|
Post by Poison Ivy on May 16, 2021 15:48:25 GMT
Maybe the jury doesn't see the game the same way we do, but in my opinion, it's Kestrel who needs to give up immunity.
Did Lion tell any of the other players what the firemaking challenge would be? I think I remember him doing that.
|
|
|
Post by Oak Tree on May 16, 2021 17:13:13 GMT
He told Rat and Kestrel, who talked to each other about it but didn't tell anyone else
I think the key difference between Eagle and Kestrel in terms of giving up Immunity is that Eagle is seen as having a better chance of winning a challenge, whereas Kestrel is seen as more of a threat to deliver a strong FTC
|
|
|
Post by Oak Tree on May 16, 2021 18:59:14 GMT
@ Snowy's Eagle thread: lol
|
|
|
Post by Venus Fly Trap on May 16, 2021 20:47:33 GMT
Rip snowy owl great to see eoe being a roaring success at least she didn't take up a spot in the finals. not a diss to snowy owl at all i think she's wonderful, i just don't think someone who's been in this game for over a month should be replaced in ftc with someone who didn't play the majority of the merge. I think we need to break away from this mindset. I used to also have these same views but I've...lightened a bit on them. If there is a mechanic of the game that allows someone to return. I think it's wholly unfair to the person who just plays with the twist they are given. They have been playing the game, but in their own way, and if they somehow find a way to actually make FTC in spite of their ordeals having been voted/idoled out and then returning, then we need to stop faulting a person for playing with those circumstances. Rather than "taking a spot" the person who returned fought back and earned that spot and should be given a fair shake as anyone else. I think having this mindset is very toxic to the person who actually earned their way back in and got to the end. It basically says f*ck you to the person and the mechanic. While I'm also a person who is fine with a jury should vote the way they want to, I wish it would be because the person who they vote for is the person who played the best with the mechanics they were given in the game, not just "oh well they were eliminated I can't vote for them". Clearly they were not eliminated again, so why is that any less validating than someone else? I'd argue their battle was much harder to get back and actually prove they deserve to be there than someone who was able to actually be in the know of things longer. Obviously this is not the case, and the person who gets back has a much harder time selling a narrative that doesn't automatically fall on deaf ears, but if they make smart plays, worked hard, and played the exact way they needed to with the mechanics that they were dealt, why is that any more invalidating than any other twist or obstacle in the game? I just think its an unfair mindset that until recently I had and am slowly evolving away from because that's not fair to work hard to earn a spot and then have it invalidated because no one will hear you out through a mechanic you didn't design, but you worked with the best way you could.
|
|
|
Post by Bitter Poisonpie on May 16, 2021 20:53:36 GMT
@ Snowy's Eagle thread: lol I found that post very entertaining
|
|
|
Post by Hermit Crab on May 16, 2021 21:08:19 GMT
at least she didn't take up a spot in the finals. not a diss to snowy owl at all i think she's wonderful, i just don't think someone who's been in this game for over a month should be replaced in ftc with someone who didn't play the majority of the merge. I think we need to break away from this mindset. I used to also have these same views but I've...lightened a bit on them. If there is a mechanic of the game that allows someone to return. I think it's wholly unfair to the person who just plays with the twist they are given. They have been playing the game, but in their own way, and if they somehow find a way to actually make FTC in spite of their ordeals having been voted/idoled out and then returning, then we need to stop faulting a person for playing with those circumstances. Rather than "taking a spot" the person who returned fought back and earned that spot and should be given a fair shake as anyone else. I think having this mindset is very toxic to the person who actually earned their way back in and got to the end. It basically says f*ck you to the person and the mechanic. While I'm also a person who is fine with a jury should vote the way they want to, I wish it would be because the person who they vote for is the person who played the best with the mechanics they were given in the game, not just "oh well they were eliminated I can't vote for them". Clearly they were not eliminated again, so why is that any less validating than someone else? I'd argue their battle was much harder to get back and actually prove they deserve to be there than someone who was able to actually be in the know of things longer. Obviously this is not the case, and the person who gets back has a much harder time selling a narrative that doesn't automatically fall on deaf ears, but if they make smart plays, worked hard, and played the exact way they needed to with the mechanics that they were dealt, why is that any more invalidating than any other twist or obstacle in the game? I just think its an unfair mindset that until recently I had and am slowly evolving away from because that's not fair to work hard to earn a spot and then have it invalidated because no one will hear you out through a mechanic you didn't design, but you worked with the best way you could. And it's posts like this that are the main reason I generally insist on the Structural/Social/Strategic format for FTC. <3
|
|
Moth
Extinct
in lämps we trust
Posts: 392
|
Post by Moth on May 16, 2021 21:10:23 GMT
how does that relate exactly to the Structural - Social - Strategic format?
