URL: http://community.realitytvworld.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/rtvw2/community/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID1
Thread Number: 4094
[ Go back to previous page ]
Original Message
"To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by Snidget on 12-02-10 at 08:56 AM
I may be the only one, but in thinking about it I'm glad the stuck NayNay and Purp with jury duty.

Oh I agree they should be punished for the quit, but really, what are the options.

1. Arrange an impromptu last minute all expense paid vacation to keep them out of sight until the final vote like the early out people get. Probably costs a lot more to set up at the last moment and why should they be rewarded with a nice vacation?

2. Put them in solitary in some hotel room and have people on the staff volunteer to sit on the pair of them until everyone goes home. Would you volunteer to try to keep NayNay from getting word out she has been kidnapped and trying to get your butt put in a Nicaraguan prison or risk getting fired if she gets loose?

3. Make them stay in a game they hate and live with grumpy, resentful and bitter fellow jurors until the last moments of the game. Sure they will have food and shelter, and maybe the death stares won't bother NayNay, but it sure beats being on a cruise or at some swanky resort for punishment potential.

Table of contents
Messages in this discussion
"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by Colonel Zoidberg on 12-02-10 at 09:13 AM
This is why a clause needs to be written into the contracts - if you quit without a valid reason, i.e. medical, you receive no prize money and are barred from all Survivor activities for life. Maybe even make them pay a fine; I don't know.

The fact that these two tools are selecting someone who wins a million bucks is absolutely an affront to the game. It would be like LeBron James voting on the NBA playoff MVP last season.

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by suzzee on 12-02-10 at 10:45 AM
I like the clause idea but I suppose both of them qualify as temporary insanity. NaOnka is delusional. Kelly is, well, Kelly. I wonder if you can fake crazy enough to qualify as a medical removal.

Kathy from Fans/Favorites (?) went nuts didn't she? She didn't seem to get the quitter stigma although her edit was more sympathetic.

I don't feel sympathetic to Kelly, just disgusted. NaOnka OTOH went out telling everyone how strong and what a threat she was. That's delusional.

At this rate the next All Stars can have a tribe of former quitters, the winner could be decided between the drop off and the first reward challenge. Half would be eliminated when production couldn't get them off the boat.

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by michel on 12-02-10 at 09:00 PM
I'd put my money on Melissa McNulty. No one could beat her in the quitting game.

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by dabo on 12-04-10 at 03:14 AM
There has been some variation in quitting, and those who asked to be voted out aren't generally lumped in with those who outright quit.

Osten quit because he was worried about what the conditions were doing to his health, basically he wasn't getting enough to eat.

Jenna quit because she was worried about her mother, realized she just should have stayed home with her mom to be with her in her last days, she had to go home.

Sue quit because of Little Richard, I don't know how else to explain it.

Janu wanted to quit because she'd had enough, but had made the jury stage and didn't want to mess up the production of the show, so they decided quitters could be on the jury.

Kathy really should be regarded as a medical evacuation, a section 8; she was threatening to harm herself in order to be medically evacuated, so Jeff showed up to talk her down and take her out of the game.

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by michel on 12-04-10 at 04:02 AM
LAST EDITED ON 12-04-10 AT 04:15 AM (EST)

You are wrong about Kathleen. She explained it herself: She realized she was going off the deep end so, instead of cutting her fingers to be spared the disgrace of quitting, she called for Jeff. There were no public threats.

Of those who asked to be voted out, you are missing a few, notably BB, Shawna, AshlEE, Jeff, Fairplay, Chet and Jerry. Only Jerry doesn't deserve to be called a quitter because he was sick.

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by dabo on 12-04-10 at 02:17 PM
No public threats? What of it, production was aware she was flipping out, it's not as if she was being monitored by robots and they only knew by reviewing the security footage after the fact. If you say this then this is what we'll do situations, know what I mean. It was a section 8, a discharge, in any event.

I separated out the vote me off quitters basically because I didn't want to go through all of them. Dalton had an altercation with Bonaduce a bit before they took off to shoot FvF and couldn't abuse his pain-killers so he threw in the towel, really ought to have begged out and let an alternate fill his spot. But of that bunch I consider Chet the worst. And then there are the bunches who deliberately tanked at challenges, which I don't care at all for though that is sometimes a tactically sound decision.

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by samboohoo on 12-02-10 at 10:28 AM
I somewhat agree with what you're saying. And it's not like they could send them home.

Perhaps they could bring back the last pre-jury member to the jury and send the other to regular sequester. I also think they should forfeit pay.


