The Amazing Race   American Idol   The Apprentice   The Bachelor   The Bachelorette   Big Brother   The Biggest Loser
Dancing with the Stars   So You Think You Can Dance   Survivor   Top Model   The Voice   The X Factor       Reality TV World
   
Reality TV World Message Board Forums
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats, but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are encouraged to read the complete guidelines. As entertainment critic Roger Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
"State of the Spoiling, Episode 5"
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

sleeeve 3456 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity"

11-06-01, 02:09 AM (EST)
Click to EMail sleeeve Click to send private message to sleeeve Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
"State of the Spoiling, Episode 5"
In what could be one of the most confusing weeks since Survivor 1, and in an effort to de-clutter the board and collect our combined thoughts, we bring you the official...

Okay... first of all, my pledge to you: while I have my own personal opinion about what will happen this week, I will do my best to try to summarize the pros and cons of every twist theory presented on our board, and will include links to the original discussions about each point... however, since there are some theories that I have pretty much dismissed, I may not give them their appropriate due. If you feel that I have mis-represented a theory presented for the twist (or if I missed it altogether), please, please, please respond to this thread, and correct me.

This is a discussion thread... feel free to respond to the theories presented in this thread with your own ideas... also, if you'd like to weigh in with support of a specific theory, feel free to do that, as well... might help some undecided people make up thier minds if they see who and how many are backing each theory...

What is the twist???


Seems to be the question of the hour... below, in no particular order, are the theories of some of the spoilers at SB:

Three Tribes Theory
Discussion can be found at: http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1703.shtml
Summary: Both tribes re-divided (at random???) into 3 competing tribes.
Pros: Animal symbolism (in possibly doctored photo) seems to suggest this.
Ep5 is the only time this could happen (12 members... 9 is too late)
The Jeff spoiler (discussed below)
Cons: Supported by Futurizmo.com a website known to be wrong, wrong, wrong.
CBS may have been too forthcoming, suggesting this option themselves.
Animal symbolism isn't fact (remember how everyone was sure that the Kangaroo struggling in the water was symbolic of a Kucha coming back to win... turns out, it was just good footage of a Kangaroo in the water).
Where would third tribe live? Unfair disadvantage???
Who would get what supplies??? Unfair redistribution?
Doesn't guarantee GXA split up.
If random, might have one strong, dominant tribe.
How do three-tribe IC's work?

Early Merge Theory
Discussion can be found at: http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1701.shtml
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1695.shtml
Summary: Three versions of this:
They strictly merge early as if this was Ep7, and begin to compete individually.
They merge in one camp, but continue to compete as two tribes.
They merge in one camp, but reshuffle into three competing tribes.
Pros: Fixes water/food situation
Satisfies preview.
Doesn't defy "rules" as we know them.
May explain Kelly's necklace.
If they continue to compete, then might break up GXA as their alliance becomes exposed and F/T try to ally with the other tribe.
Cons: Loss of tribal identity with all living together.
Might make surviving "too easy" with so many tribe members.
Would this warrant the hype given to it (ie average viewer doesn't know merge is usually in Ep7).
Why would Sue say weakest members are now targets?

Swap Three Members Theory
Discussion can be found at: http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1689.shtml
Summary: Three members from each tribe are swapped, possibly after a tribal vote.
Pros: Doesn't put any tribe members at a disadvantage
Could redistribute supplies to make water and food fair.
Assures GXA broken up.
Seems to fit with preview and with Kelly's necklace.
Cons: Loss of tribal identity (which tribe would be "Boran", who gets which camp)
Possible problems with fairly dividing all supplies.
Why would Sue say weakest members are now targets?

Swap Two Members Theory
Discussion can be found at: http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1699.shtml
Summary: Each tribe swaps two members... could be chosen at random, by the tribe, one chosen by outgoing tribe, one chosen by incoming tribe, one voted out takes one with them, etc.
Pros: New members have a natural ally.
Seems to fit with preview and Kelly's necklace.
Cons: No assurance GXA is broken up.
Why would Sue say weakest members are now targets?

Swap One Member Theory
Discussion can be found at: http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1694.shtml
Summary: Tribes switch one member each, either by voting one of their own out, or by choosing one from the opposing tribe.
Pros: precident: this happens in Ep5 of "Expedition Robinson", the Swedish version of Survivor owned by Survivor producer Mark Burnett.
Could fit nicely with preview
Might explain Kelly's necklace
If tribes choose who they want, new tribe member would probably not be an immediate TC target.
Cons: No assurance GXA is broken up.
Why would Sue say weakest members are now targets?

