Thread:BarBar/@comment-1734566-20150319025341/@comment-2091662-20150328165752

"Seriously... The only criteria in Survivor is getting jury votes, no matter how you do it. Impress them strategically, physically, or socially which usually is the most important factor. If you're a 4th place boot who "deserved to win", you were too threatening. If you were a strategic mastermind who lost to someone much more likable than you, your social game is what is at fault. Why on Earth would you give someone a million dollars if they've been pissing you off for the past 39 days and you can't stand their guts, and not even because of how they played the game strategically. You weren't robbed.... the only people who even deserve to be call robbed are those like Jenny from Cook Islands who was screwed over by productions blatant rigging for the Aitu Four, Cassandra from Fiji who went into the game thinking it was a F2 because Cook Islands which introduced it hadn't even like aired yet and Sylvia Kwan who was completely killed by the twist. "

That's what he wrote, so you should respond to that, and I literally didn't ignored anything you said, I've missed some parts.

"There's a difference between "Jury management" and simply determining which finalist you have a better chance of beating. I agree that the latter is definitely a strategy, but it's weaker and less likely to succeed, in cases like Sophie." I don't understand this arguement at all. Sophie thought she could beat Albert/Coach, and she did. How is that not legitimate?

"But as long as you admit (which you basically just did) that there are different juries and, by default, some juries are bitter while others are not. Because that is an undeniable fact as well." Every jury is bitter, each jury has at least one bitter jury member BUT THAT'S PART OF THE GAME, if the jury is bitter, then you made them that way.

I don't think you understand the game, you keep avoiding this perfect arguement of --> "Look, the goal of Survivor is to win, (to pretend there is another goal other than winning is dumb unless THE PLAYER HIMSELF just doesn't care about that.)

To win you need to get jury votes.

Therefore, the goal of Survivor is to get the most jury votes.

The best (or at least, the better one) strategy is the one that accolmpishes the goal the best.

That's it, I know it's a super-complicated game but by the end of it, it's one of the most simpliest explainations there is." The fact that you're ignoring this just means you have solid back ups or evidence to counter-argue this. Sorry.