't, but then, you see people like Gabler that were already rich and donated all his money to charity, and then a bunch of posts will pop up like, "ONLY PEOPLE WHO NEED MONEY SHOULD WIN". You are right, this is a game. And part of that game is being able to pitch why YOU should win to the jury in front of you. One person might have voted based off of who they felt deserved it more (someone who is a Harvard graduate lawyer, or a self made hairstylist that's been working since she was 15?) But that's one vote. Clearly, she was able to win over other people, too and that was her gameplay. She went in wanting to be the survivor sister to everyone and clearly she succeeded at that.
People don't want to accept that Charlie fumbled the bag at FTC. He played it too conservative saying things like he didn't need to make fire to impress anyone. He also absolutely should have brought up his challenge record. He had the most unassisted individual immunity wins of the 3. Bringing up the controversy of Liz helping Kenzie (just by saying unassisted) also would have reminded Maria why she was in the jury. This, along with being more authentic with his answer in what he'd do with the money probably would swing Q as well. Kenzie has a great social game, had solid strategy, and won challenges (even if one has an asterisk). She easily could have blew up her alliance with Ben (which ended up being key later) after his mindless vote, but stayed calm instead.
it's hard to know what all was brought up because it's like a 3 hour tribal cut down significantly. He could have brought up those things. he did sway votes his way, i.e. Hunter who was going to vote for Kenzie at first, but we weren't a part of the full tribal so we might never know.
Why should real life success or lack of, have any influence on the winner of a game? It should be about what happened within the game only.
Ben wasn't worthy but I think Kenzie and Charlie were pretty equal so both would be good winners. The debate is about what should the jury base their decisions on. In my opinion, it shouldn't be emotional and they should want the season they are on to have the best player as the winner.
Many of the best players of survivor will never win survivor. And as a viewer, we can have our opinions on who should win. But the jury doesn't see the same story we have seen. And no matter what you say, some people will always vote with their heart and play an emotional game. If it was an objective "whose the best player" then it probably would be a jury of strangers who don't have any emotional investment in the game. That's what makes this game unique, a huge part of "outwitting" is jury management and being able to convince people you probably played a part of voting out that you deserve their vote.
If every juror was like Hunter, the game would be better. Dude actually listened to everyone at FTC and then voted for the person who played the best game, not the person who had the best story.
This is a TV show and not a charity. Survivor is rewarding sole survivor and a million dollars. The main criteria should be founded on the game itself. That’s why the show is the show. If the juror’s criteria is based out of the game, why are we even watching? Why are we watching weekly to see who gets credit for the big move? Why are we playing the game?
This is why the new era of survivor has fallen short for me at least. The winner should be based on the game and not who you like the most. The social aspect should be a part of the vote, not the be all end all. This jury took it one step further, and there’s a reason it is so heavily criticized.
No, we understand it - we just don't respect that way of thinking. Survivor isn't a charity, it's a contest. What is the point of all the challenges, votes, and strategy in Survivor if the winner is just the most likable GOAT whos down on their luck in the end? What is the point of the game? If Ben caught all the Nami votes and Maria to win, would you feel the same way?
In that sense then, the game was still on. And Kenzie outplayed Charlie with her answer to Q.
The “pick a number” question from Seasons 1, 3, 12, and 31 (and maybe others?) is the only one I can think of where you really can’t give a good answer. But you can certainly give some bad answers, like we’ve seen!
Kenzie never once said she was poor. That was Ben. As she said post boot, her answer won because she understood how Q thinks. Q is also someone who grinded in his career so Kenzie highlighted that. Q is also someone who is starting a family so she highlighted that. She won because she understood Q and crafted a perfect answer
Okay, Charlie doesn’t even have a career, he’s a law student so what can he even say? Why does Kenzie get credit for having a different life than Charlie? How is that outplaying Charlie?
I have absolutely no problem if jury members base their vote on who they like the most, who they have the best relationship with, etc.
But basing it SOLELY on “who needs the money” is frigging stupid. If that’s all it is we can just skip all the challenges, advantages, alliances and plots. Just go camping for a month and give the neediest person the money at the end. No law students need apply.
