Board 8 > darkx ranks all 426 Survivor contestants

(+) Yeah! (+)

And I didn't always believe that. When I first saw Samoa I was a Survivor n00b and thought Russell got robbed(.com). But once I had the honor of being enlightened by a smart set of minds over at Sucks (a very rare .1%), I realized that Russell really isn't very good at Survivor. He's entertaining as ever and I actually enjoy him on my screen more often than not, but in terms of strategy to win the game his is rather poor.

The Funny 115 2.0 covers how bad he is strategically pretty well, and a few other well-spoken users over on Sucks can say the same.

--
ziggie ziggie wop wop

smart set of minds over at Sucks

I don't know about this

--
I'm no longer a Nadal supporter. Andy Murray is my new favorite player/person. -Princess Anri

a very rare .1%, if not smaller

--
ziggie ziggie wop wop

Anyway, as has been said before, Russell is generally very good at getting to the end of the game, but very poor at setting himself up to win once he gets there. There are ways to backstab everyone you've played the game with and still win (see: Kim, Parvati in FvF, Rob C if he had gotten to the finals in Amazon), you just need to be more careful about what you do along the way. And even then, Russell probably would have won Samoa if he brought the right people to FTC (Shambo & Jaison were probably his best bets).

--
I'm no longer a Nadal supporter. Andy Murray is my new favorite player/person. -Princess Anri

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

LOLContests posted...

But why should someone vote for someone based on that criteria? All the game says is to vote for whomever you want to see win the money. Why shouldn't someone vote based on who they like or dislike? Why is that worse than giving someone money because they made a lot of moves on some arbitrary game show?

It doesn't break any rules to vote just because you like this person/dislike the other person. You're right there.

But, people should have respect for the game that they signed up for. Again, this is just how I see it. Everyone goes to Survivor to try to win by outwitting, outplaying, and outlasting the others. The strategic players are the players who make the big moves to advance themselves and in some cases seem to really bend the game to their wills. How is that not more admirable and worthy of winning than someone who is just along for the ride? How have they not outwitted and outplayed much more so?

An example of what I'm talking about may be found in All-Stars. I like Lex as a strategic player, but there is definitely some hypocrisy in his attitude about getting booted. He was very clear about how "the first time I was out to prove that I could pay it straight. This time, it's just business." You'd think someone with an attitude like that would admire the gameplay of Boston Rob, who made nearly every big "business" decision in the game. Lex was outplayed by Rob, and that's all there is to it. Yet when it comes time to cast his jury vote, Lex is...bitter about being outplayed? After he made it very clear that the game was "just business" to him that time around?

The point is, people can and will lie, deceive, and betray in the game of Survivor. They do it for the purpose of self-advancement. People who go to Survivor thinking that there won't be Russells and Fairplays are naive. People who go there knowing that there will be Russells and Fairplays, and admit themselves that they will lie and betray to win, but are bitter about somebody like Russell coming along and doing it better than they ever could have display immaturity by not voting for that strategic player. That player outwitted and outplayed far better than anyone else.

If the argument is "well, lying and betraying is all good and well...but Russell just did it to an unnecessary point," then the issue we have is that people draw the line at what's acceptable in different places. Just because someone like a Russell draws it further away, or maybe never draws it at all, means that his strategic brilliance should be ignored and he shouldn't be voted for? If you have two players, and one says "I may have to lie and betray, but I'll only do it to a point," and the other says "I may have to lie and betray, but I came here to play to win so I'm going to do it and not have qualms about it," you know, how can the first person fault the second for just being willing to draw the line in a different place? It's all in the context of the game of Survivor. There's nothing wrong with it.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

http://funny115.com/v2/50.htm

--
"COMMUNITY is back at 8 on the 15th. I have a good feeling about those numbers." - Damon Lindelof

To expect every juror to cater to your take on 'respecting the game' (just as Russell so aptly puts it too) is absurd and not a good mindset to have. Every juror does respect 'the game', because the game is not simply 'make flashy moves' and 'eliminate other players'. It's about priming yourself to earn a jurors vote. The jury are fundamentally 'the game'.

