rcjr68 wrote: should be as was before the best 2 to make it to the end n jury votes on

alkikodibear wrote: the 2 times there have been a final 3 it may has well have been final 2.

mcporche wrote: I like the final 3 for one reason...It eliminates the possibility of a person keeping the most hated person around so that they get an easy win. For example, it would have been a smart plan to keep Randy around if you know there will be a final two, since he's easy to beat in front of the jury.But, with a final 3, you have to plan a bit better.

JTRentvv wrote:

alkikodibear wrote: the 2 times there have been a final 3 it may has well have been final 2.

And what about the several times when there was an F2? In MOST, it may as well have been F1.I don't mind you F2 people having opinions, but I'd rather your arguments have some basis in reality, or at least MAKE SENSE.

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

alkikodibear wrote: Or better yet perhaps as proof of your sound basis in reality you would like to make a chart for us.

nj10devils wrote: JTRentvv you said that final 3 makes it so that theres at least 2 good canidates and the votes are closer,

nj10devils wrote: but what happened in figi. If you "REVIEW" that final vote it was a complete shutout, that was really fun to watch wasn't it. If you ask me that was a Final 1.

nj10devils wrote: You also said that you like stats well I did some research and of the 13 seasons with final 2 only 6 of the people that won (final 3) immunity won their season, so when you say final 2 allows people to bring the goat to the finals and win easily your wrong. If your statement was completely true then I think those numbers would be a little different.NO MORE FINAL 3

JTRentvv wrote:

alkikodibear wrote: the 2 times there have been a final 3 it may has well have been final 2.

And what about the several times when there was an F2? In MOST, it may as well have been F1.I don't mind you F2 people having opinions, but I'd rather your arguments have some basis in reality, or at least MAKE SENSE.

Explorer2008 wrote: I think final 3's suck @$$!

alkikodibear wrote:

Explorer2008 - I think final 3's suck @$$! [/quote wrote: me too.

Same here

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/447251.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/447251.page GMT

mcporche wrote: I like the final 3 for one reason...It eliminates the possibility of a person keeping the most hated person around so that they get an easy win. For example, it would have been a smart plan to keep Randy around if you know there will be a final two, since he's easy to beat in front of the jury.But, with a final 3, you have to plan a bit better.

That is such a great point.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/447448.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/447448.page GMT

alkikodibear wrote: jtrentvvinitially you stated there has never been a final 2 because so many jurists vote for just one person.

I have no doubt that is what you READ, but if you go back and read what I WROTE which was

JTRentvv wrote: it WASN'T the BEST 2 that made it to the end, more often than not it was one of the best and a GOAT that stood NO chance.

as well as

JTRentvv wrote: And what about the several times when there was an F2? In MOST, it may as well have been F1.

To make sure the distinction I am trying to make is perfectly clear, "more often than not" and "most" NOT the same as "never".Or, to put it another way, "You have to read ALL of the words, not just the ones you like."And since I was also called on my "more often than not" by someone (I forget who, and it's not really relevant to this discussion), I went back and SHOWED who the goats were, and that 9 goats is certainly more often than not (4 non-Goats), and 9/13 in my book likely qualifies as "most".You also asked if I was high. No more or less so than any other day.Now, I have a question for you. It is not a leading or threatening question, just for my (and our audience's) informational benefit:alkikodibear, were you on the boards last season? I have to admit I don't remember your name, but you could have had a different nick, or I may just not be remembering you.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/447578.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/447578.page GMT

bandfour wrote: JT, Is that really you? *BAND*

Shhhh! Don't tell anyone!

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/447581.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/447581.page GMT

I_Hate_You88 wrote:

alkikodibear -

Explorer2008 - I think final 3's suck @$$! [/quote wrote: me too.

Same here

and sometimes I think that the world is flat, or that I am [the Deity of your choice wrote: 's gift to the opposite gender.Neither "thought" changes reality....

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/447583.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/447583.page GMT jtrentvvummm I did not respond to your goat post. I responded to your in cases of final 2 it may as well of been final 1 post. (the two posts in questions were next to each other) I was not on the boards last year. I started posting during big brother 10 (diva's daily threads) Having watched all the survivor seasons I don't know why I had never visited fans/forums. I guess I was just never in the mood to drivel before my golden retriever is sighing. I am late for her first walk. oh dear the long soulful glance. bad me.note to self: walk the pup before visiting the survivor boards.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/447684.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/447684.page GMT

JTRentvv wrote:

I_Hate_You88 wrote: [qu - te=alkikodibear -

Explorer2008 - I think final 3's suck @$$! [/quote wrote: me too.

Same here

and sometimes I think that the world is flat, or that I am [the Deity of your choice]'s gift to the opposite gender.Neither "thought" changes reality....

What the hell kind of response is that?I'm an atheist btw so no diety for u!

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/449792.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/449792.page GMT

I_Hate_You88 wrote: What the hell kind of response is that?

The (apparently obscure) point being:Just because the TWO of you THINK F3's suck, doesn't change the REALITY that they are better for the show, and the Jury.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/450242.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/450242.page GMT jtrentvvah- and since in an earlier posting you deified yourself as the REALITY god ( in capital letters no less) we lesser beings should shrivel back under our lump of clay in hopes we can morph from sentient beings to amebas. Ha! since you are a rather toothless god unable to effect a jihad I believe I will continue to express my opinions. Now- we did have an earlier miscommunication. being a budget analyst I thought in terms of historical votes cast in F2 situations. Before you deified yourself you were thinking in terms of goats and nongoats. take a look at MCPORCHE post. this person disagrees with me while raising a good point. no farm animals or deities involved.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/450519.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/450519.page GMT

alkikodibear wrote: take a look at MCPORCHE post. this person disagrees with me while raising a good point. no farm animals or deities involved.

Yes, MCPORCHE had a good point. The difference is purely terminology, however. His "most unliked person" (or whatever words he specifically used, this site SUCKS for referring to older messages) is often referred to as a "Goat" in shorthand by "all the cool kids". And someone who is drug along as a mindless supporting vote (I'm sure you can think of examples, like Clay) is a "Sheep".As for my deification, that was more in your reading than in my writing. "You" (not just you, alki, but everyone who reads anything I post) are WELCOME to have opinions. The point I was trying to make is such opinions are MUCH more meaningful if they have some supporting argument or evidence. The old, "Because I'm the [Parental Unit of your Choice], that's why" doesn't really care much weight when discussing Survivor, at least in my book.BUT, if you had been on the S16 boards, you would have seen me say (several times) I (almost always) write things that can be interpreted either a) Educationallyb) Humorouslyc) Confrontationallyd) all of the abovedepending on the needs of the reader. The advantage is, they respond in the manner that they are "expecting", and thus I don't have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what they are after and can continue the conversation with them the way they expect it to go.On the other hand, on the (ever so much more superior) S16 Boards we HAD sigs (signatures automagically appended at the bottom of every post). One of my standard sigs was: Not even I believe everything I say.Now, don't YOU feel silly???? I think we lose a LOT, not having sigs....

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/450718.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/450718.page GMT JtRentvvI can see that historically survivor has been very important to youTo me, survivor is entertainment. for my entertainment purposes I will stick to my preference for a F2. The last 3 standing is kind of anti-climatic Heads up. I also post to the threads for entertainment purposes.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/450882.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/450882.page GMT

JTRentvv wrote:

I_Hate_You88 wrote: W - at the hell kind of response is that?

The (apparently obscure) point being:Just because the TWO of you THINK F3's suck, doesn't change the REALITY that they are better for the show, and the Jury.

How are final 3s better? The only final 3 that was actualy good was in China, but that was only because it was such a great season anyways.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/451660.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/451660.page GMT Having three in the final really detracts from the show. It's such a shame that a show that gets you so involved each week ends without a real one-on-one competition.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/453078.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/453078.page GMT I'm glad that Charlie, Marcus, Randy and Corinne -- the FAKE Four--are not able to get the million because they have black hearts.They make Crystal look like an Angel. So I think the finally three should be Matty, Sugar and Ken. SHOULD.Bob doesn't deserve to be in the finally three. He has yet to actually play the game. Matty tried and just like Kathy to get an alliance going but couldn't find someone worthy. Who was worthy for him? That's hot it falls sometimes and for not getting an alliance he surely made it far. Sugar has voted for every single person who was out...meaning she has yet to have a throw away vote. Ken has made great moves to get people out and has made power moves.Those three should be in the finals...period. Bob and Suzie do not. They have no reason to be there other than bleeding hearts.I think, out of those three, that Sugar should win. But there are far too many angry people..

