Thread:Fedora Kid/@comment-25206252-20151029014533/@comment-1734566-20151104172307

Again, my main problem is that Sandra has always relied on the element of "you don't want to vote for the other guy, so vote for me." As Bar said, votes for Sandra in PI weren't so much votes for Sandra as they were votes for Lil; it would've been the same if FairPlay made it to the F2 with Lil. And in HvV, it was even moe obvious when jurors like Ruprt and Colby openly ADMITTED that they were simply voting for her because she had nothing to do with Russell, which is the true mark of a genuinely bitter AF jury. It would've been the same if Jerri had made the F3 with Russell and Parvati, then SHE would've been the recipient of said bitter votes. And this didn't even fit the "goat" strategy because Sandra didn't take the initiative to bring these people to the end - she just kinda hoped for it, and really made a giant gamble with that.

And again, it's not ALL about the social game; take a look at Cochran in Caramoan for example. They explicitly praised him for NOT having a social game, and for playing strategically without letting emotions get in the way. Or a better example: In South Pacific, Coach was a hypocrite and kind of a d**che, and Sophie was rude and condescending. So then you have Albert, who technically had no strategic game BUT was easily the nicest of the three. Yet he got zero votes, and Coach and Sophie got all the votes instead. So no, people CAN clearly win based on no social game/all strategic game, it just depends on how bitter your jury is. And again, I'm not just arguing that Russell is the SOLE victim of a bitter jury: Rob in All-Stars, Parvati in HvV, and Coach in South Pacific. It's happened before, fairly rarely, but it happens - and when it does, it SUCKS.