I mean ... sincerely ... WHAT THE FUCK?

For those who aren't up on the show (and in seasons past I would have been right with you ... I have my reasons this year), there's a tribe called Moto that's in plush, plush, plush surroundings, being provided with food, shelter, tools, fire (and thereby water, since they must boil before drinking) ... basically everything.  And there's a tribe called Ravu that's in the crapper, having been dumped on a bare beach and only recently (miraculous among Survivor tribes) created fire on their own ... which means that they went many days with no fluid but coconut milk.

Ravu has been being hammered (largely due to rampant dehydration, partly due to really, really bad luck and a fair dollop of incompetence) in challenges, and has been forced time after time to get together and choose who of their number they will eliminate.  This does not do good things for morale, as you might suppose.

So this week Moto once again wins the challenge that will send Ravu off to pick another member of their own tribe to throw off the island ... but there's a catch!  If Moto wants to avoid Tribal Council then they have to give up their posh digs and stay at Ravu's crappy beach (with the implication, I believe, that Ravu gets to raid the Moto food-stocks and sleep in their hammocks).

And they chose their beach!  They gave Ravu a bye and went off to tribal council themselves ... voluntarily.  WHAT THE FUCK?  How is this not an obviously wrong choice to them?  My mind boggles.  I literally cannot comprehend the choice.  I am reduced to posting forlornly in Off-Topic discussions in the hope that somebody can make some sense of it to me.

Moto started out the episode all talking about "Oh, we're all together, we're such a strong tribe mentally" and all the crap that's easy to say when you haven't been forced to argue over (say) who's the least worth-while member of your social circle.  And then they chose to go down that road, and immediately you could see them fracturing, just terribly.  Why would they choose that?

Short answer : They are more worried what "people at home" will think of them than actually winning the game.

 Its a case of worrying what others will think instead of choosing the best course of action.


- E.W.C.

Quote from: KoltarShort answer : They are more worried what "people at home" will think of them than actually winning the game.

Its a case of worrying what others will think instead of choosing the best course of action.

Ohhhh-kay.  I'm intrigued by that one, but I don't quite have it in focus yet.  Doesn't cutting off one of their own just to stay in (comparative) luxury actually make them look worse?  I'm not even thinking about the people (like me) who lose respect for them because they're playing the game poorly ... more that the sniping involved in singling out a lamb to be slaughtered at the tribal council really doesn't make anyone look good.

But then, passing out from dehydration doesn't make ya look too spiffy either.  I wonder whether they would have gotten to use Ravu's hard-earned fire, or would have had to start from scratch based on the effort they had put in?

Quote from: TonyLBSo this week Moto once again wins the challenge that will send Ravu off to pick another member of their own tribe to throw off the island ... but there's a catch!  If Moto wants to avoid Tribal Council then they have to give up their posh digs and stay at Ravu's crappy beach (with the implication, I believe, that Ravu gets to raid the Moto food-stocks and sleep in their hammocks).

And they chose their beach!  They gave Ravu a bye and went off to tribal council themselves ... voluntarily.  WHAT THE FUCK?  How is this not an obviously wrong choice to them?  My mind boggles.  I literally cannot comprehend the choice.  I am reduced to posting forlornly in Off-Topic discussions in the hope that somebody can make some sense of it to me.

It makes sense because they want to keep enjoying their stay and the people making the choice didn't imagine themselves being voted off.  They didn't have to send anyone home yet, so the reality of being in the bull's eye hadn't sunken in yet.  That happens every season that I've watched (I haven't watched them all).

I also think they haven't yet realized that they are going to be faced with that choice every week until they switch beaches.  If that's the catch that I think is now in play for having the cool camp, because it's such an advantage, then it may salvage what was otherwise looking to be a really crummy season.  Nobody wants to watch Vacation: Fiji.

Quote from: TonyLBMoto started out the episode all talking about "Oh, we're all together, we're such a strong tribe mentally" and all the crap that's easy to say when you haven't been forced to argue over (say) who's the least worth-while member of your social circle.  And then they chose to go down that road, and immediately you could see them fracturing, just terribly.  Why would they choose that?

I often get the impression that the people on Survivor don't actually watch the show or, if they do, they don't learn much from it.  Everybody always seems to think they are safe until they see their name on a sheet of paper, and then sometimes it's too late to do anything about it.

They're still showing Survivor? *shock*

Quote from: John MorrowI often get the impression that the people on Survivor don't actually watch the show or, if they do, they don't learn much from it.  Everybody always seems to think they are safe until they see their name on a sheet of paper, and then sometimes it's too late to do anything about it.

Or they think that they're somehow exempt from the social patterns that have caused groups on every previous season to degenerate into backstabbing and politicking ... that somehow they'll come through the carefully orchestrated torture unscathed, just because ... uh ... well, just because.

The one thing everyone who watches Survivor (or any other reality show) needs to remember, though, is that we see a very biased view of what happens.  The "magic" of reality shows comes from editing to create stories and people getting along and so forth aren't interesting.  Thus we get a somewhat warped view of what's going on.  

That said, I think you are correct that everyone thinks they are special and exempt from backstabbing.  There has already been plenty of that in this season.

