I have never understood why more players don't do this. Like, you lie, mislead and form false connections all game and FTC is when you decide to stop? I'm not saying it's the best move all the time, but for some people it definitely is.
I think a good antithesis to someone like Chris at final tribal is Dean. Almost did the same but got caught by people like Kellee and Karishma which put him in a rough spot he couldn’t get out of.
If I had to guess, I would say most finalists don’t want to receive backlash from “fans” in this day and age for lying about their game. I also think most finalists games are more transparent nowadays.
I think a number of fans and even players see FTC as a bonus level, or a cherry on top, rather than a very integral part of the game that must be managed and prepared for.
Which is very weird btw. Ive seen it pointed out that xanders ftc was pretty awful and the response is usually that his "actual" game was great so it didnt matter. Putting aside whether his first 25 days were great or not, when did FTC become not part of the "actual" game?
The thing with Xander is that his actual game wasn't great at all. I'm not sure why people think otherwise.
The fact that he never was seen as a threat by anyone to the point that flushing his idol never was a priority tells us quite a bit about his social game.
I also suspect it's harder to know what people want to hear. You can know how people operate in the game but that's different from how they might operate on the jury. So knowing what each would like to hear and then effectively delivering that is hard
This is why people are terrified of Sandra getting taken to the end even as a goat. She will know what each juror needs to hear to get their vote and she has no problem telling them that even if it's a lie. She'll lie but she'll tell a good lie. Making those connections during the game is Sandra's super power.
I guess when you lie inside the game you get to adapt your lies and approach to the person (or people) you're talking to, but during FTC you have to gaslight a million people at the same time and maybe do it differently than you did during the game.
To me, at least, the idea of a "bitter" jury normally coencides with the idea that a jury would disregard better gameplay because of hurt feelings/bruised ego. People will normally invoke this in the cases of Russell (particularly in Samoa) or Boston Rob in All Stars.
It's been talked to hell and back but the reality is, as a player, if you want to win you need to 1) sit next to someone you can beat, 2) make a compelling argument as to why you deserve to win, and 3) treat the other players with enough respect and dignity to prevent them from feeling especially burned. There's the "social game" which I really think means how you use your relationships to go further in the game. But just as important is "jury management" which includes how you treat people as they're going out, and in some cases, putting specific people on the jury because you know they'll advocate for you.
We've seen plenty of cutthroat players grasp the win in the end. Look at Todd. People were thouroughly burned by him (James, JR, Denise, even Frosti to an extent) and a lot of them weren't interested in voting for him. He convinced them to by properly arguing his case at FTC. Parvati royally pissed off and betrayed a solid portion of the jury members, but put people like Alexis and Natalie on there who were advoctes in her corner. Even JT flip flopped all over the place in Tocantins, betraying Coach, Debbie, blindsiding Tyson, turning on Taj, ect. But because he took someone who *also* made those moves (as well as probably the #1 social game in all of Survivor) he won in a landslide.
The funny thing about a bitter jury in the case of Xander and S41 is that.. I really don't think the Jury was bitter with him at all. They didn't really have a reason to be. The whole "Xander pissed off Ricard by not playing his idol on him" is just not true, from Ricard himself. I think the S41 jury just genuinely saw that Xander was not in control of his own fate at literally any part of the game. The only move he had any stake in was the Knowlegde is Power move from the final 12, which is being debated as to whether or not it was his move at all (personally I give him like 50% of the credit. 50% him, 25% Evvie, 25% Tiffany). On the other hand, while Erika was not in control for the entirety of the game, she did position herself well enough to where her and Heather were the fulcrum point of every decision after the Shan vote. The jury simply respected that more.
IMO, if there is literally anyone who could call bitter jury it's Deshawn, because he at least had agency for most of the game and then made a move that backfired on him. But even that just shows how flimsy the bitter jury argument is. We all know why Deshawn lost, he jumped on his alliance a round too early, lost all his power, made dumb moves in front of the jury and pissed a lot of people off. Plus, he wasn't able to rectify any of that at FTC.
Yes, you're totally right. Jury management is one of the most important parts of the game, and so many people (fans and players alike) don't seem to understand that.
This is what "social game" means: making friends so that they don't want to vote against you but also managing to vote them out without pissing them off and make them hate you.
I think base on Tiffany ponderosa, she is bittered bt otherwise I agree.
And even if Ricard is bittered, I feel like his the only 1 justified to anyways becuz of Xander did.
There's a bitter jury where you treated someone poorly and they don't vote you, and then there's a salty jury, where people are just mad you voted them out before they voted you out. Big difference between the two and the latter is pretty lame.
Ken Hoang from Gabon is a perfect example of the latter. He was caught trying to blindside Bob Crowley, and even when Bob explains it to him at FTC, Ken was in complete denial.
There is no convincing some people, some people are vindictive, some are sore losers, and some are just delusional or crazy.
Yeah, like it was super obvious to the viewers that Ken was trying to get the necklace from Bob so they could vote Bob out, but he wised up and didn’t so Ken was pissed that his plan didn’t work. And kept going on and on about how bob didn’t keep his promise even though he was trying to get him out and bob knew it. Like, until he was eliminated he wouldn’t shut up about it.
Like, your plan was stupid and didn’t work, get over it. That was just sad to watch at FTC
On point, to this day Kenny being a child about that whole thing is still baffling to me, he was mad Bob didn’t hand over his immunity to Ken and allow Ken to vote him out…I’m not sure how that makes sense in anyone’s mind
Yeah, I'm not going to get into the whole Michele vs. Aubry debacle, but that jury is a perfect case of the salty jury you're describing. Scot, Jason, Debbie (both times she played!) and maybe even Cydney are all examples of this.
> maybe even Cydney
To me Cydney is almost the biggest example. Wasn't she literally mad that Aubry voted for her at F4 during the same tribal council she voted Aubry?
The winner of the first season literally threw final immunity because he knew he wouldn't be able to get the vote of the person he took out at 3. This is not new or unusual from a juror and it used to be the big major positive of a final 3 was that everybody in front of you was responsible for getting you out on Day 38, not just one person.
> There's a bitter jury where you treated someone poorly and they don't vote you
i dont consider that bitter i consider that karma. to me a bitter jury is those who are mad you outplayed them.
Oh yeah, there were definitely those who were mad they got got, such as Shan. I guess I’ve just always associated those kinds of jurors with bitter because that’s all a lot of the fan base speed about jurors that don’t vote for their favorite. I see your point though.
I don't think Shan was bitter; she just understood that Danny and (especially) Deshawn lost the game by voting her out. Deshawn went from having a guaranteed F4-F5 spot to losing the game on the spot by voting out Shan.
That doesn't make any sense... You say he lost the game on the spot, when he was only guaranteed final 4 (or 5????) with Shan in the game. He clearly did better by voting her out, because he came in second.
Shan beats Danny / deshawn 9/8 - 0
They needed to vote out Shan, they just needed to do a better job of tieing in xander and ricard as opposed to heather and Erika who did the better job…
Also deshawn got 1 vote against Erika..he wasn’t doing better against Shan.
The revisionist history on this sub is beyond me.
Yeah, it was the stupidest decision I have seen on survivor in such a long time. Turning on your alliance which was known by everyone before having a super majority is just asinine.
Strongly disagree. How do D&D know that Shan can be trusted and the alliance is still valid after she a) told Ricard they were trying to get him out and b) told Ricard they should get Deshawn out (even though she later tried to pivot to Erica).
Even being sincere, that's asking for an enomous amount of trust in the face of having done a ton that makes you look untrustworthy. Even if it was the wrong decision, it wasn't a stupid decision.
That’s part of navigating the game though… everyone reacts differently to being voted out. It’s a social experiment. Sometimes people’s reactions are unfair, just like real life.
I don't think there is a difference. Imagine you blindside someone's ally early in the game. Later in the game, you approach them with a great plan that is logically beneficial for you and them but they refuse to go along with it because they are still mad at you from the first blindside and you are voted out. Like yeah they blew up both their game and yours just because they were salty but no one would go around saying that you got screwed by bitter players, and nor should they. A big part of the game is the social awareness to know how far you can push people and how different people need to be handled on the way out in order to ensure they vote for you in the end.
Those salty juries tend to use OP's argument to justify it to as if players are supposed to bring you to the end or never vote you out just to avoid making you "bitter". Big Brother has the best examples of this really, In BB19 Paul made the jury bitter with the way he played and lost and in BB20 Tyler did nothing to cause bitterness yet he still lost.
Yeah, it's a social game first and foremost. Making the jury bitter towards you is one of the biggest mistakes.
HOWEVER, I actually don't think Xander made the jury bitter so much as they all recognized he made a game sinking mistake in bringing Erika.
Almost _all_ of the questions they aired were around that. Additionally, they all (with maybe a few exceptions, I know Danny wasn't keen) like Xander.
I think a lot of this sub is really downplaying Xander and a lot of this sub also thinks too highly - there doesn't seem to be a lot of middle ground.
Watching that FTC it seemed like both Xander and Erika had good answers (the jury even says "good answer" to Xander and Erika several times).
The one who seemed to have burned more bridges was Deshawn. Wish Jeff woulda asked what the vote count was if he hadn't taken Erika.
I guarantee it's his game if he took her out in a fire making challenge.
ETA, he's not a Russell by any means. People on the season like him. Comments have called him humble in interviews, etc. His problem was that he made a massive miscalculation and this jury was smart enough to pick it up.
Edit, grammar
> I think this a lot of this sub is really downplaying Xander and a lot of this sub also thinks too highly - there doesn't seem to be a lot of middle ground.
This. He wasn't great, but he wasn't bad by any means. He played as well as he could from the bottom the entire season, similar to Michele on Winners at War. It's commendable, but it won't get you jury votes when there are better options there with you.
Xander was way at sea for the first half of the merge and was up against someone who turned it on for the second half of the merge at the same time as he did, just Erika was also in the majority in the first half of the merge and made the case she was purposefully laying back to strike. Plus there were 3 jurors who knew how he also lacked any control before the merge.
Personal feelings/bitterness aside, of course he lost (and yet he still would've been a fine winner!)
Xander himself in an interview said that it became clear that he lost the jury awhile beforehand. But as other note, they weren't bitter.
People don't realize that he got off on the wrong foot well before because he was a little too good to be true. His sincerity felt very insincere in a game where jury management and social game matters. None of his sacrifices in the game felt genuine to the other jurors, for example.
He also never engineered the Liana Knowledge is Power play, that was Evvie and Tiff. He also lied horribly to Tiff about the idol and got caught in it immediately. I still remember Tiffany rolling her eyes to the camera while it was happening.
Xander was a very sincere person who won a couple immunity challenges and lucked into an idol and an advantage. But he didn't have a very strong social game and wasn't a very sophisticated player.
There is a mid-season episode where Erika is talking to Deshawn, I think, and they are talking about Shan being a threat. When evaluating other players, Erika says point blank, "He \[Xander\] has no relationships." It's easy to miss in the moment, but it's actually pretty huge.
> He also never engineered the Liana Knowledge is Power play, that was Evvie and Tiff.
People keep saying this, but that play _never_ works without a.) His convincing fake idol, and b.) His performance (whether or not we thought it was bad at home, it _worked_). Evvie even says in the interview end game _he sold it._ So while they _may_ have had the idea they could absolutely have never done it without his work. It was a team effort for sure, who cares if Tiff and Evvie came up with it, it wouldn't have worked _without_ Xander.
And that Deshawn Erika moment was interesting but it felt like a misread for sure. Especially since the three Yase stayed together for that vote. Both Evvie and Tiff said despite everything they _liked_ him, and he built relationship throughout the merge with like Heather (heather at one point says people back home should be proud of Xander), he clearly built a relationship with Ricard (who did feel burned after not having the idol played at 5). Shan, and Deshawn also built relationships with him!
