jury management is a huge part of the game... if you can't convince them to vote for you, then you don't deserve to win. every winner deserved their victories.
Absolutely agree with that thinking. Hopefully I didn't make it sound like I think winners weren't deserving! Mainly just wanted to see why we've lose close jury votes over the years
it used to be, when juries would vote based on emotion , but now some jurors have t-shirts saying woman power or they all vote the same person after talking , its totally flawed
@mississippitornado6842 true, but whether we like it or not, emotion is also part of the game. that's why it's very tricky to win this game. like what Erik said, perception is reality. the finalists have to defend their games to the best of their abilities, and sink someone else's if they get the chance. it all the more makes Final Tribal Council very exciting.
@@thedarkbulanyour saying a “goat” could win the game against a high competitor who played the game to the highest degree it could be played just because they had a better ability to “destory” the other persons game in front of the jury at the end? If that’s the case why are we even discussing the survivor elements of the game, the individual immunity, the idols, the strategy, the alliances, the premerge and instead just talk about the jury and 3 people sitting at the end and who “we” want to win the game.
Aren’t the confessionals when voting for a winner usually have a juror who is STUMPED deciding if they should vote for someone they want to vote for or who DESERVES it?
Fully agreed, or at the very least let every juror be seen in the new format. It feels like every season there's a few dominating personalities and a few people we hear nothing from and it makes me sad...
Honestly, I don't think they need to change anything about the juries. Whilst I wouldn't have voted for the winner in a lot of survivor seasons, I can't imagine a better system. The only time I've not liked a jury was when they included players who were voted out pre-merge (e.g. Heroes vs Villains) because that gives the players who were on their initial tribe a huge advantage since the other tribe haven't had the chance to bond with them, and therefore are much less likely to win the jury votes.
A great point that I sometimes forget they did. How was Ozzy meant to get some of the vote when he'd never met Jenny for example? I think juries are about as good as we can make them, I can poke holes in anything on Survivor if I think about it hard enough, that's the nature of any game where the win conditions aren't firmly set in stone.
@ that’s a great point, although with cook islands production messed up having 3 pre-merge jury members! Although that’s one of the reasons I watch this channel, I’ve not got the time or energy for such nitpicking so I love seeing you poke holes in the game we all love so much. I’ve just realised that Ozzy did actually get Jenny’s vote which makes 0 sense, but having Brad in the jury in 12th place is crazy given that the earliest juror prior to Cook Islands came 9th… how odd.
The thing about Survivor is that the rules are never the same twice. What one may respect, another may not. The game is all about determining what your Jury respects and catering to that. One person’s flashy showmanship may be another’s blatant pandering cringe-fest.
Exactly, Survivor is a game where the win condition is completely random at the start of every season. Even if we applied a "fix" to juries, it likely wouldn't change the impossible task of figuring out what a jury actually wants.
@@HenryHickmanSurvivorwhy they need to recruit more this new era. Superfans are homogenizing the game. Balance it out with recruit so we can have our Janes and Keiths.
Production could at least force them to pretend the jurors haven't talked out every detail. Because it's not good television z in my opinion, for them to show up at final tribal with secret agendas cooked up together. Maybe record jurors 24/7 like Big Brother so people who are curious can watch what they talked about afterwards. I don't know.
@@williamshelton4318 production making contestants pretend more is the absolute LAST thing i wanna see. i can agree that live feeds would take ALL my money. i would live on the feeds. not healthy? i dont care!!
I would like to see a season where they try to isolate the juries. Like come on that's not even that bad, in 47 for instance Sierra (first juror) was voted out on day 15. There's only 11 days left in the game, it might be boring for her to be isolated for 11 days but she would definitely survive that. It doesn't have to be a permanent thing, we can just try it once.
Yeah good point, 11 days in comfortable isolation can't be too bad considering what they put Julie through on Kaoh Rong for example. I am curious what would happen, and worst case scenario they say "Didn't work, ah well" like that weird Game Changers rock draw rule
Personally I think the Jury is as good as it reasonably can get. Maybe sequester them but that brings it's own problems. Though I do miss people being able to say whatever they want to the finalists.
Yeah, as good as it can reasonable get describes a lot of things in Survivor (and that's not a dig, that's just the reality of making a game show, nothing will ever be perfect). I do wish people would just air dirty laundry at final tribal way more. Speeches were so good.
Yeah, I agree with that (if we're trying to fix it). I didn't realise until a few commenters pointed out but apparently talking about the game while at Ponderosa used to be banned, I do wonder why they changed it...
Probably a hot take but I wish jurors aren’t questioned so much (like after the finale airs) on their rationale for voting for a finalist. That can create peer pressure to vote for the “best” or most popular player, even if that juror prefer to vote based on their own criteria. If Maria want to vote for Kenzie, she has every right to. She doesn’t need to come up with a reason that fans can accept
Yeah I fully agree, that's the sad nature of reality TV sometimes. Had Maria known how much flack she'd get, she very well may have changed her vote, which is never fun to consider. We are an intensely passionate group of fans (although hopefully it's clear I do not encourage harassing Survivor contestants...)
Horrible take imo I’m sorry but if someone can’t stand up to the pressure and explains why someone fully deserved their vote for a million dollars than maybe that person they voted for didn’t deserve it
@@lincolnortiz2083 why is it anyone’s business in first place? Do you want people asking why you voted the way you did in your last election? You can vote for whoever you want, it’s not up to million of strangers to judge whether your reason is a good one. If people are forced to have a “good reason” then why even have a jury of human beings. Why not just impute the finalists games and moves into a machine algorithm and have AI decide the most deserving winner
@@lincolnortiz2083 also you’re making the assumption that you have to vote for “whoever deserve it”. In Palau Colby voted for Katie just to spite Tom and not give Tom a perfect win. Reed did something similar in San Juan Del Sur. Even in new era some jurors vote for their best friend, like Danny voting for DeShawn and James voting for Cassidy. You want those jurors to get shit from the audience because they didn’t vote using criteria you approve of?
Really appreciate these discussions, this is prime Survivor content and I love coming onto this app and seeing your new video pop up. I think one of the most important aspects of a jury is that they know that the winner of their season becomes the face of it, jurors have to not only respect and be okay with writing your name down but they have to sign that you are the person that people will discuss and associate their season with. If a person plays a game that most broadly appeals to the jury, that’s when homogenisation of votes begin. I’m curious if your take on “jurors who dislike each other lead to split FTC votes” is accurate, that could be interesting to analyze. Cagayan’s cast weren’t kumbaya yet it was a near unanimous vote for Tony, perhaps because he was someone everyone could like or respect as a player
Thanks, I love posting the videos! Good point that the winner is the face of the season, my go-to party trick is naming every winner of Survivor because some people know that a bit, instead of say naming every fallen angel. The dislike theory is mainly because of 45 and especially 46 (and a little bit of Winners at War), I'd need to do more research to see if it's actually true or not.
The jury, being the way it is now, is kinda a result of how long the show's been on. Everyone who applies now are fans and they know what their looking for when it comes to a winner if they make it to the jury
Yeah that's the case for many things on Survivor. The longer it goes, the more "meta" ideas come in, which usually are fun, but there will always be unintended consequences.
