The Syndicate

Hey, edgc charts.

Are you listening to rob c and Josh's evolution of strategy as you go? If not, you absolutely should. It would be an awesome combo.

I'll be following along with this. And I absolutely still watch. And listen to hours of podcast analysis after lol. I think you'll find there are others too... Scotty, at least.

I felt like that jury was bitter, but listening to people talking about their votes later...

It seems like Jason and Julia, in particular, were very surprised by how much influence Aubry had on the game and they just hadn't been talking to her or seeing it. They liked her, but they didn't believe she was having an impact on the game - probably because Aubry never trusted them enough to share her plans with them. Whereas the minimal impact Michele was having, it was usually evident at tribal council (like fighting with Tai, voting out Neal etc). I think Aubry's game ultimately suffered from being too far in the shadows.

Bitter juries will happen, but I think they are fairly rare in the end, even today. And I still don't have a problem with, say, the Samoa jury - people shouldn't be rewarded for being VERY bad at the social game. There's an extent to which, if juries always respected the most deceitful and ruthless gameplay, the show would become unwatchable. I think the jury does a pretty good job of keeping the game in check, in the end.

@Scotty - yes I do, but what makes someone 'bitter'... is it being blindsided, or is about how they are blindsided? If Cagayan had been Tony vs Kass, they would have respected one players blindsides and not the others. They still would have been upset about both.

Most games are still won by the person who played the best game despite the fact the jury is bitter towards them.

insertnamehere wrote:The only one in your top 5 that I don't completely get is Amazon. Yes, Rob C is great, but he also has some cringey moments and the whole battle of the sexes thing was done much better in Vanuatu. (Season 9) Also, I'm not a fan of how the editors portrayed the winner. In a lot of ways, Jenna is the OG Michelle from Kaoh Rong. Let me be clear, I think that Jenna is an interesting person who deserved her win, but I think that the editors made the decision to not show us that, and it hurts the season greatly.

Agree about Amazon. I've never really gotten the love.

The season I love that other people don't is Cook Islands. Also Caramoan to some extent.

Ah, well, if you are one that believes Russell should have won, we will definitely have different views about what a jury should be

Since I am basically of the view that Russell is one of the worst players in Survivor history, since he played a game that objectively could never win. I think NO jury would have awarded him the win, because of how much of a dick he was to them. And for me, that's ok. The game is one where you have to betray people and have them still want to be your friend afterwards. It's a tough balance. I think Russell could have sat next to someone who betrayed them all and Russell still would have lost. Russell was fundamentally terrible (possibly worst 5 ever) at the single most important aspect of winning the game.

Scotty wrote:What is the single most important aspect of winning the game in your opinion?

People have to like you as a person. They might vote for someone who hurt them, they might vote for someone they are mad at, but they will never vote for someone who they genuinely think is a horrible person.

Russell did not care if he was liked, he believed he could overtly treat other people as though they were dumbasses. He isn't a nice person, and he made it abundantly clear to those around him.

Scotty wrote:

Golden wrote:

Scotty wrote:What is the single most important aspect of winning the game in your opinion?

People have to like you as a person. They might vote for someone who hurt them, they might vote for someone they are mad at, but they will never vote for someone who they genuinely think is a horrible person.

Russell did not care if he was liked, he believed he could overtly treat other people as though they were dumbasses. He isn't a nice person, and he made it abundantly clear to those around him.

That is what the game has evolved into, I will agree. There aren't any written rules in that regard, only unspoken ones.

And let me be clear: I like when the moral person win above the retches. But only if they showed any form of play. Russel played the game. Natalie? She got a tan and made a million dollars. That's how I look at it. They gave the money to someone who wasn't a horrible person, and for no other reason than that.

There's always that nagging feeling in the back of my mind, where if Russell did win at least once playing the way he did, i would rue the day I defended him. He's an extreme.

I don't think that's really a game evolution. I think it's always been true. It's just that there haven't been that many times when the choice has been so stark between a likable strategic non-entity and a horrible strategic force. In fact, really, just that one. But I think the result would have been the same in season 1 or in season 32.

