Matt @ 3/1/2014 3:37

Physically? No. Strategically? Debatable, but Russell was definitely smart with allies and knew who to get out when. Socially? Hell yeah. Russell's social game was SO horrendous that the entire jury focused on that instead of challenge wins or good strategic mind. He was hated by everyone enough that nobody wanted to vote for him. Natalie was smart in playing the way she did. Was she a dominant force like Russell? No. But she learned from experience (Marisa) that anybody who tried to go against Russell got voted out. So, she decided to use him as her shield and let him do all of the dirty work while she got everyone to like her.

Ok let's just get something straight, we know the only argument is if Natalie played any differently she probably wouldn't have won...but how does that make sense? THen who WOULD have won? Russell? I don't get it at all.

Second of all, I'm not sure if the Jury was bitter or not; I can't really say. BUT, the BIGGEST and probably single most advantageous connection that Foa Foa had was who? SHAMBO! Who was Shambo strongly connected to? Not Natalie!! Who did Shambo even vote to win even though she got screwed over by him? Russell. Not to say her vote determines what others should do, but it goes to show that she was well connected to him enough to not even be bitter and not vote for him. Shambo was the biggest connected Foa Foa had and really the one person responsible for the Galu downfall (almost entirely). That was Russell's gameplay, not Nat's.

Jaison was Russell's close friend and ally that would really do anything with him until he got burned. Then he hated Russell's guts probably linking to why he voted Natalie in the first place. He didn't have anything extravagant to say about Nat until he got burned. Weird.

Anyways, we can discuss this and how Shambo flipping was because of Laura or whatever, but Shambo didn't really have anything wrong with the other Galu members yet she voted them out still.

Point being, the connections were made that needed to be made. Sure, Nat talked with the women for the Erik vote, but after that they all flipped back and would have voted them all out but they kept Shambo on their side and also had John flip. I mean those were both Russell. Both voted Russell.

Shadow @ 3/1/2014 3:57

Kiwi @ 3/1/2014 5:55 Shadow @ 3/1/2014 23:53 if they were that jaded by him, he didn't deserve it. Galu members have stated in interviews that he made cocky comments and mocked people as they got voted out. Great great player Yeah but that's such a small portion of the game. They should of got over it and looked at the entire 39 days, not just when they left. And tbh, they themselves were extremely arrogant to begin with. And when it turned on them they threw a hissyfit. ur giving 1 million dollars to a person. I would MUCH rather give the million to my friend. That is also part of the game and it's all that matters.

Which is kind of like...why would I bother playing then? If I can't gain respect votes for playing a hard game, then why would I want to even try and play?

Kiwi @ 3/1/2014 4:03

Shadow @ 3/1/2014 23:57 Kiwi @ 3/1/2014 5:55 Shadow @ 3/1/2014 23:53 if they were that jaded by him, he didn't deserve it. Galu members have stated in interviews that he made cocky comments and mocked people as they got voted out. Great great player Yeah but that's such a small portion of the game. They should of got over it and looked at the entire 39 days, not just when they left. And tbh, they themselves were extremely arrogant to begin with. And when it turned on them they threw a hissyfit. ur giving 1 million dollars to a person. I would MUCH rather give the million to my friend. That is also part of the game and it's all that matters. Yeah but its a game not lets hold hands and be friends. Juries should judge votes based on how they PLAYED the game. But of course, the game lets jury members decide how to vote.

The hard thing with this statement is the fact that emotions are involved. So just because someone played a great game doesn't mean that they should automatically get the vote. The big argument for Nat winning is that even though she didn't play as hard as Russell, she didn't ruffle any feathers. We see all different types of winners win, but I would say it's a more cowardly way to play to sit back and let someone else do the big moves and the backstabbing. It's just the nature of the game - there are many different ways to play and different ways to win. I just don't think hiding behind someone else warrants a win no matter what lying they did, but if I was personally attacked or offended by something Russell did, I would be emotional. BUT, I would probably use the FTC to clarify or something in order to try and heal that a bit and make a clearer judgment.

The thing underlying is that Russell wasn't genuine. He based everything on the game. It's kind of like people in ORG's like in Sausage with Vee or Miki - even though they played good games, people couldn't get past a lot of the backstabbing or lying. Syd played a solid game but an honest one because of her position as well. I think it relates (like in one aspect) but the point is that I think a lot of people are just turned off to Russell. He talked in context of the game only kind of going "I'm not a jerk in real life, just look at the game because I played so much better".