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/453126.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/453126.page GMT

I_Hate_You88 wrote: How are final 3s better? The only final 3 that was actualy good was in China, but that was only because it was such a great season anyways.

For the several reasons I have already posted, but I'll restate them more succinctly here, just for you.1) The "winner" can't win by default by just dragging the most unlikeable #2 along with them.2) It gives the jury (typically) at least TWO valid contenders to choose between.3) It keeps us from getting a Brian/Clay F TC.4) Unlike the US Presidential Election, it is WAY more likely to give us someone to vote/root FOR, rather than vote AGAINST.5) Choice is GOOD.6) Terry Dietz vs. Danielle. 'Nuff said.So, are there any CONCRETE reasons you like F2, or is it just because you LIKE it?

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/453817.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/453817.page GMT

ldquinn wrote: Having three in the final really detracts from the show. It's such a shame that a show that gets you so involved each week ends without a real one-on-one competition.

OK, HOW does it detract, exactly? The F3 is a one-on-one-on-one competition, which often QUICKLY devolves into a one-on-one competition. AND results in "better, more qualified" winners. Look at Brian Hydek(sp?) for example....

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/453833.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/453833.page GMT There is one main reason the F2 is better. It provides a chance for the other F3 players to knock off the winner-to-be. For example, in Fiji, it would have been exciting to see Dreamz and Cassandra to try to win final immunity and knock off Earl. This season, if the f3 is sugar, susie, and matty, which I think it will be, the final immunity challenge would at least give a chance to sugar and susie to knock off matty.Now I know this argument is completely countered by the f3 in cook islands, where either yul or ozzy would have killed becky in the jury. However, I feel that it should be f2 because it provides a chance to the underdogs, and it provides much more excitement.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/453887.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/453887.page GMT Also, there are going to be dud final TCs with both F2s and F3s. That's just the way it is.We have already seen 2 dud F3s, (China and Fiji), and possibly one more this season, if Sugar and Susie make the F3. That's 3/4, or 75%.3/4 of the F2 seasons have not had dud TC's, I would say only about a quarter of them have been duds.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/453898.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/453898.page GMT

j_jammer wrote: Bob doesn't deserve to be in the finally three. He has yet to actually play the game.

Are you watching the same season the rest of us are?Bob, the guy who made not one, but TWO (non-stick) immunity Idols, AND sold them? THAT Bob doesn't deserve to be in the finally three?Or are you talking about the Bob that won the last FOUR challenges, as a HUGE underdog? THAT Bob doesn't deserve to be in the finally three?The Bob that single-handedly made the moves that set up the cracks in the Fang Alliance, and split up Kenny and Crystal?THAT'S the Bob that has yet to actually play the game? Or is there a DIFFERENT Bob playing this season, that I haven't seen?

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454243.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454243.page GMT He was never the underdog.He didn't make any moves that he was sure about. If it were not for Sugar he wouldn't have done the first immunity idol thing.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454256.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454256.page GMT

zekem834 wrote: Also, there are going to be dud final TCs with both F2s and F3s. That's just the way it is.We have already seen 2 dud F3s, (China and Fiji), and possibly one more this season, if Sugar and Susie make the F3. That's 3/4, or 75%.

Let's not count our Idol's before they are Hidden, shall we? And I disagree that China was a dud. Amanda's PERFORMANCE was a Dud, but she has shown she can Dud up an F2, also. And the Fiji F3 was AT LEAST as good as any Fiji F2 was going to be. So, 0/3 for dud F3's. And subtract one for the Aras/Danielle F2 which Terry SHOULD have been in, so that makes it -1/3 of the F3's have been duds.

zekem834 wrote: 3/4 of the F2 seasons have not had dud TC's, I would say only about a quarter of them have been duds.

I dispute this assertion, also.In an earlier post in this thread, I LISTED the 13 F2's, and by my count, 9/13 were duds. It's been a while since I took statistics, so I guess 9/13 COULD be "only about a quarter", but I'd like to see you take the list and assign Dud/Not Dud to each season, rather than just waving your hands to support your assertion. And, in MY book, the Brian/Clay F2 was a DOUBLE Dud, so it should count DOUBLE.Or, you are WELCOME to say your OPINION is F2's are better then F3's, but pronouncing it as fact will only perpetuate this discussion, because I will CONTINUE to demand you provide facts and reasoned analysis, which you CAN'T.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454276.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454276.page GMT

j_jammer wrote: He was never the underdog.

Wow. Just Wow.Being down 3 to 5, then 2 to 5, then ONE to 5 doesn't count as being an underdog?Now I'm not sure whether the difference is in the show we are viewing, or the dictionary we are using.Please enlighten me as to where my definition of "underdog" is in error, if you would.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454286.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454286.page GMT

j_jammer wrote: He didn't make any moves that he was sure about. If it were not for Sugar he wouldn't have done the first immunity idol thing.

Yes, the show has been FULL of Jury members each season thet only made moves they were "sure" about.Bob, in his "underdog" status, had to MAKE his luck, so he had to make moves that were UNSURE, but MIGHT improve his position. Have Kenny and Crystal done the same? No. And so we got the episode we got yesterday.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454296.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454296.page GMT

JTRentvv wrote:

j_jammer wrote: He was never the underdog.

Wow. Just Wow.Being down 3 to 5, then 2 to 5, then ONE to 5 doesn't count as being an underdog?Now I'm not sure whether the difference is in the show we are viewing, or the dictionary we are using.Please enlighten me as to where my definition of "underdog" is in error, if you would.

Underdog would mean not a chance in hell.He had more than a chance in hell....they liked him. They liked him well enough that Sugar protected him. No underdog gets protection. He's not an underdog.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454300.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454300.page GMT

JTRentvv wrote:

j_jammer wrote: He didn't make any moves that he was sure about. If it were not for Sugar he wouldn't have done the first immunity idol thing.

Yes, the show has been FULL of Jury members each season thet only made moves they were "sure" about.Bob, in his "underdog" status, had to MAKE his luck, so he had to make moves that were UNSURE, but MIGHT improve his position. Have Kenny and Crystal done the same? No. And so we got the episode we got yesterday.

Bob doesn't think of the consequences of his actions. Ken and everyone else does. he just does what is right for him at the moment.Flawed because he was mad that Sugar laughed at Randy. He wasn't mad at her, he was mad at how he conducted himself to get where he now was. If he were thinking of consequences he wouldn't have dealt with Kenny how he is dealing with him.If he was playing the game he'd tell Kenny that's the way the cookie crumbles get over it. But he hasn't and won't because he's not thinking ahead. He's enjoying the moment.Bob is a great guy, just not a great player. You're right he's won the challenges and rewards but he has not done right with those things to make sure he is in the final three.The final challenge will be endurance and he can't beat out Matty.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454312.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454312.page GMT

j_jammer wrote: Underdog would mean not a chance in hell.He had more than a chance in hell....they liked him. They liked him well enough that Sugar protected him. No underdog gets protection. He's not an underdog.

OK, now we are finally getting somewhere.No, "not a chance in hell" means "not a chance in hell", at least in MY dictionary. Dead Man Walking (like Randy), to use another phrase.I always thought an "underdog" was anyone (or thing) that had a less than 50% probability of succeeding, but I checkedhttp:// www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/ underdog (sorry for the spaces)and I see 1 : a loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest 2 : a victim of injustice or persecution In MY Humble Interpretation, Bob fits BOTH definitions, and definition 1 is not far from mine. Neither references a magnitude of chance, just "predicted loser".Could you please cite a credible reference to support "your" definition? I would appreciate it. Always looking to learn new things.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454319.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454319.page GMT

There is one main reason the F2 is better. It provides a chance for the other F3 players to knock off the winner-to-be. For example, in Fiji, it would have been exciting to see Dreamz and Cassandra to try to win final immunity and knock off Earl.