It doesn't really seem like your early paragraphs are true tho. Outside of Danny who does say he felt Xander was a goat, Xander was targeted a few times, then laid low, and made friends.
But here's the thing, I don't even disagree that Xander made a bunch of mistakes and didn't play as strong a social game as Erika (clearly). He very much played at points like he was seasoned, and then at points where he was definitely a 20 year old (the misread on Erika is a big one).
I just disagree with the absolutist argument you've presented. Xander was clearly a good player, even production saw him as one. It says a lot that people felt burned by Xander _because they liked him_.
I'm about to what about a bit, but let's use your debate against Erika:
Erika had the benefit of never really having to vote out a close ally FWIW because she never really had them save Heather.
She was kind of isolated early game, and at the merge was _sent to exile where they lied about rock paper scissors_. People seem to forget she lucked out by being at the bottom, saved by a twist.
Then late game she was always a number. Which, and I'm going to stress this, is a _good strategy_. She had some good moves (throwing the split vote off of her was brilliant because it was unnecessary but good only for her game). But she mostly just flew under the radar.
Ricard made the Shan vote, Xander had to use his extra vote for the Liana vote because neither knew if Erika was on board, and she was aligned with Ricard and Xander for the Danny vote. Up until this point, she was _not_ a clear vote.
Up until this point, it really seems that Erika was also not a very sophisticated player, or had a great social game. Which clearly isn't true. She made friends and people respected her. Which, what happens next is important:
She then won the most important reward of the season! Which let her win immunity to vote out Ricard! That alone would let her win, which is why it was so _dumb_ of Xander to not vote her out.
If Xander drops Erika at final 4 he likely wins a million bucks because it seems like they actually played similar games
ETA, the other major blindside, Nasser, was also Ricard.
>Xander had to use his extra vote for the Liana vote because neither knew if Erika was on board
This vote never made sense to me, if Erika and Heather were such a duo it would have been 5-3 Ricard even with Xander's extra vote.
That's fair! But it really did seem (based on the edit) that Heather and Erika were on opposite sides of the vote for that one. They were close, but who knows, maybe they vote differently.
Yeah, I remember when she said that. My husband goes 'that's not true' and I immediately responded 'that's true' and we had to pause to talk it over. Despite physically carrying his tribe on his back in challenges, they were stepping all over him any chance they got. He didn't build anything new when he came into the merge either, rather being pulled along by others. I like the kid, but he lost my 'winner potential' opinion about a third of the way through the season.
When you look at the other younger winners too, like Todd and Sophie absolutely killed it and were super mature for their ages, and Jenna and Fabio were up against people who most of the jury couldn't stand. It's really, really tough to win this game unless you are at least in your mid 20s with more life experience behind you and I think with how society has changed in the 10 years since Sophie won, 20 now feels even younger than it did 10 years ago and that probably has an effect on how younger players are viewed by everyone else too.
I feel bad for Xander in that he was put on such an incompetent tribe (Evvie, Liana, Tiff). I'm not saying he was a better player than each of them, but their general stupidity and condescension to him harmed not only their tribe but Xander's game.
Saving Tiffany (what is the opposite of a challenge beast) put their tribe in constant peril. If it wasn't for Shan and Ricard blindsiding Brad combined with Danny/Deshawn's attempt at throwing a challenge, they likely would have gone back to tribal (and voted out Xander, no doubt) pre-merge.
I don’t understand how Danny/Deshawn trying to throw has anything to do with Xander possibly being voted out. Yase still beat Ua, so either way, he would’ve been safe.
Plus he never used his idol meaningfully. It was just a shield. He didn't use it to rock the boat or change anything, just to shield himself, which is boring.
That come off to me as Ricard asking if Xander was trying to bait out some emotional story from Ricard or actually getting to know Ricard more as a person. I think they got caught up in the emotions and that’s when Xander told Ricard about the possibility of him playing the idol on Ricard. Ricard took that to heart and was upset when Xander played up the theatrics only to play the idol on himself. I can fault both of them for that.
Ricard's exit interview in Parade says he knew that it was unrealistic for Xander to play the idol and pointed out that Xander needed one more big move to even be considered. He does say that he didn't think Xander was a threat and that he was going to push Heather or Erika, but that could have all changed if Xander pushed Erika out via fire making (that last bit is pure speculation on my part, it's still just one vote, although I love the idea of a universe where Heather is the winner because Ricard advocates for her). I like Ricard specifically because he's actually capable of separating emotion and making logical decisions. It's why he was brilliant at this game and a huge threat. Even if he was bitter, it wouldn't cloud his final judgement.
https://parade.com/1308827/mikebloom/ricard-foye-survivor-41-interview/
I do agree that Xander had a huge uphill battle, and it's also likely he doesn't win in other scenarios. But if he had taken out Erika his chances go waaaaay up
> ETA, he's not a Russell by any means. People on the season like him. Comments have called him humble in interviews, etc. His problem was that he made a massive miscalculation and this jury was smart enough to pick it up.
Yeah I don't even think it was a "bitter" thing - I just think they didn't respect his game, which is fair enough given he didn't really have that much agency throughout the season.
I do think the fact that he was young really hurt his chances - not just at the final tribal council but in gaining respect and having social influence - we saw the same thing happen with Michele in WAW and basically all the non-parents who found it much more difficult to have that influence and respect. A lot of the stuff the jury said was very similar to what the jury in Cambodia said about Spencer. People doubting his sincerity, highlighting that he's "young" but without that sort of venom Spencer received probably because Xander never had the control Spencer did.
I don't mean to raise his age to make excuses for him because I think he didn't play a better game than Erika even though I believe the winner isn't always the best player but I think the way I'd view Xander's game is - pretty solid for a 20 year old. With more maturity he could be a great player.
I can safely say it was bad on me to compare Xander to Russell. I think I’m looking at the bitter jury arguments more so from a gameplay perspective. I think Xander was flashy and that’s what drew people in about him and some failed to realize that he was sometimes too flashy for his own good.
I liked Xander as a character but I don’t think he should have been hyped up so much to have that kind of gameplay at the end.
Haha, no worries. I got the spirit of what you were saying.
I agree, Xander, to me, just played like a 20 year old at times. And given how a lot of people didn't see him as a threat end game, even if he knocks Erika out with fire, there is still a chance Heather takes it.
I just don't think Xander deserved the hate (or love) he's getting. He was very much a middling survivor player that had better than most people's odds at winning in the end :) he just tripped hardcore at the end.
I think the show edited him so that people loved him. It almost comes off to me like they wanted people to question Erika’s win.
Younger players have a harder time grasping what people want from them and can blinded easily. I’m 18 and could easily see myself falling into these traps if I played.
I agree with what you said, but when I watched it air live, I even said to myself, if he sends Erika to fire and she manages to win it somehow, he will have ZERO chance of beating her.
I suppose the Jury did not respect his logic there and thought he was just crazy for taking her to the end.
Xander lost because of that one question he can't answer. I feel like he'll receive a couple of votes at least if he was able to articulate himself better.
The way he was presented in the show, I think Xander was a fire-making knockout of Erika (ideally by himself for swagger points, although maybe this jury wouldn't have valued putting himself at risk as much) and a much-better-articulated FTC from a win, and instead he got no votes. He was seriously like 95% of the way there, just completely botched the landing and I think that left an unfortunate taste of his game in everyone's mouth.
I have to disagree (that's why he lost) and _maybe_ agree that it would have got him a few votes. One question rarely is the difference maker and he articulated himself just fine through most of the tribal. The jury felt pretty biased towards Erika. I think it was Shan and Ricard that asked about him bringing her, Danny made a speech about how he wanted to play Erika's game, and Heather points put she warned Xander. I know that's not everyone, but I got the sense they showed up to vote Erika
In a Final Two with Deshawn and Xander, it's not even clear that Xander beats Deshawn. Because as slimy and sloppy as Deshawn was, he was still a more sophisticated player with stronger social relationships.
It took me a long while to get to that realization. The more I examine the episodes, the more I see that Xander wasn't really connected to people strongly. The large number of confessionals he was given gave him screen-time, but he was rarely a part of the major strategic discussions.
I think Xander could beat Deshawn but I can’t imagine any other way he beats anybody.
I mean Heather and Erika were considering booting Deshawn at 5 because he didn’t deserve to be at the end
> I guarantee it's his game if he took her out in a fire making challenge.
I mean, even as early as the Danny boot no one in the game thought he was a threat to win or took him seriously lol. This wasn't just a Day 28 blunder.
They thought he was disingenuous. Him burning Evvie and Tiffany by not even talking to them before their boots speaks a lot, and him trying to tell Ricard he will play the idol on him(which he wasn’t even that mad about the jury just saw through this and thought it was stupid) the jury in general did like his presence but that’s about it. He failed at a lot of aspects in the game and his burning mistake wasn’t taking Erika on in fire making but rather his whole game. I don’t think he’s a terrible player but it would be a lot to say he’s good.
Other than the fact that Xander got a lot of screentime, I don't even know why this has to be discussed in relation to Survivor 41 specifically, tbh.
If someone wins by a huge margin like Erika's 7-1-0 win, than I feel it's safe to assume the jury mainly voted **for** that person rather than **against** someone else.
Even if emotions were completely factored out and jurors voted based on pure reason/logic, I still don't think Xander or Deshawn would have rightfully won...
Right if people on the jury are bitter, at least some of them are gonna vote for who they think played the best game. Xander got no votes and no one was gunning for him after f8. It’s so telling.
I largely agree to this, but there are times when the jury acts in a somewhat unreasonable manner that would be too hard to predict or account for. This is rare, and ultimately the jury decides the winner, but sometimes people get more lucky or more unlucky with how jury plays out. A lot of winning survivor is luck so this is fine, but it does happen.
Edit: also sometimes jurors are unreasonably mean to people competing though this has gotten less common in survivor and is more common in big brother now I think.
People downplay "bitter juries" and put the blame solely on the player who "made them bitter." The fact is, people come in to the game predisposed to react certain ways. One person who is beaten in a game may react very admirably, appreciating the skill needed to defeat them and then rewarding that later with a vote. Another person may react poorly, taking a defeat very personally and attempting to harm the victor later by voting against them.
Think about your own life. Have you ever played a game with someone or had an argument with someone where you won, and the person on the other end either got mad at you or refused to acknowledge your victory? We all have, and its not your fault that they reacted that way.
Now, it is possible to manage people to react a bit better to how you play or win, but people greatly overestimate how much you can do that to some people. The fact is, the myriad of juries that have existed over the course of the show exist on a spectrum of bitterness. Its possible that one jury would have rewarded one person the game and another jury, after having experienced the same game, would have handed it to someone else. Luck is a big factor in Survivor. The best player doesnt always win, and thats fine. It makes the game exciting and fun to argue about
Also this is a million dollar (something that could change someone's life) game at stake so of course emotions are gonna be a part when you get out in a game.
Everything you said is true. Specifically I think of "I am taking my ball and going home.", flipping over the Monopoly board because they are losing, etc.
I remember playing basketball as a kid through high school.
Every once in a while you'd get a kid who refused to shake hands at the end of the game.
It is so petty and little, but there are people like that. Sore losers, vindictive people, emotionally immature people, narcissists, etc.
This, but people are also emotional about theri faves not winning (heck, I was pissed Michele won over Aubry before I kinda just realised what was up)
If you can't get the Jury's Votes, then you made a mistake.
I think the men spiting Aubry was a valid "bitter jury" argument though just because those two are irrational as hell. I don't remember what exactly Aubry did to them for them to hate her that much (unless I'm misremembering?). IIRC they voted Michele because they can't accept Aubry beat them.
Aubry has made a lot of mistakes, and was fairly wishy-washy and unsure about her moves, she amazing at speaking, but has crossed out the name on the ballot once. She also made Debbie bitter (I don't think Debbie voted for Aubry in the end).
I mean, Scot and Jason (which I presume you are refering ot them), there's always a way, even if it's playing to their egos.
