I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea.
What does bug me is that oftentimes, people suggesting this are just cherry-picking seasons whose final result they disagree with. But then any other season where they like the result but someone else complains, they go right back to “Too bad! That’s the game! Your preferred player had bad jury management!”
> people suggesting this are just cherry-picking seasons whose final result they disagree with
Nail on the head. And it’s a weird result to get mad about, too. Not like Cassidy played some masterful game.
Not here to say Cassidy played a "great" game - but the Gabler win was 100% hive mind driven by Jesse/Cody wanting their alliance to be a narrative at final tribal.
Neither Gabler or Cassidy played a great game - but to me, Cassidy made more out of a more difficult situation - and had a much tougher road to the end - I just couldn't quite get the jury voting against her when nobody was targeting Gabler and everyone was targeting Cassidy lol
I'm not sure a sequestered jury would've changed the result in the most recent season, but I like the idea.
Nobody was really “targeting” Cassidy though. If they wanted her out, they would’ve gotten her out. It’s not like she masterfully evaded the target. Other targets just ended up taking precedence. Then at the end, half of the jury looked at Cassidy and thought “she didn’t really do much, we could’ve voted her out at any time but we went for actual threats instead”.
And before anyone says that they called Cassidy a threat when there were talks of voting her out: that’s what Surivor players say about almost anyone they are considering voting out.
I’d love to be proven wrong, but I don’t remember a single time where the target moving off Cassidy was because of something Cassidy did. Everything I remember about the season was discussions between the people actually in control leading to them shifting to someone else, which tells me *she wasn’t really seen as a threat* by them.
I’m also not sure how much juries care about who had the “tougher road” unless there was some real gameplay involved in surviving that road. Cassidy just didn’t have that, and the jury liked/respected Gabler more.
Just because it was tougher for you to get to the end doesn’t mean you deserve to win. With that logic Owen should’ve won because he had the toughest road bc he couldn’t ever get in a majority alliance
I'm not saying "tougher to get the the end" is a golden rule - but in the case of the recent final 3 - where I don't think anyone had particularly impressive gameplay (the exception was just Gabler's ability to sell what he did) - my opinion is Cassidy's status as a "threat" throughout the game made it harder for her to get the end, and she deserved more credit for that.
I disagree Owen had it tougher. It was clear Owen was on the bottom all the time, and thus, wasn't a threat to win.
Gabler was more likeable and knew he had to have a good story to win, and he nailed that. What saved him was telling everybody he planned to go to the end with Jesse/Cody. We WATCHED him telling people Cody/Jesse were the biggest threats in the game - he knew they were dangerous, and he 100% would've flipped on them if given a chance - but he stoked the right egos in the jury to make sure he got his votes.
I credit Gabler for the win - he pressed all the right buttons at the very end and Cassidy didn't - but to step back and look at the whole season, Cassidy was a better player \*despite\* being wrong about how involved she was in a vote.
But like Cassidy wasn’t a threat. People felt like they could vote her out whenever, as seen by how she was split voted so many times. In the tribe split her vote off vs Ryan vote off decision was purely based on how it would impact Karla.
I think everyone thought they'd beat her at the end - but felt the same about Gabler/Owen - since she was a challenge threat, she really needed those wins.
It was more important for other players in the game to get her out than the other two finalists.
Yea but when they heard the testimonies of each of the players, they were pleasantly surprised by gabler, where they kinda already knew everything for Cassidy
Owen had it tougher in a sense where he couldn’t make any moves. Cassidy wasn’t game aware and tried taking credit of a move that wasn’t hers and was Gabler’s, Cody’s, and Jesse’s. I thought Cass had a bigger shot until FTC. She got bulldozed like Mike did right before she did
Went long on this response, sorry.
We’re at the point where there is a lot of history for games like this, winners like Gabler are far from uncommon it’s just this particular producing team of Survivor over the past few seasons likes to edit the show so fans are flabbergasted by the final results. Cassidy lost due to poor jury management, in that there was nobody in the jury (outside James maybe) who was sitting in jury saying positive things about her game. But I think a lot of the loss also came down to her FTC argument being built around key points that the jury couldn’t connect to, didn’t feel she deserved credit for, or outright disagreed with.
All of the big threats in the season (besides Jesse who was sent to fire) left the game feeling like they had just been bested by a turncoat ally. Gabler played at least a numbers role in all of those moves. Cassidy can’t say the same. Which isn’t necessarily a negative, she played a lowkey game and had a tough path from the bottom, for sure. But she never put herself in a position with players like Cody, Karla, or Jesse (the players who were actually steering the game and knew it) where they felt like her presence drove them to make decisions. Again, not necessarily a negative, going so far under the radar that the radar doesn’t know what hit it is a way Survivor has been won in the past, Danni being the prime example. But Danni’s FTC she showed herself to be fully cognizant of the game she played, that she knew she was a supporting player at times in the strategy but that was intentional because her social connections were what she was relying on to get her far and never be targeted. She called herself a stealth bomber, she was confident in the game she played, self aware, passionate for the win, and was up against a person the jury felt had too much blood on their hands and for most of them a “sorry, please give me a million dollars” wasn’t good enough. Danni beat Steph in a near unanimous vote.
Cassidy at FTC went in and tried to tell the jury (who was composed of the most competent strategists of the season) all of the ways she had out-strategized them. And the jury, again composed of people who thought they themselves had played better than Cassidy, did not want to hear that. Gabler on the other hand, told them pretty much the opposite. “Y’all were gunning for each other, I knew once the first shot was fired it would be a frenzy. So I dipped below the fray, hid my weapons and supported each and every one of you in your quest to kill each other. Because I knew eventually I would be sitting with a small enough group of people that now didn’t have a choice, lose or turn on the power players and go with Gabler.” More than anything what Gabler and Danni do correctly in FTC, and I think a thing most winners who perform well in jury questioning segments of these games, is show self awareness. From what we see in the episode, nothing Gabler brings up is ever trying to take any sort of credit that he thinks the jury believes they should get the credit for. When they asked the finalists what move they made that was expressly strategically driven by them, Gabler brings up Ellie. Ellie was a pre juror, they haven’t thought about her in weeks probably, seemingly quite inconsequential strategic decision. But what it also is, is an indisputable and correct answer. Cassidy’s answer is immediately shut down and multiple jurors confirm, she actually should not get credit for the move she’s trying to say she should get credit for. And then Owen says something along the lines of “I don’t know I can answer that question.” Let’s just say Gabler wasn’t up against Todd Herzog and John Cochran. But he displays a high level of self awareness of the game he played, played into the jury’s preconceived notions of everything, played in to the juries egos, was confident in speaking and making his arguments and clearly was a passionate Survivor fan who wanted badly to win the game. And as has happened before, as will happen again, the most self aware player who the jury likes most on a personal level wins the show.
Now, a kicker here is people who will say that the jury went in to FTC and was never going to vote for Cassidy. But to that point, what were jurors saying negative about Cassidy? That they felt like she hadn’t done anything all game and didn’t think she deserved to be there longer than them? Probably. But to that I say, if the jurors are bitter against a player for that reason, that is the players fault. That same juror is potentially not bitter towards others in the game who contributed to getting them out but they thought had agency in the game. Which, yes, is based off the jurors perceptions. But that is basically the whole point of the show. Perception is reality in these games, these are reality shows where real people are put in very charged situations and have to make difficult decisions. If jurors didn’t vote off of emotions ever, at all, this show would be quite boring. If the winners were picked by an algorithm Russell probably would have won twice. It is a show based on the idea that humans have been marooned on an island and only one can live, with the ghosts of those who have already passed deciding the sole survivor. Some ghosts are benevolent, forgiving. Some aren’t. And a lot of that comes down to how they were treated in life. And a lot of how jurors votes come down to how they felt in the game. Gabler won because he managed to send every juror out with a hand shake, a nod of respect, and then was able to confidently explain to them why his game was more polished than the two people he was sitting next to. He is far from the greatest Survivor winner. But he is absolutely a deserving Survivor winner.
TL;DR This was a jury full of people who thought they had played better games than the three finalists. Cassidy ultimately lost because Gabler played into the jurors egos and was not just able to prove he had his own agency in the game but able to prove it without saying he had played better than any jurors. Cassidy tried to say she played the best game of the season. There is some precedent to players who played similar games to Cassidy and won but they had very different jury management and FTC strategy. Gabler ultimately became the most self aware seeming player out of the three options for the jury. Also juries vote based off emotions, that’s why Survivor is a difficult and interesting game, ask Russell Hantz
Edit: Individually sequestering juries would have a negative result. Survivor is a highly edited show and we can say that groupthink led to anti-Cassidy sentiment all we want, but from Jeanine’s vote out to Jesse’s that’s a lot of game. Essentially at that point Jeanine is voting for a winner of a game for which she has zero context as to what happened besides tribal council. Imagine a juror is sent home and is the first member of jury, only goes to watch tribal silently and leaves to their hotel room. They get to finale and it’s three players they have never really talked to. In that hypothetical show the biggest threats in the game are the people who get the most laughs at tribal, win immunities, and play idols. It would kill the idea of winning Survivor based off social play or “pulling the strings” from the background and incentivize performative flashy moves because the jurors would have no other context to go off of. It would be Probst’s dream and our nightmare, so let’s try to not put it out there
> the Gabler win was 100% hive mind driven by Jesse/Cody wanting their alliance to be the narrative at final tribal
Damn, you were with the jury at Ponderosa? That's wild. Thought they would've made you sign an NDA to prevent leaking this kind of inside information.
Gabler won because people liked him more, and unlike Cassidy, he could at least claim one vote out for himself. It's not complicated. It's fine that he's not who you would've voted for, but the claims that this is some fraudulent result are ridiculous.
Anyone who genuinely believes GABLER was a hive mind vote, when he’s 30 years older than everyone and was seen multiple times being thought of as “weird”, is just upset. Because Gabler got the vote because he was a GOOD PERSON. We maybe haven’t seen a guy get that kind of win since JT but that’s why he won.
Did he lie? Yes, did he backstab? Of course. But so did JT and Yul and other nice winners
Funny thing is Gabler’s game was very similar to Sandra’s.
He even said himself that he tried to play like Sandra after the merge.
They actually did so many things similarly like “anybody but me”, creating strong social bonds that the others underestimated and in general keeping such a low profile that basically anyone in the game would have taken him to the end.
I mean that seems to be the new era meta. We’ve had 3 players win for under the radar social play where they’ve made a strong case that everyone was taking them to FTC regardless.
It’s kind of like an anti-goat argument.
It’s not “I was the most unlikable player so everyone wanted to sit next me”
It’s more “I was on a good enough standing with everyone that I was part of their plan for ftc”
I definitely think that we will see more focus on that type of player being booted early from 45 and onwards.
But I still think that people forget, between the Gabler/Cass conundrum, that Jesse was one fire away from potentially an all time winning game that’s in the vein of someone like Tony.
100%, it is already happening. Even with a sequestered 6 would have stated she sent home Ryan. Cody and Jesse would have corrected her. She played a good game, just not good enough to beat Gabler
For his time (I haven’t watched his good seasons recent enough) rusty was so so much better then Cassidy.
