Survivor - Heroes vs. Villians (season 20) official discussion thread (1 Viewer)

[Carl Miller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanson Yoo


Again, it wasn't so much that Russell's social game was bad as much as it was that he went out of his way to alienate people and make them despise him. Any way you slice it, that's not good gameplay.

I agree Hanson. The funny thing about Russell is that if he had even the slightest understanding of how he was perceived, he could have toned it down considerably, let more of the game unfold without his orchestrations, and ultimately gotten just as far without generating so much ill will.

 

[Stephen_L]

Anthony, I agree with you 100%. If it doesn't matter how you interact with your tribemates, if the game is only a competition of challenges, alliances and betrayals, then just keep playing the game until you eliminate everyone but one player. That is the game Russell plays. The whole purpose of a jury is that the final contestants must stand judgement in how they treated people. It is the crucial element. You must justify your actions to the very people you deprived of the prize. It is fiendishly brilliant. Boston Rob had it right. Russell plays to be there at the end, but not to win.

I was also rooting for Parvati, because she played a complete game, but as socially adept as she was, she saddled herself to the Russell train and carried that stain to the jury. I cannot fault Sandra or her game. Like Parvati, she was on the outs with her Villain tribe almost from the onset. She was never accepted by the Heroes. She operated almost entirely solo. Her attempts to link up the Heroes to take out Russell were rebuffed and each time she had to regroup. She didn't make stupid votes to make a point. If she couldn't win with taking out Russell, she would bide her time, vote with the majority and survive. Sandra also had a critical skill not shared by many that ended up on the jury. She always correctly read the people around her, her place in various alliances, and always positioned herself to survive. It's not as flashy or entertaining, but it is a legit tactic.

 

[Hanson]

Originally Posted by Lau Rian

it's the same thing in my opinion considering the end result, u vote someone off in a 'friendly' way or u blindside them i mean what's the difference? as i said before if anybody can find someone who puts the friendship or feelings of one of the other players in the game above a million $ tell me

There have been players who have put friendships over the million dollars (Ian from Palau comes to mind) and many others who didn't want to cross the line of decency to achieve their goals. If anything, Russell really took the deception and backstabbing to another level.


And yes, you can be strategic and not be a jerk about it. You can make it business, not personal. Russell made everything personal. He taunted people, antagonized tribemates for no reason, and preened endlessly. His arrogance and assholery made it personal. And that is the difference between a Todd from China and a Russell Hantz.

 

Hanson Yoo

There have been players who have put friendships over the million dollars (Ian from Palau comes to mind) that is not correct ian already pissed off so many people and the last tribal councils all involved him so he knew he had no chance of winning against tom even if he did make it to the end so he washed away his sins so to speak by what he did in my eyes whatever people do in the game is only done in order for them to progress further and earlier actions done will benefit them later on. (example voting somebody off knowing they get their vote, being "friendly" to others, helping at camp, winning challenges, and so on cause in the end when they plead their case and draw the line they can say yeah i done this that etc)


as somebody from survivor said people have killed for less than a million so when somebody lies to u and u act all surprised and in disbelief? just suck it up and deal with it, it's what u signed for in this game there is 1 way to lie be nice and friendly about it or deceive and as i said before the end result is the same when u vote somebody off, to me i'd rather be blindsided than have some1 tell me oh u r my friend we will be friends for life i like u but sorry i have to vote u off?

 

[Mike Frezon]

The more I think about it...


It doesn't really make any sense to have Russell shoot two different producer interviews to explain his strategy about which players to take to the final.

First of all, he would not have to explain his Samoa decision to to justify his HvV decision. One is not reliant on the other. And, of course, there is the secondary problem of not knowing the outcome of the first decision...making it impossible to use it as the reason for how it is impacting the HvV decision.


This is the issue I hope gets addressed somewhere along the way...in a Probst blog entry or an interview with Russell...something.

 

[AnthonyC]

Originally Posted by Lau Rian /forum/thread/296146/survivor-heroe...0-official-discussion-thread/420#post_3692038

First of all, he would not have to explain his Samoa decision to to justify his HvV decision. One is not reliant on the other. And, of course, there is the secondary problem of not knowing the outcome of the first decision...making it impossible to use it as the reason for how it is impacting the HvV decision.
This is the issue I hope gets addressed somewhere along the way...in a Probst blog entry or an interview with Russell...something.

According to spoilers, he was telling his fellow contestants "the blonde girl" won his previous season. Whether he was tipped off by producers, guessing, or deliberately misleading them into thinking he wasn't a former winner is anybody's guess. FWIW, Probst insists that Russell had no idea if he'd won or not, and assumes that Russell thought he must have since he played so similarly.

