Survivor

Part Deux....

anthontherun wrote: So why is final two better?1. First off, structurally, the show/game is like Ten Little Indians, with one person getting knocked out each round until only one remains. Except in a final three, where it suddenly drops from 3 to 1. Doesn't make any sense.

anthontherun wrote: 2. Final two with an odd number of jurors (the way it always was except when James' evacuation prompted them to switch from F3 to F2 at the last minute in Micronesia)? No chance of a tie. F3 with any number or jurors? Not only is there a chance of a tie, but it's happened, and Fiji officially has two second-placers because of it (both got the full $100K btw--more money out of CBS' pocket). There's no revealed tiebreak procedure if there's a tie for the winner. How are the contestants expected to play a game where the rules aren't explicitly known?

anthontherun wrote: 3. Final two is, plain and simple, more entertaining. Everything is edited down heavily with F3, and contestants like Becky are just flat-out ignored. It's also much more rushed.

anthontherun wrote: 4. The final challenge is usually pretty epic with just three people. Remember Richard Hatch stepping down? Never would've happened with F3. It's just much more dramatic to watch when the stakes are raised.

anthontherun wrote: 5. It rewards poor final three positioning. This is what separates the Richards and Tinas from the Kathys, Cesterninos, and Terrys. Richard and Tina brought themselves into final threes where either of their opponents would bring them to the end if they'd won the final challenge. For Kathy, Cesternino, or Terry, they needed to win the final challenge if they wanted to win the game. Put simply, there is such a thing as playing the game "too good," and it's all about the delicate balance of having the jury respect you but not seem like a F2 threat to your opponents. Too bad that subtle strategy doesn't matter anymore.

anthontherun wrote: 6. There is no more incentive to make power plays towards the end of the game. If you're in a solid three-person alliance, why would you ever want to upset the apple cart and make moves? You've got a solid chance at facing the jury, so you have no reason to change the course of the game. The exception of course is for Sugars and Mattys who don't care about winning so long as a "good person" does. You don't get contestants like that too often, especially not in the final five. Final three encourages complacency, which is boring to watch.

anthontherun wrote: 7. From a dramatic standpoint, the final vote is much more interesting when it lies completely in the hands of one person, even if it's obvious who they're voting out or if they're bringing a goat to the end. It's a perfectly valid strategy, and again...bad winners happen. It's a TV show. It's not the end of the world.

anthontherun wrote: 8. One of the major appeals of the show from the start was the fact that anyone could win, whether you were a mastermind 'villain' like Richard or a nice guy like Ethan; a challenge dominator like Tom or a major challenge liability like Sandra. Three of the four winners from the final three fall into the "nice guy" group, and all four of them are males. It's nice to have likable winners, but you need a balance or else it just becomes expected and consistent, and consistency is boring.I could go on, but I'll stop there. Final three is easily the worst thing to happen to the show and the game.