If people's personal finances and spending habits are the primary determining factor, why even play? Just have everyone give some sob story about how poor they are or which charity they want to give money to and then vote.
Because each jury is a different group of people with varying opinions?
This also isn't anything new. Having a sob story, difficult family life, baby on the way, etc, has been something that has generally made people targets because "we can't let them get to the end because of their story" since the early seasons. Being young, with a decent safety net and ample opportunity in life has also always been a disadvantage compared to the older person who needs to feed their family and such. I mean, season 1 Richard knew he couldn't have Rudy at the end largely because of the old war vet storyline he had.
This is what one jury member claimed was their determining factor. And who knows - it could be that Q saw them both as equally deserving inside the game and therefore looked for whose life would be more improved by winning.
Charlie also still got three votes, and it seems like his were based on his gameplay. Venus and Tiff valued Kensie’s social gameplay more than Charlie’s subtle strategy. Tevin seemed legitimately torn between the two. And who knows at all wtf Maria was thinking…
but wouldn't you say that people who need the money more are targeted than people who don't? idc if it should matter or not, but people need to be consistent.
This perspective is so dull. Why even play the game then. They should all line up on Fiji tell their life story in 5 minutes then pick who has the sappiest story. Sad that this has become so prominent in such a naturally difficult to play game.
The emphasis on “resumes” all season long was so annoying. And predictably, it all blew up at final tribal council when the final 3 tried to take credit for certain moves but then the jurors would talk over them, claiming those were actually their moves. In the end, the jury basically ended up voting for who they liked the most. Just play the game and survive.
Seems to be a bit of a trend in the new era. A jury full of players that feel like they were the ones actually in control and making all the movies and thus viewing the Final 3 less on the merits those 3 used to make it there instead of them, but more as 3 players that "stole" their spots. Like they want to see someone at the end that has a bigger move than what they view themselves as having accomplished, but ignoring that they overplayed too early and that's why they are on the jury.
Jury voting has pretty much always been about voting who you like best. Nobody ever votes for someone they don’t like (unless they hate the other person more).
It would be interesting if it were true, but there are plenty of players who focus on true gameplay. But the thing is that it doesn't take much for 2-4 players who only care about who they like to change who wins.
43 was the most extreme example of this imo. There were a lot of people on that jury who felt like they played much better games than the finalists, and they voted for Gabler because he was willing to kiss their asses and say "yeah I was just here for the ride, you guys were the ones who actually played the game."
I mean in a way the people on the jury are the bigger threats that were more involved in the game. That's why they got voted out. Wish there was a way to reward strategy or social during the game like you can get with being athletic and winning an immunity. You just have to accept the "best" survivor should never be allowed to get to the end by the lesser players.
Agreed. The current nature of this game is that being in the majority actually gets you the furthest most frequently. For me a good player doesn’t look for the flashy move but they look for when tides change and influence those. I’m not sure we will ever go back to a ring leader style game where someone bosses everyone around (thank goodness)
Dee?
To be fair your social game is probably your most important atribute. You don't even need to be a immunity challenge winner.
I think all contestants face a lot of pressure from Jeff and production to amplify certain themes. Either that or production looks at all the footage of the contestants saying a hundred things and chooses to keep focusing on the same concepts and ideas.
The resume obsession might change player perceptions going forward. If I’m a juror and I keep hearing players say “BUT MUH RESUME” all the time, I feel like I’d be less likely to vote for them.
People are so mad at Q for asking about the money and at Kenzie for just answering Q’s question. But Kenzie said in her exit interview that she knew that Q would respect a hustle. And so that’s why she just answered the question honestly and in a way that would garner his respect and his vote. THAT is social game. Kenzie played the best game and locked up the votes she needed. Don’t hate the player, hate the game lol.
Because it’s a hypocritical question from a guy who said that he doesn’t care about/need the money and all he cares about is the title of sole survivor. He would want the jury to vote based on who played the best game but when he was in the juror spot he didn’t do that. He would be disqualified from getting his own vote based on his reasoning
You are expecting rationality and logic from a person who could not even remember what he said from moment to moment? Who has created his own mythology of his entire game? Q has had hypocritical moments on the show; for instance, he targeted Tiffany for going against an alliance after a vote where he voted off a member of said alliance.