In terms of what is a 'written rule' - there are, obviously, none... there are no rules that say a strategic player is worthy, either. Ultimately, I think to win survivor 99/100 times, the winner would need to demonstrate some level of both social and strategic skill. But I think a strategic zero can win over players who are not strategic zeroes, whereas a social zero can only win if everyone left is a social zero.

You clearly hang out at RHAP on occasion like I do.

Big Tom and Lex were great choices in allies. Both of them were all about loyalty, and they each would have stabbed the other before stabbing Ethan.

insertnamehere wrote:

Golden wrote:Big Tom and Lex were great choices in allies. Both of them were all about loyalty, and they each would have stabbed the other before stabbing Ethan.

All-Stars puts a biiiiiig asterisk next to this and many other things.

A player on one season is not the same as the player on their next season. They have the complexities that come with being friends with people in real life and having had the opportunity to reflect on your first effort. You can't tell me that wasn't a decent read from Ethan. I mean, I understand what tinny is saying, but I rank Ethan higher because I think it was his ability to choose his allies well that won him the game.

Can't believe T-Bird still hasn't come back, though.

im glad shirin and not spencer went. I actually enjoyed the fact that spencer basically had to play from the bottom the whole game for a second time. Besides, shirin was kind of cocky the second time around and spencer, oddly enough, wasn't so much.

Tbird instead of Monica for sure. Kelley was great, though. I'd sooner have lost abi.

Overall, though, Cambodia is one of my favourites so I'll take it how it was.

Hey, I'll start playing along with this.

Season ranking

1 - Australia
2 - Marquesas
3 - Africa
4 - Borneo
5 - Thailand

Again, those top 4 might all end up in my top half by the end because I love them all, so it's hard to rank them, and Thailand is probably going to be dead last even at the end. It really is that bad. I like Helen, and the pre-merge was tolerable. That is it.

Why is Borneo so low? Just because I think it is good mostly because it is first. It's so ham and cheese now. But it had a lot of great characters to hold it up. Africa had a lot of great characters but also the switch was amazing for me at the time, and the first few episodes after the merge were great as I was rooting for T-Bird and I was really hoping she'd find a way to win. Marquesas might feel 'high', but I loved the way we had a dominant tribe for the first time that then fell to pieces, I loved the way they did the tribe swap (still wish they'd do it like that again) and I loved the way the Rotu four were taken down. And I loved the colour scheme. There was little not to like about Marquesas for me. At the time I didn't like the winner, but now I've even reformed on that. And Australia, well I kind of fell in love with Elisabeth and Survivor with that season, and so it has a special place in my heart. Still has so many of my all time favourite Survivor characters.

Winner rankings:

1 - Richard
2 - Tina
3 - Ethan
4 - Vecepia
5 - Brian

Again, a massive gap between four and five. Brian won't be bottom for long, though.... and Rich will only be top for a moment longer than that. (spoiler alert for my winner rankings lol!)

I really find the Amazon very overrated. The only characters I liked were Deena, Christy and Rob (and my like for Rob was mostly because he was the only good winning candidate towards the end, and then has come more through his work as a Podcaster). For me, when it aired, I put it on par with Thailand and although I now think a little bit differently, I don't think a lot differently. Thailand is truly terrible, but for me Amazon doesn't have an awful lot more to redeem it - Deena and Rob, basically.

I felt Jenna and Heidi were easily the most unlikable people to ever exert any control in the game, and yes that includes Brian H. I never want to see either return again, they were complete zeroes for me. Jenna deserved her negative edit. She wasn't there to play the game and won by default. She probably led directly to the producers first discussions of a final three.

I also find the men vs women twist has been a failure every time its been attempted, but this time it seems particularly rife with sexist tropes.

Then look at Edgic. 6 overall negative edits, 3 positive edits two of which were on very average players, and almost everyone else was middle of the road, Deena was really the only complex player without a negative edit. I feel like the editors felt like the atmosphere out there was really very negative and chose to portray that accurately, but I don't enjoy a season with so much of the bashing other people. The way people talked about Matt and Christy really got on my nerves.

I guess what I'm saying is, that this might be the first one where we don't see eye to eye, tin man! But you are definitely in the popular majority.

I do, however, really want to get Deena back very badly. She has been overlooked for way too long, unless she just doesn't want to go back.

