[SoBig]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

Uh... do you know who Rupert is?

That was 7 years ago. I doubt anyone even cares about Rupert now. In HvV he lost the fan vote to Russell Hantz! hahahaha

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

seriously Cook Islands is one of, if not the worst season of Survivor.

Maybe to you, but to me its not.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

oh wait, you think Russell deserved it over Natalie too. And I'm sure Rob over Amber.

Yup and so do majority of the people that watch Survivor. Both Rob and Russell were robbed by a bitter jury.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by SoBig

That was 7 years ago. I doubt anyone even cares about Rupert now. In HvV he lost the fan vote to Russell Hantz! hahahaha

Rupert's fan base at its height is ridiculously bigger than Ozzy's current fan base it isn't even funny.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by SoBig

Yup and so do majority of the people that watch Survivor. Both Rob and Russell were robbed by a bitter jury.

And a majority of people, including yourself, don't understand the basics of how Survivor works.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

Rupert's fan base at its height is ridiculously bigger than Ozzy's current fan base it isn't even funny.

Ozzy won the Fan vote by the largest margin in the history of Survivor. Let that sink in for a minute. It wasn't even close.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by SoBig

Ozzy won the Fan vote by the largest margin in the history of Survivor. Let that sink in for a minute. It wasn't even close.

Rupert won $1,000,000 by over 80% in an eighteen way vote. Case and point.

[lostalex]

Well, i guess God hates the christians. lol For all their talk about God wants them to do this, and God is looking out for me, all of the hyper-christians LOST, Ahahahaha. god hates you.

The only thing that could make this better is if Tebow gets hit by a bus tomorrow.

the One World promo looks AMAZING, can't wait.

[Marc]

The god thing really got annoying

[smartalec2718]

Originally Posted by SoBig

Yup and so do majority of the people that watch Survivor. Both Rob and Russell were robbed by a bitter jury.

I hate it when people make this excuse as to why someone "should have" won. There is no such thing as being "robbed" by a bitter jury. The jury have the ultimate say in who wins the game, so PART of the game is not making them bitter. Capisce?

Probst repeats some iteration of this idea every year when the jury phase begins. The key in the jury phase is to vote people out while not making them hate you so they'll turn around and give you the money at the end. If you piss jurors off on their way out, you're playing a bad game and don't deserve to get rewarded for it.

Rob in All-Stars and Russell in both Samoa and HvV left jurors with a bad taste in their mouths. Sure, avoiding elimination and controlling votes is part of playing a good game, but another part is positioning yourself well in the eyes of the jury. Albert and Coach utterly failed at doing so, but Sophie did a brilliant job of it in the F5 tribal council (her emotional breakdown, which I'm convinced was at least partially strategy) and at FTC (calling Coach a girl, spilling the beans about the idol, the to-the-point outwit-outlast-outplay answer).

I'm sick of people claiming some winners are undeserving. Only people who actually DO win the game are DESERVING of doing so, because they have fulfilled all the necessary requirements.

[Marc]

The thinking behind the jury decision is never static.

The jury is made up with loads of subjective opinions and it is down the final 3 to deal with their questions and if a certain jury member feels 'betrayed' etc. then that is the fault of the finalists.

Some jurors like tactical play, some like a nice honest person, some prefer a social game player. But at the end of the day the jury outcome is all that matters and if the finalists don't realise this and people feel 'robbed' of a win then they are stupid, they should always consider the reprocusions of their actions on the members of the jury before they make them.

Which is why I personally believe Coach did not deserve to win and I'm glad he didn't.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by smartalec2718

I hate it when people make this excuse as to why someone "should have" won. There is no such thing as being "robbed" by a bitter jury. The jury have the ultimate say in who wins the game, so PART of the game is not making them bitter. Capisce?

Probst repeats some iteration of this idea every year when the jury phase begins. The key in the jury phase is to vote people out while not making them hate you so they'll turn around and give you the money at the end. If you piss jurors off on their way out, you're playing a bad game and don't deserve to get rewarded for it.