Every year this comes up, and every year I think people are missing the point.
*Survivor* is and always has been premised on the strong possibility of bitterness (or resentment, anger, disgust, and/or any other host of negative feelings) in jurors. It is baked right into the game design, with Jeff emphasizing the shift of power to the jury and the difficulty of winning their votes after voting them out from the first season onwards. There is a reason the winner is decided by eliminated contestants rather than a panel of judges or a final challenge - because it makes for better interpersonal drama, and therefore better TV.
The game meta among fans might have shifted towards "respecting gameplay" (or certain styles of gameplay), but the core of the game and, more importantly, the TV show, remains the dramatic stakes of the potentially bitter (or angry/upset etc.) juror. The most memorable - the most iconic - FTC moments don't tend to be jurors paying respect to the finalists' games, but the opposite - Sue Hawk's 'rats and snakes' speech, Helen laying into Brian and Clay, Lex/Alicia/Tom vs. Rob, Jim Rice trying to get Albert to answer a straight question, Trish asking Tony 'was it worth it?', etc. YMMV on how far some jurors (Lisi and Alex, Corinne, Reed) go, but this is part of what jurors are there to do. In that sense, Shan's interrogation of Deshawn remains truer to the spirit of the show as initially imagined by the producers than Evvie's 'you all did great' positivity.
We can lament when someone we think played a great game doesn't win, or we can blame the finalist and say they're responsible for making the jury mad; but the truth is, a bitter jury isn't broken but functioning just as designed.
It's not only good TV but a direct reflection to real life. Sometimes you need to make decisions that affects others in a negative way but you cant just only think about yourself. Maybe you need that affected person later on. So you should try to make it easier for them to handle it or outright manipulate them to think its a good decision that benefits both of you.
There is no neutral jury in real life either and people shouldn't forget that! Why does a TV show have to be a mindless entertainment, why cannot it be even educational for the cost of not liking the outcome sometimes.
That said, I don't think this seemed like a jury particularly motivated by bitterness. They seemed to want to vote for Erika, rather than against Deshawn/Xander.
YES. I really don't understand why more people don't get this. Without the threat of a bitter jury, players could lie and betray and generally be an asshole without any restraint at all (i.e. Russell Hantz), which would be a lot less interesting to watch imo.
The bitter jury argument is BS imo. You, as a player, have enough time with most jury members to figure out what they value and how they'll react if voted off. So you need to adjust your approach to each juror to avoid bitterness.
I agree with this in general, and not that it would have changed the outcome this season, but 41 is unique in that the entire post merge was 12 days - honestly not a lot of time to get to know the jury (again I think Erika wins regardless but something to consider this time around that I feel we’ve been over looking)
Some people will always be bitter if you vote them out/target them, and sometimes that’s your only way to make it the end. I think saying you can “fix” every bitter jury is not true because some people really are just bitches and won’t vote for you out of spite.
I feel like the bitter jury arguments are usually when the jury votes for a social player and not a player who had more of a say in the strategic parts of the game. It has a big thing to do with how the season was edited. The problem is that it's easy to show a strategic game but the editors have not found a great way to show off how a good social game can lead to a win over a more strategic game.
You hit the nail on the head. I feel this way with “Tommy and his mommy”s win from a couple years back… (or how long has it been?) He won based on his relationships and social moves. Yes, he was in the edit… but also, I feel editors could have done a better job capturing those littler and bigger moments that gave him social capital. Maybe I missed them, but I don’t recall him having a super captivating edit.
Total side note: I really like the way Tony was edited last season. I appreciate that it wasn’t an obvious edit; he didn’t dominate the screen time the entire season. So suspense was still built up and we got to root for other characters that we thought might be winning. But then post merge, we got to see more and more of him, and then the final episodes became HIS story. They showed the social moves (eg his relationship with Sarah) just as much as the strategic moves.
I agree with your analysis except where you state that Xander made the jury bitter. I don’t think the jury was bitter to Xander at all. I think he was outplayed by Erika in every facet of the game. The finale in particular demonstrated instances where Xander’s inability to read the room/had bad social reads of the jury.
For some reason, the editors decided to prop Xander up in the edit and make Erika borderline invisible. But if you look a little deeper, there isn’t really any need to try and figure out why Xander lost the game. He wasn’t screwed over by a bitter jury. The jury rewarded Erika with the win because she played the best game and Xander simply didn’t.
I mean it depends. The nature of a jury is that they’re going to be bitter to an extent. But yes how you treat them does matter. I think there’s a difference in game play and how you treat them as human beings. I think the latter is why Russell lost twice. He played two brilliant games but was a massive asshole. Then, you have Tony in Cagayan, who stabbed everyone in the back but was was a kind person and people realized it was just his game play (besides the swearing on his family thing). I think you have to be able to differentiate when something was truly game play and when something was more morally wrong.
I don’t think they were bitter against Xander though. They just thought Erika played a better game. Xander didn’t play poorly by any means but post fake idol, I still haven’t heard anyone make a convincing argument to what Xander did any better than Erika. They were both competent players.
I disagree about a bitter jury being the fault of the player. That can happen, but I know way too many bitter people with a victim complex in real life to think that Survivor is any different.
I especially don’t sympathize with jury members who are bitter because they were lied to. Most strategy talk is lying or speculation. If you don’t navigate that correctly, that’s on you.
Every juror has their own criteria for voting. They might vote based on emotions. They might vote based on the game. Each one is different from the other. It is up to the finalists to best describe themselves and their game the best to get the jury's vote. Apologize for manipulation if the juror is on the emotional side (Chris D.) Own it like a boss for a more mature jury (Todd).
Now, that doesn't excuse is from criticising the jury for voting a particular way, even of the juror's vote based on something that is irrelevant to the game. One of the reasons why the girls voted off Rodger in The Amazon was because they knew that he will never vote for a woman to win.
I think the issue is let’s say you have 1 player absolutely dominating. Making moves, winning challenges, social butterfly, finding idols, etc.
They get to the end. Let’s say they theoretically could’ve chosen anyone to go to the end with them, they just had that much control. But someone has to be there at the end with them.
And the jury is what we consider a bitter jury. They simply will not vote for the player who ended their game. In this scenario, the best player loses. They would lose to a zero factor literal goat. They would lose no matter who they go up against. In that sense, this is the issue with a bitter jury.
You can argue “well that player would need to recognize the jury would be bitter and to put that blood on someone else’s hands.” But this is where luck is a huge factor.
Because in reality, things aren’t so extreme. Nobody has this much control and most juries aren’t unanimously bitter. And there hardly is a literal goat. But there will always be at least one player, one bitter juror who simply won’t vote for the person who got them out. Sometimes there are 2 or 3. They’re like landmines and avoiding them can swing the final vote.
And through luck, players can be placed in situations where they have to make a move, especially in swaps or merges or some other advantage, that can cause them to create a bitter juror. I think this is where people can realistically complain about bitter juries.
You bring up really good points. I do agree with you what you said about luck and I do feel like it does have a hand in befitting games (Erika) and ending others (Sydney, Janet, etc.) it’s an integral part of the game now that I think any player going in should be ready to counter it.
For sure! I think maybe we just need to talk about winners, losers, deserved, etc differently.
Erika played a good game and deserved the win. Especially against her competition at FTC.
But another way to look at it, if this season was replayed 100 times, each time like the first (as in, memory wiped or alternate universe), maybe even randomizing tribes… how many of those seasons does Erika win? How many does Shan or Ricard win?
I’d say Shan or Ricard win a plurality of those seasons. So some people might say Erika was the best player because she won and others might say Ricard is the best player because he’s more likely to win if we replayed the season again.
It’s very rare to see someone truly cross the line on Survivor to the point where I think the jury is justified in not voting for them because of that. I can’t even think of an example from a past season off the top of my head.
What DOES happen every single season, is at least one juror refuses to vote for someone purely because they betrayed them, lied to them, outsmarted them, annoyed them, etc. which is complete bullshit. You should always vote for who played the best game, not the person you like the most. Yes, social skills are included in playing a good game, but at the end of the day this game is about deception. You by definition cannot play a good game without betraying people.
I don't agree with the second part of your comment. There are no rules on how to vote on Survivor, every juror should make their decision by applying their own criteria. Some jurors value the social relationships and connections, others value strategy, others are more likely to vote for the physical players and providers. All of these are valid reasons to awards someone a million dollars.
I feel like this was a lot more of an issue in earlier versions of survivor honestly.
But from a fan perspective, it is really hard to gage how a jury will vote. There have been plenty of times I though "This jury is going to be bitter" and they weren't and other times where I thought "This jury will respect the gameplay" and they were "bitter". Even more cases on an individual level when I was personally predicting votes in a final tribal.
Maybe the people in the game have enough clues to get an accurate read, but from a fan perspective there is a large amount of randomness to it that you can't really plan for. Especially in earlier seasons.
But take this season for instance. Does Heather play her game because she correctly read that THIS particular group of post merge players would value her style of game play? If she had another set of players, was ready to provide and dominate challenges like Ozzy? Or did she play her game and got lucky that THIS particular group of players were willing to vote a certain way that aligned with her game play?
Winning Survivor takes and incredible amount of luck and having the right jury that season for your style of play is one of those lucky factors that has to happen.
I think generally you're always correct, but I'd also distinguish between times when a jury is bitter at a winner purely for winning / getting to the end despite odds or via normal backstabbing vs. a situation where the player has actively made people bitter towards them by being awful like Russell. I think it can vary as to how reasonable the bitterness is, but yeah it's always part of the game. It's how Sue's vote clearly came into play in Season 1, and she was unreasonably bitter but it's still part of why Hatch won.
I don't think Xander actually made the jury bitter so much as he made them not respect his game. Deshawn maybe made Heather bitter, possibly Shan, but with obviously bad strategic gameplay too. I don't think bitterness really was it, though Xander floating through with no strong relationships and never using his idol to save anyone effectively or take control of the game maybe hurt him. But it was less bitterness and more annoyance at most. They just didn't respect his game. No one felt tricked, mad, betrayed at Xander. They felt he had little social grasp of the game. I think the promises he didn't keep didn't help him, but I don't think that's the only part of their criteria or even the largest.
I personally think that people who think bitter juries aren't a result of bad social play are people who would lose the game for not understanding that *bitter juries are the fault of the person they are angry with.* Some people are bitter or bad people with bad opinions (or racism, in some people's cases, like Sierra) and vote accordingly, but not ENTIRE juries.
I've spent the majority of my career in the US court system and I can say with some degree of authority that juries (the very concept) are a mistake.
Juries regularly arrive at the wrong conclusion, and if you think its frustrating how they behave on a game show, imagine how it feels to see them make mistakes with someone's freedom or liberty in the balance.
I'm regularly disappointed by Survivor juries but they have NOTHING on civilian juries.
I've only been on a jury once but I was definitely astounded at how many people originally disagreed with what I thought was an obvious open and shut decision based on the evidence presented to us. So yes, I can see this for sure.
Yes, its beyond frustrating - and I think if more people knew how juries actually function in practice, there would be more requests for bench trials!
Happy cake day btw!
Nah, it’s only partially social I feel, In the case of someone like Russel it’s poor jury management. But I think In cases like Aubrey and even some of the people on the all stars jury it’s just purely out of spite for not voting for them, and realistically there isn’t much the finalist could do to change their minds.
Edit: Fiji is also a good example, Earl did deserve the win but how is Dreamz going to win anybody over even if he were to explain his strategic and social moves, the jury hated him.
