Board Thread:King of the Nerds/@comment-26457160-20170114042025

"kotnorange"

- (I apologize in advance for the length of this, but if anything that shows PASSION!!!!! HAND ME THE WIN DAMMIT!!!!!) Honest to god, I don't even believe this is a debate. Playing a strategic game is far superior to playing a physical game, and imma tell you why! You come into survivor to play strategically, and playing strategically honestly includes all aspects of the game of survivor and is not limited to just a physical game. When you're playing strategically you decide how much you want to give to challenges to make yourself not seem like a threat or to give it your all to keep yourself safe, which is strategy. It covers the social game because you strategically need to be thinking what is the best way to win people over and position yourself well socially with everyone. And finally, obviously, a strategic game is also about the general strategy of the game of survivor and who you need to vote out to advance yourself in the game, so honestly I love ya Dom but you're fighting a losing battle here having to defend JUST a physical game, which in the end won't be respected by everyone if all you did is win challenges. In my section of this debate I'll be covering each of the three aspects of the game I listed, physical game, social game and the general strategy of playing survivor and why all of them fit into playing a strategic game, and I'll end it with why just playing a physical game isn't going to get you anywhere. STRATEGIC GAME INVOLVED W/ THE PHYSICAL GAME: In the game of survivor the physical game is obviously a large part of it. Challenges are what keep people moving forward by granting immunity, they're what give people fuel and comforts by winning rewards, and just generally make you feel good when jeff probst raises his hands saying you won!! HOWEVER, you need to know when to turn on the physical game and when to turn it off which is where a strategic game comes into play. You have to have a strategy when dealing with challenges. In the tribal phases of the game you need to be able to show to your tribe you're an asset and can help in winning challenges to keep everyone safe and to help get rewards, but you also don't want to become too much of a threat by showing you're too good at everything survivor throws at you challenge wise. A good strategic player will know to play the middle ground and let other people take on the role of being challenge threats, because that's only going to hinder them later in the merge portion of the game, and you need to be thinking in every challenge how to make yourself seem like less of a threat while also helping your tribe win. In the merge portion of the game, you don't want to win challenges if you don't have to win them. There's literally 0 reason to put yourself out there and win if you do not need to, so strategy does come into play in throwing challenges to make yourself seem like less of a threat. You need to be able to determine whether or not you'll be safe or not so you know when to win a challenge, and when to throw a challenge. Also for reward challenges like any survivor fan can tell you most of the time if it's an individual reward, you're going to be picking people to join you on that reward, so strategy does come into play in weighing out if it's best to win and help make people like you, or to throw it so you aren't put in the position to choose some people over others. Everything I talked about ^^^^^^ up there is playing strategically, because strategy has a profound impact on challenges. HOWEVER, it doesn't have as much of an impact on challenges as it does on the social game!! STRATEGIC GAME INVOLVED W/ THE SOCIAL GAME: SOCIALLY, I mean strategy is involved everywhere. For starters, every single relationship you develop you need to be able to know how to relate to each individual person and how exactly to make them trust you. You need to figure out your common interests, you need to develop a rapport with them, you need to be able to communicate effectively with game talk, and you need to be able to not piss them off!! Every single conversation you have you need to be thinking about the proper words to say and your body language and it's honestly probably really draining, but like that's how survivor is played and all of that is a strategic game because you're strategically thinking what you need to say to come across well to everyone. You also need to make sure that you're not coming off as too threatening because you're forming all sorts of bonds with people, like you can't be seen walking off so many times having these conversations because it will paint a target on your back, so strategically as well you need to figure out when is the right time to have conversations w/ people and when it's unnnecessary and you should just take a nap or lay on the beach!!! The social game is where you develop the relationships and the trust you need w/ people to actually play the game, and strategy is involved every single time you open your mouth which should SHOW how important playing a strategic game is!! STRATEGIC GAME W/ GENERAL SURVIVOR STRATEGY: So now you know how to go about competing in challenges, now you know how to build bonds with people and not piss people off, it's time to learn how to play the game ladies and gentlemen!!! Survivor is V simple in terms of just establishing connections and not pissing people off and integrating yourself with a majority, but like every actual game decision you make has to be the right one and you always need to be thinking about that as you're playing ! Strategically with every single vote you cast you need to have thought out how voting that person out is going to be best for you moving forward, why voting that person out was the right decision at that time, and what impact on everyone else in the game will it have that you cast that vote ! Strategy goes into every vote you cast, winning challenges isnt voting people out bitch it's your strategic mind making the right judgement call on who to vote. On top of voting, strategically you also need to be able to position yourself so you're not seeming like you're making all of the calls while also having an impact on the overall outcome of tribals, bc people r gonna target you if they know you're the one leading shit, and strategy goes into all of those game convos you have and how u want that other person or persons ur talking to end up feeling about you ! All game talk, votes, decisions made, and positioning of yourself that you do in the game is bc of a STRATEGIC GAME!!!!! NO PHYSICAL GAME DOES THAT FOR U BITCH!!!!! WHY DOM IS GOING TO LOSE BC THE PHYSICAL GAME DOESNT HELP U WIN: If you want to WIN survivor, you need to be able to show you played every single aspect of the game and didn't stick to just one, and unfortunately for dom here in this debate she literally only can say shit like "oh well a physical game helps you win challenges and advance further which is the entire goal!!" ya, it is, but if that's all you're doing you won't win, and the strategic game covers literally every single aspect of the game of survivor which is what a jury is going to be looking for when deciding who to cast their vote for. They need to see you've built relationships, made big moves and strategic decisions and weren't a follower, knew when to win challenges at the right times and be likeable enough to get their vote, and all of this criteria is accomplished through strategy and making people like you and knowing what decisions you need to make to advance yourself further. It's far more impressive to survive through 8-10 merge tribal councils without any safety than it is to win your way to the end, because it shows you were smart enough to manuever your way through the game with your mind and your mouth only. AT THE END OF THE DAY, the ONLY thing playing a physical game is going to accomplish is becoming a fan favorite of casuals, fan girls and fuck boys, and I hope to god none of yall are judging this debate bc if so whoops!!!! STRATEGY WINS U SURVIVOR GOODBYE!!!!!!!" Johnny Mark Poteet 9:14pm Johnny Mark Poteet Hmm? Tyler Ridgeway 9:14pm Tyler Ridgeway I'll brb i gotta drive Johnny Mark Poteet 9:14pm Johnny Mark Poteet Okey Drew Sagala 9:16pm Drew Sagala Lord Jesus up above Johnny Mark Poteet 9:16pm Johnny Mark Poteet Same Drew Sagala 9:16pm Drew Sagala Chris should be on a debate team Tyler Ridgeway 9:17pm Tyler Ridgeway Ok i lied i gotta wait Drew Sagala 9:17pm Drew Sagala Liar liar pants on fire Tyler Ridgeway 9:18pm Tyler Ridgeway

