LogFAQs > #879909813

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Survivor: Game Changers Topic 5: At Least It's Better Than Cambodia
ImTheMacheteGuy 05/27/17 12:53:26 PM #313:	PoIl6177 posted... Inviso posted... If you get to the end and do not win the jury vote, then by definition, you did not play the best game. This. This is exactly what I hate. There's this misconception to treat jury members like they've just descended from the gates of heaven, and they are only capable of perfection and nothing they do can ever be wrong or unfair. So many people have this view. And it just feeds the entitlement you see more and more in jury speeches and and jury reactions every season. Every person on the jury is a human being. And just as capable of making a mistake as someone else. If as a jury member you delude yourself into believing that a shitty player "outplayed" everyone, that he "actually outplayed everyone precisely by doing nothing!" and you invent all these bullshit reasons and arguments so you can lie to yourself and salvage a wounded pride, then you're wrong. You're being unfair. And you're wrong. And you're inconsistent with your own arguments, you're disgracing the game, and you're wrong. I played an online game based on survivor and big brother on another board that started with 100 players and I won because my f2 partner who dominated the first 3/4 of the game took a Russellesque approach to the jury while I had critical wins in the final quarter (big brother format) and kept his ass safe week after week, and in the end, I knew what the jury was looking for. 2 jurors in particular valued honesty above all else, so I not only approached them with honesty but went above and beyond and came clean about things I did that I wasn't even called out on or questioned about. I was described as being "more human" and won by 1 vote. Those 2 jurors I spoke of had more reason to be bitter toward me also. They had been tribemates and allies of mine since the first merge/shuffle and I nominated one of them as HoH at f11 while directly eliminating the other as veto winner at f4. I knew my opponent had a much larger resumé in the game, but I had early warning signs that he might mismanage the jury, while I planned to lay out all my cards on the table. The jury does not appreciate shit like "Technically I didn't LIE to you. I just let you believe what you wanted to believe." Even when that is technically true. They appreciate owning up. I got that. My opponent did not. He lost because he hadn't learned that lesson and I had. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:879909813] in Survivor: ... [t:75383455]...</cite> <quote><cite>PoIl6177 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Inviso posted...</cite> <quote>If you get to the end and do not win the jury vote, then by definition, you did not play the best game. </quote> This. This is exactly what I hate. There's this misconception to treat jury members like they've just descended from the gates of heaven, and they are only capable of perfection and nothing they do can ever be wrong or unfair. So many people have this view. And it just feeds the entitlement you see more and more in jury speeches and and jury reactions every season. Every person on the jury is a human being. And just as capable of making a mistake as someone else. If as a jury member you delude yourself into believing that a shitty player "outplayed" everyone, that he "actually outplayed everyone precisely by doing nothing!" and you invent all these bullshit reasons and arguments so you can lie to yourself and salvage a wounded pride, then you're wrong. You're being unfair. And you're wrong. And you're inconsistent with your own arguments, you're disgracing the game, and you're wrong.</quote> I played an online game based on survivor and big brother on another board that started with 100 players and I won because my f2 partner who dominated the first 3/4 of the game took a Russellesque approach to the jury while I had critical wins in the final quarter (big brother format) and kept his ass safe week after week, and in the end, I knew what the jury was looking for. 2 jurors in particular valued honesty above all else, so I not only approached them with honesty but went above and beyond and came clean about things I did that I wasn't even called out on or questioned about. I was described as being "more human" and won by 1 vote. Those 2 jurors I spoke of had more reason to be bitter toward me also. They had been tribemates and allies of mine since the first merge/shuffle and I nominated one of them as HoH at f11 while directly eliminating the other as veto winner at f4. I knew my opponent had a much larger resumé in the game, but I had early warning signs that he might mismanage the jury, while I planned to lay out all my cards on the table. The jury does not appreciate shit like "Technically I didn't LIE to you. I just let you believe what you wanted to believe." Even when that is technically true. They appreciate owning up. I got that. My opponent did not. He lost because he hadn't learned that lesson and I had. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1