[Marc]

So Dan wouldn't beat anybody?

[Roy Mars III]

The not voting someone because they already won is worse than a bitter jury

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by starry

I don't like the comparison to Russell Hantz. Russell won both final competitions in his main two seasons. He was a threat in the physical game as well as the mental. There was plenty of humour to him, the ego stuff was part of his whole act. Survivor is more ruthless than Big Brother. Ian deserved to win way more than someone like Natalie ever did And of course Sandra is famously crap at competitions. Russell did the hard work and went out and found those idols for himself to help his own destiny as well as building alliances that would take him to the end.

It's a social game. Bitter juries are completely fair.
Russell was never a threat. He was never going to win.
There's nothing humorous about being "such a fan" but saying the game is wrong and need to change.
Natalie was a very deserving winner. So was Sandra.
And as deserving as someone can be in this **** season, Ian was more than Dan.

These are all facts.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by starry

Again, Survivor is way more brutal. And I think Russell made necessary moves in that context and established some strong alliances.

There's nothing necessary about making alliances and then backstabbing them in the same around (which is all Russell does)

[SoBig]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrCarqt8XSY
"Dan could have been sitting next to a can of ketchup and he still would have lost." "No one in the jury was going to vote for him except for maybe me."

There you have it folks. Dan could have been sitting next to Joe or Jenn and he still would have lost.

[Roy Mars III]

Terrible

[Roy Mars III]

Another reasons for no vets

[Marc]

Silly jury

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by Marc

So Dan wouldn't beat anybody?

Yup. He was a coach, won the game before and backstabbed nearly everyone. Even before he started backstabbing people the newbies were saying that they wouldn't have voted for a coach to win no matter what.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

It's a social game. Bitter juries are completely fair.
Russell was never a threat. He was never going to win.
There's nothing humorous about being "such a fan" but saying the game is wrong and need to change.
Natalie was a very deserving winner. So was Sandra.
And as deserving as someone can be in this **** season, Ian was more than Dan.

These are all facts.

You would have agreed with Joe winning over Dan? Because that's what would have happened.

[Munchkins]

Dan deserved to be the first ever 2 time winner
still the best player in my eyes, winner and runnerup is amazing

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by SoBig

You would have agreed with Joe winning over Dan? Because that's what would have happened.

Yup. Dan was playing a classic runner up game. I know most people here get blinded by "big" moves but a lot of the time, less is more.

[Munchkins]

Dan never recieved a single eviction vote against him in both his series

[Marc]

I would for once like to see a killer-player win. Somebody who cuts everybodies throats and just makes big moves. I know I know "social game blah blah blah" but it's my guilty pleasure.. give me a wicked/evil winner.

[Roy Mars III]

Originally Posted by Marc

I would for once like to see a killer-player win. Somebody who cuts everybodies throats and just makes big moves. I know I know "social game blah blah blah" but it's my guilty pleasure.. give me a wicked/evil winner.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

Yup. Dan was playing a classic runner up game. I know most people here get blinded by "big" moves but a lot of the time, less is more.

So you think not voting for someone to win because they won before is right?

[LemonJam]

Even if they hadn't made this "anti-coach" pact wouldn't Joe, Shane, Britney, Ashley and Frank have voted for Ian anyway?

[Marc]

They should just do a season of bad ass players

[starry]

In some ways I didn't mind his gameplaying. But I just found him boring as a character, I'm not sure he made me laugh at all. His shouting and promoting of his books and website just made me squirm.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by LemonJam

Even if they hadn't made this "anti-coach" pact wouldn't Joe, Shane, Britney, Ashley and Frank have voted for Ian anyway?

Its hard to say. Since they made it. Joe or Jenn would have won against Dan. That's all you need to know really.

If Boogie and Janelle were in the jury Dan probably would have won.

[starry]

To me anyone in these jury decided shows (Survivor is another) who gets to the final is a winner anyway. Why put faith in some of these losers like Danielle, Jenn, Joe and (lol) Ashley to even think properly anyway.

[Marc]

Bad-Ass Season.

All players know it's a bad-ass season, all morals are left at the front door and the carnage begins. Somebody commission this.

[mkbb]

Originally Posted by Marc

I would for once like to see a killer-player win. Somebody who cuts everybodies throats and just makes big moves. I know I know "social game blah blah blah" but it's my guilty pleasure.. give me a wicked/evil winner.

I think Dr Will, Boogie and Evel Dick all sort of fall into that category of an evil winner.

[starry]

I think people throw the word evil around a bit too much anyway. I'm not sure there are heroes and villains in any of these reality shows. The main crime is to be boring and Dan was I thought a bit boring. The producers seemed to be really pushing him in the HLs programs which was a bit annoying as well.

[Marc]

They don't necessarily need to be winners,

Shelly, Allison, Jase, April, James, Dick, Amber (for the LULS), Chelsia, Michelle, Jessie, Ronnie, Kristen all those bitches pls