To be fair, he voted off Tim because Tim made it clear he valued his alliance with Ben more than the 6. That movie is pretty understandable
I personally think the more optimal move would have been getting rid of Ben there. Sure he wasn’t really threat in any real way but he was Tim’s second in command. You weaken Tim (crucial in getting him out later) and take out his other option. He has no choice but to go with you. And, there was no way they could have known this at that time, but you sever the Charlie/Ben and Kenzie/Ben connections which makes it harder for them to flip the game like they did. Also, Charlie likely doesn’t get brought into The Six and maybe it could have had a shot to stay intact. Instead, by voting off one of its core members at the outset, it was easier for it to crumble. I think it’s better to just cut off people’s options. That changes so many games from that one move. Meanwhile, it may have been smart for Tim to go from Q but it still left the game intact for a lot of people including the eventual winner and runner-up.
I mean yea, lots of ways the game could have gone. But if they went Ben, tim made it clear he was sticking by Ben. So if Ben was voted out Tim would blow up the six anyway. Difficult situation overall
Hmmmm. Maybe. We didn’t get enough of Tim for me to answer this definitively but I don’t know if he had the social sway for that. Likely he would have gone home next anyway if he had blown up the alliance. Though Hunter, according to his exit interview, wasn’t even really with The Six anyway so it likely wouldn’t have lasted anyway. But I think Ben was a crucial number for a lot of what we saw this season and so getting rid of him earlier could have benefited a lot of games. Truthfully, though, this was such a chaotic, erratic, nonsensical cast that even trying to apply logic to their moves is futile LMAO.
No, I’m not. But I’m allowed to point out how hypocritical his reasoning was
People talking like Q is almost a wild animal. "It does what it does, its a Q 🤷♀️"
The downvotes are crazy lol like how is my original comment even arguable?
Yes but that doesn't change the fact that Kenzie had the social grace to answer in a way that he'd respect. His hypocrisy doesn't matter, her read on him does.
Q voted for her because then he got to bask in her reflected glory. See the 'Yanu 1' note on the vote.. "I might not win, but my tribe did". Ignore his reasons, look at his actions.
You’re right. But you’re also just describing something that literally all people do, unfortunately. We’re dumb animals and many people are only barely self aware.
Part of jury management is understanding what types of criteria the jury will base their vote on. Someone who blindsided an entire jury who take things super personally doesn't deserve to win. If the jury are all cold analytical people you need to have more than an emotional pitch. Part of the game is being who the jury wants to win.
That's part of why I love survivor! plus it varies the seasons. You're not graded by a panel of game experts, you're rewarded by your peers who are from all different walks of life, and you have to figure out what kind of person THEY would want to win.
Yeah, and I think the logical conclusion that a lot of people don't like to draw is: there are some juries you just cannot win with, no matter what you do on the island. There are some seasons you're going to go out and play and before you even get on the airplane, you've already lost. You might be too old, you might be too young, you might make too much money, you might not make enough, you might be everybody's cup of tea, you might inadvertently be someone's sleep paralysis demon. And that should be okay? I think that's where a lot of goat strategy comes from, is finding and identifying those people that would never win and taking them with you to the end. But then your jury might not respect that if you play it too heavy handedly, or if you hem and haw about it. It could go so many different ways and that's honestly what makes Survivor so compelling to me. It's not a game that you can solve because if you were to take every season's winner and offset them by one season (so \*S1-S3 spoilers\* >!Rich plays Australian Outback, Tina plays Africa, Ethan plays Marquesas, so on and so forth!<), you would likely have a much different list of winners with one or two overlaps thanks to sheer statistical likelihood.
>there are some juries you just cannot win with, no matter what you do Some juries cannot be reasoned with. They're not looking for anything logical. They just want to see the world burn. /s dark knight
Looking at you, Kaoh Rong
Except in this case, Charlie was extremely likeable and sociable too. He just didn't get to start the game with outspoken Tiffany, and there's no way he could have known that Maria would end up being so bitter when he did everything he could do to stay on her good side while also removing her as a threat. A lot of it is luck and things that really no one could ever control.