I like that the jury members aren’t sequestered. I just wish they added jury segments to the episodes (like the ponderosa videos they use to have in the dvd’s) so the viewers can have context as to why the jurors voted the way they did, and to also see the drama unfold at the jury house lol. I think Big Brother does something similar to this…
Ooo I like that idea. I'm not sure how it would fit or where, maybe before tribal? Maybe like a bit of Boston Rob and Sandra in the box in Island of the Idols kind of deal where we can hear a bit more about what they're thinking?
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor I would suggest to have the beginning of each post-merge episode open with the jury segment, showing the person that was just voted off the previous episode arriving to the jury house. Show what the info they relay to the others and through this we’d definitely get a better understanding where the jurors heads are at. We’d also see the reception one gets when they arrive at ponderosa. Give us the drama! There’s 90 minute episodes now, they can totally fit it in.
I think the biggest factors for why juries have voted more unanimously are because of the larger juries/merges starting earlier and the focus on idols and other advangages turning Tribal Council into theater. It used to be that that 4 of the final 6 could determine the winner based on how they felt about how they were voted out. Now the finales start at 6, and the majority of the jury has been out of the game longer than not, basing their vote off how contestants played Tribal Council instead of how they played the rest of the game--which all the idols, advantages, and "THAT'S how you play Survivor!" Big Movez repetition reinforces.
That's another really good point. It is the smaller juries that result in closer votes (Ghost Island elephant in the room notwithstanding). I think this plays a bit part in it, because how much does Jenny from the Cook Islands pre-merge know about Ozzy, who she was never even on a tribe with.
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor Exactly! The larger merges mean most times the jury has met all the players, but a lot of times they know their gameplay more from Tribal than the rest of the game.
They need to go back to 7 people juries. Too many of these players treat “making the jury” as an accomplishment on its own, and in these huge juries the first jurors may have little personal contact to some of the finalists.
I mean we got a jury of *8* right now, but yeah having the jury start at final 11 usually means the early ones don’t know anything about the game that was actually played
I think jurors should be sequestered. Not because I care whether they influence eachother. I just find it annoying that they hash things out behind closed doors. It's a huge part of the game we don't get to see. I never much cared for final tribal questions x but at least in the old days the jurors seemed to carry drama over from the game instead of having their agendas worked out with additional information after they're out of the game.
I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of a "juror cage match" type scenario, where they hash things out for us to see. Winners at War with actual Edge of Extinction content would be wild to see
I would change the fire making to ALL 3 losers of the final tribal make fire. This way the jury isn’t swayed by recency bias by seeing a challenge right in front of them. (Or have it done away from the jury so they aren’t influenced. They don’t watch the Top 4 challenge why should they see fire?) The winner gets immunity and the other 3 have to make fire and the last person to get their flag up is eliminated. I’m sorta over the “will they:won’t they” of giving up immunity. You won it, it should be an honor. You shouldn’t have to then re-prove to a jury you deserve top 3. Also removes the “who will make fire” faux drama. I see this as the biggest point of forced drama on the show.
Another great idea! I'm curious how it would play out. It's a bit less dramatic whenever Jeff goes "X wins the challenge but keep going because we're playing for second". I also wonder if the meta would still be give up the necklace and try, but I can see how it'd be discouraged. This is a really interesting proposal.
You had me in the first half no gonna lie. But yes I agree that no matter what changes, the players themselves will course correct the game and that the lopsided votes in the new era were just something that occasionally happens.
Yeah it's one of those things where the problem may exist, but any attempt to fix it is just going to get sidestepped by savvy players. It's a part of what I love about Survivor come to think about it, seeing new and creative ways to break the game that production meticulously crafts!
My best attempt to fix it would be to let the jurors hash out their questions and vote the next day after thinking through the answers and sleeping on it. Rarely does someone switch their vote at the last minute after they hear their case.
Here's a change to the game to cosider: Immunity Override. If the vote for a player who has played an idol is unanimous (besides that player's vote), their idol is nullified. If 2 idols are played on the same player, that player has inormal mmunity.
What I've noticed is that most finales kind of just have a third person who doesn't really need to be there, cause at the end of the day, most winners win almost unanimously with maybe like 1 or 2 votes going to someone else.
Don’t let them come to final tribal drunk. Dawn has spoken about this in interviews. They may have fixed this in recent years, but there was definitely something up with Sea Bass in final tribal at Ghost Island…
Oh man that's a whole other thing. I wonder how many jurors were completely sloshed, and how many finalists too. Off the top of my head, jurors include Sea Bass, Erik in Samoa, and maybe Fairplay. Finalists include Sophie, who took a drink every time a jury member was mean to her, queen behaviour.
The past two votes have been pretty close. I feel like it’s partially just a pendulum - the juries take the most recent seasons they’ve seen into account
Yeah that's a good point, the influence of previous seasons on players perception of the game. Lots of idols played this season, partially because they got to see Survivor 46...we might be cooking here...
Yea, Russel is correct that it isn't perfect, but he is the math student that did the wrong formula and accidentally got the right number. But its as good as it can logistically get. The only way to 'fix' it is giving ponderosa live feeds from the cameras with TIVO capabilities in case multiple things happen at once, and force all the jurors to watch it for the 16+ hours a day. Just not feasible. It would be cool to bring back the redemption island stands and let the jurors watch the challenges, so they can get some tidbits of info directly from the game. Take 46, if the jury saw the Applebee's drama, how would that change the game? The dynamics of how the contestants think the jury perceive that drama is different than how the jury would perceive hearing about it a day later from someone voted off. Even without an extreme scenario, just seeing the choices someone makes when deciding reward-mates, would be better in person. Say Liz was voted off, she would go up and down on how Q wanted to starve her, but the jury would see him trying to save his game. There might be other tweaks like that, which could help.
I'm torn on the "live feed" idea (although I know it was tongue in cheek) because I love watching someone like Chris D just straight up lie to the jury and have them believe it. I think having the jury present more often it's a terrible idea, could be a fun experiment, no clue how I'd run it though!
Jury management has been one of the biggest gameplay components since literally the first season. Players have just gotten more deliberate about how they manage their juries. They're playing 3D chess compared to the original seasons.
Yeah there are problems, but that's life. It's almost like coding in a way...every time you think you've fixed it, people come along and break it in a whole new way and you need to start all over again!
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor : My main belief right now is, is there any way to change anything in Survivor that would have enabled Jesse to win 43 or Cirie to win either Panama or Micronesia without causing JT to lose Tocantins? I can't think of a change that would give us that perfect timeline.
Maybe a hot take but potentially a method to fixing this would be better casting? If the players who were put on the show weren’t all big superfans, then potentially the players who make it onto the jury wouldn’t all have a big idea of who had the objectively best approach to playing the game, and votes would be more split
It's a tricky balance, sometimes recruiting gets you Earl, sometimes it gets you the rest of the Fiji cast (that cast was famously all recruits except Garry). But I think there is a balance to be found, and fun to be had in exploring someone who doesn't super know Survivor well in a cast!
Hey Henry. It's several past one over here, and I just want to say the Jury is even more crucial on French Survivor Koh Lanta as they don't even attend tribal councils. So ALL of the information comes from the person that was sent home.