Season ranking

1 - Australia
2 - Marquesas
3 - Africa
4 - Borneo
5 - Amazon
6 - Thailand

Winner rankings:

1 - Richard
2 - Tina
3 - Ethan
4 - Vecepia
5 - Brian
6 - Jenna

Pretty certain Jenna will be on the bottom for good, at least as far as season 32.

Bring on Pearl Islands! This is the first season that I'd probably consider one of the truly great seasons of Survivor!

Sorry, I mean up to this point. Colton is far worse. Jenna and Heidi were the worst I'd seen at that point. Amazon nearly made me quit Survivor.

Scotty wrote:You mentioned earlier RE: preferring Shireen over Spencer. What in your opinion are Shireen's admirable qualities? I guess this question goes to @Golden too. I think I'm looking at her the wrong way, and I think you could help enlighten me.

I thought her admirable qualities in Worlds Apart were that she was just herself and felt free to be herself, and she stood up to those who wanted her to conform and who would bully her. I do think there is something admirable in not being willing to let people be callous and horrible to you, and to be willing to call it out for what it is. To me, Will Dan and Rodney are amongst the more despicable lot to play the game and Shirin stood up to them, I guess. Then in Cambodia I felt like she turned into the intolerant person when she had a majority around her, so it was much harder to like her there. In the first case, I didn't feel like she wanted to enforce her views on people, just to have people be tolerant. When she ended up on a tribe with several women of colour and several older white men she decided to go to the extreme end of feminism and see a lot of things as being sexist and racist that weren't, and I don't really like that quality in people.

Spencer on the other hand, I find immensely likable. I don't actually find him to be very arrogant, I don't think he is very good at persuading people though and when he tries I think that comes across to some people as arrogant. I don't think Spencer or Tasha played bad in Cambodia, except for the fact they took Jeremy to the end who was always hands down the best player there.

I have a mix of the two types of season that I like. For instance, I just listened to the Evolution of Strategy for 28/29 and I found 28 (strategy-heavy) a drag to get through and realised I'm not a great fan of Cagayan, but 29 was a breeze and I really love San Juan Del Sur, so in that case its character over strategy... but on the other hand, both seasons had both. I think having some great characters (who are overall likable) is important to my enjoyment of a season, but so is having some good strategy.

Dom wrote:I used to be OBSESSED with this show. I wish I still watched. :/

When did you stop watching? it had a lean patch there for a while (15-24 was a patch where the bad seasons outnumbered the good), but since season 25 I feel like the show has been on a tear, not every season has been truly great but none of them have been terrible, so I guess that's the last four years.

For me the strongest three season run might be 12-13-14, or it might be some of the more recent ones. 25-29 I find pretty strong generally and I could agree with a stretch in there. Some people might say the lean patch is only 21-24, for me I prefer 18 and 20 to anything from 15-17, but 17 in particular a lot of people think is the worst season ever. I personally don't agree, but neither is it anywhere close to my favourite. None of 15 through 17 are ones I have felt in a rush to watch a second time, although I have season 16 sitting there ready to go now, it's the strongest of the three for sure. Eliza and her stick, the fall of Eric etc, but the black widow brigade I didn't find so interesting. It would have been top tier for me if it wasn't for so many of the fans being so useless, I prefer Caramoan of the Fans vs Favourites seasons because I feel like it had more things to compensate for how terrible the fans were (ironically, I feel both are good seasons despite the fans).

15-17 would probably hold up well on a rewatch. 18 is great when you know Coach is being set up for a fall. I would just say that other than Heroes vs Villains very few if any of the seasons from 15-24 are likely to find their way in to the top half of my rankings. 16, 18 and 23 are probably the only ones that have any chance at all.

How on earth is the Trish boot episode giving Sandra an MOR3 on Edgic? She completely engineered that boot and didn't even get a complex player for it? For me she would be CPP for her role in that episode, easily. Edgic!

I agree with you that this is one of the most complete casts the show has ever hard. It is well underrepresented in terms of returnees, there are some people in here who really should return (Burton, in particular). At least bringing Savage back in 31 helped a bit.

The thing about Sandra is that her 'as long as it's not me' strategy (when simplified down to that) sounds a little less impressive than what she really manages to do, which is often 'as long as it's not me OR my allies'. In fact, she says to people's face 'anyone as long as it's not me', and at the end of the day she will execute on that, but most of the time she still manages to influence the boot to be the person she wants gone as well. Sandra might be underrated by some in the fan base, but I doubt she'd be underrated by the other players when she plays again.