 

[Brent M]

Originally Posted by Greg Kettell /forum/thread/296146/survivor-heroe...0-official-discussion-thread/420#post_3691805

 

[Chris Lockwood]

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon


I think I could get along with Sandra. I loved her Boston Rob line about the two of them were going to get along because Italians and Hispanics are both loud and ignorant. She doesn't take herself too seriously and seems to have a pretty level head. Frankly, I was a little surprised that, when goaded by Probst after winning, she fell into his trap of saying she was the best Survivor player ever because she had won twice.

I thought that was very consistent with the arrogance she showed during the game.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

Question for the Russell haters- if the other players really hate him so much, why do so many of them seem to do what he wants them to? Why does it seem like he's in charge? And why has he made it to the end each time?

 

So wait a minute...what you're saying is that Ian knew that he had little chance of winning because he had pissed people off (which I don't agree with, but I'll go along with). If Ian realizes this principle, then what's Russell's excuse? What Ian did was probably too drastic, but with how you reason it, clearly you realize that pissing people off in this game is detrimental when it comes to the jury vote.


ian in my opinion tried to be the nice guy to all and got caught up in his lies which is worst because u try to pretend to be something you are not and even then kept trying to lie and deny it to people.


on the other hand russel is open on how he is playing the game and at least he is honest about it. thing is people may not realize it or take it personal, to russel survivor remains a game and he did everything right to get to the end taking out his potential threats. that maybe is just how he is he likes to be in control of everything.


that is why i said i would rather have somebody like russel come up to me and say sorry it's your time to go rather than someone else saying they gonna do something and then blindside me and vote me off

 

Originally Posted by Chris Lockwood

Question for the Russell haters- if the other players really hate him so much, why do so many of them seem to do what he wants them to? Why does it seem like he's in charge? And why has he made it to the end each time?

people seem to do what he wants them to do because they do not take the bullets for their actions, people who get voted off point their fingers and say russel did it


russel IS in charge i think all can agree that on most things that happened they were russel's decisions


why did he make it to the end? because people felt nobody would vote for him so he was somebody who they thought they can easily win against in the final 3 (and it seems they were correct)

 

[AnthonyC]

Originally Posted by Chris Lockwood /forum/thread/296146/survivor-heroe...0-official-discussion-thread/450#post_3692089

 

Originally Posted by AnthonyC You said the exact opposite:
sorry maybe i wasn't 100% clear on that, those statements are supposed to relate to 2 different things


that is why i said i would rather have somebody like russel come up to me and say sorry it's your time to go rather than someone else saying they gonna do something and then blindside me and vote me off


this one is about being lied to, i prefer some1 saying yes i am voting u off because u r a threat, i do not like u etc... a 'friend' saying sorry i have to vote u off is not really your friend. if he truly was a friend he would stick with you but people will take the path they consider the best in order to win 1 mil $


the end result is the same when u vote somebody off, to me i'd rather be blindsided than have some1 tell me oh u r my friend we will be friends for life i like u but sorry i have to vote u off?


this is about friendship and i do not believe that plays a role in this game if strategically somebody will gain advantage over voting a 'friend' off they will do it. it's like doing something intentionally to someone and then saying oh I'm sorry did not mean to

i do not like people crying over others being voted off or pretending to be sad when they in fact put their name down. if any survivor that plays the game can put the friendship they make with somebody in the time they spent with them over a million $ then yes i will believe in it (i think nobody would)

/forum/thread/296146/survivor-heroe...0-official-discussion-thread/450#post_3692102

 

may have been confusing what i said but its about friendship, if u r my friend u will not vote me off. u cant say we will be friends forever after the show no matter what but say oh sorry i have to win a million $ and my best move is to vote u off so i will do that


russel is at least honest about his game he does not pretend to be friends with anybody, he is playing the outwit outplay outlast maybe they should change it to 'outwit outplay outlast - and make sure the jury likes u and gives u their vote' then maybe russel would win

 

[Hanson]

I don't think it can be argued that Ian's motives were purely strategic. For one thing, he was still in trhe final immunity versus Tom, so he didn't have to quit. He did what he did over a massive guilt trip that Katie had been laying on for days, and she was still haranguing him from shore during the challenge. His decision was not based on strategy, it was purely emotional. As Anthony pointed out, there were jury members who disliked Tom like Coby and Janu, so the final vote would not have looked like the Tom and Katie outcome. Besides, we've seen plenty of FTCs where it looked like one person was toast, but the outcome was surprising. Why, there was this one guy named Richard Hatch who did just that.

russel is at least honest about his game he does not pretend to be friends with anybody, he is playing the outwit outplay outlast maybe they should change it to 'outwit outplay outlast - and make sure the jury likes u and gives u their vote' then maybe russel would win

Honesty and being a total asshole are two different things to me, but perhaps those lines are blurred for some. Diplomacy and being fake are two different things to me, but again, perhaps those lines are blurred for some.


Survivor is at its heart a social game, otherwise there would be no jury and it would be a last man standing contest. Players like Sandra and Natalie White are there to keep the Russells of the game in check -- if you play too hard and burn too many bridges, anyone will be a worthy alternative.