Temporary Swap
Discussion can be found at: http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/cgi-bin/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1685&forum=DCForumID2&omm=48
Summary: Players temporarily switch tribes for a little chance to share previous votes.
Pros: Might not be against rules.
Seems to fit with preview.
Arrouses suspicion and might shatter friendships.
Might explain Kelly's necklace.
Cons: We've had ambassadors before, and it hasn't affected voting blocks.
Why would Sue say weakest members are now targets?
Is it really worth the hype?

Hot Steamy SEX Theory
Discussion can be found at: http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1708.shtml
Summary: The shocking turn of events is that two players are caught in the act.
Pros: Seems to fit with previews.
Cons: Kelly's necklace
Why would Sue say weakest members are now targets?
When do the producers institute their twist?
Would all friendships really shatter?
Shouldn't preview say "Sex, sex, sex, sex, sex!!!"

Lawsuit Inspiring Change in Rules
Discussion can be found at: http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1698.shtml
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1523.shtml#17
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1709.shtml
Summary: Many possibilities... proabably best to read the threads.
Pros: No real support of any of these have imerged, although most of them satisfy the previews.
Cons: Lawsuits are bad.
Kelly's necklace not explained.
Why would Sue say weakest members are now targets?

Additional Evidence:


Susan Hawk, notorious for poor speculation and for being dead wrong, seems to have a little birdie whispering in her ear, because she talks about the twist two entire episodes in advance. Major point of interest: "Now we'll see just how strong alliances are. Can they hold together if their members are split apart? Normally, this is the time when you vote out someone who is physically threatening to you in individual challenges. But now that circumstances have changed, the weaker players will again be the targets."

See her entire preview, and what others are thinking about it, here:
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/cgi-bin/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1683&forum=DCForumID2&omm=0

Will water play a role in the twist???
Some feel that water was featured heavily last week as a preview for its impact in this week's twist. Others feel that this is typical MB editing and should be taken with a grain of salt. If water plays a role, what role will it play, and could this endanger MB with lawsuits (for changing the game), or must any rule change be pre-planned. Weigh in with your opinions, here:
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1705.shtml

The Kelly Vidcap
A picture is worth 1000 words:

Reward Challenge
The first 15 minutes of the show are usually reserved for the Reward Challenge... but this week, they will feature the twist. Will the twist have something to do with the Reward Challenge? Will the Reward Challenge be pre-empted altogether (note that we have no challenge previews this week, although that may be to hide what the new tribe break-down is)? Tell us what you think, here":
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1702.shtml

The rules
Can MB change them? Do we even know what they are?
dangerboy has copied the skeleton rules from the CBS website, here:
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1697.shtml
and legal genius, AyaK discusses MB's legal options, here:
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/cgi-bin/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1685&forum=DCForumID2&omm=8

Jeff Varner on BB2
Jeff discussed an interesting twist while visiting the houseguests during the taping of Big Brother 2 (thanks for the bump, SurvivinDawg). His comments were caught on the live feeds, and can be found, here:
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1523.shtml

In other news:


We have the typical vidcaps, this week, but it seems that MB is up to his old tricks. Go here to see Bungler's excellent caps, and then keep reading, cause he'll show you that a lot of the stuff in the preview (that people are basing their twist speculation on) is actually from previous episodes:
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1706.shtml

Here's the weekly Survivor Insider thread... enjoy for free what some of us have paid for:
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1696.shtml

Krautboy points out that Clarence and Kim P. have been the tribal narrators... but will it matter once the twist occurs? Read more, here:
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1688.shtml

Kelly and Silas are apparently friends, now... is it because they live in the same area? Because they went on safari together after being booted from the game? Or because they became close allies within the context of the game? Read more, here:
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID2/1692.shtml

Yeah, yeah, yeah... so it isn't a spoiler, but I'm going post by post, trying not to miss anything significant in this SOTS, and I thought I should point out that dangerkitty wrote a kick-ass summary of Ep4, so go read it, here:
http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/DCForumID1/737.shtml


You never know what might be up my sleeeve...