Johnny Mark Poteet 9:18pm Johnny Mark Poteet Call him out! Tyler Ridgeway 9:18pm Tyler Ridgeway Im sitting in a car with a crying baby that won't stfu now is not the time Nathaniel Swede 9:20pm Nathaniel Swede Well, even though Dom made some great points, Chris won me over (which is strange since I actually disagree with him? But whatever XD ) I think Chris did this the best Johnny Mark Poteet 9:20pm Johnny Mark Poteet (Y) Drew Sagala 9:21pm Drew Sagala I'm still reading sorry Okay Linus Le Mow 9:25pm Linus Le Mow I think both argue'd the point really well I'd say they tied, but well, I probably have a bias towards physical game so if that is subconsciously influencing me even slightly I have to balance that out and give Chris a slight edge. Drew Sagala 9:26pm Drew Sagala Despite the strong points that Dom had and the lovely evidence to support, Chris's lengthy report actually made more of an impact because I actually can relate to all three different types of cases. Johnny Mark Poteet 9:27pm Johnny Mark Poteet Your next topic is "Is it better for you to save a close ally from going home or to save yourself from going home?" Erin will be defending why it is better to save yourself. Johnny Mark Poteet 9:27pm Johnny Mark Poteet "I am here to affirm why it is better to save yourself in an org rather than save an ally. There are several reasons this is the better way of using a special power. If you use it on yourself you, of course, assure yourself more time in the game. You are guaranteed to improve your placement, even if that means working alone. My main argument for this stance is saving "yourself is the option with fewer variables, thus yielding a positive outcome for the user more of the time." If you use a power to save an ally you introduce a wide range of possibilities that make this move very dangerous. What is there is a split vote? What if that ally turns their back on you in a future week? What if it was all for not and they are just voted out next week? Any of these eventualities would yield negative outcomes, and would make the move detrimental to your game. This introduction of dangerous variables would mean using a power to save an ally is the worse of the two options. The only way using a power on yourself yields a negative outcome if you “waste it.” This means you use it unnecessarily when you would have been safe. However, is that really a negative outcome? You may have lost your special power, but you are still in the game, and you are given total peace of mind that you will be around for another week. In reality, there are no negatives that come from using a power, aside from no longer having that power. In conclusion, saving yourself from potential elimination is the better option. There is less risk involved, and a guaranteed reward. This makes it the logical path, the nerdier path, and the better path.