This is so true, if figi was a F2 the final tribal would have actually have been good. There is no way that anyone can say this wasn't a dud final tribal the vote was 9-0-0. Like you said a F2 would have made this so much better and cassandra and dreamz would have been close.I also don't undesrtand one thing JTRentvv how is a F2 a dud just because the 3rd place finisher would have beat the 2nd, I still don't see what your trying to say.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454340.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454340.page GMT

j_jammer wrote: Bob doesn't think of the consequences of his actions. Ken and everyone else does. he just does what is right for him at the moment.Flawed because he was mad that Sugar laughed at Randy. He wasn't mad at her, he was mad at how he conducted himself to get where he now was. If he were thinking of consequences he wouldn't have dealt with Kenny how he is dealing with him....The final challenge will be endurance and he can't beat out Matty.

No, your first two paragraphs are YOUR INTERPRETATION of his play. And You think F3 is boring, I shudder to think of an ENTIRE SEASON of players who play the way you describe.MY interpretations is Bob saw that Randy was gone no matter what, so Bob decided to have a little fun (and gave up a potentially game changing tool in the process). Bob was FINE with what BOB did, but he didn't appreciate everyone ELSE kicking Randy when Randy was down. Likely Randy and Bob will have a big laugh out of it, when they get a chance. But the video we saw doesn't give any more support to your interpretation than it does to mine.And again, it is not right for you to ASSUME Matty makes it to the Final, and DOESN'T take Bob. Unless you have inside information, we haven't seen any information to support that. There is still a LOT of game to play.And in ANY case, Bob is STILL 3 (or MORE) positions better than he WAS, due to his PLAY. Bob was SUPPOSED to go the week Randy did, if you remember or review the episode.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454349.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454349.page GMT

nj10devils wrote: Like you said a F2 would have made this so much better and cassandra and dreamz would have been close.I also don't undesrtand one thing JTRentvv how is a F2 a dud just because the 3rd place finisher would have beat the 2nd, I still don't see what your trying to say.

Again, you ASSUME Cassandra and Dreamz. You have no basis for this.And an F2 is a dud NOT because the 3rd place would have beaten the 2nd, it is a dud because the F2 wasn't WORTHY of sitting in that spot, so it was OBVIOUS who the Jury was going to vote for.As a counter example, Colby in Australia COULD have taken Kieth, and Colby would have won 7-0-ish. But Colby took Tina, and NO ONE knew who was going to win until Jeff read the last vote. Most I would guess STILL though Colby would win.But did you think Matt would beat Jenna? Danielle beat Aras?

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454375.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454375.page GMT Ok now I understand what your trying to say, I still think F2 is better though it goes with the tradition of survivor and they allow the person who won the challenge to have a much bigger advantage (which I feel they should)

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454410.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454410.page GMT

JTRentvv wrote:

j_jammer wrote: Under - og would mean not a chance in hell.He had more than a chance in hell....they liked him. They liked him well enough that Sugar protected him. No underdog gets protection. He's not an underdog.

OK, now we are finally getting somewhere.No, "not a chance in hell" means "not a chance in hell", at least in MY dictionary. Dead Man Walking (like Randy), to use another phrase.I always thought an "underdog" was anyone (or thing) that had a less than 50% probability of succeeding, but I checkedhttp:// www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/ underdog (sorry for the spaces)and I see 1 : a loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest 2 : a victim of injustice or persecution In MY Humble Interpretation, Bob fits BOTH definitions, and definition 1 is not far from mine. Neither references a magnitude of chance, just "predicted loser".Could you please cite a credible reference to support "your" definition? I would appreciate it. Always looking to learn new things.

When has he been mistreated? Never.When has he been a loser? Never.He was never part of the Onion Alliance. If there is an Underdog it's Matty since the beginning. But people fail to see those that look strong as an underdog while totally underestimating those that are not strong...just like Kenny did with Bob. It was apparent Bob was going to win challenges but they just didn't see it because he's old. That's the problem....you don't think someone can't do something until they actually don't.Matty is the one that has no one with him. Supposedly there's Suzie. Even Sugar was going to vote him out because he's a threat....I don't see how he is other than how well he is liked by everyone on the Jury.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454437.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454437.page GMT

nj10devils wrote: Ok now I understand what your trying to say,

Good. Sorry it took me so long to get my point across.

nj10devils wrote: I still think F2 is better though it goes with the tradition of survivor and they allow the person who won the challenge to have a much bigger advantage (which I feel they should)

And you are WELCOME to think that way. And thank you for providing a reason for your thinking.My PERSONAL desire is that, each IC, the top HALF (rounded down, so top 2 out of 5) are immune. This would serve to keep GOOD players (like Matty) in the game longer, and weed out the non-contributing coattail riders (Crystal) sooner.But then, we aren't the producers....

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454449.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454449.page GMT

JTRentvv wrote:

j_jammer wrote: Bob doesn't think of the consequences of his actions. Ken and everyone else does. he just does what is right for him at the moment.Flawed because he was mad that Sugar laughed at Randy. He wasn't mad at her, he was mad at how he conducted himself to get where he now was. If he were thinking of consequences he wouldn't have dealt with Kenny how he is dealing with him....The final challenge will be endurance and he can't beat out Matty.

No, your first two paragraphs are YOUR INTERPRETATION of his play. And You think F3 is boring, I shudder to think of an ENTIRE SEASON of players who play the way you describe.MY interpretations is Bob saw that Randy was gone no matter what, so Bob decided to have a little fun (and gave up a potentially game changing tool in the process). Bob was FINE with what BOB did, but he didn't appreciate everyone ELSE kicking Randy when Randy was down. Likely Randy and Bob will have a big laugh out of it, when they get a chance. But the video we saw doesn't give any more support to your interpretation than it does to mine.And again, it is not right for you to ASSUME Matty makes it to the Final, and DOESN'T take Bob. Unless you have inside information, we haven't seen any information to support that. There is still a LOT of game to play.And in ANY case, Bob is STILL 3 (or MORE) positions better than he WAS, due to his PLAY. Bob was SUPPOSED to go the week Randy did, if you remember or review the episode.

It is right for me to assume. All you do when you watch Survivor is assume....even the players do that. Some are just better at it than others.I said nothing about final three. I just don't think Bob is going to be a part of it. And even if he is he can't win.His play was not a play until he talked to Sugar. She helped him gain that idea. He wouldn't have done it had he not talked to her anyway. He was fine being picked off one by one because he couldn't figure a way out.If he was ok with what he did he would have been able to look at Randy and laugh a little. But he couldn't which means he wasn't ok with it and that is why he was so upset. It has nothing to do with Sugar laughing. He was mad at himself for doing something he probably thought he wouldn't to get further in the game.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454453.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454453.page GMT

j_jammer wrote: When has he been mistreated? Never.When has he been a loser? Never.He was never part of the Onion Alliance.

Those definitions are distinct. But I'd say he was unjustly targetted (initially), but they have always (so far) found someone else to actually pull the trigger on.As for loser, it says "loser OR predicted loser" [emphasis mine]. The Filthy Fang's have "predicted" Bob as the "loser" (initial target of the vote) for the last three weeks, and he has had to totally rebuild his "alliance" every week.Bob was the 5th layer of the Onion Alliance. And he is STILL (at least) 5th place.

j_jammer wrote: If there is an Underdog it's Matty since the beginning.

Matty is welcome to be an underdog, also. The bottom HALF of the "pecking order" can be considered underdogs, by my definition. Likely only one person a SEASON,by yours.

j_jammer wrote: But people fail to see those that look strong as an underdog while totally underestimating those that are not strong...just like Kenny did with Bob. It was apparent Bob was going to win challenges but they just didn't see it because he's old.

Sorry, are you saying Bob is not strong, or that he IS strong?

j_jammer wrote: That's the problem....you don't think someone can't do something until they actually don't.

And here is where you lost me. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

j_jammer wrote: Matty is the one that has no one with him. Supposedly there's Suzie. Even Sugar was going to vote him out because he's a threat....I don't see how he is other than how well he is liked by everyone on the Jury.

He's a threat to "run the table", i.e., win all the rest of the immunity challenges, like Kelly Wiggleworth and Tom (among others) did.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454499.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454499.page GMT

j_jammer wrote: It is right for me to assume. All you do when you watch Survivor is assume....even the players do that. Some are just better at it than others.