Rob in All-Stars and Russell in both Samoa and HvV left jurors with a bad taste in their mouths. Sure, avoiding elimination and controlling votes is part of playing a good game, but another part is positioning yourself well in the eyes of the jury. Albert and Coach utterly failed at doing so, but Sophie did a brilliant job of it in the F5 tribal council (her emotional breakdown, which I'm convinced was at least partially strategy) and at FTC (calling Coach a girl, spilling the beans about the idol, the to-the-point outwit-outlast-outplay answer).

I'm sick of people claiming some winners are undeserving. Only people who actually DO win the game are DESERVING of doing so, because they have fulfilled all the necessary requirements.

Listen to the Survivor exist interviews on http://robhasawebsite.com/survivor-s...interview.html

They all said that Coach was the better player. Every single last one of them admitted to being bitter thats why they didn't vote for him!

Listen to it.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

Rupert won $1,000,000 by over 80% in an eighteen way vote. Case and point.

Rupert was a poor man's Ozzy. Put Ozzy South Pacific on All-Stars and he wins the fan vote. No doubt in my mind.

[SoBig]

You should vote for who played the best game. Period. Not vote for who you like better as a person or vote for who is most popular. You aren't on Survivor to make friends.

[SoBig]

Listen to this interview with Parvati. She talks about bitter juries. http://robhasawebsite.com/parvati-sh...orld-free.html

[smartalec2718]

Would you mind putting all that in one post instead of creating a separate post for each sentence you type? Thanks.

I didn't say there was no such thing as a bitter jury. I said PART of a being a good player is NOT making the jury bitter. Part of being a good player that deserves a win, or of playing the "best game" in your words, is MAKING JURORS WANT TO VOTE FOR YOU. IF THEY ARE BITTER ABOUT HOW YOU VOTED THEM OUT, YOU ARE NOT PLAYING A GOOD GAME AND THUS DO NOT DESERVE TO WIN.

I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. You're obviously not understanding what I'm saying.

Besides, how can you even use your malformed "bitter jury" argument in the case of South Pacific? Your words exactly: "You should vote for who played the best game. Period. Not vote for who you like better as a person or vote for who is most popular. You aren't on Survivor to make friends." Who in their right minds would say the jury liked Sophie as a person, or that she was popular? They hated her guts, but she was honest about her lying and her shortcomings, whereas Coach and Albert were not. That made the jury want to reward her with the money, which is why they voted for her, which is why she deserved to win. The jury was "bitter" at Coach for the disingenuous way he played with them (giving his word as a "Christian man," etc., then going back on all his impossible-to-keep promises), and his reward for playing a crap game was runner-up status. The jury voted Sophie to be Sole Survivor, not Miss Congeniality.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by smartalec2718

Would you mind putting all that in one post instead of creating a separate post for each sentence you type? Thanks.

I didn't say there was no such thing as a bitter jury. I said PART of a being a good player is NOT making the jury bitter. Part of being a good player that deserves a win, or of playing the "best game" in your words, is MAKING JURORS WANT TO VOTE FOR YOU. IF THEY ARE BITTER ABOUT HOW YOU VOTED THEM OUT, YOU ARE NOT PLAYING A GOOD GAME AND THUS DO NOT DESERVE TO WIN.

I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. You're obviously not understanding what I'm saying.

Besides, how can you even use your malformed "bitter jury" argument in the case of South Pacific? Your words exactly: "You should vote for who played the best game. Period. Not vote for who you like better as a person or vote for who is most popular. You aren't on Survivor to make friends." Who in their right minds would say the jury liked Sophie as a person, or that she was popular? They hated her guts, but she was honest about her lying and her shortcomings, whereas Coach and Albert were not. That made the jury want to reward her with the money, which is why they voted for her, which is why she deserved to win. The jury was "bitter" at Coach for the disingenuous way he played with them (giving his word as a "Christian man," etc., then going back on all his impossible-to-keep promises), and his reward for playing a crap game was runner-up status. The jury voted Sophie to be Sole Survivor, not Miss Congeniality.

