OT Russell Topic

mtngoats
Posts: 24 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 94 17 12
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
5/17/2010 11:50 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By mtngoats on 5/17/2010 <SCRIPT language="javascript>"
bluecoat_old_onload = window.onload
window.onload = function()
if (bluecoat_old_onload != null)
try
bluecoat_old_onload()
} catch (e)


bluecoat_fixpopups()
}
//-->sandra has 2,000,000 in the bank i believ
So it doesn't matter if one or both were undeserved? Just because she won twice that makes her the best player ever, regardless of why/how she won? That's like calling Natalie a better player than Russell because she won the million dollars and he didn't.

While Russell wasn't "popular" amongst 9 people, he was popular with millions and millions of Americans TWICE...its a shame that that doesn't count for more. They should split the prizes $550K to the Tribal winner, $550K to the "American Vote" winner...I think that's fair.
5/17/2010 11:59 AM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
5/17/2010 12:06 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
tech said it already above, but it's the part you're missing -- the human/social element is a crucial element of the game. There are ways to screw people and get them out without ******* them off.

Russell did not even attempt to use them. Instead he just played ruthless puppetmaster, ****** off everyone who ended up on the jury, and his ego expected them to just say "Oh, Russell, you're so much better than us at this game, we'll reward you for it even though we hate your guts."

Human beings don't work like that. And the fact that Russell - twice! - failed to realize that demonstrates quite clearly that his strategy was deeply flawed, and that he is not even close to being the best player ever.
5/17/2010 12:12 PM
mtngoats
Posts: 24 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 94 17 12
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
5/17/2010 12:22 PM
mottnj
Posts: 27 (0)
Hall of Famer
118
Prospect
The bigger issue here is that Sandra won. I could live with Parvati winning, but Sandra was completely worthless and did nothing the entire game. That seems to be the new trend in Survivor. The girl who won the last time was also pretty worthless. I understand that there is a social aspect to the game, but I think the people on the jury let their emotions cloud their judgement. It should be a vote on who played the game the best, not who ****** off who the least. Russell is a dirty little hillbilly, but he was the best player and should have won.
5/17/2010 12:53 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By mottnj on 5/17/2010The bigger issue here is that Sandra won. I could live with Parvati winning, but Sandra was completely worthless and did nothing the entire game. That seems to be the new trend in Survivor. The girl who won the last time was also pretty worthless. I understand that there is a social aspect to the game, but I think the people on the jury let their emotions cloud their judgement. It should be a vote on who played the game the best, not who ****** off who the least. Russell is a dirty little hillbilly, but he was the best player and should have won
Couldn't have really said it better myself
5/17/2010 1:25 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By antonsirius on 5/17/2010
tech said it already above, but it's the part you're missing -- the human/social element is a crucial element of the game. There are ways to screw people and get them out without ******* them off.

Russell did not even attempt to use them. Instead he just played ruthless puppetmaster, ****** off everyone who ended up on the jury, and his ego expected them to just say "Oh, Russell, you're so much better than us at this game, we'll reward you for it even though we hate your guts." Russell expected that Survivor "veterans" would respect his tactics much more than "newbies" did and in fact it was the exact opposite which is mind boggling. He got 2 votes in season 19, 0 in season 20. I'm just saying, yes Russell did some bizarre, hurtful things, but that's what got him to the final 3, and let's face it, if not for Russell, Parvati and Sandra wouldn't have been there either...this was Russell's game the last 2 seasons and everyone was just playing in it, and that should certainly count for something. Playing the "my husband's in Afghanistan" card won the friggin title...unreal, especially given that her objective was to vote Russell off and she failed miserably.

