343 replies to this topic

[awesome possum]

Howdyphillip, on 20 December 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

So it is OK to lie, cheat and steal to become the winner of Survivor, but it is completely unethical to do it so you can effect who the winner will be? I am with Ken here... Jury management is part of the game. Skupin lost because he didn't play a good enough social game.

But when you're voted out you're not playing the game anymore.  You're out of the game until you cast that final vote.  You should not be able to influence the outcome of the game when you're just a bystander.  That would be like someone running on a football field during a game, stealing the football, running into the endzone and it being counted as a touchdown.

Ken Stone, on 20 December 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

If that is a concern of yours, don't vote that person out. Lying is a part of Survivor. It's tricky, but it's part of the game.

Look, if you were to tell me "It's not fair a king in checkers gets to move forwards and backwards" I would tell you the same thing. It's part of the game. You have to adjust your strategy to compensate for it. If you are unable too, you don't deserve to win.

I like my analogy above better.  Lying is part of Survivor, but as I said, the jury is no longer playing Survivor.  They're observing to make a decision on who wins, not influencing that decision.  Now, I realize they influence each other if and when they reveal what they want to reveal about what went on in private conversations, but that's a lot different than lying to purposely influence the outcome because you're bitter about being voted out.  That is just ridiculous.

[Ken Stone]

awesome possum, on 21 December 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

But when you're voted out you're not playing the game anymore.  You're out of the game until you cast that final vote.  You should not be able to influence the outcome of the game when you're just a bystander.  That would be like someone running on a football field during a game, stealing the football, running into the endzone and it being counted as a touchdown.

The rules of Survivor include rules for the Jury. For instance the jury must attend the tribal councils. They must vote for for one of the final contestants. Etc. If the game of Survivor includes rules for the Jury, how is the jury not part of the game? If lying to other jury members was against the rules then wouldn't they keep them all separated?

As for your analogy, it doesn't make sense. The rules of football clearly state that the only people allowed to score points are those who are legal players at the time the ball is in play. You can't try to draw an analogy where someone breaks the rules of the game, to demonstrate the unfairness of someone playing within the rules of the game.

[Cuellar]

Bitter jury is probably the #1 issue contestants have to face in the final 3 and the decision as to who to bring to the final tribal.  While most contestants botch this (or it is edited for TV), they definately have to realize that this is a major factor.

It is pretty funny that Mike was blabbing that he thought he won it and had it in the bag.  It seems like a pretty normal macho male attitude, and seemed to have no basis in reality.  I guess he probably thought he'd get all of his old tribe voting for him plus Penner and Jeff. He didn't see that his old tribe thought he was a dipshit.

[Gertrude]

I agree that the Jury is still playing the game. They are not eligible to win the prize anymore, but are most definitely a part of the ongoing game.