I'd like them to forfeit the money they'd get at the point they exited the game as well. That would really cause the would-be quitters to think twice before quitting.

LAST EDITED ON 12-21-10 AT 07:06 PM (EST)

I think Grit was only being sarcastic...

Belle, say I want to quit and I hate someone that's still there. I could start a fight that would get both of us tossed out. I wouldn't have quit so I'd still get my money but I also get the satisfaction of getting someone else out. Even if the contract excludes fighters from getting money, then I could still figure that I've got nothing to lose.

I don't know what's the fuss about quitters. We had one (BB) in season 1 episode #2 so it's not anything new. We've had more than a dozen over the years. Palau was full of them: 4 official quitters (Ashlee, Jeff, Janu and Ian) + 2 (Kim and Ibe) that simply gave up. Why does everyone love Palau?

If Survivor had given Na and Kelly adequate clothes they wouldn't have quit. But we like those bikinis...

Oh, I see, quitting is nothing new and there have been a dozen, so we should all be fine with it. Nice argument. What's the fuss about adultery? It has been around forever and everyone does it. Hahaha....

Giving up, usually because you are about to be booted, is not the same as quitting. Really, Janu and JFP shouldn't be counted as quitters. They were arguably both about to be booted anyway, as were most the other people you mentioned. Osten, Nay and Kelly are true quitters. They were in no danger from the game. They simply just couldn't hack it. Oh, they were cold. I guess I missed the parkas everyone else got to wear.

We both know MB doesn't mind a quitter or two, hence the lack of clothes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't mind it.

Ian made the most noble gesture ever done in the show. He didn't quit. He allowed his friends to move on. It was a selfless gesture. That is the complete opposite of what Nay and Kelly did.

>

Quitting at jury stage only happened once before, though. And the way it was reported at the time Janu didn't negotiate staying on the jury as a condition before she quit; she wanted desperately to quit but professional showgirl mode kicked in and she didn't want to ruin the production, she held off quitting until she was assured that it wouldn't mess up Survivor. The show must go on. So, there was a credible reason for keeping her on the jury.

But it had nothing to do with fairness to the players relying on her vote at final, and that shouldn't matter anyway, nor should that it would leave an alliance in the lurch or mess up the Pagonging. Roll with the punches, Survivor players, there are no assurances. This time NaOnka and Kelly just quit under the assumption they would be on the jury, there was nothing in the rules except the Janu precedent to guide what happened, from now on they have it covered that production can do whatever they decide is best. Yay!

Don't want your buddy quitting, talk them out of quitting. Better yet, don't align with insane drama queens or brainless beach bunnies or other potential quitters.

You and me, dabo, are in complete agreement on this.

>

Iltarion wrote:

>Oh, I see, quitting is nothing
>new and there have been
>a dozen, so we should
>all be fine with it.
>Nice argument. What's the fuss
>about adultery? It has been
>around forever and everyone does
>it. Hahaha....
>

Adultery? Now that's a perfectly hilarious comparison. What do you propose we do to adulterers? Get them thrown out of their private country clubs? Fire them from their boardrooms? We do nothing to adulterers except listen to their stories of how they banged their secretary while the wife was busy with the kids. Heck! We offer them another round!

>Giving up, usually because you are
>about to be booted, is
>not the same as quitting.
>Really, Janu and JFP shouldn't
>be counted as quitters. They
>were arguably both about to
>be booted anyway, as were
>most the other people you
>mentioned. Osten, Nay and Kelly
>are true quitters. They were
>in no danger from the
>game.

So, in other words it was Osten, Nay and Kelly's choice. Aren't we in a free country? Did it cost you anything that they quit? Did they owe you anything?

They simply just couldn't
>hack it.

It happens. Every year, teams in every imaginable sport invest a lot of money on their rookies but many can't hack it and they quit.

>We both know MB doesn't mind
>a quitter or two, hence
>the lack of clothes, but
>that doesn't mean we shouldn't
>mind it.

What do you call that? I call it exploitation. I find it very understandable that someone would say: "This is crazy. I'm not going to go through this anymore."

>Ian made the most noble gesture
>ever done in the show.

Noble? He had messed up and didn't know how to fix it so he did the stupidest thing possible.

>He didn't quit.

Of course he did. He stepped down voluntarily with nothing to gain from it except "friendship".

Dabo wrote:

>>Quitting at jury stage only
>happened once before, though."

Sorry, but I count 3: Janu, Ian and Lisi. From the tribal swap until she was voted out Lisi kept on saying that she would quitting. Alex finally decided he had enough. That's quitting.

>>"And the way it was reported
>at the time Janu didn't negotiate
>staying on the jury as a condition
>before she quit;"

Read those reports again because Jeff was quite clear: The reason it took so long was because Janu didn't want to say she was quitting until she was assured to be on the jury.
The only other version of that story that we heard was from those Jeff-bashers who claimed that he convinced Janu to quit in order to save Stephenie. Either way, the precedent is that the show made sure a quitter could be on the jury.

