[BBfanUSA]

Jun was offered but she never got the message b4 it was too late that's why she hosted one of the veto comps and she can't do it next year anyway. She just annouced on her twitter account she's pregnant

[Roy Mars III]

I think Jun's father died so she didn't want to do it. So we got Erika.

[Roy Mars III]

Originally Posted by SoBig

Russell Hantz is the greatest Survivor player ever. End of story.

LMAO @ saying he sucks.

I wouldn't call him the best(he's never won), but he's definitely one of them, especially from a strategic view point.

The Ice man(Brian Heidik) will always be the best survivor player for me. Even if he only played one season, and a somewhat boring one.

[Lostie!]

Newbies. I like getting to know the new cast, forming opinions, etc.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by SoBig

Russell Hantz is the greatest Survivor player ever. End of story.

LMAO @ saying he sucks.

Explain why he's the greatest ever. He hasn't won, he's never going to win, he's an awful player. He is his own downfall and he doesn't even realize that You don't get how Survivor works if you think he's the best player ever.

[SoBig]

I don't want to hear **** about winning.

Will was the best player in BB7, did he win? Do you think Mike Boogie was a better player than him?

Do you honestly believe that Rachel is a better player than Danielle Bb3 and Danielle BB8?

We all damn well know that the best player gets robbed in survivor every 2 years or so.

Tina beating Colby in 2.

Amber beating Rob in 8

Natalie beating Russell in 19.

The list goes on and on.

I put very little stock in how the jury votes at the end, because most of the time they are bitter. They can't deal with the fact that they were outwitted, outplayed and outlasted.

Russell destroys anyone when it comes to strategies and manipulating people.

[swinearefine]

Originally Posted by SoBig

I don't want to hear **** about winning.

Will was the best player in BB7, did he win? Do you think Mike Boogie was a better player than him?

Do you honestly believe that Rachel is a better player than Danielle Bb3 and Danielle BB8?

We all damn well know that the best player gets robbed in survivor every 2 years or so.

Tina beating Colby in 2.

Amber beating Rob in 8

Natalie beating Russell in 19.

The list goes on and on.

I put very little stock in how the jury votes at the end, because most of the time they are bitter. They can't deal with the fact that they were outwitted, outplayed and outlasted.

Russell destroys anyone when it comes to strategies and manipulating people.

I hate when idiots say that the jury votes wrong. Is it really that hard to comprehend that the game does NOT end when you make the finals? The point is to make sure you have the jury votes to win. Stupid people such as Russell Hanz realize that that is a task a bit beyond their thinking capabilities, so they backstab and lie just to stroke their egos and make them feel powerful, and then when they inevitably lose in the end, they bitch and moan like little pussies that the jury voted wrong. What's worse than these idiotic players is the equally idiotic fanbases who worship them for some reason and then proceed to spread their moronic logic on forums and discredit actual strategists such as Sandra and Natalie. I wish people could just grasp the basic concept of survivor: make it to the end and garner the most jury votes. THAT IS ALL. You don't have to be a trollish little ***** and parade around like a big shot spinning a web of lies and making countless enemies of the people you vote off. I understood this when I watched survivor for the first time when I was 12.

Sorry for the rant but I'm in a balls mood and I'm sick of hearing the same lunacy over and over by people who can't grasp a VERY simple concept. The moronic fanbase of Survivor is one of the reasons I stopped watching after Nicaragua.

Rant is over.

[Roy Mars III]

Colby was an idiot, and brought the wrong person to the final, and deserved to lose because of it.

Rob did deserve to win, I'll give you that.

Russel would've won if he didn't act like an aggressive asshole all throughout the game.

Maybe it's just me, but I can think of someone as the best player, unless they win. There have been people who've played similar aggressive games like Russel, Brian Heidik and Chris Daugherty and still won.

[swinearefine]

Originally Posted by Roy Mars III

Rob did deserve to win, I'll give you that.

Rob should have been smarter - being All-Stars, the jury all had HUGE egos. They weren't gonna let Rob backstab them all and then vote for him. His problem, no theirs.

Originally Posted by Roy Mars III

Maybe it's just me, but I can think of someone as the best player, unless they win. There have been people who've played similar aggressive games like Russel, Brian Heidik and Chris Daugherty and still won.

That would be because every jury is different. You need to work to get the members of the jury to vote for you.

[Roy Mars III]

Originally Posted by swinearefine

Rob should have been smarter - being All-Stars, the jury all had HUGE egos. They weren't gonna let Rob backstab them all and then vote for him. His problem, no theirs.