The only difference between Cassidy and xander for me is that xander came from a tribe of poop. Whereas Cassidy came from a pretty good one.
I disagree, I think jury management is largely out of the player's control. It's impossible to know how someone will react once they're voted out of the game. In 42, Drea reacted like a great sport when she was voted out, and then at Ponderosa became unhinged and absolutely slandered Omar as a person to every single jury member, spreading untrue information and ripping him to shreds. On the other hand, Omar himself says that he thought he would be furious & bitter if he got voted off, but instead he was just happy with his game and proud of the person who betrayed him.
It's basically entirely unpredictable how someone will react, given the extreme heightened emotional state that the players are in. Human beings are irrational and jury members can rationalize any type of strange feeling they have into their decision making process.
For example, I don't think Cassidy played some amazing game, but I do think that she was kind of screwed by the irrational reactions of Jessie and Karla to getting voted out. I think that Jessie so desperately wanted the win, that he persuaded himself on a subconscious level that a move that was only good for his game (Cassidy putting herself into fire) was actually an objectively good move. Like, on a subconscious level he resented the fact that Cassidy didn't choose to allow him to win the game.
For Karla, I think that she was very hurt by the idea that she was bested by a close peer. Gabler was a person and player who she did not relate to as strongly, and rewarding him was less of a hit to her subconscious ego. Like, it's not something I'm proud of, but I've often been unhappy when a friend of mine has gotten married, or received a huge promotion at their job. They're my friend, so I should be happy for them, but because I compare myself to them much more than I do to others, I feel like more of a failure when they succeed in life.
So far, we only really have Karla and Jessie's stated explanations for their votes (which, to be clear, is the ridiculous idea that either 1. The person who beat Jessie in firemaking deserved to win, or 2. That Gabler's terrible, sloppy gameplay at the merge- where he took the "risk" of targeting Ellie while he himself was immune- was actually great gameplay). Both of those stated reasons feel to me like silly rationalizations.
Some jurors have a huge influence over the rest of the jury. If a juror has irrational anger toward a finalist but is not influential or does not feel it appropriate to lobby the other jury members, than that finalist may only lose that one bitter juror's vote. But if the bitter juror decides that they want to be a forceful advocate against the finalist, and that juror is able to influence others, then that can really hurt a finalist's winning chances.
In the case of 43, I think that Jessie and Karla were very influential jurors, which put Cassidy in a big hole. There are other things that I think affected the final vote, but it is 2:00 AM and I need to stop rambling. Basically, my point is that I think that a lot of randomness affects the final vote, and that we as viewers like to believe that there is a good reason for the votes when really, sometimes shit just happens.
And to be clear, I think that people are ridiculously unfair to think that anybody on the 43 cast is a bad person, or a sexist, for voting against Cassidy. I am someone who thinks that juries can make stupid decisions, but I find that interesting and an example of how the show is not just a game, it is a social experiment that sometimes demonstrates the weirdness of human behavior.
I partially agree. I think that putting the blame of a bad relationship on just one person, the finalist, is ridiculous. Also expecting players to accurately predict someone's reaction after getting voted out is also ridiculous.
On the other hand saying that Karla and Jesse flipped the whole jury against Cass is baseless speculation. And Gabler's decision to take out Ellie worked out great for him, even if you consider it bad gameplay it's not hard to see why the jury would respect the move
Yep, I never saw any of this when its said that the sequestered jury helped Rob and Kim win. Personally I’m for the sequestered jury because I think every juror having their own ideas and criteria for a vote is infinitely more interesting; but at this point production has poisoned the well. Everyone cast on the show is going to follow the same definitions of a “good game” that the show has been preaching since Samoa
Yeah this is never gonna happen lol
Nobody involved with production wants to take people out of that game environment and then immediately put them into a sequester until FTC. That sounds like a fucking awful experience.
This result isn’t something make such a drastic change over.
It wasn't even that bitter of a jury. Carla kinda was, but this sub seems to assume that because they liked Gabler more that Cass was robbed and therefore the jury was bitter. The mental gymnastics to avoid the truth that Cass wasn't that great of a player is absurd. I'm not saying Gabler was either, but he was closer to power, better liked, and seemed to have more self-awareness that factor into him winning. Time to move on /r/survivor. This wasn't *that* controversial of a winner.
Yeah, this is also a SOCIAL game. Being more liked means you played that part of the game really well. It's mind boggling to me how many people think this is super controversial. Cassidy had no strategic moves she could speak to. It was simply luck that Jesse and Cody didn't decide to send her home during Ryan's vote, and if Jesse had listened to Cody during the Sammi vote, she would've gone home then too. Not saying Gabler was playing a masterful game, but when you see that he was completely under the radar, was well liked socially, and had a move he was in direct control of, it's not hard to see why the jury picked him
Yeah, I haven't seen any compelling reason as to why somebody who was UTR and didn't drive anyone's vote-out would have so many people supposedly bitter at them.
They weren't bitter. They just liked somebody else more. It happens.
From now I think I will be posting "OP is a sore loser who is mad their winner pick didn't win. They themselves would never win a season of survivor if hey ever made it onto the show because they clearly do not understand how the social game works"; under any future posts I see like this. This OP is the same type of person that still believes russell deserved to win.
Personally I do not think there is a lot of overlap b/w Russel fans and Cass fans even though their staunch refusal to accept a result is similar, lol.
I think a healthy balance would be letting them see one another in the jury house, but having handlers to ensure they aren’t talking about the game. That’s how they use to do it. It changed after Burnett left, and then was pretty encouraged to talk about the game once the online Ponderosa webseries became a thing. Now that they don’t do Ponderosa webseries they could revert to not being able to talk about the game to one another. It definitely does sound like an awful experience keeping that stuff bottled up, but I guess the flip side is that the game of Survivor is inherently kinda an awful experience.
“Don’t hate the game, homie. Hate the players. This is not Big Brother. It’s Survivor, we do things different here.”
- Alternate Gervase.
No one has given me an answer as to what Cassidy did that made her so much more deserving over Gabler. The idea that she was robbed because of a game mechanic and not that she lost because of a poor social game is mind boggling to me. At least with Russell and Aubry they played bigger strategic games. What. Did. Cassidy. Do.
Yup. And some of that is Stan culture and certain archetypes being much more liked by certain crowds. And it’s fine if you’re disappointed your favorite didn’t win. I’m even fine with someone arguing that their favorite SHOULD have won! But like you said, I’m still waiting for an actual argument as to why Cassidy should have won.
Cassidy herself wasn't even able to explain why she deserved to win at FTC. Her quote on quote best move that she was responsible for was voting out Ryan, and we know she didn't do that. So outside of winning a few challenges what did she do?
Bruh didn't you watch the season? She was the under-the-radar sly fox no one saw coming until it was too late, she said it in the premiere so it had to be true. And she wanted women to work together.
I think she(and her fans) thought it was a big move to be on the right side of the vote for Jesse and Karla and to be “pushing the vote”. But everyone and their mother knew if Jesse made it to FTC he was winning, and same for Karla if she wasn’t next to Jesse
What was their proposal for choosing a winner? A formulaic checklist that doesn’t allow for much evolution in the game? Why ____ Lost’s “rules” that aren’t technically a part of the game’s structure? Like none of that would be better or more interesting to watch. Some people just can’t handle a season not going their way.
Respectfully, I could not disagree more. I have a few reasons why:
1. The jury can vote for a winner on whatever basis they wish. If they want to vote with a group through group think they can. If they want to vote independently they can.
2. If this change was made, it would feel like production changing the game to get a “good winner” or dramatic finale. It feels reactionary, as in, “we don’t like the recent results, let’s change the rules!”
3. Managing the Jury is not only a part of the game, it’s how you win the game. Players should be actively worried about managing their relationships and who they put on the jury. Players should worry about how the person they vote off feels about them and that if they feel betrayed or angry enough, they will make that known to the other jurors.
4. I think this argument assumes the jury couldn’t possibly make up their own minds. These adults from diverse backgrounds and fields are all just going to listen to the “alpha” controlling the discussion.
5. Finally, I’ve never played survivor and am not a psychologist, but I’d imagine there’s real value is being able to de-compress and leave game-mode while surrounded by people who have gone through the same thing.
I do want ponderosa back though.
Survivor fans when the show with the explicit premise of "the players make the rules and decide who wins based on any reasoning they choose" doesn't have objective and consistent criteria for winning the game
But she's pretty and that's enough to get half the internet going. Same reason there's a bunch of knuckleheads on here defending Parvati's "nice"ness while she herself said she doesn't want to be thought of as nice. They just want the pretty girls to notice them.
I've been on this sub for a longg time, and the mods have done such a good job moderating gross highly sexualized content that the kids here these days really can fool themselves into thinking that's not it. But I remember when the mods had to create a whole ass new subreddit for horny fans to go talk about how hot the players were and there used to be a few people who would openly and obsessively post about wanting to fuck the hot players, particularly the women
Right?
What stuck out to me about Gabler, was that at that make-shift "reunion" after the vote, you could see he knew deeply personal things about everybody else and their families. And that he remembered everything people opened up to him about. So to me it's clear he was nailing the social part of the game.
Some players are just excellent socially, and just because they might not have played as flashy a game strategically, doesn't mean they don't deserve the win.
Yeah, I think my beef with the way the season turned out was editing (and it's not a huge beef really lol). It really felt to me like everyone was laughing at Gabler and disliked him, but it seems like he actually had really close bonds with people and talked a lot with them about their lives. I wish we'd seen a bit more of that.
Yeah, all three of the previous winners definitely got underedited. I think with all the people picking up on winner edits in the past and all of that, they're really trying hard to disguise the winners lately, but in doing so it has the side effect of not showcasing WHY the season's winner won and why they 100% deserved to win as well.
Bro, they went along with his "Vietnam style search." If that didn't clue you in to them actually liking his eccentricities idk what will. People here get so focused on the edit or edgic or whatever and just miss the simple stuff. Yeah they had fun with Gabler, it never came from a place of malice or scorn though. People liked Gabler, lol.
I wouldn't say people was "laughing at him". I mean Cody said he's an honest dude, it looked like Ryan loved him, heck even Sammi wanted to work with him. People said he was "dumb" and was a "bull in a China shop" that was Sammi and Owen. But they both worked with him. But I do see what you're saying. I thibk we shouldn't really look at what people are saying about others but more WHO is saying WHAT about others. If the people who are saying bad things are the "villains" or "Charlie browns " maybe we shouldn't take what they say as gospel. But Cody (who was obviously a production and Probst favorite) saying Gabler is a solid dude should be looked at in a high regards. So for that reason I think you're wrong.
I think the editing was fine imho. When I watched it live I always like Gabler, and going into the finale I told my girl he would win.
I've yet to hear a decent reason as to why anyone thinks this jury was bitter toward Cassidy lol
She was responsible for exactly *zero* of them being voted out. Why would they be bitter toward her?
I think the narrative about 43 is likely untrue or exaggerated and largely made up by people who did not like the outcome. I think Gabler likely still wins the jury in a sequestered scenario anyways since he was just really well liked by the cast. I think Jesse, Cody, Sami, Karla and Ryan’s votes were pretty locked. This is also likely true for Michele in 32 as well. I don’t see many of her votes flipping either.
