Email this topic to a friend Printer-friendly version of this topic Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)		Archived thread - Read only  Previous Topic | Next Topic
Conferences Survivor Spoilers Forum (Protected)
Original message

dangerboy 128 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson" 11-02-01, 11:41 PM (EST) "The Rules" Everyone keeps mentioning the rules so I figured I would post them for everyone's info. From the CBS site at: http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor3/show/about/rules.shtml They are: The rules of SURVIVOR are designed not only to uphold the premise of the show, but also to promote the safety of all Survivors and crew members. The prize for following all these rules and making it to the very end is one million dollars, but consolation cash prizes will be awarded to the other Survivors, based on their order of elimination. The consolation prizes will range from approximately $2,500 for the first person voted out of Africa, to approximately $100,000 for the runner-up. Several actions will result in immediate elimination from the contest and expulsion from Africa, as well as forfeiture of any prize. If you were one of the Survivors, you wouldn't want to do any of these things: Try to conspire to share the prize. The million dollars may be won by one and only one individual. Survivors are prohibited from sharing or making any agreement to share all or any portion of the prize. Enter the production area. The area designated for the production crew is strictly off-limits to the Survivors. Break the law. Even though they are stranded in a remote area of Africa, the Survivors will still be held to U.S. law, as well as local law. Any breach of those laws is against the contest rules. Miss a Tribal Council or a challenge. Tribal Council meetings are mandatory for all Survivors, and everyone is required to vote. In addition, sitting out of a challenge that requires the participation of all Survivors is not allowed. Damage the African environment. Only designated fruits, vegetables, and animals are allowed to be harvested as food. In addition, the Survivors may not leave litter or any other debris on the site, and they will be obliged to give full consideration to the ecological impact of everything they do in Africa. Act up. Any misconduct is against the rules, including but not limited to stealing or misappropriating food, harming other Survivors or crew members, and acts of violence. j   Top

Subject     Author     Message Date     ID    RE: The Rules sleeeve 11-03-01 1    The Rules dangerboy 11-03-01 2    RE: The Rules munson 11-03-01 6  RE: The Rules George Tirebiter 11-03-01 3    RE: The Rules dangerboy 11-03-01 4    RE: The Rules Fast Eddie 11-03-01 5  RE: The Rules Slymmer 11-03-01 7  RE: The Rules zzz 11-03-01 8    RE: The Rules dangerboy 11-04-01 9        RE: The Rules zzz 11-04-01 10            Agree AyaK 11-06-01 11                RE: Agree zzz 11-06-01 12                    Wish it wasn't so. dangerboy 11-06-01 13                        RE: Wish it wasn't so. zzz 11-06-01 14

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

sleeeve 3456 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity" 11-03-01, 00:10 AM (EST) 1. "RE: The Rules" FYI: These are the heavily abbreviated rules of the game... The official rules include clauses about interacting with the cameras and crew, how to behave once booted from the show, and penalties that SEG is authorized to employ if necessary. Basically, you're seeing the edited version that they want the public to see... At one point, there was a copy of the full rules available somewhere... I'm not sure where that can be found any more. You never know what might be up my sleeeve...   Top

dangerboy 128 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson" 11-03-01, 00:49 AM (EST) 2. "The Rules" You are right Sleeevey I was not thorough. So I went out to the past shows' websites to find the thorough rules. I seem to remember going through them some time back and they read like a contract. I went out to the first survivor website and it is just like the Africa one. I went out to the Outback site and it reads just like the other two. Then I remembered that it was when I was reading the requirements for auditioning for the Outback that I read the rules that were thorough and read like a contract. So I went out to the CBS site to find out the requirements for the auditions etc. Here is what I found: Nada. So I sent CBS an email asking for the rules that the contestants agreed to. We shall see if they respond. j   Top

