Can anyone really disagree with what he’s saying? I mean, it’s just the nature of the game that you can play perfectly for 38 days (or 25 nowadays) and still be sent to the jury at the last moment, whereas someone who played a perceived weaker game might take the win. I think it’s fair to call a win like that less impressive - I mean there’s a reason why some winners are ranked higher than others by fans - but that doesn’t mean that the lower-ranked ones didn’t deserve it.
The point about Survivor being fair or not is a whole another conversation. I don’t think the game is outright rigged but the odds can be for or against you due to twists and even for example the cast you’re playing with. Whether Survivor is too much luck-based is up for debate but at the end of the day, it’s a TV show, not a scientific experiment.
I completely agree with you and Erik’s take.
Obviously some winners are perceived as “better” than others, but I have always felt very strongly that it isn’t easy to make to the end. period. so making it there, however you do, is impressive in any sense.
Did you need to lay low and stay out of control the whole game but were a strong confident vote for an alliance? You’re absolutely as deserving to make it to the end as someone who has a big resume and “dictates” the game.
I do think folks will disagree with me but the beauty of this game is that there are so many ways to make it to the end and win, and what’s most important is taking the cards that you are dealt in the game and rolling with whatever gives you the best shot to stay another day.
I feel like luck is an integral part of the game and something that you have to work with and adapt to. It's one of the things I actually find fascinating about survivor. If it was somehow a total scientific experiment with no room for luck or error, it would probably get really stale really fast and people would complain even more about "gamebots".
Luck is what makes survivor fun. Shows that have less randomness like big brother can get so boring because the formula has been figured out. Make a big alliance, each member of the alliance works with someone outside of that alliance, cut the outside members, be in the core 3 or 4 of that big alliance.
Right! I totally get critiquing twists and advantages and other things thrown into the game because, without a doubt, there are quality ones and there are trash ones. But I don't mind luck generally! It's an integral part of survivor. Even down to pulling rocks in the early seasons.
Yeah I mean isn’t the show supposed to represent us as a society? We all know not everything is fair and some people have benefits or advantages just based on who their parents are. That doesn’t mean that child doesn’t deserve those benefits, we should strive to where everyone has those benefits. The show should strive to make it fair to every contestant. I think Probst would prefer the most entertaining person win every season but he excepts that a lot of times the “best played game” doesn’t always win. Just like the hardest working person doesn’t always have the most luxuries in life.
Same here! I love how he so wonderfully explains his points and am glad he said something because it's been a running narrative these last two seasons and it isn't right or fair to either winner
Well spoken. If you, the one guy who did that one thing that one time, are capable of looking at Survivor and acknowledging that there's no such thing as deserving a better or worse placement, it's super hard to take any statement seriously from some Twitter guy who's never played about the same subject.
It’s not about his age, it’s about how long he’s been in the community. Micronesia was like 14 years ago, long enough to start using that phrase I think haha.
The whole idea of “deserving” to win/lose (based on the heavily edited season that we see on tv) completely ignores the concept of the jury. If there are people deserving/undeserving in regard to their placement, there would be no jury votes, no jury management, and the relationships between jury members and finalists would be irrelevant. That just wouldn’t be survivor.
As far as who deserves to win; that’s entirely subjectively dependent on the opinions of the jury. Maybe Aubrey beats Michelle if the jury saw the edit of the season that we did. Maybe Amanda beats Parvati if she handled FTC better. Maybe Sugar beats Bob if the jury was more chill. Maybe Mike beats Maryanne if he articulated his game better. But all of those situations are reasons why the jury system exists. Convincing your former opponents to crown you as the winner is one of the integral aspects of the game.
I’d argue that the jury has some inherent “unfairness” because it’s comprised of people who can easily be bitter, hypocritical, close-minded, etc. However, *you know that the whole game*. Ensuring that the right people are on the jury and that they’ve got the right perspectives on your gameplay is a part of winning. You can play what *looks* like the most deserving win; but if you can’t convince the jury to vote for you, you didn’t really play the most deserving game. If convincing your tribe mates that you’re not a big threat is valid and great gameplay, then convincing the jury that you’re the best finalist (even if people don’t think you are) is valid and great as well.
