LogFAQs > #1191688

LurkerFAQs ( 06.29.2011-09.11.2012 ), Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear
Topic List
Page List: 1
Topicdarkx ranks all 426 Survivor contestants
WilhuffTarkin
05/30/12 5:25:00 PM
#115:


Mega Mana posted...
If Russell had done anything, anything, to appeal to the jurors at final tribal, I think he might have picked up some votes. You have a final case to make to the jury before they vote. If you make moves and blindsides and handle a jury terribly, you're not going to win. Kim owned the post-merge. Completely owned it. Blindsides everywhere, huge moves, and Ponderosa had some anti-Kim movement. But she handled the jury extremely well, both when she was putting them there and when she answering their questions. He could've won against Shambo. He could've won against John. He could've won against a few other people had they lasted longer in the game (I see him winning against Marisa given certain circumstances, Ben too, and Christina). But he voted out everyone who he could've won against and brought with him too people he had no chance to unless he brought a very, very strong final jury game. He did not. Were they bitter? Most likely. But he made them bitter, and he did it every week. Look at his HvV play where's he just openly a smartass and complete wretch to everyone.


No, you're wrong. The jury hade made up its mind, quite literally conspiring together...BEFORE the final tribal council...that they wanted to MAKE SURE that Russell did not win. There was nothing he could have said on that night to help himself win. His goose was cooked. If something like this happens in the legal system, everyone is appalled. I'm not sure people aren't equally appalled by the corruption of this jury.

Jury management is key, and has always been key. Russell absolutely failed at that part of the game, the social game. Russell had a chance to plead his case and win them over, but he failed miserably.


To this point, I really just have to repeat, in essence, things I've said before. Foremost among them that this is just my personal opinion. :)

To me, jurors have to be objective. If your attitude as a juror is "I think you were mean to me so I won't vote for you," that is not objectively analyzing the person, and this is where my "immaturity" comments stem from.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1