Lex respected 'the game' - but he also took it personally. Voting for a player to win is a part of the game. He spoke backwards and contradicted himself, but Rob should have worked that to earn his vote, not lose it. Just because a juror doesn't vote for one person doesn't mean they aren't 'respecting the game'. Natalie and Amber had games as well. They played their games well as witnessed by the fact that the jury thought they deserved to win more than those they were next to. The jury is never wrong, and will never be wrong. They are inherently right in their decision, be it 'mature' to you or not. Russell should have worked to the people he was playing with, instead of expecting them to work to him.

I don't think it's a simple concept to grasp because people have so many different takes on what 'the game' is, and what 'strategic' can be, but nonetheless Russell was an ass hat and could have easily won had he been more humble and displayed some humility. By choosing not to he did a poor job playing 'the game'. Players like Hatch, Tom, Todd, Rob, or Kim were dominant in eliminating everyone but at the same time were humble in their approach to jury management. Russell showed no respect to the jurors and in turn received none back, costing him his game.

--
ziggie ziggie wop wop

Naomi_Diamond posted...

To expect every juror to cater to your take on 'respecting the game' (just as Russell so aptly puts it too) is absurd and not a good mindset to have. Every juror does respect 'the game', because the game is not simply 'make flashy moves' and 'eliminate other players'. It's about priming yourself to earn a jurors vote. The jury are fundamentally 'the game'.

Lex respected 'the game' - but he also took it personally. Voting for a player to win is a part of the game. He spoke backwards and contradicted himself, but Rob should have worked that to earn his vote, not lose it. Just because a juror doesn't vote for one person doesn't mean they aren't 'respecting the game'. Natalie and Amber had games as well. They played their games well as witnessed by the fact that the jury thought they deserved to win more than those they were next to. The jury is never wrong, and will never be wrong. They are inherently right in their decision, be it 'mature' to you or not. Russell should have worked to the people he was playing with, instead of expecting them to work to him.

I don't think it's a simple concept to grasp because people have so many different takes on what 'the game' is, and what 'strategic' can be, but nonetheless Russell was an ass hat and could have easily won had he been more humble and displayed some humility. By choosing not to he did a poor job playing 'the game'. Players like Hatch, Tom, Todd, Rob, or Kim were dominant in eliminating everyone but at the same time were humble in their approach to jury management. Russell showed no respect to the jurors and in turn received none back, costing him his game.

I disagree. When the jury makes up its mind that they are going to pool their votes to ensure that Player A does not win before Player A has even stated his case, we have a corrupt jury on our hands. It's no different than an actual legal case where the jury has not afforded all parties a fair chance to plead the case.

Amber and Natalie DID have games. Games that were not as impressive from a strategic point as Rob and Russell, who forged their ways to the end. There's nothing inherently wrong with riding coattails, it's just pretty silly to think that it is more worthy of recognition than someone who made things happen.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

And they were pooling their votes towards Mick until Natalie won the jury over at final tribal.

--
"COMMUNITY is back at 8 on the 15th. I have a good feeling about those numbers." - Damon Lindelof

Also, I guess in that light, Erik's speech at the end is, "Look at how much better Natalie is than Russell, we should all vote for her," but more, "Look at how much better Natalie is than Mick, we should rally over to her."

--
“So we’ve cornered Andy and Kyle in the Swarts stairwell and then this guy comes out of NO WHERE like ****ing Batman or something.” ; ExTha is the man

Mega Mana posted...

And they were pooling their votes towards Mick until Natalie won the jury over at final tribal.

