I hopehopehope the final 3 (or 2 now that they need another tribal counsel to fill in some space) ostracize the 2 quitters. “Vote for who you want, I’m not answering the question of a quitter! You shouldn’t even be here!”
I don’t think they should be allowed to be on the jury, and from the Ponderosa videos, it seemed like Alina wouldn’t talk to them the first night.
I mostly hate Silent Kelly for giving Nay some coverage for her quitting. If she was the only one who quit it would be easier to shame her. (not that she could be shamed, she’s got too much ego)
Let’s take a break from the quitters to talk about the other important development this episode. Chase now has an Idol, that presumably no one knows about. He’s suddenly in a very powerful position if he can be smart about it.
Jane/Holly/Chase/Fabio/Benry/Sash/Dan are the remaining players in the order that I would like to see win the game.
Jane is my favorite, just because she came prepared to play survivor. She has to be odds on favorite for the $100K Rupert award.
Holly started low on the totem poll (after setting adrift Dan’s shoes) but is steadily rising.
Chase/Fabio/Benry are interchangable.
I never liked Sash and Dan is worthless.
And I wish the TPTB in survivor would allow them more than the clothes on their back. I don’t think it makes good TV when the players are miserable and whining about it. Let them have a poncho, a couple changes of clothes with long pants and long sleeved shirts and a couple pairs of good shoes.
I think TPTB *wanted *the game to be taxing, but there does seem to be a lot more whining about the conditions lately than there have been in previous seasons. So either (a) contestants are lot more whiny these days (a distinct possibility, given that they’re casting the show instead of taking applicants) or (b) conditions are getting tougher.
I do have to admit surprise about the cold. I haven’t spent much time in the tropics, but I’m surprised that it ever gets cold on the beach in Nicaragua, or other recent locales. I thought it would always be hot and humid, and that rain would be a welcome relief.
They always do a clip show the week of Thanksgiving. And always on Wednesday. The only difference this year is that they didn’t have to move from the regular night.
At first, I totally agreed that it was wrong to let the quitters on the jury. But then I read Jeff’s explanation in his blog. And I have to agree that the question of what’s fair needs to apply to the remaining players, the ones that didn’t quit. When a player quits, that’s already pretty unfair to the players in the quitter’s alliance. But that’s also not in the hands of the Survivor producers. To then keep the quitter off the jury would be doubly unfair to the quitter’s alliance. Jeff’s argument makes great sense, that allowing the quitter on the jury is the most fair thing the producers can do for those who didn’t quit. Obviously, there’s no guarantee that the quitter will ultimately vote for someone in their alliance, but barring the quitter from the jury certainly guarantees that their alliance can’t benefit from that former alliance.
Still, so what? The people remaining in the game might have changed that person’s vote by something else they did. Or someone might have to have a medical DQ thereby messing up alliances. I think that it should just be part of the game that if you quit the game, you’ve quit. You don’t get to lounge around and then come back in later. I understand Jeff’s post too. I just don’t agree with it. (And he did say something about possibly changing the rules in the future.)
OK, I can see letting them on the Jury. But I hope this means they never come back on a future show as a “villian”. Esp Nanoinka or whatever.
The clip shows are getting better as the most recent one focused on the “why” behind the voting, showing scenes which seem to have lead to the votes. Not bad.
I know some are arguing that Dan should have given up his reward, as he did nothing to deserve it. Well, Jeff did not give him that option. And, a couple seasons ago, the “odd man out” simply had no chance to win at all, which was unfair. Now, they get to “back” a team. It wasn’t Dan’s fault he sat it out, the teams were uneven and someone had to dit out, the “sitee” has to have some chance of winning reward.
Agreed, Dan didn’t seem to be given the option. It would have been gallant of him to have stepped up and done it though. (And maybe he did ,but it was editted out.)
He totally had the option–he could have stepped forward at any time.
Regardless, I’m on the fence on whether he should have or not. On the one hand, he didn’t play at all and is piggy-backing on the other team’s success. However, had he played, it’s very unlikely he would have won. I still think he should have submitted himself, but I won’t hold it against him too much.
Jeff did not name him as one of the ones that could. Yes, sure, he could have volunteered anyway, but if so, and then Jeff has restated that his volunteering was not one of the options, he’d have looked like a douchebag for volunteerings when it was clear he was not able to . In anay case, the clip was clearly focusing on Nanoinkas LACK of stepping forward, maybe Dan asked if he could and Jeff said no and that portion just didn’t make it on the show.
About the piggyback- since one person has to be the odd man out, do you think then that means they should automatically lose the reward? :dubious:
It’s clear you didn’t understand what I wrote. He most likely would have lost the reward anyway, imo. Secondly, before this season, he definitely would have not received the reward for not playing.
Finally, I don’t think he would look like a “douche” at all. If he had presented as “Hey Jeff, I didn’t play in the challenge, and since I’m pretty worthless in challenges, I know I wouldn’t have been an asset anyway, so I’d like to step out for the benefit of the tribe.” I don’t see how that could be at all construed as douchey behavior.
Why? He was part of a team, and his team could well have won with him on it. But that’s not fair- he did not choose to not play, there was just a odd number of players- why should a player auto lose a reward just because they are at a odd number?
It would have been if the retort had been "Well, that was a pretty safe offer to make as you were not included in the people who had that option’. Jeff was pretty obviously pissed at that point in time.
Jeff did post an update to the blog to say that a change to the rules is being discussed, and this will be addressed at the reunion. It still sucks, though.
He was barely part of a team: the coat-riding portion that his lack of physical prowess put him in.
And he doesn’t have to “auto-lose,” it’s obviously his choice. I just think he chose the wrong one–assuming he indeed have the option (he should have stepped forward regardless, unless Jeff specifically said he couldn’t, as opposed to it being an oversight.