"The fact that they lost doesn't mean they weren't drug along, it just means the person dragging them now has TWO chances of getting to the F2. And in most of the cases you mention, they voted off a person that would likely have beaten them in the F2, and may have even beaten the Season Winner."The argument was that a final two allows a person to win the final challenge and end up with an easy victory by bringing a goat to the end. Put simply, the actual statistics show that this possibility doesn't come to fruition all that often."So, you are saying an F2 with Earl and EITHER Dreamz or Cassandra, and an F2 with Todd and EITHER Courtney or Amanda would have been BETTER?"Well no, because a F2 of Earl with either Dreamz or Cassandra wouldn't have happened. It would've been Dreamz vs. Cassandra, and we wouldn't have had the most predictable winner of all time with Earl. And yes, a F2 of Todd and one of the others (or better yet, Amanda vs. Courtney) would have been better. The stakes would've been raised, for Amanda especially, who seemed to have written Courtney off as a contender anyway."Brian was a slime, both in and out of the game. The few good players that season got voted off early, and he had little challenge from the flock of sheep that were left."What does Brian's actions as a person have anything to do with the game? Granted, he is pretty sleazy, but that doesn't mean he didn't dominate for 39 days and those 39 days should be the only criteria in determining the winner. The idea that weak competition should be a mark against him is laughable considering that, aside from the first two seasons (which include two of the most widely praised winners by far), the seasons with the weakest competition were Cook Islands and Fiji--two final three seasons. If the "few good players" were truly good, they wouldn't have been voted out early. I can't even think of who you're referring to. The best strategic players that season were Brian (miles ahead of everyone else), Jake, Clay, and Helen, all of whom made it to the final six."OK, let's take RECENT history. How many of the votes cast THIS SEASON were FOR someone, as opposed to AGAINST the other one (or two)? Just trying to give alternative example, to make it easier to understand. Sorry to have confused you."The only vote that I think was truly FOR Bob was Charlie's. Crystal's vote was most likely for Susie. And in fairness, Matty's vote was probably against Sugar, but between Susie and Bob, it was for Susie, so I'll give you that one. That's 3/7. Even if Marcus and Corinne liked Bob (I think it's closer to tolerating than liking to be honest, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, although when Randy commented about how Bob was annoying, neither of them disagreed), they were more pissed off that Susie and Sugar ruined their alliance's chances of getting to the top. Then you have Kenny, whose vote was obviously against both Bob and Sugar. And Randy was even more obviously against Sugar and Susie.Then look at Micronesia. At best, Cirie and Eliza's votes were against Amanda (definitely Eliza, not sure about Cirie). Ozzy and James were clearly not a Parvati fan but they were absolutely voting for Amanda, but I'll give it a split decision. Jason I have no idea, but he didn't really seem to have anything against either Amanda or Parvati. But Alexis, Erik, and Natalie were clearly voting FOR one or the other."Yes, and with an F3, you have THREE Choices, or 50% more. In actuality, several F2's have been NO real choice. So a F3 gives us 100% more "choice"."I understand what you're saying, but I'm just looking at this as more of an on-paper thing; two people gives two choices and three people gives three choices, that makes sense. But if you wanna get technical here, one F3 offered no real choice (Earl vs. Cassandra vs. Dreamz) and you could argue that Bob vs. Susie vs. Sugar didn't either, at least for the Onion majority of the jury. OTOH, Cassandra vs. Dreamz and Susie vs. Sugar WOULD have offered a choice that wasn't completely clear-cut for more than half the jurors."I don't remember saying he would have won the game. I said he would have beaten DANIELLE. And I'm not sure I understand your argument, but I'll take a shot at it anyway. The difference is, Terry was there based on his ACTIONS, and CONTRIBUTIONS to the game. Danielle was there because she SUCKED, and had a lower center of gravity and less bodymass than Terry."I inferred about him winning the game; I apologize if that wasn't what you meant. But Terry was one of the crappiest social and strategic players of all time. Tom may have dominated the challenges, but if that were all he did, he wouldn't have won. Besides, the only reason we had the Yul vs. Ozzy showdown was because Ozzy had a better sense of balance than Becky or Sundra, so it's not like challenge wins aren't a valid way of getting to the end (although as I said before, you need more than challenge victories to win the whole game).TBC