They could have been pooling their votes toward Marisa if they wanted to. The important detail is that they were pooling votes AWAY from Russell. Not giving him a fair chance. That is the height of immaturity (letting sour grapes determine your jury vote), and displays a rather large lack of respect for the game.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

IMO

whoever wins the season deserved to win

you as a player need to take into account the people you are putting on the jury and how they are going to base their vote, not how you think they should base their vote. you have to take into account that the jury might conspire against you and be bitter, so you can't be a dick to them. there are many winners who have been the head of an alliance that got to the end and even had to backstab friends that still won. Russel, like Boston Rob in all stars, was just bad at reading the jury as people if they felt he could still get their vote after treating them that way. If Russel comes back again for a fourth time and learns from his mistakes like Boston Rob did, I will have lots of respect for him, but right now, he is far from the best player.

that is pretty much all I have to say about it.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/newaccountjpget.jpg

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.

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.


*SPOILERS FOR VANUATU AND CHINA*

Look at Todd in China. Going in, as a viewer or as someone at tribal, you know there is absolutely no possible way Jean-Robert is giving Todd a vote to win the million. Todd blindsided him and he's still completely bitter about it. He doesn't want Todd to win that game.

And Todd just complete wins him over. Just says all the right thing sand gets his vote.

How about Chris? He lied to everyone out there and blindsided his way to the final two. But his management of how Twila should act to the jury (unapologetic and completely owning her actions) and management of every single person asking him a question, sometimes contradicting what he said five seconds before, won him the game. A man beating the women in a war of the sexes,

Just playing a scorched earth game means nothing if there's more to it than just getting to the end.

EDIT: "I think he might have picked up some votes."

Should be picked up some more votes because his two big allies voted for him. See? He got two votes from people, not because they respected his game, but because he reached out to them and made some social links with them. He was Shambo's only friend out there (her own doing, Monica still probably doesn't mind crazy Shambo while Shambo's still *****ing about them) and John's a similar 'big moves = awesome fun' even though it completely ruined his own chances at winning. See? The two he made bonds with versus the seven he royally pissed off and burned all bridges with. He handled them well socially. They're also crazy, delusional people who are terrible at the game, but whatever.

--
"And the theoretical maximum is 2880 messages, so I was only performing at 45.94% posting efficiency." - Luster Soldier

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.

A jury in the legal system is twelve complete strangers who don't know you beforehand and know nothing about the case until its presented.

This jury is made of people you start out the game on day one with and get to know you first hand before you are ever sitting in that final seat, while they're also going for the final seat themselves.

Totally different system.

--
“So we’ve cornered Andy and Kyle in the Swarts stairwell and then this guy comes out of NO WHERE like ****ing Batman or something.” ; ExTha is the man

From: WilhuffTarkin | #115
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.
But the fact is, jurors are often not objective. Do you believe that a player should take this account when playing their game? If the jury is not objective, does the blame lie on them, or on the player, for not appealing to them?

Mega Mana posted...

A jury in the legal system is twelve complete strangers who don't know you beforehand and know nothing about the case until its presented.

This jury is made of people you start out the game on day one with and get to know you first hand before you are ever sitting in that final seat, while they're also going for the final seat themselves.

Totally different system.

Different system, fair point. I maintain, however, that it is still their job to cast votes objectively. Pooling votes to make a lesser player win because of bitterness is not objective.

Delseban posted...

But the fact is, jurors are often not objective. Do you believe that a player should take this account when playing their game? If the jury is not objective, does the blame lie on them, or on the player, for not appealing to them?

The jury. Sorry, but it really is that black and white to me.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

guys I think WilhuffTarkin may actually be russel hantz

--
http://img.imgcake.com/newaccountjpget.jpg

Different system, fair point. I maintain, however, that it is still their job to cast votes objectively. Pooling votes to make a lesser player win because of bitterness is not objective.


Something I forgot to add to this: different system or not, it doesn't make the jury any less corrupt.

CycloRaptor posted...

guys I think WilhuffTarkin may actually be russel hantz

:)

Not quite. Just a big fan.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

there is no rule about how to determine your vote. there is no rule against conspiring. if i was a juror, i'd probably vote based on who would most benefit society with it. or if none were likely to, then who i liked or respected more. even if i was in an alliance with someone like Russell and he never betrayed me, i wouldn't vote for him.