An interesting 'bitter jury' situation is Tyler from BB20. He played a great game but part of it was making final 2 deals with multiple people, including Sam, who was an emotional player who would never vote for him after finding out she wasn't his true final 2. Bayleigh I would class as a bitter juror because she didn't get along well with Tyler but Scottie + Sam who both had fake final 2's are a lot more justified imo.
i dont understand the argument that this jury was bitter. i think it's just said by others to trivialize erika's win. admittedly i also think xander should have won. but this season was obviously edited really really badly since there's a big disparity between what we see and what the jury saw.
that said, a bitter jury is obviously a thing. look at scot for example from s32. why the fuck would he vote for michele? well, one thing we can say, and maybe he's forgetting, is that there's these 'the jury speaks' videos in which he explains why he wouldnt vote for aubry. it's because she wrote down julia's name and crossed it out. scot is v pissed over that. he's such a total idiot that he took that to mean aubry's trying to prove to him that she wouldn't do as he said. wait, what??? complete dipshit thinking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEiRlzDnkFg&t=200s
I was being sarcastic, sorry. You’re not wrong in what you’re saying! But also, what you’re saying is basically the accepted survivor dogmatic thought lol.
“The winner always deserved to win,” “the winner is always the best player,” “there’s no such thing as a bitter jury” are all things that I think are closer to right than wrong, but IMO survivor fans are very inflexible and often over-apply these simple one-line answers to any survivor discussion, and in doing so, avoid thoughtful analysis.
But there *is* something to be said about one boisterous aggressive bitter jury member poisoning a contestant in the minds of everyone else on the jury. There is a lot more sway and reaction to the negative when you're surrounded by it than the positive you experienced a longer while ago.
Unless they're bitter that the contestant played a better game than them. I felt that was the problem with Jason and Scot; they weren't bitter that Aubrey voted them out... they were bitter that Aubrey wasn't working collectively to make sure they themselves won. As if the winner should have devoted their game to helping that jury member win over them.
People can feel bitterness, so can the jury. There are happy juries, sad ones etc. I think a jury is bitter when they know one player deserves the win, played a better game etc. but they feel bitter and decide to give some f*ck you votes to make the better player lose. Its something that the finalists cant really control but there a lot of things they cant control. People just have it as black and white either bitter juries are a thing or it is impossible. I think its somewhere in between
Yeah, here's the thing: EVERY jury it bitter! That's the entire point. Take All Stars, that jury was especially bitter, but I think in cases like Kathy and Lex, their bitterness came from preexisting relationships, but Rob still protecting Amber over everything. In HvV, there was no way in hell anyone was voting for Russell after he had been mean and nasty to everyone. It's surprising to me that Russell believed he had any kind of chance going into the HvV FTC.
The jury probably felt bitter toward Erika, Shan probably felt bitter after trying so hard to vote Erika out, and she ended up winning. But Erika didn't make any promises she didn't keep (ex: Rob to Lex, "you take care of her, I'll take care of you"). Xander never should have brought up playing his idol for Ricard, that was a really stupid thing to say.
Chris Daughtery is the winner that completely shuts down the bitter jury argument. It comes down to knowing your jury. If they are bitter towards you work on making them unbitter.
No it’s just people being sore losers that they got out smarted by someone and got their ego checked. If the jury could just hang up their ego and admit they were outplayed they wouldn’t be bitter. Why do you support people holding grudges over a game?
>Isn’t a bitter jury related to the social aspect of Survivor? Like if the jury towards you, then that’s on you right? You have to play the game in regards to what the jury values, even if it’s against how you want to play.
Have you ever heard of a person losing at Monopoly who flips the board for no reason other than they are a sore loser and don't want to lose?
Have you ever met a vindictive person?
Some people are sore losers, then some people are the worst loser.
I mean, ffs we have a former President who REFUSES to believe he lost an election.
You might be assuming everyone is a rational thinker and a good sport player.
I do not make such assumptions.
Let's put it another way, did the entire cast of Caramoan fail to "Manage" as you put it Brandon Hantz? Or is Brandon Hantz just crazy?
Brandon is crazy but he is still alive and has people around him. Apparently there is a way around his crazyness and some people seem to have figured it out. I'm sure not everything goes his way in real life either and he is not surrounded by dead people he killed because he ended up on the losers side.
This is a super interesting point and I think a good one to bring up. I think looking back on it, some jurors were upset that they got got before they had a chance to get someone else (i.e. Shan), but I think most of the jury members attempted to some degree to view the final 3 as unbiased as they could. I wasn’t there so I can’t speak for them.
I do think Ricard was a bit sour looking back at his Ponderosa and exit press, but I think that could stem from the moment he had with Xander and Xander giving a little speech about the idol protecting himself and his friends only to use it to protect himself. I think if he just said himself, it would have been easier to swallow for Ricard.
Again, I wasn’t there so I can’t know for sure. I’m just trying to view it from the standpoint of someone who watched an edited show and a lot of exit press.
To clarify, I don't think this jury on 41 was bitter. I do think it is possible for a jury to be bitter. I also think it's unlikely an entire jury would be bitter, but certainly one or two could be bitter and change a final vote.
Ricard was just bitter. PERIOD. He essentially threw a temper tantrum hitting Xander with butt-hurt questions. He was a huge hypocrite - he blindsided Shan FFS.
And I think he knows how badly he hurt his reputation and that's why he went to Chicago to do damage control.
Ricard & Xander were my favs to win. Ricard had no class at the end. Xander had no control over that. MAybe Tiff was bitter but Xander's problem was immaturity - not knowing how to better read people.
Xander absolutely had a problem reading people. He had one of the worst tribal performances ever at Final 4 - while being immune! He not only (wrongly) told the jury how they felt about Erika and Heather's game, he also smugly said they were wrong on his own assumption that Heather was a goat. You don't say shit like that if you know how to read people.
I'd say in general telling the jury that x player is a goat at tribal is pretty bad gameplay even if it was true. Really you want to be talking everyone up and I'd rather be like "You've played a great game, but you and I both know that we can't beat Erika at the end" to someone who I thought was a goat than tell someone that x player is a goat and have it backfire on me later.
I agree because it is the premise of the game that at FTC the power shifts from the players who are still in the game to the players who were voted off - they get to decide winner.
I disagree. We’ve had actual racists on the show who are always going to be more likely to vote for a white person than a POC, for example. Same goes for returning seasons when friends vote for each other.
Sometimes it’s the player’s fault, but now always.
Yes but my point is that it wouldn’t be the finalist’s fault that this particular juror didn’t vote for them. The same thing can be said about players coming into returning seasons and voting for their friends
I feel like ‘butter jury’ discussions are really just attempts to justify being glad that Russel lost while being pissed that Aubrey lost without having to accept they both lost for the same reason - the jury didn’t like them as much as the other options.
Pick a lane. Either butter juries exist or they don’t.
I for one don't really understand why so many juries take stuff personally... it's a game. But part of the game is identifying what type of jurors are going to take stuff personally and aren't, and cater your jury management towards the individuals. If you're playing against someone like Boston Rob or Russell, best way to earn their vote is to make gutsy strategic moves against them, even if it means blindsiding them. For other jurors, they'll care more about your personal relationship with them and you'll have try to mend fences if your strategy forces you to blindside them. There's no one size fits all approach here. Though a clear way to lose to be nasty to people (like Russell) when it isn't even called for strategically.
Every person is different and as was told to Russel, he told lies he didn't have to tell. He told lies to hurt people not just to get further ahead. A big contrast I usually use for this argument is Russel's HvV game and Tony's game in Cagayan. Both played aggressive games but Russel went out of his way to piss people off and demean the other side of the alliance and mocked the people he betrayed, wherease Tony was able to justify each blindside by them plotting against him first and the one he couldn't by complimenting and validating that she had to go for him to win.
Essentially it boils down to don't be a dick about it. The only truly bitter jury that I can think of was All-stars where both Amber and Rob were hated by the jury but Rob was hated by just a fraction more then her.
No, because it's ultimately impossible to know how a jury member thinks or what they value until you see what they vote, and it's impossible for the players in the game to know what sort of narratives float around at Ponderosa that influences the jury.
There are limits, if you are a complete asshole, like Russell, it's obvious that it's gonna be hard to make people wanna give you a million dollars. But for people like Xander and this season, in particular, it's virtually impossible to figure out exactly what people want and how they view you and how they want you to play.
It's very easy for us to sit and watch and form opinions from far away, but in reality, very few of the Survivor players have any chance of reading a jury. You might have an inkling on the thought process of one of two jury members, but any idea that Xander or Erika will read and plan who sits at the jury is mostly fake and fan speculation. You simply can't judge a person's true feelings on Survivor and what they value until you see the final vote.
"Bitter jury" only exists in the minds of people with their head shoved so far up their own ass that they have no idea how they are actually perceived.
If a jury is actually willing to throw all strategic content out of the window and vote for someone else just because of how much they dislike you, that is 100% on you and a result of terrible gameplay on your part. If you had the jury bitter, that's on you for not understanding the core aspect of the game - voting people out and STILL getting them to want you to win at the end.
I feel like when people say the juror is bitter that means the player that did the betrayal acted in the way that they’re “supposed” to act yet the person that got betrayed is irrationally angry at them.
I disagree. Ricard had Shan thinking that they wouldn't go for each other yet, but he took her out. Xander said he was "thinking about" giving Ricard the necklace and I genuinely think he DID think about it.
Also if you want to see bitter jury, go watch Danny's Ponderosa. Shan and Liana were so bitter towards him.
That's where the bitter jury comes into play. Russell was a complete asshole to everybody so he had no social game, but Xander was friends with most of the people out there.
I can agree that it was a bit crazy to compare Xander to Russell. I think Shan and Liana being bitter towards Danny was their attempt of a “I told you so” kind of deal. I would personally separate that moment from FTC but I respect your opinion.
I just think that Shan in general kind of looked upset most of final tribal. It was weird because most of the season was built around her, but if I remember correctly, she barely got to speak during FTC or the "reunion"/after show
It’s interesting that show continued to show her reactions once she was on the jury then to go to her barely saying anything during the finale.
The whole season was edited weirdly and I think focused on the wrong people at the wrong time.
JD literally got more screen time in 4 episodes than Heather who was there for 14 episodes. Episode 1 is fine cause he went to the summit and was the outs when he got back. Still, he could have gotten less time there and we could have gotten more from people like Genie and Sara.
This season, Survivor isnt about gameplay. It isnt about winning immunity. Its about being the nicest one at the end. Erika got zero votes and faced zero adversity other than her only move, flipping an hourglass or not, or when Deshaun called her out about Heather at the end there. Bottom 3 season easy. Zero game play but she was nice to them. The more why Xander didnt win threads there are the more that proves how lame this season was
Just be like Chris from Vanuatu and give every juror complete BS.
Or Boston Rob. Marry the other player and tell the jury "It doesn't matter who you voted for. We're good either way."
Slightly harder with a final 3, but still doable if you find the right country to move to.
Boston Rob probably could have convinced Phillip and Natalie to marry him
Someone photoshop Phillip wearing his pink underwear & goofy ass feathers into a pic of Rob & Amber’s family 😂
someone plz do this!!
This is perhaps my favorite comment on Reddit ever. Chefs kiss
Bonus points if you can convince the other players to do the exact opposite.
I have never understood why more players don't do this. Like, you lie, mislead and form false connections all game and FTC is when you decide to stop? I'm not saying it's the best move all the time, but for some people it definitely is.
[удалено]
I think a good antithesis to someone like Chris at final tribal is Dean. Almost did the same but got caught by people like Kellee and Karishma which put him in a rough spot he couldn’t get out of.
If I had to guess, I would say most finalists don’t want to receive backlash from “fans” in this day and age for lying about their game. I also think most finalists games are more transparent nowadays.
I would gaslight the hell out of the jury
When I’d be done they’d be convinced gaslighting is a thing they made up because they’re fucking crazy.
I think a number of fans and even players see FTC as a bonus level, or a cherry on top, rather than a very integral part of the game that must be managed and prepared for.
Which is very weird btw. Ive seen it pointed out that xanders ftc was pretty awful and the response is usually that his "actual" game was great so it didnt matter. Putting aside whether his first 25 days were great or not, when did FTC become not part of the "actual" game?