Samboobree, brought to life by Arkie


"Nothing at all"
Posted by moonbaby on 12-02-10 at 10:49 AM
No jury, no reunion show, no Survivor related post-game appearances.

"RE: Nothing at all"
Posted by RollDdice on 12-02-10 at 12:42 PM
I'm going to go with a modified moonie:

They don't make the jury. No prize money. On the Survivor reunion show because they were a part of the cast, but you treat them like your crazy aunt at the big Thanksgiving dinner; you see them, but don't acknowledge them or speak to them.


Bounce or Die by IceCat

"Oooo!"
Posted by moonbaby on 12-02-10 at 02:10 PM
That's good, I like that a lot!

"RE: Oooo!"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 12-02-10 at 03:13 PM
Which did you like, the Rolly idea or the 'modified moonie' bit?
"RE: Oooo!"
Posted by moonbaby on 12-02-10 at 05:36 PM
Both!
"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by byoffer on 12-02-10 at 10:56 AM
Maybe another option:

4. Send them over to the other abandoned camp to live out the rest of the days on the show. They would be out of the game, but not out of the elements. Maybe give them some rice and a flint.

What I like about this is that it would accomplish two things - punish the quitters and act as a deterrent for future quitters (other than med-evacs). IMO they should not get a hotel/resort/vacaton experience, and they should not be part of the jury.


"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by Molaholic on 12-02-10 at 11:03 AM
Yes. Ban them from everything. Why not even edit out every scene, reference & thought of them from the soon-to-be-released DVD/blu-Ray 3D/HiDef combo pack (featuring special previews of Gulliver's Travels)

But seriously -- bring in the last two pre-jury boots (they are still someplace in Sequesterville, after all), have Jiffy don his best judicial raiments and tell them "I would like to thank and excuse jurors NoNoKaKa and NotSoPurpleKelly."

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by michel on 12-02-10 at 09:02 PM
Why not edit out every scene, you ask? Isn't that in essence what they did to Kelly?
"Bringing back pre-jury boots as replacement jurors"
Posted by byoffer on 12-02-10 at 11:36 AM
A few people above have suggested this route. While I agree with removing quitters from the jury, is it fair to the remaining competitors to replace them with pre-jury boots?
- in some seasons the pre-jury boots have not actually shared camp time with all of the remaining survivors (pre-merge). That would not be an issue this season.
- part of Survivor strategy should be based on knowing the structure of the game. IMO Survivors should know at the start of the game a) how many will face the jury, and b) when the cut-off to make the jury is (not just the number of jurors). Let's say that Dan (for example) thought that Jill hated him and would never vote for him to win. Then strategically he would want to get her out before she could make the jury, and because she would not make the jury he wouldn't even have to do it nicely (there is no need to "manage" the way pre-jury competitors are eliminated). Bringing her back afterwards because of a quitter could thus hurt his game strategy.
- depending on when the quit happends, the pre-jury boots might be far removed from the game. I don't think they stay at Ponderosa, but rather go off on excursions like cruises. It might take a while to get them back, and they might miss valuable input from witnessing TCs and Ponderosa discussions (which could be good).

I think a smaller jury and a tie-breaker methodology is a better approach.

Thoughts?


"RE: Bringing back pre-jury boots as replacement jurors"
Posted by HDTV on 12-02-10 at 11:45 AM
Those torches don't belong there, should have been dumped into fire pit. Outwit, Outplay, Outlast, NOT, those two OUTCAST. no jury, no pondorosa.
"RE: Bringing back pre-jury boots as replacement jurors"
Posted by jbug on 12-02-10 at 12:00 PM
I wanted him to throw the torches in the fire pit too...
then I realized they need them for that "final journey of remembrance" thing they do.
I hope the finalists just look at those torches and refuse to make any comment about those two.

I also wish they were NOT on the jury.

"RE: Bringing back pre-jury boots as replacement jurors"
Posted by HDTV on 12-02-10 at 12:07 PM
Oh yeah, but
Remembrance is memorial, those two(more Na) de-moralize
"RE: Bringing back pre-jury boots as replacement jurors"
Posted by RollDdice on 12-02-10 at 12:36 PM
I was hoping that Jiffy would snap those two torches over his knee.

Then during the "walk of bullsh1@#t ramblings" we could see the two torches patched with gaffer's tape.

"Yep"
Posted by moonbaby on 12-02-10 at 12:39 PM
I truly did want Jeff to break their torches in two and throw them in the fire. And quitters should not be permitted "last words" either!

"RE: Yep"
Posted by Spanky68 on 12-03-10 at 01:37 PM
I wanted to break them and THEN dump them in the tribal fire.


