Jump to content

S24: Kim


  • Please log in to reply

474 replies to this topic

#271

WileyCoyote

WileyCoyote

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 10:09 AM

Yeah, the way the jury system in this game works (being sequestered together instead of apart) really punishes Kim's type of game, and tends to reward the least common denominator players (the hapless idiots left over at the end who didn't piss a lot of people off).

She's playing the hell out of this game and win or lose will go down at the very top of the Survivor player heap for me, of all time. But as has been said, a SINGLE persuasive player can burn you at Ponderosa.

So this will either turn out to be a season where the best person wins, or, slightly more likely, where mediocrity, luck and fence sitting win at the end. Even the players in her girl alliance who ACT like they're strong, self-assured women, blah blah blah, have bought her act and let themselves be played for 95% of the game. If any of them put together a last minute move against her, it will only be because her games-style is near impossible, in a period AFTER everyone's seen people like Boston Rob win with the same core element that he was everybody's confidant, the one everyone "checked with" for every decision, the one they ALL wanted to get close to, even up to the point that they'd spill about every plot and sub-plot going on to her. That's how she's Boston Rob, the female version, even if other elements of her game differ. And that's precisely why she might fail--because arguably that game can only be played ONCE successfully, and Rob just did that on his last season (after other failures with slightly different strategies and with the additional luck that he was able to use his celebrity, whereas Kim has to rely JUST on excessive charisma).
  • 0

#272

SpeciousLogic

SpeciousLogic

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 10:13 AM

But, honestly, has something like that ever happened at Ponderosa (i.e., a juror completely fabricating something about any remaining player in the game)?


How would we ever know, if it wasn't caught on camera and/or aired? You can deliberately poison someone in a way that the affected jurist won't explicitly speak of it later, they'll just silently change their opinion and/or vote. This may have happened numerous times in the past to help torpedo one of the FTC candidates. We have no way to be sure either way, but the potential is certainly there.

Edited by SpeciousLogic, May 10, 2012 @ 10:14 AM.

  • 0

#273

fashionista79

fashionista79

    Stalker

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 11:02 AM

How would we ever know, if it wasn't caught on camera and/or aired? You can deliberately poison someone in a way that the affected jurist won't explicitly speak of it later, they'll just silently change their opinion and/or vote. This may have happened numerous times in the past to help torpedo one of the FTC candidates. We have no way to be sure either way, but the potential is certainly there.

I don't know. I just can't buy that it has ever been the case. With all of the after-season interviews that occur, I feel like something like that--total fabrications at Ponderosa against any remaining player--would have definitely come up if it had happened. The only thing that I think remotely comes close is the issue between Jane and Sash in Nicaragua, and I believe that the whole "money in exchange for whatever it was" drama happened at TC. I'm sure Jane harped on it at Ponderosa, but it's hard to know if Jane misunderstood what Sash said or if Sash worded his final three set up in such a way as to have Jane believe he was offering her cash should he win the big million.

However, I still don't believe that there needs to be any sequestering of jury members from each other just because Kim may have to work to convince this jury to reward her with a million. And I'm not saying that one person at Ponderosa couldn't have some influence over how others vote (isn't that what happened last season when it looked like the jurors were daring Albert to be smarmy in his responses to them?); I'm talking more about the idea that someone at Ponderosa could completely fabricate a story about Kim just for the hell of it because she was one of the people who voted him or her out. That just seems over the top.

So, I'm not worried about Kim facing that kind of jury because I simply don't believe it will happen that way.

Edited by fashionista79, May 10, 2012 @ 11:05 AM.