"Valid, as far as it goes. But who says it HAS to make sense? Does EI and the HII make sense? Does taking someone who DIDN'T win on a reward make sense. Does the Purple Rock of Death make sense? Does having to arange a bunch of gears in Africa make sense?"In that case, does stranding a bunch of strangers in a remote location, having them participate in challenges, have them vote someone out every 3 days, and filming their every move make sense? The point is, the final three changes the format of the game in a far bigger way than anything else ever has."LOST of contests allow ties below first place. And the difference between 2nd ($100k) and 3rd (reportedly $85k) is only $15k, worth about the amount of advertising time taken up by the "Next time, on" part of the trailer. TOTAL prize payout is less than $2M, which they make the first commercial break of the first episode of the season."I realize that it's a very mere difference for CBS. But it just isn't satisfying. I want a definitive, "This person is the winner, this is the runner-up, this is the third placer" down the line. Survivor's not a contest, it's a reality show and it just isn't satisfying to have any sort of definitive, unbreakable ties."WE don't know the rules, but you better BELIEVE they have them, or the authorities would be crawling all over the show. My guess is the F3 each cast a vote before they leave, so the 3rd place player breask the 1/2 tie."I'm sure the producers know the rules, but Eliza and Amanda have both confirmed that the players certainly don't."And if that F2 had been Yul and Becky, or Ozzy and Becky, you think she would have been ignored LESS? Or that the FTC would have been MORE interesting?"Of course she would've been ignored less! People saw Ozzy and Yul up there, congratulated them on their achievements, and ignored Becky completely. You saw what happened with Tom and Katie--the end result was set in stone, but it was entertaining to watch Katie get beaten down for coasting. If only one of those guys were up there, they'd be asking Becky what the hell kind of strategy doing nothing was and turning her into the next Katie. It would have been much more interesting than the Ozzy and Yul worship session that the boring Cook Islands final TC actually was."I disagree. It is just HARDER (and thus more challenging for them and exciting for us) to get to a position where all THREE of your F4 challengers will take you to the F3."But you don't NEED to be in a position where all three of your F4 challengers will take you to the F3! You just need to be in a solid three-person alliance, and if the outsider wins immunity, you make a last-minute deal with them. Not difficult at all."Suzie and Sugar did a good job this season. No matter WHO of the F4 won, Suzie and Sugar were in the F3. Of course, they lose to Matty OR Bob (unless one of them pulls and Amanda)...."LOL, yes, they did a great job securing themselves a lose-lose position. That's a game that's really worth playing. And I'd argue that Susie wasn't in the F3 unless she won that last challenge, because of the quote-unquote "good people" wanted to get to the end together even though Sugar and Matty admitted that Bob would crush them. With bold strategies and hardcore players like that, it's no wonder that F3 gives us more satisfying winners! Maybe next season they'll skip the jury questioning and let the F3 come to a consensus as to which one of them "deserves" to win at a tea party/"Kumbaya" singalong."There have been people like that nearly every season. Unfortunately, they often get voted out FIRST, because they don't care AT ALL about the game. Lisi comes to mind."Lisi was voted out 8th, but I get what you're saying. But you're just helping my argument. The only time the game changes up in the final rounds when you have a F3 is in the rare occasions when those players who don't really care make it far."But F3 is NOT = F1. Winning the jury from F3 is HARDER than from F2, IMHO."The only person it was harder for was Yul, because of the unlikelihood of a Yul/Ozzy F2. Earl had no difficulty, Todd was set either way, Cirie would've had no difficulty, and Bob had no difficulty. Even if the winner would have been less "good," not having the inevitable winner in the F3 would've actually made for a more unpredictable and competitive end result between the two finalists."OK, there have been cases where this was true. On the other hand, did you REALLY know which way Sugar was voting before it was read? REALLY?"I'll give you that one, but we seem to have reached a consensus that Sugar's an anomaly in that she got to the end without really caring about winning the game for herself. How many people would willingly decide to let a player make it to the end because they were "deserving"? The only other one I can think of is Colby. With F3, the only situation where someone was blindsided by the way the vote went were Matty and Susie, again because Sugar wasn't playing to win. It's the only situation that has ever produced any drama. Compare that to booting Keith (totally shocked the audience), Kathy (she knew it was coming but it had the added sting of Vee selling her out), Fairplay (the audience was thrilled), Rafe (didn't see it coming), and Terry (ditto, since he and Danielle had a deal from F4)."Actually, jerks and females were starting to UNbalance the statistics, not to mention YOUNG people. I was REALLY glad to see Bob win."I'll give you that I'm thrilled to have the oldest winner ever (by almost two decades in fact), but other than his age and race, there's not a whole lot of difference between him and Yul or Earl. I'm not sure what you mean about "jerks and females" unbalancing the statistics, there's now been 10 male winners and 7 female winners (none of whom came from F3 seasons).(For old vs. young, I'll just say that those 30 or younger are young; not that 31-year-olds are old but they are in Survivor terms)Richard: Old JerkTina: Old FemaleEthan: Young Nice GuyVecepia: Old FemaleBrian: Old JerkJenna: Young FemaleSandra: Young FemaleAmber: Young FemaleChris: Old Jerk?Tom: Old Nice GuyDanni: Old FemaleAras: Young Nice GuyYul: Young Nice GuyEarl: Old Nice GuyTodd: Young Jerk?Parvati: Young FemaleBob: Old Nice GuyOf the ten guys, I count two for-sure jerks, two that I'd probably place into that category, and six nice guys; and nine 31+ winners. I'll definitely agree that Survivor needs more of a diversity in age; the high percentage of 20somethings really does make for a less unique cross-section of winners in that regard.I must say this has been fun, you're a great debater. I've been enjoying this.