No, it ISN'T "right", it is just predictable. And I DON'T assume when I watch Survivor. But you are right in that a LOT of the players do. that is what allowed Kenny to get Sugar to turn on Ace. In fact, I'd go so far as to say MOST people get confused between what they KNOW and what they BELIEVE (or assume). I just hope I get a lot of you "assumers" on the island when I get there. Because you will have NO IDEA what I am doing to you, and at least a few will THANK me for voting them off when I do, or even VOLUNTEER to get voted off in stead of me.But can I ask you to Google "Occam's Razor"? I suggest it would be good for you to understand the principle.

j_jammer wrote: I said nothing about final three. I just don't think Bob is going to be a part of it. And even if he is he can't win.

Assumption, based on interpretation.

j_jammer wrote: His play was not a play until he talked to Sugar. She helped him gain that idea. He wouldn't have done it had he not talked to her anyway. He was fine being picked off one by one because he couldn't figure a way out.

Not exactly sure which idea you are talking about, but that's OK. If you mean the Randy thing, it made NO difference in them getting picked off one by one, but it DID form a side-alliance between Bob and Sugar that came to fruition this week. AND BOB HASN'T been "picked off one by one", so far.Have you ever calculated how many HOURS of video they shoot to create the 42 minutes of show we see each week? And then factored in the fact that they are trying to tell a compelling STORY, so that they get to do it all again next season, rather than being canceled due to boredom? For example the BobDawg CasaDelCharmin wine episode didn't go down exactly as it was portrayed, according to BobDawg himself. But that's OK, because we wer entertained.

j_jammer wrote: If he was ok with what he did he would have been able to look at Randy and laugh a little. But he couldn't which means he wasn't ok with it and that is why he was so upset. It has nothing to do with Sugar laughing. He was mad at himself for doing something he probably thought he wouldn't to get further in the game.

Again, interpretation. I saw Bob smile a little Mona Lisa smile at TC, until everyone started snickering like little schoolgirls, and he may well have looked Randy in the eye (like Bob did when he handed Randy the Idol), but we only get the 42 minute story they want to tell us, to justify the winner. As an example, I have been saying for WEEKS that Kenny's self-aggrandizing "strategy" comments were setting him up for a big fall, and we saw that again this week.

j_jammer wrote: He was mad at himself for doing something he probably thought he wouldn't to get further in the game.

Again, your interpretation of YOUR reaction. But fine, if YOU want to limit the tools you can use to oplay the game, I RELISH the opportunity to play against you, because NOTHING is out of play for MY game, except those things specifically forbidden in the rules. If you want to bring a pocket knife to a machine-gun fight, more power to you. But don't be surprised when you lose. I think Bob knew what it was going to take to WIN, and I think he is using every tool he has available, as they BECOME available. At least that is MY interpretation, which again is no less supported by the video we have seen than yours.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454552.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/454552.page GMT

jtrentvv wrote: He's a threat to "run the table", i.e., win all the rest of the immunity challenges, like Kelly Wiggleworth and Tom (among others) did.

There are only two left.How many individual ones has he won? None.how many have Bob won? Three. (I believe).Matty has never been a threat. That accusation is hollow and crap.It was apparent that Bob was a threat via that challenges that showed his skill...such as when they did the slingshot. From that moment he was a threat...and it was the fault of everyone for not seeing it. He can't be an underdog. He may have gone and he may have not....we don't know. He did stick around and he has for a while and no one has complained about him. They have, however, said things about Matty.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/455944.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/455944.page GMT

jtrentvv wrote: Again, your interpretation of YOUR reaction. But fine, if YOU want to limit the tools you can use to oplay the game, I RELISH the opportunity to play against you, because NOTHING is out of play for MY game, except those things specifically forbidden in the rules. If you want to bring a pocket knife to a machine-gun fight, more power to you. But don't be surprised when you lose. I think Bob knew what it was going to take to WIN, and I think he is using every tool he has available, as they BECOME available. At least that is MY interpretation, which again is no less supported by the video we have seen than yours.

You're such a hypocrite. Nothing you say is fact and is all assumption.Don't like it, don't do it yourself.And your interpretation is an assumption. No better than anyone else's. I don't think he knows what the hell he is doing. He would be in control if he did. He's like a leaf on the water, right now.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/455951.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/455951.page GMT

alkikodibear wrote: the 2 times there have been a final 3 it may has well have been final 2.

And on one occassion, it could have been a final one. Let's not forget Earl talking all the votes from Dreamz and, I forget her name, Cassandra?

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/456040.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/456040.page GMT Matty is an absolute immunity threat. He is always in blisteringly close second place to whoever wins. (And yeah, he has won immunity; he saved himself at the tribal split on his own power, and his shooting in slingshot golf won his team reward)He hasn't won these individual immunities, but it doesn't mean he's not damn good at the challenges. He is *just barely* losing to Ken and Bob, and that means any time they slip, he can surge ahead. If you were actually watching his performance in any of the challenges and you think he's crap, get your eyes checked.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/456130.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/456130.page GMT

jtrentvv wrote:

nj10devils wrote: B - t did you think Matt would beat Jenna? Danielle beat Aras?

I think Danielle would have beat Aras had she lost the final immunity challenge. Here win of II ensured her loss.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/456191.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/456191.page GMT [quote=jtrentvv1) The "winner" can't win by default by just dragging the most unlikeable #2 along with them.2) It gives the jury (typically) at least TWO valid contenders to choose between.3) It keeps us from getting a Brian/Clay F TC.4) Unlike the US Presidential Election, it is WAY more likely to give us someone to vote/root FOR, rather than vote AGAINST.5) Choice is GOOD.6) Terry Dietz vs. Danielle. 'Nuff said.So, are there any CONCRETE reasons you like F2, or is it just because you LIKE it?

Your arguments are based to much on your own opinion of participants. First of all survivor is a risk/reward game so if everyone is betting on taking the most hated person to the finals then it is their own fault for allowing that to happen. This is a way to win, but it is a much bigger gamble than bringing your best buddy in the game. Also (even if you hate to admit it) every single participant has fans it just depends on whether you are one of them. So the whole argument of someone to root for is stupid. Also what is wrong with Danielle? She played a great game if you actually went back and looked at her choices and alliances.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/456200.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/456200.page GMT You are right exept for the fact that Stephenie would have beaten Rafe.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/457421.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/457421.page GMT

mrsurvivor9 wrote: You are right exept for the fact that Stephenie would have beaten Rafe.

I don't think so. You forget that everyone loved Rafe, and Stephenie took much more heat than he did for backstabbing. Rafe would have been for sure had Lidia, Judd, Jamie, Danni, surprisingly even Cindy's vote. The only vote Steph would for sure have would be Bobby-John.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/457501.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/457501.page GMT

alkikodibear wrote: the 2 times there have been a final 3 it may has well have been final 2. ozzie and Yul were the only vote getters becky just looked ontodd & blondie (forgot name) only got votes with amanda just looking on. I wish it were a final 2 with susie and sugar. I would love to see who the jury hates more. I know I know petty of me.

I HATE FINAL 3!!!! That is one reason why I hate the final 3.The third person doesn't really matter.Then you get 3 ANSWERS TO EACH QUESTION.The third perons WHO CARES WHAT HE/SHE SAYS lol.If it is Sugar and Susie I would think Sugar takes that.Most of the time I forget Susie is in the game. BUT I AGREE FINAL 3 HAS TO GO. Steve

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/457800.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/457800.page GMT i think they all deserve to be there. what a bunch of bitter ppl on the jury. it's like this every year ppl pissed off like they wouldn't have lied cheated backstabbed to get to the end.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/460572.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/460572.page GMT Gross. Bob DID NOTHING.Sugar had a hand in EVERYTHING. He sat there and could't have an opinion.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/460650.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/460650.page GMT Typically I don't like the jury voting at the end, Atleast with 3. But that's 'cause the best survivor doesn't usually win But in my opinion it worked out this time. Bob played a great game

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/460868.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/460868.page GMT He didn't play the game.....ha. Sugar got him there. Sugar voted for every single person that was out (except Marcus and a few before). None of her votes were throw a ways and no one ever voted for her....Bob lied at the end...big time. He said that he was an honorable person...but when he said he accepted the out he should have kept that true. He isn't honorable after that move.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/460887.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/460887.page GMT I hate final 3!! Bob wouldn't have made the final two for sure if they had kept the final two format. Would have been between Suzie and Sugar.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461186.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461186.page GMT

hoping2swing wrote: I hate final 3!! Bob wouldn't have made the final two for sure if they had kept the final two format. Would have been between Suzie and Sugar.