  Top

  Table of Contents

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
 Thanx, no complaints dabo 11-06-01 1
   RE: Thanx, no complaints Superman 11-06-01 2
 RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode ... Outfrontgirl 11-06-01 3
   Ok OFG Superman 11-06-01 4
   RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode ... zzz 11-06-01 12
 Bravo to Sleeeve plus weak evidence Bebo 11-06-01 5
 Another 'con' for some of the specu... StarvingButStrong 11-06-01 6
 RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode ... Fast Eddie 11-06-01 7
 RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode ... ItzLisa 11-06-01 8
 Spoiling Safari ? Krautboy 11-06-01 9
   RE: Spoiling Safari ? SurvivorBlows 11-06-01 32
 RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode ... George Tirebiter 11-06-01 10
 Targets AyaK 11-06-01 11
   RE: Targets zzz 11-06-01 13
 RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode ... Bungler 11-06-01 14
   RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode ... zzz 11-06-01 15
       Evidence? AyaK 11-06-01 17
           Look carefully at the wording... Ogachu 11-06-01 19
               RE: Look carefully at the wording..... zzz 11-06-01 21
                   RE: Look carefully at the wording..... Ogachu 11-06-01 27
                       RE: Look carefully at the wording..... zzz 11-06-01 30
                           RE: Look carefully at the wording..... Ogachu 11-07-01 42
                               RE: Look carefully at the wording..... zzz 11-07-01 43
                                   RE: Agreed -- we disagree! Ogachu 11-07-01 44
                                   RE: Look carefully at the wording..... MDSkinner 11-07-01 46
                                       RE: Look carefully at the wording..... zzz 11-07-01 47
                                           RE: Look carefully at the wording..... MDSkinner 11-07-01 48
                                               RE: Look carefully at the wording..... zzz 11-07-01 49
                                                   RE: Look carefully at the wording..... MDSkinner 11-07-01 50
                                                       RE: Look carefully at the wording..... dabo 11-07-01 52
                                                   RE: Look carefully at the wording..... Bebo 11-07-01 53
                                                       RE: Look carefully at the wording..... zzz 11-07-01 55
                                                           RE: Look carefully at the wording..... Bebo 11-07-01 65
                                                               RE: Look carefully at the wording..... zzz 11-07-01 67
                                                                   To quote Dieter... Bebo 11-07-01 68
                                       RE: Look carefully at what MDSkinne... Dalton 11-07-01 51
                                           RE: Look carefully at what MDSkinne... zzz 11-07-01 54
                                               RE: Look carefully at what MDSkinne... MDSkinner 11-07-01 56
           RE: Evidence? zzz 11-06-01 20
               MB Lying? AyaK 11-06-01 23
                   RE: MB Lying? zzz 11-06-01 26
                       Explanation AyaK 11-06-01 29
                           RE: Explanation zzz 11-06-01 31
               RE: Evidence? true 11-06-01 24
                   RE: Evidence? zzz 11-06-01 28
                       RE: Evidence? true 11-06-01 33
                           RE: Evidence? zzz 11-06-01 36
   The Swedish swap AyaK 11-06-01 16
       RE: The Swedish swap Outfrontgirl 11-06-01 22
 New Voting thread PagongRatEater 11-06-01 18
   More Information sleeeve 11-06-01 25
       RE: More Information...... Dalton 11-06-01 34
 RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode ... zzz 11-06-01 35
   RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode ... WaterRat 11-06-01 37
       RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode ... zzz 11-06-01 38
           Hey, why not 3 tribes? turtle 11-07-01 59
 Great Job on the SOTS, sleeeve... IceCat 11-06-01 39
   RE: Great Job on the SOTS, sleeeve.... Clarencetroy 11-06-01 41
 RED HERRING ? Naked 11-06-01 40
 Great job sleeeve.... MDSkinner 11-07-01 45
 Swedish Switch Outfrontgirl 11-07-01 57
   RE: Swedish Switch zzz 11-07-01 58
       RE: Swedish Switch MDSkinner 11-07-01 60
           RE: Swedish Switch zzz 11-07-01 63
               RE: Swedish Switch MDSkinner 11-07-01 64
                   RE: Swedish Switch zzz 11-07-01 66
                       RE: Swedish Switch MDSkinner 11-07-01 69
                           RE: Swedish Switch zzz 11-07-01 70
                               RE: Swedish Switch MDSkinner 11-07-01 72
                                   RE: The Boran Lex/Ethan/Tom "allian... Dalton 11-08-01 78
                                       RE: The Boran Lex/Ethan/Tom "allian... MDSkinner 11-08-01 79
   Brilliant! MC_Hampster 11-07-01 61
   RE: Swedish Switch 40thandUp 11-07-01 62
 Burnett on twist, 11/07 Outfrontgirl 11-07-01 71
   MB, the new Hitchcock? Rose Red 11-08-01 73
       POST sources Outfrontgirl 11-08-01 74
           Now It's Rosie O'Donnell and Howard... Rose Red 11-08-01 75
               RE: Now It's Rosie O'Donnell and Ho... zzz 11-08-01 76
   Trying to make sense of these refer... George Tirebiter 11-08-01 77
       RE: Trying to make sense of these r... Stairway2Dayton 11-08-01 80
 RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode ... UltMale 11-08-01 81