I rated you up for actually having an ARGUMENT to back up you opinions!

anthontherun wrote: The argument was that a final two allows a person to win the final challenge and end up with an easy victory by bringing a goat to the end. Put simply, the actual statistics show that this possibility doesn't come to fruition all that often.

anthontherun wrote: Well no, because a F2 of Earl with either Dreamz or Cassandra wouldn't have happened. It would've been Dreamz vs. Cassandra, and we wouldn't have had the most predictable winner of all time with Earl. And yes, a F2 of Todd and one of the others (or better yet, Amanda vs. Courtney) would have been better. The stakes would've been raised, for Amanda especially, who seemed to have written Courtney off as a contender anyway.

anthontherun wrote: What does Brian's actions as a person have anything to do with the game? Granted, he is pretty sleazy, but that doesn't mean he didn't dominate for 39 days and those 39 days should be the only criteria in determining the winner.

anthontherun wrote: "Yes, and with an F3, you have THREE Choices, or 50% more. In actuality, several F2's have been NO real choice. So a F3 gives us 100% more "choice"."I understand what you're saying, but I'm just looking at this as more of an on-paper thing;

anthontherun wrote: I inferred about him winning the game; I apologize if that wasn't what you meant.TBC

Gonna have to make this quick, I have to get home and make dinner, but I'd HATE to disappoint our audience! ;^)

anthontherun wrote: In that case, does stranding a bunch of strangers in a remote location, having them participate in challenges, have them vote someone out every 3 days, and filming their every move make sense? The point is, the final three changes the format of the game in a far bigger way than anything else ever has.

anthontherun wrote: I realize that it's a very mere difference for CBS. But it just isn't satisfying. I want a definitive, "This person is the winner, this is the runner-up, this is the third placer" down the line. Survivor's not a contest, it's a reality show and it just isn't satisfying to have any sort of definitive, unbreakable ties.

anthontherun wrote: I'm sure the producers know the rules, but Eliza and Amanda have both confirmed that the players certainly don't.

anthontherun wrote: Of course she would've been ignored less! People saw Ozzy and Yul up there, congratulated them on their achievements, and ignored Becky completely. You saw what happened with Tom and Katie--the end result was set in stone, but it was entertaining to watch Katie get beaten down for coasting. If only one of those guys were up there, they'd be asking Becky what the hell kind of strategy doing nothing was and turning her into the next Katie. It would have been much more interesting than the Ozzy and Yul worship session that the boring Cook Islands final TC actually was.

anthontherun wrote: But you don't NEED to be in a position where all three of your F4 challengers will take you to the F3! You just need to be in a solid three-person alliance, and if the outsider wins immunity, you make a last-minute deal with them. Not difficult at all.

