LogFAQs > #919961599

So I wanted to talk about Aubry's vote off a bit but never got around to it. I might as well do it before tonights episode!

I thought it was really neat how they portrayed Aubry's vote off, falling for her alliance's lies like that and making it clear she was the target. They tell her that they want to work with her and she's super receptive to it. We plainly see them talking to eachother about how it's a lie and they are just going to vote her out. Then there's no ambiguity on whether it will be her or Wendy like in a typical episode. We know it's Aubry. But then the episode follows Aubry around and shows us her perspective, on everything, like whether or not she feels like she can trust Wendy or work with her in the future. But from our perspective, we know this line of logic is pointless because she's getting voted out and that logic will never be relevant - it's not up to her if she can work with Wendy or not and that will never come to fruition.

It makes Aubry look really stupid. Like she couldn't notice these people are lying to her, or that Wendy isn't trying to come up with an alternate plan? Why is she making plans for down the line when she needs to solve the situation right in front of her? I'm sure a LOT of people came away from that episode thinking Aubry is dumb.

But I'm not sure that's a fair take. I think that in the vast majority of vote offs, they could edit the person who got voted off exactly like they did here - the person talks to people, makes a plan with them, chooses to believe them, and then gives confessionals strategizing on where they could go with their game from here. They have a plan and they think it will work. Then the get voted off... and realize they had committed to a fake plan. I think this is what happens to most vote offs - they've committed to a plan that they hope is legit and it turns out they were the one being lied to. It seems like most votes don't have a clear outcast that everyone including the person going home knows what's going to happen - it sounds like both players get promises to vote with them but one is being lied to.

It's really cool when someone makes the read that someone is lying to them and comes up with a way to turn the tables, but you can't just always suspect the people you are working with are lying. Other wise, you'll never build trust and pull off a plan because you'll always be turning on each other. So there are points where you just have to believe somebody when they tell you that they will vote with you, even if it might turn out to be a mistake.

I've talked about this before (like with Paras, I think?) where players don't have perfect information and can only act on what what they see, and I think the thing that is most relevant for that is trusting other players - they can only judge whether to trust someone based on their personal relationship with that player and what that player has done to earn trust (like voting with you in previous tribals). Aubry hadn't been to tribal yet with these people, so she could only trust what they were saying. And yeah,in order to "be the best" and win you have to make it through these situations, but I don't think everyone falls for them must be dumb... otherwise that'd be almost every Survivor player.

Peridiam, you asked for video ideas a while ago, and I'd love to see a video exploring this concept in some way - how Survivors (or Big Brother) players have to make choices from their limited information in the moment. They don't necessarily have a lot of time to ponder things before making a move - they just have to make a call and go with it. How do players even make decisions like this? It'd be a hard concept to make a video about I think.... it's not a top 10 list of players with an attribute or something. But it could be really interesting.

You also asked about topics you could talk with Rob C about.... well, I'm sure he'd have some real perspective on this!
---

The batman villians all seem to be one big joke that batman refuses to laugh at - SantaRPG