Human beings don't work like that. And the fact that Russell - twice! It was 2 different circumstances and he knew that, and he played the same exact way because he thought people from past seasons would appreciate his gameplay and ability, but their hatred for him clouded their vote and they blanked him...total bush league bullshit. - failed to realize that demonstrates quite clearly that his strategy was deeply flawed, and that he is not even close to being the best player ever. So he's not the best player ever because he never won? UNBELIEVABLE...if you think this, I would suggest that you go back and watch every episode of the last 2 seasons. Again, what did America think? Voting off JT was brilliant, voting off Danielle was brilliant, voting Boston Rob off was brilliant, voting Tyson off was brilliant, voting Coach off was brilliant...who masterminded all of these? Russell...he controlled the game start to finish, and in the end it counted for nothing because peoples' feelings were hurt and they were jealous. Give the man his friggin due. Russell told America what he was going to do and he did it...what more can you ask for?
5/17/2010 1:34 PM
bscoresby
Posts: 473 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 217 7 105 1
Prospect
Russell...he controlled the game start to [ALMOST] finish,


is what you meant to say
5/17/2010 1:59 PM
tech0798
Posts: 0 (0)
Prospect
3
Prospect
Russell told America what he was going to do and he did it...what more can you ask for?

He also said he would be the Sole Survivor...but fell short...

Is he one of the all-time best Survivor players ever? Yes. But he is not THE Best. Pavrati, Amanda, Sandra can all have viable claims at that title. But for my money's worth, Sandra and Richard Hatch are the best.
5/17/2010 2:07 PM
dacj501
Posts: 4779 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 305
Pro
I find it fascinating that Russell was willing to tell any lie in the book to get to the final 3, but refused to tell the lie that would have won him the game (which he values a lot more than the $$ since he is already a millionaire) - the lie that he was sorry about the way he manipulated everyone. If he had told that lie convincingly, he would have gotten at least 3 and maybe as many as 6 votes this time around. The jury wanted to hear him apologize for being a dick all season. Instead, he picked the final tribal to tell the complete truth, that he is an ******* with few redeeming qualities, and he got what he deserved...
5/17/2010 3:48 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tech0798 on 5/17/2010Russell told America what he was going to do and he did it...what more can you ask for?

He also said he would be the Sole Survivor...but fell short...

Is he one of the all-time best Survivor players ever? Yes. But he is not THE Best. Pavrati, Amanda, Sandra can all have viable claims at that title. But for my money's worth, Sandra and Richard Hatch are the best. You're just basing these thoughts off of the final result, while disregarding whether Sandra really deserved to win or not. Let's face it last night, Sandra should have been the one that blanked...ok I'll give her Courtney's vote because they're BFFs, but that's it. Go back and watch the season, and tell me exactly what Sandra did aside from lay low, suck in challenges, and try (and fail) to oust Russell. If you're going to base your thoughts off of 9 biased/sour grapes/jealous "jurors" as to far as who the best player in history was, then you're leaving out A TON of what actually happened. Parvati was eons better/more worthy than Sandra, no question.
5/17/2010 4:13 PM
jskenner
Posts: 246 (0)
Hall of Famer
249
Prospect
I am continually baffled how the jury votes based on hurt feelings. These hurt feelings are generally based on perceptions of betrayal. It's as if they are shocked a person would lie in a competition where all know lies are perfectly legal, and many/most times beneficial. It's akin to stepping into a snake pit, then feeling betrayed by the snakes who bite.

Don't like dealing with liars? Then don't play Survivor. Like playing Survivor? Then accept the liars for who they are. Are we twelve? The man with the tie-dye shirt (Rupert, I think): he seems a good, honorable person. But he's ultimately a fool if he actually wanted to believe a person like Russell. Again, we're not twelve, are we?

On the other hand, Russell is also a fool for playing a game in a manner he could not win. At least the 2nd time around. On his first attempt, he took a shot at betraying his way into the final 3. But once he learned this wouldn't come close to earning enough jury votes, he used the same tactic. Unwise, and then he also acted like he's twelve, feigning disbelief at getting no votes. It didn't work the first time, so it should be little shock the next. What's that definition of insanity again?