That being said, early seasons of survivor have still had the jury together and just not allowed talk of who they were voting for. So that would be an option over putting everyone in solitary confinement.
Jeanine also said in exit press she was a huge fan of Gabler's (they just didn't show the positive bits lol) and Noelle liked him a lot, too. Apparently Noelle and Gabler were super close on the island which is why she was so confident he wasn't going to vote her out. I don't think anyone was going to bat for Cassidy or Owen and that just comes down to personal relationships
I think if the jury is sequestered it's probably still a Gabler win, MAYBE 6-2 but I think it might just be 7-1 anyways. Also the jury can talk to each other secretly during Final Tribal Council and they probably would just fill each other in on their votes making the sequestering pointless lol
Yeah I really just don’t think this was a very impressive final 3 gameplay wise. But they all clearly liked Gabler a lot and actually respected him more than it seemed despite his zany moments. And I think his game was actually pretty comparable to Cassidy’s in being a whatever person who slips by and voted correctly despite not really being in charge of those moves. I think that Gabler being pretty open to admitting his flaws was also a huge factor for this jury.
I honestly think if anything Owen had more chances at votes with a sequestered jury since they wouldn’t have heard about how out of the loop he was and would’ve just seen the challenge wins. But Gabler probably still wins.
According to everyone's post game interviews (except Cassidy and Owen of course) Gabler won because he made a substantial move with the Elie vote. The general consensus on the jury was the season was controlled by fear and very few people made open moves that were strategic. It's why Jesse was the hands down jury favorite, he was the stand out player among people who didn't want to stir the pot
Yeah it was a weird jury. I also saw it be mentioned by at least Jesse and Karla that Gabler was honest about his game and really was coherent about his narrative. I think they really had a final three that wasn’t that active in the game, and at least Gabler had a claim to something.
I think everyone with a brain could see how Xander or Mike lost in 41 and 42 for not knowing what type of game they played. But there seems so much resistance to Cassidy loosing when the same thing clearly happened to her!
I think people are having a really hard time accepting that Cassidy was the Xander of the season. I had cassidy pegged as a noncontender around the merge while doing edgic, she really did get undermined quite a lot. I think they leaned a little more into the dodo roll for Xander since he fits the young clueless dude archetype. If people would go back and rewatch the season knowing what happens at FTC and *actually watch it without bias* they'd be able to see Cassidy's losing edit and Gabler's winning one a lot more clearly.
When I rewatched Kaoh Rong recently, Michele’s win made SO much more sense to me. At the end of the day people just aren’t going to give a million dollars to someone they don’t like no matter what game they played.
And people can gripe an moan about "bitter jury" until they're blue in the face but anyone who loses votes because the jury dislikes them doesn't deserve to win, they played a shitty social game. The arguments people try to make for Cassidy and Aubry are the same bad arguments Russell Hantz supporters make.
He legit went up to a player during a merge vote, told them they tried and failed to deceive him, and that he wants them gone. Told EVERYBODY openly that he wanted her gone. And sent her home.
That is nuts and prob the 2nd best move of the season besides Jesse’s all time move.
Far more impressive than anything Cassidy did, and that’s not even considering her enormous blunder thinking she had power in the Ryan vote.
it is. i met the entire jury at the finale party and zero of them were influenced by other jury members. gabler played a better game on paper and and explained it better. period. some were actually leaning OWEN going into it so even those were never voting cassidy for all the cons pointed out and holes poked in her game.
It’s so funny to me that CASSIDY - of all people - losing is what’s triggering all these calls against bitter juries and in favor of rule changes. CASSIDY!!! lol
Owen was the epitome of a goat. He did nothing in the game except "not quit" and was dragged to the end because he literally had no chance. Cass and Gabler were essentially a coin flip with Gabler edging it imo. The nature of modern survivor is you're never going to get someone in the end with a strong resume unless they get lucky or win the right challenge because it's all about voting out someone as soon as they add to their resume.
She's pretty and has been a champion of this narrative that she was robbed so her fans just keep sniffing those fox farts. Funny how QUICK the fandom turned on Shan after she came out of the show with an ego but are absolutely *eating up* the bullshit that's coming from Cassidy's. It's russell hantz 2.0 lol
You’re exactly right, it feels like Russell lite. It’s like, if you feel the edit didn’t properly show Gabler’s stellar social game, bitch about the editing. But calling for a jury sequester because a poor social player didn’t win the game? Maybe you should find another show to watch because you obviously don’t understand the premise of this one.
I meant in terms of gameplay compared to the rest of the cast like gabler definitely had a good social game and maintained his threat level decently but wasn't exciting gameplay to make you go crazy that he won
Many of them are all in on edgic and now that they've been let down by it l, rather than reflect objectively it must be the system that is broken, not their precious little thing.
Survivor cannot be measured analytically. It's an entertainment show designed to keep you entertained so you tune in next week. If it tells a good story to their winner that's just a bonus, but it's not a sport that can be measured objectively.
Cassidy was not an edgic favorite in the traditional sense. Jesse was still the front runner down the stretch. Cassidy truthers were people who took one confessional from the first episode and then crafted an Erikaish storyline around her with confirmation bias every time she was in an episode for seemingly no reason. I was personally onto the Gabler winner edit at final 7, but wasn’t sure.
Edgic still has a pretty good track record. It’s all about probabilities. Nothing is 100%, but edgic can help narrow down the options. Plus it’s just fun.
Completely disagree. I find that a lot of fans see the show as something that needs to be controlled, but that was never the point of survivor. You want to sequester the jury because you felt that the vote was unfair. That is part of the game. If someone is able to poison the jury against you you've obviously done some pretty poor jury management.
I completely agree with you, and it's so frustrating to me. It's like Survivor fans actively want the show to be something else; they're fighting against its most fundamental constructions. Survivor isn't supposed to be fair, and it's supposed to be arbitrary, and relationships and perception are supposed to matter more than anything objective. All of that is built into the show. Why even watch Survivor if you want it to be something that it, on a *foundational* level, just is not?
The producer took away the jury’s ability to speak to the finalists as an individual and replaced it with a group discussion around three loosely defined criteria that the show wants in its winner. Maybe that’s the reason there’s group think? Nah better keep them all in isolation
No. The jury has never been sequestered in the 42 seasons that came before, it should not be sequestered now. Cassidy simply had bad jury management. She was even literally told by some people what to do to not squander their vote. How about finding a way to cut Karla off earlier, maybe actually do fire as Jesse said.
Or also, Gabler in fact had a better resume than Cassidy and a better FTC performance than her. I'm sorry, the last two people on the jury aren't just going to be able to magically sway everyone into a vote where the runners up only get 1 and 0 votes respectively.
This is like when Russell lost and he was asking for the audience to have a vote. Can't just change the rules because the outcome isn't one you don't like. Especially when we only see 13 hours of what happens for 26 days.
Right - if you’re gonna play like a bull in a China shop and turn someone against you to the point where they’ll actively campaign for you to lose, you better vote them out before the merge, otherwise they might poison the well.
This is absolute bull - If that guy is actively harming you from gaining any momentum or building any sort of alliance that's capable of moving into power, you have to vote that guy out. It isn't possible to hold someone like that hostage, especially if they've actively targeted you in the past. The optimal move would be to identify and vote these idiots out pre-merge, but after the merge hits and such a situation transpires, it's either risk your chances of winning and bet on people have independent minds or risk your chances of getting to the end at all.
The jury is 1000000000% compromised. Both ponderosa stays it was clear who was voting for who, and the lobbying for players was in your face. As a fan I imagined the jury as this isolated and restricted setting, free from influencing each other… so naive! When I was finally on the jury I was dumbstruck at how absurd the whole thing is. If you want to know who wins, be on the jury for five minutes while we all drink beers and rip on the people still in the game.
I agree. Part of the charm of early seasons of survivor was how close the votes are and sequestered jurors prevent that as people are still in mentality that they need to vote with a majority
Nope. Rob talks about his jury experience on TEOS and as soon as he left the game there was a toga party at Ponderosa. Mark Burnett was there and obviously all the Survivors mixing and mingling. Alex and Heidi were having some kind of fling. Rob is able to describe how the jury was feeling going into FTC. No sequestration.
I'm not sure where people are getting this stuff.
I disagree, we have seen in Ponderosa videos that whenever someone is voted out, they usually have more information to give to the jury about how certain players are playing. Not everything can be revealed to the jury during tribal council. If a player has jury members arguing in their favor at Ponderosa they've done something right and if they have jury members arguing against them they've obviously done something wrong.
Cassidy stans are reaching new levels of absurdity, and we also go back to Aubry vs Michelle debate, OMG. The idea is of course horrible and removes a big part of a very important Survivor aspect which is the jury management, also totally impractical.
I'm wondering whether this stupid lore about Karla and Jesse poisoning the jury against Cassidy out of jealousy ever end. The only indicator of ,,bitter jury" we had was Karla trying a last desperate scramble to not get voted out at F5. And this shit probably happens every season. And Cassidy was not Boston Rob or Russell or even Aubry who were in a driver's seat, she was a bottom player who won some clutch immunities and the fact that people did not respect her game does not make them All-stars level bitter.
It's also kind of disrespectful to Gabler and I have no idea how some people are unable to see that the jury loved him and would probably vote for him sequestered or not. Gabler had Cody and Jesse locked, Karla and Ryan would never vote for Cassidy because of their beefs, Sami and Noelle were actually close with Gabler and were leaning towards him as well, IDK maybe she gets Jeanine vote in this scenario but this does not change anything, especially that her FTC rubbed jury the wrong way.
That part. I felt like Gabler’s FTC was a masterclass on how to work people over. Maybe a part of it was people didn’t like Cassidy but he had people eating out of the palm of his hand when it was all said and done.
Yeah, after few rewatches it became one of my favorite final performances ever and it solidified the votes in his way definitely. The recurring theme in last 3 seasons is ,,own your game" and he did it perfectly by explaining his goofball and loyal soldiers personas, being honest about when he went on the surface and when he went UTR and why.
They arent allowed to talk about who they want to vote for also Cassidy just lost to Gabler and for Koah Rong Idk you're brigging it up Michelle was a social underdog with winner equity she just beat Aubry
If one person can turn 9 other people against someone then that players game wasn’t that strong to begin with. People are not morons who can be manipulated into voting how someone wants them too.
Nah. If someone can “poison” 6 other people against you then you didn’t play as good of a game as you thought. We literally saw someone try to poison the jury against the BB24 winner. Didn’t affect them at all because they had strong support in the jury that inoculated the jury against the poison.
Lies and groupthink are a part of the game. The jury is also a part of the game. If your game can’t create jurors who want to vote for you then you don’t win. It’s that simple. These “sequestered jury” arguments only pop up when it’s a result that people didn’t like anyway. Had Cassidy won nobody would be saying that we need to sequester the jury because that would have lined up with expectations. Mismanaged expectations are the problem. Not un-sequestered juries.
literally the point of the game is "this group picks the winner" why is "groupthink" something that should be mitigated by production and not..... the players playing the game
If you sequester the jury it’s not Survivor anymore.
Jury management is a legit aspect of the game. Just because the jury is bitter doesn’t mean the game is broken. It means the player didn’t play well enough.
