Over the course of the past two weeks, we have taken a look at two completely opposite ends of the Survivor spectrum. We have analyzed those people who have the misfortune of being known as the first person voted off their season, and last week, we looked at those people who succeeded at winning their seasons and became known as “Sole Survivor.”
If you haven’t already, read those two columns, because I also used the analysis of both groups of people to try and come up with a composite of information that would hopefully help future players of this game based on the common factors observed that led to the demise or rise of each group. In other words, how do I avoid being the first person voted off if I go on this show? What does it take to win, and what tips might be useful as I’m playing the game?
This week, I’d like to take a closer look at a group of people we see every season. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I look forward to seeing what this group of people has to say at the end of every season. In my opinion, they are the most important factor in this game, because ultimately, they decide who gets the million dollar prize. Sometimes they’re objective, and sometimes hard feelings abound and people vote based on spite and revenge.
In case you haven’t figured it out already, I am, of course, talking about the Jury. Seven people voted out who return and cast their votes to decide which one of the Final Two castaways will win a million dollars and the title of Sole Survivor. The goal of this week’s column is going to be to take a good look at the role of the Jury in this game, and use that knowledge to give future Survivors some pointers as to how to handle it if they ever are lucky enough to be in the Final Two and have to face a Jury. Also: how should you play the game when you know the people you’re voting off are going to be on this Jury?
I have already established my firm belief that the Jury is the most important element of this game. There is simply no way to skirt around it, because if you’re in the Final Two, it doesn’t matter how well you played the game. You need the Jury to win, and if THEY don’t like you, and THEY don’t respect the way you played the game, then you will not win.
It’s a simple fact that so many players overlook. Every season, there is usually at least one bitter Juror. Sometimes there is more than one. Each one handles him or herself differently. Some let their bitterness overcome their better judgment when they’re voting, and others blast the Final Two, but then overcome it and make a mature, conscious decision as to who they truly fell played the game better.
Now, from my vantage point, I think the Jury should always be objective. Because they play such an important role in the final outcome of any season of Survivor, I believe that they have a profound responsibility to be mature adults and vote from an objective standpoint. In other words, they should look very carefully at the Final Two, and decide who they truly feel played the game the best, regardless of their own personal grudges they may hold. I think Tina said it best in the Final Tribal Council of the Australian Outback. She implored the Jury to do the same thing I just said. She said: “Don’t vote based on that you got your feelings hurt. That doesn’t show who the Survivor is, it just shows that you got your feelings hurt.”
Unfortunately, what I just described is an ideal, and it’s just not possible. Why? Why can’t every Jury be objective and fair and unbiased? Why may not the truly best person win every time?
Well, there are no easy answers to those questions, but I believe I can wrap it all up into one neat, concise idea: they are human.
You can never forget that Survivor is a human drama. It’s not a crime drama with a script that can have all the ends tied up neatly at the end of the hour. The goal of Survivor at its core is to place a group of average Americans from every walk of life into a stressful environment and tell them that they are competing against each other for a million dollars. It is important to remember that the fundamental question of Survivor is: “What will you do for a million dollars?”
As we all know, Survivor is a complicated game, and the reason it’s complicated is that each person has a different answer to that question. We all draw our lines in different places, and some people are willing to go much farther than others to win.
What you end up with, then, is usually a Final Two of people who were the most willing to do some dirty work if they need to, and then Jury members who weren’t willing to go that far angry that the Final Two were. Make sense? No? Well, once again, this is an ideal. Some people get to the Final Two by riding coattails and some do get there just by being nice. But usually, you will see a Final Two with people who were willing to do a little lying and backstabbing who now have to face a Jury who weren’t willing to go that far, and find it offensive.