Actually, Probst had the best point of the night (per usual). He told Russell a basic fact of the entire series. The game Russell wants to play (including a national vote in the final decision) is not Survivor. Survivor's format is well-known, tried and true. To paraphrase the Judge Reinhold character in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" -- "Learn it. Love it. Live it."

5/17/2010 4:15 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dacj501 on 5/17/2010I find it fascinating that Russell was willing to tell any lie in the book to get to the final 3, but refused to tell the lie that would have won him the game (which he values a lot more than the $$ since he is already a millionaire) - the lie that he was sorry about the way he manipulated everyone. If he had told that lie convincingly, he would have gotten at least 3 and maybe as many as 6 votes this time around. The jury wanted to hear him apologize for being a dick all season. Instead, he picked the final tribal to tell the complete truth, that he is an ******* with few redeeming qualities, and he got what he deserved..
It was a no win for Russell really. I think he could have saved some face at the end and not been as much of an arrogant, pompous ***, but I think even if he did say what everyone wanted him to say, that the "jurors" would still say "He's just saying that now because he wants a million bucks". If for anything else, I would have given him extra points in my book for sticking to who he was/is for 39 days...he wasn't going to beg and plead for those on the jury to vote for him, and that in itself is extremely respectable and honorable, staying true to thyself. He didn't really have great answers for the jury, but he didn't really need them. Again, I think they need to split the prizes equally for the Tribal and American votes...because would you rather be most popular amongst 9 of your closer "peers" or all of America....hmmm let me think. I know Russell was suggesting that last night partly due to sour grapes on his end, but he's really dead on if you look at it deeper.
5/17/2010 4:17 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By jskenner on 5/17/2010
I am continually baffled how the jury votes based on hurt feelings. These hurt feelings are generally based on perceptions of betrayal. It's as if they are shocked a person would lie in a competition where all know lies are perfectly legal, and many/most times beneficial. It's akin to stepping into a snake pit, then feeling betrayed by the snakes who bite.

Don't like dealing with liars? Then don't play Survivor. Like playing Survivor? Then accept the liars for who they are. Are we twelve? The man with the tie-dye shirt (Rupert, I think): he seems a good, honorable person. But he's ultimately a fool if he actually wanted to believe a person like Russell. Again, we're not twelve, are we?

On the other hand, Russell is also a fool for playing a game in a manner he could not win. At least the 2nd time around. On his first attempt, he took a shot at betraying his way into the final 3. But once he learned this wouldn't come close to earning enough jury votes, he used the same tactic. Unwise, and then he also acted like he's twelve, feigning disbelief at getting no votes. It didn't work the first time, so it should be little shock the next. What's that definition of insanity again? But in fairness and justness to Russell, he thought that the Survivor vets would respect his game more than the newbs last time that just seemingly voted for Natalie because Erik tugged at their heart strings with his final speech speaking about playing noblely and the right way v. the way Russell played. I was surprised as was Russell that the Survivor all stars got soft and mushy on him, worse so than the newbs did. I personally think there was collusion. Lastly, who's to say that if Russell didn't play like that that he would have even made the Final 3? He played the only way he knows how, and in the context of 95% of the game, it was very successful. He blindsided and knocked everyone else out and ran the show and all of the jury is screaming "no fair"...please, get over it. How you can take the game that personally is beyond me...its just that, a game.

Actually, Probst had the best point of the night (per usual). He told Russell a basic fact of the entire series. The game Russell wants to play (including a national vote in the final decision) is not Survivor. Survivor's format is well-known, tried and true. The Survivor game as is, is making it practically unwatchable, because the best player(s) isn't winning and its because of bitter sour grapes of those that the best player ousted. Its becoming a popularity contest of niceness and fair play and that just isn't what Survivor is about. People that play Survivor that way, lose. To paraphrase the Judge Reinhold character in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" -- "Learn it. Love it. Live it."



5/17/2010 4:23 PM
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
OT Russell Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.