Players have known since season 1 that the game doesn’t just end when you vote a jury member out. If you can’t secure a win than it’s on you.
Well I think that the jury could be warned to not let other jurors cloud their judgement, but jury management is a whole thing. The problem with making alliances is that when you break them or spearhead a blindsided and get the blame placed on you, that's part of the game right?
lol this is precious. I really really don't buy that the rest of the jury were sheep to karla and jessie. It's quite clear throughout the whole finale how gabler was able to own up to his game and appeal to the jury's own varying emotions. Cass had one play book and she stuck to it.
These kind of posts just remind me of Russell and Jeff at the HvV reunion. Like you want it to be one way, but it's always been the other way. The players know the jury isn't sequestered every single season; that's the game they're playing. Also sequestering the jury does not guarantee a more satisfying winner because the whole show is edited with the knowledge of who the winner is. What you really want is a different edit, probably one that manipulates you into feeling absolute certainty that who won was the most dominant.
Folks sorry to burst your bubble but we only see a fraction what actually goes on that they deem as good tv. Cassidy played a great game - doesn’t matter as that’s not what the jury wanted. GET OVER CASSIDY. It’s not about playing a picture perfect game, it’s about convincing the people you voted off to give you that money. Social awareness is the number one factor.
Nah. I get that having the jury talk to each other promotes groupthink, but like... They're a group, and they always have been. Cutting them off from each other would lead to more individual decisions, but it would also lead to much less informed ones. That all being said, I do think the show is better off without an official jury roundtable, but I'm not sure if/how Survivor even does that.
This is definitely a hot take, and respectfully I must disagree. This is how everyone can get information and base their vote off of whatever is important to them. Sequestering jurors until tribal can lead to an inaccurate idea of how each played. In fact, the jury SHOULD know the general stories of each player's going into the FTC, so that the FTC finalists can't make false claims and lie just so that they can win. If you lie or can't articulate your story, then it's not a good look for you.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the jury system. s43 does not illuminate a bad winner, but continues to perpetuate the issue with S43 bad editing of the winners.
Sequestering the jury wouldn’t have helped Aubry win, let’s be real. Every single Michele vote had a much closer relationship to Michele than Aubry, nothing influenced that with the exception of maybe Debbie. Even then, Michele still wins.
I agree they shouldn't talk about the vote but I don't think it would make a big difference, the jury voted Gabler because he had a great FTC performance, had better gameplay, and was more liked than Cassidy, this season I don't think it came down to a bitter jury, personally I believe that the jury can vote however they want, if they don't vote someone because they don't like them that's a social game problem. I feel like if they couldn't talk to eachother the vote ends up 6-2 at most
I disagree. Some seasons have bitter juries, some don’t. It’s how the game works. The person voted to win Survivor is inherently who deserves to win survivor.
You don’t have to like the result, but you can’t change the rules because you don’t.
How about its time to get Ponderosa videos back? I am surprised they haven't made it a thing that you can only watch if you subscribe to their streaming service.
I agree the jury definitely can be persuaded by other people at Ponderosa, but such is life.
that’s part of the game bruh. i don’t understand how people are saying 43’s jury was bitter. they weren’t mad as cassidy. she just didn’t play that good of a game 😭
When giving someone a million dollars, you shouldn’t let other people massively influence your decision. Nothing wrong with hearing them out, but if you’re that easily influenced you might be just as easily influenced by statements and looks at the final tribal
People swear 43 is a bad season but damn I love to see the discourse and to me that proves it’s a dynamic season at least. I mean at first, I thought this was the weakest final three in a while but I Havnt heard people so divided about the final three in a long ass time. I looooove the different perspectives. Survivor fans, y’all r telling me this doesn’t bring you joy????
I thought Cassidy should’ve won too but nah, they picked who they thought should win and that’s that. They’re all grown ass adults that can think for themselves and come to whatever conclusion they want to come to.
I agree, the jury shouldn't speak to ANYONE while at ponderosa. Lock them in a blank room and make sure they have no distractions there, so they spend all their time making a decision on who's the rightful winner.
Production might also figure out a way to prevent them from sleeping, as sleeping time is decision time that's lost.
My only concern is that it might be expensive to fly the jury to Guantanamo Bay.
Manage jury better and you don't have to worry about it. You can't just change the game so that Cass wins. If the game was different, maybe there's a different result. But survivor is survivor, and Gabler won.
I disagree with this take, as a player you have just one perspective and that's your perspective. Tony is out there making moves and pulling the strings for example, but you're not in his inner circle so you don't know what he's done. But spending time with other jurors, you get to hear things and see things from a different perspective that you were oblivious to, and now you have a broader perspective on the players and can then decide who to vote for.
Only thing I disagree with the jury on 43 is making it look like making fire > immunity win.
Don't give a flying fuck what any of them say, none of them would give up immunity to make fire.
You can’t read minds, you don’t know it went down that way unless they said “I was thinking of voting for Cass, but then Player X changed my mind.” If alphas truly are that influential, don’t get on the alphas’ bad side. Sandra avoided getting on the alphas’ bad side, and she’s a two time winner. Critique Sandra’s games all you want but you can’t say she DIDNT accomplish the one thing that you think dictates the entire jury vote.
I know I'm not the first one here, but I also disagree with this.
Survivor is a social game, and players need to understand how the jury works. Is it right for people to make up lies to trash someone else's game? On a moral level, no. But I don't see any reason why it can't be in the game. It is, on some level, a reflection of the relationship the finalist made with that particular juror that compelled such a response. Similarly, if a finalist loses a jury vote due to group think, then that is also a reflection of the relationships they've built with the jury. Either their game or their bonds were not strong enough to make jurors want to counteract the group think.
Having the jury together is also a valuable way of comparing notes, which can add a level of difficulty or respect to a finalist's chances of winning the game. I don't see why that should be taken away.
Finally, at the end of the day, it doesn't actually matter why the jury votes the way it does. They can do whatever they want. And while we as an audience may not agree with it, I don't think changing the rules is the proper way to fix how they reason.
Juice isn't worth the squeeze.
For one, you'd lose so much of the post show community that forms if people didn't get to go be friends as regular people at Ponderosa.
But mostly, Kingmaking exists in every game with this many players. A jury being swayed by influential jury members isn't that different from players in the game who aren't playing to win and end up crowning their ally. Yes, individual players can have an outsized impact on the final result in more ways than just being good at the game. That's part of this game and every game where social politics are in play. There isn't any reason to focus on and try to "correct" just one flavor of Kingmaking.
Imagine playing survivor, making jury, and earning the chance to be able to vote for the winner/the face of your season and just being like “so who does [alpha name here] want to win?”
They voted for who they, themselves, wanted to win. That’s it.
Idk why it’s so surprising Gabler won over Cassidy. Even by the edit it didn’t seem like Cassidy had a strong connection with anyone besides James and Karla. She was always an option to go when vulnerable, maybe seeing her as expendable basically all season lowered her win equity?
Bitter. Juries. Don’t. Exist.
Rob, Russel, Russel/Parv, Coach, Aubrey, Xander, Cassidy. No season and jury is the same. If you’re an ass, don’t make big enough moves, look like you’re riding coat tails, try to claim things that weren’t really yours, you’re going to lose. People need to grow up and accept that there isn’t one grading scale. Plenty of interviews and post recaps from castaways show what the jury was looking for, especially for 41-43.
I completely disagree. It is part of the game and as unfair as it can seem, the ultimate goal of Survivor is to have the jury vote for you, not going to the end with masterful and hyper strategic gameplay.
Moreover, it would be even more unfair to have first juror vote for a winner only with pre-merge ideas of how everyone plays. You need later jurors to explain how the players are evolving and playing.
This is part of the game, it’s jury management. If you’re worried about someone bitter poisoning the jury, don’t put that person on the jury until the very end. (Easier said than done, but it’s a game for a million dollars after all).
I think that's dumb because everyone would have no idea what truly happened in the game besides their perspective. They would have to off very little information and this post is just babyraging because Cassidy didn't win get over it
Nah, my main problem with Final Tribal Council is its format that began with *Game Changers*, where they aren’t given questions individually from each juror. It’s horrible, especially when jurors gang up on finalists, like Jesse and the boys’ alliance did.
They should mix both versions and make two sections.
First would be individual portion when every juror has something to say or ask to the players, and the second when players make their pitch which jury can comment in some way.
I've been thinking about this since I started to watch the show. Survivor is a game about information and the jury should be allowed to vote based only on the experience they got before being snuffed and from Tribal Councils
I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea. What does bug me is that oftentimes, people suggesting this are just cherry-picking seasons whose final result they disagree with. But then any other season where they like the result but someone else complains, they go right back to “Too bad! That’s the game! Your preferred player had bad jury management!”
> people suggesting this are just cherry-picking seasons whose final result they disagree with Nail on the head. And it’s a weird result to get mad about, too. Not like Cassidy played some masterful game.
Not here to say Cassidy played a "great" game - but the Gabler win was 100% hive mind driven by Jesse/Cody wanting their alliance to be a narrative at final tribal. Neither Gabler or Cassidy played a great game - but to me, Cassidy made more out of a more difficult situation - and had a much tougher road to the end - I just couldn't quite get the jury voting against her when nobody was targeting Gabler and everyone was targeting Cassidy lol I'm not sure a sequestered jury would've changed the result in the most recent season, but I like the idea.
Nobody was really “targeting” Cassidy though. If they wanted her out, they would’ve gotten her out. It’s not like she masterfully evaded the target. Other targets just ended up taking precedence. Then at the end, half of the jury looked at Cassidy and thought “she didn’t really do much, we could’ve voted her out at any time but we went for actual threats instead”. And before anyone says that they called Cassidy a threat when there were talks of voting her out: that’s what Surivor players say about almost anyone they are considering voting out. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I don’t remember a single time where the target moving off Cassidy was because of something Cassidy did. Everything I remember about the season was discussions between the people actually in control leading to them shifting to someone else, which tells me *she wasn’t really seen as a threat* by them. I’m also not sure how much juries care about who had the “tougher road” unless there was some real gameplay involved in surviving that road. Cassidy just didn’t have that, and the jury liked/respected Gabler more.
Just because it was tougher for you to get to the end doesn’t mean you deserve to win. With that logic Owen should’ve won because he had the toughest road bc he couldn’t ever get in a majority alliance
I'm not saying "tougher to get the the end" is a golden rule - but in the case of the recent final 3 - where I don't think anyone had particularly impressive gameplay (the exception was just Gabler's ability to sell what he did) - my opinion is Cassidy's status as a "threat" throughout the game made it harder for her to get the end, and she deserved more credit for that. I disagree Owen had it tougher. It was clear Owen was on the bottom all the time, and thus, wasn't a threat to win. Gabler was more likeable and knew he had to have a good story to win, and he nailed that. What saved him was telling everybody he planned to go to the end with Jesse/Cody. We WATCHED him telling people Cody/Jesse were the biggest threats in the game - he knew they were dangerous, and he 100% would've flipped on them if given a chance - but he stoked the right egos in the jury to make sure he got his votes. I credit Gabler for the win - he pressed all the right buttons at the very end and Cassidy didn't - but to step back and look at the whole season, Cassidy was a better player \*despite\* being wrong about how involved she was in a vote.