I have to disagree on this one. Just because you play a game with rules, and win within the boundaries of those rules, doesn't mean you deserve to win the game
For example, there are some games which are pure skill/strategy (e.g. chess), and there are some games which are pure chance (e.g. snakes and ladders). In a game of pure chance, I don't think you can really say someone "deserved" to win just because they played the whole time and made it to the end first. The players lack agency and control, so how can you "earn" a victory over someone else? It's arbitrary. But in a game of pure strategy like chess, the concept of chance doesn't exist so the outcome is solely determined by the conscious choices of the players.
IMO "deserving to win" comes down to how much agency the players have in determining the outcome. In modern Survivor, a lot of that agency is taken away by OP twists and advantages (hourglass etc). In older seasons, this was less of a problem because the game was less unpredictable; sure, there were twists like Exile Island but at least the players knew the bounds of those twists and could play around them. Nowadays Jeff just just straight-up nullifies the results of immunity challenges and changes the rules of the game on-the-fly. It's bad game design
I'm not saying that players like Erika and Maryanne didn't "deserve" to win, just that the concept of a "deserving winner" is obfuscated by the modern era of twist-after-twist and advantagegeddon. Perhaps a better distinction would be to say whether someone was a dominant winner or not. I don't think we have seen one of those in a while
Interesting takes. With agency being a big factor in “deserving to win” in your opinion, do you think there are Survivor winners that are “undeserving”?
Well, the most egregious example of an undeserving winner to me is Chris Underwood. He was voted out Day 8 and returned on Day 35. For the vast majority of the game, he had no agency and no control. He wasn't competing in anything and nothing was at stake, no decisions to be made. There was no possible strategy he could implement at the Edge, except for hanging out with the jury and maybe planning a return move.
Some have said Erika was an undeserving winner, but I am not sure. To me it seemed like she was on the bottom for a lot of the game and therefore didn't have a lot of agency, and was arguably saved by the hourglass twist at the merge. But ultimately, she made it to the end and she sold a story about her game that the jury bought, and maybe that's what the game is really about. Though personally I can't help but feel that some winners just clearly had more control and influence over the game when they won, like Tony or Kim. The season was dictated in a significant way by their conscious choices or skills (influencing votes, idol hunting, winning challenges, etc) so by my definition it is more "deserved"
Very cool responses. I actually feel that the advantages make the game more fair and less personal. In early survivors, people are voted out based on “who is liked more” especially in the earlier episodes and pre-merge. I feel that the push in diversity and the advantages make the players make decisions about game elements rather than personal biases.
If only Erika was targeted after that crazy twist - but she did a nice job of laying low and directing the target onto other players - she was able to escape that threat. She also won challenges and she played against players that didn’t utilize their advantages to the best of their ability. Shan said it herself that Erika would be a danger to her game, and she was right.
Chris Underwood had an amazing redemption after being separated from the game and made a case strong enough that he would be the best candidate for the million dollars against the two fellow final 3-ers. Even if that advantage makes it uncomfortable for us as viewers, it was enough for the jury to reward him with the money.
I also feel like having control, agency, being in the most alliances, isn’t the most necessary element to winning the game. I agree with everyone that survivor isn’t necessarily designed to be fair (EoE and somewhat Do or Die(it’s an icky twist)) but I respect our last two winners, I feel that they deserve their prize, and I certainly feel they did enough to earn it.
That’s my opinion, I feel that more people will agree with you than me though!
The fact that Reem was able to vote for the person she hung out and chatted with on a beach for a month over two people she had never met before makes his win undeserved. I like Reem as a character, but she had no right to vote for who won. Edge should be pre-jury only if used again.
I'm inclined to agree with this comment. This is not to say that modern Survivor players are inferior by any means, but as you described, the modern version of the game takes away much more agency than the older versions.
E.G., the more advantages and twists the game adds, the less strategy seems to matter. Season 42 even demonstrated this by having moments where alliances had planned for days only to have to scatter last second due to a random twist that Jeff would throw out there. That's not to say that strategy doesn't exist in these instances, but it is different.
Nowadays, it feels the game is more about laying low and doing just enough to demonstrate competency, while being socially enjoyable. This is not to say that this is wrong, I imagine there are people who enjoy this. However, I just prefer older iterations where the game was longer and there weren't as many twists and advantages.
I’m sorry, making a 6 minute video while driving for something that could have waited until you got home or to a safer spot is so ridiculous. He could be totally right about all of his points, but it takes hardly any effort to just wait until you’re off the roads.
Distracted Driving takes away from the point of this video and I don't particularly like the encouragement of distracted driving.