"kotnpurple"

- I'm here to argue why having a physical game can earn you a win. It won't be long because I know you won't want to read a lot lmao! Doing extremely well in challenges can 100% be a selling point in either an org or in the real show. It gives more flexibility in terms of strategic game by going on immunity runs. Several examples from the 703 ORG can be Susie, myself, Linus, Ayhan, Yuki, Alex, etc. It also helped Tyler on Koror's ORG Season 21, Canary Islands. With us winning immunities, we were more free to make daring strategic moves that propelles us to the end and gave us a great case of why we should've won our respective seasons and a lot of that had to do with us winning those challenges, which had us a safer spot to make those moves. Some examples of the moves would be when I helpes to initate Liam leaving, Nuno leaving at the final 5, Emma leaving at final 4 and getting Alex to waste his idol in Skye Islands and then taking him out the next tribal. Winning immunities can also help you develop stronger social relationships. When I won immunities in Italy and in Skye Islands, I used my safety from the immunities to form stronger relationships and form deals with my tribemates. Because I was safe, I could form more genuine relationships with my competitors which kept me safe with no votes against me until the final 6 and also made me a strong contender to win. Another example of this can be Linus, who also formed strong relationships with his competition, and his strong social relationships, which was helped by his multiple immunity wins, put him miles ahead of his other 2 fellow finalists. In conclusion, having a strong physical game can 100% earn you a win. It's been proven that it can help you out on multiple occasions that it can help you develop both your strategic and social games plus give you a strong edge to win. It's been proven multiple times on the real show and on 703 that strong immunity performances can help you earn a win.

"kotnorange"