  • 0

#274

xr11576

xr11576

    Loyal Viewer

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 12:23 PM

Reading the questions they filled out for the first time, and Kim said

SURVIVOR Contestant You Are Most Like: Probably Stephenie LaGrossa from Palau, because she’s a badass (total honey badger)


Interesting, because I think she's playing a vastly superior version of Stephenie's Guatemala game; everyone thought they were Stephenie's best friend too, and punished her for it at the end. Lucky for Kim, there is no one around as charming as Danni Boatwright.
  • 0

#275

Joe M2

Joe M2

    Channel Surfer

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 12:46 PM

I feel like something like that--total fabrications at Ponderosa against any remaining player--would have definitely come up if it had happened


Thailand. Helen telling Ted that Clay was making racist comments behind his back. Whether it was a fabrication or not is open to debate, but it definitely had an impact on Ted's vote.
  • 0

#276

Constantinople

Constantinople

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 12:58 PM

I'm not particularly concerned about one bitter juror being able to sway everyone else by lying. As fashionista79 noted, if it had happened, but now we would likely have heard of it.

Besides, for that tactic to be effective, both the juror, in general, and the lies, in particular, would have to be credible enough to be believed.

Also, there's no guarantee that separating jurors will lead to less bitterness. One can just as easily argue that Ponderosa enables jurors to blow off steam. In contrast, if they were kept isolated, they could stew and stew and stew until they exploded at FTC.
  • 0

#277

SpeciousLogic

SpeciousLogic

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 4:04 PM

Also, there's no guarantee that separating jurors will lead to less bitterness. One can just as easily argue that Ponderosa enables jurors to blow off steam. In contrast, if they were kept isolated, they could stew and stew and stew until they exploded at FTC.


I have no issue with individual jurors being bitter based on how they went out, how they felt about being backstabbed or someone else's play, etc.

What I have an issue with is a juror who potentially or actually changes their vote based entirely on what another juror tells them about one of the members of FTC, particularly if it is fabricated out of thin air. If you were a juror and were planning to vote for contestant A, then juror X tells you that A spent the entire time badmouthing you behind your back and making "-ist" comments about you (if applicable), would you not change your vote?

Gang mentality is a dangerous thing.

I don't agree that it hasn't happened because we would have heard about it, at all. How often does Jeff actually ask any member of the jury why they voted the way they did? Very rarely. And even if he did, who is going to cop to changing their vote as a personal vendetta based on hearsay?
  • 0

#278

Yogurt Baron

Yogurt Baron

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 5:53 PM

Kim has played a superb game, but I am afraid that her multiple alliances and a jury consisting mostly of angry men may throw to win to Sabrina (if she makes the Final Three). I fear that Kim is playing almost too well--something that a man (J.T., Todd) can get away with, but not a woman or better stated this particular woman. This is obviously from a male point of view. I will be interested to read what the women here think of my theory.


I'm a man, but I would argue that no woman has ever played a game like Kim's before, so we don't really know how the jury will react. I also think that if they vote against her, it won't be about her gender; it'll be about her gameplay.

I actually haven't been terribly impressed with Kim's confessionals the past couple of episodes, although, of course, we never know for certain what the interviewers are asking to prompt certain responses. But she's coming off as simultaneously confident in her various endgame plans, and then willing to change them on a whim for no reason. Last week, both in confessionals and talking to her sister, she was absolutely sure that Alicia and Kat were her best F3. This week? Chelsea and Sabrina. Don't get me wrong: I admire the fact that she's built herself up to where she can go to F3 with anybody, and that she can change as the game changes. Flexibility is necessary. But there was no reason for her to suddenly think that Chelsea and Sabrina are her best F3 except, "Yay, we're on a reward together!" I think Kim is smarter than that, and it worries me that the editing is suddenly depicting her as...I'd almost say flighty.
  • 0

#279

BDArizona

BDArizona

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 8:53 PM

I compare Kim to Yul because they play a somewhat similar game. They're manipulating everyone in a really subtle friendly way, while remaining perfectly cordial and diplomatic so everyone still likes and respects them.