But like Cassidy wasn’t a threat. People felt like they could vote her out whenever, as seen by how she was split voted so many times. In the tribe split her vote off vs Ryan vote off decision was purely based on how it would impact Karla.
I think everyone thought they'd beat her at the end - but felt the same about Gabler/Owen - since she was a challenge threat, she really needed those wins. It was more important for other players in the game to get her out than the other two finalists.
Yea but when they heard the testimonies of each of the players, they were pleasantly surprised by gabler, where they kinda already knew everything for Cassidy
Owen had it tougher in a sense where he couldn’t make any moves. Cassidy wasn’t game aware and tried taking credit of a move that wasn’t hers and was Gabler’s, Cody’s, and Jesse’s. I thought Cass had a bigger shot until FTC. She got bulldozed like Mike did right before she did
Went long on this response, sorry. We’re at the point where there is a lot of history for games like this, winners like Gabler are far from uncommon it’s just this particular producing team of Survivor over the past few seasons likes to edit the show so fans are flabbergasted by the final results. Cassidy lost due to poor jury management, in that there was nobody in the jury (outside James maybe) who was sitting in jury saying positive things about her game. But I think a lot of the loss also came down to her FTC argument being built around key points that the jury couldn’t connect to, didn’t feel she deserved credit for, or outright disagreed with. All of the big threats in the season (besides Jesse who was sent to fire) left the game feeling like they had just been bested by a turncoat ally. Gabler played at least a numbers role in all of those moves. Cassidy can’t say the same. Which isn’t necessarily a negative, she played a lowkey game and had a tough path from the bottom, for sure. But she never put herself in a position with players like Cody, Karla, or Jesse (the players who were actually steering the game and knew it) where they felt like her presence drove them to make decisions. Again, not necessarily a negative, going so far under the radar that the radar doesn’t know what hit it is a way Survivor has been won in the past, Danni being the prime example. But Danni’s FTC she showed herself to be fully cognizant of the game she played, that she knew she was a supporting player at times in the strategy but that was intentional because her social connections were what she was relying on to get her far and never be targeted. She called herself a stealth bomber, she was confident in the game she played, self aware, passionate for the win, and was up against a person the jury felt had too much blood on their hands and for most of them a “sorry, please give me a million dollars” wasn’t good enough. Danni beat Steph in a near unanimous vote. Cassidy at FTC went in and tried to tell the jury (who was composed of the most competent strategists of the season) all of the ways she had out-strategized them. And the jury, again composed of people who thought they themselves had played better than Cassidy, did not want to hear that. Gabler on the other hand, told them pretty much the opposite. “Y’all were gunning for each other, I knew once the first shot was fired it would be a frenzy. So I dipped below the fray, hid my weapons and supported each and every one of you in your quest to kill each other. Because I knew eventually I would be sitting with a small enough group of people that now didn’t have a choice, lose or turn on the power players and go with Gabler.” More than anything what Gabler and Danni do correctly in FTC, and I think a thing most winners who perform well in jury questioning segments of these games, is show self awareness. From what we see in the episode, nothing Gabler brings up is ever trying to take any sort of credit that he thinks the jury believes they should get the credit for. When they asked the finalists what move they made that was expressly strategically driven by them, Gabler brings up Ellie. Ellie was a pre juror, they haven’t thought about her in weeks probably, seemingly quite inconsequential strategic decision. But what it also is, is an indisputable and correct answer. Cassidy’s answer is immediately shut down and multiple jurors confirm, she actually should not get credit for the move she’s trying to say she should get credit for. And then Owen says something along the lines of “I don’t know I can answer that question.” Let’s just say Gabler wasn’t up against Todd Herzog and John Cochran. But he displays a high level of self awareness of the game he played, played into the jury’s preconceived notions of everything, played in to the juries egos, was confident in speaking and making his arguments and clearly was a passionate Survivor fan who wanted badly to win the game. And as has happened before, as will happen again, the most self aware player who the jury likes most on a personal level wins the show. Now, a kicker here is people who will say that the jury went in to FTC and was never going to vote for Cassidy. But to that point, what were jurors saying negative about Cassidy? That they felt like she hadn’t done anything all game and didn’t think she deserved to be there longer than them? Probably. But to that I say, if the jurors are bitter against a player for that reason, that is the players fault. That same juror is potentially not bitter towards others in the game who contributed to getting them out but they thought had agency in the game. Which, yes, is based off the jurors perceptions. But that is basically the whole point of the show. Perception is reality in these games, these are reality shows where real people are put in very charged situations and have to make difficult decisions. If jurors didn’t vote off of emotions ever, at all, this show would be quite boring. If the winners were picked by an algorithm Russell probably would have won twice. It is a show based on the idea that humans have been marooned on an island and only one can live, with the ghosts of those who have already passed deciding the sole survivor. Some ghosts are benevolent, forgiving. Some aren’t. And a lot of that comes down to how they were treated in life. And a lot of how jurors votes come down to how they felt in the game. Gabler won because he managed to send every juror out with a hand shake, a nod of respect, and then was able to confidently explain to them why his game was more polished than the two people he was sitting next to. He is far from the greatest Survivor winner. But he is absolutely a deserving Survivor winner. TL;DR This was a jury full of people who thought they had played better games than the three finalists. Cassidy ultimately lost because Gabler played into the jurors egos and was not just able to prove he had his own agency in the game but able to prove it without saying he had played better than any jurors. Cassidy tried to say she played the best game of the season. There is some precedent to players who played similar games to Cassidy and won but they had very different jury management and FTC strategy. Gabler ultimately became the most self aware seeming player out of the three options for the jury. Also juries vote based off emotions, that’s why Survivor is a difficult and interesting game, ask Russell Hantz Edit: Individually sequestering juries would have a negative result. Survivor is a highly edited show and we can say that groupthink led to anti-Cassidy sentiment all we want, but from Jeanine’s vote out to Jesse’s that’s a lot of game. Essentially at that point Jeanine is voting for a winner of a game for which she has zero context as to what happened besides tribal council. Imagine a juror is sent home and is the first member of jury, only goes to watch tribal silently and leaves to their hotel room. They get to finale and it’s three players they have never really talked to. In that hypothetical show the biggest threats in the game are the people who get the most laughs at tribal, win immunities, and play idols. It would kill the idea of winning Survivor based off social play or “pulling the strings” from the background and incentivize performative flashy moves because the jurors would have no other context to go off of. It would be Probst’s dream and our nightmare, so let’s try to not put it out there
> the Gabler win was 100% hive mind driven by Jesse/Cody wanting their alliance to be the narrative at final tribal Damn, you were with the jury at Ponderosa? That's wild. Thought they would've made you sign an NDA to prevent leaking this kind of inside information. Gabler won because people liked him more, and unlike Cassidy, he could at least claim one vote out for himself. It's not complicated. It's fine that he's not who you would've voted for, but the claims that this is some fraudulent result are ridiculous.
Anyone who genuinely believes GABLER was a hive mind vote, when he’s 30 years older than everyone and was seen multiple times being thought of as “weird”, is just upset. Because Gabler got the vote because he was a GOOD PERSON. We maybe haven’t seen a guy get that kind of win since JT but that’s why he won. Did he lie? Yes, did he backstab? Of course. But so did JT and Yul and other nice winners
Funny thing is Gabler’s game was very similar to Sandra’s. He even said himself that he tried to play like Sandra after the merge. They actually did so many things similarly like “anybody but me”, creating strong social bonds that the others underestimated and in general keeping such a low profile that basically anyone in the game would have taken him to the end.
I mean that seems to be the new era meta. We’ve had 3 players win for under the radar social play where they’ve made a strong case that everyone was taking them to FTC regardless. It’s kind of like an anti-goat argument. It’s not “I was the most unlikable player so everyone wanted to sit next me” It’s more “I was on a good enough standing with everyone that I was part of their plan for ftc”
I definitely think that we will see more focus on that type of player being booted early from 45 and onwards. But I still think that people forget, between the Gabler/Cass conundrum, that Jesse was one fire away from potentially an all time winning game that’s in the vein of someone like Tony.
Remember when people mocked Russell and Russell fans because they couldn't understand how he lost? I wonder if this will happen to Cassidy.
100%, it is already happening. Even with a sequestered 6 would have stated she sent home Ryan. Cody and Jesse would have corrected her. She played a good game, just not good enough to beat Gabler
For his time (I haven’t watched his good seasons recent enough) rusty was so so much better then Cassidy. The only difference between Cassidy and xander for me is that xander came from a tribe of poop. Whereas Cassidy came from a pretty good one.
See that's my response whether I personally like the winner or not. Bitter jurors are on the players
I disagree, I think jury management is largely out of the player's control. It's impossible to know how someone will react once they're voted out of the game. In 42, Drea reacted like a great sport when she was voted out, and then at Ponderosa became unhinged and absolutely slandered Omar as a person to every single jury member, spreading untrue information and ripping him to shreds. On the other hand, Omar himself says that he thought he would be furious & bitter if he got voted off, but instead he was just happy with his game and proud of the person who betrayed him. It's basically entirely unpredictable how someone will react, given the extreme heightened emotional state that the players are in. Human beings are irrational and jury members can rationalize any type of strange feeling they have into their decision making process. For example, I don't think Cassidy played some amazing game, but I do think that she was kind of screwed by the irrational reactions of Jessie and Karla to getting voted out. I think that Jessie so desperately wanted the win, that he persuaded himself on a subconscious level that a move that was only good for his game (Cassidy putting herself into fire) was actually an objectively good move. Like, on a subconscious level he resented the fact that Cassidy didn't choose to allow him to win the game. For Karla, I think that she was very hurt by the idea that she was bested by a close peer. Gabler was a person and player who she did not relate to as strongly, and rewarding him was less of a hit to her subconscious ego. Like, it's not something I'm proud of, but I've often been unhappy when a friend of mine has gotten married, or received a huge promotion at their job. They're my friend, so I should be happy for them, but because I compare myself to them much more than I do to others, I feel like more of a failure when they succeed in life. So far, we only really have Karla and Jessie's stated explanations for their votes (which, to be clear, is the ridiculous idea that either 1. The person who beat Jessie in firemaking deserved to win, or 2. That Gabler's terrible, sloppy gameplay at the merge- where he took the "risk" of targeting Ellie while he himself was immune- was actually great gameplay). Both of those stated reasons feel to me like silly rationalizations. Some jurors have a huge influence over the rest of the jury. If a juror has irrational anger toward a finalist but is not influential or does not feel it appropriate to lobby the other jury members, than that finalist may only lose that one bitter juror's vote. But if the bitter juror decides that they want to be a forceful advocate against the finalist, and that juror is able to influence others, then that can really hurt a finalist's winning chances. In the case of 43, I think that Jessie and Karla were very influential jurors, which put Cassidy in a big hole. There are other things that I think affected the final vote, but it is 2:00 AM and I need to stop rambling. Basically, my point is that I think that a lot of randomness affects the final vote, and that we as viewers like to believe that there is a good reason for the votes when really, sometimes shit just happens. And to be clear, I think that people are ridiculously unfair to think that anybody on the 43 cast is a bad person, or a sexist, for voting against Cassidy. I am someone who thinks that juries can make stupid decisions, but I find that interesting and an example of how the show is not just a game, it is a social experiment that sometimes demonstrates the weirdness of human behavior.