That's why people say he didn't understand the social element of the game because he focused solely on the strategical side in every aspect of the game and even the FTC. He didn't take people's feelings into account and I'm interested to see if he was a Juror how he would react because I think he would be bitter as hell. He kind of focused on how well he played to get there rather than being humble a bit and touch on people's feelings. He's probably just not a very sympathetic/empathetic person in real life.

His unwillingness to connect with people on a deeper level is what might have lost him the game, BUT if he isn't that way, it's not his fault, but he should have stopped trying to say he was since it was pretty obvious he wasn't. Him not being genuine or standing up and just being like "Yeah I embrace it, it's who I am" probably cost him the game. He tried to be the hero at the end of the day when he was painted villain all over. It's weird too because he takes so much pride in being a huge villain and a jerk or whatever, but he wasn't able to admit it when it actually mattered. =P

Don't a lot of people say that Russell plays Survivor like he's playing an ORG? That's a funny thought

Shadow @ 3/1/2014 4:04

it's real life it's not an ORG. and they did vote based on the game. the point of the game is to get ur peers to vote for u. they liked how nat got to know them on a personal level and never attacked people. russell doing so was bad gameplay on his part. i'm sure he'd of won if he acted like a human being or something

Yeah but how do you get them to vote for you? There are a lot of runner ups that, with different Juries, would have won instead of the actual winner. It's about adaptability and learning who you are playing with and obviously we know Russell didn't come to make friends and isn't the best people person. But like I said, different strategies work for different people.

The argument is without Nat and her "friendships", Foa Foa couldn't have got the Erik vote or whatever. Just as much, without Russell and his cockiness/jerkiness/hard gameplay, Foa Foa wouldn't have made it anywhere. They needed that deceptive element.

Bottom line is I think it's warranted to either. If you think the game should be won based on game play, then Russell should have won, bottom line. If you think the game is about making friends and being pleasant, then Natalie should have won by miles. It just shows the Jury's values in that season but also your values as a player. I just keep hearing the same thing from the same people so it's pretty obvious one person values actual gameplay and another values relationships and likability...and it both shows in your guys' way you play to be honest haha

All caught up now! =)

Bryce @ 3/1/2014 14:25

Shadow @ 3/1/2014 3:57 Kiwi @ 3/1/2014 5:55 Shadow @ 3/1/2014 23:53 if they were that jaded by him, he didn't deserve it. Galu members have stated in interviews that he made cocky comments and mocked people as they got voted out. Great great player Yeah but that's such a small portion of the game. They should of got over it and looked at the entire 39 days, not just when they left. And tbh, they themselves were extremely arrogant to begin with. And when it turned on them they threw a hissyfit. ur giving 1 million dollars to a person. I would MUCH rather give the million to my friend. That is also part of the game and it's all that matters. Which is kind of like...why would I bother playing then? If I can't gain respect votes for playing a hard game, then why would I want to even try and play?

it's simple.. dont be an asshole

(not you - Russell)

Its more, I'd rather give a million dollars to someone who I enjoy being around and is a good hearted person who played well, than someone who may of been more of a strategic force but was a complete asshat and an embarrassment to the human species.

I guess you could call it being bitter, I think its more on voting for the best player out of everyone who isn't a shitty human being.

The fact that Russell is winning this poll right now is just.... ew. So much ew.

Russell

I think Russell losing is actually when I started losing interest in the series (though I wouldn't say that's the entire reason or anything). I only watched HvV after that

The problem for me is that the edit of Samoa is what set Survivor in stone to its more-often-than-not shittiness. The fact that they used Russell to advertise HvV and as such made the fanbase think he was the only deserving winner started the whole bullshit "x was robbed, they should've won" when really, if they didn't get the jury to vote for them they DIDN'T deserve to win, point blank. Russell did not deserve to win.

Dylan @ 3/1/2014 13:51

Its more, I'd rather give a million dollars to someone who I enjoy being around and is a good hearted person who played well, than someone who may of been more of a strategic force but was a complete asshat and an embarrassment to the human species. I guess you could call it being bitter, I think its more on voting for the best player out of everyone who isn't a shitty human being.

And you expected people to vote for you in Sausage 4? I know they are different, but if you played the real game like you did in Sausage 4, you would have an entirely different perspective especially when you don't end up winning.

EHH, I wasn't really like Russell at all. I had really good relationships with people and then voted them off when they thought I wouldn't. I didn't talk crap on people and did not rub it in their face when I vote them off. I don't really see any similarity between the games. If I would of lost I'd cry bitter but it didn't change the fact that Ted was more well liked by the jury and because of that they viewed his game as better (which would mean in turn it was).

With that being said, I would never play actual survivor like that.