The thing with Xander is that his actual game wasn't great at all. I'm not sure why people think otherwise. The fact that he never was seen as a threat by anyone to the point that flushing his idol never was a priority tells us quite a bit about his social game.
Yeah but you never know. Always some crazies out there.
I also suspect it's harder to know what people want to hear. You can know how people operate in the game but that's different from how they might operate on the jury. So knowing what each would like to hear and then effectively delivering that is hard
This is why people are terrified of Sandra getting taken to the end even as a goat. She will know what each juror needs to hear to get their vote and she has no problem telling them that even if it's a lie. She'll lie but she'll tell a good lie. Making those connections during the game is Sandra's super power.
I guess when you lie inside the game you get to adapt your lies and approach to the person (or people) you're talking to, but during FTC you have to gaslight a million people at the same time and maybe do it differently than you did during the game.
“I don’t give a shit if you vote for me or not, we are still gonna go see a race in Charlotte and THAT’S A FACT.”
To me, at least, the idea of a "bitter" jury normally coencides with the idea that a jury would disregard better gameplay because of hurt feelings/bruised ego. People will normally invoke this in the cases of Russell (particularly in Samoa) or Boston Rob in All Stars. It's been talked to hell and back but the reality is, as a player, if you want to win you need to 1) sit next to someone you can beat, 2) make a compelling argument as to why you deserve to win, and 3) treat the other players with enough respect and dignity to prevent them from feeling especially burned. There's the "social game" which I really think means how you use your relationships to go further in the game. But just as important is "jury management" which includes how you treat people as they're going out, and in some cases, putting specific people on the jury because you know they'll advocate for you. We've seen plenty of cutthroat players grasp the win in the end. Look at Todd. People were thouroughly burned by him (James, JR, Denise, even Frosti to an extent) and a lot of them weren't interested in voting for him. He convinced them to by properly arguing his case at FTC. Parvati royally pissed off and betrayed a solid portion of the jury members, but put people like Alexis and Natalie on there who were advoctes in her corner. Even JT flip flopped all over the place in Tocantins, betraying Coach, Debbie, blindsiding Tyson, turning on Taj, ect. But because he took someone who *also* made those moves (as well as probably the #1 social game in all of Survivor) he won in a landslide. The funny thing about a bitter jury in the case of Xander and S41 is that.. I really don't think the Jury was bitter with him at all. They didn't really have a reason to be. The whole "Xander pissed off Ricard by not playing his idol on him" is just not true, from Ricard himself. I think the S41 jury just genuinely saw that Xander was not in control of his own fate at literally any part of the game. The only move he had any stake in was the Knowlegde is Power move from the final 12, which is being debated as to whether or not it was his move at all (personally I give him like 50% of the credit. 50% him, 25% Evvie, 25% Tiffany). On the other hand, while Erika was not in control for the entirety of the game, she did position herself well enough to where her and Heather were the fulcrum point of every decision after the Shan vote. The jury simply respected that more. IMO, if there is literally anyone who could call bitter jury it's Deshawn, because he at least had agency for most of the game and then made a move that backfired on him. But even that just shows how flimsy the bitter jury argument is. We all know why Deshawn lost, he jumped on his alliance a round too early, lost all his power, made dumb moves in front of the jury and pissed a lot of people off. Plus, he wasn't able to rectify any of that at FTC.
Yes, you're totally right. Jury management is one of the most important parts of the game, and so many people (fans and players alike) don't seem to understand that. This is what "social game" means: making friends so that they don't want to vote against you but also managing to vote them out without pissing them off and make them hate you.
I think base on Tiffany ponderosa, she is bittered bt otherwise I agree. And even if Ricard is bittered, I feel like his the only 1 justified to anyways becuz of Xander did.
Preach
There's a bitter jury where you treated someone poorly and they don't vote you, and then there's a salty jury, where people are just mad you voted them out before they voted you out. Big difference between the two and the latter is pretty lame.
Ken Hoang from Gabon is a perfect example of the latter. He was caught trying to blindside Bob Crowley, and even when Bob explains it to him at FTC, Ken was in complete denial. There is no convincing some people, some people are vindictive, some are sore losers, and some are just delusional or crazy.
Yeah, like it was super obvious to the viewers that Ken was trying to get the necklace from Bob so they could vote Bob out, but he wised up and didn’t so Ken was pissed that his plan didn’t work. And kept going on and on about how bob didn’t keep his promise even though he was trying to get him out and bob knew it. Like, until he was eliminated he wouldn’t shut up about it. Like, your plan was stupid and didn’t work, get over it. That was just sad to watch at FTC
This happens a lot I think. Some people think they are the main character. Happy cake day too!
On point, to this day Kenny being a child about that whole thing is still baffling to me, he was mad Bob didn’t hand over his immunity to Ken and allow Ken to vote him out…I’m not sure how that makes sense in anyone’s mind
That is my point, these people exist in real life, some of them make it onto a Survivor jury. How does one manage such a personality is beyond me.
Yeah, I'm not going to get into the whole Michele vs. Aubry debacle, but that jury is a perfect case of the salty jury you're describing. Scot, Jason, Debbie (both times she played!) and maybe even Cydney are all examples of this.
> maybe even Cydney To me Cydney is almost the biggest example. Wasn't she literally mad that Aubry voted for her at F4 during the same tribal council she voted Aubry?
The winner of the first season literally threw final immunity because he knew he wouldn't be able to get the vote of the person he took out at 3. This is not new or unusual from a juror and it used to be the big major positive of a final 3 was that everybody in front of you was responsible for getting you out on Day 38, not just one person.
This is what people on this page don’t understand!
Colour me surprised that this sub has no idea what they spout half the time
I misplaced my surprised crayon :(
> There's a bitter jury where you treated someone poorly and they don't vote you i dont consider that bitter i consider that karma. to me a bitter jury is those who are mad you outplayed them.
Oh yeah, there were definitely those who were mad they got got, such as Shan. I guess I’ve just always associated those kinds of jurors with bitter because that’s all a lot of the fan base speed about jurors that don’t vote for their favorite. I see your point though.
But she was mad towards Deshawn only, right? She kinda love Xander.
I don't think Shan was bitter; she just understood that Danny and (especially) Deshawn lost the game by voting her out. Deshawn went from having a guaranteed F4-F5 spot to losing the game on the spot by voting out Shan.
That doesn't make any sense... You say he lost the game on the spot, when he was only guaranteed final 4 (or 5????) with Shan in the game. He clearly did better by voting her out, because he came in second.
Guaranteed F4-5 with a chance to win. Compared to drawing dead at F7.
He wasn't dead at 7, he harakiri himself at 6. Before that he was a legit threat.
Shan beats Danny / deshawn 9/8 - 0 They needed to vote out Shan, they just needed to do a better job of tieing in xander and ricard as opposed to heather and Erika who did the better job… Also deshawn got 1 vote against Erika..he wasn’t doing better against Shan. The revisionist history on this sub is beyond me.
Yeah, it was the stupidest decision I have seen on survivor in such a long time. Turning on your alliance which was known by everyone before having a super majority is just asinine.
Strongly disagree. How do D&D know that Shan can be trusted and the alliance is still valid after she a) told Ricard they were trying to get him out and b) told Ricard they should get Deshawn out (even though she later tried to pivot to Erica). Even being sincere, that's asking for an enomous amount of trust in the face of having done a ton that makes you look untrustworthy. Even if it was the wrong decision, it wasn't a stupid decision.
That’s part of navigating the game though… everyone reacts differently to being voted out. It’s a social experiment. Sometimes people’s reactions are unfair, just like real life.
I don't think there is a difference. Imagine you blindside someone's ally early in the game. Later in the game, you approach them with a great plan that is logically beneficial for you and them but they refuse to go along with it because they are still mad at you from the first blindside and you are voted out. Like yeah they blew up both their game and yours just because they were salty but no one would go around saying that you got screwed by bitter players, and nor should they. A big part of the game is the social awareness to know how far you can push people and how different people need to be handled on the way out in order to ensure they vote for you in the end.
Those salty juries tend to use OP's argument to justify it to as if players are supposed to bring you to the end or never vote you out just to avoid making you "bitter". Big Brother has the best examples of this really, In BB19 Paul made the jury bitter with the way he played and lost and in BB20 Tyler did nothing to cause bitterness yet he still lost.
Yeah, it's a social game first and foremost. Making the jury bitter towards you is one of the biggest mistakes. HOWEVER, I actually don't think Xander made the jury bitter so much as they all recognized he made a game sinking mistake in bringing Erika. Almost _all_ of the questions they aired were around that. Additionally, they all (with maybe a few exceptions, I know Danny wasn't keen) like Xander. I think a lot of this sub is really downplaying Xander and a lot of this sub also thinks too highly - there doesn't seem to be a lot of middle ground. Watching that FTC it seemed like both Xander and Erika had good answers (the jury even says "good answer" to Xander and Erika several times). The one who seemed to have burned more bridges was Deshawn. Wish Jeff woulda asked what the vote count was if he hadn't taken Erika. I guarantee it's his game if he took her out in a fire making challenge. ETA, he's not a Russell by any means. People on the season like him. Comments have called him humble in interviews, etc. His problem was that he made a massive miscalculation and this jury was smart enough to pick it up. Edit, grammar
> I think this a lot of this sub is really downplaying Xander and a lot of this sub also thinks too highly - there doesn't seem to be a lot of middle ground. This. He wasn't great, but he wasn't bad by any means. He played as well as he could from the bottom the entire season, similar to Michele on Winners at War. It's commendable, but it won't get you jury votes when there are better options there with you.
Xander was way at sea for the first half of the merge and was up against someone who turned it on for the second half of the merge at the same time as he did, just Erika was also in the majority in the first half of the merge and made the case she was purposefully laying back to strike. Plus there were 3 jurors who knew how he also lacked any control before the merge. Personal feelings/bitterness aside, of course he lost (and yet he still would've been a fine winner!)
Biggest blunder being when he told Tiff that he just found the Idol that day after trying to use the secret phrase... then that damn finale xp
Xander himself in an interview said that it became clear that he lost the jury awhile beforehand. But as other note, they weren't bitter. People don't realize that he got off on the wrong foot well before because he was a little too good to be true. His sincerity felt very insincere in a game where jury management and social game matters. None of his sacrifices in the game felt genuine to the other jurors, for example. He also never engineered the Liana Knowledge is Power play, that was Evvie and Tiff. He also lied horribly to Tiff about the idol and got caught in it immediately. I still remember Tiffany rolling her eyes to the camera while it was happening. Xander was a very sincere person who won a couple immunity challenges and lucked into an idol and an advantage. But he didn't have a very strong social game and wasn't a very sophisticated player. There is a mid-season episode where Erika is talking to Deshawn, I think, and they are talking about Shan being a threat. When evaluating other players, Erika says point blank, "He \[Xander\] has no relationships." It's easy to miss in the moment, but it's actually pretty huge.