- In the game of Survivor, the main goal is to get yourself to the end under any means necessary. However, what if the only way to make it to the end is to save your friends? Most people automatically assume you need to protect yourself first and not to worry about others. As demonstrated prominently in Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, however, the opposite became incredibly prominent. Throughout the season, it was clear you needed to protect those protecting you to get to the end. The principle of protecting your allies in order to make the final tribal council is first evident in the premerge, especially with Tyson’s blindside. Parvati was supposed to be voted out that tribal council (HvV, 6). Without Parvati, however, there would have been no possible way for Russell to make it to the end. As much as Russell ultimately sucks as a Survivor player and a person, he was smart to realize that the only way he could make it another stage further was to save Parvati the first (and only) time she was truly vulnerable in the season. Preceding tribal council, he debated whether or not to play it on himself or play it on his closest ally. He made the risk in playing it on Parvati, who got the most votes that tribal council, and Parvati and Danielle then proceeded to take complete control over the villains tribe because of this. If Russell had been selfish instead of self-satisfying, he would have been voted off next. While that may have not been a bad thing, all it does is prove that you need to keep your allies in the game in order to keep yourself in the game. The season continued to demonstrate the value in keeping your allies in the game once the merge came, where it was performed at its finest by Parvati. In the merge episode, Parvati surprised the whole tribe, including Russell, by going rogue (although not really) and deciding not to play her many idols on herself, but rather to distribute them among the villainesses like candy at Halloween (HvV, 10). In doing this, Mama Jerri was safe and J.T. was sent OWT! The villains had the majority from there on out because of Parvati’s “selfless” decision to save her allies. As a side, is it really selfless to save your allies? While with saving yourself, you make it one step further and leave your allies behind in the dust, when you save your allies, you are martyrized. If you do end up making it to the end, you are renowned for your supposed selflessness in saving your friends to make it to the end, and you are awarded the win. But really, it is not a selfless act. You are doing this not only to further your friends but mostly to further yourself. In the previous example with Parvati, she did not pass out idols by the goodness of her heart, and her handling of it in the end ultimately cost her the win, she did this to get herself to the end. Which she did. In the end, Parvati rightfully did not win over Sandra despite her moves to save her allies, but it cannot be denied that there would have been no possible way either Parvati or Russell could have made it to the end of Heroes vs. Villains if they had not saved their allies. Had Russell looked out for himself in episode six, he would have wasted it on himself and been voted out next. If Parvati had played one idol like Russell had planned for her to do, and done so on herself, the tribe standing would have been up to the drawing of rocks, and a close ally could very easily have been eliminated. It is just straight up pivotal that you save your allies in circumstances such as these than solely saving yourself.

"kotnpurple"

- I am here to affirm why it is better to save yourself in an org rather than save an ally. There are several reasons this is the better way of using a special power. If you use it on yourself you, of course, assure yourself more time in the game. You are guaranteed to improve your placement, even if that means working alone. My main argument for this stance is saving "yourself is the option with fewer variables, thus yielding a positive outcome for the user more of the time." If you use a power to save an ally you introduce a wide range of possibilities that make this move very dangerous. What is there is a split vote? What if that ally turns their back on you in a future week? What if it was all for not and they are just voted out next week? Any of these eventualities would yield negative outcomes, and would make the move detrimental to your game. This introduction of dangerous variables would mean using a power to save an ally is the worse of the two options. The only way using a power on yourself yields a negative outcome if you “waste it.” This means you use it unnecessarily when you would have been safe. However, is that really a negative outcome? You may have lost your special power, but you are still in the game, and you are given total peace of mind that you will be around for another week. In reality, there are no negatives that come from using a power, aside from no longer having that power. In conclusion, saving yourself from potential elimination is the better option. There is less risk involved, and a guaranteed reward. This makes it the logical path, the nerdier path, and the better path.

"kotnorange"