Xuxon posted...

there is no rule about how to determine your vote. there is no rule against conspiring. if i was a juror, i'd probably vote based on who would most benefit society with it. or if none were likely to, then who i liked or respected more. even if i was in an alliance with someone like Russell and he never betrayed me, i wouldn't vote for him.

The point I'm making is, the fact that the jury did conspire shows that Russell never had a chance of winning it. It's not a question of him working himself out of the winning circle by not being humble at the final tribal council (not that he had much to be humble about--his accomplishments were incredible). This really is a case of the jury throwing the vote against someone because they were upset that he had made them all look like morons by how thoroughly he outplayed them. No amount of "Russell could have said this or that" is going to change that it was, in fact, a bitter jury voting to spite him.

The other point I'm making basically amounts to "this is how I think things should be." I'm willing to admit that; however, I stand by it. I firmly believe that jurors should cast votes for the best strategic player, and that votes cast for other reasons are votes that have been cast for the wrong reasons. That's just me, though. You're all welcome to disagree with me.

I'll offer up Survivor: Gabon as an example. In a final tribal council that featured three players who were unbelievably weak from in terms of strategy, Sugar was probably the most strategic. Did I, personally, like Sugar? Not really. But, I'd still be casting my vote for her if I was on that jury because she actually made some moves in the game.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

WilhuffTarkin posted...

Mega Mana posted...

And they were pooling their votes towards Mick until Natalie won the jury over at final tribal.

They could have been pooling their votes toward Marisa if they wanted to. The important detail is that they were pooling votes AWAY from Russell. Not giving him a fair chance. That is the height of immaturity (letting sour grapes determine your jury vote), and displays a rather large lack of respect for the game.

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.

--
ziggie ziggie wop wop

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.

--
ziggie ziggie wop wop

Russell fans blame the jury. Everyone else blames Russell. The jury is never wrong; they can't be. They can do what they want in terms of who they vote for. Russell had to win them over, and he had 39 days to do so. He didn't, and so he lost. "But it's not his fault."

Russell actively ruined his chances of getting votes. He was completely played by his entire alliance (sans Shambo), who knew he was an obnoxious presence, and knew that he was the perfect shield and goat. Nobody from his alliance removed him because they couldn't lose to him. He was a sure a bet as can come in Survivor.

Good Survivor players are able to balance the social, numbers, and physical games. Russell's approach was completely one-dimensional and not suitable to win Survivor. Russell's gameplay in Samoa could never win Survivor, as not a single jury would ever give him the win, despite what many odds some would wager against. He had the chance to bring people like Shambo to the end, but that would've never enter his thought process, even after losing the game handily.

Sabotaging your own tribe early on? Bad gameplay. Voting out strong members over obvious weaker ones early on? Bad gameplay. Showing people hidden immunity idols again and again? Bad gameplay. Revealing you have lots of money at home? Bad gameplay. Playing in a way that people you can beat get voted out? Bad gameplay. Making superfluous alliances that backfire and cause them to hate you? Bad gameplay. Playing a one demensional game? Bad gameplay.

He did it wrong quite often.


--
ziggie ziggie wop wop

Yeah, Samoa was 80% Russell, 10% Shambo, 9% every other player, and 1% Daisy the chicken.

Everyone had endgame alliances with Brett, Monica could care less about Shambo's one-sided feud, and Russell didn't find two of the three idols on his own. Samoa was an editing nightmare.

--
"Because they don't want to reason about what they consider a masterpiece and be hurt when they realize it was all useless." - Umineko on Lost

Naomi_Diamond posted...

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.

Naomi_Diamond posted...

Russell fans blame the jury. Everyone else blames Russell. The jury is never wrong; they can't be.

What they can do is award the title to a lesser player. Which happens quite frequently. I call it immaturity, for reasons I've already explained. You and I, evidently, have a fundamental disagreement on this point.