Regarding Fairplay - I thought the grandma lie was iconic and audacious but... I think as far as game moves go it's pretty useless. It seems like more of a way to worry people about you getting sympathy votes and want you gone? Maybe it's a sign of the times, but I think if the grandmother lie was invented for the first time in season 33, it would be a terrible move that might get the liar voted out, even if the lie wasn't uncovered.

I'm an unapologetic Rupert lover - I've really enjoyed him on all his seasons. I think he is one of the few people who is really bad at the game but still manages to have some really inspired moments (like the fake idol in HvV). The extent to which he is a mixed bag is actually intriguing. He's the kind of person I will never mind being cast because he will always bring a complex dynamic for other players to have to work around, and make for interesting confessionals. No doubt, Pearl Island is where he shines best though. He is in his element with the pirate theme and the way he connected to Fairplay and was betrayed by him makes for one of the most compelling storylines of the season.

Osten and the disdain of the first quit is an epic moment.

And I actually really liked the Outcasts twist. Way better than Redemption Island, because that sucked screen time with the challenges and eliminations that needed to occur in every episode, and because it was limited to before the merge. I'd consider it a prototype for a much more successful approach to redemption island. It might have been better if we were taken on the journey the whole time, while the contestants weren't in the know. I wouldn't mind this twist returning at all.

PS - I love Savage. I don't want him to win, but I think he adds a heap to the season. He is the kind of person I like to root against much more than someone like a Jon or a Russell (who just annoys me, really).

The other thing about Pearl Islands is that it is the first time where I feel as though the boot list makes literally no sense if you were to read it when the merge hits. You would just ask yourself how the season could possibly go down the way that one did and with the boots in that order, and I think it was a preview of what a three tribe season can do (Burton and Lil representing the third tribe here) because it seems to create an instability after the merge that doesn't exist even in seasons with a swap. At least in Amazon shake ups represent the end of power players, it still seems relatively logical and didn't really feel surprising to me other than the Deena boot (which was probably the most surprised I'd been by Survivor until that point). In Pearl Islands it felt, basically from Burton's boot on, like anyone could go at any time.

Season ranking

1 - Pearl Islands
2 - Australia
3 - Marquesas
4 - Africa
5 - Borneo
6 - Amazon
7 - Thailand

Winner rankings:

1 - Sandra 1.0
2 - Richard
3 - Tina
4 - Ethan
5 - Vecepia
6 - Brian
6 - Jenna

I'm going to be blogging Survivor from next season.

I'll post more closer to the time, but it would be neat if those of you who are Survivor fans came along and read my ramblings

insertnamehere wrote:

Golden wrote:I'm going to be blogging Survivor from next season.

I'll post more closer to the time, but it would be neat if those of you who are Survivor fans came along and read my ramblings

Ready for the Sierra/Troyzan power couple to take over the island?

I can't wait to see how a season like this plays out. It looks remarkably lopsided on paper.

Scotty wrote:GAME CHANGERS

ok how did Sierra change the game? She voted off her Mom? So what? I accidentally left my mom at a gas station on a vacation and you don't see me getting any medals.

But seriously am excited about seeing some familiar faces next season. Looks to be a pretty cutthroat one.

Ozzy should be voted out first, if they're smart.

You're thinking of ciera. Sierra did much less.

insertnamehere wrote:Ciera (the mom voting one) pulled a pretty amazing blindside on Andrew Savage in Second Chances.

I think Ciera's done a number of good things:

She did a lot of work to get Caleb to turn on Brad
She got Katie to admit she didn't have an idol through a shrewd piece of play
She recognised the need to go to rocks (sure, it was an episode too late)
She played both the Woo and Savage votes well in Second Chances, and was unlucky not to successfully dispatch of Fishbach too - it took an idol to get her out.

Listening to Jeff, you can see the season should be called 'Big Moves', because what he basically said is all of the players tried to do big things and play hard, even if it didn't work for them (this is still not true of Sierra...)

So it begins:

http://www.truedorktimes.com/s34/martell/

I'm offically blogging Survivor, guys. Hope some of you who are Survivor fans will come along and read from time to time.