Rob, in reality, should've took Jenna with him. He would have beat her easily. But he chose 'love' instead.

Originally Posted by swinearefine

That would be because every jury is different. You need to work to get the members of the jury to vote for you.

True. You also have to take someone you can beat. Brian Heidik, for example, took someone who half the jury thought was racist and sexist.

And I think Natalie White is somewhat underrated as a player. She didn't make and moves or gameplays, but at the same time, she was smart enough to basically tag after Russel knowing he'd piss off enough people, that she could get Anti-Russel votes at the jury. And she did.

[swinearefine]

Originally Posted by Roy Mars III

And I think Natalie White is somewhat underrated as a player. She didn't make and moves or gameplays, but at the same time, she was smart enough to basically tag after Russel knowing he'd piss off enough people, that she could get Anti-Russel votes at the jury. And she did.

Exactly! Natalie was a great winner. Coat tail riding is a perfectly fine strategy. She completely outsmarted Russell, just like Sandra did in HIV.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by SoBig

I don't want to hear **** about winning.

Will was the best player in BB7, did he win? Do you think Mike Boogie was a better player than him?

Do you honestly believe that Rachel is a better player than Danielle Bb3 and Danielle BB8?

We all damn well know that the best player gets robbed in survivor every 2 years or so.

Tina beating Colby in 2.

Amber beating Rob in 8

Natalie beating Russell in 19.

The list goes on and on.

I put very little stock in how the jury votes at the end, because most of the time they are bitter. They can't deal with the fact that they were outwitted, outplayed and outlasted.

Russell destroys anyone when it comes to strategies and manipulating people.

No we don't o_o Tina and Colby were evenly respected, and Rob and Russell both suffered from the same mistakes. They were openly assholes. An asshole will never win Survivor, plain and simple. Russell even said that the reason he picked to work with Natalie over Liz was because Natalie was better with people and could get good with the Jury. He knowingly aligned with a Jury threat and brought her to the finals! That's completely asinine. He's made countless mistakes every season and has blinders on, convincing himself that he's the best. He's far from it, it sucks.

[Roy Mars III]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

No we don't o_o Tina and Colby were evenly respected, and Rob and Russell both suffered from the same mistakes. They were openly assholes. An asshole will never win Survivor, plain and simple. Russell even said that the reason he picked to work with Natalie over Liz was because Natalie was better with people and could get good with the Jury. He knowingly aligned with a Jury threat and brought her to the finals! That's completely asinine. He's made countless mistakes every season and has blinders on, convincing himself that he's the best. He's far from it, it sucks.

I think they can. You just have to hid how big of an asshole you really are.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by Roy Mars III

I think they can. You just have to hid how big of an asshole you really are.

Lemme rephrase myselef: An outright, known asshole will never win. Someone who is abrasive.

[Roy Mars III]

True. Though one could argue that Brian Heidik is probably one of the biggest assholes to ever play the game, but he still won. Of course, he was against a 'supposed' racist in the final 2, and still only won by one vote.

And Chris Daugherty, as another example. Though those are really the only two, if I remember correctly.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by Roy Mars III

True. Though one could argue that Brian Heidik is probably one of the biggest assholes to ever play the game, but he still won. Of course, he was against a 'supposed' racist in the final 2, and still only won by one vote.

And Chris Daugherty, as another example. Though those are really the only two, if I remember correctly.

Right. Brian was pretty much a sociopath, but at the end of the day, he was still respected. The three votes for Clay were partly because Brian made no attempt to get to know the Jurors on a personal level. It also helps that Clay was even more unlikable than Brian.

I don't think Chris was really much of an asshole, but that's all debatable. Twila was hated by all the females and Chris read them perfectly. Seriously, Chris's Jury performance was one of the best ever, IMO.

But yeah, what I was really trying to get at what that when it's a nice, inoffensive player is teamed up with abrasive assholes, it's common sense that the nice guy's gonna win. You let the abrasive one take all your bullets and use them as a smokescreen. Ethan did with Lex, Vecepia did it with Sean, and then Amber did with Rob and Natalie did it with Russell. It's not hard to understand, unless your name is Russell Hantz, I suppose. He didn't get that he knowingly brought a Jury threat (he even acknowledges it) along for the ride with him, and she was smart enough to play a strong social game and let Russell make his own mistakes. It may not be cutthroat, some people may say it's boring, but it's sure as hell effective and respectable.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by swinearefine

I hate when idiots say that the jury votes wrong. Is it really that hard to comprehend that the game does NOT end when you make the finals? The point is to make sure you have the jury votes to win. Stupid people such as Russell Hanz realize that that is a task a bit beyond their thinking capabilities, so they backstab and lie just to stroke their egos and make them feel powerful, and then when they inevitably lose in the end, they bitch and moan like little pussies that the jury voted wrong. What's worse than these idiotic players is the equally idiotic fanbases who worship them for some reason and then proceed to spread their moronic logic on forums and discredit actual strategists such as Sandra and Natalie. I wish people could just grasp the basic concept of survivor: make it to the end and garner the most jury votes. THAT IS ALL. You don't have to be a trollish little ***** and parade around like a big shot spinning a web of lies and making countless enemies of the people you vote off. I understood this when I watched survivor for the first time when I was 12.

