Quote:
Originally Posted by swinearefine
The bitter jury argument is illogical. The jury are not mindless, emotionless robots. They are people who lived with the finalists for weeks. The finalists have to not only worry about surviving each TC, but make sure they bring the right people to the end and influence the jury to vote for them.
|
But bitterness is an emotion (this is my point) !!!!
The people on the jury were outplayed, but their ego's didn't allow them to
think logically and vote for the better player.
That is the difference between Survivor seasons. Some jury members
can remove the emotion from their final jury vote whilsts other can't.
note: IMHO I think in Heroes v's Villans the jury saw Sandra as a proxy-Hero
who told Rupert the truth of what was going on on the villans team.
Both 'All-Star' seasons have had bitter jury's. Take the 1st 'All Star' season.
Do you really think the jury felt that Amber was a better player than
Boston Rob ? I think not. The jury was bitter that Rob outplayed them and
vented their anger by giving their vote to Amber.