I'd definitely compare her to Yul before I'd compare her to Rob. Rob had that nasty need to put others down to make himself look smart. Kim doesn't really do that. She doesn't sit there, smirk on her face, gloating over what she just did. She may point out that another person isn't well-liked, but she doesn't take glee in those statements like Rob did. I'd also say that she and Yul got this thing down on their first go-round. They didn't need multiple failures and restarts to accomplish getting far in the game.
  • 0

#280

fashionista79

fashionista79

    Stalker

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 8:54 PM

What I have an issue with is a juror who potentially or actually changes their vote based entirely on what another juror tells them about one of the members of FTC, particularly if it is fabricated out of thin air. If you were a juror and were planning to vote for contestant A, then juror X tells you that A spent the entire time badmouthing you behind your back and making "-ist" comments about you (if applicable), would you not change your vote?

Gang mentality is a dangerous thing.

I guess I'm confused because I really don't see this as a potential in this season (nor have I sensed it with other juries from past seasons I've watched. Someone mentioned Thailand, but I didn't start watching with regularity until Pearl Islands). So for me it's much ado about nothing. In all honesty, I think that this is Kim's to lose, and if she happens to lose, I just can't buy that there was this possibility within this jury that a story about her would be fabricated, and that blatant lie would be why she wouldn't get any votes. Like I said, I could be misunderstanding where this concern over juror fabrication in the jury house is coming from, but I don't believe it to be even be the case when it comes to Kim.
  • 0

#281

BDArizona

BDArizona

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 9:10 PM

I don't think Sabrina winning over Kim will prove the men are sexist. Some of them have already said enough for me to believe they have some sexist tendencies.

There are some men on the jury whom I believe would never vote for Kim because she's a woman who beat them. That's not to say I believe that of all of them, but I do think it could have an effect on the endgame.

As for juror behavior, I'm not as concerned about fabrication. I do think that in the abstract fabrication is a possibility and is another reason to sequester separately. Ted's vote based on charges of racism that are still unproven is just one possible example, as noted above.

That was never my point though, as I'm concerned about things--no matter how true--that people were not smart enough to figure out before they got booted suddenly being revealed to them in sequester. No matter how good a player is on the island, there isn't one thing s/he can do about it. There's no possible way that every last person on the jury will love you, so I don't like the fact that one very bitter juror can wear on others and possibly influence them. Like I said, if that juror votes against the object of his bitterness, I have no problem with that. It's the ability to influence that I don't like. I don't watch extra footage and had never bothered with Ponderosa. It didn't really occur to me that this kind of discussion was going on in sequester until this season.

Edited by BDArizona, May 10, 2012 @ 9:12 PM.

  • 0

#282

susannot

susannot

    Couch Potato

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 9:20 PM

If I know anything about men, they will want to believe that they were beaten by the best player of the season. How can they not know that Kim is that person? Tarzan called her "boss lady." For all the people predicting smack-talking of Kim back at Ponderosa, I have a feeling Tarzan will sing her praises.
  • 0

#283

TDWT Kristen

TDWT Kristen

    Couch Potato

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 2:11 AM

I really don't think Kim has to worry that much about what the men might be saying about her at Ponderosa. She's shown herself to be a good talk and has managed to get people to listen to what she's said even if it's been against their best interest. I think Kim has nothing to worry about where they're concerned and can get most of their votes.

The only man whose vote I'm pretty sure she won't have is Troyzan's if he's still bitter. But the other men she could easily win over. I'll also be absolutely shocked if she gets Kat's vote.
  • 0

#284

BK1978

BK1978

    Fanatic

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 2:32 AM

Can she really be compared to Kathy, as she never even got that chance?


What I am saying is at F5, I think she will be the swing vote between two voting blocs. Like Kathy had to choose between Sean and V or Neleh and Paschal, I think Kim may very well have to choose between Alicia and Christina on one side and Sabrina and Chelsea on the other side.

She doesn't sit there, smirk on her face, gloating over what she just did.