Sorry for the rant but I'm in a balls mood and I'm sick of hearing the same lunacy over and over by people who can't grasp a VERY simple concept. The moronic fanbase of Survivor is one of the reasons I stopped watching after Nicaragua.

Rant is over.

I hate when idiots say that the jury is always right. You know how many people that are INNOCENT that are in jail? and how many people that are GUILTY that aren't in prison because of a jury? Jury consistent of people and people are NEVER perfect. They make mistakes. Its that ****ing simple.

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

N They were openly assholes. An asshole will never win Survivor, plain and simple.

Complete and utter BS. Last time I checked these two were openly assholes to EVERYONE and everyone hated them.

Todd


Richard

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by Roy Mars III

Colby was an idiot, and brought the wrong person to the final, and deserved to lose because of it.

Rob did deserve to win, I'll give you that.

Russel would've won if he didn't act like an aggressive asshole all throughout the game.

Maybe it's just me, but I can think of someone as the best player, unless they win. There have been people who've played similar aggressive games like Russel, Brian Heidik and Chris Daugherty and still won.

No way Brian is the best player ever.

I can name at least 13 players that are much better than Chris and Brian.

Todd
Yul
Russell
Boston Robb
Fairplay
Parvati
Sash
Tom
Yau-Man
Rob Cesternino
Cirie (Probably the best manipulator ever)
Ozzy (Just based on competitions, dude literally won EVERY COMP that he played)

Why I don't like saying the best player has to be someone that has won are, most of the time the best player gets knocked out at the 3 spot ( for example Cirie, Lex, Rob, Yau-Man, Fairplay ) or the jury is just bitter and no matter what they won't vote for them. Bob barely beat Susie in Gabon. It was a 4-3 vote. Susie nearly won who did absolutely noting in the game, only because Randy changed his vote at the last minute Bob won.

EDIT: Hatch only beat Kelly, because he guessed a number between 1 and 10 that one of the jury members asked. Same with Brian over Clay. Wtf does having to guess a number have to do with winning survivor? Are you kidding me?

[swinearefine]

Originally Posted by SoBig

I hate when idiots say that the jury is always right. You know how many people that are INNOCENT that are in jail? and how many people that are GUILTY that aren't in prison because of a jury? Jury consistent of people and people are NEVER perfect. They make mistakes. Its that ****ing simple.

There is a gigantic difference between the jury on a reality show and the jury in a court room, and if someone has difficulty distinguishing between them, that's worrying. In a courtroom there is an objective truth that the jury is trying to find; on survivor there is a subjective truth the jury decides on. The truth in a courtroom lies in the action itself, not in the decision of a jury; the truth in survivor lies in the opinions of the jury. On Survivor each juror decides who they want to win based entirely on their opinion, and one's opinion cannot be wrong when it's a subjective matter, wheres a jury in a courtroom can be wrong, because it's not their opinions that define the truth, but the evidence. If new evidence is found to dispute the jury's findings, then their opinions were wrong, because it is an objective matter.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by SoBig

I hate when idiots say that the jury is always right. You know how many people that are INNOCENT that are in jail? and how many people that are GUILTY that aren't in prison because of a jury? Jury consistent of people and people are NEVER perfect. They make mistakes. Its that ****ing simple.

You can't compare a real life Jury to a Survivor Jury. The rules of the game are to get to the end and get the Jury votes. If you can't do that, something went wrong (whether it be your own fault, luck, production manipulation, etc.) Who "played the best game" isn't factual, it's all subjective. It's whoever can sell themselves the best. If you piss off the whole Jury and they hate you for it, then of course they're not going to vote for you. It's a simple concept to understand.

Originally Posted by SoBig

Complete and utter BS. Last time I checked these two were openly assholes to EVERYONE and everyone hated them.

