mfrimley wrote:
Coachocd wrote:
This again. Utter hogwash.
Rob LOST because he picked the absolutely wrong strategy to play on a season with pre-existing relationships. Blaming Lex is just an attempt to excuse Rob for a colossal error in strategy. It's a style question. Amber hid behind Rob and unlike him actually thought about what the jury might want to hear, so that's why she said "luck", because that's what people around camp said they wanted the final 2 to say.
Jeff Probst used to say it every TC. "What you are doing is voting people off and then turning around and asking them to give you a million dollars." It was up to Rob to put Lex on the jury in a way that still enabled Lex to vote for him, or if not, a voting majority of other castaways. A think it is fair to say that Rob lost more than Amber won, but Rob still lost. Even if Lex was a poor sport, Rob still has no one else to blame but himself, and attempting to rewrite Survivor history won't change anything. If Rob had finessed Lex, or Tom or Alicia differently, he would have won. He didn't and he lost. Get over it. However, he got the girl with the million, and lots of money from public appearances, so he certainly came out of that season ahead, even if he deservingly lost for his colossal error in judgment.
No, what you're saying is hogwash. Rob dominated every aspect of the game and was in complete control up until episode 10. It was the twist that switched everybody to the opposite tribe except Amber that ruined his game, not his strategy. It forced him to make promises to Lex and Alicia he would have to break, and there was no way to get back in their good graces after that. To suggest it had anything to do with what Amber said to the jury is ludicrous. Their minds were made up the moment they were voted out.
NO, the game is not "domination". The game is NOT about doing the best job of getting to the
final 2 and having your performance decided by an objective jury. That's the same error Rob made -- he either misunderstood or disregarded the role of
the juror. No one "deserves" or is "entitled" to win just because they "dominated". "HOW" they dominated is what
matters.
Again, disregard it if you like, but the game is NOT "domination". As JP says, "What you are doing and voting people off and turning around
and ask them to give you a millions dollars". Whether one "dominates" or plays "under-the-radar", HOW they do it is what matters.
When putting someone on the jury, HOW someone does that is what matters. In Thailand, Clay put people on the jury willing to vote for him in S5 and he almost
won over dominator Brian.
The role of the jury is not to objectively decide who did the best job getting to the final 2, unless an
individual juror wants to base their vote on that. According to the actual game, the juror sets their own criteria for voting. It's not like trial jury
that is given instructions by a judge. It is a built in accountability mechanism. It's voting people off and then turning around and asking them to give
you a million dollars.
Rob made the choice to backstab and blindside. There are other ways to play the game,
especially in a season where everybody already knew everybody and had pre-existing relationships. Rob had choices and alternatives. He could have sacrified
Rupert before Tom. He could have buttered up Alicia a little. He could have been nice to people instead of falling into that pathetic Marlon Brando
impersonation he does with "Robfather." It was a style decision. While Rob "dominated", that isn't the game as structured.
Rob knew the rules, he knew how the jury works, and he deliberately chose the WRONG strategy for that season, and even
delighted in backstabbing others. But trying to get a Robfather fan to admit that Rob had any culpability in his own loss is pointless. Rob lost more
than Amber won, but at least Amber gave the jury vote consideration. Rob blew it himself. End of story. Blaming Lex may
make Rob's fans feel better, but it doesn't change or alter or make up for Rob's colossal error in strategy.
However, he got the beautiful girl with the million, so he certainly came out ahead in the deal. But that doesn't mean Rob didn't deserve to lose.
In fact, he earned that loss with his own choices.
Tom-S10 learned from this and dominated Palau with Koror, but in a whole different way. As he said, "if you backstab you're way to the top,
you're playing for second place." Tom-S10 proved that it is possible to dominate and win a landslide jury vote.
HOW he dominated is what made the difference. It is also true that under-the-radar players have been
rewarded or punished by juries based on HOW they played that strategy.