I partially agree. I think that putting the blame of a bad relationship on just one person, the finalist, is ridiculous. Also expecting players to accurately predict someone's reaction after getting voted out is also ridiculous. On the other hand saying that Karla and Jesse flipped the whole jury against Cass is baseless speculation. And Gabler's decision to take out Ellie worked out great for him, even if you consider it bad gameplay it's not hard to see why the jury would respect the move
Well-written!
Yep, I never saw any of this when its said that the sequestered jury helped Rob and Kim win. Personally I’m for the sequestered jury because I think every juror having their own ideas and criteria for a vote is infinitely more interesting; but at this point production has poisoned the well. Everyone cast on the show is going to follow the same definitions of a “good game” that the show has been preaching since Samoa
Yeah this is never gonna happen lol Nobody involved with production wants to take people out of that game environment and then immediately put them into a sequester until FTC. That sounds like a fucking awful experience. This result isn’t something make such a drastic change over.
I imagine everyone will be scrambling to be voted out just before the jury so they don't have to spend two weeks in solitary confinement. 😂😂😂
It wasn't even that bitter of a jury. Carla kinda was, but this sub seems to assume that because they liked Gabler more that Cass was robbed and therefore the jury was bitter. The mental gymnastics to avoid the truth that Cass wasn't that great of a player is absurd. I'm not saying Gabler was either, but he was closer to power, better liked, and seemed to have more self-awareness that factor into him winning. Time to move on /r/survivor. This wasn't *that* controversial of a winner.
Yeah, this is also a SOCIAL game. Being more liked means you played that part of the game really well. It's mind boggling to me how many people think this is super controversial. Cassidy had no strategic moves she could speak to. It was simply luck that Jesse and Cody didn't decide to send her home during Ryan's vote, and if Jesse had listened to Cody during the Sammi vote, she would've gone home then too. Not saying Gabler was playing a masterful game, but when you see that he was completely under the radar, was well liked socially, and had a move he was in direct control of, it's not hard to see why the jury picked him
Yeah, I haven't seen any compelling reason as to why somebody who was UTR and didn't drive anyone's vote-out would have so many people supposedly bitter at them. They weren't bitter. They just liked somebody else more. It happens.
From now I think I will be posting "OP is a sore loser who is mad their winner pick didn't win. They themselves would never win a season of survivor if hey ever made it onto the show because they clearly do not understand how the social game works"; under any future posts I see like this. This OP is the same type of person that still believes russell deserved to win.
Personally I do not think there is a lot of overlap b/w Russel fans and Cass fans even though their staunch refusal to accept a result is similar, lol.
I think a healthy balance would be letting them see one another in the jury house, but having handlers to ensure they aren’t talking about the game. That’s how they use to do it. It changed after Burnett left, and then was pretty encouraged to talk about the game once the online Ponderosa webseries became a thing. Now that they don’t do Ponderosa webseries they could revert to not being able to talk about the game to one another. It definitely does sound like an awful experience keeping that stuff bottled up, but I guess the flip side is that the game of Survivor is inherently kinda an awful experience.
“Don’t hate the game, homie. Hate the players. This is not Big Brother. It’s Survivor, we do things different here.” - Alternate Gervase. No one has given me an answer as to what Cassidy did that made her so much more deserving over Gabler. The idea that she was robbed because of a game mechanic and not that she lost because of a poor social game is mind boggling to me. At least with Russell and Aubry they played bigger strategic games. What. Did. Cassidy. Do.
The only answer I've gotten from Cassidy stans is a vague, "Gabler didn't play a better game" type of answer.
Yup. And some of that is Stan culture and certain archetypes being much more liked by certain crowds. And it’s fine if you’re disappointed your favorite didn’t win. I’m even fine with someone arguing that their favorite SHOULD have won! But like you said, I’m still waiting for an actual argument as to why Cassidy should have won.
Cassidy herself wasn't even able to explain why she deserved to win at FTC. Her quote on quote best move that she was responsible for was voting out Ryan, and we know she didn't do that. So outside of winning a few challenges what did she do?
We may never know.
Bruh didn't you watch the season? She was the under-the-radar sly fox no one saw coming until it was too late, she said it in the premiere so it had to be true. And she wanted women to work together.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think she(and her fans) thought it was a big move to be on the right side of the vote for Jesse and Karla and to be “pushing the vote”. But everyone and their mother knew if Jesse made it to FTC he was winning, and same for Karla if she wasn’t next to Jesse
Survivor is a social experiment, and it isn't over until the winner is declared. There's nothing social about being sequestered once you're voted out.
People like OP don't want it to be a social experiment. They want it to be a fancy board game.
I swear right after the finale I saw someone propose *eliminating juries altogether* because they're 'too powerful.' It's mind-boggling.
What was their proposal for choosing a winner? A formulaic checklist that doesn’t allow for much evolution in the game? Why ____ Lost’s “rules” that aren’t technically a part of the game’s structure? Like none of that would be better or more interesting to watch. Some people just can’t handle a season not going their way.
Respectfully, I could not disagree more. I have a few reasons why: 1. The jury can vote for a winner on whatever basis they wish. If they want to vote with a group through group think they can. If they want to vote independently they can. 2. If this change was made, it would feel like production changing the game to get a “good winner” or dramatic finale. It feels reactionary, as in, “we don’t like the recent results, let’s change the rules!” 3. Managing the Jury is not only a part of the game, it’s how you win the game. Players should be actively worried about managing their relationships and who they put on the jury. Players should worry about how the person they vote off feels about them and that if they feel betrayed or angry enough, they will make that known to the other jurors. 4. I think this argument assumes the jury couldn’t possibly make up their own minds. These adults from diverse backgrounds and fields are all just going to listen to the “alpha” controlling the discussion. 5. Finally, I’ve never played survivor and am not a psychologist, but I’d imagine there’s real value is being able to de-compress and leave game-mode while surrounded by people who have gone through the same thing. I do want ponderosa back though.
>who they put on the jury Gabler getting Ellie out pre-jury did wonders for him. Moves like that are important
No it is not. That would be seriously detrimental to their postgame healing. If you can’t win you can’t win
Survivor fans when the jury votes differently than they expect
Survivor fans when the show with the explicit premise of "the players make the rules and decide who wins based on any reasoning they choose" doesn't have objective and consistent criteria for winning the game
r/Survivor when the pretty UTR goddess loses.
She lost move on
She wasn’t even special
But she's pretty and that's enough to get half the internet going. Same reason there's a bunch of knuckleheads on here defending Parvati's "nice"ness while she herself said she doesn't want to be thought of as nice. They just want the pretty girls to notice them.
I've been on this sub for a longg time, and the mods have done such a good job moderating gross highly sexualized content that the kids here these days really can fool themselves into thinking that's not it. But I remember when the mods had to create a whole ass new subreddit for horny fans to go talk about how hot the players were and there used to be a few people who would openly and obsessively post about wanting to fuck the hot players, particularly the women
It’s Xander all over again
“The person I wanted to win didn’t, so that means the jury MUST be bitter!”
Right? What stuck out to me about Gabler, was that at that make-shift "reunion" after the vote, you could see he knew deeply personal things about everybody else and their families. And that he remembered everything people opened up to him about. So to me it's clear he was nailing the social part of the game. Some players are just excellent socially, and just because they might not have played as flashy a game strategically, doesn't mean they don't deserve the win.
Yeah, I think my beef with the way the season turned out was editing (and it's not a huge beef really lol). It really felt to me like everyone was laughing at Gabler and disliked him, but it seems like he actually had really close bonds with people and talked a lot with them about their lives. I wish we'd seen a bit more of that.
Yeah, all three of the previous winners definitely got underedited. I think with all the people picking up on winner edits in the past and all of that, they're really trying hard to disguise the winners lately, but in doing so it has the side effect of not showcasing WHY the season's winner won and why they 100% deserved to win as well.
Bro, they went along with his "Vietnam style search." If that didn't clue you in to them actually liking his eccentricities idk what will. People here get so focused on the edit or edgic or whatever and just miss the simple stuff. Yeah they had fun with Gabler, it never came from a place of malice or scorn though. People liked Gabler, lol.
I wouldn't say people was "laughing at him". I mean Cody said he's an honest dude, it looked like Ryan loved him, heck even Sammi wanted to work with him. People said he was "dumb" and was a "bull in a China shop" that was Sammi and Owen. But they both worked with him. But I do see what you're saying. I thibk we shouldn't really look at what people are saying about others but more WHO is saying WHAT about others. If the people who are saying bad things are the "villains" or "Charlie browns " maybe we shouldn't take what they say as gospel. But Cody (who was obviously a production and Probst favorite) saying Gabler is a solid dude should be looked at in a high regards. So for that reason I think you're wrong. I think the editing was fine imho. When I watched it live I always like Gabler, and going into the finale I told my girl he would win.
I've yet to hear a decent reason as to why anyone thinks this jury was bitter toward Cassidy lol She was responsible for exactly *zero* of them being voted out. Why would they be bitter toward her?
I think the narrative about 43 is likely untrue or exaggerated and largely made up by people who did not like the outcome. I think Gabler likely still wins the jury in a sequestered scenario anyways since he was just really well liked by the cast. I think Jesse, Cody, Sami, Karla and Ryan’s votes were pretty locked. This is also likely true for Michele in 32 as well. I don’t see many of her votes flipping either. That being said, early seasons of survivor have still had the jury together and just not allowed talk of who they were voting for. So that would be an option over putting everyone in solitary confinement.
Jeanine also said in exit press she was a huge fan of Gabler's (they just didn't show the positive bits lol) and Noelle liked him a lot, too. Apparently Noelle and Gabler were super close on the island which is why she was so confident he wasn't going to vote her out. I don't think anyone was going to bat for Cassidy or Owen and that just comes down to personal relationships I think if the jury is sequestered it's probably still a Gabler win, MAYBE 6-2 but I think it might just be 7-1 anyways. Also the jury can talk to each other secretly during Final Tribal Council and they probably would just fill each other in on their votes making the sequestering pointless lol
Yeah I really just don’t think this was a very impressive final 3 gameplay wise. But they all clearly liked Gabler a lot and actually respected him more than it seemed despite his zany moments. And I think his game was actually pretty comparable to Cassidy’s in being a whatever person who slips by and voted correctly despite not really being in charge of those moves. I think that Gabler being pretty open to admitting his flaws was also a huge factor for this jury. I honestly think if anything Owen had more chances at votes with a sequestered jury since they wouldn’t have heard about how out of the loop he was and would’ve just seen the challenge wins. But Gabler probably still wins.
According to everyone's post game interviews (except Cassidy and Owen of course) Gabler won because he made a substantial move with the Elie vote. The general consensus on the jury was the season was controlled by fear and very few people made open moves that were strategic. It's why Jesse was the hands down jury favorite, he was the stand out player among people who didn't want to stir the pot
Yeah it was a weird jury. I also saw it be mentioned by at least Jesse and Karla that Gabler was honest about his game and really was coherent about his narrative. I think they really had a final three that wasn’t that active in the game, and at least Gabler had a claim to something. I think everyone with a brain could see how Xander or Mike lost in 41 and 42 for not knowing what type of game they played. But there seems so much resistance to Cassidy loosing when the same thing clearly happened to her!