There were a couple of times she has done that. I think the most recent one was the Troy vote.
  • 0

#285

SpeciousLogic

SpeciousLogic

    Fanatic

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 7:20 AM

There were a couple of times she has done that. I think the most recent one was the Troy vote.


Was that at TC? I don't trust any reaction shots from those highly-edited and misleading TCs. It was pointed out somewhere that all of the Kat reaction shots from this past TC were misleading in an attempt to tell a different story from the reality.
  • 0

#286

MeeMaw

MeeMaw

    Fanatic

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 7:57 AM

I posted this in the Ponderosa thread, but it seems appropriate for this thread, given the ongoing discussion about Kim's problems with the jury:

While Probst was tweeting during Wednesday night's episode, someone asked him what one change he would like to see to make Survivor better. His response - that the jury be sequested away from each other and not allowed to talk amongst themselves.
  • 1

#287

neplusultra

neplusultra

    Couch Potato

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 8:00 AM

Ha, that would be a big blow to fans of Ponderosa! Maybe they could show the pre-jury sequester instead (I'd be interested in that as there are often early boots that I wish I could see more of).
  • 0

#288

Funeris Nocturnum

Funeris Nocturnum

    Video Archivist

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 8:47 AM

Based on Tarzan's Ponderosa vids, I don't think the men are really that bitter at Kim. They recognize she's the most powerful player left and want the others to take her out. If she makes it to the end IMO they would most likely hold the other two accountable for their failure to take her out and brand them as coattail riders.
  • 0

#289

Constantinople

Constantinople

    Fanatic

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 9:25 AM

While Probst was tweeting during Wednesday night's episode, someone asked him what one change he would like to see to make Survivor better. His response - that the jury be sequestered away from each other and not allowed to talk amongst themselves.


In that case, it shouldn't be called a jury, because real jurors talk amongst themselves. Granted, they do it after the court case has closed, but since Survivor doesn't give its jurors that option, when else would they talk about it?
  • 0

#290

peachmangosteen

peachmangosteen

    Stalker

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 10:11 AM

I completely agree, Funeris Nocturnum. That's the impression I've been getting all along from the jurors, so far.
  • 0

#291

kikaha

kikaha

    Couch Potato

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 10:19 AM

I agree, Constantinople. I also think enforcement would be sticky.

For those of you concerned about a juror lying about Kim: isn't that what she herself has done this whole season? It's a key part of winning Survivor.
  • 0

#292

SpeciousLogic

SpeciousLogic

    Fanatic

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 10:26 AM

For those of you concerned about a juror lying about Kim: isn't that what she herself has done this whole season? It's a key part of winning Survivor.


Apples and oranges (or apples & rocks, for that matter). Lying within the game to keep yourself from getting voted out or putting yourself in a power position is a completely different matter than a juror who is already outside the game working to sabotage someone who outlasted them.
  • 0

#293

WileyCoyote

WileyCoyote

    Fanatic

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 10:41 AM

I'd definitely compare her to Yul before I'd compare her to Rob. Rob had that nasty need to put others down to make himself look smart. Kim doesn't really do that. She doesn't sit there, smirk on her face, gloating over what she just did. She may point out that another person isn't well-liked, but she doesn't take glee in those statements like Rob did. I'd also say that she and Yul got this thing down on their first go-round. They didn't need multiple failures and restarts to accomplish getting far in the game.

The comparison to Rob wouldn't be to his personality but rather to his strategy and gameplay. Remember, most of robs nastiness was in confession cam-mode. Particularly in his last season his face-to-face mode was as everybody confidant. That's what I mean when I say her game is most like robs. Someone like Yul was more the father figure you find harmless than the person you feel compelled to get to sign off on everything, be it partially out of fear and see as it was with rob, or be it because of Kim's more nebulous charm offensive.

Edited by WileyCoyote, May 11, 2012 @ 11:40 AM.

