Auskar Wrote:"Survivor" is two games. You have to outlast and outplay the others enough so that you are in the final two or three WITHOUT pissing them off so much that they don't want you to win one million dollars. It isn't the fault of the jury when your favorite player does not win. It is the fault of your favorite player.
Still, it is interesting.
Russel was my favorite player to hate. He should win because he buried the machete, burned socks, and emptied water? I don't think so.
It's nothing about favorite player. I don't even think Russel should have won, I said Parv played a much better game the entire game where Russel played his mainly pre merge. Hating him is no reason to say that he didn't deserve to win. He played a better game, it has nothing to do with being nice or not. It makes no sence to me to reward the person who did nothing but was nice. Do you watch American Idol and just vote for who is the nicest and has the nicest personality? No, you vote for who sings the best. So why have a winner that was nice and didn't play the game? It's a game, and he played the game. He didn't just sit around and lose challenges and vote for whoever people told him to vote.
This has nothing to do with people in the game. It could go back to any season to any contestants but to reward the lesser player just because they are nice or cause you don't want to vote for the person you got kicked out by is childish. It's like being a little kid and taking your game to a friends and when they beat you in it you shut it off and leave.