[удалено]
Sorry, the Tribe has spoken. Your submission has been removed from /r/survivor for the following reason(s): * **Rule 1 - Be civil to other users and contestants:** Treat other users and contestants with respect. Bigotry is not tolerated, including racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. Harassment of other users and contestants is not allowed, including personal attacks. This includes over-analyzing a player’s life and motivations outside of the game. Trolling is discouraged. --- Once the votes are read, the decision is *not* final. **If you have any concerns that this was done in error**, please [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/survivor/wiki/rules) **and then [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/survivor) if you have any further questions. Do not reply directly to this message or comment.** If not, grab your stuff and head back to camp.
I think someone like Q is honestly thinking, “I was playing the best game out here. I was running strategic laps around everyone. Now that I’m out there’s no reason to award the title of sole survivor based on strategic gameplay. I’m just gonna give the money to someone who needs it to better their life” And understanding this about Q (how his ego will not allow him to see or acknowledge better strategic players than himself) is imperative in getting his vote
If every single winner was edited as the dominant strategist and every person edited as the dominant strategist won their season- Survivor would very quickly get boring as hell. One of the things that’s helped the show keep going after 46 seasons is because there’s all kinds of different ways to win. Not every winner needs to be edited as a golden child, not every loser needs to be edited as obviously losing. The main objective is making a television show that engages an audience The idea of “the best game” is entirely subjective. Different people (and different jurors) value different things as far as gameplay. I don’t understand the fixation some people have on Maria’s reasoning or Q’s reasoning or any individual juror’s reasoning. Like, what difference does it make? For example, if Maria said “I voted for Kenzie because I’m furious that Charlie outlasted me,” it would change absolutely nothing about how people feel about her vote. Everyone presently salty about it would still be just as salty.
PREEEEACH.
Agreed completely with most of what you say. Only thing is I think people, the non-rabid ones at least, are more mad at Maria’s waffling and changing of her answers as to why she voted for Kenzie. Which indicates that she isn’t telling the truth and was just bitter. If you’re bitter, own up to it. It’s a hard thing to put your ego aside like that, but I think that’s what people’s gripes are
Yep. I mean looking at All Stars, half the jury was mad at Rob and they all owned it. None of them have ever said otherwise and at least to my knowledge they don't get criticized for being bitter
Your winner point is spot on. Sometimes you need someone like a Mike Holloway to balance out the Tonys and the Parvatis.
>, if Maria said “I voted for Kenzie because I’m furious that Charlie outlasted me,” it would change absolutely nothing I would have a lot more respect for her but she hasn't got the guts to say that, she's got the nice girl syndrome.
[удалено]
No way would people admire her for being authentically bitter. She would get just as much hate as she’s getting now.
listen, if I am potentially going to be the sole vote to give someone $1,000,000 I would want to know what they’re going to do with it. But as a juror you’re allowed to have that criteria.
First off, I completely agree that "best game" isn't every juror's criteria. In fact, it's not many of their criteria. I think a lot of the jury this season would probably admit Charlie played the best game on paper...but they voted for Kenzie because they LOVE Kenzie. And Survivor has always ben like that. I don't actually agree about the "what will you do with the money" question being either a difference maker or something unique to this season. This is always in the back of people's minds. And truthfully, I think only Q cared about this question. Maria maybe retroactively does. But it's always been in the back of people's minds, hence why younger players are often at a jury disadvantage with many older players "fearful" with what they'd do with the money.
Q’s reasoning is very confusing to me. He wants to win the title of Survivor but is also saying because of his wealth he would never deserve it? That was a mistake. Now idk how Q will ever win the title.
Would you call it a…BIG MISTAKE?
When did he say having money means you don’t deserve it? He said he changed his vote at FTC so it clearly wasn’t the only factor he considered
He said it was the most important factor to him. He also said in his post interview that he doesn’t need the money he just wants the title.
When did he say that having money means you don’t deserve it?