|
|
|
Post by Hermit Crab on May 16, 2021 21:12:58 GMT
Because playing the twists you were given to the best of your ability - which is exactly what coming back thanks to a redemption mechanic is - is a prime example of good Structural gameplay, and good Structural play should NEVER be a knock on a players' chances of winning.
|
|
Algae
Spectatora
Posts: 340
|
Post by Algae on May 16, 2021 21:36:49 GMT
Because playing the twists you were given to the best of your ability - which is exactly what coming back thanks to a redemption mechanic is - is a prime example of good Structural gameplay, and good Structural play should NEVER be a knock on a players' chances of winning. It should though because it's a structural advantage. Getting voted out and returning due to a twist over which you had no control is not inherently impressive because 90% of players never get that chance. For most people, the point at which they are voted out is game over. There being a returnee twist is a gift to you as a player. I don't think returnees should never win, but I do think they need to play a significantly better game than the players they are sitting next to them during the time they are in the game proper in order to compensate for the major flaw of having been voted out. And I agree with Kelly for saying they're glad Snowy Owl didn't take up a seat. Snowy Owl would have stood very little chance and even Snowy Owl admits that. It makes for a more interesting conclusion now that Snowy Owl isn't there. But I also value structural play very little and mostly base my vote on the strategic and social parts of the game. Structural play to me would just be how well you can react to the unknown elements a game throws at you, but usually reacting to those is based on your strategic and social abilities anyway and not its own separate thing. But if we do care about structural play, I think being a player in the game proper and having to react to a player randomly reentering and make it work to your benefit is more impressive and shows more adaptability than returning does.
|
|
Algae
Spectatora
Posts: 340
|
Post by Algae on May 16, 2021 21:40:49 GMT
I do think returnees should get credit for doing an especially good job on Redemption or the Edge or whatever, to be clear. Like if Snowy made it to the end, I'd expect them to be able to talk about how they were in control the entire time on the Edge along with Sloth. But one of the main goals of the game is not getting voted out, so if you fail to do that, you need to justify why a Jury should overlook that imo
|
|
Algae
Spectatora
Posts: 340
|
Post by Algae on May 16, 2021 21:45:35 GMT
My problem with the strategic/social/structural framework is that it's prescriptive rather than descriptive. It's saying, "these are the things that matter" to the Jurors instead of letting them decide. And on the actual show, the format was literally changed because Jeff thought the Jury got it wrong in choosing Michele over Aubry and didn't value the things he wanted them to
|
|
|
Post by Axolotl on May 16, 2021 21:46:44 GMT
at least she didn't take up a spot in the finals. not a diss to snowy owl at all i think she's wonderful, i just don't think someone who's been in this game for over a month should be replaced in ftc with someone who didn't play the majority of the merge. I think we need to break away from this mindset. I used to also have these same views but I've...lightened a bit on them. If there is a mechanic of the game that allows someone to return. I think it's wholly unfair to the person who just plays with the twist they are given. They have been playing the game, but in their own way, and if they somehow find a way to actually make FTC in spite of their ordeals having been voted/idoled out and then returning, then we need to stop faulting a person for playing with those circumstances. Rather than "taking a spot" the person who returned fought back and earned that spot and should be given a fair shake as anyone else. I think having this mindset is very toxic to the person who actually earned their way back in and got to the end. It basically says f*ck you to the person and the mechanic. While I'm also a person who is fine with a jury should vote the way they want to, I wish it would be because the person who they vote for is the person who played the best with the mechanics they were given in the game, not just "oh well they were eliminated I can't vote for them". Clearly they were not eliminated again, so why is that any less validating than someone else? I'd argue their battle was much harder to get back and actually prove they deserve to be there than someone who was able to actually be in the know of things longer. Obviously this is not the case, and the person who gets back has a much harder time selling a narrative that doesn't automatically fall on deaf ears, but if they make smart plays, worked hard, and played the exact way they needed to with the mechanics that they were dealt, why is that any more invalidating than any other twist or obstacle in the game? I just think its an unfair mindset that until recently I had and am slowly evolving away from because that's not fair to work hard to earn a spot and then have it invalidated because no one will hear you out through a mechanic you didn't design, but you worked with the