He wouldn't have made the final two "for sure"? How did you determine this, exactly? Considering the fact that the final immunity challenge in each season (aside from this one) is endurance-based, and considering how dominant Bob was in most physical challenges throughout the season, how can you be so sure he wouldn't have won final immunity?Honestly, if it'd been a final two Bob still probably would have won. He would've beaten Sugar or Susie in a final two.And if it had been a final two between Susie and Sugar, Susie would have won, most likely. Sugar was a decent strategist, but she had aroused so much anger from the jurors that there was no way she was going to win. And I, for one, prefer seeing a kind old dude with a great attitude and good physical abilities like Bob win over a complete do-nothing like Susie any day. At least Bob was entertaining.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461222.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461222.page GMT Final 3 is better than a final 2 most of the time (but it depends on the season) for all the reasons jtrentvv gave. Sometimes Survivor chooses a final 3 even when the winner is a foregone conclusion because the audience would approve of the winner – Earl, but most of the time, it prevents the Yul-Ozzy-Becky scenario. There’s no way any one can argue F3 was worse there. Whether Yul or Ozzy won the final immunity in a F2, each would have taken Becky for an anticlimactic win whereas Yul vs. Ozzy head-to-head in the finals was one of the best finals ever. Even though you knew Becky wasn’t going to get a vote, a Yul vs. Ozzy final was not possible without her being there in a F3. For the people who keep saying the third person doesn’t matter, well, they matter because they put the two who do matter there. Otherwise the F2 would far more likely be the person who doesn’t matter anyway against only one who does matter instead of two.If tonight had been a F2 and say Susie won the last challenge like she did, it would have been Susie winning the whole thing against Sugar. Instead audience favorite Bob and Sugar got to be in the finals with one of them winning.Like jtrentvv said, in all the F2 seasons, whenever the #3 player would have been more interesting in the finals than (just) one of the final two, an F3 is better.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461228.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461228.page GMT

sadistikk wrote:

hoping2swing wrote: I hate final 3!! Bob wouldn't have made the final two for sure if they had kept the final two format. Would have been between Suzie and Sugar.

He wouldn't have made the final two "for sure"? How did you determine this, exactly? Considering the fact that the final immunity challenge in each season (aside from this one) is endurance-based, and considering how dominant Bob was in most physical challenges throughout the season, how can you be so sure he wouldn't have won final immunity?Honestly, if it'd been a final two Bob still probably would have won. He would've beaten Sugar or Susie in a final two.And if it had been a final two between Susie and Sugar, Susie would have won, most likely. Sugar was a decent strategist, but she had aroused so much anger from the jurors that there was no way she was going to win. And I, for one, prefer seeing a kind old dude with a great attitude and good physical abilities like Bob win over a complete do-nothing like Susie any day. At least Bob was entertaining.

Bob didn't do any deciding. He blamed everyone for the votes and didn't take responsibility for what he had done....especially not owning up to his promise to Kenny. He should have said yes he lied and yes he didn't follow through.Pride he had more so than Sugar.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461249.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461249.page GMT

zvelf wrote: Final 3 is better than a final 2 most of the time (but it depends on the season) for all the reasons jtrentvv gave. Sometimes Survivor chooses a final 3 even when the winner is a foregone conclusion because the audience would approve of the winner – Earl, but most of the time, it prevents the Yul-Ozzy-Becky scenario. There’s no way any one can argue F3 was worse there. Whether Yul or Ozzy won the final immunity in a F2, each would have taken Becky for an anticlimactic win whereas Yul vs. Ozzy head-to-head in the finals was one of the best finals ever. Even though you knew Becky wasn’t going to get a vote, a Yul vs. Ozzy final was not possible without her being there in a F3. For the people who keep saying the third person doesn’t matter, well, they matter because they put the two who do matter there. Otherwise the F2 would far more likely be the person who doesn’t matter anyway against only one who does matter instead of two.If tonight had been a F2 and say Susie won the last challenge like she did, it would have been Susie winning the whole thing against Sugar. Instead audience favorite Bob and Sugar got to be in the finals with one of them winning.Like jtrentvv said, in all the F2 seasons, whenever the #3 player would have been more interesting in the finals than (just) one of the final two, an F3 is better.

Quoted for truth!The Yul-Ozzy-Becky final should be the ultimate proof that the Final 3 is superior to the Final 2. Would anyone really have wanted to watch Yul-Becky or Ozzy-Becky over Yul and Ozzy together in the finals? Yes, having a final three often just boils down to a Final 2, like in this case, but as already said, it DOES avoid situations where the best two players don't make the finals due to the final immunity challenge.And a truly great strategist, like Earl from Fiji, can still manipulate things to reach the Final 3 without true competition. Meanwhile, with a Final 2, a great strategist who's played a masterful game up to that point is often eliminated if they don't win final immunity - Rob C. and Cirie in Micronesia being two examples who spring to mind.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461250.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461250.page GMT I wish there had been a final three in the Fans v. Favorites season--I think Cerie might have won.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461258.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461258.page GMT

j_jammer wrote: Bob didn't do any deciding. He blamed everyone for the votes and didn't take responsibility for what he had done....especially not owning up to his promise to Kenny. He should have said yes he lied and yes he didn't follow through.Pride he had more so than Sugar.

... what's your point, exactly? Bob won, so he didn't have to do anything he didn't do. He could've done BETTER in front of the jury, yes, but he won in the end. Regardless, I don't understand what this has to do with comparing the final two and final three.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461259.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461259.page GMT

sadistikk wrote:

j_jammer wrote: Bob didn't do any deciding. He blamed everyone for the votes and didn't take responsibility for what he had done....especially not owning up to his promise to Kenny. He should have said yes he lied and yes he didn't follow through.Pride he had more so than Sugar.

... what's your point, exactly? Bob won, so he didn't have to do anything he didn't do. He could've done BETTER in front of the jury, yes, but he won in the end. Regardless, I don't understand what this has to do with comparing the final two and final three.

He lied stating he was an honorable person. Three is better....but Sugar is now in the should have won category...along with many others. This is the first time the entire jury was vindictive and immature.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461269.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461269.page GMT

j_jammer wrote: He lied stating he was an honorable person. Three is better....but Sugar is now in the should have won category...along with many others. This is the first time the entire jury was vindictive and immature.

You're wrong. If Sugar "should have won," she would have won. She lost, therefore she wasn't worthy of winning. Period.I've already gone over this in other threads, but essentially she turned around and handed Bob or Matty the win on a silver platter the moment she voted out Crystal. She couldn't beat either of them. She knew she couldn't beat them, and said so herself. And yet she aligned herself with them and took them further into the game, while booting people who she should've taken to the jury with her.If she'd deserved to win, she would've put her emotions aside and taken out Bob and Matty a long time ago, taking Crystal and Susie to the finals. The ex-Kota's would hate all three - Crystal and Susie, though, were the ones who turned on them and destroyed their alliance, while aside from Corinne they really didn't have a huge problem with Sugar. Even Randy admitted Sugar played the game well, and said he might've voted for her before tribal council.Which brings me to her downright awful tribal council performance, perhaps one of the worst in Survivor history (maybe second to Amanda's pitiful attempts in China). Charlie asked her why he should vote for her - her answer? "Well, I don't necessarily think you should... but it would be nice!" Great answer. Great argument.And on top of that, she snubbed Randy, and followed it up by looking like a total sap when she started crying about voting out Ken. She completely aced the guy out, made the "mastermind" look like a strategic nitwit, and her reaction was to CRY about it!? She should be claiming to be the greatest Survivor strategist of all time, and instead she's CRYING about making a move that took her further into the game? Give me a break.At least Bob showed backbone. He stood up to any questions and answered them straight. Was he completely honest throughout the game? Nope. But he owned up to his gameplay, admitted his mistakes, and said straight up that he deserved to win the million. I respect that more than Sugar's crying and making excuses.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461309.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461309.page GMT He was a jerk and he likes to be honest so he should appreciate her honesty. She wasn't going to kiss his butt like Bob. Bob showed ZERO backbone. He couldn't own up to any mistake. Everything he did he couldn't say sorry for. At least Sugar said sorry for her mistakes.And Charlie is a poor example. He couldn't vote different from his friends if you offered him a Million dollars. And you can't see past your dislike for her. hahaha.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461318.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461318.page GMT

j_jammer wrote: He was a jerk and he likes to be honest so he should appreciate her honesty. She wasn't going to kiss his butt like Bob. Bob showed ZERO backbone. He couldn't own up to any mistake. Everything he did he couldn't say sorry for. At least Sugar said sorry for her mistakes.And Charlie is a poor example. He couldn't vote different from his friends if you offered him a Million dollars. And you can't see past your dislike for her. hahaha.