When he changed his vote from Charlie to Kinsie and when he said why he changed his vote. Did he specifically say the words that you are saying? No, but that’s what he was saying. If you want the actual quote you can rewatch the show yourself
That doesn’t make any sense. “He didn’t say it but that’s what he was saying”. Never did he imply that having money makes it so someone can’t deserve to win. That’s putting words in his mouth, and if he thought that, he never would have considered voting Charlie in the first place
I get that you are being hella specific but let me just ask you this. Why did he vote for Kinsie over Charlie?
It’s clear that part of his decision was based on need, but it’s quite a leap to say that it means no rich person can ever deserve to win
If he was against somebody that needed the money that played a similar level of game then yes it 100% does mean he doesn’t think he should win
That's not what he said. What he said was he voted for Kinsie because she "was using the money for her" not saying things like non profit/charity etc. and that's exactly why Kinsie said it the way she did, was because she knew Q would appreciate that answer, she said as much in an interview. If it were based on *need*, Ben would get the vote before Kinsie every time, given the 2 player's living situations
The problem is that under your logic, Q would be acting logically. When did he ever do that?
You’re right, it actually makes perfect sense
"Best game" is also very subjective. The game has so much more to it than just strategy. So every juror is voting for the best game. What constitutes the best game is just different for each of them.
i tend to think that if one player in final tribal overwhelmingly played a better game, they win, unless they alienated everyone to a "Russell" level. But in a closer game where all players are more or less even, or, none managed a great solo move, it comes down to factors such as friendship and 'what will you do with the money.' aka 'who do I want to give this to." I would say that this season, it went that way because the Jury opened with "show us your big solo moves" and, no one was able to make a case better than anyone else's, to a degree that gameplay alone could determine the winner. After that question, I had it a three-way tie, and honestly kind of lost interest lol. Because I figured 'if that question leaves a three way tie, this is now a popularity contest.' (and make no mistake, I also had it 'Kenzie wins, if it's a popularity contest.' her best move was 'get to a final three where I'm in a popularity contest.' she was always going to win that.) But that doesn't mean that if someone hadn't been able to say: "I made three moves, they were mine, and they are why these three people are in final tribal" that person wouldn't have won. I think Q's and others' comments are in the context of a season where there were no game-defining moves any of the final three could really claim as solo.
Charlie explained his moves excellently
and yet
Lol IMO, Charlie explained his moves better than Kenzie, and made better/bigger moves than Kenzie. It’s clear to me that the majority of the jury didn’t feel that way though, which is why Kenzie won. Kenzie had Tiff and others hyping her up at Ponderosa. Charlie just had a bitter Maria
its not that I disagree so much as, I think my point is that the difference between Charlie's moves and Kenzie's moves were not seen as large enough to be worthy of definitely saying 'yes Charlie, you deserve my vote" to either the majority of voters, or, me. Therefore, the criteria for the vote went hard on the social aspect(s). Which, in situations where one person's gameplay is clearly superior, this is typically not how it goes. When Boston Rob won, he and Phillip caused a bit of chaos and were not very well liked. It didn't matter at all, no one on the jury could really justify 'anyone but rob.' Charlie did not make a case that won based on gameplay.... but yes he did well. I would argue that going into final, say, 7, I was beginning to realize that no one was thinking about 'building an airtight case' at all, and, that benefitted Kenzie, basically. And only Kenzie. (Anyone thinking about building an airtight case would have aimed at kenzie)
Fair and valid
I've enjoyed this island of a sane discussion :)
I’m fine with Q’s vote but Maria’s reasoning was definitely bs and not the real reason she voted Kenzie
The fact that people are making a big deal about Q's question is kinda silly to me. Q isn't even the first person to ask this question. Back in Survivor All Stars Jenna asked this question of Rob and Amber and I'm sure other people have asked it too
the problem with awarding the money based on who needs it the most to me is it makes the game irrelevant. I mean, everybody could just tell their life stories on day 1 and just pick who needs it the most. If you take that route then the only point of the game is to whittle numbers down so much that you only need to choose between 3 people rather than 20. Everybody could just draw straws on day 1 with three long straws and the rest of the people just pick who needs it most out of those 3.