Russell actively ruined his chances of getting votes. He was completely played by his entire alliance (sans Shambo), who knew he was an obnoxious presence, and knew that he was the perfect shield and goat. Nobody from his alliance removed him because they couldn't lose to him. He was a sure a bet as can come in Survivor.

...You and I obviously didn't watch the same show. There was never once, at any point, even the slightest indication that his alliance was playing him. Stumbling ass-backward into a situation where in order to punish someone else for outplaying them, the jury votes for you =/= playing that other person.

Good Survivor players are able to balance the social, numbers, and physical games. Russell's approach was completely one-dimensional and not suitable to win Survivor. Russell's gameplay in Samoa could never win Survivor, as not a single jury would ever give him the win, despite what many odds some would wager against. He had the chance to bring people like Shambo to the end, but that would've never enter his thought process, even after losing the game handily.

Because, as I've said, the jury wasn't even interesting in giving him a fair hearing. They made up their minds before the final tribal council. Is there a rule against it? Nope. Does that make it just? Nope.

Sabotaging your own tribe early on? Bad gameplay. Voting out strong members over obvious weaker ones early on? Bad gameplay. Showing people hidden immunity idols again and again? Bad gameplay. Revealing you have lots of money at home? Bad gameplay. Playing in a way that people you can beat get voted out? Bad gameplay. Making superfluous alliances that backfire and cause them to hate you? Bad gameplay. Playing a one demensional game? Bad gameplay.

The first two points: actually, this helped him gain complete control of Foa Foa, and didn't even remotely come into play with a jury that was all-Galu except for Jaison, who definitely didn't care about earlier votes or know about the sabotage.

Showing hidden immunity idols: Not sure how it counts as bad gameplay when it doesn't result in anything bad happening to you.

Money at home: I can agree on this.

The way he played: Again, I disagree. He took two idiots who didn't do much of anything to the end. There's no logical reason to expect that this will hurt you.

Alliances: we've seen it time and again. Sometimes the people who it win and we're all "Awesome strategy!" When it doesn't work, people want to say that it was poor strategy. I think it's a pretty great strategy either way. People are morons to fall for it, but fall they do.

One dimensional game: Disagree. If you think that he got to the end without a social game that helped him maintain control of his alliances...I'm not even sure what to say to that.

I have to turn in for the night, I'll check back tomorrow. So long everybody!

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

Most of what you say is just "I think it should be this way" - sorry, doesn't hold any water. That's not the way Survivor works. You state your perspective like it's the truth - it's not. It's what you want to see. Most players go to win, but many make friends along the way. Did you watch Samoa as well? Russell treated them poorly. The fact that you don't even agree with me there is why I hesitate to bother much . You won't find much of anyone agreeing with you. Russell yelled at most of the players. He was much a bully to his alliance. This is so common fact that it's weird hearing otherwise. Russell said many nasty things to their faces, not just the cameras. He wasn't friendly or respectful. Rewatch the season. Waste your time. Then get back to me with the results I already know exist.

I say this after listening to interviews, reading interviews, and blah blah post-game stuff where the other contestants spoke of Russell and his antics. Most of them talked about his cockiness. He was very off-putting.

Natalie is not a lesser player. That's your bias speaking. Seriously. A lesser player? Russell got owned in classic Survivor villain glory. You're a fan? Accept it. Understand it. Russell is definitely a lesser player if we're talking about employing a strategy to win the game. Natalie is perfect for Survivor, in fact. She knew how to play the hand she was dealt rather well. You say she did "nothing" - I see this and shrug. You clearly don't know your Survivor very well.


--
ziggie ziggie wop wop

Rewatching Survivor Russell is never a waste of time tbqh.

--
If you wake up at a different time, in a different place, could you wake up as a different person? [HERO'S PLUNGE]
http://img.imgcake.com/finegifdy.gif

well

--
ziggie ziggie wop wop

Sorry to interrupt the Russell discussion, but I shall continue with my ranking!