anthontherun wrote: LOL, yes, they did a great job securing themselves a lose-lose position. That's a game that's really worth playing. And I'd argue that Susie wasn't in the F3 unless she won that last challenge,

anthontherun wrote: Lisi was voted out 8th, but I get what you're saying. But you're just helping my argument. The only time the game changes up in the final rounds when you have a F3 is in the rare occasions when those players who don't really care make it far.

anthontherun wrote: "But F3 is NOT = F1. Winning the jury from F3 is HARDER than from F2, IMHO."The only person it was harder for was Yul, because of the unlikelihood of a Yul/Ozzy F2. Earl had no difficulty, Todd was set either way, Cirie would've had no difficulty, and Bob had no difficulty. Even if the winner would have been less "good," not having the inevitable winner in the F3 would've actually made for a more unpredictable and competitive end result between the two finalists.

anthontherun wrote: "OK, there have been cases where this was true. On the other hand, did you REALLY know which way Sugar was voting before it was read? REALLY?"I'll give you that one, but we seem to have reached a consensus that Sugar's an anomaly in that she got to the end without really caring about winning the game for herself. How many people would willingly decide to let a player make it to the end because they were "deserving"? The only other one I can think of is Colby. With F3, the only situation where someone was blindsided by the way the vote went were Matty and Susie, again because Sugar wasn't playing to win. It's the only situation that has ever produced any drama. Compare that to booting Keith (totally shocked the audience), Kathy (she knew it was coming but it had the added sting of Vee selling her out), Fairplay (the audience was thrilled), Rafe (didn't see it coming), and Terry (ditto, since he and Danielle had a deal from F4).

anthontherun wrote: "Actually, jerks and females were starting to UNbalance the statistics, not to mention YOUNG people. I was REALLY glad to see Bob win."I'll give you that I'm thrilled to have the oldest winner ever (by almost two decades in fact), but other than his age and race, there's not a whole lot of difference between him and Yul or Earl. I'm not sure what you mean about "jerks and females" unbalancing the statistics, there's now been 10 male winners and 7 female winners (none of whom came from F3 seasons).(For old vs. young, I'll just say that those 30 or younger are young; not that 31-year-olds are old but they are in Survivor terms)< >Of the ten guys, I count two for-sure jerks, two that I'd probably place into that category, and six nice guys; and nine 31+ winners. I'll definitely agree that Survivor needs more of a diversity in age; the high percentage of 20somethings really does make for a less unique cross-section of winners in that regard.

anthontherun wrote: I must say this has been fun, you're a great debater. I've been enjoying this.

I just started watching the show final 3 was amazing

JeffHere is the answer to the final 2/3 thing.For the final tribal, before a word is said - the jury do the final elimination - eliminate the goat !Then we have the final tribal with two worthy contenders answering the jury.Either way it works out the same, only the goat gets to vote on the jury !!fair, pure and simple.I think it would workAlan

mcporche wrote:

alkikodibear wrote: - It is true that many of the seasons have had a F1. Good choices have been made for who to stand up with in front of the jury. the exception being lillian who should have taken fairplay for the win

I actually doubt that. Lilian was too nice, and John would have killed her in front of the jury. He would have pointed out how strategic he was, while she did nothing, and he would have destroyed her with the whole thing about her being voted out and allowed back in the game.

