PDA

View Full Version : Survivor: Nicaragua



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

MarieM
12-17-2010, 02:41 PM
What hasn't he promised ? I mean Chase.
He must have promised almost every player one thing or another.

I am still hoping Fabio will win. I wouldn't mind if Holly did. All the other IMHO are loosers and shouldn't win anything AT ALL !

genevieve
12-17-2010, 07:49 PM
I really hope Chase is out next. I'd rather Dan win than Chase.

Jenny
12-17-2010, 08:00 PM
I really hope Chase is out next. I'd rather Dan win than Chase.

Agree. It's almost like they put Chase in there just to mess things up with his stupidity.

Fabio for the win :cheer2:

Tinami Amori
12-17-2010, 08:35 PM
I was :eek: when she dumped water on the fire. What a mean streak she has.

Was it legal to do according to the Game's Bylaws? I mean destroying communal property/assets (I consider central fire to be such asset in a deserted area with high humidity)...

What do the bylaws allow other contestants to do to stop one from physical destruction of camp grounds? I thought you can not physically attack another player, or hold him/her down/restrain (although Naonka did, and nobody reacted....) So if one starts to harm and destroy the structures - how can others stop it?

sk8pics
12-17-2010, 09:07 PM
I don't know if it was legal, but I presume it was since the crew did not stop her. I know they are not allowed to steal an immunity idol from another player, but there have been cases of players searching other players' possessions, if I recall correctly. And yeah, I don't believe they'll allow players to physically hurt one another, except of course in some of those very physical challenges the last couple years. :rolleyes: Jeff let some of those challenges go pretty far but I remember him stopping a player a couple of times, at least, from injuring another player in a challenge.

Jenny
12-17-2010, 09:08 PM
Was it legal to do according to the Game's Bylaws? I mean destroying communal property/assets (I consider central fire to be such asset in a deserted area with high humidity)...

What do the bylaws allow other contestants to do to stop one from physical destruction of camp grounds? I thought you can not physically attack another player, or hold him/her down/restrain (although Naonka did, and nobody reacted....) So if one starts to harm and destroy the structures - how can others stop it?

AFAIK the game rules don't cover destruction of shared or individual property - my guess is the idea is that if you do such things, you have to answer to your tribemates, as Naonka and Aline did with the flour, and Holly might have to with the shoes.

You definitely can't physically threaten or willfully harm someone, but I don't think that was the case when Naonka wrestled Kelly for the immunity clue. In theory, Kelly could have made a bigger deal about it by bringing it before the tribe to see what they thought the fair thing to do would be.

Prancer
12-17-2010, 09:42 PM
I think the main rule on Survivor is "Can we put this on TV and get people who watch without violating any FCC regulations?"

Nothing was done when Sandra threw out Rupert's fish in Pearl Islands or Russell hid the machete in Samoa and burned people's socks, and nothing was done when Amanda and Danielle wrestled over an immunity idol clue, so why would they do anything about Jane putting out the fire (and hiding the flint, too--not shown, but she did it) or Na'Onka wrestling Kelly?

Jenny
12-17-2010, 10:04 PM
(and hiding the flint, too--not shown, but she did it)

When Russell did that crap, I didn't agree with it, but at least he was playing the game. Saying bitchy things at voting that they won't see until months later and don't effect the game, and hiding a flint on your way out is just pointless and petty, IMO.

DianeO
12-17-2010, 10:18 PM
No one seems to be addressing the fact that Jane wouldn't have known she was on the way out and would not have been angry enough to put out the fire if the other people weren't stupid enough to tell her that she was toast in the first place. Why bother doing that? How did they think she'd react?

Tinami Amori
12-17-2010, 10:20 PM
I think the main rule on Survivor is "Can we put this on TV and get people who watch without violating any FCC regulations?"

I guess so…. I find it interesting. My biggest gripe with many TV shows (sit-coms and mini-series) in the late 70’s and 80’s was that they are very “moral”, as if the producers try not only to entertain the audience, but mainly to reinstate the value of the last 6 Commandments and to remind of "evil of common sins"….. :D. If a character did something wrong (lied, stole, showed jealousy, pettiness, greed, stinginess, etc) he/she was punished, taught a lesson and had to “repent” by the end of the show.

Now we have few shows (Survivor and B-Brother) which are not just “stories” but competitions/contests where winner is given $1,000,000.00 USD.

I would think that for the benefit of a given society where the show is running, it is absolutely NECESSARY to set rules for winning 1 million dollars based on basic laws of that society.

USA is a society where laws prohibit and punish lying, cheating, stealing, conniving, conspiring, reneging contractual obligations including oral agreements, etc.

…. And yet we have one of the most popular prime-time TV shows which openly promotes and encourages lying, cheating, stealing, conniving, conspiring, reneging contractual obligations, as main methods of winning 1 million dollars.

I would be OK with a show which addresses human nature of lying, cheating, stealing, conniving, conspiring, reneging contractual obligations, etc., in a form of a "story", or "analysis"....

I have a problem with the fact that such qualities are being rewarded by 1 million dollars, or rewarded at all.

Squibble
12-17-2010, 10:32 PM
USA is a society where laws prohibit and punish lying

Actually, U.S. laws don't prohibit lying as such. Parents who tell their children that those gifts under the tree are from Santa Claus aren't breaking any law. The law prohibits lying when in specific circumstances, such as fraud, unfair business practices, perjury, etc.


…. And yet we have one of the most popular prime-time TV shows which openly promotes and encourages lying, cheating, stealing, conniving, conspiring, reneging contractual obligations, as main methods of winning 1 million dollars.

Not really. A certain amount of deception is part of the game, but being able to get along with people and making them like you is more important. That's why Russell lost the last two seasons to Natalie and Sandra.


I would be OK with a show which addresses human nature of lying, cheating, stealing, conniving, conspiring, reneging contractual obligations, etc., in a form of a "story", or "analysis"....

I have a problem with the fact that such qualities are being rewarded by 1 million dollars, or rewarded at all.

Stop watching it then. :)

purple skates
12-17-2010, 11:34 PM
^ It would have went to a tie. 3 for Jane 3 for Holly. After two voting sessions resulting in a tie, those two people become safe, and with Chase and Sash playing Idols, that leaves it between Dan and Fabio to duke it out on which one of them goes home. If they would have voted Holly they would be essentially voting themself out (whichever one that may be).

ETA: Fabio had immunity too. Dan would have voted himself out.

Something's bugging me about this. If Sash and Chase played the idol for the first vote and it was a tie, would the idol still be in force for the second vote? Is it good for the whole tribal council, or just one vote? I know Fabio's would still be good for both votes, but I don't know that about the HII.

PeterG
12-17-2010, 11:39 PM
entire post

Ha ha, you're funny. I like people from your planet. :P

Sparks
12-17-2010, 11:39 PM
I believe if there is a tie and a re-vote, the contestants may only vote for the tied two.

sk8pics
12-17-2010, 11:53 PM
I was wondering about the vote, too. I also thought it would have been a great move if Sash or Chase had given their idol to Holly, to blindside the other side if they had all decided at the last minute to vote Holly together and force a tie. But they heard more than we did at TC and I guess they figured it wasn't worth the risk. Would have been great, though.