While I would have voted for Parvati, you have to understand that the jury doesn't see what we see. So that's where it was important for Parv to make clear during the game and during FTC that she wasn't not Russell's puppet, and that's where she failed. For the sake of her game, she should have gotten Russell voted out after Danielle was booted, because that would have shown that she was the queen. But she got really comfortable with Russell being the goat, and that complacency ultimately hurt her.

Question for the Russell haters- if the other players really hate him so much, why do so many of them seem to do what he wants them to? Why does it seem like he's in charge? And why has he made it to the end each time?

And why has he never won? And why has he gotten 2 out of 18 possible jury votes? Isn't there a flaw in that game?


I could withdraw money from my bank using a shotgun instead of an ATM card. Doesn't mean that's the right way to go about it.


Additionally, Russell's entire game is based on hidden immunity idols. All of his big moves in both seasons were leveraged by HIIs. Plop Russell into a pre-Guatemala season and let's see how he does.


On another note, Sandra was going to give Rupert the HII to get Russell voted out, but they were interrupted before she could hatch the plan. Before she could get back together with him, he ran over to Russell and ratted out Sandra. So it was not Sandra's fault that she couldn't make a big move -- the Heroes were collectively too stupid to make it. Which is why they all voted for Sandra. And again, she stuck her neck out after JT's boot to vote off Russell, so that was not an inconsequential move on her part. So to say that Sandra did nothing is incorrect.

 

[Carl Miller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Lockwood

Question for the Russell haters- if the other players really hate him so much, why do so many of them seem to do what he wants them to? Why does it seem like he's in charge? And why has he made it to the end each time?

The other players have no problem with how Russell plays until they end up his target...Until then, they knowingly support and go along with his tactics because it benefits them. That's why I can't stand the holier than thou attitudes toward Russell by some of the jury. It's just a tad hypocritical of them...

 

[Stephen_L]

Most of the Russell apologists still don't get it. It's not the betrayals or duplicity that turns off juries. Plenty of "snakes" have taken home the million. Russells blind spot is not that he's dishonest, its that he revels in dumping on everyone else in the game. He pretends that he is omnipotent and controls all, basically labeling every one else as a puppet and tool. He is never the beneficiary of good luck or the help of others (which is plain delusional) He enjoys insulting people to their faces. Remember his exchange with Rupert at the campfire? What purpose could that serve except to guarantee that Rupert votes against him. That's just arrogance and stupidity. Remember when Russell asked Courtney and Sandra to their faces which would go home first? What was the point in saying that to them. You can vote them off, but insulting people just guarantees an enemy on the jury. And remember these people must live with this bullying, arrogant guy 24-7 for weeks. Survivor is a game of physical, mental, and social skill. Russell completely lacks the third component.

 

[Carl Miller]

I'm not a Russell apologist, and I understand every word you said. But the overlooked part of this story is that one thing you said is not true....They don't have to live with him 24/7 for weeks. They could vote him off first chance they get, or the second, or at the start of the merge, or even when it's down to the final 4 or 5. One would think, in fact, that if he were so insulting, pompous and ego maniacal they would all band together and vote him off just to make their lives more pleasant . But they don't because they benefit from him in a variety of ways.


In the end, as objectionable as it was for Russell to treat Rupert as he did, nobody voted Russell off because of it at any time after that incident took place. So when someone says something at the very end to imply that Russell is just this really bad guy who doesn't deserve to win, what they should be saying is that they were willing to overlook, tolerate, benefit from and in some cases even enable his behavior so long as it could help them in the process.

 

[Stephen_L]

Carl, I never said Russell was Randy (i.e. crappy social skills without bringing much else to the table); he is a formidable game player. He tries to finagle alliances with everyone, he's a master idol finder, he uses intimidation which works on the weak (like Jerri). He's not someone you can just vote off. And as obnoxious as he is, he makes an ideal person to take to the finals with you. If I played Survivor I'd want him next to me at the finals. His skills have succeeded in bringing him to the finals twice. But his crappy attitude and complete social ineptitude guarantee a hostile jury. Boston Robb got it right. He plays to make final tribal but not to win.

I'm also tired of the "bitter jury" argument made by others. In Samoa, I could buy that maybe, a flukey jury of novices. But against two juries, one filled with the most experienced Survivor players possible he garners two votes. That's in two juries. Are all these juries bitter? These people have seen plenty of liars, snakes and manipulators but they REALLY HATED Russell. And you know what? He goes out of his way to be hated which is just plain stupid. He loses not because he's a good strategist, but because he is hateful.

 

[Carl Miller]

I agree Stephen. Yes, he is hated, there's no doubt about it. He does guarantee himself a hostile jury and he clearly fails to grasp the consequences of his actions in terms of how other players are going to feel about him. I guess what I'm saying is that there is a very fine line between being the bully, and aligning yourself with the bully for own benefit....which is why I find the bitter juror reaction to be pretty lame.