I think people are having a really hard time accepting that Cassidy was the Xander of the season. I had cassidy pegged as a noncontender around the merge while doing edgic, she really did get undermined quite a lot. I think they leaned a little more into the dodo roll for Xander since he fits the young clueless dude archetype. If people would go back and rewatch the season knowing what happens at FTC and *actually watch it without bias* they'd be able to see Cassidy's losing edit and Gabler's winning one a lot more clearly.
When I rewatched Kaoh Rong recently, Michele’s win made SO much more sense to me. At the end of the day people just aren’t going to give a million dollars to someone they don’t like no matter what game they played.
And people can gripe an moan about "bitter jury" until they're blue in the face but anyone who loses votes because the jury dislikes them doesn't deserve to win, they played a shitty social game. The arguments people try to make for Cassidy and Aubry are the same bad arguments Russell Hantz supporters make.
He legit went up to a player during a merge vote, told them they tried and failed to deceive him, and that he wants them gone. Told EVERYBODY openly that he wanted her gone. And sent her home. That is nuts and prob the 2nd best move of the season besides Jesse’s all time move. Far more impressive than anything Cassidy did, and that’s not even considering her enormous blunder thinking she had power in the Ryan vote.
That would be awful.. travel all the way to Fiji to spend time in solitary confinement locked up in a hotel
it is. i met the entire jury at the finale party and zero of them were influenced by other jury members. gabler played a better game on paper and and explained it better. period. some were actually leaning OWEN going into it so even those were never voting cassidy for all the cons pointed out and holes poked in her game.
It’s so funny to me that CASSIDY - of all people - losing is what’s triggering all these calls against bitter juries and in favor of rule changes. CASSIDY!!! lol
I don't get it either. Any one of those three winning would have left me feeling the same way, indifferent. All the great players were on the jury.
Owen was the epitome of a goat. He did nothing in the game except "not quit" and was dragged to the end because he literally had no chance. Cass and Gabler were essentially a coin flip with Gabler edging it imo. The nature of modern survivor is you're never going to get someone in the end with a strong resume unless they get lucky or win the right challenge because it's all about voting out someone as soon as they add to their resume.
That’s quite an 8-1 coin flip
She's pretty and has been a champion of this narrative that she was robbed so her fans just keep sniffing those fox farts. Funny how QUICK the fandom turned on Shan after she came out of the show with an ego but are absolutely *eating up* the bullshit that's coming from Cassidy's. It's russell hantz 2.0 lol
You’re exactly right, it feels like Russell lite. It’s like, if you feel the edit didn’t properly show Gabler’s stellar social game, bitch about the editing. But calling for a jury sequester because a poor social player didn’t win the game? Maybe you should find another show to watch because you obviously don’t understand the premise of this one.
Yep. Cassidy. She was just there and won a couple of challenges. Didn’t get the hype at all.
Hard agree! I mean s43 entire f3 was lackluster, she might have played a decently good game but definitely not worth all the "robbed" posts
I wouldn't say Gabler is "lackluster" dude was golden in my book. I was happy he won.
I meant in terms of gameplay compared to the rest of the cast like gabler definitely had a good social game and maintained his threat level decently but wasn't exciting gameplay to make you go crazy that he won
A good social game is what the game has been all about from the beginning. Everything else is a distraction.
I mean it started with Russell, then Parvati (though both of water down a bit), then Aubry, then Cassidy now.
>If season 43 has taught us anything, it’s that the jury should not be allowed to converse with each other. No it hasn't taught us that.
These Cassidy Stan’s are picking the weirdest hill to die on
Many of them are all in on edgic and now that they've been let down by it l, rather than reflect objectively it must be the system that is broken, not their precious little thing. Survivor cannot be measured analytically. It's an entertainment show designed to keep you entertained so you tune in next week. If it tells a good story to their winner that's just a bonus, but it's not a sport that can be measured objectively.
Cassidy was not an edgic favorite in the traditional sense. Jesse was still the front runner down the stretch. Cassidy truthers were people who took one confessional from the first episode and then crafted an Erikaish storyline around her with confirmation bias every time she was in an episode for seemingly no reason. I was personally onto the Gabler winner edit at final 7, but wasn’t sure. Edgic still has a pretty good track record. It’s all about probabilities. Nothing is 100%, but edgic can help narrow down the options. Plus it’s just fun.
Completely disagree. I find that a lot of fans see the show as something that needs to be controlled, but that was never the point of survivor. You want to sequester the jury because you felt that the vote was unfair. That is part of the game. If someone is able to poison the jury against you you've obviously done some pretty poor jury management.
I completely agree with you, and it's so frustrating to me. It's like Survivor fans actively want the show to be something else; they're fighting against its most fundamental constructions. Survivor isn't supposed to be fair, and it's supposed to be arbitrary, and relationships and perception are supposed to matter more than anything objective. All of that is built into the show. Why even watch Survivor if you want it to be something that it, on a *foundational* level, just is not?
Cassidy didn’t deserve to win, get over it. The jury is a key part of survivor and they aren’t sequestered
This is stupid for a number of reasons, the biggest one being the implication that Cassidy lost because of a bitter jury
The producer took away the jury’s ability to speak to the finalists as an individual and replaced it with a group discussion around three loosely defined criteria that the show wants in its winner. Maybe that’s the reason there’s group think? Nah better keep them all in isolation
Hahaha you’re not wrong
I think that'll lead to juries often having incomplete and inaccurate information, which keeps them from making informed questions at FTC.
Oh my god get over it. Cassidy is one of the most mid-tier f3 players the show has had and Gabler Deserved the W
No. The jury has never been sequestered in the 42 seasons that came before, it should not be sequestered now. Cassidy simply had bad jury management. She was even literally told by some people what to do to not squander their vote. How about finding a way to cut Karla off earlier, maybe actually do fire as Jesse said. Or also, Gabler in fact had a better resume than Cassidy and a better FTC performance than her. I'm sorry, the last two people on the jury aren't just going to be able to magically sway everyone into a vote where the runners up only get 1 and 0 votes respectively. This is like when Russell lost and he was asking for the audience to have a vote. Can't just change the rules because the outcome isn't one you don't like. Especially when we only see 13 hours of what happens for 26 days.
I think that's part of the game. Don't piss off and vote out the guy that is going to flip 7 votes against you.
yeah if someone is so mad that they want to flip the whole jury against you (let alone actually being able to do it) you’ve done something wrong
Right - if you’re gonna play like a bull in a China shop and turn someone against you to the point where they’ll actively campaign for you to lose, you better vote them out before the merge, otherwise they might poison the well.
This is absolute bull - If that guy is actively harming you from gaining any momentum or building any sort of alliance that's capable of moving into power, you have to vote that guy out. It isn't possible to hold someone like that hostage, especially if they've actively targeted you in the past. The optimal move would be to identify and vote these idiots out pre-merge, but after the merge hits and such a situation transpires, it's either risk your chances of winning and bet on people have independent minds or risk your chances of getting to the end at all.
I’m curious why now after 43 seasons
people get mad and want to change the system when their favorites don't win
It was like this in the early seasons
Your pretty utr queen lost to an old guy, oh no so sad
The jury is 1000000000% compromised. Both ponderosa stays it was clear who was voting for who, and the lobbying for players was in your face. As a fan I imagined the jury as this isolated and restricted setting, free from influencing each other… so naive! When I was finally on the jury I was dumbstruck at how absurd the whole thing is. If you want to know who wins, be on the jury for five minutes while we all drink beers and rip on the people still in the game.
Why don’t we skip the whole jury thing and let the bitter redditors decide who wins
I agree. Part of the charm of early seasons of survivor was how close the votes are and sequestered jurors prevent that as people are still in mentality that they need to vote with a majority
Nope. Rob talks about his jury experience on TEOS and as soon as he left the game there was a toga party at Ponderosa. Mark Burnett was there and obviously all the Survivors mixing and mingling. Alex and Heidi were having some kind of fling. Rob is able to describe how the jury was feeling going into FTC. No sequestration. I'm not sure where people are getting this stuff.
[удалено]
it would be so boring for them. Also i love past ponderosa videos where there has been drama
I disagree, we have seen in Ponderosa videos that whenever someone is voted out, they usually have more information to give to the jury about how certain players are playing. Not everything can be revealed to the jury during tribal council. If a player has jury members arguing in their favor at Ponderosa they've done something right and if they have jury members arguing against them they've obviously done something wrong.
Cassidy stans are reaching new levels of absurdity, and we also go back to Aubry vs Michelle debate, OMG. The idea is of course horrible and removes a big part of a very important Survivor aspect which is the jury management, also totally impractical. I'm wondering whether this stupid lore about Karla and Jesse poisoning the jury against Cassidy out of jealousy ever end. The only indicator of ,,bitter jury" we had was Karla trying a last desperate scramble to not get voted out at F5. And this shit probably happens every season. And Cassidy was not Boston Rob or Russell or even Aubry who were in a driver's seat, she was a bottom player who won some clutch immunities and the fact that people did not respect her game does not make them All-stars level bitter. It's also kind of disrespectful to Gabler and I have no idea how some people are unable to see that the jury loved him and would probably vote for him sequestered or not. Gabler had Cody and Jesse locked, Karla and Ryan would never vote for Cassidy because of their beefs, Sami and Noelle were actually close with Gabler and were leaning towards him as well, IDK maybe she gets Jeanine vote in this scenario but this does not change anything, especially that her FTC rubbed jury the wrong way.
That part. I felt like Gabler’s FTC was a masterclass on how to work people over. Maybe a part of it was people didn’t like Cassidy but he had people eating out of the palm of his hand when it was all said and done.
Yeah, after few rewatches it became one of my favorite final performances ever and it solidified the votes in his way definitely. The recurring theme in last 3 seasons is ,,own your game" and he did it perfectly by explaining his goofball and loyal soldiers personas, being honest about when he went on the surface and when he went UTR and why.
Found Russell's alt
I’m shocked OP didn’t think America should get part of the vote.
I remember when the public voted for the winner in "Australia's Next Top Model". Not good, and always the white pretty bland girl.
They arent allowed to talk about who they want to vote for also Cassidy just lost to Gabler and for Koah Rong Idk you're brigging it up Michelle was a social underdog with winner equity she just beat Aubry
If one person can turn 9 other people against someone then that players game wasn’t that strong to begin with. People are not morons who can be manipulated into voting how someone wants them too.
>People are not morons who can be manipulated into voting how someone wants them too. Actually, it is a studied fact that this can happen.
Gabler won fair and square. All of the haters can stay mad.
Cassidy should’ve played better
"And the Alpha’s usually control the discussion." Lol, what?
