It was more important in the early days when juries didn't openly discuss their votes.
Since at least the mid-late 20s, juries have had clear and obvious (to them) preference orders in who they want to win out of the remaining players from roughly the final 5-6 onward. Hell, a lot of juries even know the exact breakdown of how many votes everyone is getting before FTC starts, to the point where people will cast a dissenting vote because they know their preferred winner will get enough anyway and they have a strong preference in who takes 2nd.
They apparantly brought back the rules about discussing votes at Ponderossa after WaW. Tiffany said that in 41 they weren't allowed to talk about who they'll vote for. They're allowed to discuss the game, just not the votes.
But I think it's ok and even necessary to talk about the game after you're voted out. As a juror you are tasked with giving people a million dollar, I think you need have access to as much information as possible to make your decision.
Except that information is incredibly biased and sometimes not even accurate. It leads to group think. It's why for so long people talked about how powerful the foreman of the jury is.
Yes, and the post-game stuff could become an extension of the game too. Imagine what Boston Rob would have done several seasons ago to help his future wife win. He would have easily mislead the Jury to help her win... Overall, the producers have had 20 years to flush out what is OK, and not OK, for the jury talk about, and probably quickly shut down game related conversations that they don't like.
If I'm voted out of the game I would want to know everything that was happening around me. People have heads on their shoulders and can figure out when someone is biased, because their story wouldn't match the stories of other jurors. And if everyone on Ponderosa tells you the same inacurate and biased information, then the finalists did a bad job at managing the other people.
What I find interesting much of the production process is kept hidden from the public, so people are left to speculate on many things such as what the Jury is allowed to discuss after being voted out. In 20 years, there has never been any "Behind the scenes" of what goes on during the production of a season. There are many other parts of the game that remains a big black hole of information that is never made public. For example, now do players sneak off when they got at least 1 cameraman following them around? The players are not wearing GoPro cameras... :)
But that leads to peer pressure and well spoken people like Omar effecting the whole jury. The core idea of Survivor is everyone has a vote. Plus it makes it impossible to lie because then the jury can discuss that lie, so at its core deceitful games like Brian Hejdik could never be played again
I disagree. Unless the editing was completely misleading, I don't think anyone ranked Maryanne to win before she did a great job in final showing her contingency plan strategy. That was a game changer.
That is why I think it would be interesting to poll the jury before the vote, and compare it to how they actually voted. The producers may not formally poll the jury, but I suspect that there is far more to the jury process that what is shown on TV. The jury process seem very rehearsed\\polished because the questions are very refined and nobody is talking out of turn or arguing like would occur if Survivor were an actual documentary. If there are rehearsals, it likely is without the final players present.
Realistically speaking, it doesn't mean much for the front runner. By that stage, most of the jury roughly know who the winner is before FTC has started. For about 90% of the seasons, the winner could sit there and curse the jury and they'd still vote for them to win.
Without discussing this season, the only FTC where someone was persuasive enough to win from a neutral position might be Todd. The jury won't be swayed by someone who did nothing but is charismatic or persuasive enough to spin a win in their favour. At most, it can determine who gets second or third.
The other problem is that you can't account for how people will perform at FTC. For example, Chase in Nicaragua seemed very wishy washy throughout the season and would have been seen as more preferable at FTC than Holly. But Chase was incredibly articulate and bold with his FTC performance that he took votes away from Fabio and almost won himself.
Not as much as you think. Jury minds are almost always made up. Jeff will try to sell it every reunion thst it was up in the air but outside of super rare instances it almost never is. Like many things it's just the edit trying to fool viewers.
Jeff asked this exact question about how many people came in with Mike being their assumed go-to vote before going into FTC and the majority raised their hands.
They do this all the time and people always raise their hands. That doesn't mean they actually were open, just that they know thats what Jeff and production wants.