What are you talking about? Honestly, I liked Sugar and would've liked to have seen her win, just like I enjoyed watching Parvati win last season. She was a good strategic player, and seems like a really nice person - but she blew the game in the home stretch.I disagree that Bob didn't show backbone. He should've apologized to Ken for not letting him victimize him!? I guess it would go something like this:"Kenny, I'm so sorry for keeping my immunity idol from you. What I should've done is given it to you, along with a sharpened knife, and turned my back so you could stab me mercilessly. I should've gone along blindly like the rest of the sheep, and let you blindside and embarrass me just like Erik last season."Give me a break. Bob is in the game to win for himself, not to help Ken get farther.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461345.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461345.page GMT He showed no backbone.He IS THE ONE that screwed Randy over. He did it. It was his idea to do that unnecessary thing and then he got mad at Sugar? He can't take responsibility for his own actions. His actions. He should have said yeah I lied to you kenny. You lied to me. We are even. He has to blame someone else. The only reason he won is because they didn't want to give it to Sugar. He didn't win because he deserved it. This is the first time someone's won to spite someone else. Did you see Corinne Jump for the money Bob won? This jury is the most spiteful of all juries.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461391.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461391.page GMT

j_jammer wrote: He showed no backbone.He IS THE ONE that screwed Randy over. He did it. It was his idea to do that unnecessary thing and then he got mad at Sugar? He can't take responsibility for his own actions. His actions. He should have said yeah I lied to you kenny. You lied to me. We are even. He has to blame someone else. The only reason he won is because they didn't want to give it to Sugar. He didn't win because he deserved it. This is the first time someone's won to spite someone else. Did you see Corinne Jump for the money Bob won? This jury is the most spiteful of all juries.

On the contrary, I think he showed plenty of backbone in the way he handled the jury, but I've already gone over this.How was giving Randy the fake idol Bob's idea? As I remember it, he showed it to Sugar. Sugar told him that if he gave it to Randy and told him it was real, she would align with him and do what she could to get him further in the game. Since Bob was already in the minority, he had nothing to lose by doing it - from what we saw, he was just looking for a way to get further in the game.And at the final tribal council, how did he not own up to giving Randy the idol? He said, "Yeah, I gave it to you - that wasn't my original plan for the idol, but I had to give it to you to get further in the game. I gave it to you for strategic reasons." Then he amended it by saying "But I didn't think it was appropriate the way you were laughed at over it, and I'm sorry for doing it."In other words, he owned up to making the decision to do it, and admits he's sorry for it. How is that "not taking responsibility"? By definition, he took responsibility by admitting that he did it and apologizing. He wasn't the one laughing hysterically at Randy, so he DOES still have a right to feel bad for the guy, doesn't he?And yes, "I lied to you, you lied to me, get over it" was essentially what Bob said to Ken when asked about the immunity deal. He admitted he made the deal with Ken. He admitted that when he found out Ken was about to backstab him, he broke his word. He ADMITTED that. He admitted he broke the deal. What more do you want, a written confession and letter of apology? He owned up to that betrayal, and readily admitted that he didn't fulfill the deal and had no intention of doing so. That's backbone, in my opinion. What more do you want from the guy? Who else are you implying he blamed for it? He flat-out admitted that he broke the deal.And as for Sugar, if she'd truly deserved the win, SOMEONE would've voted for her - maybe not the Kota 4, but she should've gotten more votes than Susie. She obviously blew everyone off at the final tribal council, and barely attempted to answer their questions. How does that deserve a win?

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461420.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461420.page GMT i didnt read all everybodys rants, but i found 3 less entertaining especially since i hated 2 out of the 3(sugar, susie) im even more pissed that susie got 3 votes really chapped my ass

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461421.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461421.page GMT Exactly.Bob didn't come up with a single plan at all and could not take responsibility for his own voting. Every time Sugar voted that person was gone. Her name was not written down once. She had a hand in getting every single jury member off the game except for Marcus. She outsmarted every Jury member.She outlasted every single one.She outwitted every single one.Bob just outlasted. he didn't do anything more.The jury voted for him out of spite. Humble is how Sugar answered. She didn't realize how much power she had the entire game. She only realized it towards the end. Bob was cocky where he was. He lacked the even handedness he swore he had a handle on and he was greedy. The reason he was there was Sugar. Had he not had her he wouldn't have gotten there.And he should have told Corinne to go to hell or I'm not answering that.....but he didn't. Zero backbone.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461450.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461450.page GMT I think one of the best shows was survivor outback, and it was nice to wait to the last minute to see who the winner was. Three is to many, and on top of everything CBS.com did not show the final two hour show. I think that CBS is losing their touch, very few shows are shown anymore. If it was not for the CSI's I would not even watch CBS.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461750.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461750.page GMT

zvelf wrote: Final 3 is better than a final 2 most of the time (but it depends on the season) for all the reasons jtrentvv gave. Sometimes Survivor chooses a final 3 even when the winner is a foregone conclusion because the audience would approve of the winner – Earl, but most of the time, it prevents the Yul-Ozzy-Becky scenario. There’s no way any one can argue F3 was worse there. Whether Yul or Ozzy won the final immunity in a F2, each would have taken Becky for an anticlimactic win whereas Yul vs. Ozzy head-to-head in the finals was one of the best finals ever. Even though you knew Becky wasn’t going to get a vote, a Yul vs. Ozzy final was not possible without her being there in a F3. For the people who keep saying the third person doesn’t matter, well, they matter because they put the two who do matter there. Otherwise the F2 would far more likely be the person who doesn’t matter anyway against only one who does matter instead of two.You aren't taking into consideration the fact that if there was a final two they would know. Becky knew her odds so she would backstab if she had to. If they knew there would be a final two Becky could have taken the idol from Yul and got her and Sundra to vote out Yul and try to win the final immunity and take Ozzy out. Iy can happen. Also don't mention Micro they were stupid to think there was a final three. If they keep up with the days then they should know the last challenge is ALWAYS on day 38 so really that wasn't a twist so much as a play on their stupidity. I also was rooting for Cirie after Natalie was eliminated.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461805.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/461805.page GMT

rcjr68 wrote: i hate it its so much no fun to watch. should be as was before the best 2 to make it to the end n jury votes on. when theres 3 no one voting cares about the third.... same with watching it

My Husband and I were just discussing last night how much we hate a final 3. The last challenge should be an indurance challenge.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/462132.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/462132.page GMT first what happened to the endurance challenged? That card hting was so stupid. I rather it be endurance see matty and bob the last two fighting for immunity. That would have been a better showdown than having them do the fire maker to see who stays

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/462159.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/462159.page GMT I don't enjoy watching a final three as much as I enjoy watching the final two. . . I really couldn't give one main reason for this, just what I perfer. I like how much more focused it is when it's just a final 2. Besides what's really the point of a final three if nobody votes for the 3rd person, they seem like dead wieght/taking up space. I guess to me it's just more intersting to watch a final2 than a final3.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/462300.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/462300.page GMT Sadistikk wrote:

Which brings me to her downright awful tribal council performance, perhaps one of the worst in Survivor history (maybe second to Amanda's pitiful attempts in China). Charlie asked her why he should vote for her - her answer? "Well, I don't necessarily think you should... but it would be nice!" Great answer. Great argument.

