You don't get it. Getting the jury to pool votes away from you is based on YOUR game. Russell's game was so bad, he had the jury trying to get him to lose. They were conspiring to cost him the title. He treated them so poorly that they took it back and threw it in his face. That's the game. That's a part of Survivor. Don't piss off the jury. It'll come back to bite you.
His jury management was so bad, and that's a clear example of why his strategic game was not very good. Eliminating people from the game is only part of the game. If you piss them off enough that they won't vote for you in the end, you're doing it wrong.
No, you don't get it--this is exactly why I use the word immaturity. People don't go to Survivor to make friends. They go to win. It is incredibly immature for anyone to go to Survivor prepared to be immersed in lying and betraying and then actually take personal offense to it, that they carry with them when they're outside of the game, that obscures their reasoning when they vote. This is not a jury that conspired against Russell because they felt like he treated them poorly--this is a jury upset about being thoroughly outplayed and outwitted in every sense of the meaning. To be honest, I'm not even sure where you're coming from saying that he treated them poorly unless voting them off counts as treating them poorly. Almost every single "mean" thing he said was in a camera confessional, not to them at all. Which, again, that's something that everyone is well aware of when they get there--there will be voting out. It might be them. And if they're upset about being voted out, that's really their problem. They're adults, they should be able accept it.
Naomi_Diamond posted...
Also, you can't say who you'd vote for in a season without being there. It's not the same thing. Plus, editing is deceptive.
It's a hypothetical statement meant to illustrate a point. Jeez...
--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.