Agman made this fancy sig for me

"RE: Bringing back pre-jury boots as replacement jurors"
Posted by moonbaby on 12-02-10 at 12:37 PM
I like it!

"RE: Bringing back pre-jury boots as replacement jurors"
Posted by samboohoo on 12-02-10 at 01:54 PM
I know I suggested it, and I hesitated because of things like this and also because, even though they quit, they still outlasted people. It's hard.


Samboobree, brought to life by Arkie


"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by agman on 12-02-10 at 12:37 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-02-10 AT 12:39 PM (EST)

oops, nevermind, I see someone already came up with my idea.



I pumped iron at LL12

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by mrc on 12-02-10 at 12:39 PM
The best solution would have been to send them back with the rest of the jury, then at the final tribal council, tell them that their votes won't count. You control their behavior during the rest of the game, but they are still punished in the end.

I agree with the fines and appearance bans as well.

A Slice of Manga

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by trigirl on 12-02-10 at 01:47 PM
then at the final tribal council, tell them that their votes won't count

Yes, that's a great idea!

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by agman on 12-02-10 at 02:04 PM

>then at the final tribal
>council, tell them that their
>votes won't count.

Maybe, with any luck, they will still do that! It's an excellent idea!



I misplaced myself!

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by HDTV on 12-02-10 at 03:05 PM
I am not looking forward to seeing them, with full belly's and more then likely grins on their faces, when Jeff brings out the jury next week.

They should not be allowed to have any extra food, and not only that, during tribal counsel they should be made to watch the tribe eat!

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by RollDdice on 12-02-10 at 08:44 PM
I would respectfully suggest that not only do their votes not count, but they are not allowed to get up and ask any questions at Final TC.

There is no way that NaOnka or PurpKelly are entitled to launch into a Susan Hawk "rats and snakes" diatribe.

(But, just for giggles, part of me would like to see NaOnka try to ask something intelligent or try to make herself the focus of things again.)


Bounce or Die by IceCat

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by Spanky68 on 12-03-10 at 01:41 PM
I like these ideas.

Quit = no vote on the jury and no right to ask questions.


Agman resized my siggie

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by Das Mole on 12-02-10 at 05:08 PM
First of all, I think it totally svcks that they were not given the usual GTFO treatment that quitters get and that JiffyPop asked them how they would like to go. However, I would say it's a tough call--they did make it 28 days which has to count for something..................

no it doesn't.

All I can say is this episode made me feel like:

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by DearAbby on 12-02-10 at 07:03 PM
*blink* *blink*

Das? Is that you? Good to see you again!

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by Sunny_Bunny on 12-02-10 at 08:37 PM
I think that the jury should be without these two nitwits. But if they are going to be there, than they should simply sit there like the two bumps on a log that they are and not be allowed to speak during the jury rant portion of the last TC. I mean really, who wants to hear Nay Nay going on about how strong she was, what a contender she was, and how she would be winning the prize if she hadn't quit and let someone else win?

So, keep the quitters OFF screen. Let their torches remain perched next to the wall during the final TC and OFF of the "remember when" walk. In fact, perch them against the reunion show set and never. acknowledge. their. existence. during the reunion show.

Of course, this will never happen when you consider that most of the nasty, bad sportsman playing involved Nay - which will use up a large amount of reunion time.

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by iltarion on 12-02-10 at 09:12 PM

Whoever suggested it first was right on the money. All quitters should be quitting EVERYTHING. No jury, no reunion, nothing. Everyone should know ahead of time that if they quit they are making a clean break with the show. It is especially ridiculous this season because a seven person jury would be just fine. They don't need them.

>

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by michel on 12-02-10 at 09:22 PM
LAST EDITED ON 12-02-10 AT 09:27 PM (EST)

After reading this thread, I see that Byoffer is absolutely right and many are forgetting a few facts:

- As Byoffer said: You cannot bring back pre-jurors to sit on the jury. Totally unfair to the person who made the move to vote them out and pre-jurors simply didn't deserve it since they didn't outlast.
- Nowadays Survivor LOVES quitters. The days of Osten are long gone, Burnett must have had an orgasm when Jerry said Survivor was tougher than Afghanistan. When someone says it's simply too tough it validates the premise of the series. Look at the great edit Kathleen received.
- SEG isn't intererested in fairness but in ratings and ratings only. Kelly will probably be as useless as Janu but they are counting on Nay getting shots from the remaining players. It makes the Ponderosa clips much more viewed and they are waiting for Nay's explosion at FTC. That could be TV gold even if it is disgusting. (Sue's rant was disgusting after all)

- Everyone is allowed to quit any job and not everyone has to do it in front of a national audience. Why would SEG punish them anyway? They are counting on the quitters to actually promote their show, say that it was tough but they were treated fairly.