I just subscribed because I like these survivor takes…your geography is a bit rusty though - I’m from Melbourne and we’re further away from the US than NZ (unless of course you include maps which simply don’t have NZ on them)
Alright you've got me there! 10,914km to California from where I am, 12,824km for you. This feels like somehow revenge for earlier in the year when I went to a conference in Germany and big timed the Aussies by pointing out I'd traveled further...
If you wanted to prevent group think, you would need to allow players to be honest. Which means no shot in the darks, or immunity idols. No safety besides your allies that could prevent you from being voted out. But, I don't think any of this is a problem. Yes as a viewer it's pretty anticlimactic, that would not improve much if production tried to change things. And as we saw with the last season the higher the stakes and more entertaining the show is, the more it endangers the players in real life against the small portion of the public that is crazy. Anyways, the jury is a game within the game. Staying in the game involves a lot of social play to stay in, winning the jury involves a lot of social play. You need to get close allies voted out to vouch for you, and you need to correctly predict the sentiment of the discussion around you while working to improve your image at tribal. Plus maybe only try to vote out players you understand so you can play to how they will vote.
Yeah that's a really good point about player honesty. I do think a "back to basics" season would likely be boring, but I know it's been clamored for before. I think the problems I point out are less so real problems, and more just a reality of the game we need to accept and talk about sometimes for fun.
Oh man that's a massive point that I didn't even consider. I wonder if that links into Kass' example of "when a woman plays like this she's called a bitch" or the whole "camp mom" archetype?
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor : Holy, this also explains Cassidy from 43's loss. Everyone on the jury would rather lose to Gabler than lose to the girl who betrayed them.
That's very true, like on redemption island the jury didn't want the story of their season to be "boston rob keeps their butts and easily wins" but they REALLY didn't want to say they lost to crazy Phillip or follower Natalie
I think the entire perception of Survivor/Big Brother in regards to the jury segment is contorted. The game is “outplay/outwit/outlast”, however we’ve forgotten how important perception really is to the game, not the style or flashiness of the game played. I know this winner is kinda shafted in discussion, but Tommy Sheehan’s point of view in Island of the Idols rings true. As we saw him portray his social game is more worthy than Dean’s flashy game. And he of course looks better sitting next to Norah who was a goat strategically brought to the end to look better next to essentially. But is it really the game people are weighing or how well you look next to the people sitting next to? What’s Boston Rob’s win in Redemption Island have in common with a win like Natalie Anderson’s or Sara Lacina’s or any other “flashy” win? Those winners STILL sat next to unliked people. Even Natalie White’s when shows you - you don’t have to have played a dominant or strategic or even great social game (for the most part) - you just have be more liked. And for that - I’d say the juries biggest flaw isn’t putting the emphasis on the strategic and true gameplay that counts. And that’s the social game. I don’t blame new players for being blinded by bigmoveitis or expecting some winner to have some sort of dominant play in the game. The most recent winner Rachel won despite her being left out of votes in a historic fashion - rivaling the likes of Fabio. The jury looked at Sam’s game as inferior because while he had some sort of social play and strategic movies, and voted correctly more than Rachel - Rachel played an idol successfully, she had an advantage played on her, etc etc. And while that provides good drama moments for seasons, that to me isn’t enough to win a game. If we are made to believe that maneuverability and maintaining power are the key to winning Survivor, that’s only a half truth. Yet that half truth is what juries decide to vote on in modern survivor. How do you solve the issue? Well display the show in a more human way - show more events at camp and the scheming of votes - as THOSE moments really decide the trajectory more often than some twist or hidden idol does. Those things change the game - but don’t necessarily change the perception of the jury other than it’s a tick marker on moves to get to the end. Perhaps it’s the story of how you got to the end is being overlooked. Imagine a scenario when players like Mike Holloway lost their season because they saw that he had to win immunities to get to the end - you scrutinize the social play. I hate wins like that, even though it’s good tv lol. Hence your argument that the juries shouldn’t be sequestered but “remain in the game” to witness the game. I think the risk would be that the players can try to manipulate the juries in question which I guess is why they do what they do now. But I do say - maybe juries shouldn’t see the tribal councils at all. And be shocked by each individual person coming in like Big Brother does with what they perceive and hear. Survivor juries get more narrative insight than Big Brother juries and I think that inherently sways opinions because they see the moves happen. Maybe if that was tweaked who knows. But anyways, great video!
I'm still figuring out the details of this, but what if the jury were allowed back on the island on the last day? The jury would get a set amount of time to interact with the finalists, ask them questions, and make their final decision. The finalists then get this time to also do jury management. The jury then leave the island and go into isolation until the final tribal. This would literally a few hours, but it would also mean they get time to think. The final tribal then is run as normal, questions are still asked, and the finalists still need to respond and defend themselves.
That sounds like a lot of fun. I'd like it as an experiment, it can't be worse than some other experiments they've run! Depending on how it goes we can either keep it or can it, experiments are fun!
Fun idea, having them watch Liz have a meltdown would probably be very funny, or having them watch Maria make them play rock paper scissors may make them reconsider who they're rooting for!
When I saw Andy on the jury, after I finished crying about him being voted out, I gasped. Dude cleans up well! Considering next week is likely a 47 review we might get a few more Andy thumbnails...
1. They cast similar thinking players. Funny enough, the cast is NOT that diverse anymore. You have an oddball here and there, and some different personalities. But that is it. In this very first season you get Richard and Rudy forming an alliance, while being completely different type of people. 2. Even with some twists here and there, the path is predictable. Probably they should get rid of the teams and mix each group of players after each elimination. Thus, people get to meet and spend time with every one of the potential finalists. This would create a totally new dynamic around alliances, gameplay and so on. 3. Jurors should be not allowed to discuss about players in the game or should be sequestered. There are just a few days left before the ending, so it is not a big sacrifice. 4. Jurors should be able to witness the final challenge. 5. The final challenge should not be firemaking. The game has different types of challenges. It would be nice to see a real test of "the best out of 3 or 5 types of challenges" (one per each: endurance, coordination, equilibrium, puzzle, firemaking). This would really create a new dynamic for the final immunity, as that person would really need to meditate if risking it or not, as a final test like that would bring a lot of attention. Also, they are playing for a 1 million $$$. The final challenges should be climatic. This also makes for great television. 6. Bring back 39 days. You can see by the ratings, Survivor is losing more and more viewership over the years. But they seem to be stubborn about adjusting stuff.
100% agree with that, I just think the way the jury exists now has some likely unintended consequences, not through any fault of anyone, turns out making a game of human emotion results in a mess
I've no clue to be honest, I haven't checked early season juries. But it would be interesting if they used to not be allowed to talk about the game, and therefore we had closer jury votes, and that relaxing leading to more group-think.
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor yeah I thought I heard that they stopped around maybe Vanuatu according to Chris Daugherty which would potentially fit with there being more really close votes early on
At the very least having them not allowed to talk about the game would be nice! No clue how they'd make it work practically speaking but they've apparently done it before
I like your point about more negative people in the jury leading to a closer vote because the jury is less likely to all get on the same page. The data about how many close votes we’ve had was neat and the jokes were good! But ultimately I don’t have a problem with the jury. Jurors can still vote for whoever they want to for whatever reason they decide whether we agree with it or not. And yes we’ve had documented cases of people voting for not their preferred winner due to spite against a different finalist or metagaming the jury vote, but that’s still ultimately their decision to make. I would be curious if the jury had to do a ranked choice vote at the end though how that might go haha.