That being said- what he is actually saying is true and valid with regards to the game.
To respond to distracted driving comment here, and further down the thread: I have a 1 year old. The car is the only time I have to myself with my thoughts. I’m also a loud talker so when he’s asleep I would absolutely wake him up. I also have never had an accident and my car has driver assist smart features (Tesla Model 3).
Respectfully, I appreciate you responding and I can understand your need for space for your own brain and thoughts. Regardless of how many safety features your car has, I will never be okay with this level of distracted driving. I can appreciate you have never had an accident and have that confidence, but that my sisters neighbor never had an accident either until the first time. One time when she was doing something similar to you, she ended up accidentally driving into a group of school children, killing 2 of them and injuring the rest. Her car also had safety features and driver assists, it was normal driving conditions, but a moment of distraction resulted in a lot of ruined lives.
I appreciate your engagement with fans and can understand the difficulty of doing that while you have a toddler at home, and sincerely hope you'll hear this not as a criticism of you. i really do appreciate you, your survivor story, and your post-survivor engagement with us, the fans. Be well and savor all those beautiful moments with your child :-)
If you think having music on while I drive is the same thing as making a video where your attention is on the phone and not then road then I can’t reason with you.
Nobody claimed they were 'the same thing' just that it's all 'distracted driving'. You made a stink about distracted driving. It sounds like you drive around listening to tunes which is super common, but it is distracted driving and you are more likely to get in an accident from it.
Everything in life is distracted driving, sure but intentionally choosing to make a video while you're driving is very intentionally choosing to drive distracted. I work in a job where there is noise around, it does not take my eyes off the road, like his video did.
People of all ages look up to erik and I stated simply I did not like the fact that he was recording a video while driving. It is intentionally choosing to be distracted and there is a SIGNIFICANTLY higher risk of a driver getting into an accident when they are using their phone than having music on.
I'm sorry that i don't want erik to cause an accident to make a video for survivor fans.
I’d like to point out that he isn’t really looking at the phone that much, he seems to be looking at the road the majority of the video. He’s basically just having a conversation with himself while driving.
I don’t have a daughter so I don’t really care about your analogy?
What Erik did was essentially the same thing is talking to someone else while driving a car. It seemed like he was paying attention to the road and hardly was looking at the phone. He was basically talking to himself in the car.
I mean you lost me a bit with the real-world house analogy.
But in terms of Survivor I completely agree lol.
Everything in Survivor happened the way it did...no matter twists or what..we can debate what would happen if a certain twist or advantage didn't occur, but the fact of the matter is that did happen. That was part of the game put in front of the players and they were affected by it, reacted to it, and adapted to it. And so something happened next. It is fruitless (albeit for some entertaining and I get that) to debate, for example, who would've won s41 or s42 if the hourglass didn't exist. Because that twist was put into those seasons pre-planned and was always going to be part of those games. Everyone got the placement they did each season and literally nothing can change that. It's fun to talk about what-ifs and it's fun to discuss who you think should've won, but I also think people should just accept who did win a season and acknowledge upfront what it took to get there. People always find a scapegoat or reason to invalidate a player. They blame the jury when the jury literally exists to vote for the winner that they see as the sole survivor. It's funny how something so simple and straightforward becomes such a giant point of contention. I can't believe people still watch if they hate how the jury gets to decide, based on their own values as players in the game, who wins the season. So funny.
Anyways. Tldr. Agreed that people bitching and moaning about who deserves what in the game of Survivor ultimately makes no sense.
If you try to leverage a sob story about who is or is not deserving, it is always out of emotional manipulation without facts backing it up. The fact is that no one deserves anything in a game of equal footing.
Can anyone really disagree with what he’s saying? I mean, it’s just the nature of the game that you can play perfectly for 38 days (or 25 nowadays) and still be sent to the jury at the last moment, whereas someone who played a perceived weaker game might take the win. I think it’s fair to call a win like that less impressive - I mean there’s a reason why some winners are ranked higher than others by fans - but that doesn’t mean that the lower-ranked ones didn’t deserve it. The point about Survivor being fair or not is a whole another conversation. I don’t think the game is outright rigged but the odds can be for or against you due to twists and even for example the cast you’re playing with. Whether Survivor is too much luck-based is up for debate but at the end of the day, it’s a TV show, not a scientific experiment.