SEG will even pay for psychologists to make sure the quitters don't feel too bad about their decisions. Anything else could be criminal. Don't you remember how disturbed Deb was after Outback? Don't you remember that Kathleen went so far off the deep end that she thought of cutting off a couple of her own fingers in order to be evacuated rather than saying she was quitting?

- And, even if it is the first goal of any participants to reach, as Snidget said, Jury duty isn't all that great. For one, it will force Na'Onka to realize how the other jurors think and see how far she was from winning.

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by RollDdice on 12-03-10 at 02:43 PM
michel, your post is comprehensive and well reasoned except for one statement that I cannot let pass.

Jury duty isn't all that great. For one, it will force Na'Onka to realize how the other jurors think and see how far she was from winning.

The.girl.is.delusional. She isn't going to be "realizing" anything. It's just not in her skill set.


Bounce or Die by IceCat

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by Karchita on 12-03-10 at 03:09 PM
I am going to have to quibble with this:

Everyone is allowed to quit any job and not everyone has to do it in front of a national audience.

Quitting a reality show is not like quitting a job. The show has a known end point; a most jobs do not. It is more like walking out on a contract after completing 80% of it and forfeiting the pay. Or quitting school a month before graduating, a theater production on opening night, a sports team just before playoffs. The timing of these quits so close to the known end is what is really nonsensical and to say it's like quitting a job ignores that aspect.


Bouquet by c2p

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by iltarion on 12-03-10 at 05:44 PM

AH... I have to agree. Comparing quitting SURVIVOR to quitting a job is preposterous. There are too many differences to list.

I said months ago that quitting to some extent is a positive for Survivor. The show continues to sell itself with its "harsh locations and conditions" and the "surviving" element of the game. Obviously, this would not be taken as serious if no one ever quit the game.

On the other hand, the producers also know the fans don't like quitters, and having two quitters at this stage in the game certainly does not make good TV. Imagine Survivor where instead of a vote to determine who goes at TC, instead we have JP simply ask the contestants who wants to go and people step forward. Does that sound like a successful show to you? No. By quitting, K and Nay essentially robbed the show, the season, the viewers, of two TCs that could have been good TV.

So, yeah, quitting isn't a total negative for Survivor. Some quitting is actually a good thing. But, especially this late in the show, there is a downside to having people quit, and by punishing it, you would discourage it.

Again, a seven person jury is fine. Why should a player in the FTC have to answer to someone who quit?

That all being said. I am not angry that Nay quit. Why would I be? I think it is an improvement. I am slightly angry that Kelly quit, but considering how much she was shown when she was there...


>

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by RollDdice on 12-03-10 at 06:39 PM
You bring up something that I hadn't considered yet.
Losing two people at this point puts some strain on the production schedule. We're missing two TC vote offs that won't happen.

I'm going to keep an eye out for stretching. Perhaps an interview with one of the sand crabs. Maybe an extended Immunity Challenge that involves roadblocks and standing on mats.


Bounce or Die by IceCat

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by michel on 12-03-10 at 10:53 PM
Karchita wrote:
"Quitting a reality show is not like quitting a job. The show has a known end point; a most jobs do not. It is more like walking out on a contract after completing 80% of it and forfeiting the pay. Or quitting school a month before graduating, a theater production on opening night, a sports team just before playoffs. The timing of these quits so close to the known end is what is really nonsensical and to say it's like quitting a job ignores that aspect."

Nonsensical? Really? No one has ever dropped out of school a month before graduating? Or an actor getting so much stage fright that he quits before opening night? Or how about Randy Moss quitting whenener he doesn't feel like playing and still getting team after team to offer him millions?

Survivor is a job to these players and Kelly certainly doesn't know yet what it means to hold a job. She quit like many young kids who realize that the summer job they just got (a job with a known end point) wasn't for them. Making her sit on the jury will make her see what the others will go through and help her grow.

Iltarion wrote:
"AH... I have to agree. Comparing quitting SURVIVOR to quitting a job is preposterous. There are too many differences to list.

I said months ago that quitting to some extent is a positive for Survivor. The show continues to sell itself with its "harsh locations and conditions" and the "surviving" element of the game. Obviously, this would not be taken as serious if no one ever quit the game.

