I think I understand TonyD's logic -- if Yau hadn't made the deal, he would have been voted out anyway at the final four (being easily the most popular player). So the deal gave him the best chance to make it to the final three barring winning the IC at that juncture. So it was a good, strategic move for Yau after all. I think one thing that's being lost in the discussion is that by the time taping started for Fiji, Cook Islands hadn't yet finished airing, which meant that the final three was a huge twist for the players even though the viewers knew it was coming. So in Dreamz defense, he was giving up a lot more than he bargained for. Plus, Yau's error was to expect Dreamz to hand over immunity and get voted off. He really should have made a deal with Dreamz to vote off Cassandra -- that way, Dreamz gets to stay in the game and save face, which is something he may have gone for (don't ask him now -- he'll deny he ever changed his mind). And I am firmly of the opinion that you do what you have to do to win the game. This isn't real life -- in real life, the top two or three would make a deal to split their earnings. Since that isn't allowed in Survivor, players will conduct themselves differently than in real life. I think the jury is ultimately the one to decide if you went too far and it's the one thing that keeps their actions in check. To me, that's the sum total of expected morality in the game. Because it's a game.