|
thexerox123 posted:If it were an overreaction, other people in the thread would have said so. Yep. It's why we took the spoilers out of the guide in the OP as well. Don't be a dick!
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Agreed it was hella dickish and exclusive to mildly tease someone and suggest they watch more seasons. I should have fostered inclusiveness by telling him to gently caress off instead 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Telling people to gently caress off is a great way to show how great of a thread community the Survivor threads have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
I use my hidden idol on parity warning. It is a fake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Parity warning posted:Agreed it was hella dickish and exclusive to mildly tease someone and suggest they watch more seasons. I should have fostered inclusiveness by telling him to gently caress off instead Or you could do neither and just be happy that someone new has come to the thread, and communicate with them pleasantly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:If it were an overreaction, other people in the thread would have said so. It was an overreaction. And I agree that person should watch more seasons. I stopped watching after season 3 because I thought the game had been solved (make an alliance early! ride it to the end! that's it!) but clearly there's more to it than that. I got back into the show because my roommate was in a pool at work and was watching it, and between this thread and Rob Has a Podcast I loved it. I don't recommend starting back up with Nicaragua like I did, though!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
It's frustrating the UK survivor was bad and got converted into I'm A Celebrity which is even worse. I read an article a while back that believed this happened because of how a contestant on he first UK big brother was treated. He got kicked out for violating the voting rules and the tabloids really hated him for manipulating contestants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:Or you could do neither and just be happy that someone new has come to the thread, and communicate with them pleasantly? That is exactly what I did lmao what post are you imagining I made You can tease someome playfully. It is not inherently an attack. Is this really something that needs explained
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
this thread has more little drama bombs than any other I follow. I guess its because there are so few of us
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Parity warning posted:That is exactly what I did lmao what post are you imagining I made Yeah, and the well-known fact that sarcasm/playfulness/other nuances of tone often aren't communicated via text on the internet is why emoticons exist The fact that you got the reaction you did should indicate to you that you didn't communicate playfulness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
parity warning please remember that on something awful dot com you are expected to babysit peoples' emotions by explaining tiny ribbing away with kisses and cuddling and aftercare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Poque posted:parity warning please remember that on something awful dot com you are expected to babysit peoples' emotions by explaining tiny ribbing away with kisses and cuddling and aftercare. I haven't forgotten the time a couple years ago when Met expressed disgust that I'd returned to the thread for yet another season
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I haven't forgotten the time a couple years ago when Met expressed disgust that I'd returned to the thread for yet another season Remember when Met poo poo their pants in rage when someone speculated that a very compelling player might possibly return? It feels like it was just a couple months ago...
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
*Jeff Probst watches the thread with twinkling eyes* "Ok guys it's time to vote..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
e: wrong thread wrong forum lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Luvcow posted:*Jeff Probst watches the thread with twinkling eyes* "Ok guys it's time to vote..." 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Luvcow posted:*Jeff Probst watches the thread with twinkling eyes* "Ok guys it's time to vote..." hang on hang I have this hidden immunity idol that parity warning gave me! haha suckers im not going home tonight
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
blue squares posted:hang on hang I have this hidden immunity idol that parity warning gave me! haha suckers im not going home tonight Stick to the plan! Stick to the plan!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Anyway, Skupin is going to prison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Please tell me it was a jury vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
1-4? Weren't we expecting 10+? edit: quote:Michael Skupin, who burned himself during the 2001 series "Survivor II: The Australian Outback" and who returned for "Survivor: Philippines," was convicted Friday on four of six child porn possession counts by jurors in Oakland County. He got off easy. Could have been 16. Zesty fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
They paid off the judge obviously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
What's the angry mob think? They couldn't stick ponzi scheme on him so they went with child pornography because "Teen Porn" came up in his search history like Yau-Man claimed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
http://people.com/tv/survivor-gabons-dan-kay-dead-at-40/ quote:Dan Kay, a former contestant on Survivor: Gabon, died unexpectedly on Dec. 31, according to an obituary from the Lambert Funeral Home & Crematory. He was 40 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Zesty Crab Legs posted:1-4? Weren't we expecting 10+? He's going in for pedophilia. He'll be lucky if he makes it out with his face intact. God DAMNIT 2016. I wonder what happened 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
Dan was genuinely one of my favorite premergers ever. A goofy, earnest, sneaky-weird dude whose demise came at the expense of a miserable group of morons
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
That sucks. On another note, am I right in thinking that you should never, ever, under any circumstances, win the loved one's challenge? I feel like they always do that "pick some people to go with you / give up your spot for everyone else" decision and it always leads to people thinking you're too likable and out you go. Mike was able to push past it but that's because he won almost every single immunity challenge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
No, you should plan with all of your friends so that everyone has an equal chance of going. Say there are five people, each is assigned two or three people to bring along, with overlap. Stand in a circle and everyone brings the three people to your left. Whoever wins picks the people they were assigned and everyone feels it was fair
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
It just came up because I'm watching season 26 and Brenda was given the "go see your loved one on your own (with Dawn) or let everyone else go and give up your loved one visit" decision. She gives everyone else the chance to see their loved ones and oh look at that, Cochran boots her straight out for now being a social threat.