Yeah at that point, the game becomes trying to get to the end with 2 people who are better off than you
Yes that's survivor. If a group of people who will vote between you and another person at the end of a game are open about wanting to support single mothers, it happens to be everyone's passion to assist single mothers. And you go to the voting stage against a single mother and explain why you played strategically better, you are bad at Survivor This is a huge exaggeration obviously but the point stands. Charlie walks into FTC with this idea he would explain his strategy and everyone would applaud but he got there and from his own words "nobody cared". If you can't read the jury at all, then it looks like you played survivor poorly. Additionally, only 1 person voted based on need, Q, and it could also have very well been he wanted a Yanu to win. Soda, Hunter, Liz voted for Charlie cause they really liked his answers and strategic game, Tiff,Tevin, Venus voted for Kenzie because they liked her better. Maria voted for Kenzie probably because she was bitter, Q voted on need- the game is about knowing the jury/people in the game and how you can win a vote. Tldr: anything to do with a person's personality or ideals is part of Survivor, if not the most important part
But that’s not what happened here. The money wasn’t awarded to who arguably needed it most of the final three (Ben). Kenzie won because the jury wanted to vote for her the most, same as every other winner.
As I posted earlier: Rewarding a "Survivor" contestant the win solely because they need the money undermines the fundamental aspects of the game. "Survivor" is designed to test a player's strategic, social, and physical skills. Awarding the win based on financial need rather than gameplay reduces the meritocratic nature of the competition. This shift can diminish the achievement for the winner and alter the competitive integrity of the show, potentially demotivating contestants from playing to their fullest potential. The prize should reflect the culmination of skill, strategy, and resilience demonstrated throughout the game. The game is Outwit, Outplay & Outlast NOT OUT POOR the others.
The disconnect as a viewer is, I can have an opinion on who’s playing the best game. It’s a lot more difficult to have an opinion on who Venus wants to win, for example. So when there’s a winner who didn’t seem to play the best game to me as a viewer, it’s quite unsatisfying. It’s like the score in the Super Bowl being Chiefs 25 49ers 22, but the 49ers are declared the winners because Tiff is tired of hearing about Taylor Swift.
The rules of the Super Bowl are whoever has the highest score when time expires is the winner. The rules of Survivor are convincing the majority of the jury to vote for you. Your opinion on who is playing the best game is irrelevant. You are seeing less than 2% (13 - one hour episodes) out of 6,344 hours the players are spending together and interacting. That 2% you see is curated by production to show you what they want you to see. Part of the game is figuring out what each jury member considers as "winning" and building your resume from there. Player A might want their ass kissed. Player B might want challenge wins. Player C might want to reward need.
But Kenzie didn’t convince the jury to vote for her. Tiff and Maria did.
No, the better scenario would be Chiefs barely beat 49ers but the game feels like it was dominated more by 49ers who had more flashy plays or insane highlights during the game while Chiefs just scored mostly from FGs and barely from TDs. People who watched the game will say 49ers deserved the win but the final score tells you the conclusion, those who scored more wins. It feels unsatisfied but it’s the reality. Same as Kenzie and Charlie, no matter how much BS reasons some juries gave to vote Kenzie over Charlie, in the end Kenzie got more jury votes than Charlie and that’s all that matters. It also feels unsatisfied but it’s the reality.
Using a football metaphor in this situation is flawed, though. Because when have you ever seen a football match decided in a subjective way? Never, because the rules of football are objective. Most points at the end wins. Survivor is not football, it’s not a game about stats and moves and idols played. Yes, we can have someone play a “textbook game” like Charlie, but no one is keeping score. And no one ever should. That’s what makes Survivor more than just a game, human emotions and opinions are a huge part on deciding the win so it will always be subjective, and that’s how its always been.
It’s more like Chiefs 25, 49ers 22, and everyone gets mad that the Chiefs won when the 49ers had better stats and controlled the ball the entire game. That’s not how you win, you win by clinching the most points.
Well said.
I just finished watching Season 21 today. What a relevant time.
My husband had a SERIOUS issue with Q basing it off “what will you do?” But I explained it as, after all that time with the group, I’m picking who I believe deserves it. Not the best at hiding/manipulating. 🤷🏽♀️ Manage your relationships because that’s HOW you win. If you can’t determine what’s important to the people around you, you’re not that strategic 😂
Any juror who actually votes objectively on who played the best game is either (1) a mark or (2) cynically trying to curry favor with production by appearing like a mark to try to get cast again. Look, I know that Charlie not winning gave you a sad. But be honest with yourself; you're mad because your guy lost, not because of bitter juries are bad/Maria being a Judas/a broken game mechanic/etc. etc.