421. Lex van den Berghe (All-Stars, 9th place)



Speaking of sore losers, here's the original. Again, as I said with Russell, this is meant to cover Lex's All-Stars performance only. His Africa incarnation is still in the running. I generally don't believe in the "bitter jury." If you're so much of an ass hat that you can't figure out how to vote people out while not making them hate your guts (it isn't that hard, really), then that's your problem. But if there's one person that I hold a double-standard to with this, it's Lex. And part of the reason for that is that he held betrayal as a double-standard himself, and another part is that he took his bitterness to a whole new level. The third reason is because his bitterness actually changed the course of Survivor history and ruined more than just his own season. But more on that later. Let's begin at the beginning.

All-Stars, the first season to feature returning players. They brought back 18 of the most popular players from the first seven seasons and put them in one game, and let's face it, Lex HAD to be in that group. He was a huge personality in Africa and came one immunity challenge away from winning. So if you're picking out the most popular players from the first few seasons, especially way back then, Lex is a no-brainer. And he ends up on probably the most well-balanced tribe. The red Chapera tribe consists of the over-the-top caricatures and misfits. The yellow Saboga tribe is made up of the nice/sensitive people who are fan-favorites (save Jerri) but relatively weak in challenges. And then you have the green Mogo Mogo tribe, which consists of Lex, Richard, Jenna M., Kathy, Colby, and Shii-Ann, who in their original seasons represented the pinnacles of consistency in terms of physical, social, and strategic games. And for the first few episodes, the game and edit go as planned - the misfits are getting the goofball edit, the fan-favorites are losing all the challenges, and the consistents are just kinda there (except Hatch, but we'll get to that in his write-up later).

Once it comes time for Mogo Mogo to start voting people out, Lex lets go of his friends Hatch, Colby and Ethan, assuring each of them, "It's just a game," and "It's not about whether you win or lose." Fine whatever. Then the tribe "swap" happens, which isn't so much a swap as it is send Amber over to the other tribe. And if what I've heard is true, that's exactly what the producers intended. According to Jerri, they had them stand in a specific order in line and had the buffs laid out one on top of the other in the urn. So when Lex, Kathy, Jerri, Shii Ann, and now Amber lose the next immunity challenge and it looks like doom for Amber, Rob whispers to Lex that if he spares Amber he will try to help him out at the merge if he can. So Lex makes his own dumb move here. Nobody forced him to do anything. Instead of taking the bull by the horns and breaking up the single most powerful two-person alliance in Survivor history, he votes out Jerri on the hope of empty promises from Boston Rob. Oh, and let's not forget that he uses his "It's just a game," speech on her as well. You all know what happens next.

--
darkx 3DS FC: 5241-2144-5671 (add me and pm me urs!)
http://i40.tinypic.com/mabj1t.gif

The tribes merge and since Kathy, the target boot, has immunity, Rob is put in a precarious position where he has no choice but to vote out Lex. Rather than be an a****** and blindside him, he does the exact same thing that Lex did to the others and gives him the "It's just a game," speech. So what does Lex do when he gets a taste of his own medicine? He takes bitterness to a whole new level and threatens Rob that they won't be friends anymore if he votes him out. Yeah, that's right. After betraying his own friends and assuring them that it's just part of the game, Lex takes getting voted out personally. This is when he starts to become a total ass hat. Let's not forget that Kathy feels so bad for him that she offers to give up her immunity, but he politely turns down this offer yet still expects her to give it up to him, and when she doesn't at tribal council, he gives her a dirty look. In his final words he's so damn bitter that he doesn't even want Kathy, his closest ally for the entire game to win anymore.

So fast forward to the final tribal council and it's looking like Rob and Amber each have three jury votes, and Lex of all people is going to be the one to break the tie. Rather than take his own "It's only a game" advice, he votes for Amber out of sheer spite of Rob. I'll get to the effects of this a little later, but his actions got even more disgusting at the Reunion, when Rob, after just having lost a million dollars to Lex's vote, offers to let bygones be bygones and shake and make up, but Lex is still being a bitter b**** about it. And still is to this day. Even after Richard Hatch points out that Rob did to Lex exactly what Lex did to Colby, Jerri, Ethan and himself, Lex refuses to believe that he's in the wrong here.