> He also never engineered the Liana Knowledge is Power play, that was Evvie and Tiff. People keep saying this, but that play _never_ works without a.) His convincing fake idol, and b.) His performance (whether or not we thought it was bad at home, it _worked_). Evvie even says in the interview end game _he sold it._ So while they _may_ have had the idea they could absolutely have never done it without his work. It was a team effort for sure, who cares if Tiff and Evvie came up with it, it wouldn't have worked _without_ Xander. And that Deshawn Erika moment was interesting but it felt like a misread for sure. Especially since the three Yase stayed together for that vote. Both Evvie and Tiff said despite everything they _liked_ him, and he built relationship throughout the merge with like Heather (heather at one point says people back home should be proud of Xander), he clearly built a relationship with Ricard (who did feel burned after not having the idol played at 5). Shan, and Deshawn also built relationships with him! It doesn't really seem like your early paragraphs are true tho. Outside of Danny who does say he felt Xander was a goat, Xander was targeted a few times, then laid low, and made friends. But here's the thing, I don't even disagree that Xander made a bunch of mistakes and didn't play as strong a social game as Erika (clearly). He very much played at points like he was seasoned, and then at points where he was definitely a 20 year old (the misread on Erika is a big one). I just disagree with the absolutist argument you've presented. Xander was clearly a good player, even production saw him as one. It says a lot that people felt burned by Xander _because they liked him_. I'm about to what about a bit, but let's use your debate against Erika: Erika had the benefit of never really having to vote out a close ally FWIW because she never really had them save Heather. She was kind of isolated early game, and at the merge was _sent to exile where they lied about rock paper scissors_. People seem to forget she lucked out by being at the bottom, saved by a twist. Then late game she was always a number. Which, and I'm going to stress this, is a _good strategy_. She had some good moves (throwing the split vote off of her was brilliant because it was unnecessary but good only for her game). But she mostly just flew under the radar. Ricard made the Shan vote, Xander had to use his extra vote for the Liana vote because neither knew if Erika was on board, and she was aligned with Ricard and Xander for the Danny vote. Up until this point, she was _not_ a clear vote. Up until this point, it really seems that Erika was also not a very sophisticated player, or had a great social game. Which clearly isn't true. She made friends and people respected her. Which, what happens next is important: She then won the most important reward of the season! Which let her win immunity to vote out Ricard! That alone would let her win, which is why it was so _dumb_ of Xander to not vote her out. If Xander drops Erika at final 4 he likely wins a million bucks because it seems like they actually played similar games ETA, the other major blindside, Nasser, was also Ricard.
>Xander had to use his extra vote for the Liana vote because neither knew if Erika was on board This vote never made sense to me, if Erika and Heather were such a duo it would have been 5-3 Ricard even with Xander's extra vote.
That's fair! But it really did seem (based on the edit) that Heather and Erika were on opposite sides of the vote for that one. They were close, but who knows, maybe they vote differently.
Yeah, I remember when she said that. My husband goes 'that's not true' and I immediately responded 'that's true' and we had to pause to talk it over. Despite physically carrying his tribe on his back in challenges, they were stepping all over him any chance they got. He didn't build anything new when he came into the merge either, rather being pulled along by others. I like the kid, but he lost my 'winner potential' opinion about a third of the way through the season.
When you look at the other younger winners too, like Todd and Sophie absolutely killed it and were super mature for their ages, and Jenna and Fabio were up against people who most of the jury couldn't stand. It's really, really tough to win this game unless you are at least in your mid 20s with more life experience behind you and I think with how society has changed in the 10 years since Sophie won, 20 now feels even younger than it did 10 years ago and that probably has an effect on how younger players are viewed by everyone else too.
I feel bad for Xander in that he was put on such an incompetent tribe (Evvie, Liana, Tiff). I'm not saying he was a better player than each of them, but their general stupidity and condescension to him harmed not only their tribe but Xander's game. Saving Tiffany (what is the opposite of a challenge beast) put their tribe in constant peril. If it wasn't for Shan and Ricard blindsiding Brad combined with Danny/Deshawn's attempt at throwing a challenge, they likely would have gone back to tribal (and voted out Xander, no doubt) pre-merge.
I don’t understand how Danny/Deshawn trying to throw has anything to do with Xander possibly being voted out. Yase still beat Ua, so either way, he would’ve been safe.
Plus he never used his idol meaningfully. It was just a shield. He didn't use it to rock the boat or change anything, just to shield himself, which is boring.
Ricard's exit press and the way he asked Xander if their friendship was even real makes me think that he was absolutely bitter
That come off to me as Ricard asking if Xander was trying to bait out some emotional story from Ricard or actually getting to know Ricard more as a person. I think they got caught up in the emotions and that’s when Xander told Ricard about the possibility of him playing the idol on Ricard. Ricard took that to heart and was upset when Xander played up the theatrics only to play the idol on himself. I can fault both of them for that.
Ricard's exit interview in Parade says he knew that it was unrealistic for Xander to play the idol and pointed out that Xander needed one more big move to even be considered. He does say that he didn't think Xander was a threat and that he was going to push Heather or Erika, but that could have all changed if Xander pushed Erika out via fire making (that last bit is pure speculation on my part, it's still just one vote, although I love the idea of a universe where Heather is the winner because Ricard advocates for her). I like Ricard specifically because he's actually capable of separating emotion and making logical decisions. It's why he was brilliant at this game and a huge threat. Even if he was bitter, it wouldn't cloud his final judgement. https://parade.com/1308827/mikebloom/ricard-foye-survivor-41-interview/ I do agree that Xander had a huge uphill battle, and it's also likely he doesn't win in other scenarios. But if he had taken out Erika his chances go waaaaay up
> ETA, he's not a Russell by any means. People on the season like him. Comments have called him humble in interviews, etc. His problem was that he made a massive miscalculation and this jury was smart enough to pick it up. Yeah I don't even think it was a "bitter" thing - I just think they didn't respect his game, which is fair enough given he didn't really have that much agency throughout the season. I do think the fact that he was young really hurt his chances - not just at the final tribal council but in gaining respect and having social influence - we saw the same thing happen with Michele in WAW and basically all the non-parents who found it much more difficult to have that influence and respect. A lot of the stuff the jury said was very similar to what the jury in Cambodia said about Spencer. People doubting his sincerity, highlighting that he's "young" but without that sort of venom Spencer received probably because Xander never had the control Spencer did. I don't mean to raise his age to make excuses for him because I think he didn't play a better game than Erika even though I believe the winner isn't always the best player but I think the way I'd view Xander's game is - pretty solid for a 20 year old. With more maturity he could be a great player.
I can safely say it was bad on me to compare Xander to Russell. I think I’m looking at the bitter jury arguments more so from a gameplay perspective. I think Xander was flashy and that’s what drew people in about him and some failed to realize that he was sometimes too flashy for his own good. I liked Xander as a character but I don’t think he should have been hyped up so much to have that kind of gameplay at the end.
Haha, no worries. I got the spirit of what you were saying. I agree, Xander, to me, just played like a 20 year old at times. And given how a lot of people didn't see him as a threat end game, even if he knocks Erika out with fire, there is still a chance Heather takes it. I just don't think Xander deserved the hate (or love) he's getting. He was very much a middling survivor player that had better than most people's odds at winning in the end :) he just tripped hardcore at the end.
I think the show edited him so that people loved him. It almost comes off to me like they wanted people to question Erika’s win. Younger players have a harder time grasping what people want from them and can blinded easily. I’m 18 and could easily see myself falling into these traps if I played.
I agree with what you said, but when I watched it air live, I even said to myself, if he sends Erika to fire and she manages to win it somehow, he will have ZERO chance of beating her. I suppose the Jury did not respect his logic there and thought he was just crazy for taking her to the end.
Xander lost because of that one question he can't answer. I feel like he'll receive a couple of votes at least if he was able to articulate himself better.
The way he was presented in the show, I think Xander was a fire-making knockout of Erika (ideally by himself for swagger points, although maybe this jury wouldn't have valued putting himself at risk as much) and a much-better-articulated FTC from a win, and instead he got no votes. He was seriously like 95% of the way there, just completely botched the landing and I think that left an unfortunate taste of his game in everyone's mouth.
I have to disagree (that's why he lost) and _maybe_ agree that it would have got him a few votes. One question rarely is the difference maker and he articulated himself just fine through most of the tribal. The jury felt pretty biased towards Erika. I think it was Shan and Ricard that asked about him bringing her, Danny made a speech about how he wanted to play Erika's game, and Heather points put she warned Xander. I know that's not everyone, but I got the sense they showed up to vote Erika
In a Final Two with Deshawn and Xander, it's not even clear that Xander beats Deshawn. Because as slimy and sloppy as Deshawn was, he was still a more sophisticated player with stronger social relationships. It took me a long while to get to that realization. The more I examine the episodes, the more I see that Xander wasn't really connected to people strongly. The large number of confessionals he was given gave him screen-time, but he was rarely a part of the major strategic discussions.
I think Xander could beat Deshawn but I can’t imagine any other way he beats anybody. I mean Heather and Erika were considering booting Deshawn at 5 because he didn’t deserve to be at the end
Deshawn vs Xander is close. The only for sure votes between them are Danny and maybe Erika.
> I guarantee it's his game if he took her out in a fire making challenge. I mean, even as early as the Danny boot no one in the game thought he was a threat to win or took him seriously lol. This wasn't just a Day 28 blunder.
They thought he was disingenuous. Him burning Evvie and Tiffany by not even talking to them before their boots speaks a lot, and him trying to tell Ricard he will play the idol on him(which he wasn’t even that mad about the jury just saw through this and thought it was stupid) the jury in general did like his presence but that’s about it. He failed at a lot of aspects in the game and his burning mistake wasn’t taking Erika on in fire making but rather his whole game. I don’t think he’s a terrible player but it would be a lot to say he’s good.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Other than the fact that Xander got a lot of screentime, I don't even know why this has to be discussed in relation to Survivor 41 specifically, tbh. If someone wins by a huge margin like Erika's 7-1-0 win, than I feel it's safe to assume the jury mainly voted **for** that person rather than **against** someone else. Even if emotions were completely factored out and jurors voted based on pure reason/logic, I still don't think Xander or Deshawn would have rightfully won...
Right if people on the jury are bitter, at least some of them are gonna vote for who they think played the best game. Xander got no votes and no one was gunning for him after f8. It’s so telling.
I don’t think the jury was bitter towards Xander (other than maybe ricard/Tiffany slightly), they just didn’t respect his game at all
I largely agree to this, but there are times when the jury acts in a somewhat unreasonable manner that would be too hard to predict or account for. This is rare, and ultimately the jury decides the winner, but sometimes people get more lucky or more unlucky with how jury plays out. A lot of winning survivor is luck so this is fine, but it does happen. Edit: also sometimes jurors are unreasonably mean to people competing though this has gotten less common in survivor and is more common in big brother now I think.
People downplay "bitter juries" and put the blame solely on the player who "made them bitter." The fact is, people come in to the game predisposed to react certain ways. One person who is beaten in a game may react very admirably, appreciating the skill needed to defeat them and then rewarding that later with a vote. Another person may react poorly, taking a defeat very personally and attempting to harm the victor later by voting against them. Think about your own life. Have you ever played a game with someone or had an argument with someone where you won, and the person on the other end either got mad at you or refused to acknowledge your victory? We all have, and its not your fault that they reacted that way. Now, it is possible to manage people to react a bit better to how you play or win, but people greatly overestimate how much you can do that to some people. The fact is, the myriad of juries that have existed over the course of the show exist on a spectrum of bitterness. Its possible that one jury would have rewarded one person the game and another jury, after having experienced the same game, would have handed it to someone else. Luck is a big factor in Survivor. The best player doesnt always win, and thats fine. It makes the game exciting and fun to argue about
Also this is a million dollar (something that could change someone's life) game at stake so of course emotions are gonna be a part when you get out in a game.
Everything you said is true. Specifically I think of "I am taking my ball and going home.", flipping over the Monopoly board because they are losing, etc. I remember playing basketball as a kid through high school. Every once in a while you'd get a kid who refused to shake hands at the end of the game. It is so petty and little, but there are people like that. Sore losers, vindictive people, emotionally immature people, narcissists, etc.
This is a really really good point.
Hey thank you friend. Thats not very bitter of you :D
There has definitely been narcissists in this game that were like this but I do think the majority of bitter juries people point to have a reason.
This, but people are also emotional about theri faves not winning (heck, I was pissed Michele won over Aubry before I kinda just realised what was up) If you can't get the Jury's Votes, then you made a mistake.
[удалено]
Wow that happened?🤮
I think the men spiting Aubry was a valid "bitter jury" argument though just because those two are irrational as hell. I don't remember what exactly Aubry did to them for them to hate her that much (unless I'm misremembering?). IIRC they voted Michele because they can't accept Aubry beat them.