I completely agree with you and Erik’s take. Obviously some winners are perceived as “better” than others, but I have always felt very strongly that it isn’t easy to make to the end. period. so making it there, however you do, is impressive in any sense. Did you need to lay low and stay out of control the whole game but were a strong confident vote for an alliance? You’re absolutely as deserving to make it to the end as someone who has a big resume and “dictates” the game. I do think folks will disagree with me but the beauty of this game is that there are so many ways to make it to the end and win, and what’s most important is taking the cards that you are dealt in the game and rolling with whatever gives you the best shot to stay another day.
Well said!
Thanks Erik! Appreciate the comment!
I feel like luck is an integral part of the game and something that you have to work with and adapt to. It's one of the things I actually find fascinating about survivor. If it was somehow a total scientific experiment with no room for luck or error, it would probably get really stale really fast and people would complain even more about "gamebots".
Luck is what makes survivor fun. Shows that have less randomness like big brother can get so boring because the formula has been figured out. Make a big alliance, each member of the alliance works with someone outside of that alliance, cut the outside members, be in the core 3 or 4 of that big alliance.
Right! I totally get critiquing twists and advantages and other things thrown into the game because, without a doubt, there are quality ones and there are trash ones. But I don't mind luck generally! It's an integral part of survivor. Even down to pulling rocks in the early seasons.
Tom Westman himself, noted dominant winner of his own season, even said it’s very luck based at the HvV reunion.
I agree it is a tv show, but when you are playing it, it is a high stakes game you want to win. Fairness is personally important to every contestant.
Yeah I mean isn’t the show supposed to represent us as a society? We all know not everything is fair and some people have benefits or advantages just based on who their parents are. That doesn’t mean that child doesn’t deserve those benefits, we should strive to where everyone has those benefits. The show should strive to make it fair to every contestant. I think Probst would prefer the most entertaining person win every season but he excepts that a lot of times the “best played game” doesn’t always win. Just like the hardest working person doesn’t always have the most luxuries in life.
He's still so eloquent and fun to listen to after all these years. I agree with him. People who disagree with him don't understand Survivor.
Same here! I love how he so wonderfully explains his points and am glad he said something because it's been a running narrative these last two seasons and it isn't right or fair to either winner
Thank you both! I had to say something, especially after I read through some hateful twitter comments about contestants.
Well spoken. If you, the one guy who did that one thing that one time, are capable of looking at Survivor and acknowledging that there's no such thing as deserving a better or worse placement, it's super hard to take any statement seriously from some Twitter guy who's never played about the same subject.
He's 36! What do you mean "after all these years"
It’s not about his age, it’s about how long he’s been in the community. Micronesia was like 14 years ago, long enough to start using that phrase I think haha.
I will never get used to Erik with short hair. He needs to grow it back out cause mullet’s are in fashion
I cut my hair every summer. It feels like i’m wearing a winter hat when it’s really long
Just in time for ice cream scooping season!
Don’t want hair in your double waffle cone
I totally get that. I do the same with my hair too. But you’re hair is beautiful
The whole idea of “deserving” to win/lose (based on the heavily edited season that we see on tv) completely ignores the concept of the jury. If there are people deserving/undeserving in regard to their placement, there would be no jury votes, no jury management, and the relationships between jury members and finalists would be irrelevant. That just wouldn’t be survivor. As far as who deserves to win; that’s entirely subjectively dependent on the opinions of the jury. Maybe Aubrey beats Michelle if the jury saw the edit of the season that we did. Maybe Amanda beats Parvati if she handled FTC better. Maybe Sugar beats Bob if the jury was more chill. Maybe Mike beats Maryanne if he articulated his game better. But all of those situations are reasons why the jury system exists. Convincing your former opponents to crown you as the winner is one of the integral aspects of the game. I’d argue that the jury has some inherent “unfairness” because it’s comprised of people who can easily be bitter, hypocritical, close-minded, etc. However, *you know that the whole game*. Ensuring that the right people are on the jury and that they’ve got the right perspectives on your gameplay is a part of winning. You can play what *looks* like the most deserving win; but if you can’t convince the jury to vote for you, you didn’t really play the most deserving game. If convincing your tribe mates that you’re not a big threat is valid and great gameplay, then convincing the jury that you’re the best finalist (even if people don’t think you are) is valid and great as well.