The show must go on? Please. Janu had stopped caring for days.

>"from now on they have it covered
>that production can do whatever
>they decide is best. Yay!"

No. Boo! Because now we will not know what happens to quitters. Some will get preferential treatment and will sit on the jury while others will be sent away. Double standards are nothing to rejoice about and it will make it harder for Survivors to "roll with the punches." A game needs rules. People that we exploit for our amusement need compassion not fines and penalties.

LAST EDITED ON 12-23-10 AT 03:13 AM (EST)

Wow... how can one respond to that?

nothing happens to adulterers...see Tiger Woods... women getting stoned in Iran...

men applauding and buying rounds for guys who cheat on their wives...

exploitation of people who sign up for, agree to, and get paid to be on TV...

Being selfless is "stupid"...

"many" rookies in every sport quitting...

That post is straight out of bizarro world.

Wow.

quitters boo- dabo and iltarion
quitters yay- michel

I think I'll just leave it at the already established.

>

Using Iran as model? And you call me bizarre?

And Tiger didn't do any jail time and he wasn't suspended from the PGA. It was his public image of being squeeky clean that got hurt in this politically correct sick world.

To make it clear, I don't like quitters but I don't make a fuss about it. It's normal under those circumstances and I don't want to see someone hurt themself as a result of public disapproval.

Ian wasn't being selfless, he was confused.

What don't you understand about rookies not hacking it? Very few draft choices make it to the majors, most stay in the minors because "they can't hack it" as you said and, after a while, they move on to something else like selling cars. That's a form of quitting.

Right. Tiger didn't suffer any consequences from his repeated adultery. It isn't like he lost $100 million or got divorced or lost most of his endorsements or ruined his social image or became a part time parent of his children or suffered through his worst season as a professional. Oh wait.

Iran isn't the only country with Sharia law or a version of it. Committing adultery in many countries is a serious offense.

But, regardless, even in secular countries like this one, there are always consequences. If I did it, I could lose my marriage, half the custody of my children, half of everything I own, and the respect of everyone close to me. Personally, I would rather do jail time.

Other than that, you are right; nothing bad happens to adulterers. We practically sit around and applaud them, buy them drinks- GREAT JOB, MAN! PROUD OF YOU!- HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Of course, in your scenario, you seemed to be specifically targeting the rich- "country clubs... boardrooms." I don't know if that means only the rich commit adultery or only the rich don't care. Both are equally preposterous so... I guess it doesn't matter. Maybe you were just watching Mad Men at the time.

Baseball players in the minors are not rookies. You don't become a rookie until you make the team. Rookies in any sport rarely quit. Any athlete quitting DURING a season is extremely frowned upon. It also irks me when a coach does the same, which is becoming more prevalent.

No one wants to see anyone hurt themselves, but like I said before, quitting isn't being made any more difficult. Simply walk up to the crew and quit. If not getting a jury vote is going to stop you from quitting, then apparently you don't want to quit that bad. And like what you said about quitting, if someone really wants to hurt themselves, they'll find a reason why.

Ian we'll just forever disagree about. Props to him.

"politically correct sick world" - now there's something we can agree on.

>

First of all, I think Tiger, who has made over $1 Billion dollars shooting commercials should be held to a higher standard than two nobodies who quit a game show. Even if you don't agree about that then Tiger is the exception that confirms the rule. There are many people who cheat on their spouses and don't suffer any consequences. Instead they are called "Ladies' man" and envied by many of their friends. Ever listen to the roar of applause that Tiger still receives!!!!!!

And I assure you that the we I used to say that "we" do nothing to adulterers didn't include the Ayatollahs. I meant us here watching Survivor in North America. I didn't think it needed specifying.

I also said that the quitters will face tough times from their families, friends and neighbours so telling me that your wife would ask for a divorce and you could lose half of everything you own doesn't compare. Do you personaly know Kelly or Na'Onka? The "we" is the general public and they don't care about the vast majoirity of adulterers, why would the general public care that much about quitters?

As for the semantics of baseball, I think it was clear I meant the youngsters that were drafted, that don't take their development seriously, never make the team and then move on to something else. We don't do anything about those quitters. Instead we blame the GM for making stupid choices that costs the team LOTS of money. Why do we blame the girls and not Burnett? Need any more clarifications?

As for walking to the crew and simply saying you want to quit, that is exactly what Na'Onka and Kelly did. Impose a penalty and the honest approach will never be used again.

More like we call them "scumbags."

People get away with murder too, but there are always consequences. Always.

>

I missed the episode where Na'Onka killed Kelly Bruno.
Arguments aren't for today.

I wish you a Merry Christmas.

>Ian made the most noble gesture
>ever done in the show.
>He didn't quit. He allowed
>his friends to move on.
>It was a selfless gesture.
>That is the complete opposite
>of what Nay and Kelly did.