- Good Evening ladies, gentlemen and my distinguished panel of judges, my name is Samuel Edwards and tonight I will be arguing against my honourable opponent on whether the root of jury’s bitterness stems from either the finalist’s gameplay, or the very essence of being on the jury. I will be debating for the fact that the reason why juries are bitter is because of the players in the game. When competing in any online competition based game like King of the Nerds, Big Brother or Survivor, the jury is a lukewarm position to end in, as I assume you would all agree, nobody here aspires to be pre-jury, but everyone would aim for the finale, so if you so happen to find yourself leaving the game in the jury stage, one may be, say, content in that position and would be happy to have made it so far. However, one stigma that is always associated with the jurors, is that they are salty. I am guilty of being a bitter juror, if any of you had reached the jury, I’m sure you’d have some experiences in the game, particularly near your elimination, which makes you feel sour, leaves you thinking “Hey, if it wasn’t for –insert name here- I could have won this!”. It’s a pure fact, juries are bitter. But this has already been agreed upon, juries are bitter, there is no disputing that, whether juries are bitter is not the topic at hand. No, so why have I divulged into a paragraph about why they are bitter I hear you cry? Well, I assume you all would agree with the previous paragraph, and as you may care to notice, the example I used made you think of someone who may have screwed you out of the game. So, cast your minds back and think of a time you were placed on the jury by no fault of your own and think of who put you there. You leaving the game was a part of their game plan, your hope of reaching the finale and snatching the crown was taken by that person, and they were probably experiencing a great deal of joy when snuffing these hopes, it’s not hard to see how that can make yours, or any other jurors, blood boil to the point where you may decide to hold that move against that person for the remained of the game, and if they reach the final, you will bring that experience up in your speech, and this experience could, by all means, decide your vote. That’s because you were bitter, bitter because someone outplayed you, bitter because someone else’s game, has ended yours. Now, any good debate wouldn’t be done without each side digging in to each other’s arguments, wouldn’t you agree? I feel quite lucky, as my argument I believe is a lot juicer than my opponents, but any good master debater knows you can argue for anything, and if your convincing, you can win. But I digress, the argument for juries being bitter, because they’re on the jury seems quite tactless. Being on the jury is not in any way a bad thing. Jurors typically make it past the halfway point of the game, and most people I know, aim to get to that point, in fact, when you start a game, I’m sure some of you readers have thought to yourself “if I make jury I’ll be happy”, correct me if I’m wrong of course, but I doubt it, but the jury stage is typically deemed as socially acceptable, so with that in mind, why would being on the jury make someone bitter? I put to you, the judges, that the only logical conclusion is that the bitterness stems from someone else’s gameplay. Let me liven up your minds by giving you a fun analogy from a much loved gameshow Survivor, now, cast your minds back to Caramoan, and place yourself into the shoes of Brenda Lowe. Brenda was made a jury member after a shocking blindside, right after she selflessly gave up a loved one’s visit for the rest of the contestants. A very admirable move, we would all agree. I’m sure you all would remember the false teeth commotion with her co-contestant Dawn Meehan, in which Dawn said if she does not find her false teeth, she would leave the game. Brenda then proceeded to help Dawn and eventually found her false teeth; a very kind act, I’m sure you would all agree. Now think of the final 6 tribal council, where Dawn went against Brenda and blindsided her out of the game, landing her on the jury. If that was you, wouldn’t you also be pissed, just like she was? Skipping ahead to the finale, Brenda’s speech is known as one of the most iconic, salty speeches from the game. Why do you think she made this speech? Just because she made the jury? No no no, because of someone else in the game doing her dirty. Someone else’s game made Brenda so bitter that she asked a finalist to remove her false teeth in front of the nation. If that’s not a strong example of gameplay-rooted bitterness, I don’t know what is. Other people’s gameplay makes people bitter. Thank you all for reading, and I hope you make the right decision!

"kotnorange"

- It is better to be apart of the majority alliance in Survivor because time and time again you see at least a member of that majority getting to the end. Being in the majority also gives you options to work with the desperate ones on the outside of the alliance and make new majority. Being the swing vote is bad because you burn a lot of trust, especially if you flip between two alliances. Being the swing vote also means you're on the bottom looking up to whatever side you choose and then at a swap you will be screwed by not having anything solid if you're on the bottom of it. All in all it's much more better to be in majority with a solid chance of getting to the end rather than being a swing vote.

"kotnpurple"

- In the game of Survivor, there are three main positions that people fall into on a tribe. The first two, majority and minority, have their positives, but they are not the best. However, the position of a swing vote is the most important position there is. A swing voter controls the pace of the game. The decision they make not only affects them. It affects everyone on the tribe. If player correctly handles it, a swing vote can make it so that they will be able to make the decision that most benefits them and have a plan lined up that will achieve the end goal of winning. Chris from Vanuatu managed to make it to the end and win using this. He turned the many girls against each other carefully since he had no connections to any of them, then he slowly maneuvered his way through until he suddenly made the end and won, shocking everyone and showing how much a swing vote can do. One main problem with an alliance is that fact that your expected to stick to it for a long time. Being a swing vote leaves your options wide open and truly allows you to make the best out of your cast. Also, the swing vote position allows a voter to be more open socially since they are only looking out for themselves. Kimmi from The Australian Outback and Cambodia comes to mind. She realized her importance as the swing vote far to late and stayed stuck to the Bayon alliance for far too long. When she finally did try to flip things, it was to late and she got screwed out of the game through one of the craziest tribals ever when she could've easily made the move in the previous tribal council where Abi went home 4-3. Majority alliances are like a bad group on a school project. They usually end up being dysfunctional and in the end will always break at some point. Being a swing vote allows a person to control the flow of the game while personally benefitting them self, and it makes maintain social connections easier since you aren't held down by other people. A swing vote has a lot of hidden power, and it can be of great use if the person is smart enough to correctly use it to benefit them personally. When it comes down to it, Survivor is about getting yourself to the end and getting enough votes to win, and being the swing vote is a perfect way to accomplish that.