And of course, there's the effect on Survivor history that Lex made. If Lex had not been so bitter, Rob would have won All-Stars, and thus Redemption Island, one of the worst seasons ever, would never have happened, and in effect South Pacific, another awful season, would have been vastly different. So yeah, Lex ruined THREE seasons, not just one. There's one other person that I would actually go as far as to damn them for being a bitter juror the way I do Lex, but we'll get to them in a bit.


PS: Thanks to SanityLapse for finding this Lex image that I had been scouring the internet for for the past week saved on his computer!

--
darkx 3DS FC: 5241-2144-5671 (add me and pm me urs!)
http://i40.tinypic.com/mabj1t.gif

The juxtaposition of all this 'juries can never be wrong or bitter' talk with this writeup is amazing.

BUT BACK TO RUSSELL

I have watched Samoa and HvV twice now. The only other seasons I have watched twice are Borneo and FvF.

--
If you wake up at a different time, in a different place, could you wake up as a different person? [HERO'S PLUNGE]
http://img.imgcake.com/finegifdy.gif

AdmiralZephyr posted...

There's one other person that I would actually go as far as to damn them for being a bitter juror the way I do Lex, but we'll get to them in a bit.

I hope that person is the entire Samoan jury for denying the greatest player OF ALL TIME his win.


--
http://kotti.wippiespace.com/survivor/datass2.gif
http://tinyurl.com/82d9keg

No, this person's vote would not have affected who won, which is why I don't have them as low as Lex.

--
darkx 3DS FC: 5241-2144-5671 (add me and pm me urs!)
http://i40.tinypic.com/mabj1t.gif

Glad to see Lex ranked this low. Nice write-up.

But now I'm wondering who this might be. I feel like it's only a valid complaint if the person was a hypocrite like Lex. Who could that be...

How soon until this person shows up :\?

Edit: Also need our hint for #420!


--
http://kotti.wippiespace.com/survivor/datass2.gif
http://tinyurl.com/82d9keg

Well, for a while I'll be posting 5 at a time, since I don't have a lot of long write-ups for a while, but here are the next five hints (in a new tier):

420. Notoriously bad at challenges
419. A spineless tool
418. ^Same person, opposite gender
417. Thailand takes its first hit
416. Has some Latin American/Hispanic heritage

--
darkx 3DS FC: 5241-2144-5671 (add me and pm me urs!)
http://i40.tinypic.com/mabj1t.gif

420. Crystal?

--
ziggie ziggie wop wop

Hmmm..

420. Crystal?
419. Sash?
418. Brenda?
417. Ghandia (has to be her, right? I can't imagine anyone not having her last. I know you hate Clay, and she is worse than Jed)
416. Alex or Alicia?


--
http://kotti.wippiespace.com/survivor/datass2.gif
http://tinyurl.com/82d9keg

420 is probably crystal

the spineless tools should be leif and christina but maybe i feel that way because the season is still fresh in my mind

--
"The king stay the king." - D'Angelo

Spineless tools are not from the same season.

--
darkx 3DS FC: 5241-2144-5671 (add me and pm me urs!)
http://i40.tinypic.com/mabj1t.gif

Crystal is way better than 420th. I'll be disappointed if that's the case. Spineless tools... could be anyone. Gonna guess Clay and Ozzy (Micronesia) for the last two.

When I said that the spineless tools are the same person, I meant that they have a ridiculous amount of things in common other than just being spineless tools.

--
darkx 3DS FC: 5241-2144-5671 (add me and pm me urs!)
http://i40.tinypic.com/mabj1t.gif

well maybe when you post one i can figure out the other then <_<

I think it's Chase and Chelsea

--
I'm no longer a Nadal supporter. Andy Murray is my new favorite player/person. -Princess Anri

Naomi_Diamond posted...