I’m going to take a time-out for a second and just briefly run down the mood given off from each of the ten Juries we have seen so far.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BORNEO
In a way, it’s really not fair to judge the first season’s Jury too much because of the fact that they were first. No one here really knew what this game was yet. One of the things I notice with this Jury is that there are a lot more people who found the cutthroat nature of the game discouraging, like Colleen. They weren’t prepared for this kind of game. They anticipated some kind of Gilligan’s Island survival in the wilderness type of game. Future players know better. This Jury also gave us one of the most memorable moments of Survivor history, our very first bitter Juror: Susan Hawk, with her infamous rats and snakes speech. In a lot of ways, we might be able to blame Sue for a lot of nasty Jury speeches now, because future Jurors, in their heads, are probably trying to emulate the mood behind her speech. After all, they are only human.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AUTRALIAN OUTBACK
This Jury was probably one of the nicest and most unbiased Juries we’ve seen. No real nasty speeches, no real hurt feelings. Yeah, Jerri was mad at Colby, and yes, she did vote for Tina, but there was a reason behind her voting for Tina as well, it wasn’t just a vote against Colby, which is something we see often now. But, really, I think that each Juror voted based on who they felt deserved to win, and I’d even go as far to say that the Australian Outback Jury is the closest to the Ideal Jury that we ever have seen, or ever will see in the future.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AFRICA
This presented one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen a Jury member do. Yes, Greg Buis did it in Borneo, but I suspect he only did it to be obnoxious, and that he would have voted for Richard anyway. I am talking, of course, about the “Pick-a-Number” trick. I HATE this, and while I do believe Greg did it just to tease the staff in Borneo, you could tell that Kelly Goldsmith was doing it because she was a brat and that she couldn’t handle losing. It is the dirtiest trick to play as a Jury member, because if you’re the swing vote, and it truly is based on a number, then you have just successfully gone and wasted 39 days of the lives of your fellow castaways and the crew. Fortunately, Ethan won in a 5-2 vote, so Kelly’s little tirade really didn’t make a difference. Still, if future players take nothing else away from this, please just note: IT IS THE MOST DESPICABLE THING IN ALL OF SURVIVOR TO BASE YOUR FINAL JURY VOTE ON A NUMBER! That is all.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MARQEUSAS
Marqeusas was one of the best seasons with the worst endings of Survivor history. The Final Two sucked (KATHY SHOULD HAVE WON!!!!!) and the Final Tribal Council was not exactly stellar. However, there was an interesting dynamic of this final TC that never appeared in any before or after it, and that would be the topic of religion. Both Vecepia and Neleh had worn their religions on their sleeves while they played this game, and that offended several Jurors. Vecepia would be the prime example. She was backstabbing people and switching alliances on an hourly basis, and sometimes that’s all it takes to get a Jury member angry. What made people on this particular Jury angry was that while Vecepia was doing this, she was also preaching her religion and proclaiming God. Religion is a very sensitive issue with a lot of people, so this is just further evidence of the humans that make up the Jury.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THAILAND
In my opinion, Thailand’s finale still ranks as one of the best of the series. It had one of the best, most dramatic final Tribal Councils of the series, and yet, in the end, the best person won anyway. That’s what I like to see. Like I said earlier, it’s okay to have a Jury member blast the Final Two, because that is their right and that is within their power. But it crosses the line when they take their grudges with them to the voting booth. Helen is the prime example of someone who did not do this. She was hurt and betrayed by Brian. She blasted him at the Final Tribal Council. But, when she went up to vote, she voted for Brian anyway because she knew that he truly deserved it over Clay because of the strong physical and mental game he had played. Here’s the gist of what she said when they showed her final voting comment: “Brian, what happened between you and I happened between you and I. But, in the context of the game, I am a bigger person who can look beyond what happened to me. You deserve to win. You had a work ethic that was great the entire time out there. Several of the team challenges you almost single-handedly won on your own. So for that, and my work ethic, you get my vote tonight.” Beautifully said, and exactly the policy I believe all Jury members should follow when they vote. NOTE FOR ALL FUTURE BITTER JURY MEMBERS: Helen is the model to follow.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
AMAZON
With this Jury, the very first 6-1 Jury, what I noticed was that how the Final Two answered their questions really depended on whether or not they got a vote. This is another aspect to the Jury that I failed to touch on earlier: the questions. It is always vitally important to answer the questions. Jenna did a much better job answering the questions than Matt, and in front of a Jury that was looking for that first and foremost, she got six votes. If you need any further proof, I can’t give it to you.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PEARL ISLANDS
This one was pretty much a no-brainer. Pretty much every rule should be thrown out the window here, because it was obvious who deserved to win more. Lill had been voted out on day nine. The only reason that she was even there was the Outcast twist. So, Lill did not even deserve to be there in the first place. Plus, she did a horrible job answering her questions, whereas Sandra was straightforward, blunt, and funny, exactly like she had been the entire game. Sandra won in the second-ever 6-1 vote, end of story.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ALL-STARS
