I Can't Believe I'm Writing a Post About Survivor

My roommate and I had a little scrap this morning regarding the outcome of Survivor last night.  Russle, who in my view played one of the most strategically bold and aggressive games I've seen, lost the jury vote to Natalie by a vote of 5-4, taking home the $1 million prize.  My roommate was happy with the outcome, while I felt it was an absolute case of Survivor jury nullification. 

In the final tribal council when the jury members were given the opportunity to question the final three contestants, (a step in the process intended to help jury members make up their minds), none of them seemed interested in anything the contestants had to say.  Instead, they took the opportunity to whine about how they had been blindsided by their own ouster from the game, many of them by Russle's maneuvering.  And yet, I couldn't help thinking about how each of them had watched Russle dispatch other players with whom he'd made alliances and still made no counter-moves to get him out of the game.  Fool me once, shame on you.  But these folks, especially Jaison, sat around for weeks riding Russle's strategy and making no moves of their own (Jaison's gonna be a pretty aweful lawyer if he doesn't thicken up his skin and learn to strategize on his own).  Mick and Natalie argued that Russle couldn't have gotten to the end without their help.  I guess, but does sitting around like pawns while Russle pushes you around the board really deserve a million dollars? 

My roommate thinks so.  Five members of the jury were so aggrieved by their betrayal that they obviously thought so.   Back when I first got drawn into one of these strategy games, I would have agreed.  I wanted the person who played the most ethically sound, honest game to win.  And if a person who plays that way makes it to the end, sure I would like to see them win.  But having watched a few of these shows, I think these games are warfare, and I am more inclined to reward players that play, even if I was a victim of their tactics.  What happened last night is not even close to that.  It was the strategist and two of his pawns in the final, and the jury rewarded the pawn. 

It makes me think back to the Big Brother last season with Jeff and Jordan.  She was the cutesy little blond with the southern accent and nobody really gave her much credit.  Sound familiar?  She employed the "fly under the radar" strategy, which is a legitimate strategy.  And when Jeff fell for the dumbest ruse ever employed in television strategy games and got himself eliminated, I thought she'd be gone too.  But when called on to keep herself in the game, she came through and outperformed the other alliance that was still in the game.  Natalie didn't do that.  She was a complete non-entity the whole game. She got a good bit of camera time because she's kinda cute.  But neither she nor Mick made a single move besides aligning with Russle at the start.  She didn't win a single challenge, didn't contribute to the strategy.  When she defended herself to the jury by saying that her and Russle "bounced strategy ideas off each other," I almost laughed out loud.  From what I saw, she sat there while Russle told her how to vote, and she voted.  I guess that's what makes me so unsatisfied with last night's result.  She did nothing to win.  She won by not playing.  The jury rewarded her incompetence with $1 million.  I am with the minority vote here:  I believe that, love them or hate them, the person who plays the best game strategically should take home the prize.  Not that any of it matters.  I just wasn't happy with the outcome.

One thing my roommate and I do agree on, Shambo's brand of crazy was the gift of the season.