I think ranked choice jury voting might lead to some very funny outcomes. Specifically I wonder if Michele would be a runner up at Winners at War, or maybe China would have a different FTC outcome, there are some fun ideas! Also thanks very much for the kind comment!
I mean u rlly did not make an actual case for the issues with jury’s, drew from 45 and robs recent talk on rhap covers the issues a lot better, obviously if these people were simply biased to chose the “best game” there would be very little issues with the current system. The game of survivor is alr about perception and to have these convos at ponderosa similarly will influence these peoples opinions about the players regardless of what really happened. Do you really believe that is a better way to paint the full picture? I would MUCH rather have someone make the supposed “wrong” vote because they were misted by a player rather then someone who was already voted out. I would say 46 shows off exactly how these talks can actually lead to a worse perception of reality, with Maria’s ego clearly being in the way to correctly explain the game Charlie played. Also, you had Tiffany as someone clearly fighting for Kenzie in what I would consider a selfish act, in my opinion this had far more to do with the way Tiffany acts on any given jury rather then Kenzie’s imprint on Tiffany specifically. To be honest, there are countless things done currently on survivor that can easily come across as dystopic, something that immediately comes to mind is that players can’t clean the mud off themselves in between challenge and the reward, which is pretty torturous imo. I think it’s very clear that ponderosa itself is turning into its own game, which has always been somewhat the case but from what I’ve seen looking at the recent outcomes/perceptions of new era players it’s clear this is becoming more n more the case.
Survivor Juries are definitely fickle in what they respect at a given time, I gotta say if I was juror in the modern era, I truly do not know if I would hold going into firemaking against the finalists Like I guess you can respect the social skills to not be put in firemaking, but also if it’s a close race between 2 people that make FTC, it’s hard not to want a big play/moment from the player you’re voting to represent your season Imagine the world where Clay wins Thailand, now there’s not even the Patrick Bateman sociopathic storyline to follow
People often think that Brian was locked into winning Thailand because "he knew he had those 4 votes locked down" but I've never been convinced that's true. Clay winning would have been...a timeline that's for sure!
Now THIS is a hot take! I would love to hear more about it. I'm trying to think of any winners who've been really poor with the jury, but their game spoke for itself. Tony in Cagayan maybe? Sophie in South Pacific? Maybe the most hated Survivor winners is an interesting thing to explore...
It would probably end terribly, but I'd love a season where the jury stays at the camp but with no power and they are given food and drinks that they aren't allowed to share. They could even do it house of villians style where the jury is only in the camp for the last night.
I've not seen House of Villains but that could be fun. I wonder if they'd taunt the castaways with food. You'd probably get a lot more drama, could be fun!
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor on the most recent episode, the jury came in during their equivalent of an immunity challenge where the goal was to keep your hand on a statue made of butter the longest and they just taunted them and started grilling burgers. Survivor takes itself to seriously to do exactly that, but I'd love to see it.
Russel says that the people on the jury shouldn't be allowed to talk to each other and I agree with that. They seperate the contestants before the game starts. They should seperate them after they get voted out.
How would that work? Do as Koh-Lanta who brings the jury to a villa and never let them see the following councils? (Which becomes a problem because it only rewards the lack of gameplay so you don't piss off a juror)
It's a tricky one because I see where he's coming from, but the human in me is like "man just let them be friends". Maybe production could make sure they don't talk about the game? But then as pointed out that rewards not pissing off individuals. It's a hard problem.
Do you think you’ll be jumping up and down and cracking jokes, when you’ve been starving and sleep deprived for weeks? Not everyone can be a Tony or Boston Rob
I like seeing how the fanbase is when they can't argue a woman deserves to lose a jury vote to a man so they have to find other reasons that she's not a good winner cause every time a woman beats a man in a jury vote they gotta throw some sort of fit. This also happened in 45 too
Russell losing was an absolute robbery. Yes he’s a HUGE A-HOLE but it was 4-8 and ALL 4 of his tribe members made final 4 INSANE. In sports we call this WAR, as in replace Russell with anyone else that NEVER happens in fact, likely none make final 4. Michelle beating Aubrey is a distance 2nd. But the rest of the jury’s decisions for the most part made sense.
All 4 of Natalie’s tribe members made the final 4 too. If she hadn’t orchestrated the Erik vote, they never pick up the momentum. And honestly, just don’t be an a-hole. That’s good advice in any game.
the jury is never wrong. no matter what you tell yourself. every single winner is deserving. youre trying to 'meta-fy' something and trying to switch peoples opinions that have been watching this show for 20 YEARS. as a huge survivor fan ill call you out on every single one of your videos if youre not honest
i will challenge you on everything. you dont care about this show you just care about your shit views. youre takes are wrong, youre wrong, you dont know anything about this show apparently and obviously, and yet youre trying to garner a following from its random rise in popularity
jury management is a huge part of the game... if you can't convince them to vote for you, then you don't deserve to win. every winner deserved their victories.
Absolutely agree with that thinking. Hopefully I didn't make it sound like I think winners weren't deserving! Mainly just wanted to see why we've lose close jury votes over the years
it used to be, when juries would vote based on emotion , but now some jurors have t-shirts saying woman power or they all vote the same person after talking , its totally flawed
@mississippitornado6842 true, but whether we like it or not, emotion is also part of the game. that's why it's very tricky to win this game. like what Erik said, perception is reality. the finalists have to defend their games to the best of their abilities, and sink someone else's if they get the chance. it all the more makes Final Tribal Council very exciting.
@@thedarkbulanyour saying a “goat” could win the game against a high competitor who played the game to the highest degree it could be played just because they had a better ability to “destory” the other persons game in front of the jury at the end? If that’s the case why are we even discussing the survivor elements of the game, the individual immunity, the idols, the strategy, the alliances, the premerge and instead just talk about the jury and 3 people sitting at the end and who “we” want to win the game.
Aren’t the confessionals when voting for a winner usually have a juror who is STUMPED deciding if they should vote for someone they want to vote for or who DESERVES it?
Bring back individual juror questions
Fully agreed, or at the very least let every juror be seen in the new format. It feels like every season there's a few dominating personalities and a few people we hear nothing from and it makes me sad...
I wish juries would vote for who they wanted to vote for, instead of who the group is going for.
Another banger, Henry! Keep up the amazing work! The cross section of humor and data is *chef’s kiss*.
Honestly, I don't think they need to change anything about the juries. Whilst I wouldn't have voted for the winner in a lot of survivor seasons, I can't imagine a better system. The only time I've not liked a jury was when they included players who were voted out pre-merge (e.g. Heroes vs Villains) because that gives the players who were on their initial tribe a huge advantage since the other tribe haven't had the chance to bond with them, and therefore are much less likely to win the jury votes.
A great point that I sometimes forget they did. How was Ozzy meant to get some of the vote when he'd never met Jenny for example?