Most of what you say is just "I think it should be this way" - sorry, doesn't hold any water. That's not the way Survivor works. You state your perspective like it's the truth - it's not. It's what you want to see. Most players go to win, but many make friends along the way. Did you watch Samoa as well? Russell treated them poorly. The fact that you don't even agree with me there is why I hesitate to bother much . You won't find much of anyone agreeing with you. Russell yelled at most of the players. He was much a bully to his alliance. This is so common fact that it's weird hearing otherwise. Russell said many nasty things to their faces, not just the cameras. He wasn't friendly or respectful. Rewatch the season. Waste your time. Then get back to me with the results I already know exist.

I say this after listening to interviews, reading interviews, and blah blah post-game stuff where the other contestants spoke of Russell and his antics. Most of them talked about his cockiness. He was very off-putting.

Natalie is not a lesser player. That's your bias speaking. Seriously. A lesser player? Russell got owned in classic Survivor villain glory. You're a fan? Accept it. Understand it. Russell is definitely a lesser player if we're talking about employing a strategy to win the game. Natalie is perfect for Survivor, in fact. She knew how to play the hand she was dealt rather well. You say she did "nothing" - I see this and shrug. You clearly don't know your Survivor very well.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Wow! Considering that I've stated on numerous occasions that "this is my opinion" or "I'm willing to admit that this is me saying how I think it SHOULD be," not to mentioned "You're all welcome to disagree with me," I assumed we were operating with that as an understood point. I didn't think it was possible to miss it. I can't believe you're even TRYING to throw the "you state your opinion like it's fact" line at me. The logic in that line of thinking would baffle the Sphinx. It is, in fact, YOU who is seeing what you want to see. Why you're so uptight about this that what you're incapable of seeing anything but "Russell Fan = fail" is beyond the scope of reasonable comprehension. I also assumed we were operating with some kind of mutual respect for one another as people, but, evidently, I was completely and totally wrong about that.

Apparently, we're operating under circumstances in which you start being rude to me for no discernible reason. You're not interested in any exchange of ideas or intelligent discussion, which is what I thought was the case. I'm sad that I was wrong, because I was actually very much enjoying our conversation.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

It's incredibly funny to hear you throwing the word "bias" around when you're very clearly biased yourself against Russell. Or, at the very least, "Russell fans." You certainly use the term as though it somehow makes me a bad person. Perhaps I should have guessed as much when your first post on the matter was something to the effect of "A Russell fan? In this topic? Wow, I could really say some select things about that, but I'll reign myself in." And yet you have the gall to call someone ELSE biased? That's just about the funniest thing I've read in this topic--yes, even funnier than the review of Russell's loss that Mega Mana posted back on page 11 (I didn't read the whole thing, but it certainly was humorous. In a good way). You ought to take a long look in the mirror before using that word again. If I'm biased, then there's a picture of you next to the word in the dictionary. But hey, if you want to have an aggressively negative attitude toward me because I like Russell, then go ahead; just don't go trying to label me as biased to cover yourself up. Biased against Natalie? Hardly: if I'm ranking the contestants of Samoa, Natalie gets near the top of my list. Doesn't change the fact that what she did within the game to get to the end was almost nothing--ALMOST. You'll notice I never said "nothing," it was always "almost nothing" or something similar to that. I would have been happy to go into depth on that if you had only asked me to. Instead, you start insulting me. Yay for effective discussion tactics!

You say I don't know Survivor very well? I know it inside and out--I'm a huge fan. And I can see that you are too. I'm glad that there are other people out there who are passionate about it as I am. We have a differing interpretation of some things. Unlike you, I never would have let that actually tick me off, and to a point that I started insulting you? What was, and could have continued to be, a lively and fun discussion now ends because of your absolutely ridiculous and uncalled for conduct in that last post. Good job.

I'm really sorry that you have such a poor attitude. But I don't care anymore. I'm done talking to you. I'm not wasting any more time on someone who just starts being rude in the middle of a conversation for no reason whatsoever.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.

The spineless tool has to be Chase.

--
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.