So I have just been reading through the debate which has been very entertaining and I can't help but put my two cents in. I understand that the format of the show was changed to a final 3 because the producers were sick of an obvious loser being taken to the finals and thus a final three makes it more entertaining BUT I must say I much prefer a final 2 and here is why.1) Having a final two raises the stakes rather then makes it easier. It always becomes more tense watching the final episode and the final challenge wondering, "who is going to win this challenge and therefore have the ultimate power to choose who comes with them to the finals". In my opinion the final challenge was ALWAYS the most thrilling because you know who ever won it had the power. Love her or hate her you cannot deny that it was so exciting when Lillian beat Fairplay in that challenge or Rudy was there with a chance of getting to the finals. NOWADAYS, because it is a final three, the final challenge is pretty much like any other challenge and there is nothing special about it. It isn't as exciting because you know even though someone has immunity they still don't have the power to decide as the final three is still decided by majority vote (or fire making which is also not so thrilling).2) The main reason I don't like it as much is because, as has been discussed, someone is always ignored AND too much power is given to the jury which inevitably leads to power tripping jury members (ie. Corrine, Ozzy, etc.) This is for two reasons. Firstly, one person is always ignored OR the questions asked to them are not of the same fairness or standard as the questions asked to the other two. Often on member will just be ignored and not given a chance to argue themselves. The second thing is that with a final three they don't seem to have a closing statement which also means they don't have to opportunity to address issues raised in the final tribal council. How many times in recent Survivors have we seen jury members just shut a finalist down and then they don't have the chance to explain themselves?3) The final three was meant to combat against the "obvious vote" but I think, more than ever, jury members are voting for the obvious vote. More than ever I am getting the feeling that FTC isn't even worth it because people have just made up their minds before they even entered. This season was the WORST for that. The perfect example is Charlie's questioning. Asking Bob whether he enjoyed cuddling?! I think that is just insulting the other two and not giving them credit for the game they played. It was basically Charlie saying "it doesn't matter what you have to say Sugar or Susie, you will never get my vote." Earl is another good example of this. Had the hanging challenge been a challenge for the Final 2 then Dreamz would have had the chance to boot Earl (presuming Yao still came 4th) and therefore FORCE the jury to consider who they would vote for.Does anyone know why it was a final 2 for Fans Vs Favorites and not a final 3?Anyway, I wish they would go back to a final two after this season because sticking with a final three makes the final tribal council pretty superficial and ineffectual.thom