I think juries are about as good as we can make them, I can poke holes in anything on Survivor if I think about it hard enough, that's the nature of any game where the win conditions aren't firmly set in stone.
@ that’s a great point, although with cook islands production messed up having 3 pre-merge jury members! Although that’s one of the reasons I watch this channel, I’ve not got the time or energy for such nitpicking so I love seeing you poke holes in the game we all love so much. I’ve just realised that Ozzy did actually get Jenny’s vote which makes 0 sense, but having Brad in the jury in 12th place is crazy given that the earliest juror prior to Cook Islands came 9th… how odd.
The thing about Survivor is that the rules are never the same twice. What one may respect, another may not. The game is all about determining what your Jury respects and catering to that. One person’s flashy showmanship may be another’s blatant pandering cringe-fest.
Exactly, Survivor is a game where the win condition is completely random at the start of every season. Even if we applied a "fix" to juries, it likely wouldn't change the impossible task of figuring out what a jury actually wants.
@@HenryHickmanSurvivorwhy they need to recruit more this new era. Superfans are homogenizing the game. Balance it out with recruit so we can have our Janes and Keiths.
They used to not be allowed talk about the game or who they would vote for in pondorsa but now they don’t shut down those conversations anymore
Production could at least force them to pretend the jurors haven't talked out every detail. Because it's not good television z in my opinion, for them to show up at final tribal with secret agendas cooked up together.
Maybe record jurors 24/7 like Big Brother so people who are curious can watch what they talked about afterwards. I don't know.
I did not know that! You learn something new every day, thank you
@@williamshelton4318 production making contestants pretend more is the absolute LAST thing i wanna see. i can agree that live feeds would take ALL my money. i would live on the feeds. not healthy? i dont care!!
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor what didnt you know?
No you are right with actual juries. We came to a 6-6 tie on a car theft case, the judge made them go to fire making to see who got the wreck.
I wish I could add something witty and funny here, but sometimes a joke is just an absolute banger, well done
I would like to see a season where they try to isolate the juries. Like come on that's not even that bad, in 47 for instance Sierra (first juror) was voted out on day 15. There's only 11 days left in the game, it might be boring for her to be isolated for 11 days but she would definitely survive that. It doesn't have to be a permanent thing, we can just try it once.
Yeah good point, 11 days in comfortable isolation can't be too bad considering what they put Julie through on Kaoh Rong for example. I am curious what would happen, and worst case scenario they say "Didn't work, ah well" like that weird Game Changers rock draw rule
Personally I think the Jury is as good as it reasonably can get. Maybe sequester them but that brings it's own problems.
Though I do miss people being able to say whatever they want to the finalists.
Yeah, as good as it can reasonable get describes a lot of things in Survivor (and that's not a dig, that's just the reality of making a game show, nothing will ever be perfect).
I do wish people would just air dirty laundry at final tribal way more. Speeches were so good.
The problems with the jury is Ponderosa... you have to separate jury members outside of tribal council so that they can't discuss things off camera
Yeah, I agree with that (if we're trying to fix it). I didn't realise until a few commenters pointed out but apparently talking about the game while at Ponderosa used to be banned, I do wonder why they changed it...
Probably a hot take but I wish jurors aren’t questioned so much (like after the finale airs) on their rationale for voting for a finalist. That can create peer pressure to vote for the “best” or most popular player, even if that juror prefer to vote based on their own criteria. If Maria want to vote for Kenzie, she has every right to. She doesn’t need to come up with a reason that fans can accept
Yeah I fully agree, that's the sad nature of reality TV sometimes. Had Maria known how much flack she'd get, she very well may have changed her vote, which is never fun to consider. We are an intensely passionate group of fans (although hopefully it's clear I do not encourage harassing Survivor contestants...)
Horrible take imo I’m sorry but if someone can’t stand up to the pressure and explains why someone fully deserved their vote for a million dollars than maybe that person they voted for didn’t deserve it
@@lincolnortiz2083 why is it anyone’s business in first place? Do you want people asking why you voted the way you did in your last election? You can vote for whoever you want, it’s not up to million of strangers to judge whether your reason is a good one. If people are forced to have a “good reason” then why even have a jury of human beings. Why not just impute the finalists games and moves into a machine algorithm and have AI decide the most deserving winner
@@lincolnortiz2083 also you’re making the assumption that you have to vote for “whoever deserve it”. In Palau Colby voted for Katie just to spite Tom and not give Tom a perfect win. Reed did something similar in San Juan Del Sur. Even in new era some jurors vote for their best friend, like Danny voting for DeShawn and James voting for Cassidy. You want those jurors to get shit from the audience because they didn’t vote using criteria you approve of?
@@freddytang2128this is a TV show made for entertainment, not an actual election
the jury is too feckless
Feckless??
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor Freckles
Really appreciate these discussions, this is prime Survivor content and I love coming onto this app and seeing your new video pop up.
I think one of the most important aspects of a jury is that they know that the winner of their season becomes the face of it, jurors have to not only respect and be okay with writing your name down but they have to sign that you are the person that people will discuss and associate their season with. If a person plays a game that most broadly appeals to the jury, that’s when homogenisation of votes begin.
I’m curious if your take on “jurors who dislike each other lead to split FTC votes” is accurate, that could be interesting to analyze. Cagayan’s cast weren’t kumbaya yet it was a near unanimous vote for Tony, perhaps because he was someone everyone could like or respect as a player
Thanks, I love posting the videos! Good point that the winner is the face of the season, my go-to party trick is naming every winner of Survivor because some people know that a bit, instead of say naming every fallen angel.
The dislike theory is mainly because of 45 and especially 46 (and a little bit of Winners at War), I'd need to do more research to see if it's actually true or not.
Thank you for the content henryhickman, my family stays well fed for another week 🙏🙏
I strive to continue to feed your family!
The jury, being the way it is now, is kinda a result of how long the show's been on. Everyone who applies now are fans and they know what their looking for when it comes to a winner if they make it to the jury
Yeah that's the case for many things on Survivor. The longer it goes, the more "meta" ideas come in, which usually are fun, but there will always be unintended consequences.
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor againg, you just started watcing survivor earlier this year, why do you talk like you know the show?
I like that the jury members aren’t sequestered.
I just wish they added jury segments to the episodes (like the ponderosa videos they use to have in the dvd’s) so the viewers can have context as to why the jurors voted the way they did, and to also see the drama unfold at the jury house lol. I think Big Brother does something similar to this…
Ooo I like that idea. I'm not sure how it would fit or where, maybe before tribal? Maybe like a bit of Boston Rob and Sandra in the box in Island of the Idols kind of deal where we can hear a bit more about what they're thinking?
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor I would suggest to have the beginning of each post-merge episode open with the jury segment, showing the person that was just voted off the previous episode arriving to the jury house.
Show what the info they relay to the others and through this we’d definitely get a better understanding where the jurors heads are at. We’d also see the reception one gets when they arrive at ponderosa. Give us the drama! There’s 90 minute episodes now, they can totally fit it in.
