The is my FAVORITE bit of Survivor theory that really puts into perspective how "bitter juries" DONT EXIST!
"P.S. #1: The smartest Survivor analyst I have ever known in my life was a girl by the name of Isabella over at Survivor Sucks (at Sucks she went by the name Energia del Sol.) Some of you might know of her already, I tend to talk about her a lot. She helped me out with the strategy and the character details in my All-Star stories.
Anyway, one of the beliefs about Survivor that Isabella always held, which is one that I happen to agree with, is that the absolute worst place you can ever finish in a Survivor season is "the guy who loses the jury vote." That's it, hands down. There is no place you can finish in a season that is a bigger bummer than that one. She always called the guy who loses the jury vote "the position of shame."
And you might ask yourself, well why? Why is it so horrible to lose a jury vote on Survivor, compared to being voted out first? Or being voted out as the last guy right before the jury vote? Or being nailed at the merge? Why is losing the jury vote itself so inherently horrible?
The reason, Isabella explained, is that if you lose a jury vote, there is no logical way you can argue that you should have won.
Now remember, this isn't specific to Russell. This is something that Isabella and I talked a lot about, maybe seven or eight years ago. About how horrible it would be to get all the way to the end, and then lose the jury vote. I mean, just think about it. If you think you know Survivor, if you think you really know how the game works, if you think you know all the intricacies and social politics that make up the way it goes down, just imagine how terrible it would be to get to the end and then not get a single jury vote. What would that say about you as a player, if the jury completely shut you out? How would there be any logical way you could possibly defend yourself?
The way Isabella always phrased it was this. If I got to the final three (like Rob Cesternino) and they voted me out because I was too big of a jury threat, it would suck. But it would be because they were scared of me. So oh well, I lose but at least I can argue that I might have possibly won. If I get voted out when the tribes merge (like Gretchen), and they take me out because I am too big of a threat, same deal. Yeah I lost, but I can always say "yeah if I got to the end, I might have won." And then if you get voted out first (like Peter Harkey), well in that case it would suck, but at least you can argue that you just wound up on the wrong side of the numbers. Or that you just didn't fit in with the particular tribe dynamic. So yeah it would suck to be first, but you can always shrug your shoulders and just say it was luck.
But losing the jury vote, Isabella would say? Well that just means you sucked. There is -no- logical argument you can make at that point that you lost because of luck or because you were too much of a threat. The only explanation you can make for why somebody beat you in a jury vote is because somebody else was better than you. That's it, hands down, and that's the way that Survivor has always been.
Does this apply to Russell and the legion of "Russell got screwed" devotees? Of course it does. Russell made the finals twice and he only got 2 out of 18 possible jury votes. Why don't we just do the math at this point. Russell didn't get screwed.
Oh yeah, and of course Isabella played in two Survivor ORG games with me over the years, and naturally both times she got to the end and she lost the jury vote. Sorry but that's just funny. I love that God loves irony."
lunapark because its an interesting read that takes MUCH less time to read than it would take to watch that cydney video that you linked that is just as if not more relevant to the topic discussed on said blog
lunapark i actually never have but since i like cydney and i have no idea how this backs up your argument i am actually halfway through it in the time you could have already read this entire blog probably twice
I feel like this argument gets so extra at times.....yes if you made it to the end, it was your own fault because you clearly did something wrong that made people not vote for you. At the same time though, from what i have seen at least, a lot of the arguments for (just an example) aubry vs michele saying aubry should've won, it is rooted from what we were presented from the editing and based off whether or not WE would vote for that specific person if WE were on that jury.
I see a difference between thinking other jurors should have changed their vote or voted incorrectly vs YOU (as a viewer) seeing what is going on and basing from the edit who you would have voted for if you were in the game.
Do I think aubry should've won over michele? Technically no because she wasn't able to convince people that she deserved to win (even though the kaoh rong jury was full of some nasty ass people and i truly believe that part of their reasoning was just to be annoying). But based on what we were given from the edit, I absolutely would've voted aubry to win as imo strategic gameplay > social.