Todd


Richard

Todd wasn't openly an asshole to everyone Just because he was kind of a dick in his confessionals doesn't mean he was like that in camp. And Richard, although the wasn't particularly liked, he wasn't hated. There's a fine line between being disliked and being abrasive (and therefore hated), and Richard and Todd were able to avoid being abrasive. At the end of the day, the Jury respected them enough to vote for them, not matter how disliked they were. If you're hated, however, it's almost impossible to gain respect.

Todd wasn't openly an asshole

[swinearefine]

Originally Posted by SoBig

EDIT: Hatch only beat Kelly, because he guessed a number between 1 and 10 that one of the jury members asked. Same with Brian over Clay. Wtf does having to guess a number have to do with winning survivor? Are you kidding me?

Greg has said before that his vote was locked on Richard going into TC, and the numbers Richard and Kelly chose had absolutely nothing to do with his vote. If you're trying to say that Richard didn't deserve to win, you're deluded.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by SoBig

No way Brian is the best player ever.

I can name at least 13 players that are much better than Chris and Brian.

Todd
Yul
Russell
Boston Robb
Fairplay
Parvati
Sash
Tom
Yau-Man
Rob Cesternino
Cirie (Probably the best manipulator ever)
Ozzy (Just based on competitions, dude literally won EVERY COMP that he played)

Yul, Russell (all three times), Boston Rob (All-Stars), Fairplay, Parvati (Heroes vs. Villains), Sash, Yau Man, and Ozzy are in no way, shape, or form better than Chris and Brian. You're 100% delusional to think that some of them, especially ones like Russell, Sash, and Ozzy are. I suppose arguments could be made for Cirie (both times), Cesternino, and Parvati (Micronesia) as better players than Chris, but I don't really see it either. The only people I see as better than Chris from your list are Tom and Todd. But none of those people beat Brian. Boston Rob (Redemption Island) is another one I would put in between too. Ultimately, he's hard to judge because he was playing against a bunch of dumbasses.

Originally Posted by SoBig

Why I don't like saying the best player has to be someone that has won are, most of the time the best player gets knocked out at the 3 spot ( for example Cirie, Lex, Rob, Yau-Man, Fairplay ) or the jury is just bitter and no matter what they won't vote for them. Bob barely beat Susie in Gabon. It was a 4-3 vote. Susie nearly won who did absolutely noting in the game, only because Randy changed his vote at the last minute Bob won.

Ethan was definitely better than Lex, Earl was definitely better than Yau Man, and Sandra was definitely better than Fairplay. And Susie played a pretty solid game. It's funny that you act like Bob deserved to win over Susie without a doubt, but Bob is one of the worst winners (if not the worst) and Susie really was a good player. I think the biggest issue with how you watch Survivor is that you buy into what the editing wants you to see, believing that people are good players because they're so over the top and insistent that they are good players.

Originally Posted by SoBig

EDIT: Hatch only beat Kelly, because he guessed a number between 1 and 10 that one of the jury members asked. Same with Brian over Clay. Wtf does having to guess a number have to do with winning survivor? Are you kidding me?

No, Hatch went into the finale with 5 votes, Kelly went in with 2. Colleen ended up switching up her vote from Hatch to Kelly, but that was the only switch. And in Thailand, Helen, Ted, and Jake would've never voted for Clay. And Jan didn't dislike Clay, but definitely liked Brian more. Brian had those four votes going into the finale for sure, and the only reason he didn't get Penny/Ken/Erin's vote was that he didn't get to know them on a personal level and played the game like a sociopath, pretty much. His Jury performance wasn't that great, but he already had the votes he needed beforehand.

[SoBig]

Troy I can't even take you seriously. How the hell can anyone watch Russell Hantz in Survivor Samoa and think that he is a terrible player? Like seriously? You are letting your hatred for the man cloud your judgement. Even Jeff Probst the biggest Russell Hater out there has said numerous times that he is without a doubt one of the top 5 ever.

[SoBig]

LMAO @ Ethan being a better player than Lex.

Earl over Yau-Man is arguable, they are around the same level.

[swinearefine]

Originally Posted by SoBig

Troy I can't even take you seriously. How the hell can anyone watch Russell Hantz in Survivor Samoa and think that he is a terrible player? Like seriously? You are letting your hatred for the man cloud your judgement. Even Jeff Probst the biggest Russell Hater out there has said numerous times that he is without a doubt one of the top 5 ever.

Russel had no chance of getting the votes to win, thus he was a horrible player. Natalie completely played him and was a very deserving winner. And ew @ your comment about Jeff Proust - he is a horrible little man who has a crush on every dominant male who plays the game and he has no idea what the true Survivor fans want. He's one of the main reasons I stopped watching after Nicaragua.