munson 1314 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Beef Jerky Spokesperson" 11-03-01, 06:09 PM (EST) 6. "RE: The Rules" sleeeve, while I agree that the rules listed on the website are abbreviated and absent most specifics, I think you may be confusing the rules of the game with the contract stipulations imposed upon the participants by the producers. I suspect the Survivor "rule book" contains very general guidelines governing game play that allow MBP quite a bit of latitude involving game situations. For example, the rule book could say that at the start of the game, all contestants are assigned to one of two competing tribes but that the assignment is at the discretion of the producers. This would allow player swapping without violating the "rules." The rules could further state that at some point in the game, not necessarily after a specific number of days, the two tribes will merge into one tribe with contestants competing for individual immunity. This would allow for Ice Cat's scenario of any "early" merge. On the other hand, the contract that all participants must sign would be very specific and include the points you mention. My point is that unless we actually get to review a copy of the rules as explained to the contestants, we'll never know what is allowed or what isn't. At this point, I don't think we can discount any possibility based on whether or not it violates the rules of the game.   Top

George Tirebiter 2982 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest" 11-03-01, 09:50 AM (EST) 3. "RE: The Rules" >. . . including but not limited to stealing or misappropriating food Excuse me, but isn't this exactly what the GXA already did, two episodes ago? "Better to eat it all than to leave this little bit" and all? I thought at the time someone should've b¡tchslapped the lot of them, but nothing came of it. I suppose it would've totally screwed the series to give half a tribe their walking papers, but if I was a lawsuit-happy loozer, I think I'd seize upon this incident. And yes--Clarence misappropriated and stole, but the conspiracy quality to the Beadies' actions elevated that to a whole different level. GT   Top

dangerboy 128 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson" 11-03-01, 10:03 AM (EST) 4. "RE: The Rules" I was focusing on the "conspire to share the prize" clause but I think you have pointed out something pretty good GT. If they were to punish the GenX's for their stealing of food then it would break the alliance. BUT, I think I read somewhere that Carl didn't know anything about the food stealing until the episode was aired. IF that is true then I think that they aren't going to burn someone for that. If they dismissed someone for that then Carl would have known about it earlier. It may be that they tell the survivors something simple like "you can't discuss your votes". That would effectively end the alliances. j   Top

Fast Eddie 625 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator" 11-03-01, 02:24 PM (EST) 5. "RE: The Rules" To be fair, "stealing" to me implies taking something that is not within your part of the game, e.g., sneaking the crew's food. This is not the same as failing to "share and share alike". "Misappropriating" is somewhat closer to it, but I don't think the intent is to stop the kind of action we've seen so far.   Top