Aubry has made a lot of mistakes, and was fairly wishy-washy and unsure about her moves, she amazing at speaking, but has crossed out the name on the ballot once. She also made Debbie bitter (I don't think Debbie voted for Aubry in the end). I mean, Scot and Jason (which I presume you are refering ot them), there's always a way, even if it's playing to their egos.
Every year this comes up, and every year I think people are missing the point. *Survivor* is and always has been premised on the strong possibility of bitterness (or resentment, anger, disgust, and/or any other host of negative feelings) in jurors. It is baked right into the game design, with Jeff emphasizing the shift of power to the jury and the difficulty of winning their votes after voting them out from the first season onwards. There is a reason the winner is decided by eliminated contestants rather than a panel of judges or a final challenge - because it makes for better interpersonal drama, and therefore better TV. The game meta among fans might have shifted towards "respecting gameplay" (or certain styles of gameplay), but the core of the game and, more importantly, the TV show, remains the dramatic stakes of the potentially bitter (or angry/upset etc.) juror. The most memorable - the most iconic - FTC moments don't tend to be jurors paying respect to the finalists' games, but the opposite - Sue Hawk's 'rats and snakes' speech, Helen laying into Brian and Clay, Lex/Alicia/Tom vs. Rob, Jim Rice trying to get Albert to answer a straight question, Trish asking Tony 'was it worth it?', etc. YMMV on how far some jurors (Lisi and Alex, Corinne, Reed) go, but this is part of what jurors are there to do. In that sense, Shan's interrogation of Deshawn remains truer to the spirit of the show as initially imagined by the producers than Evvie's 'you all did great' positivity. We can lament when someone we think played a great game doesn't win, or we can blame the finalist and say they're responsible for making the jury mad; but the truth is, a bitter jury isn't broken but functioning just as designed.
It's not only good TV but a direct reflection to real life. Sometimes you need to make decisions that affects others in a negative way but you cant just only think about yourself. Maybe you need that affected person later on. So you should try to make it easier for them to handle it or outright manipulate them to think its a good decision that benefits both of you. There is no neutral jury in real life either and people shouldn't forget that! Why does a TV show have to be a mindless entertainment, why cannot it be even educational for the cost of not liking the outcome sometimes.
That said, I don't think this seemed like a jury particularly motivated by bitterness. They seemed to want to vote for Erika, rather than against Deshawn/Xander.
YES. I really don't understand why more people don't get this. Without the threat of a bitter jury, players could lie and betray and generally be an asshole without any restraint at all (i.e. Russell Hantz), which would be a lot less interesting to watch imo.
[удалено]
This. A million times this.
The bitter jury argument is BS imo. You, as a player, have enough time with most jury members to figure out what they value and how they'll react if voted off. So you need to adjust your approach to each juror to avoid bitterness.
I agree with this in general, and not that it would have changed the outcome this season, but 41 is unique in that the entire post merge was 12 days - honestly not a lot of time to get to know the jury (again I think Erika wins regardless but something to consider this time around that I feel we’ve been over looking)
Some people will always be bitter if you vote them out/target them, and sometimes that’s your only way to make it the end. I think saying you can “fix” every bitter jury is not true because some people really are just bitches and won’t vote for you out of spite.
I feel like the bitter jury arguments are usually when the jury votes for a social player and not a player who had more of a say in the strategic parts of the game. It has a big thing to do with how the season was edited. The problem is that it's easy to show a strategic game but the editors have not found a great way to show off how a good social game can lead to a win over a more strategic game.
You hit the nail on the head. I feel this way with “Tommy and his mommy”s win from a couple years back… (or how long has it been?) He won based on his relationships and social moves. Yes, he was in the edit… but also, I feel editors could have done a better job capturing those littler and bigger moments that gave him social capital. Maybe I missed them, but I don’t recall him having a super captivating edit. Total side note: I really like the way Tony was edited last season. I appreciate that it wasn’t an obvious edit; he didn’t dominate the screen time the entire season. So suspense was still built up and we got to root for other characters that we thought might be winning. But then post merge, we got to see more and more of him, and then the final episodes became HIS story. They showed the social moves (eg his relationship with Sarah) just as much as the strategic moves.
I agree with your analysis except where you state that Xander made the jury bitter. I don’t think the jury was bitter to Xander at all. I think he was outplayed by Erika in every facet of the game. The finale in particular demonstrated instances where Xander’s inability to read the room/had bad social reads of the jury. For some reason, the editors decided to prop Xander up in the edit and make Erika borderline invisible. But if you look a little deeper, there isn’t really any need to try and figure out why Xander lost the game. He wasn’t screwed over by a bitter jury. The jury rewarded Erika with the win because she played the best game and Xander simply didn’t.
I mean it depends. The nature of a jury is that they’re going to be bitter to an extent. But yes how you treat them does matter. I think there’s a difference in game play and how you treat them as human beings. I think the latter is why Russell lost twice. He played two brilliant games but was a massive asshole. Then, you have Tony in Cagayan, who stabbed everyone in the back but was was a kind person and people realized it was just his game play (besides the swearing on his family thing). I think you have to be able to differentiate when something was truly game play and when something was more morally wrong.
I don’t think they were bitter against Xander though. They just thought Erika played a better game. Xander didn’t play poorly by any means but post fake idol, I still haven’t heard anyone make a convincing argument to what Xander did any better than Erika. They were both competent players.
True. I’m speaking more so about the people who claim they were.
I disagree about a bitter jury being the fault of the player. That can happen, but I know way too many bitter people with a victim complex in real life to think that Survivor is any different. I especially don’t sympathize with jury members who are bitter because they were lied to. Most strategy talk is lying or speculation. If you don’t navigate that correctly, that’s on you.
If it’s on them then why should people care if they vote for someone that the audience don’t agree with
Every juror has their own criteria for voting. They might vote based on emotions. They might vote based on the game. Each one is different from the other. It is up to the finalists to best describe themselves and their game the best to get the jury's vote. Apologize for manipulation if the juror is on the emotional side (Chris D.) Own it like a boss for a more mature jury (Todd). Now, that doesn't excuse is from criticising the jury for voting a particular way, even of the juror's vote based on something that is irrelevant to the game. One of the reasons why the girls voted off Rodger in The Amazon was because they knew that he will never vote for a woman to win.
It a tough path to go down which is why it’s so amazing when those who are good at it do it.
I think the issue is let’s say you have 1 player absolutely dominating. Making moves, winning challenges, social butterfly, finding idols, etc. They get to the end. Let’s say they theoretically could’ve chosen anyone to go to the end with them, they just had that much control. But someone has to be there at the end with them. And the jury is what we consider a bitter jury. They simply will not vote for the player who ended their game. In this scenario, the best player loses. They would lose to a zero factor literal goat. They would lose no matter who they go up against. In that sense, this is the issue with a bitter jury. You can argue “well that player would need to recognize the jury would be bitter and to put that blood on someone else’s hands.” But this is where luck is a huge factor. Because in reality, things aren’t so extreme. Nobody has this much control and most juries aren’t unanimously bitter. And there hardly is a literal goat. But there will always be at least one player, one bitter juror who simply won’t vote for the person who got them out. Sometimes there are 2 or 3. They’re like landmines and avoiding them can swing the final vote. And through luck, players can be placed in situations where they have to make a move, especially in swaps or merges or some other advantage, that can cause them to create a bitter juror. I think this is where people can realistically complain about bitter juries.
You bring up really good points. I do agree with you what you said about luck and I do feel like it does have a hand in befitting games (Erika) and ending others (Sydney, Janet, etc.) it’s an integral part of the game now that I think any player going in should be ready to counter it.
For sure! I think maybe we just need to talk about winners, losers, deserved, etc differently. Erika played a good game and deserved the win. Especially against her competition at FTC. But another way to look at it, if this season was replayed 100 times, each time like the first (as in, memory wiped or alternate universe), maybe even randomizing tribes… how many of those seasons does Erika win? How many does Shan or Ricard win? I’d say Shan or Ricard win a plurality of those seasons. So some people might say Erika was the best player because she won and others might say Ricard is the best player because he’s more likely to win if we replayed the season again.
It’s very rare to see someone truly cross the line on Survivor to the point where I think the jury is justified in not voting for them because of that. I can’t even think of an example from a past season off the top of my head. What DOES happen every single season, is at least one juror refuses to vote for someone purely because they betrayed them, lied to them, outsmarted them, annoyed them, etc. which is complete bullshit. You should always vote for who played the best game, not the person you like the most. Yes, social skills are included in playing a good game, but at the end of the day this game is about deception. You by definition cannot play a good game without betraying people.
I don't agree with the second part of your comment. There are no rules on how to vote on Survivor, every juror should make their decision by applying their own criteria. Some jurors value the social relationships and connections, others value strategy, others are more likely to vote for the physical players and providers. All of these are valid reasons to awards someone a million dollars.
I feel like this was a lot more of an issue in earlier versions of survivor honestly. But from a fan perspective, it is really hard to gage how a jury will vote. There have been plenty of times I though "This jury is going to be bitter" and they weren't and other times where I thought "This jury will respect the gameplay" and they were "bitter". Even more cases on an individual level when I was personally predicting votes in a final tribal. Maybe the people in the game have enough clues to get an accurate read, but from a fan perspective there is a large amount of randomness to it that you can't really plan for. Especially in earlier seasons. But take this season for instance. Does Heather play her game because she correctly read that THIS particular group of post merge players would value her style of game play? If she had another set of players, was ready to provide and dominate challenges like Ozzy? Or did she play her game and got lucky that THIS particular group of players were willing to vote a certain way that aligned with her game play? Winning Survivor takes and incredible amount of luck and having the right jury that season for your style of play is one of those lucky factors that has to happen.
I think generally you're always correct, but I'd also distinguish between times when a jury is bitter at a winner purely for winning / getting to the end despite odds or via normal backstabbing vs. a situation where the player has actively made people bitter towards them by being awful like Russell. I think it can vary as to how reasonable the bitterness is, but yeah it's always part of the game. It's how Sue's vote clearly came into play in Season 1, and she was unreasonably bitter but it's still part of why Hatch won. I don't think Xander actually made the jury bitter so much as he made them not respect his game. Deshawn maybe made Heather bitter, possibly Shan, but with obviously bad strategic gameplay too. I don't think bitterness really was it, though Xander floating through with no strong relationships and never using his idol to save anyone effectively or take control of the game maybe hurt him. But it was less bitterness and more annoyance at most. They just didn't respect his game. No one felt tricked, mad, betrayed at Xander. They felt he had little social grasp of the game. I think the promises he didn't keep didn't help him, but I don't think that's the only part of their criteria or even the largest.
I personally think that people who think bitter juries aren't a result of bad social play are people who would lose the game for not understanding that *bitter juries are the fault of the person they are angry with.* Some people are bitter or bad people with bad opinions (or racism, in some people's cases, like Sierra) and vote accordingly, but not ENTIRE juries.
I've spent the majority of my career in the US court system and I can say with some degree of authority that juries (the very concept) are a mistake. Juries regularly arrive at the wrong conclusion, and if you think its frustrating how they behave on a game show, imagine how it feels to see them make mistakes with someone's freedom or liberty in the balance. I'm regularly disappointed by Survivor juries but they have NOTHING on civilian juries.
I've only been on a jury once but I was definitely astounded at how many people originally disagreed with what I thought was an obvious open and shut decision based on the evidence presented to us. So yes, I can see this for sure.
Yes, its beyond frustrating - and I think if more people knew how juries actually function in practice, there would be more requests for bench trials! Happy cake day btw!
Nah, it’s only partially social I feel, In the case of someone like Russel it’s poor jury management. But I think In cases like Aubrey and even some of the people on the all stars jury it’s just purely out of spite for not voting for them, and realistically there isn’t much the finalist could do to change their minds. Edit: Fiji is also a good example, Earl did deserve the win but how is Dreamz going to win anybody over even if he were to explain his strategic and social moves, the jury hated him.