Selfless gesture? No, it was one of the dumbest moves in Survivor history.

Last time I checked, it was "Outwit", "Outlast" and "Outplay", not "Outfriend" or "Outnoble". You can always make friends after the show or at the very worst, you don't have to see them again after the show ends ... but bottom line is to win the game. Ian is a moron.

I agree Ian was an idiot. He didn't see that Tom was playing the situation to his own advantage. Tom may have been mildly miffed about Ian's comment at first, but he saw that it was an opportunity to clinch the game for himself -- it gave him an excuse to drop Ian early instead of bringing him to the Final 2. So he ranted and raved at Ian to make him feel bad and Ian stupidly caved in.

I still think Jeff should have insisted that they have a Tribal Council, so the jury could learn what happened. Who knows, it might have changed some of their opinions of Tom.

If there were a monetary penalty for quitting, which is what I would like to see -- quitters get the same fee as the person voted off first -- Ian would surely have rethought the situation.

Belle, say I want to quit and I hate someone that's still there. I could start a fight that would get both of us tossed out. I wouldn't have quit so I'd still get my money but I also get the satisfaction of getting someone else out. Even if the contract excludes fighters from getting money, then I could still figure that I've got nothing to lose.

The show has had...let's see...seven official quitters, as in, people who left the game by means other than the vote, medical evacuation, or reaching the end. The show has also had zero people who have been thrown out for fighting or breaking Survivor Commandment #2: Thou Shalt Not Conspire to Share the Money. (Supposedly, Sash got no votes because he offered to pay Jane's mortgage in exchange for turning the jury on his side, but that's an unconfirmed rumor.) Someone who breaks one of the two cardinal rules of Survivor is probably in a hell of a lot more trouble than a quitter ever would be, and the person they try to start the fight with is probably not dumb enough to fight back in any way other than self-defense, especially with a bunch of security around. So if a person wants to be an idjet and get thrown out for slugging another player, it's their funeral.

Honestly, though, the fact that Survivor has a "Thou shalt not hit" strategy is something I am a bit surprised no one has tried to exploit. People must just not take the bait - one way to get a dominant player tossed would be to enrage him/her to the point that he/she hauls off and hits someone. It's the kind of thing that would work exactly once in all of Survivor's history. (The inspiration for the strategy was a story we told back in my college days about a UN delegate in 1950, who was seeking to involve the UN in the Korean War on South Korea's side, knowing that the Soviet delegate could veto the motion. Knowing this, he annoyed and enraged the Soviet delegate to the point that he stormed out of the meeting room, and then the delegate immediately called for a move into voting procedure and passed the motion, with the Soviet delegate absent. This move has never, to anyone's knowledge, worked the same way since. And if a Survivor tried something like it, it would either work with spectacular results, or fail and completely backfire.)

Well, we don't know that it has never been tried, though we can assume that if it had ever worked we would know about it. This would be the Ben Linus strategy of Survivor, getting into their heads by the punching bag method, someone really might try that some day. But it would ultimately be a losing strategy without a major redemption play towards the end of the game.

Well, it could depend on the jury sympathies, I suppose. Apparently, Alina and Brenda fell for the Born Loser political campaign strategy. Various politicians have claimed to have successfully used it, author Edgar Rice Burroughs even claimed it was how he won his one elected office (before he became a successful writer). Basically, here's how it works, go to all the campaign stops, shake everyone's hand, convince as many people as you can that you are going to lose and probably won't get any votes, they vote for you thinking you are going to lose but hey it wasn't that bad.

>"Honestly, though, the fact
>that Survivor has a "Thou shalt
>not hit" strategy is something
>I am a bit surprised no one has
>tried to exploit."

Obviously you missed the commentary on the episode that followed Trish's elimination. Fairplay said he saw how angry Rupert was after receiving two votes that he kept smiling hoping to get punched in the face.

We call that The Bonaduce Gambit.

...or the Yau Man attack.

Obviously you missed the commentary on the episode that followed Trish's elimination. Fairplay said he saw how angry Rupert was after receiving two votes that he kept smiling hoping to get punched in the face.

I've heard rumors that Fairplay did that because he knew Rupert couldn't hit him - not sure if it was Fairplay trying to get hit or just hiding behind the rulebook. The irony, of course, if that I bought my brother Survivor: Pearl Islands on DVD for his birthday one year, and that's the one episode I have never seen (I was out of town when that episode aired and never caught it.)

I guess if someone was going to try something like that, it would be Fairplay.

Reading the Survivor rules and contract, one realizes that Jiffy didn't make a new rule because of Na and Purple Kelly, he was just doing his usual Public Relations BS:

http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/survivor/2010_May_31_survivor_rules

It was always at the producer's discretion whether quitters would be paid or could serve on the jury as seen at the top of page 5. There was nothing new at the reunion.