Okay. Take a very deep breath. In all of Survivor history, there has probably never been a more honest, painful, and hurtful Final Tribal Council. Plus, in all of Survivor history, there has most likely never been a more disgraceful showing of poor sportsmanship and hypocrisy in the Jury. Three Jury members in particular, Lex, Alicia, and Tom, should all be ashamed, because their performances were pitiful. It was actually kind of sad, because you might be inclined to think that in an All-Star edition of the show, you’d have players who understand what the game entails, and you’d think they would be ready for it. You would think they would know that an All-Star edition would naturally be more cutthroat and personal than any other game. But then you have Lex, who spends his time on Mogo Mogo playing an individual game. Over and over again, you’d hear him say “This is business….this is All-Star……it’s hardcore.” He told Ethan specifically that it “wasn’t about friendship.” Then, when Rob betrays him after he made the stupidest move in all of Survivor history, he goes over to the Jury, pouts about his loss, and then comes in at the Final Tribal Council, blasts Rob for not being a good friend to him, and then votes for Amber out of spite. Wow. I don’t know if he could have sunk any lower if he tried. The biggest hypocrite in all of Survivor history has been found, and his name is Lex. Then you turn to Big Tom and Alicia. They were angry at Rob, too, and they voted for Amber out of spite after acting like little children on the Jury. How do we know this? Because in both voting comments we saw, both Tom’s and Alicia’s, they held up their card that said “Amber,” and not once did we hear anything about how Amber played a good game. Each comment was directed against Rob. We did not see Lex’s voting comment, but I will guarantee you that he most likely did the same thing. Now, to be fair to the image of this Jury as a whole, not everyone did this. Kathy was hurt by Rob, but she voted for him anyway. Rupert, Jenna, and Shii-Ann did not have any grudges at all, and they each voted for who they thought truly deserved it. So, at least Amber did not win just solely based on spite, because Shii-Ann, for whatever reasons she personally had, truly felt that Amber had played the better game. But there is no question that Lex, Alicia, and Tom brought the role and image of the Jury to new lows, and it’s unfortunate. If the Australian Outback is as close to the ideal, model Jury as we can get, the All-Stars Jury is as far away from that image as we can possibly get.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
VANUATU
The mood of this Jury was similar to that of the All-Stars Jury, but they did not really sink as low. The obsession with people on this Jury was being angry that Twila swore on her son’s name to get someone to believe her before she turned on them. So this is another example of someone going farther to win than other people were comfortable with, and therefore, they did not want to reward Twila with their votes. While it may not be right, this is just another example of the human dynamic of the Jury, and the principle is proved once again: whether you like it or not, if the Jury does not like you, you will not win.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PALAU
Several people on this Jury really ripped Katie a new one. They were bitter and resentful, and while some may view some of the tirades as unfair, they were true. Katie did not do much work around camp from what we saw on television, and Tom did much better in the challenges. So this is an example of a Jury who blasts into one person and does not vote for them, but for a reason. You do not get the feeling watching this that they voted for Tom just because it was against Katie, like voting for Amber just because she’s not Rob. This is what I call “fair blasting” or “fair spite:” Spite and hard feelings that are engineered simply because that Final Two person did not play a great game.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Okay, so it’s obvious that in each Jury there are different attitudes that develop and different behavior is deemed acceptable sometimes and it’s not other times (prime example being voting for Tom over Katie is acceptable because it’s obvious who played the better game, whereas voting for Amber just because she’s not Rob is not acceptable.) Each of those scenarios is engineered out of spite, but the latter is simply just being like a child, while in Palau, there was a good reason for the spite.
Now, before we move on with my advice for future players who have to do what I call “Jury Stacking,” I thought I’d try and put all this Jury analysis I just did into one nice, complete package of Jury etiquette.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
HOW TO BEHAVE IF YOU’RE ON THE JURY
You’re playing Survivor, and you’ve been voted out, but you made it far enough to be on the Jury. You’ll be returning in the Final Tribal Council and will have a vote in deciding who will be the winner of your season. (NOTE: This list encompasses all people, whether they are bitter when they are voted off or not. This is a guide that EVERY future Juror should keep in mind.)
1. IT’S OKAY TO BLAST THE FINAL TWO, AS LONG AS YOU DON’T CARRY HARD FEELINGS WITH YOU TO THE VOTING BOOTH. Remember, what counts is the final vote count, not what you say to them. If you’re angry at someone in the Final Two, it is perfectly okay to say so, but it is not okay to use those feelings when you are voting. The perfect model to follow for this principle is Thailand’s Helen. The model to avoid is All-Stars’ Lex.
2. IT’S ALWAYS NICE TO CONGRATULATE THE FINAL TWO. After all, whether you like it or not, they outwitted, outlasted, and outplayed you. The concept we all learned in kindergarten about good sportsmanship comes into play here. Whether you like them or not, it’s a nice gesture to congratulate them on succeeding at what we all know is a very hard game to play. This is not required, but highly recommended.
3. ASK A QUESTION. The rules do not say that you have to ask a question. If you just want to give a statement, that’s fine, but as someone who is hopefully striving to be a model Juror, it’s nice to at least give the Final Two a chance to give you their side. Blast them if you want, hate them if you want, but give them a chance to defend themselves.
4. NEVER BASE YOUR VOTE ON SOMETHING SILLY LIKE A NUMBER. You can’t forget your responsibility if you’re on the Jury. You’re deciding who wins a million dollars, and it should be based on who outwitted, outlasted, and outplayed (in other words, played the game) the best. As bad as it is to base your vote on personal grudges, it is even worse to stoop so low as to base such an important vote on something as silly and arcane as a number.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now that we have a good idea of what the role of the Jury should ideally be, it is important to note once again that it very rarely works out to the ideal. We saw that in each season, All-Stars in particular.
