Yuku free message boards

Quiddity wrote:

---

Wouldn't you love to be able to say you beat out someone like Richard Hatch or Tina Wesson, some of the best known winners in the history of the game? Players slobbered all over getting the opportunity to do that, so they could make themselves look better.

I've gotta disagree with this. I think the only player in ASS who really operated under this frame of mind was Mariano, who was clearly jealous of players like Cesternino, Ethan, and Rupert. But I don't believe it was the main thought process for anyone else in the season. Personal grudges may have factored in a bit, and obviously Hatch was never going to be safe because everyone wanted to dethrone the king. But beyond that, people like Ethan and Tina weren't booted because everyone was so excited to topple a winner and look like stronger players, but because their original performances simply made them gigantic threats.

The $1,000,000 argument means little,since a million hasn't been alot of money for quite awhile now.

It's at least $900,000 more than everyone who didn't win got. That sort of financial security can make anyone a target. Hell, that's the reason Carl was the first victim of the Samburu kids.

That's just Jenna. And let me tell you, there's no doubt in my mind that if a winner made it to the Finals to face the jury, they would win hands down.

Yup. Lex actually made that point at Ethan's boot TC. Only someone as petty as Jenna Lewis would refuse to reward a winner with another win. Most of the ASS cast would be incredibly impressed to see a winner make the F2 once again, and that just increased the targets on the backs of each of those said winners.

But some people still insist on Survivor being some kind of charity,it annoys me

It's real life, not just a game. Society instills certain moral beliefs in people. They feel obligated to act a certain way in a situation that will directly impact people's long term lives.

The Lex and Ethan case is ever sadder. They were allies in Africa, friends post-show, and Ethan never betrayed Lex.
Yet Lex couldn't get over the fact that Kim J picked his "assistant coach" over him.

Oh, come on. Lex turned on Ethan because Lex wanted to eliminate every post-merge threat he could. He didn't want people like Colby and Ethan around because he wanted to be the alpha male in the post-merge game, more easily able to dominate challenges and more easily able to call the shots. I mean, the guy did it all wrong and his strategy backfired ridiculously well, but I don't think he was bitter that Ethan won Africa.

But I never understood why Rupert didn't team with Ethan and Tina either, so there must have been something there. Oh wait Rupert's a dumb player.. nevermind.

I think the fact of the matter is that Jenna/Jerri were able to provide a clear, simple reason for Rupert to side with them. Tina/Ethan were only able to give him reasoning that required some sort of strategy and long-term planning. He went with the simple, obvious path.

Voting off winners provides you with extra security,but some feel its some sort of moral obligation,like its WRONG for winners to participate,which puzzles me.

You've got a person who's already won before. They've already received the financial stability, the experience, the closure, the title. And then you have someone who didn't win. Someone who was screwed over by a twist, or who lost a crucial IC, or who was backstabbed by someone they thought was a friend. They lost out on all the things that the winners already got. So when you give both of those players a second chance, and you're deciding which one you want to side with, there's a certain moral obligation to help the player who hasn't yet received all the opportunities and glory that the winner has. It's relatively simple. People feel good about charity. They also feel good about sticking with people they have more in common with. And in this game, they feel damn good about getting away from people who have proven themselves to be considerable threats.