Scotty wrote:

Golden wrote:So it begins:

http://www.truedorktimes.com/s34/martell/

I'm offically blogging Survivor, guys. Hope some of you who are Survivor fans will come along and read from time to time.

Awesome work man! I will read that during the show today.
I especially like from my initial perusal how you spell the word "analyze"

Not colour?

My cast assessment is up. Warning, it's long!

http://www.truedorktimes.com/s34/martell/cast.htm

I'm excited too. I just hope we don't lose superstar after superstar before the merge, that would be bad news.

All talk spoiler tagged, is a good policy. I probably can't watch until your Thursday either.

I have to start my next blog tonight... I've seen the first 7 minutes of the episode and thought about the new twist (the one that's been publicly announced) so that's enough to get going.

Is this your final 3, or top 3 guesses for who wins?

My top three guesses for who wins are:
The third one is me giving the end to the terrible season of terribleness, but I think they could beat some others they would get to the end with in that scenario.

http://www.truedorktimes.com/s34/martell/e1.htm

Here's my blog, guys.

This week's Survivor blog is here:

http://truedorktimes.com/s34/martell/e3.htm

It's funny looking back now and watching season one... Richard doesn't seem at all vile any more.

Before there is any pitching - from your one season only perspective, what do you like about the idea of Survivor, and what do you not like about it?

Do you likely to be more or less interested in social dynamics forcing strategy (say, conflict in real life views) or in pure gamesmanship defining strategy? What's your tolerance for strategic jerkiness?

Ricochet wrote:I'd be tolerant to watching mostly anything unfold, methinks. But that's as far as I can understand your question. It would not be the same as saying I also condone what veers on edgy and dirty or that I'd intentionally ask for big drama to go with my popcorn. Then again, I've watched enough Weakest Link to know gamesmanship and strategy don't always match.

Aha, how true! But a big part of the appeal of Survivor (in my opinion) is figuring out who is playing well, and who is not (the worst seasons, however, are the ones where a bunch of people aren't playing at all).

My pitch to you is:

Pearl Islands, season 7.

Here's a few reasons why this season would be a good season for you to watch.

1) The season has a number of surprises and also a number of evidently good and bad decisions. In terms of watching the battle to be the last man standing, it's a pretty good watch. Power plays and attempted power plays abound. It's a formative season for what good Survivor strategy looks like.

2) The cast is diverse. It includes a number of Survivor's most recognisable faces playing for the first time. There's a good mix of the one dimensional, but plenty of two dimensional characters as well (and the one dimensional characters are still very compelling TV). There is douchiness but not to an obnoxious level that affects enjoyment of the season.

3) There is a certain evolution to Survivor, that I think makes the show more compelling if you watch a couple of earlier seasons first. Pearl Islands predates the invention of many of the twists the show has thrown at us, and while many of those twists have been fantastic and added strategic options for good players, I think it's best to get a compass of what 'good play' looks like while the game is still relatively raw. I'd give you a short list of seasons to watch to get a crash course in the evolution of the game, but since the rule is one season, this is probably the best.

4) In a recent poll of fans, Pearl Islands managed to come in second to top in terms of 'what is the best season'. It's popularity hasn't waned for a reason.

Now that's what I call collaboration!

I look forward to your review

juliets wrote:I'll be interested in seeing your blog about this week's show Golden.

No kidding! As I was watching it play out I was thinking 'how do I even begin to make sense of this'. I'll do my best!

Survivor's production values are higher than most - while there's no doubt that they craft a narrative for their 42-minute synopsis of three days of real life, most contestants say it always broadly reflects what actually happened (and those that don't are usually blowhards who came off looking like jerks because they are jerks). The one exception being that they will almost always endeavour to make you believe there is more than one name on the table going in to tribal council to allow for suspense, even if the vote was actually straightforward.

I've sat amongst people who are in the prediction game for a long while and... some seasons they get it right, some they get it badly wrong. Survivor editors are notable for deliberately toying with your expectations of the edit. But they're still bound to ensure that even the most casual of viewer can feel like they can understand what happened.

You have no idea how relevant that simile is going to be...

Ricochet wrote:That what?

The simile you used in your last sentence!