However, one can not ignore the fact that the players have a big impact on the Jury, as well. I referred to the term I use for it earlier, Jury Stacking. If you are playing this game and you have reached the Jury phase, how should you play knowing that these people are going to be on your Jury deciding whether or not you get the million dollars.
REMEMBER— If they’re resentful, chances are there’s a reason they’re resentful. So, as you play, do whatever you can to try and make sure the Jurors are not angry at you later.
I think the prime example of doing this the wrong way would be Boston Rob in All-Stars. There is no question he played a great game. He dominated physically, and he also dominated strategically. While Amber helped with the strategy, his game was much more intense.
What was his mistake? He forgot about the Jury. Now, please don’t get confused here. I just talked all about how the Jury SHOULD behave and what would be the ideal. It’s true that the goal is to vote for the best person, but as sad as it is, you are going to have bitter people. The important thing is the way you handle them.
Boston Rob was overly nasty to the people he voted out. He became so caught up in the game that he forgot this was going to be a Jury at the end with PEOPLE…in other words, creatures with feelings. Did the All-Stars Jury (more precisely Lex, Alicia, and Tom) have the right to carry on like a bunch of two-year olds and moan and pout and vote based on spite? Well, they have the right and the power to, but it was very wrong of them to do it. However, Boston Rob also made a mistake in failing to account for the fact that they might get hurt over what he was doing. He had every right to play the game, but if he had been even just a little nicer in the delivery of his actions, it might have been received a little better as solid strategic gameplay.
So, in other words: don’t suck up to the Jury, but also don’t go out of your way to completely forget about them.
Boston Rob is just one example. He is the model you DON’T want to follow when it comes to the principle of Jury Stacking. There are, however, some very good models to follow. Richard played a hard strategic game using the other players as pawns. But, unlike Boston Rob, he did not let them know they were pawns. Then, at the end, he was smart enough to make a pointed argument about his strategy. Rob faltered and started apologizing, which just shows weakness. I wonder if Lex or Tom might have turned if Rob had just stated his case in a clear, concise, non-threatening, non-argumentative manner. We’ll never know, but do you see my point? You need to play remembering that if you make the Final Two, you will need these people to win. Whether you agree with their feelings or their attitudes or not, you need them to win, so it’s your responsibility as a player to know what they want, both before and after their eviction, so that you can respond accordingly and try and score as many votes as possible.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
HOW TO BEHAVE WHEN YOU’RE PLAYING FOR THE JURY
These guidelines are for the players who are aiming to get to the Final Two AND those people who are lucky enough to get to the Final Two. Here is what you do to try and have as few bitter people as possible and get as many votes as you can for a victory.
1. JURY STACKING— This is something you should start well before the Final Tribal Council. This begins as soon as you reach the Jury phase of the game. I outlined it above: always remember that you’re going to need these people you’re voting off to win if you get to the end. So how do you do this successfully? Don’t necessarily suck up, but treat them with respect as people. Then, at least at the end, even if they are bitter, you can say “Hey, I played the game the way I played it, but I never disrespected any of you doing it.” Never be mean to these people because otherwise they will not like you. ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT YOU NEED THEM TO WIN, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!
2. ALWAYS ANSWER QUESTIONS. Now you are at the Final Tribal Council, and I implore you to never make the same mistakes so many people make. Never, EVER blow off a Jury member’s question. Since you need them to win, you need to do whatever you can to elicit as many votes as possible. EVERY VOTE COUNTS. While there have been a few 6-1 and 5-2 votes, several have been 4-3. You need every vote you can possibly get, so always answer a Juror’s question. Even if you think there’s no way they would ever vote for you (ex/ Katie and Janu, Clay and Helen), you never know. You need to play hoping that they will, and maybe they won’t. But, if you give them a good, solid answer, there’s always a slight chance they may like it and change their minds. It’s happened before. But if you blow them off, that offends them even more, and then you’re guaranteed to lose their vote. So, always answer a question.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As we all know, this game has so many variables. The reason for that fact is that it’s a game that was specifically designed to be a human drama. The role of the Jury is critical in this game, and players on both sides of the spectrum have specific responsibilities to live up to so that, hopefully, the best person truly does win in the end.
The Jurors have a responsibility to be objective with their decisions and vote for the best person, regardless of their own personal grudges.
The players have a responsibility to remember that this hardly ever happens the way the ideal picture is laid out, so they need to compensate for that in their strategies. They need to remember that these Jurors are people, so they should treat them with respect, both before they vote them off and in the Final Tribal Council.
When both sides do what they’re supposed to do, the result is the Australian Outback. When both sides do not do what they are supposed to do, you get All-Stars.
You do the math.
“See” you next week!