"I rated you up for actually having an ARGUMENT to back up you opinions!"Thanks! I'd do it for you if I knew how since you're the first F3 supporter I've come across who seems to have a reason beyond "It just makes a better winner, that's it!" (Doesn't mean you still aren't wrong of course) "I'm not convinced Earl would have lost whatever the challenge was, unless it was gymnastics."I've always sort of assumed that the final challenge would have been the same whether it was with three people or four, since the last few seasons the penultimate challenge is some sort of maze and the final challenge was endurance 15/17 seasons."My remembrance of this season is fuzzy, but I don't remember feeling he dominated."The thing about Brian that impressed me was that, more than any other player who came before him, even Richard--and 99% of the ones that followed, he had a long-term plan almost from the beginning. In fairness, you really couldn't do that these days with the number of twists they throw around, but even though he probably just barely misses the cut-off for sociopaths, strategically he's one of the best, IMHO."I still stick by my random shuffle "hurts" more than F3. If they had had F3's since the beginning, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but if they had done random shuffles since the beginning, GOOD players would have still been screwed."Absolutely. Both of them disrupt the game in totally different ways--as I said before, F3 reduces the likelihood of late-game power plays, but random shuffles pretty much make the things that happened before a moot point. Even though I liked the bulk of the Fang tribe more than most of Kota, they bumbled their way into a majority and were actually rewarded for playing poorly the first part of the game. At least it's not as bad as it was during Fiji, which had some sort of twist almost every other week to the point where Edgardo literally shrugged his shoulders and gave up trying to figure it out.My personal feeling is that multiple twists and changes to the format shows a lack of faith in their casting skills. Put a little more effort into casting 16-20 dynamic personalities and the show will turn out nicely one way or another. But then, that's a whole other issue altogether..."Nonetheless, they HAVE to be decided ahead of time. And, as you pointed out, Amanda/Parvati were F2, so they didn't NEED a tiebreaker for Fan's vs. Faves."But they had an eight-member jury (a completely stupid idea but as you probably guessed, I preferred that to a F3). I don't care what Jeff Probst says; nothing will convince me that Micronesia wasn't planned for F3 until James got evacuated, at which point they switched things up to fill out the episode count and not have any episodes without TCs and/or a finale with only one person voted out (which proved to be a bit of a bore in Outback, Panama, and China)."In all of the cases you cite, an even MARGINALLY effective FTC effort could have made it MUCH closer. Dreamz could have given Yau-Man the truck back. Cassandra (and Suzie) could have stood up for herself. Amanda and Sugar could have OWNED their play, and rubbed everyone's nose in it. Don't blame the failure of the F3 PARTICIPANTS on the F3 itself."But couldn't the same thing be said about a predictable final two? It all depends on the jury; Guatemala wanted Steph to get on her knees and beg for forgiveness. Ditto for Boston Rob in All-Stars. But in all honesty, I don't think it really changes anything whether it's F2 or F3 since 99% of jurors probably have their minds made up before the final TC."But there are a LOT of people who got to the end without really playing. Vee and Sandra WON. And Amanda, Becky, Sundra, Courtney, Danielle, Clay, and more. And I'd include Rafe in that list, too"Vee deserves more credit--I'm not a fan but she knew what she was doing (although the purple rock did her a huge favor in taking out Paschal, because Neleh was the only person in the final four she could've beaten). Amanda and Clay played too, just not successfully in the way that the juries of their season wanted. Ouch though, you're making me argue on behalf of Rafe, who I absolutely can't stand--he's one who, like Colby, I think played it almost perfectly up until the second-to-last day. Rafe had Steph picked out as his partner/goat from early on and was probably the best player of the season. Before you call me out on this and say that he might have won if it'd been for F3--I think it would've given us the first unanimous vote with Danni since Rafe would've only been the lesser of two evils if he faced off against Steph."For the final tribal, before a word is said - the jury do the final elimination - eliminate the goat !"I don't know if you watched Pirate Master, but they did this and it was an absolute disaster. The guy who had dominated every strategic aspect of the game got kicked out in a landslide and we ended up with two under-the-radar coattail riders for the finish. Besides, if six jury members vote between three (or even two if you allow them to participate in an immunity challenge), a tie is very possible. I'd rather see the jury have their chance to address the goat at the final TC (and as I said before, F3 makes it all too easy for the goat to be ignored, although in fairness, that mostly pertains to Becky at the Cook Islands finale).My one suggestion if they must continue with F3--please, have the final three each cast a vote for one of the other two in a marked envelope, and if there's a tie, for either first or second place, the person not involved in the tie's vote decides it. And include this during the finale itself! It still wouldn't be perfect, but at least we would have an idea of what to expect and the possibility of a tie would be avoided.Anyway, thom--obviously I agree with you and you brought up some great points, particularly about the once-dramatic final challenge now seeming like any other and that F3 makes it easier for votes to be decided before the final TC even begins. I won't deny that there have been situations in F2 scenarios like that, but it does seem more prevalent than ever with a F3, especially with Gabon and Fiji. Yul vs. Ozzy was a fluke IMHO--now that people know about F3 and are playing with it in mind, they won't be stupid enough to allow such an even-handed competitor face them in the end.

anthontherun wrote: "I rated you up for actually having an ARGUMENT to back up you opinions!"Thanks! I'd do it for you if I knew how since you're the first F3 supporter I've come across who seems to have a reason beyond "It just makes a better winner, that's it!" (Doesn't mean you still aren't wrong of course)

I like it....a little more uncertainty......but to add another wrinkle to it, each of the final 3 should have to cast a vote for one of the other two....

I like it....a little more uncertainty......but to add another wrinkle to it, each of the final 3 should have to cast a vote for one of the other two....

You might be right about that......but if it's a torn jury....it could be interesting....?? I'd like to see how it might play out once, anyhow...... If it's a close race.....?......the choice could be hard.....I think????

jtrentvv wrote: I'm not convinced Earl would have lost whatever the challenge was, unless it was gymnastics.