I think the biggest factors for why juries have voted more unanimously are because of the larger juries/merges starting earlier and the focus on idols and other advangages turning Tribal Council into theater. It used to be that that 4 of the final 6 could determine the winner based on how they felt about how they were voted out. Now the finales start at 6, and the majority of the jury has been out of the game longer than not, basing their vote off how contestants played Tribal Council instead of how they played the rest of the game--which all the idols, advantages, and "THAT'S how you play Survivor!" Big Movez repetition reinforces.
That's another really good point. It is the smaller juries that result in closer votes (Ghost Island elephant in the room notwithstanding). I think this plays a bit part in it, because how much does Jenny from the Cook Islands pre-merge know about Ozzy, who she was never even on a tribe with.
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor Exactly! The larger merges mean most times the jury has met all the players, but a lot of times they know their gameplay more from Tribal than the rest of the game.
They need to go back to 7 people juries. Too many of these players treat “making the jury” as an accomplishment on its own, and in these huge juries the first jurors may have little personal contact to some of the finalists.
Very good point, and likely a reason smaller juries lead to closer votes, because they actually care about all of the finalists over "the game".
I mean we got a jury of *8* right now, but yeah having the jury start at final 11 usually means the early ones don’t know anything about the game that was actually played
I think jurors should be sequestered. Not because I care whether they influence eachother. I just find it annoying that they hash things out behind closed doors. It's a huge part of the game we don't get to see. I never much cared for final tribal questions x but at least in the old days the jurors seemed to carry drama over from the game instead of having their agendas worked out with additional information after they're out of the game.
I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of a "juror cage match" type scenario, where they hash things out for us to see. Winners at War with actual Edge of Extinction content would be wild to see
I would change the fire making to ALL 3 losers of the final tribal make fire. This way the jury isn’t swayed by recency bias by seeing a challenge right in front of them. (Or have it done away from the jury so they aren’t influenced. They don’t watch the Top 4 challenge why should they see fire?) The winner gets immunity and the other 3 have to make fire and the last person to get their flag up is eliminated.
I’m sorta over the “will they:won’t they” of giving up immunity. You won it, it should be an honor. You shouldn’t have to then re-prove to a jury you deserve top 3. Also removes the “who will make fire” faux drama. I see this as the biggest point of forced drama on the show.
Another great idea! I'm curious how it would play out. It's a bit less dramatic whenever Jeff goes "X wins the challenge but keep going because we're playing for second".
I also wonder if the meta would still be give up the necklace and try, but I can see how it'd be discouraged. This is a really interesting proposal.
You had me in the first half no gonna lie. But yes I agree that no matter what changes, the players themselves will course correct the game and that the lopsided votes in the new era were just something that occasionally happens.
Yeah it's one of those things where the problem may exist, but any attempt to fix it is just going to get sidestepped by savvy players. It's a part of what I love about Survivor come to think about it, seeing new and creative ways to break the game that production meticulously crafts!
The system is fine, except for the idiotic jury questions pushed by Production.
Yeah that's roughly my conclusion too, both the FTC format and the interviews to ask what they're after
My best attempt to fix it would be to let the jurors hash out their questions and vote the next day after thinking through the answers and sleeping on it. Rarely does someone switch their vote at the last minute after they hear their case.
Here's a change to the game to cosider: Immunity Override. If the vote for a player who has played an idol is unanimous (besides that player's vote), their idol is nullified. If 2 idols are played on the same player, that player has inormal mmunity.
What I've noticed is that most finales kind of just have a third person who doesn't really need to be there, cause at the end of the day, most winners win almost unanimously with maybe like 1 or 2 votes going to someone else.
Don’t let them come to final tribal drunk. Dawn has spoken about this in interviews. They may have fixed this in recent years, but there was definitely something up with Sea Bass in final tribal at Ghost Island…
Oh man that's a whole other thing. I wonder how many jurors were completely sloshed, and how many finalists too.
Off the top of my head, jurors include Sea Bass, Erik in Samoa, and maybe Fairplay.
Finalists include Sophie, who took a drink every time a jury member was mean to her, queen behaviour.
The past two votes have been pretty close. I feel like it’s partially just a pendulum - the juries take the most recent seasons they’ve seen into account
Yeah that's a good point, the influence of previous seasons on players perception of the game.
Lots of idols played this season, partially because they got to see Survivor 46...we might be cooking here...
Yea, Russel is correct that it isn't perfect, but he is the math student that did the wrong formula and accidentally got the right number. But its as good as it can logistically get. The only way to 'fix' it is giving ponderosa live feeds from the cameras with TIVO capabilities in case multiple things happen at once, and force all the jurors to watch it for the 16+ hours a day. Just not feasible.
It would be cool to bring back the redemption island stands and let the jurors watch the challenges, so they can get some tidbits of info directly from the game. Take 46, if the jury saw the Applebee's drama, how would that change the game? The dynamics of how the contestants think the jury perceive that drama is different than how the jury would perceive hearing about it a day later from someone voted off. Even without an extreme scenario, just seeing the choices someone makes when deciding reward-mates, would be better in person. Say Liz was voted off, she would go up and down on how Q wanted to starve her, but the jury would see him trying to save his game.
There might be other tweaks like that, which could help.
I'm torn on the "live feed" idea (although I know it was tongue in cheek) because I love watching someone like Chris D just straight up lie to the jury and have them believe it. I think having the jury present more often it's a terrible idea, could be a fun experiment, no clue how I'd run it though!
Jury management has been one of the biggest gameplay components since literally the first season. Players have just gotten more deliberate about how they manage their juries. They're playing 3D chess compared to the original seasons.
Can someone expand on Stephen's vendetta against Spencer please?
Forty several? It wasnt a finale but the penultimate episode
I do love the word penultimate...but Jeff said it was part 1 of the 2 part finale...because...marketing? He's insane? I don't know!
@HenryHickmanSurvivor I didn't hear that part. It's not that important. I also love the word penultimate
I agree with your take - any other possible improvement on the jury is potentially gonna make it worse.
Yeah there are problems, but that's life. It's almost like coding in a way...every time you think you've fixed it, people come along and break it in a whole new way and you need to start all over again!
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor : My main belief right now is, is there any way to change anything in Survivor that would have enabled Jesse to win 43 or Cirie to win either Panama or Micronesia without causing JT to lose Tocantins? I can't think of a change that would give us that perfect timeline.
Maybe a hot take but potentially a method to fixing this would be better casting? If the players who were put on the show weren’t all big superfans, then potentially the players who make it onto the jury wouldn’t all have a big idea of who had the objectively best approach to playing the game, and votes would be more split
It's a tricky balance, sometimes recruiting gets you Earl, sometimes it gets you the rest of the Fiji cast (that cast was famously all recruits except Garry).
But I think there is a balance to be found, and fun to be had in exploring someone who doesn't super know Survivor well in a cast!
It's not that hot of a take, the casting has been really bad the last few seasons.
@@HenryHickmanSurvivorhalf super fans; half recruits
Hey Henry. It's several past one over here, and I just want to say the Jury is even more crucial on French Survivor Koh Lanta as they don't even attend tribal councils. So ALL of the information comes from the person that was sent home.
I just subscribed because I like these survivor takes…your geography is a bit rusty though - I’m from Melbourne and we’re further away from the US than NZ (unless of course you include maps which simply don’t have NZ on them)
Alright you've got me there! 10,914km to California from where I am, 12,824km for you.