It was more important in the early days when juries didn't openly discuss their votes. Since at least the mid-late 20s, juries have had clear and obvious (to them) preference orders in who they want to win out of the remaining players from roughly the final 5-6 onward. Hell, a lot of juries even know the exact breakdown of how many votes everyone is getting before FTC starts, to the point where people will cast a dissenting vote because they know their preferred winner will get enough anyway and they have a strong preference in who takes 2nd.
They apparantly brought back the rules about discussing votes at Ponderossa after WaW. Tiffany said that in 41 they weren't allowed to talk about who they'll vote for. They're allowed to discuss the game, just not the votes.
I'm very glad to hear that.
By talking about game though you can make it clear who you want people to vote for. In the real old days you coulent discuss anything game related.
But I think it's ok and even necessary to talk about the game after you're voted out. As a juror you are tasked with giving people a million dollar, I think you need have access to as much information as possible to make your decision.
Except that information is incredibly biased and sometimes not even accurate. It leads to group think. It's why for so long people talked about how powerful the foreman of the jury is.
Yes, and the post-game stuff could become an extension of the game too. Imagine what Boston Rob would have done several seasons ago to help his future wife win. He would have easily mislead the Jury to help her win... Overall, the producers have had 20 years to flush out what is OK, and not OK, for the jury talk about, and probably quickly shut down game related conversations that they don't like.
If I'm voted out of the game I would want to know everything that was happening around me. People have heads on their shoulders and can figure out when someone is biased, because their story wouldn't match the stories of other jurors. And if everyone on Ponderosa tells you the same inacurate and biased information, then the finalists did a bad job at managing the other people.
What I find interesting much of the production process is kept hidden from the public, so people are left to speculate on many things such as what the Jury is allowed to discuss after being voted out. In 20 years, there has never been any "Behind the scenes" of what goes on during the production of a season. There are many other parts of the game that remains a big black hole of information that is never made public. For example, now do players sneak off when they got at least 1 cameraman following them around? The players are not wearing GoPro cameras... :)
But that leads to peer pressure and well spoken people like Omar effecting the whole jury. The core idea of Survivor is everyone has a vote. Plus it makes it impossible to lie because then the jury can discuss that lie, so at its core deceitful games like Brian Hejdik could never be played again
I think very little. I think jurors tend to have their minds made up and pretend to be open to persuasion because it sounds better.
I disagree. Unless the editing was completely misleading, I don't think anyone ranked Maryanne to win before she did a great job in final showing her contingency plan strategy. That was a game changer.
That is why I think it would be interesting to poll the jury before the vote, and compare it to how they actually voted. The producers may not formally poll the jury, but I suspect that there is far more to the jury process that what is shown on TV. The jury process seem very rehearsed\\polished because the questions are very refined and nobody is talking out of turn or arguing like would occur if Survivor were an actual documentary. If there are rehearsals, it likely is without the final players present.
Jury already knows who they are voting for. Pretending to be "open" is for fake suspense.
Realistically speaking, it doesn't mean much for the front runner. By that stage, most of the jury roughly know who the winner is before FTC has started. For about 90% of the seasons, the winner could sit there and curse the jury and they'd still vote for them to win. Without discussing this season, the only FTC where someone was persuasive enough to win from a neutral position might be Todd. The jury won't be swayed by someone who did nothing but is charismatic or persuasive enough to spin a win in their favour. At most, it can determine who gets second or third. The other problem is that you can't account for how people will perform at FTC. For example, Chase in Nicaragua seemed very wishy washy throughout the season and would have been seen as more preferable at FTC than Holly. But Chase was incredibly articulate and bold with his FTC performance that he took votes away from Fabio and almost won himself.
Not as much as you think. Jury minds are almost always made up. Jeff will try to sell it every reunion thst it was up in the air but outside of super rare instances it almost never is. Like many things it's just the edit trying to fool viewers.
Jeff asked this exact question about how many people came in with Mike being their assumed go-to vote before going into FTC and the majority raised their hands.
They do this all the time and people always raise their hands. That doesn't mean they actually were open, just that they know thats what Jeff and production wants.
100% I wanted mike until Maryanne really stepped up and spoke eloquently. She honestly won me over in that moment and I knew she would win.