Max fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Brenda is terrible, so Cochran did the right thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Max posted:It just came up because I'm watching season 26 and Brenda was given the "go see your loved one on your own (with Dawn) or let everyone else go and give up your loved one visit" decision. She gives everyone else the chance to see their loved ones and oh look at that, Cochran boots her straight out for now being a social threat. That's definitely a basic trap, but I think it simplifies the game to say its an automatic fatal trap. Brenda was presumably a social threat anyway and Cochran simply had his eyes opened or used that as an opportunity to push her as a threat. Someone who's played a better game and set them up better can presumably weather the "loved ones" trap and I'm sure plenty of players have. Jay wasn't taken out because he won that comp or the decisions he made. He was taken out because he had too many friends on the jury who got there before the Loved Ones. That reward is a definitely part of the puzzle but Survivor is 100 different moves and non-moves that all come down to one key right or wrong decision.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:That's definitely a basic trap, but I think it simplifies the game to say its an automatic fatal trap. Brenda was presumably a social threat anyway and Cochran simply had his eyes opened or used that as an opportunity to push her as a threat. Someone who's played a better game and set them up better can presumably weather the "loved ones" trap and I'm sure plenty of players have. Jay wasn't taken out because he won that comp or the decisions he made. He was taken out because he had too many friends on the jury who got there before the Loved Ones. That reward is a definitely part of the puzzle but Survivor is 100 different moves and non-moves that all come down to one key right or wrong decision. That's very true. I think Jay had it a little easier in that he just had to add people to the reward, and didn't have to give something up himself. He also gave it to people he legit respected (Adam) and that made sense. Either way, it just seems like way too big of a trap to ever win.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
I've always thought that winning reward challenges where a minority of people end up receiving the reward should be avoided at all costs. Early on after merge, where rewards are for evenly split teams? Go for it. But if it's a minority group who'll go on the reward, it's disadvantageous if only because it leaves a majority to talk among themselves while you're gone. Creating these sorts of situations is likely a major reason for having post-merge rewards. This doesn't even get into "pick x,y,z to come with you" which is bad, especially when combined with the above. Then you potentially have a strong alliance showing "who's at the top" (or creating that perception), creating flipping opportunities for the people in that alliance who weren't chosen to join. Immunity idol dynamics can change the numbers a bit, but generally speaking, you're way better phoning it in on most post-merge reward challenges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Well he had reasons and natural people to bring along, which I think is sort of the key. If you've got a clear alliance or relationships then you'll naturally go to them and you probably won't have to worry about how that's perceived. If you use it to reach out to people or if it exposes how tight some relationships are then it might screw you. But its all depending on numbers and loyalties and how you've played thus far and what other threats there are. Its all a long maze of social pitfalls and strategic traps and that's just one of the more easily recognizable ones every season. I'd have to rewatch the season to be sure but Brenda won hers at the wrong time and place when she didn't have people loyal to her and there weren't bigger threats for Cochran or others to worry about. You can simplify it to her making the mistake of winning that reward but really it probably goes a lot deeper than that to the position she had played herself into when she won it (and I've bugged people in the past that I don't think highly of that season or quality of gameplay so I don't want to harp, especially since I'd have to rewatch to speak fairly on it). But yeah, in general I think its a gamble playing hard for rewards unless you need the food or see a strategic need in separating/monitoring the group. There's just so many social dynamics in play with that and you can't really predict how malnourished, desperate, half insane people are going to react to being denied a couple of hours with their mom or a steak and some beer. Plus it just ends up making your comp threat status more obvious and if you assume there's only a certain number of Ws you can get before you're a "threat" you should reserve them to Immunity's (that was a bit of Michaela's problem). But its a lot easier to say that here than it probably is to do it when you're hungry, desperate, and half insane on the island. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Max posted:That's very true. I think Jay had it a little easier in that he just had to add people to the reward, and didn't have to give something up himself. He also gave it to people he legit respected (Adam) and that made sense. Either way, it just seems like way too big of a trap to ever win. He had it easy because he was on the bottom and it didn't matter what he did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
There's also the case where there were only two people desperate for a loved ones visit: Adam (who got picked) and Ken (who never did anything strategic). Loved ones visits can be really powerful for swinging people over to your side, you just gotta be smart about who you bring and who you leave behind. I don't think they make as much of an impact on returnee seasons though, the Brenda case aside.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
So RHAP has a memorial podcast for Dan with Randy and Kenny. Randy Bailey crying is breaking my drat heart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
I decided to watch Gabon. Really sad when Dan was voted out. He was a constant source of happiness in otherwise shitshow of characters. That episode with the Not Merge Feast has to be one of the biggest dickmoves by production right? I haven't seen all the seasons but the challenge of balancing a pole on each hand was used for individual immunity in HvV and I'm guessing was planned to in Gabon. The onion alliance were likeable and I can't stand Sugar, Susie, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 11:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
On the subject of immunity challenges, I don't think I expressed how much I loved the endurance challenge this season where they had to hold the metal bar with the clamps, as well as the puzzle with the secondary "don't let your ball drop" task. Pure endurance challenges have their place, as do weight based endurance challenges (though I think they should be reduced a bit since the show-runners clearly don't understand the square-cube law), but I really enjoy how the introduction of simple strategic elements can introduce variety the competition. In the metal bar task, you could be super strong, but needlessly expend energy by pulling harder than necessary. A weaker person with less endurance could win if they applied the least sufficient force to hold the bar in place. Likewise for the latter task, where someone who was weaker at puzzles, but had a good strategy for keeping the ball in play for longer between checks could potentially win. I'm a sucker for strategic aspects in challenges (a Survivor season with Genius-like games is one of my most pie-in-the-sky tv wishes), so I hope we see more of this sort of the thing going forward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 13:56
|
|