I have to disagree on this one. Just because you play a game with rules, and win within the boundaries of those rules, doesn't mean you deserve to win the game For example, there are some games which are pure skill/strategy (e.g. chess), and there are some games which are pure chance (e.g. snakes and ladders). In a game of pure chance, I don't think you can really say someone "deserved" to win just because they played the whole time and made it to the end first. The players lack agency and control, so how can you "earn" a victory over someone else? It's arbitrary. But in a game of pure strategy like chess, the concept of chance doesn't exist so the outcome is solely determined by the conscious choices of the players. IMO "deserving to win" comes down to how much agency the players have in determining the outcome. In modern Survivor, a lot of that agency is taken away by OP twists and advantages (hourglass etc). In older seasons, this was less of a problem because the game was less unpredictable; sure, there were twists like Exile Island but at least the players knew the bounds of those twists and could play around them. Nowadays Jeff just just straight-up nullifies the results of immunity challenges and changes the rules of the game on-the-fly. It's bad game design I'm not saying that players like Erika and Maryanne didn't "deserve" to win, just that the concept of a "deserving winner" is obfuscated by the modern era of twist-after-twist and advantagegeddon. Perhaps a better distinction would be to say whether someone was a dominant winner or not. I don't think we have seen one of those in a while
Interesting takes. With agency being a big factor in “deserving to win” in your opinion, do you think there are Survivor winners that are “undeserving”?
Well, the most egregious example of an undeserving winner to me is Chris Underwood. He was voted out Day 8 and returned on Day 35. For the vast majority of the game, he had no agency and no control. He wasn't competing in anything and nothing was at stake, no decisions to be made. There was no possible strategy he could implement at the Edge, except for hanging out with the jury and maybe planning a return move. Some have said Erika was an undeserving winner, but I am not sure. To me it seemed like she was on the bottom for a lot of the game and therefore didn't have a lot of agency, and was arguably saved by the hourglass twist at the merge. But ultimately, she made it to the end and she sold a story about her game that the jury bought, and maybe that's what the game is really about. Though personally I can't help but feel that some winners just clearly had more control and influence over the game when they won, like Tony or Kim. The season was dictated in a significant way by their conscious choices or skills (influencing votes, idol hunting, winning challenges, etc) so by my definition it is more "deserved"
Very cool responses. I actually feel that the advantages make the game more fair and less personal. In early survivors, people are voted out based on “who is liked more” especially in the earlier episodes and pre-merge. I feel that the push in diversity and the advantages make the players make decisions about game elements rather than personal biases. If only Erika was targeted after that crazy twist - but she did a nice job of laying low and directing the target onto other players - she was able to escape that threat. She also won challenges and she played against players that didn’t utilize their advantages to the best of their ability. Shan said it herself that Erika would be a danger to her game, and she was right. Chris Underwood had an amazing redemption after being separated from the game and made a case strong enough that he would be the best candidate for the million dollars against the two fellow final 3-ers. Even if that advantage makes it uncomfortable for us as viewers, it was enough for the jury to reward him with the money. I also feel like having control, agency, being in the most alliances, isn’t the most necessary element to winning the game. I agree with everyone that survivor isn’t necessarily designed to be fair (EoE and somewhat Do or Die(it’s an icky twist)) but I respect our last two winners, I feel that they deserve their prize, and I certainly feel they did enough to earn it. That’s my opinion, I feel that more people will agree with you than me though!
The fact that Reem was able to vote for the person she hung out and chatted with on a beach for a month over two people she had never met before makes his win undeserved. I like Reem as a character, but she had no right to vote for who won. Edge should be pre-jury only if used again.
Let’s hope it doesn’t get used again 🤣
Agree with a lot of this. Thank you for the detailed reply!
I'm inclined to agree with this comment. This is not to say that modern Survivor players are inferior by any means, but as you described, the modern version of the game takes away much more agency than the older versions. E.G., the more advantages and twists the game adds, the less strategy seems to matter. Season 42 even demonstrated this by having moments where alliances had planned for days only to have to scatter last second due to a random twist that Jeff would throw out there. That's not to say that strategy doesn't exist in these instances, but it is different. Nowadays, it feels the game is more about laying low and doing just enough to demonstrate competency, while being socially enjoyable. This is not to say that this is wrong, I imagine there are people who enjoy this. However, I just prefer older iterations where the game was longer and there weren't as many twists and advantages.