They were all bitter that Coach did not take them to the final 3. Fact. Every single last one of them. He controlled how the votes went. They basically all said "You are the reason why I'm not sitting in that chair right now, you aren't getting my vote!" They didn't hate Sophie for how she played the game. Lets be honest she had zero say in who stayed and who was voted out. She was easily going to win because of that. And they all felt that Albert was too kiss-ass to vote for him. Only reason coach did not win, because the jury was bitter that it wasn't them in that chair besides him.

If Coach played with last season's cast I'd bet anything that he would have won with that group. Coach played basically the same exact game that Rob played last year.

LMAO @ Coach played a crap game. I get that you are a Sophie fan, but come on dude.

[SoBig]

I'm not even mad that Sophie won. I'm happy that Coach did not win after backstabbing Ozzy. But Coach should have won, because he played the better game from start to finish.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by SoBig

Rupert was a poor man's Ozzy. Put Ozzy South Pacific on All-Stars and he wins the fan vote. No doubt in my mind.

HA that's a ****ing joke. I'm guessing you didn't watch Pearl Islands/All-Stars when they originally aired.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by SoBig

You should vote for who played the best game. Period. Not vote for who you like better as a person or vote for who is most popular. You aren't on Survivor to make friends.

But part of playing the best game is being more likable than your opponents. If you're an openly arrogant, pompous, condescending, abrasive asshole, you're a fool in thinking you're going to get votes. Why on Earth would someone give $1,000,000 to someone they hate?

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by SoBig

They were all bitter that Coach did not take them to the final 3. Fact. Every single last one of them. He controlled how the votes went. They basically all said "You are the reason why I'm not sitting in that chair right now, you aren't getting my vote!" They didn't hate Sophie for how she played the game. Lets be honest she had zero say in who stayed and who was voted out. She was easily going to win because of that. And they all felt that Albert was too kiss-ass to vote for him. Only reason coach did not win, because the jury was bitter that it wasn't them in that chair besides him.

If Coach played with last season's cast I'd bet anything that he would have won with that group. Coach played basically the same exact game that Rob played last year.

LMAO @ Coach played a crap game. I get that you are a Sophie fan, but come on dude.

The only "moves" Coach made were pulling people like Edna, Cochran, and Ozzy in, only to backstab them and look like a hypocrite and an asshole. Those aren't really great moves. When Coach unsure about voting out Cochran, what happened? Sophie wanted Cochran out, Albert didn't, Sophie prevailed. When Coach was unsure about voting Brandon out, what happened? Sophie wanted Brandon out, Albert didn't, Sophie prevailed. Sophie had an influence on the game without a doubt, but typically the edit didn't highlight it. That's what happens with female winners. If Jeff isn't happy (which he rarely is with female winners) and production isn't happen, they suffer in the edit. Danni suffered, Natalie suffered, Sandra to a degree suffered the second time, and Sophie suffered. You can totally see the bias in the Reunion, which I would say was one of the worst, if not the worst.

Coach did not play the exact game as Rob. While Rob is charismatic, Coach's attempt at being charismatic is hypocritical and makes him look like a complete asshole. The only reason Rob was able to control the way he did was because he had enough charisma to pull it off and be respect. Coach lacked that, which is ultimately what caused him to lose. The whole Coach/Sophie ordeal is a Russell/Natalie redux. If you don't understand it by now, you never will.

[Marc]

Coach did better than Ozzy in this game, strategically but Ozzy prevailed with challenges.

[LemonJam]

Cast ranking, anyone?

1. Albert <3
2. Stacey <3
3. Dawn <3

4. Cochran
5. Brandon (Sue me.)
6. Edna
7. Sophie
8. Christine

9. Coach (Worst season for Coach)
10. Semhar
11. Rick
12. Keith
13. Mikayla
14. Jim

15. Papa Bear
16. Elyse
17. Whitney

18. Ozzy

[smartalec2718]

Oh my dear sweet Buddha. Everything you're saying reinforces my point, and you don't even realize it.