  • 0

#294

Smagu

Smagu

    Couch Potato

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 11:11 AM

Apples and oranges (or apples & rocks, for that matter). Lying within the game to keep yourself from getting voted out or putting yourself in a power position is a completely different matter than a juror who is already outside the game working to sabotage someone who outlasted them.


Except that jurors aren't outside the game. They can no longer win the game, but they're a vital part of the remaining gameplay, and knowing how to manipulate them is a key factor in winning Survivor. It's not like Kim (or the remaining players) don't know how the jury/Ponderosa works--they're well aware that everyone they send to Ponderosa will have a chance to talk to and compare notes with the other jurors. Good players take this into account, bad ones don't. Saying that they're somehow outside the game is totally misunderstanding the dynamics of the jury system as currently presented in Survivor.

It's possible that there's Kim bitterness on the jury and that it's getting worse because they're communicating with each other. It's also possible that there's respect for Kim's gameplay, and it's making her look better. Knowing who to vote out, and HOW to vote them out, is a major part of the game, and you can be negatively or positively impacted by your decisions on who to send to Ponderosa.

I'd certainly be interested to see a season where the jury is totally sequestered, but I don't view the current format as somehow invalid or weaker. I hated the Redemption Island twist/idea, but as long as it was a part of the game and players could account for it, then it was valid.
  • 0

#295

fashionista79

fashionista79

    Stalker

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 11:20 AM

While Probst was tweeting during Wednesday night's episode, someone asked him what one change he would like to see to make Survivor better. His response - that the jury be sequested away from each other and not allowed to talk amongst themselves.

Well, he and Burnett always have the option to do exactly that in upcoming seasons. But Probst's tweet were interesting in that he's always talking about one of the best aspects of Survivor being that a jury of the player's peers has to make the decision on who to award $1M. So, it's a great part of Survivor, but apparently the jurors shouldn't speak/interact with each other until they're sitting at final tribal council.

Edited by fashionista79, May 11, 2012 @ 11:23 AM.

  • 0

#296

micki15

micki15

    Couch Potato

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 8:31 PM

In that case, it shouldn't be called a jury, because real jurors talk amongst themselves.


Having served on 5 real jurys myself I can tell you that before official deliberations, jurors are NOT allowed to discuss the case. They can talk about their kids, their pets, their jobs etc...but not the case at hand.

Edited by micki15, May 11, 2012 @ 8:33 PM.

  • 0

#297

FrogsRule

FrogsRule

    Fanatic

Posted May 12, 2012 @ 1:49 AM

Being a TAR fan, I have a non-Survivor reason I really want to see Kim in F3: If she makes it to F3, she displaces Vanessa as the person from San Antonio, Texas who has made it furthest in a reality TV competition. Seriously.
  • 0

#298

Viajero

Viajero

    Couch Potato

Posted May 12, 2012 @ 3:26 AM

Kim would also be the second impressively competent woman to win a million this season. Has there been a previous occasion in which both TAR and Survivor were dominated to such an extent by a woman?
  • 0

#299

Constantinople

Constantinople

    Fanatic

Posted May 12, 2012 @ 12:18 PM

In that case, it shouldn't be called a jury, because real jurors talk amongst themselves.


Having served on 5 real jurys myself I can tell you that before official deliberations, jurors are NOT allowed to discuss the case. They can talk about their kids, their pets, their jobs etc...but not the case at hand.


Which is why my next sentence was

Granted, they do it after the court case has closed, but since Survivor doesn't give its jurors that option, when else would they talk about it?


  • 0

#300

Jyn

Jyn

    Couch Potato

Posted May 12, 2012 @ 2:23 PM

I think for Kim, the key to winning will be how she handles Kat and Troyzan's questions, in particular. I think she's screwed if she can't smooth things over with either or both of them.

Edited by Jyn, May 12, 2012 @ 9:30 PM.

  • 0