This feels like somehow revenge for earlier in the year when I went to a conference in Germany and big timed the Aussies by pointing out I'd traveled further...
If you wanted to prevent group think, you would need to allow players to be honest. Which means no shot in the darks, or immunity idols. No safety besides your allies that could prevent you from being voted out. But, I don't think any of this is a problem. Yes as a viewer it's pretty anticlimactic, that would not improve much if production tried to change things. And as we saw with the last season the higher the stakes and more entertaining the show is, the more it endangers the players in real life against the small portion of the public that is crazy. Anyways, the jury is a game within the game. Staying in the game involves a lot of social play to stay in, winning the jury involves a lot of social play. You need to get close allies voted out to vouch for you, and you need to correctly predict the sentiment of the discussion around you while working to improve your image at tribal. Plus maybe only try to vote out players you understand so you can play to how they will vote.
Yeah that's a really good point about player honesty. I do think a "back to basics" season would likely be boring, but I know it's been clamored for before.
I think the problems I point out are less so real problems, and more just a reality of the game we need to accept and talk about sometimes for fun.
Not only play a game they respect; but I also believe they vote for who they would feel less embarrassed to lose to
Oh man that's a massive point that I didn't even consider. I wonder if that links into Kass' example of "when a woman plays like this she's called a bitch" or the whole "camp mom" archetype?
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor : Holy, this also explains Cassidy from 43's loss. Everyone on the jury would rather lose to Gabler than lose to the girl who betrayed them.
That's very true, like on redemption island the jury didn't want the story of their season to be "boston rob keeps their butts and easily wins" but they REALLY didn't want to say they lost to crazy Phillip or follower Natalie
let them know tara!!
@@Sparks_Omegahi mom omg
I think the entire perception of Survivor/Big Brother in regards to the jury segment is contorted. The game is “outplay/outwit/outlast”, however we’ve forgotten how important perception really is to the game, not the style or flashiness of the game played. I know this winner is kinda shafted in discussion, but Tommy Sheehan’s point of view in Island of the Idols rings true. As we saw him portray his social game is more worthy than Dean’s flashy game. And he of course looks better sitting next to Norah who was a goat strategically brought to the end to look better next to essentially. But is it really the game people are weighing or how well you look next to the people sitting next to?
What’s Boston Rob’s win in Redemption Island have in common with a win like Natalie Anderson’s or Sara Lacina’s or any other “flashy” win? Those winners STILL sat next to unliked people. Even Natalie White’s when shows you - you don’t have to have played a dominant or strategic or even great social game (for the most part) - you just have be more liked. And for that - I’d say the juries biggest flaw isn’t putting the emphasis on the strategic and true gameplay that counts. And that’s the social game.
I don’t blame new players for being blinded by bigmoveitis or expecting some winner to have some sort of dominant play in the game. The most recent winner Rachel won despite her being left out of votes in a historic fashion - rivaling the likes of Fabio. The jury looked at Sam’s game as inferior because while he had some sort of social play and strategic movies, and voted correctly more than Rachel - Rachel played an idol successfully, she had an advantage played on her, etc etc. And while that provides good drama moments for seasons, that to me isn’t enough to win a game.
If we are made to believe that maneuverability and maintaining power are the key to winning Survivor, that’s only a half truth. Yet that half truth is what juries decide to vote on in modern survivor. How do you solve the issue? Well display the show in a more human way - show more events at camp and the scheming of votes - as THOSE moments really decide the trajectory more often than some twist or hidden idol does. Those things change the game - but don’t necessarily change the perception of the jury other than it’s a tick marker on moves to get to the end. Perhaps it’s the story of how you got to the end is being overlooked. Imagine a scenario when players like Mike Holloway lost their season because they saw that he had to win immunities to get to the end - you scrutinize the social play. I hate wins like that, even though it’s good tv lol.
Hence your argument that the juries shouldn’t be sequestered but “remain in the game” to witness the game. I think the risk would be that the players can try to manipulate the juries in question which I guess is why they do what they do now. But I do say - maybe juries shouldn’t see the tribal councils at all. And be shocked by each individual person coming in like Big Brother does with what they perceive and hear. Survivor juries get more narrative insight than Big Brother juries and I think that inherently sways opinions because they see the moves happen. Maybe if that was tweaked who knows.
But anyways, great video!
I'm still figuring out the details of this, but what if the jury were allowed back on the island on the last day?
The jury would get a set amount of time to interact with the finalists, ask them questions, and make their final decision.
The finalists then get this time to also do jury management.
The jury then leave the island and go into isolation until the final tribal. This would literally a few hours, but it would also mean they get time to think.
The final tribal then is run as normal, questions are still asked, and the finalists still need to respond and defend themselves.
That sounds like a lot of fun. I'd like it as an experiment, it can't be worse than some other experiments they've run!
Depending on how it goes we can either keep it or can it, experiments are fun!
I feel like not letting them talk would be a great idea.
It’s funny that if Russell Hantz got a “percentage of the votes” from America, he’d still need a bonus **5** votes to win even 1 of his seasons
The percentage he wanted was actually 1000% just to be on the safe side...
I also think that juries want people to own how they played.
I think we should let the jury watch immunity challenges.
Fun idea, having them watch Liz have a meltdown would probably be very funny, or having them watch Maria make them play rock paper scissors may make them reconsider who they're rooting for!
Andy thumbnails only for the rest of time please
When I saw Andy on the jury, after I finished crying about him being voted out, I gasped. Dude cleans up well! Considering next week is likely a 47 review we might get a few more Andy thumbnails...
1. They cast similar thinking players. Funny enough, the cast is NOT that diverse anymore. You have an oddball here and there, and some different personalities. But that is it. In this very first season you get Richard and Rudy forming an alliance, while being completely different type of people.
2. Even with some twists here and there, the path is predictable. Probably they should get rid of the teams and mix each group of players after each elimination. Thus, people get to meet and spend time with every one of the potential finalists. This would create a totally new dynamic around alliances, gameplay and so on.
3. Jurors should be not allowed to discuss about players in the game or should be sequestered. There are just a few days left before the ending, so it is not a big sacrifice.
4. Jurors should be able to witness the final challenge.
5. The final challenge should not be firemaking. The game has different types of challenges. It would be nice to see a real test of "the best out of 3 or 5 types of challenges" (one per each: endurance, coordination, equilibrium, puzzle, firemaking). This would really create a new dynamic for the final immunity, as that person would really need to meditate if risking it or not, as a final test like that would bring a lot of attention. Also, they are playing for a 1 million $$$. The final challenges should be climatic. This also makes for great television.
6. Bring back 39 days.
You can see by the ratings, Survivor is losing more and more viewership over the years. But they seem to be stubborn about adjusting stuff.
I think it’s fine
That's roughly my conclusion as well. No system is perfect, but it's always fun to discuss alternates and the pros and cons of the system.
The Jury is part of the Game if you cant Manage the Jury or pitch your case well then your game is flawed not the games
100% agree with that, I just think the way the jury exists now has some likely unintended consequences, not through any fault of anyone, turns out making a game of human emotion results in a mess
SUVIVOR FORTY-SEVERAL! YESSSS
I got one more week of saying it let's go!!!