"kotnorange"

- Today, I am here to defend the claim that it is better to make the Final Tribal Council as a member of the majority alliance as opposed to a member of the minority alliance. I firmly believe in this statement, but for explanations sake, I will limit this argument to Final 2s, and cannon show only. My reasoning for this, is to just make things easier. There are too many combinations of finalists if it were an F3, and the jurors are completely different in an online game as opposed to the real game. In the event that it is two people from the majority alliance makes the end, it proves the loyalty that the members had. Everyone who joins an alliance that has more than two or three members, knows that at least one person in the alliance won't make the end. That means, they had to position themselves to where the person getting cut wasn't them. They had to take out their alliance, in order to make the end. They had to make moves, to make sure it wasn't them heading to the bench. But at the same time, they remained loyal to their alliance. By going to the end with one of their own, they showed that they took out the people they needed to, to better their own game. The issue at this point, would be convincing the jury about why they should vote you, over the other person in the same alliance. The other scenario, is to go to the end against a member or the minority alliance. To me, this is the scenario that separates the weak players from the strong. To make it to the end as the lone member in your alliance, is no easy feat. To do this, you had to make moves to take out your allies. You proved that you had game awareness, and were truly able to outlast your opponents. A stronger game has to be played. As a member of the minority alliance, there comes a point where you must vote the way of the majority, or vote wrong. You are not in control, and you cannot dictate the direction the game goes. For me, the biggest reason why I would want to make it to the end as part of the majority alliance, is all about jury management. For the people on the minority, there is a reason they aren't in the majority. They more than likely don't get along with many of the other contestants. This makes it difficult, because the members in the majority alliance, make up most or the jury. And as many times the show has proved, it is easier to vote for someone you like to win, instead of the person you dislike. In online games, that doesn't play as big of a factor, because you can focus more on game play, rather than relationships in the game. In the real show, you are spending every waking moment with the others. Online you might make friends, but not the same type of friendship you get from surviving on an island with the others. I know what kind of person I am, and what kind of person most people are. Everyone would much rather see their friend win one million dollars, as opposed to someone they tolerated for 39 days.

"kotnpurple"