Scotty wrote:

Ricochet wrote:That what?

A simile is like a metaphor

No, a simile is a metaphor

Scotty wrote:

Golden wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Ricochet wrote:That what?

A simile is like a metaphor

No, a simile is a metaphor

Mine is righter (hi Epi)

No, yours is a simile and mine is a metaphor. Both are equally correct

In case you missed it, here is my episode 4 blog

http://www.truedorktimes.com/s34/martell/e4.htm

You didn't like the premiere? The whole 'buy supplies in the village' is one of my favourite Survivor openings.

In any given season, the pre-merge usually has some weak episodes, especially around eps 2-3 like this season.

Fair enough for Rico Cynico to surface, although my cynicism over single events has waned over time as Survivor shoots itself in the foot just as frequently with their twists (just this season a big twist eliminated one of their most beloved contestants to the benefit of a complete no-name). I do think there is evidence that, more often than not, they are pre-planned - and the kidnapping twist fits with the pirate theme. Besides that, though, I believe that production will never tell people how to vote or endeavour to control the outcome of a tribes decision, but they are more than willing to do things that can influence the game that fall short of that. This is far from the only time in Survivor history that a healthy dose of cynicism about a twist is appropriate.

Is it possible this twist was cooked up simply because Drake wanted to throw a challenge? Sure. As it happens, in my this weeks blog on the last Survivor episode, I talk about the merits of throwing a challenge, and one very firm view I hold is that production will do what they can to make sure it doesn't work out for you, since they don't want it to be seen as a popular or successful strategy (as that undermines the basic concept of tribes and challenges). In that sense, I could completely believe that this twist was cooked up on the spot. It still required the other tribe to pick Rupert (which was highly likely but not guaranteed) or potentially Burton (their most likely second choice), which also might have changed the course of events, so production fell short of giving Rupert immunity from being blindsided.

Episode 6 remains one of my favourites. Perhaps it's because Rupert was a favourite. Perhaps it's because we had never seen someone pull off a countermove so overtly and, frankly, with as much cockiness as Sandra did. Whatever, that episode is an indelible one for me. For all we know Trish would have been a good Survivor player, but she got got first.

Ricochet wrote:Interesting. Didn't see Sandra as cocky, at least not at this stage, not with this rebuff.

I mean the way she was able to make them believe she was in for voting Rupert without ever saying it outright. Perhaps cockiness it the wrong word. Chutzpah, perhaps.

How did she do it?

Many words have been written on this, but in the most simple form:

She told the truth so hard and so often, that when she lied (or omitted the truth) she was never suspected for it. She was able to ensure targets would sit on others. Take the Tijuana boot - she took Tijuana to hear Burton and Jon talking smack, and then joined with the boys to vote her out. She saw her alliance mate Christa get blamed for the fish? Sure, she can live with that. She could see through bullshit from a mile away (Jon's grandmother lie) and as a result she always knew where the vote was going - from both sides. When she is under threat, she knows that she doesn't need to direct who goes home. She only needs to direct who others perceive to be the threats.

There's a scene in her most recent season where you outright see how she goes about painting the targets on both sides of the fence so that she knows that even if her side loses, it's her ally that goes and not her.

And she manages to make people believe she is too temperamental to be respected (through all her 'getting loud too'), but the reality is that everyone loves her even after all of that.

The way you felt about the Darrah boot - well, that's classic Survivor. The way to win is (in theory) to peak just late enough that you are only the second biggest threat on the board when the last person is voted out. There are a plethora of truly great players who went out at 3/4 because no-one could have beaten them. The best winners are usually people who should have been taken out at that final vote but somehow they've managed to take people along who can't see it (or they win final immunity). Having said that, I'm not convinced Darrah would have beaten Sandra. It's possible that she may have, but I'm guessing that Sandra gets the votes of Burton and Jon (along with Rupert and Christa, obviously), and still comes out on top.

Would you watch another season?

OK, well try season 13 (Cook Islands) on for size.

No, you didn't imply that. It was just an interesting thought experiment for me. I can't remember who would have gone at 4 if not darrah.

I like to mix it up and give you different experiences. There's no good reason to jump into hvv, in fact I'd go so far as to say that you should avoid any returnee season for just now. I'd do at least a couple of other seasons first.