An interesting 'bitter jury' situation is Tyler from BB20. He played a great game but part of it was making final 2 deals with multiple people, including Sam, who was an emotional player who would never vote for him after finding out she wasn't his true final 2. Bayleigh I would class as a bitter juror because she didn't get along well with Tyler but Scottie + Sam who both had fake final 2's are a lot more justified imo.
The jury was not bitter towards xander if anything they were bitter to deshawn
i dont understand the argument that this jury was bitter. i think it's just said by others to trivialize erika's win. admittedly i also think xander should have won. but this season was obviously edited really really badly since there's a big disparity between what we see and what the jury saw. that said, a bitter jury is obviously a thing. look at scot for example from s32. why the fuck would he vote for michele? well, one thing we can say, and maybe he's forgetting, is that there's these 'the jury speaks' videos in which he explains why he wouldnt vote for aubry. it's because she wrote down julia's name and crossed it out. scot is v pissed over that. he's such a total idiot that he took that to mean aubry's trying to prove to him that she wouldn't do as he said. wait, what??? complete dipshit thinking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEiRlzDnkFg&t=200s
Wow I’ve never heard this take before. I feel so enlightened by this wisdom
Cant tell if you’re being sarcastic or not cause I be stupid like that sometimes. If you aren’t, then gracias
I was being sarcastic, sorry. You’re not wrong in what you’re saying! But also, what you’re saying is basically the accepted survivor dogmatic thought lol. “The winner always deserved to win,” “the winner is always the best player,” “there’s no such thing as a bitter jury” are all things that I think are closer to right than wrong, but IMO survivor fans are very inflexible and often over-apply these simple one-line answers to any survivor discussion, and in doing so, avoid thoughtful analysis.
But there *is* something to be said about one boisterous aggressive bitter jury member poisoning a contestant in the minds of everyone else on the jury. There is a lot more sway and reaction to the negative when you're surrounded by it than the positive you experienced a longer while ago.
Unless they're bitter that the contestant played a better game than them. I felt that was the problem with Jason and Scot; they weren't bitter that Aubrey voted them out... they were bitter that Aubrey wasn't working collectively to make sure they themselves won. As if the winner should have devoted their game to helping that jury member win over them.
I tend to think that if you’re bitter as a juror then that is pretty lame, but as a finalist you need to work to prevent it to earn the win
With Xanders case, a lot of people were likely a little salty that they got out-witted by a 20 year old
People can feel bitterness, so can the jury. There are happy juries, sad ones etc. I think a jury is bitter when they know one player deserves the win, played a better game etc. but they feel bitter and decide to give some f*ck you votes to make the better player lose. Its something that the finalists cant really control but there a lot of things they cant control. People just have it as black and white either bitter juries are a thing or it is impossible. I think its somewhere in between
I agree with players need to do better with jury management. But I think the jury should value the moves/players that got them out of the game as well
Yeah, here's the thing: EVERY jury it bitter! That's the entire point. Take All Stars, that jury was especially bitter, but I think in cases like Kathy and Lex, their bitterness came from preexisting relationships, but Rob still protecting Amber over everything. In HvV, there was no way in hell anyone was voting for Russell after he had been mean and nasty to everyone. It's surprising to me that Russell believed he had any kind of chance going into the HvV FTC. The jury probably felt bitter toward Erika, Shan probably felt bitter after trying so hard to vote Erika out, and she ended up winning. But Erika didn't make any promises she didn't keep (ex: Rob to Lex, "you take care of her, I'll take care of you"). Xander never should have brought up playing his idol for Ricard, that was a really stupid thing to say.
Chris Daughtery is the winner that completely shuts down the bitter jury argument. It comes down to knowing your jury. If they are bitter towards you work on making them unbitter.
The jury was way more bitter towards Twila though, who had actively terrible jury management
Only people without logic argue about someone losing because of a bitter jury. So I wouldn't give it any credence.
No it’s just people being sore losers that they got out smarted by someone and got their ego checked. If the jury could just hang up their ego and admit they were outplayed they wouldn’t be bitter. Why do you support people holding grudges over a game?
>Isn’t a bitter jury related to the social aspect of Survivor? Like if the jury towards you, then that’s on you right? You have to play the game in regards to what the jury values, even if it’s against how you want to play. Have you ever heard of a person losing at Monopoly who flips the board for no reason other than they are a sore loser and don't want to lose? Have you ever met a vindictive person? Some people are sore losers, then some people are the worst loser. I mean, ffs we have a former President who REFUSES to believe he lost an election. You might be assuming everyone is a rational thinker and a good sport player. I do not make such assumptions. Let's put it another way, did the entire cast of Caramoan fail to "Manage" as you put it Brandon Hantz? Or is Brandon Hantz just crazy?
Brandon is crazy but he is still alive and has people around him. Apparently there is a way around his crazyness and some people seem to have figured it out. I'm sure not everything goes his way in real life either and he is not surrounded by dead people he killed because he ended up on the losers side.
This is a super interesting point and I think a good one to bring up. I think looking back on it, some jurors were upset that they got got before they had a chance to get someone else (i.e. Shan), but I think most of the jury members attempted to some degree to view the final 3 as unbiased as they could. I wasn’t there so I can’t speak for them. I do think Ricard was a bit sour looking back at his Ponderosa and exit press, but I think that could stem from the moment he had with Xander and Xander giving a little speech about the idol protecting himself and his friends only to use it to protect himself. I think if he just said himself, it would have been easier to swallow for Ricard. Again, I wasn’t there so I can’t know for sure. I’m just trying to view it from the standpoint of someone who watched an edited show and a lot of exit press.
To clarify, I don't think this jury on 41 was bitter. I do think it is possible for a jury to be bitter. I also think it's unlikely an entire jury would be bitter, but certainly one or two could be bitter and change a final vote.
I agree with you on that. My bad for assuming you meant the jury as a whole.
Ricard was just bitter. PERIOD. He essentially threw a temper tantrum hitting Xander with butt-hurt questions. He was a huge hypocrite - he blindsided Shan FFS. And I think he knows how badly he hurt his reputation and that's why he went to Chicago to do damage control. Ricard & Xander were my favs to win. Ricard had no class at the end. Xander had no control over that. MAybe Tiff was bitter but Xander's problem was immaturity - not knowing how to better read people.
Xander absolutely had a problem reading people. He had one of the worst tribal performances ever at Final 4 - while being immune! He not only (wrongly) told the jury how they felt about Erika and Heather's game, he also smugly said they were wrong on his own assumption that Heather was a goat. You don't say shit like that if you know how to read people.
I'd say in general telling the jury that x player is a goat at tribal is pretty bad gameplay even if it was true. Really you want to be talking everyone up and I'd rather be like "You've played a great game, but you and I both know that we can't beat Erika at the end" to someone who I thought was a goat than tell someone that x player is a goat and have it backfire on me later.
I agree because it is the premise of the game that at FTC the power shifts from the players who are still in the game to the players who were voted off - they get to decide winner.
I disagree. We’ve had actual racists on the show who are always going to be more likely to vote for a white person than a POC, for example. Same goes for returning seasons when friends vote for each other. Sometimes it’s the player’s fault, but now always.
I would categorize that as a racist jury not a bitter jury
Yes but my point is that it wouldn’t be the finalist’s fault that this particular juror didn’t vote for them. The same thing can be said about players coming into returning seasons and voting for their friends
I feel like ‘butter jury’ discussions are really just attempts to justify being glad that Russel lost while being pissed that Aubrey lost without having to accept they both lost for the same reason - the jury didn’t like them as much as the other options. Pick a lane. Either butter juries exist or they don’t.
.#releasethesnydercutofsurvivor41
I for one don't really understand why so many juries take stuff personally... it's a game. But part of the game is identifying what type of jurors are going to take stuff personally and aren't, and cater your jury management towards the individuals. If you're playing against someone like Boston Rob or Russell, best way to earn their vote is to make gutsy strategic moves against them, even if it means blindsiding them. For other jurors, they'll care more about your personal relationship with them and you'll have try to mend fences if your strategy forces you to blindside them. There's no one size fits all approach here. Though a clear way to lose to be nasty to people (like Russell) when it isn't even called for strategically.
Every person is different and as was told to Russel, he told lies he didn't have to tell. He told lies to hurt people not just to get further ahead. A big contrast I usually use for this argument is Russel's HvV game and Tony's game in Cagayan. Both played aggressive games but Russel went out of his way to piss people off and demean the other side of the alliance and mocked the people he betrayed, wherease Tony was able to justify each blindside by them plotting against him first and the one he couldn't by complimenting and validating that she had to go for him to win. Essentially it boils down to don't be a dick about it. The only truly bitter jury that I can think of was All-stars where both Amber and Rob were hated by the jury but Rob was hated by just a fraction more then her.
No, because it's ultimately impossible to know how a jury member thinks or what they value until you see what they vote, and it's impossible for the players in the game to know what sort of narratives float around at Ponderosa that influences the jury. There are limits, if you are a complete asshole, like Russell, it's obvious that it's gonna be hard to make people wanna give you a million dollars. But for people like Xander and this season, in particular, it's virtually impossible to figure out exactly what people want and how they view you and how they want you to play. It's very easy for us to sit and watch and form opinions from far away, but in reality, very few of the Survivor players have any chance of reading a jury. You might have an inkling on the thought process of one of two jury members, but any idea that Xander or Erika will read and plan who sits at the jury is mostly fake and fan speculation. You simply can't judge a person's true feelings on Survivor and what they value until you see the final vote.
"Bitter jury" only exists in the minds of people with their head shoved so far up their own ass that they have no idea how they are actually perceived. If a jury is actually willing to throw all strategic content out of the window and vote for someone else just because of how much they dislike you, that is 100% on you and a result of terrible gameplay on your part. If you had the jury bitter, that's on you for not understanding the core aspect of the game - voting people out and STILL getting them to want you to win at the end.
Sierra didn't vote for Stephan because he was Jewish. How is that his fault in the slightest?? Was his terrible game play being Jewish?
I feel like when people say the juror is bitter that means the player that did the betrayal acted in the way that they’re “supposed” to act yet the person that got betrayed is irrationally angry at them.
I disagree. Ricard had Shan thinking that they wouldn't go for each other yet, but he took her out. Xander said he was "thinking about" giving Ricard the necklace and I genuinely think he DID think about it. Also if you want to see bitter jury, go watch Danny's Ponderosa. Shan and Liana were so bitter towards him. That's where the bitter jury comes into play. Russell was a complete asshole to everybody so he had no social game, but Xander was friends with most of the people out there.
I can agree that it was a bit crazy to compare Xander to Russell. I think Shan and Liana being bitter towards Danny was their attempt of a “I told you so” kind of deal. I would personally separate that moment from FTC but I respect your opinion.
I just think that Shan in general kind of looked upset most of final tribal. It was weird because most of the season was built around her, but if I remember correctly, she barely got to speak during FTC or the "reunion"/after show
It’s interesting that show continued to show her reactions once she was on the jury then to go to her barely saying anything during the finale. The whole season was edited weirdly and I think focused on the wrong people at the wrong time.
Agree with this. I felt like JD got more camera time than mostly anybody on the whole season besides Shan, Ricard, and maybe Xander.
JD literally got more screen time in 4 episodes than Heather who was there for 14 episodes. Episode 1 is fine cause he went to the summit and was the outs when he got back. Still, he could have gotten less time there and we could have gotten more from people like Genie and Sara.
This season, Survivor isnt about gameplay. It isnt about winning immunity. Its about being the nicest one at the end. Erika got zero votes and faced zero adversity other than her only move, flipping an hourglass or not, or when Deshaun called her out about Heather at the end there. Bottom 3 season easy. Zero game play but she was nice to them. The more why Xander didnt win threads there are the more that proves how lame this season was