Slymmer 61 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square" 11-03-01, 06:25 PM (EST) 7. "RE: The Rules" Share the prize???? Well if they are not allowed to share the prize what the heck was Tina giving Colby the money for a new harley??? I know that is S2 and we are here for S3 but these guides have got to be very general other wise we would have heard about rules and violations of a lot earlier then now. Personally I belive that after the Stacy event the Lawyers for the production company and SEE-BS have combed through every nook and cranny to ensure that every thing is within the Rules and Contracts of the Show. _____________________________________________________ If Life is but a Dream, what happens when we wake up?   Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator" 11-03-01, 11:44 PM (EST) 8. "RE: The Rules" I have a response to a few things said so far in this thread. First of all--Brandon and the rest of the GXA did NOT steal or misappropriate food. That food belonged to the tribe and if one person from the tribe takes all of it, he or she has not stolen it. If the other members of the tribe want to kick the person out over it they can, but it is not stealing. When the tribe gets the food it is not 1/8 of the food for each of 8 people. It is the entire amount of food for all 8. It is a technical distinction but very important. Stealing would be somethinkg like taking food from the other tribe or from the crew or food laying out at a challenge that has not been given out yet. Think of it as if your mom brings home milk for the whole family that is suposed to last a week and while everyone is out, you drink it all the first day. You might get punished by your mom. The rest of the family might feel you stole from them. But legally, no theft would be involved. As far as the Harley, I heard that Tina ended up not buying it for him for that very reason. She was advised it could be seen as sharing the prize in violation of the contract. I think I heard that Rosie O'Donnell did get him one, however. As for the point that people will not let die that MB is somehow limited in changing the tribe make-up by the rules of the game--I am nearly 100% certain that MB can do this as long as he does not directly determine who gets voted off. I have heard many people report that European version of Survivor have had BOTH member swapping and three tribe variations. MB would know before the game started that he wanted to be free to make a decision to introduce such a twist, and I gurantee his lawyers made sure the rules were written to give him maximum latitude. That is what lawyers are good at doing. He cannot forge votes; he cannot tell people how to vote; he must eliminate one person at a time and give the appropriate prize associated with the place the person came in the game. Beyond that, I suspect the rules and contracts allow him to make just about any changes he wants in the game. I know the person who started this post was just trying to let people see copies of the rules (which would be interesting to see if we really could get a copy of the entire rules). I am not criticizing him. I also know that people like to accuse MB of nafarious activity. I just wish people would stop saying that he cannot make some of the changes people have speculated about, or that if he does he will lose a law suit brought by the losing players. This notion is just silly. Anyone can sue, but the case would be dismissed (as opposed to Stacey's suit which she could win if she could actually prove that MB got Rudy to switch his vote).   Top

dangerboy 128 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson" 11-04-01, 03:59 PM (EST) 9. "RE: The Rules" In many ways I agree with you zzz. I think MB can intrepret the rules any way he wants and ultimately will have a great deal of latitude as long as he doesn't directly interfere with the contestant's decisions. In fact, even if he did directly interfere it would take lawsuits like Stacey's to bring it out and CBS and MB have a lot more legal resources than the contestants. Ultimately, I don't think MB is worried about lawsuits at all and it wouldn't affect his decision-making process for doing what he thinks is right for his production. It's his baby after all and I am sure he will do whatever he feels is right to ensure that the game goes well. If that means reorganizing the teams, interpreting or clarifying the rules, or even changing the way the game is played then so be it. He's done a great job so far I am sure he will continue to do so. I just think he's nefarious in how he manages the information we get in regard to spoiling. I do disagree about the food though. The GenX's DID misappropriate the food for themselves. Just as Clarence took an extra cherry. Playing semantics to justify the action doesn't change things. It's theft in my opinion. Playing legal beagle doesn't change things either - who cares if it is legal or not - it all depends on how MB interprets the action in the scope of the rules he has laid out. They deprived the OFA from some food in order for them to have more. Now whether MB and company decide that it was bad enough for disqualifications is up to them. Frankly, I think it isn't, but I would love to see the punkazoids get their wrists slapped over it. j   Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator" 11-04-01, 04:35 PM (EST) 10. "RE: The Rules" Dangerboy-- Thanks for the reply. Let me just expand a little on why I do not think anyone has broken the rules so far. I agree that if all the rules say is "no misappropiration of food" without any clarifying language to explain what these words mean, they are somewhat vague and can be interpreted more than one way. In our legal system, these issues are broght to courts that decide the meaning of the words and the caselaw is generally followed in future cases. Here, MB is the judge of the meaning of the words (at least initially). However, because the penalty might be disqualification or might affect the outcome of the game, I believe MB is obligate to interpret the words as narrowly as possible--NOT as broadly as possible. If he interprets them broadly, someone has a very legitimate complaint that they reasonably interpreted them narrowly and did not believe they violated the rule. In the law, any statute that imposes a penalty is supposed to be interpreted as narrowly as possible because it is unfair to impose a penalty on someone without full disclosure that the action was subject to the penalty. If MB chose to interpret the actions as an infraction of the rules, he would very likely have a lawsuit that he just might lose. If I were a judge and he disqualified (or otherwise penalized in a way that would likely affect the outcome of the game) someone for taking more than his or her fair share of the groups' food, I very well might rule against MB. MB has no incentive to take this risk. He is really under great pressure (and I am sure his lawyers have told him this) not to penalize a player unless the player has committed a clear and unambiguous infraction of the rules. The fact that reasonable people can disagree on whether taking more than one's fair share of the groups' food is a misappropriation of the food necessarily means that MB must interpret the action as not violating the rules. If MB wanted to make this behavior against the official rules (and actually I do not think he wants that--he wants the group dynamics to address these type of issues), he would have to make the rule more specific and unambiguous.   Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 11-06-01, 01:57 PM (EST) 11. "Agree" zzz has raised an important point that I believe we discussed back in S1 regarding Rudy and then again in S2: "stealing food" here does NOT mean taking more than your share from your tribe's supply. Instead, it involves taking food from the other team, from crew members, or from rewards that you didn't win. MB relies on each tribe to control its portion sizes and allocations ... that's simply part of tribal political dynamics. Thus, NO ONE (including Rudy, Keith, the GXA and Clarence) has "stolen food" on any of the Survivor shows so far.   Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator" 11-06-01, 02:59 PM (EST) 12. "RE: Agree" AyaK-- Thank you for backing me up. I know we disagree on what the twist will be (if I understand your other posts, you are in favor of a 1-for-1 swap and as you know I believe in the 3 tribe theory), but I am glad we can agree on some things. It is amusing to me how quickly some people want to believe that someone has violated the rules. I don't think that it is a close call, but even if it is a close call MB has got to give the benefit to the player. Thanks again.   Top