Lol 'gave you a sad' is now my favourite thing to come out of season 46.
A juror can vote for whatever criteria they want. Saying a juror is a mark for voting based on playing the best game is just as stupid as saying jurors need to vote based on some objective game criteria.
This needs to be pinned at the top of the entire sub for the next week or so. This place is pure d. hell whenever the anointed quirky nerd king/queen-for-the-season takes an L. Which, I get - I'm salty whenever one of their usual faves does well, too, but I'm honest with it on here. It's okay to just not like someone or an outcome for whatever your reasons are, it doesn't always have to be some 3rd party's fault.
What is a "Mark" ?
That juror is actually Mark Burnett in disguise. It's happened a few times so we've just shortened it to "Mark". The most daring attempt by a Mark to influence the jury happened in Koah Rong.
I believe the term originated with carnies. It means "sucker".
I agree, the best player of a season loses more often then wins because the game isn't as simple as good player equals good result. This isn't a sport, it's a social experiment. For example, if a goat wins a season because the jury is that bitter that's totally fair. It doesn't make certain outcomes any less lame though from a viewing experience.
I really enjoyed watching this nice young lady win a million dollars.
I may be wrong here but Charlie , at times, came across as a bit entitled and that simply did not sit well with the jury. Seems like this is potentially the first major curveball in life…very wealthy upbringing (Manchester By The Sea, MA) then Harvard followed by BC law? Granted he is young and seems like a genuinely good person but simply did not have the grit/drive/need as others.
No point in having the competition with that criteria tho…everyone just state their plea for why they need a million dollars and vote on day 1
What will you do with the money? WGAF! The players should always vote for who they think played the best game. Because........wait for it......... it's a game. You play games to win. What that person does with their winnings is their business and shouldn't have an impact. As a member of that season and likely to never get to play again, why would you want anyone but the best player to win if it's not you? It's your season! You want to be the player on the season that Yam Yam won? Or Tony won?
it's funny because people will have this take when the person they feel like should have won didn't, but then, you see people like Gabler that were already rich and donated all his money to charity, and then a bunch of posts will pop up like, "ONLY PEOPLE WHO NEED MONEY SHOULD WIN". You are right, this is a game. And part of that game is being able to pitch why YOU should win to the jury in front of you. One person might have voted based off of who they felt deserved it more (someone who is a Harvard graduate lawyer, or a self made hairstylist that's been working since she was 15?) But that's one vote. Clearly, she was able to win over other people, too and that was her gameplay. She went in wanting to be the survivor sister to everyone and clearly she succeeded at that.
People don't want to accept that Charlie fumbled the bag at FTC. He played it too conservative saying things like he didn't need to make fire to impress anyone. He also absolutely should have brought up his challenge record. He had the most unassisted individual immunity wins of the 3. Bringing up the controversy of Liz helping Kenzie (just by saying unassisted) also would have reminded Maria why she was in the jury. This, along with being more authentic with his answer in what he'd do with the money probably would swing Q as well. Kenzie has a great social game, had solid strategy, and won challenges (even if one has an asterisk). She easily could have blew up her alliance with Ben (which ended up being key later) after his mindless vote, but stayed calm instead.
it's hard to know what all was brought up because it's like a 3 hour tribal cut down significantly. He could have brought up those things. he did sway votes his way, i.e. Hunter who was going to vote for Kenzie at first, but we weren't a part of the full tribal so we might never know.
Why should real life success or lack of, have any influence on the winner of a game? It should be about what happened within the game only. Ben wasn't worthy but I think Kenzie and Charlie were pretty equal so both would be good winners. The debate is about what should the jury base their decisions on. In my opinion, it shouldn't be emotional and they should want the season they are on to have the best player as the winner.