On the other hand, the producers also know the fans don't like quitters, and having two quitters at this stage in the game certainly does not make good TV. Imagine Survivor where instead of a vote to determine who goes at TC, instead we have JP simply ask the contestants who wants to go and people step forward. Does that sound like a successful show to you? No. By quitting, K and Nay essentially robbed the show, the season, the viewers, of two TCs that could have been good TV."

Preposterous? Too many differences? Yet you don't list any so it's hard to argue!

People go on Survivor for the money and the adventure, not for our enjoyment. They do not owe US anything. The show needs to entertain us, not the players. If the adventure doesn't please them anymore, if the money isn't enough to keep them going, why aren't they allowed to quit?

Making good TV is not Kelly or Nay's responsibility. Jeff did his best to make it good TV. That's his job. If it wasn't good, blame him.

Like someone said, the players could have been given warmer clothes and you wouldn't have had this problem. The producers decide what they wear. They decided that exploiting Kelly's nice figure by showing her in a bikini for 28 days was good TV. The consequence of that was that she couldn't take it anymore. Their fault, not hers. Employers are responsible to furnish the tools needed to their employees. If they don't, don't be surprised when people quit.

"Again, a seven person jury is fine. Why should a player in the FTC have to answer to someone who quit?"

Now this is a worthy argument. Like I said, going on reality TV has been traumatic for many people. If they were simply thrown out, shunned by the producers, we could have another suicide on our hand like what happened to Cheryl Kosewicz on "Pirate Master". We know the show's failure was on her mind just days before she killed herself. No one wants a repeat of that.

Sitting on the jury could be therapeutic. Being in Ponderosa? I don't know, I'll have to watch the clips but I guess that it will die down after a few days which is also part of the therapy. Things will get better.

Now, for the players having to answer to the quitters on the jury, I'm guessing it will be easier than answering to someone who was backstabbed. Also, this will be another measure of social skills. I'm betting that Holly and Chase, who encouraged them, are much more likely to get Nay and Kelly's votes than Benry who treated them like dirt squirrels or Jane who lectured them.

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by Karchita on 12-04-10 at 04:43 PM
Yes. Nonsensical. Really. Nonsensical means foolish or not making sense, not rare. People are nonsensical all the time. People drop of school just before graduating, but it is foolish. The theatre analogy is a bad one because giving a performance is quite different from finishing a competition. My bad. Survivor has more than a simple end date; it is a competition and in most competitions, people want to finish. To drop out of a game when the hardest and longest part is behind you is foolish. It doesn't make sense; it's nonsensical.

But there is no way that the DAWs on Survivor see it like a summer job. Past Survivors sure don't describe it that way; I have never heard it called that by a participant. They nearly universally call it things like a life changing experience, opportunity, or adventure, almost always using superlatives. Even the ones looking to advance a career in show business don't describe it as a 'job' at the end

The end point is more than a date. It's winning or at least toughing it out and doing your very best to win. Jobs are very rarely like that and they sure aren't a competition. The Survivor application asks why do you want to be on the show, and I can bet you anything that people who say they need a summer job are pretty unlikely to be selected. I believe that people who are selected to be on Survivor are mainly looking to win the million bucks or an adventure, and most often a little of both.

Nay and Kelly thought it would be fun and it turned out to be much, much harder than they thought it would be. Like a lot of young (or in the case of Naonka, immature) people, they have trouble understanding the long-term effects of their decisions. I don't think they understood what they were getting into with Survivor, and I don't think they understood the ramifications of their decision to quit. I think they both realized that they were not going to win, so why not quit. Naonka would rather quit than lose. That way she could always and forever claim that she could have won if she had chosen to. It is her way of saving face, plus she got a nice vacation in Loser Lodge. Kelly was just a wimp and took the easy way out. I see no evidence that either will benefit or learn anything about themselves or their poor decisions because they are on the jury, but I commend your optimism. They both need to grow up.


Bouquet by c2p

"RE: To Jury, or not To Jury"
Posted by michel on 12-04-10 at 06:53 PM
By debating on the comparison, we are going off course. Whether or not the comparison is valid in your eyes, the question of this thread was what to do with quitters; I read they should be banned from all survivor activities, not paid, fined even or at the very least, prevented from being on the jury. My point is that they shouldn't be punished because they have been punished enough; everyone saw how foolish they are. My second point was that Survivor, by exploiting them for our enjoyment, was responsible for creating the situation that led to their quitting so that they have to take care of them, not treat them as pariahs.

I never said players see Survivors as a summer job, just that qutting a summer job happens all the time and isn't always foolish. It certainly doesn't get our bashers on your back. If you want a competition comparison; I am sure many people train to run the marathon but fail to complete their first one. Should they be fined, ridiculed?