best way you could. oh i said it intentionally completely disregarding snowy owl. while i wouldnt use such harsh language i would say that i didnt care for the way that this twist was implemented and i would rather three people who went the whole game without getting voted out make it to the end than with others who had a lot less work to do EoE-wise be given a shot. maybe that’s really mean of me to say that a spot in the finals should require an equal amount of work (let’s be real, it’s harder to get to f5 from f13 outside of EoE than it is within it). and ‘being eliminated again’ is in comparison to four other players who have all made it to the spot without facing a single elimination. i think the most important thing to remember is that 9 times out of 10, once you are out of the game you are out of the game. the fact that you get a second chance at all after you received the votes to go and were sent off is already something a huge chunk of people don’t get, and you *should* have a harder time arguing against that sort of stigma because if you don’t then what does that say to the players who DID survive and did go through hell and back without being voted out? this EoE wasn’t exactly a gauntlet and if i were a player it would be upsetting to get fifth just because another player comes out of nowhere and steals the spot away from me as a goat. on top of the immense advantage of coming back after already failing once, the EoE person also has the advantage of being able to set up connections with the jury beforehand to the point where it kind of stinks if they DO stand a chance. what were you supposed to do? get voted out so you can bond with people? thats not what survivor is supposed to be and the view that returnees should be treated equally to normal players is kind of weird because they failed the ‘survivor’ part of survivor in that they got voted out.
|
|
|
Post by Oak Tree on May 16, 2021 22:19:03 GMT
at least she didn't take up a spot in the finals. not a diss to snowy owl at all i think she's wonderful, i just don't think someone who's been in this game for over a month should be replaced in ftc with someone who didn't play the majority of the merge. I think we need to break away from this mindset. I used to also have these same views but I've...lightened a bit on them. If there is a mechanic of the game that allows someone to return. I think it's wholly unfair to the person who just plays with the twist they are given. They have been playing the game, but in their own way, and if they somehow find a way to actually make FTC in spite of their ordeals having been voted/idoled out and then returning, then we need to stop faulting a person for playing with those circumstances. Rather than "taking a spot" the person who returned fought back and earned that spot and should be given a fair shake as anyone else. I think having this mindset is very toxic to the person who actually earned their way back in and got to the end. It basically says f*ck you to the person and the mechanic. While I'm also a person who is fine with a jury should vote the way they want to, I wish it would be because the person who they vote for is the person who played the best with the mechanics they were given in the game, not just "oh well they were eliminated I can't vote for them". Clearly they were not eliminated again, so why is that any less validating than someone else? I'd argue their battle was much harder to get back and actually prove they deserve to be there than someone who was able to actually be in the know of things longer. Obviously this is not the case, and the person who gets back has a much harder time selling a narrative that doesn't automatically fall on deaf ears, but if they make smart plays, worked hard, and played the exact way they needed to with the mechanics that they were dealt, why is that any more invalidating than any other twist or obstacle in the game? I just think its an unfair mindset that until recently I had and am slowly evolving away from because that's not fair to work hard to earn a spot and then have it invalidated because no one will hear you out through a mechanic you didn't design, but you worked with the best way you could. I feel like the better approach to this is to make sure our players are actually playing Survivor? As a juror I really couldn't see myself voting for someone who didn't play most of the actual game. Sucks for the person who came back in, but it's not their fault the game ensured they wouldn't get my vote.
|
|
|
Post by Oak Tree on May 16, 2021 22:23:59 GMT
How would people feel about a version of this twist where a player returned at F2, to make a Final Three FTC? Allowing someone to win under those circumstances basically invalidates the game the other two played. I think the EoE twist as a whole is a less extreme version of that. It's not really fair for people to be judged by the same jury for playing two completely different games.
|
|
|
Post by Oak Tree on May 16, 2021 22:26:38 GMT
But also you can't argue that it took the same level of playing to get through Edge of Extinction as it did to get through the real game. 5/9 people got to the end of EoE where they reentered the game via a single challenge. The work necessary to get to that point was not comparable to the work it required to get to F4.
|
|