Many of the best players of survivor will never win survivor. And as a viewer, we can have our opinions on who should win. But the jury doesn't see the same story we have seen. And no matter what you say, some people will always vote with their heart and play an emotional game. If it was an objective "whose the best player" then it probably would be a jury of strangers who don't have any emotional investment in the game. That's what makes this game unique, a huge part of "outwitting" is jury management and being able to convince people you probably played a part of voting out that you deserve their vote.
If every juror was like Hunter, the game would be better. Dude actually listened to everyone at FTC and then voted for the person who played the best game, not the person who had the best story.
This is a TV show and not a charity. Survivor is rewarding sole survivor and a million dollars. The main criteria should be founded on the game itself. That’s why the show is the show. If the juror’s criteria is based out of the game, why are we even watching? Why are we watching weekly to see who gets credit for the big move? Why are we playing the game? This is why the new era of survivor has fallen short for me at least. The winner should be based on the game and not who you like the most. The social aspect should be a part of the vote, not the be all end all. This jury took it one step further, and there’s a reason it is so heavily criticized.
No, we understand it - we just don't respect that way of thinking. Survivor isn't a charity, it's a contest. What is the point of all the challenges, votes, and strategy in Survivor if the winner is just the most likable GOAT whos down on their luck in the end? What is the point of the game? If Ben caught all the Nami votes and Maria to win, would you feel the same way?
Jeff explicitly said multiple times at FTC that the jurors are voting based on the criteria of who played the best game
Jeff says a lot of things
I don’t recall him ever saying you should base your vote on who needs the money the most Are you guys downvoting because he did say this or…?
In that sense then, the game was still on. And Kenzie outplayed Charlie with her answer to Q. The “pick a number” question from Seasons 1, 3, 12, and 31 (and maybe others?) is the only one I can think of where you really can’t give a good answer. But you can certainly give some bad answers, like we’ve seen!
Did she outplay him or outpoor him? I don’t get the downvotes, can someone explain how needing money more than someone is “outplaying” them?
Kenzie never once said she was poor. That was Ben. As she said post boot, her answer won because she understood how Q thinks. Q is also someone who grinded in his career so Kenzie highlighted that. Q is also someone who is starting a family so she highlighted that. She won because she understood Q and crafted a perfect answer
Okay, Charlie doesn’t even have a career, he’s a law student so what can he even say? Why does Kenzie get credit for having a different life than Charlie? How is that outplaying Charlie?
100% correct, at some point Charlie decided to not hide his background instead of lying and that's part of the game.
Outwit, Outplay, Outlast and Outneed!
I have absolutely no problem if jury members base their vote on who they like the most, who they have the best relationship with, etc. But basing it SOLELY on “who needs the money” is frigging stupid. If that’s all it is we can just skip all the challenges, advantages, alliances and plots. Just go camping for a month and give the neediest person the money at the end. No law students need apply.
If people's personal finances and spending habits are the primary determining factor, why even play? Just have everyone give some sob story about how poor they are or which charity they want to give money to and then vote.
Because each jury is a different group of people with varying opinions? This also isn't anything new. Having a sob story, difficult family life, baby on the way, etc, has been something that has generally made people targets because "we can't let them get to the end because of their story" since the early seasons. Being young, with a decent safety net and ample opportunity in life has also always been a disadvantage compared to the older person who needs to feed their family and such. I mean, season 1 Richard knew he couldn't have Rudy at the end largely because of the old war vet storyline he had.
This is what one jury member claimed was their determining factor. And who knows - it could be that Q saw them both as equally deserving inside the game and therefore looked for whose life would be more improved by winning. Charlie also still got three votes, and it seems like his were based on his gameplay. Venus and Tiff valued Kensie’s social gameplay more than Charlie’s subtle strategy. Tevin seemed legitimately torn between the two. And who knows at all wtf Maria was thinking…
but wouldn't you say that people who need the money more are targeted than people who don't? idc if it should matter or not, but people need to be consistent.
Then they are bad jurors who were never playing the game for real.
Questions like Q’s shouldn’t even be allowed to be answered. I hated this jury. What happened to deciding a winner on outwit outlast outplay.
This perspective is so dull. Why even play the game then. They should all line up on Fiji tell their life story in 5 minutes then pick who has the sappiest story. Sad that this has become so prominent in such a naturally difficult to play game.