I agree with you that Sugar's final TC performance was awful from the perspective of winning the money, but you write the above like this was her goal. It wasn't, which she had admitted in a few different episodes. From the perspective of entertainment though, I thought her final TC performance was highly enjoyable, especially her remarks to Randy and her gesture to Corrine.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/462330.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/462330.page GMT

rcjr68 wrote: i hate it its so much no fun to watch. should be as was before the best 2 to make it to the end n jury votes on. when theres 3 no one voting cares about the third.... same with watching it

I don't like the final 3, but I also don't like the jury. I don't know if there is a better way, but the jury sux. Bob was very deserving, but no way does Susie get more votes than sugar.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/462336.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/462336.page GMT I_Hate_You88 wrote:

You aren't taking into consideration the fact that if there was a final two they would know. Becky knew her odds so she would backstab if she had to. If they knew there would be a final two Becky could have taken the idol from Yul and got her and Sundra to vote out Yul and try to win the final immunity and take Ozzy out. Iy can happen.

Maybe, but my larger point is what would have been more entertaining? Yul vs. Ozzy in the finals or Becky vs. Sundra?Jello86 wrote:

Besides what's really the point of a final three if nobody votes for the 3rd person, they seem like dead wieght/taking up space.

There seems to be some inability (almost deliberate obtuseness) to comprehend the role of the third person here in a F3. The third person is not there to get votes. The third person is there to make the voting between the other two more interesting, one of whom would not be there otherwise.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/462363.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/462363.page GMT For all of you haters busting on Bob, Sugar, and Suzie for their performance at the FTC:You think you would have done better? Fill out an app and get on the show, I'd be HAPPY to be on your season and prove you miserably wrong.Or, if you are afraid of going head to head with me, then just sleep in your backyard for 39 days, only eating what you can catch.Bob, Sugar, and Suzie did the best they could do, from the "place" where they were. It's very easy to sit on your couch and think otherwise....

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/463206.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/463206.page GMT

zvelf wrote: I_Hate_You88 wrote:There seems to be some inability (almost deliberate obtuseness) to comprehend the role of the third person here in a F3. The third person is not there to get votes. The third person is there to make the voting between the other two more interesting, one of whom would not be there otherwise.

I knew there had to be SOMEONE else here who gets it!Welcome!

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/463226.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/463226.page GMT 2 is BORING. 3 makes it more a wild card!!

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/463236.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/463236.page GMT Final 3 just makes it where we hear even less from each contestant. This time we didn't hear closing remarks WTF?!

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/463454.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/463454.page GMT I think it should be 2 only. both times there were 3, one person got NO votes. How humilating for them.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/463672.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/463672.page GMT I do hate final three. I wish it were Final 2 with the winner of the challenge choosing who they want to take.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/463785.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/463785.page GMT

keyanuesmom wrote: I think it should be 2 only. both times there were 3, one person got NO votes. How humilating for them.

Sugar not getting any votes really isn't humilating. She wasn't playing to win. If she had been playing to win she could have beat both Bob and Susie. All three of Susie's votes were votes against Bob and Sugar not votes for Susie.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/464240.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/464240.page GMT Anyone who supports the final three or removing the jury element of the game does not understand the concept of Survivor at all."1) The "winner" can't win by default by just dragging the most unlikeable #2 along with them."Of the 13 seasons that had a final two, 8 of them resulted in the final immunity challenge winner losing in the final vote (Kelly in Borneo, Colby in Outback, Kim in Africa, Neleh in Marquesas, Lill in Pearl Islands, Rob in All-Stars, Danielle in Panama, and Amanda in Micronesia). This argument doesn't hold any weight."2) It gives the jury (typically) at least TWO valid contenders to choose between."Yeah, Earl really had an uphill battle in beating both Cassandra and Dreamz. And while Courtney did surprisingly well at the final TC, neither she nor Amanda gave Todd a run for his money."3) It keeps us from getting a Brian/Clay F TC."So we occasionally get a crappy winner (subjectively, since Brian's actually one of the strongest strategic players this game has ever seen). Boohoo."4) Unlike the US Presidential Election, it is WAY more likely to give us someone to vote/root FOR, rather than vote AGAINST."Because comparing a reality show to a presidential election makes an iota of sense. Ok."5) Choice is GOOD."Maybe I'm just not good at math, but when you have two people sitting in front of the jury and those jurors get to vote for one of them, they have two CHOICES."6) Terry Dietz vs. Danielle. 'Nuff said."I love how your first argument in favor of F3 is "The final challenge winner can't just bring a goat to the end" and yet one of your subsequent arguments is how a guy who made it to the final three solely by winning challenges (and finding a hidden idol) would have won the game if there were a final three.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.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?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.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.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.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.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.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.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/464390.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/464390.page GMT When Box of Rocks Susie won & was part of the final 3 I was so pissed off I wanted Matty,Bob & Sugar as the 3. The 3 that voted for Susie just proves what losers they were too.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/464559.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/464559.page GMT

thewipf wrote:

keyanuesmom wrote: I think it should be 2 only. both times there were 3, one person got NO votes. How humilating for them.

Sugar not getting any votes really isn't humilating. She wasn't playing to win. If she had been playing to win she could have beat both Bob and Susie. All three of Susie's votes were votes against Bob and Sugar not votes for Susie.

You need to take into account that three of Bob's four votes were against Sugar and Susie. That arguement goes both ways pal.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/464774.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/464774.page GMT

You need to take into account that three of Bob's four votes were against Sugar and Susie. That arguement goes both ways pal.

Duh ... isn't every person's vote FOR someone, also a vote AGAINST someone else? Although, I honestly believe that EVERY vote for Susie was a vote against Bob & Sugar ... and not really FOR Susie at all ... just a sign of all the crybaby sore losers, a.k.a., the Jury.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/465216.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/465216.page GMT

I_Hate_You88 wrote: Final 3 just makes it where we hear even less from each contestant. This time we didn't hear closing remarks WTF?!

Don't you see???No closing remarks was yet another TWIST! LOL

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/465313.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/465313.page GMT

keyanuesmom wrote: I think it should be 2 only. both times there were 3, one person got NO votes. How humilating for them.

A) there have been more that two F3's.Secondly, if those "two" F3's had been F2's, the no-vote-getter would likely have been in the F2, STILL gotten NO votes, and it would have been BORING as WELL as humiliating.iii) Survivor has ALWAYS had a big helping of humiliation, especially at the F TC, if you think back to Sue's "Rat and Snake" speech. Why should we stop now?

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/465326.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/465326.page GMT Good discussion.

anthontherun wrote: Anyone who supports the final three or removing the jury element of the game does not understand the concept of Survivor at all."1) The "winner" can't win by default by just dragging the most unlikeable #2 along with them."Of the 13 seasons that had a final two, 8 of them resulted in the final immunity challenge winner losing in the final vote (Kelly in Borneo, Colby in Outback, Kim in Africa, Neleh in Marquesas, Lill in Pearl Islands, Rob in All-Stars, Danielle in Panama, and Amanda in Micronesia). This argument doesn't hold any weight.

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.

anthontherun wrote: "2) It gives the jury (typically) at least TWO valid contenders to choose between."Yeah, Earl really had an uphill battle in beating both Cassandra and Dreamz. And while Courtney did surprisingly well at the final TC, neither she nor Amanda gave Todd a run for his money.

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?

anthontherun wrote: "3) It keeps us from getting a Brian/Clay F TC."So we occasionally get a crappy winner (subjectively, since Brian's actually one of the strongest strategic players this game has ever seen). Boohoo.

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. There is an old saying: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King."

anthontherun wrote: "4) Unlike the US Presidential Election, it is WAY more likely to give us someone to vote/root FOR, rather than vote AGAINST."Because comparing a reality show to a presidential election makes an iota of sense. Ok.

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.

anthontherun wrote: "5) Choice is GOOD."Maybe I'm just not good at math, but when you have two people sitting in front of the jury and those jurors get to vote for one of them, they have two CHOICES.

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".

anthontherun wrote: "6) Terry Dietz vs. Danielle. 'Nuff said."I love how your first argument in favor of F3 is "The final challenge winner can't just bring a goat to the end" and yet one of your subsequent arguments is how a guy who made it to the final three solely by winning challenges (and finding a hidden idol) would have won the game if there were a final three.

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.Stupid website. Too long, but HOW MUCH too long!!!TBC

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/465409.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/465409.page GMT 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.

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?

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?

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.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.

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.

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?

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.

Possibly. We haven't had enough F4 Final IC's to statistically say they CAN'T be dramatic.