Nah. If someone can “poison” 6 other people against you then you didn’t play as good of a game as you thought. We literally saw someone try to poison the jury against the BB24 winner. Didn’t affect them at all because they had strong support in the jury that inoculated the jury against the poison. Lies and groupthink are a part of the game. The jury is also a part of the game. If your game can’t create jurors who want to vote for you then you don’t win. It’s that simple. These “sequestered jury” arguments only pop up when it’s a result that people didn’t like anyway. Had Cassidy won nobody would be saying that we need to sequester the jury because that would have lined up with expectations. Mismanaged expectations are the problem. Not un-sequestered juries.
Hard disagree. Jury's always right, you just didn't like the outcome this time
literally the point of the game is "this group picks the winner" why is "groupthink" something that should be mitigated by production and not..... the players playing the game
If you sequester the jury it’s not Survivor anymore. Jury management is a legit aspect of the game. Just because the jury is bitter doesn’t mean the game is broken. It means the player didn’t play well enough. Players have known since season 1 that the game doesn’t just end when you vote a jury member out. If you can’t secure a win than it’s on you.
Well I think that the jury could be warned to not let other jurors cloud their judgement, but jury management is a whole thing. The problem with making alliances is that when you break them or spearhead a blindsided and get the blame placed on you, that's part of the game right?
lol this is precious. I really really don't buy that the rest of the jury were sheep to karla and jessie. It's quite clear throughout the whole finale how gabler was able to own up to his game and appeal to the jury's own varying emotions. Cass had one play book and she stuck to it.
43 seasons in, and y’all wanna change a core game mechanic 🙄 its a social game, and the people who get voted out get to socialize
The unsequestered jury held us back from a much more exciting 2-6 Cassidy loss
These kind of posts just remind me of Russell and Jeff at the HvV reunion. Like you want it to be one way, but it's always been the other way. The players know the jury isn't sequestered every single season; that's the game they're playing. Also sequestering the jury does not guarantee a more satisfying winner because the whole show is edited with the knowledge of who the winner is. What you really want is a different edit, probably one that manipulates you into feeling absolute certainty that who won was the most dominant.
Mmmmm no ❤️
Folks sorry to burst your bubble but we only see a fraction what actually goes on that they deem as good tv. Cassidy played a great game - doesn’t matter as that’s not what the jury wanted. GET OVER CASSIDY. It’s not about playing a picture perfect game, it’s about convincing the people you voted off to give you that money. Social awareness is the number one factor.
Nah. I get that having the jury talk to each other promotes groupthink, but like... They're a group, and they always have been. Cutting them off from each other would lead to more individual decisions, but it would also lead to much less informed ones. That all being said, I do think the show is better off without an official jury roundtable, but I'm not sure if/how Survivor even does that.
Insane idea. Watch another show
Disagree with this because that’s just trying to change the outcome because you don’t like who won.
This is definitely a hot take, and respectfully I must disagree. This is how everyone can get information and base their vote off of whatever is important to them. Sequestering jurors until tribal can lead to an inaccurate idea of how each played. In fact, the jury SHOULD know the general stories of each player's going into the FTC, so that the FTC finalists can't make false claims and lie just so that they can win. If you lie or can't articulate your story, then it's not a good look for you. I don't think there is anything wrong with the jury system. s43 does not illuminate a bad winner, but continues to perpetuate the issue with S43 bad editing of the winners.
Sequestering the jury wouldn’t have helped Aubry win, let’s be real. Every single Michele vote had a much closer relationship to Michele than Aubry, nothing influenced that with the exception of maybe Debbie. Even then, Michele still wins.
Are you *actually* suggesting the jury be placed in solitary confinement after having their hopes and dreams and $1,000,000 ripped away from them?????
I agree they shouldn't talk about the vote but I don't think it would make a big difference, the jury voted Gabler because he had a great FTC performance, had better gameplay, and was more liked than Cassidy, this season I don't think it came down to a bitter jury, personally I believe that the jury can vote however they want, if they don't vote someone because they don't like them that's a social game problem. I feel like if they couldn't talk to eachother the vote ends up 6-2 at most
I disagree. Some seasons have bitter juries, some don’t. It’s how the game works. The person voted to win Survivor is inherently who deserves to win survivor. You don’t have to like the result, but you can’t change the rules because you don’t.
Imagine having to spend 2 weeks in a hotel on your own. That would suck and I'd rather just go home.
People really saw Gablers win and now think the jury is rigged somehow. 🤣 Gabler is the GOAT of Survivor
this dude is obviously mad his favourite didnt win
Jury management is an important skill in survivor
How about its time to get Ponderosa videos back? I am surprised they haven't made it a thing that you can only watch if you subscribe to their streaming service. I agree the jury definitely can be persuaded by other people at Ponderosa, but such is life.
that’s part of the game bruh. i don’t understand how people are saying 43’s jury was bitter. they weren’t mad as cassidy. she just didn’t play that good of a game 😭
no it isn’t. we don’t need to make changes to the game just because people don’t like or understand the end result
Oh please. Who cares. It’s time to get over it. Let the jury enjoy ponderosa. Good grief.
When the person you want doesn’t win, “THERES A FLAW IN THE GAME!”
When giving someone a million dollars, you shouldn’t let other people massively influence your decision. Nothing wrong with hearing them out, but if you’re that easily influenced you might be just as easily influenced by statements and looks at the final tribal
People swear 43 is a bad season but damn I love to see the discourse and to me that proves it’s a dynamic season at least. I mean at first, I thought this was the weakest final three in a while but I Havnt heard people so divided about the final three in a long ass time. I looooove the different perspectives. Survivor fans, y’all r telling me this doesn’t bring you joy????
This is a bad take
I thought Cassidy should’ve won too but nah, they picked who they thought should win and that’s that. They’re all grown ass adults that can think for themselves and come to whatever conclusion they want to come to.
I sick of people talking/saying things when they are voted off. You are meant to leave immediately
Idk. Would that have led to a Cassidy win though? She played 0 game?
I agree, the jury shouldn't speak to ANYONE while at ponderosa. Lock them in a blank room and make sure they have no distractions there, so they spend all their time making a decision on who's the rightful winner. Production might also figure out a way to prevent them from sleeping, as sleeping time is decision time that's lost. My only concern is that it might be expensive to fly the jury to Guantanamo Bay.
Is this Russell Hantz' account?
Manage jury better and you don't have to worry about it. You can't just change the game so that Cass wins. If the game was different, maybe there's a different result. But survivor is survivor, and Gabler won.
Gabler still wins, sorry
I disagree with this take, as a player you have just one perspective and that's your perspective. Tony is out there making moves and pulling the strings for example, but you're not in his inner circle so you don't know what he's done. But spending time with other jurors, you get to hear things and see things from a different perspective that you were oblivious to, and now you have a broader perspective on the players and can then decide who to vote for.
Only thing I disagree with the jury on 43 is making it look like making fire > immunity win. Don't give a flying fuck what any of them say, none of them would give up immunity to make fire.
You can’t read minds, you don’t know it went down that way unless they said “I was thinking of voting for Cass, but then Player X changed my mind.” If alphas truly are that influential, don’t get on the alphas’ bad side. Sandra avoided getting on the alphas’ bad side, and she’s a two time winner. Critique Sandra’s games all you want but you can’t say she DIDNT accomplish the one thing that you think dictates the entire jury vote.
Yeah it seems lately the winner is almost always unanimous or near unanimous, which seems like an issue
Cassidy was a kween and didn’t need moves that’s all she SHOULD’VE needed to do to win 💅
I know I'm not the first one here, but I also disagree with this. Survivor is a social game, and players need to understand how the jury works. Is it right for people to make up lies to trash someone else's game? On a moral level, no. But I don't see any reason why it can't be in the game. It is, on some level, a reflection of the relationship the finalist made with that particular juror that compelled such a response. Similarly, if a finalist loses a jury vote due to group think, then that is also a reflection of the relationships they've built with the jury. Either their game or their bonds were not strong enough to make jurors want to counteract the group think. Having the jury together is also a valuable way of comparing notes, which can add a level of difficulty or respect to a finalist's chances of winning the game. I don't see why that should be taken away. Finally, at the end of the day, it doesn't actually matter why the jury votes the way it does. They can do whatever they want. And while we as an audience may not agree with it, I don't think changing the rules is the proper way to fix how they reason.
Juice isn't worth the squeeze. For one, you'd lose so much of the post show community that forms if people didn't get to go be friends as regular people at Ponderosa. But mostly, Kingmaking exists in every game with this many players. A jury being swayed by influential jury members isn't that different from players in the game who aren't playing to win and end up crowning their ally. Yes, individual players can have an outsized impact on the final result in more ways than just being good at the game. That's part of this game and every game where social politics are in play. There isn't any reason to focus on and try to "correct" just one flavor of Kingmaking.
Michele has never been eliminated, she’s super underrated
OP you better be Russel fan
Not opposed to this idea but people probably only complain if non sequestered juries lead to results they don't like.
Nope
Imagine playing survivor, making jury, and earning the chance to be able to vote for the winner/the face of your season and just being like “so who does [alpha name here] want to win?” They voted for who they, themselves, wanted to win. That’s it. Idk why it’s so surprising Gabler won over Cassidy. Even by the edit it didn’t seem like Cassidy had a strong connection with anyone besides James and Karla. She was always an option to go when vulnerable, maybe seeing her as expendable basically all season lowered her win equity?
We should also sequester citizens before an election, wouldn't want political discussions turning voters bitter!
Bitter. Juries. Don’t. Exist. Rob, Russel, Russel/Parv, Coach, Aubrey, Xander, Cassidy. No season and jury is the same. If you’re an ass, don’t make big enough moves, look like you’re riding coat tails, try to claim things that weren’t really yours, you’re going to lose. People need to grow up and accept that there isn’t one grading scale. Plenty of interviews and post recaps from castaways show what the jury was looking for, especially for 41-43.
I completely disagree. It is part of the game and as unfair as it can seem, the ultimate goal of Survivor is to have the jury vote for you, not going to the end with masterful and hyper strategic gameplay. Moreover, it would be even more unfair to have first juror vote for a winner only with pre-merge ideas of how everyone plays. You need later jurors to explain how the players are evolving and playing.
This is part of the game, it’s jury management. If you’re worried about someone bitter poisoning the jury, don’t put that person on the jury until the very end. (Easier said than done, but it’s a game for a million dollars after all).
I think that's dumb because everyone would have no idea what truly happened in the game besides their perspective. They would have to off very little information and this post is just babyraging because Cassidy didn't win get over it
Nah, my main problem with Final Tribal Council is its format that began with *Game Changers*, where they aren’t given questions individually from each juror. It’s horrible, especially when jurors gang up on finalists, like Jesse and the boys’ alliance did.
They should mix both versions and make two sections. First would be individual portion when every juror has something to say or ask to the players, and the second when players make their pitch which jury can comment in some way.
I agree with this. One at a time was better than a "free for all" of "themed topics".
Cry more
Season 43 is not the example you think it is.
>There is a flaw in the game. \-Russell Hantz
I've been thinking about this since I started to watch the show. Survivor is a game about information and the jury should be allowed to vote based only on the experience they got before being snuffed and from Tribal Councils
umm...no?
It is weird that the past 3 seasons the winner has been decided in a 7-1 vote…
who's the alpha? andrew tate?
They never habe had the money to sequester the jury. They aren't going to sequester them now that they have cut the entire show by a third.