Let's dive right in and analyze this trainwreck of a post.

Originally Posted by SoBig

They were all bitter that Coach did not take them to the final 3. Fact. Every single last one of them. He controlled how the votes went. They basically all said "You are the reason why I'm not sitting in that chair right now, you aren't getting my vote!"

Um...duh. Coach made promises he really could not keep to Cochran, Edna, Rick, Brandon, and Ozzy. He was setting himself up to fail by promising a final three berth to all of these people, when you obviously cannot uphold a final three deal with more than two other people. Making promises he couldn't keep, coupled with claiming to play a game of honor and integrity, was really as stupid a strategy as they come. Sure, they got him to the end because everyone thought he was on their side and so they had no reason to vote him out, but it is a textbook way to create bitter jurors.

Now here is where you divorce yourself from reality. Somehow you seem to believe that it is possible for a "bitter jury" to "rob" someone of a deserved win. I've said it before, I'm saying it now, and I'll say it again if necessary; IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE "ROBBED" IN SURVIVOR. Juries may be bitter and vote against someone who screwed them, but that means the person they're bitter toward did NOT play a good game and did NOT deserve to win! A good player will manage a jury well by NOT screwing every juror over, or at least, not appearing to. Sophie did this by pushing most of the responsibility for late-game boots onto Coach. A good player manage a jury well by winning sympathy and support in the last few tribal councils. Sophie also did this much better than Coach.

Coach made deals he couldn't keep, then still claimed he was an honorable man even as he inevitably had to start shanking people in the back as numbers dwindled. Sure, Coach was part of the reason "[others] weren't sitting in that chair" at the final three, but he failed to come clean about his deceptions or win the jury over, therefore, he deserved to lose.

Originally Posted by SoBig

They didn't hate Sophie for how she played the game. Lets be honest she had zero say in who stayed and who was voted out. She was easily going to win because of that.

Nope, wrong. Throughout the game post-merge Albert and Coach both came up with numerous harebrained schemes to break away from the original Upolu alliance and team up with some of the remaining Savaiis. See, for example, Albert's plan to vote out Dawn before Jim, Albert's plan to team up with Dawn/Whitney/Cochran only 1 episode later to blindside Edna, Coach considering blindsiding Rick as per Cochran's plan, Coach promising Ozzy final three and offering his HII if Ozzy were in trouble, etc.

NONE of these dumb ideas ever came to fruition. Do you know why? Stay-the-course Sophie. Sure, it may not have made compelling television, but she always shot down the stupid schemes these other two cooked up because she knew it wouldn't help her get to the end. She had a lot more than "zero say" in who went because she constantly had to fend off idiotic plans from Albert and Coach to convince them to stick to the original plan to vote out Savaii and then Cochran, Edna, Brandon, and Rick.

Originally Posted by SoBig

Only reason coach did not win, because the jury was bitter that it wasn't them in that chair besides him.

Once again...DUH...if he had dropped the honor/integrity BS and dealt with the jury in a stand-up way when they were still in the game and at FTC, they wouldn't have been bitter and Coach would have won. That was the flaw in his game.

Originally Posted by SoBig

If Coach played with last season's cast I'd bet anything that he would have won with that group. Coach played basically the same exact game that Rob played last year.

LMAO @ Coach played a crap game. I get that you are a Sophie fan, but come on dude.

Idle speculation at best. And I stand by what I said about Coach playing a crap game. He was playing to get to the end, but not to win the money. Getting to the end is only half the battle. The other half is getting there in such a way that will not preclude those you eliminated from voting for you. Your disregard for this crucial element of the game is remarkably reminiscent of Russell's.

[smartalec2718]

Originally Posted by SoBig

Yup and so do majority of the people that watch Survivor. Both Rob and Russell were robbed by a bitter jury.

Oh man, I almost forgot to address this. Unless you have opinion polls that show 7 million people agree with you (which would be necessary to demonstrate a "majority of the people that watch Survivor"), please don't make grandiose statements like this. They just make you seem incompetent and unable to argue your point rationally.