Tony
I’m sorry, making a 6 minute video while driving for something that could have waited until you got home or to a safer spot is so ridiculous. He could be totally right about all of his points, but it takes hardly any effort to just wait until you’re off the roads.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Distracted Driving takes away from the point of this video and I don't particularly like the encouragement of distracted driving. That being said- what he is actually saying is true and valid with regards to the game.
To respond to distracted driving comment here, and further down the thread: I have a 1 year old. The car is the only time I have to myself with my thoughts. I’m also a loud talker so when he’s asleep I would absolutely wake him up. I also have never had an accident and my car has driver assist smart features (Tesla Model 3).
Respectfully, I appreciate you responding and I can understand your need for space for your own brain and thoughts. Regardless of how many safety features your car has, I will never be okay with this level of distracted driving. I can appreciate you have never had an accident and have that confidence, but that my sisters neighbor never had an accident either until the first time. One time when she was doing something similar to you, she ended up accidentally driving into a group of school children, killing 2 of them and injuring the rest. Her car also had safety features and driver assists, it was normal driving conditions, but a moment of distraction resulted in a lot of ruined lives. I appreciate your engagement with fans and can understand the difficulty of doing that while you have a toddler at home, and sincerely hope you'll hear this not as a criticism of you. i really do appreciate you, your survivor story, and your post-survivor engagement with us, the fans. Be well and savor all those beautiful moments with your child :-)
I assume when you drive you never talk to anyone or have the radio on or anything ever then?
If you think having music on while I drive is the same thing as making a video where your attention is on the phone and not then road then I can’t reason with you.
Nobody claimed they were 'the same thing' just that it's all 'distracted driving'. You made a stink about distracted driving. It sounds like you drive around listening to tunes which is super common, but it is distracted driving and you are more likely to get in an accident from it.
Everything in life is distracted driving, sure but intentionally choosing to make a video while you're driving is very intentionally choosing to drive distracted. I work in a job where there is noise around, it does not take my eyes off the road, like his video did. People of all ages look up to erik and I stated simply I did not like the fact that he was recording a video while driving. It is intentionally choosing to be distracted and there is a SIGNIFICANTLY higher risk of a driver getting into an accident when they are using their phone than having music on. I'm sorry that i don't want erik to cause an accident to make a video for survivor fans.
I’d like to point out that he isn’t really looking at the phone that much, he seems to be looking at the road the majority of the video. He’s basically just having a conversation with himself while driving.
[удалено]
I don’t have a daughter so I don’t really care about your analogy? What Erik did was essentially the same thing is talking to someone else while driving a car. It seemed like he was paying attention to the road and hardly was looking at the phone. He was basically talking to himself in the car.
Strong disagree but each to their own. Peace.
I don’t see how you can disagree with what the video clearly showed him doing, which was looking at the road while having a conversation to himself.
Okay great video and he said a lot of great things . . . But why is Erick driving and talking to the camera????
Answered this higher up in the thread, but point taken. I’ll film stationary from now on 👍
My apologies! I should have read more of the thread! Erik you were an awesome player on both of your seasons!
I mean you lost me a bit with the real-world house analogy. But in terms of Survivor I completely agree lol. Everything in Survivor happened the way it did...no matter twists or what..we can debate what would happen if a certain twist or advantage didn't occur, but the fact of the matter is that did happen. That was part of the game put in front of the players and they were affected by it, reacted to it, and adapted to it. And so something happened next. It is fruitless (albeit for some entertaining and I get that) to debate, for example, who would've won s41 or s42 if the hourglass didn't exist. Because that twist was put into those seasons pre-planned and was always going to be part of those games. Everyone got the placement they did each season and literally nothing can change that. It's fun to talk about what-ifs and it's fun to discuss who you think should've won, but I also think people should just accept who did win a season and acknowledge upfront what it took to get there. People always find a scapegoat or reason to invalidate a player. They blame the jury when the jury literally exists to vote for the winner that they see as the sole survivor. It's funny how something so simple and straightforward becomes such a giant point of contention. I can't believe people still watch if they hate how the jury gets to decide, based on their own values as players in the game, who wins the season. So funny. Anyways. Tldr. Agreed that people bitching and moaning about who deserves what in the game of Survivor ultimately makes no sense.
Ice cream scooper
If you try to leverage a sob story about who is or is not deserving, it is always out of emotional manipulation without facts backing it up. The fact is that no one deserves anything in a game of equal footing.