I think they didn't sequester juries early on but I thought I heard they weren't allowed to openly talk about the game
they can talk about the game.
They basically collaborate all the time. Every time one of them gets voted out they get to immediately mingle and talk with everyone else
@@omarholder9036 yeah what I meant was I heard that in early seasons they couldn't talk but that was relaxed eventually
I've no clue to be honest, I haven't checked early season juries. But it would be interesting if they used to not be allowed to talk about the game, and therefore we had closer jury votes, and that relaxing leading to more group-think.
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor yeah I thought I heard that they stopped around maybe Vanuatu according to Chris Daugherty which would potentially fit with there being more really close votes early on
i agree! jury members should be isolated from another other while on ponderosa!
At the very least having them not allowed to talk about the game would be nice! No clue how they'd make it work practically speaking but they've apparently done it before
I miss ponderosa videos. Made the seasons so much better getting inside looks to some of our fav players.
Me too. Sometimes I want to watch The Noble One and the rap cannot be found, no longer living the dream on Ponderosa...
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor u just ruined my day with this news. All time 😂
01:00 thanks :)
You're welcome, thanks for the suggestion! It only took me...a while...
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor It looks like this and your last video are hits, which is great!
I like your point about more negative people in the jury leading to a closer vote because the jury is less likely to all get on the same page. The data about how many close votes we’ve had was neat and the jokes were good! But ultimately I don’t have a problem with the jury. Jurors can still vote for whoever they want to for whatever reason they decide whether we agree with it or not. And yes we’ve had documented cases of people voting for not their preferred winner due to spite against a different finalist or metagaming the jury vote, but that’s still ultimately their decision to make. I would be curious if the jury had to do a ranked choice vote at the end though how that might go haha.
I think ranked choice jury voting might lead to some very funny outcomes. Specifically I wonder if Michele would be a runner up at Winners at War, or maybe China would have a different FTC outcome, there are some fun ideas! Also thanks very much for the kind comment!
I mean u rlly did not make an actual case for the issues with jury’s, drew from 45 and robs recent talk on rhap covers the issues a lot better, obviously if these people were simply biased to chose the “best game” there would be very little issues with the current system. The game of survivor is alr about perception and to have these convos at ponderosa similarly will influence these peoples opinions about the players regardless of what really happened. Do you really believe that is a better way to paint the full picture? I would MUCH rather have someone make the supposed “wrong” vote because they were misted by a player rather then someone who was already voted out. I would say 46 shows off exactly how these talks can actually lead to a worse perception of reality, with Maria’s ego clearly being in the way to correctly explain the game Charlie played. Also, you had Tiffany as someone clearly fighting for Kenzie in what I would consider a selfish act, in my opinion this had far more to do with the way Tiffany acts on any given jury rather then Kenzie’s imprint on Tiffany specifically. To be honest, there are countless things done currently on survivor that can easily come across as dystopic, something that immediately comes to mind is that players can’t clean the mud off themselves in between challenge and the reward, which is pretty torturous imo. I think it’s very clear that ponderosa itself is turning into its own game, which has always been somewhat the case but from what I’ve seen looking at the recent outcomes/perceptions of new era players it’s clear this is becoming more n more the case.
Survivor Juries are definitely fickle in what they respect at a given time, I gotta say if I was juror in the modern era, I truly do not know if I would hold going into firemaking against the finalists
Like I guess you can respect the social skills to not be put in firemaking, but also if it’s a close race between 2 people that make FTC, it’s hard not to want a big play/moment from the player you’re voting to represent your season
Imagine the world where Clay wins Thailand, now there’s not even the Patrick Bateman sociopathic storyline to follow
People often think that Brian was locked into winning Thailand because "he knew he had those 4 votes locked down" but I've never been convinced that's true. Clay winning would have been...a timeline that's for sure!
Jury management is not a huge part of the game. Just because you butcher your pitch does not take away from the great game you played.
Now THIS is a hot take! I would love to hear more about it. I'm trying to think of any winners who've been really poor with the jury, but their game spoke for itself.
Tony in Cagayan maybe? Sophie in South Pacific? Maybe the most hated Survivor winners is an interesting thing to explore...
It would probably end terribly, but I'd love a season where the jury stays at the camp but with no power and they are given food and drinks that they aren't allowed to share. They could even do it house of villians style where the jury is only in the camp for the last night.
I've not seen House of Villains but that could be fun. I wonder if they'd taunt the castaways with food. You'd probably get a lot more drama, could be fun!
@@HenryHickmanSurvivor on the most recent episode, the jury came in during their equivalent of an immunity challenge where the goal was to keep your hand on a statue made of butter the longest and they just taunted them and started grilling burgers. Survivor takes itself to seriously to do exactly that, but I'd love to see it.
Russel says that the people on the jury shouldn't be allowed to talk to each other and I agree with that. They seperate the contestants before the game starts. They should seperate them after they get voted out.
How would that work? Do as Koh-Lanta who brings the jury to a villa and never let them see the following councils? (Which becomes a problem because it only rewards the lack of gameplay so you don't piss off a juror)
It's a tricky one because I see where he's coming from, but the human in me is like "man just let them be friends".
Maybe production could make sure they don't talk about the game? But then as pointed out that rewards not pissing off individuals. It's a hard problem.
Imagine if they did put the power of who wins in the hands of the fans? That would be very interesting.
There is
I pray that Sam wins tomorrow. Rachel would just be another women winner, Sam would be interesting winner.
"just another women winner" lmao whut
@ Exactly what I said just another women winner in the new era!
I mean i hope Rachel doesn't win. She the most boring player ever. So bored every time she is on the screen.
she’s a boring version of ben
She may be boring yes but is she undeserving of the win no
Do you think you’ll be jumping up and down and cracking jokes, when you’ve been starving and sleep deprived for weeks? Not everyone can be a Tony or Boston Rob
She has been boring from the beginning of the season to the end of the season. She is just overall not that great of a personality.
I like seeing how the fanbase is when they can't argue a woman deserves to lose a jury vote to a man so they have to find other reasons that she's not a good winner cause every time a woman beats a man in a jury vote they gotta throw some sort of fit. This also happened in 45 too
Russell losing was an absolute robbery. Yes he’s a HUGE A-HOLE but it was 4-8 and ALL 4 of his tribe members made final 4 INSANE. In sports we call this WAR, as in replace Russell with anyone else that NEVER happens in fact, likely none make final 4. Michelle beating Aubrey is a distance 2nd. But the rest of the jury’s decisions for the most part made sense.
All 4 of Natalie’s tribe members made the final 4 too. If she hadn’t orchestrated the Erik vote, they never pick up the momentum.
And honestly, just don’t be an a-hole. That’s good advice in any game.
CoughJaisonWasBootedAt5Cough
the jury is never wrong. no matter what you tell yourself. every single winner is deserving. youre trying to 'meta-fy' something and trying to switch peoples opinions that have been watching this show for 20 YEARS. as a huge survivor fan ill call you out on every single one of your videos if youre not honest
i will challenge you on everything. you dont care about this show you just care about your shit views. youre takes are wrong, youre wrong, you dont know anything about this show apparently and obviously, and yet youre trying to garner a following from its random rise in popularity