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.

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. 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)....

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.

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. But F3 is NOT = F1. Winning the jury from F3 is HARDER than from F2, IMHO.

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.

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?

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.

Actually, jerks and females were starting to UNbalance the statistics, not to mention YOUNG people. I was REALLY glad to see Bob win.And I think the multiple-shuffle is easily the worst thing to happen to the game. SEVERAL good players with good, solid alliances and strategies have had the rug TOTALLY yanked out from under them by it.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/465411.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/465411.page GMT "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

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/466009.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/466009.page GMT "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.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/466014.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/466014.page GMT 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.

Sorry, what I was intending to convey is dragging a goat along "to the end" results in an easy seat at the F2. I may not have been clear on this, and it's not worth the effort on this dang site to find it.

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.

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

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.

My remembrance of this season is fuzzy, but I don't remember feeling he dominated. But I'll concede this to you to keep the discussion going. I agree the 39 days should be the only criteria, but remember, WE see a LOT of stuff the players don't.

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;

We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. But remember your "39 days" argument. That conflicts with your "on-paper" argument.

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

NP, it happens a lot (more than some even realize) on these boards.See you in the next message!

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/466140.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/466140.page GMT 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.

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.

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.

I'd quote Mick Jaggar here. Do you need me to say it? ;^)

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

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. Also, if it's not "common knowledge", they aren't supposed to talk about it....

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.

Possibly, but perhaps the fire-building fiasco was enough humiliation for her. "Here, have some matches. And some gasoline. And a roadway flare...."

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.

Pshaw, where's the challenge in THAT! I plan on having people VOLUNTEER to be voted out INSTEAD of me! And I willl point out that it WILL BE difficult for ONE of your three. Just ask Matty. Or, as they say in poker, "look around the table. If you can't tell who the sucker is, it's you!"

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,

I think Bob and Matty would have been MUCH less likely to take each other, if it had come right down to it! They COULD, as has been pointed out, have ganged up and voted off Sugar....

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.

Lisi got voted out as soon as was convenient, she was on the winning tribe for the longest time, and had no opportunity TO be voted out.

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

I'd add Jenna, Aras, and Parvati to your "jerk" list. But I don't have time for a recount.

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

Thanks. I have had several seasons to practice. And thank you, again for having something to back up your opinion!

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/466208.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/466208.page GMT I just started watching the show final 3 was amazing

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/466335.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/466335.page GMT 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

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/468009.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/468009.page GMT

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.

Are you kidding?! Not that I want to debate Pearl Islands but I believe it was Sandra who said to the dury something like, "It is because of her [Lillian] that all of you are sitting there". Which is completely true and that was the beauty of Survivor Pearl Islands. Lillian came back into the game and almost single handily determined which players would go. But i am still very happy Sandra won! my favorite winner yet!

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/468528.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/468528.page GMT 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

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/468619.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/468619.page GMT "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.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/468805.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/468805.page GMT

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)

The "Rate" dropdown is at the lower right corner of each post. I ASSUME 5 is good and 1 is bad. I also ASSUME the post gets a rating, and some aggregation of those ratings is assigned to the author, so feel free to rate ALL of my posts up! As for who's right and who's wrong, I'll leave that up to the readers to decide for themselves, but I think we have pretty much exhausted the points to be made in this discussion, so I will let you have the final word.Thanks for the discussion, though! And feel free to drop in on either of "The List threads. Tell them I sent you! ROFL@me

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/470060.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/470060.page GMT 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....

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/473862.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/473862.page GMT

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 don't know about that that I think that if each of the people in the F3 were to have a vote they would just vote for the person they thought wouldn't get any votes,

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/474239.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/474239.page GMT 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????

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/474548.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/474548.page GMT

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

LOL did you even watch Fiji? Earl was awful at challenges. He was almost as bad as Cassandra.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/475048.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/475048.page GMT

nj10devils wrote:

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 don't know about that that I think that if each of the people in the F3 were to have a vote they would just vote for the person they thought wouldn't get any votes,

With the F3 it is my understanding from one of the previous seasons that the F3 do cast a vote in case of the 3-3-1 tie (assuming 7 jurors). The vote for the person finishing 3rd (i.e. getting only 1 vote) would then decide the winner. This has never happened so we don't know for sure. But one of the final 3 from the China season said that this was the process. *BAND*

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/475081.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/475081.page GMT

thewipf wrote:

keyanuesmom wrote: I think it should be 2 only. both times there were 3, one person got NO votes. How humilating for them.

Sugar not getting any votes really isn't humilating. She wasn't playing to win. If she had been playing to win she could have beat both Bob and Susie. All three of Susie's votes were votes against Bob and Sugar not votes for Susie.

Oh gosh, thank you for posting this. You just saved me from a whole 20 minutes of typing. When Sugar was at FTC, - she even helped Bob by propping up and nodding to his answers. So.. she was rooting for Bob, then? Duh.. thought she should be playing for herself. I'm so tired of hearing excuses for why Sugar didn't win, or the unfairness of it all. Sugar was responsible for Sugar's demise. Her age had nothing to do with it. She wasn't a victim of being tongue-tied, either like Amanda. And I'd liked her for the whole game.. until it became apparent she was only there to have fun and..? Well, I guess only Sugar knows this. Sugar's a major case of Recruiting gone wrong. When Bob was asked on the Early show who he was most scared of in the end, he said Matty, and Susie. I'm glad he thanked Sugar - but I would have killed for her spot (JJ) - Well it was an important spot! But you don't prop up the 'player' of your choice at FTC when you yourself have made it to FTC... As long as Sugar's happy, I suppose... don't think the players who thought she was playing to win and therefore bested them for this are, but glad BOB took it.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/475486.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/475486.page GMT I didn't read any previous posts. It should have been Sugar and Bob, neck and neck. Susie should not have even factored into this. I don't think Sugar will suffer though. She will get many offers. She looked fantastic at the reunion show.I liked Susie. She just didn't deserve to be in the final three. Thank goodness she didn't win!

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/475533.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/475533.page GMT

nj10devils wrote:

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 don't know about that that I think that if each of the people in the F3 were to have a vote they would just vote for the person they thought wouldn't get any votes,

No, the vote of the NON-tied person would be used to bread the TIE. Your proposed strategy would be counter-productive, at best.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/476744.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/476744.page GMT

No, the vote of the NON-tied person would be used to bread the TIE. Your proposed strategy would be counter-productive, at best.

Yeah I get what your trying to say but I was replying to a post where somebody said that each of the people in the final 3 should get a normal jury vote (at least thats what I thought they were trying to say) and thats why I wrote that But I think what you were saying about the non-tied person's vote counting is a good idea

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/477058.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/477058.page GMT

nj10devils wrote:

No, the vote of the NON-tied person would be used to bread the TIE. Your proposed strategy would be counter-productive, at best.

Yeah I get what your trying to say but I was replying to a post where somebody said that each of the people in the final 3 should get a normal jury vote (at least thats what I thought they were trying to say) and thats why I wrote that But I think what you were saying about the non-tied person's vote counting is a good idea

OK, thanks. And when you evetually see it happen, remember you heard it here, first!

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/477426.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/477426.page GMT Not a Fan of Final 3! Final 2 has more suspense and less drama queen comments from the Jury!

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/488304.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/488304.page GMT

gruberk153 wrote: Not a Fan of Final 3! Final 2 has more suspense and less drama queen comments from the Jury!

I totally agree with you here! Why bring the useless 3rd strawdog along if they're just taking up valuable time, time away from a good Final TC.Carriekins

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/489925.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/489925.page GMT I thought I was the only one that hate final 3. Get Back to the orginal format. Much more hateful & fun that way.

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/517736.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/517736.page GMT I kinda like the final 3, but there is kinda no point in it, cus usually it comes down to the person who is most liked, the most person most hated, and then the third person is usually most like, but only got there riding the coat tails of either one of the two (i.e. Susie!!!) But im more upset about the fact that they don't have the car/truck giveaway that they used to have ever since they had the different races show! my favorite part about the Survivor series is when they give away the Chevy vehicles! Please Survivor! Bring back the vehicle prize!!!! It's soooo much fun to watch! You are my most favorite show to watch!!!!!

]]> http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/520595.page http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/preList/30315/520595.page GMT