Quote from: TonyLBFor those who aren't up on the show (and in seasons past I would have been right with you ... I have my reasons this year)

Okay, let's hear 'em, these reasons. I stay far, far away from that show and I find it hard to imagine reasons to watch, short of a relatlve or friend being a cast member. Color me curious!

Quote from: el diablo roboticoI find it hard to imagine reasons to watch, short of a relatlve or friend being a cast member.

It's that one.

I really don't want to get into who (though I suspect that truly persistent internet digging could make the connection if you really must know) because part of what I'm discovering from the show is that there is an even greater difference than I would have imagined between who the person is in their real life and who the person is after the combination of being displaced, deprived and having their comments edited for maximal "meaning."

No, my friend isn't one of the people that watchers would likely identify as a complete and total ass-hole.  But, contrariwise, the person I see on the screen sometimes seems very different from the person I know.  It's really fascinating to watch in action ... like some alternate-world version of a person, who shares some recognizable features, but is different in critical ways.

I have this conspiracy theory that shows like this are actually secretly run by university psychology departments.

See, the thing about researching living beings is that with animals, you can do anything to them, but can't ask them anything; with humans, you can ask them anything, but can't do anything to them. We have "medical ethics" and stuff which doesn't allow us to do interesting things like stick a dozen people in one house together for three months, and whenever they start co-operating and getting along too well, make half of them servants of the other half. Experimental psychologists simply aren't allowed to fuck with people like that, it's not ethical.

So, how to get unethical but interesting medical experiments done? Turn it into a tv show.

Somewhere behind Survivor is a modern Dr Mengele.

*puts on his tinfoil hat*

Quote from: TonyLBI really don't want to get into who (though I suspect that truly persistent internet digging could make the connection if you really must know) because part of what I'm discovering from the show is that there is an even greater difference than I would have imagined between who the person is in their real life and who the person is after the combination of being displaced, deprived and having their comments edited for maximal "meaning."

Don't underestimate how much of a role the editing plays.  For example, in the last episode, after all the drama they played up between Rocky and Anthony, you'll notice that they were actually being pretty nice to each other.  They use editing to create a story where there isn't necessarily much of one.  The creator has talked about that quite a bit, actually.

There is actually a good lesson to be had in there about the difference between role-playing intended to give the players the experiencing of being their characters living in the their setting without concern for story and role-playing designed to maximize the story content and how they can feel very different if you want to look for it.

Ooops, sorry.  Talking about role-playing on the Off Topic board.

Quote from: John MorrowDon't underestimate how much of a role the editing plays.

Totally.  I am a long-term fan of The Amazing Race, which has just the same kind of situation where they deliberately construct a narrative out of mostly noise, by picking and choosing the moments to show and the moments to exclude.  There's actually a bit of an art form to figuring out the future of an episode or a season purely from looking at the way that the editors (who know how it turns out) chose to arrange clips.

There is a strange sense that you can get some truth, though.  As they say in the Television Without Pity forums, "You can edit good things out, but you can't edit bad things in."  Yes, you're not seeing the whole story but everything you are seeing actually did happen.

Quote from: TonyLBThere is a strange sense that you can get some truth, though.  As they say in the Television Without Pity forums, "You can edit good things out, but you can't edit bad things in."  Yes, you're not seeing the whole story but everything you are seeing actually did happen.

Yes, but you can make things look at lot worse than they realy were by controlling the context.  In other words, you can make things look bad that maybe weren't so bad in context.  And let's not forget that the food and sleep deprivation could probably make just about anyone look bad.

The more I think about it, the more I think Survivor does a pretty good job of illustrating how I feel about games designed to push story vs. world-oriented games.

The whole challenge pace as well as the curve balls that they throw is designed to create drama, and it often feels pretty darned artificial.  To me, many of the story-oriented techniques that players have to write into their characters feel a lot like signing up to be abused on a reality show where the GM gets to toss challenges at me and jerk me around at their pace rather than my own pace in order to create a nifty narrative.  There is a difference going to visit Fiji or even being stranded on a Fiji island because off a shipwreck or plane crash and playing Survivor: Fiji.  Yes, maybe Survivor: Fiji makes for a better season of television viewing but I'd prefer that the games I play feel more like being really stranded for logical reasons and less like playing a game like Survivor.

Quote from: John MorrowYes, but you can make things look at lot worse than they realy were by controlling the context.  In other words, you can make things look bad that maybe weren't so bad in context.  And let's not forget that the food and sleep deprivation could probably make just about anyone look bad.

Yeah ... but there are people on TAR, for instance who say things that I'm quite confident no amount of stress or sleep-deprivation could force me to say.  I mean ... particularly in their commentary on third-world countries, some of these people say things that you just boggle at, and they say it with a blithe sincerity that just blows your mind.

Quote from: John MorrowThe more I think about it, the more I think Survivor does a pretty good job of illustrating how I feel about games designed to push story vs. world-oriented games.

I totally get that it highlights the way you perceive the difference.  I hope you'll understand that it doesn't seem like such a good analogy to me, because I don't perceive the differences the same way.  Not much more to say about that, really.

I was told that it's not uncommon for the producers to push the dramatic on the participants to set up semi-real moments.  I kept in contact with a few people who stayed in touch with Amber Brkvich or her brother and sister from college.