- The key facet of Survivor is the one that can be the most consistently overlooked. The point of the game is not to make the most big moves, find the most idols, build the best alliance, or create the best ‘resume’, but to reach Final Tribal Council (FTC) with a jury that is willing to vote for you over your competitor or competitors. In order to achieve that goal, being in a minority alliance can be an enormous asset, if you manage to reach FTC. The give-and-take between a majority alliance and a minority one is that life is much harder for members of a minority alliance (see Survivor: Borneo or Survivor: Redemption Island, where no members of a minority alliance managed to reach FTC), but if you manage to succeed in reaching the end, minority alliance members can use this aspect of their game to pull ahead of competitors that were in a majority alliance. To prove this, I will first show the historic trend towards rewarding members of minority alliances at FTC, and then show logically how a minority alliance member can show the superiority of their gameplay. Historically speaking, the seasons in which a minority alliance member reached FTC, that person tends to do better than majority alliance members. First, in most seasons the FTC consisted of purely majority alliance members. This shows the difficulty of a minority alliance member in making FTC, but as the debate question is “Is it better to make FTC as a member of a majority alliance or a member of a minority alliance”, I feel these seasons are not particularly consequential towards the question at hand. To clarify further, I acknowledge the difficulty in reaching FTC as a part of a minority alliance member, but feel that achieving this feat confers advantages on an individual making them more likely to win the final vote when opposed by a member of a majority alliance. In Survivor: The Amazon, the Tambaqui Alliance of Matt, Rob, Butch and Christy seized control of the game at the Final Seven, eliminating the threatening Alex, and then blindsiding the inconsistently loyal Christy, while still holding the majority at Jacare. Despite the fact that the final four consisted of the three core majority alliance members, Jenna, the sole remaining minority alliance member, won two immunity challenges in a row in order to reach the FTC, where she won due to a superior strategic and social game. In Survivor: Pearl Islands, three alliances (the Drake Alliance, Morgan Alliance, and Outcasts Alliance) vied for supremacy during the merge, with the Outcasts Alliance of Jon, Burton, Lillian, Tijuana and Darrah succeeded in creating a majority alliance, being five of the final seven, and four of the final five. However, Sandra succeeded in getting the majority to turn on each other and reached FTC, where she won due to her achievements socially and strategically. Similarly, Chris Daugherty was faced with a similarly monumental challenge in Survivor: Vanuatu, managing to reach FTC despite being the only man left at the Final Seven, with a 6 person strong women’s alliance. Despite this, Chris played the game hard, and got to FTC, where he won decisively due to his ability to stay in the game despite a seemingly insurmountable challenge. Now, I’d like to delve a bit further into Chris’ game, and specifically his FTC, as it is the epitome of all of the advantages of being in a minority alliance. In his FTC, Chris successfully redirected the anger of the women’s alliance towards Twila, who had betrayed them, instead of towards him. He also used the difficulty of his game as proof of its superiority, thereby securing him victory. In both Survivor: Guatemala and Survivor: Gabon, the winner reached FTC as the last member of an alliance that had been otherwise completely eliminated, but was rewarded for having better relationships with the jury members and, in Danni from Guatemala’s case, having a superior, if under-the-radar game. In Survivor: Philippines, the merge did not have a simple majority/minority format, but the winner, Denise Stapley, was in a minority position for almost the entire game, losing every single challenge pre-merge and being in a series of minority alliances (The Matsing alliance and the Kalabaw Alliance) that were outnumbered by the Tandang Alliance and Fulcrum Alliance, yet still succeeded in getting to the end allowed for her to dominate at FTC, where the jury praised her for attending every single tribal council, and thus only being immune at one point in the game. Furthermore, in Survivor: Worlds Apart, Mike Holloway was immune for six tribal councils in a row (five from challenges, one from an idol), and managed to reach the end despite the entire tribe wishing to target him, and this phenomenal physical game earned him the win. It is therefore clear that historically speaking, a member of a minority alliance that reaches FTC has always won that FTC, but as past results do not fully prove this fact, consider the concept theoretically. As a juror, when faced with someone from a minority alliance, it tells you immediately that they have played a superior social (Bob from Gabon), strategic (Denise from Philippines), or physical (Mike from Worlds Apart) game to the others, as they have faced significantly more challenges. The situation is akin to several people being challenged to reach the top of a building, but some people start in the basement, others start in the fifth floor. If the person on the basement still manages to reach the top comparably to those that started on the fifth floor, it proves the superiority of their game. Additionally, if the minority alliance member reaches FTC, it probably means that there are many members of their former alliance in the jury, who would be more amenable to voting for an ally. Although this is not always the case (Chris in Vanuatu, for instance, faced a jury of mostly women), and jurors are not guaranteed to vote purely based on how much they like someone, it is a significant factor, and is possibly the deciding factor in Bob winning Gabon (as the Onion alliance members all voted for the Onion that remained loyal, as opposed to Susie who betrayed them). Moreover, being in a minority alliance at the end of Survivor proves that you truly are a survivor, that despite the difficulties and trials you faced, the overwhelming odds against you, you still managed to endure it all, managing to outwit and outplay an alliance with a voting majority, and thus the capacity to control the votes at tribal council, and outlast not only members of your alliance, but the alliance that opposed yours and eliminated everyone else that could help you. Therefore, not only does it significantly booster your chances at victory, it also is better reflective of the core ethos of the game of Survivor to make Final Tribal Council as a member of the minority alliance.

 