dangerboy 128 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson" 11-06-01, 05:04 PM (EST) 13. "Wish it wasn't so." I want to believe that the punkazoids broke the rules because I am grasping at any straw that would disqualify them. I dislike them for their pettiness and disrespect to the others. Especially after Lindsey's "Don't mess with me" diatribe. I also don't think it's even a remote possibility but I think it's up to MB how he interprets the actions of the contestants. I look upon their actions with the food as misappropriation of the food. It was petty I know but to me they were not only disrespectful but also dishonest as well. Unfortunately they probably won't be held to task for it. I am leaning toward a three tribe dynamic resulting from an early merge as the "twist" though. j   Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator" 11-06-01, 05:12 PM (EST) 14. "RE: Wish it wasn't so." Dangerboy-- Thanks for acknowledging that your conclusions were based primarily on emotion. Disqualification is a really strong response, and I really think the violation would have to be totally unambiguous for MB to be willing to resort to it (he also I think has no desire to disqualify anyone--it makes for crappy TV because he loses the suspense of a TC vote--if you watch Big Brother you know what lengths they tried to go not to disqualify Justin but he gave them no choice). As you probably know, I am with you on the three tribe theory. I am going to look pretty foolish at this point if I am wrong. Oh well, I can take the humiliation if I have to. I just hope I can bask in the glory instead.   Top

Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Select another forum Lobby The Amazing Race Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--The Amazing Race Fanatics Forum (Protected)   |--The Amazing Race Basher Forum (Protected)   |--The Amazing Race Spoiler/Speculation Forum (Protected) American Idol Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--American Idol General Discussion Forum (Protected)   |--American Idol Individual Contestant and Judge Discussion Forum (Protected) Big Brother Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--Big Brother Fanatic Forum (Protected)   |--Big Brother Bashers Forum (Protected)   |--Big Brother Live Feed Updates And Spoilers (Protected) Survivor Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--Survivor Fanatic Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor Basher Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor Spoilers Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor Games Forum (Protected) Other Reality TV Shows (Conference)   |--The Bachelor / The Bachelorette Forum (Protected)   |--Dancing with the Stars Forum (Protected)   |--Other Reality TV Shows Forum (Protected) Off Topic (Conference)   |--The Help Forum (Protected)   |--Off-Topic Forum (Protected)