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-06-01, 02:25 AM (EST)
Click to EMail dabo Click to send private message to dabo Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
1. "Thanx, no complaints"
One question, though. Has anyone explored the possibility that Kelly's necklace might be photo-doctoring? Could a Kelly neck be a Kim P. neck? Sorry, this week has made me dizzy as can be. When is an elephant not an elephant? When it forgets. We're dealing with MB here, let's not forget that.

"If the race of man should be left naked upon a desert island, we should become extinct in six weeks. A few individuals might linger, but in a year would become worse than monkeys." (Samuel Butler, "Erewhon")

  Top

Superman 3157 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity"

11-06-01, 03:35 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Superman Click to send private message to Superman Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
2. "RE: Thanx, no complaints"
Another necklace question:

Who's to say this isn't a post merge picture?

There is a possibility that one of the GXA handed over their necklace to Kelly at a future TC ala Mad Dog's hat to Amber.

  Top

Outfrontgirl 6830 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-06-01, 03:42 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Outfrontgirl Click to send private message to Outfrontgirl Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
3. "RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode 5"
sleeeve, you pulled off a Herculean task. My god, I didn't think it could be organized this well. Thank you! (Not in a Linda way, that's fer sure)

I read it all and I am bewildered by the variety.
What I can do is state my biggest cons:
any theory that involves unfair redistribution of supplies.
any theory that swaps one less athletic member without giving them immunity for that episode.
Three camps. Not going to happen.
Rules so complex that they're not easily grasped.

Pros I buy:
Changing the rules. "the game has changed FOREVER"
Possibly the division into three competing challenge teams, which would definitely shuffle alliances.
Kelly ends up on the side of the Mawls.
Kelly then manipulates the hell out of Silas and he respects her for that later.

Most intriguing spoiler of the week:
Kelly's Mall necklace.

Lastly, thank you for including the question I've been harping on:
>Why would Sue say weakest members are now targets?

Since you repeated it this prominently, I might finally get some speculation of what it means!

My take on it is the weakest members REMAIN targets. I'm not a very creative theory maker. I stick with the easy answer, which would be that they continue to have team (if not tribal) competitions. We know that when they start individual challenges the pressure shifts from the weak to the strong, and that would normally begin with the Ep.6 TC. Sue is writing about Ep 6. Ergo, they are not going to individual immunity as early as traditionally--at least not until Ep 8.

What theory fits that?
1) An early merge options 2 and 3, most likely with the inclusion of a swap. They can't wait until Ep 8 or later to merge campsites. They can't let the population of any one living area get down to less than 4, IMO.


Don't think it won't happen just because it hasn't happened yet

  Top

Superman 3157 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity"

11-06-01, 04:04 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Superman Click to send private message to Superman Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
4. "Ok OFG"
Why would Sue say weakest members are now targets?

Since you repeated it this prominently, I might finally get some speculation of what it means!

I take it like this:

I think Sue is saying this in the context of the normal merge. As in: In the past the strong have been targets after the merge, NOW (with the twist) the weakest members are targets.

Which leads me to believe the Jeff Varner comments are true. The merge to one camp with three competing tribes.

I'm thruu specalatin' now.

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-06-01, 11:33 AM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
12. "RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode 5"
Outfrontgirl--

I know you have been reading most of my posts, so you know I have my favorite theory. However, assuming Susan is correct that we would expect the rule change to cause weaker members to be targeted, it MUST mean that there continue to be tribal competitions past E6. Normally E6 is the last separate tribal TC where an individual immunity threat person should be targeted (unless someone catches on fire and leaves the game avoiding any TC during E6). In S1, Joel was booted that episode (rather than the person that I would have thought would have been the natural choice--Gervase), perhaps because they saw Joel as the biggest individual immunity threat post merge.

Thus, the only logical conclusion is that Susan believes competition will remain team based at least past E6. A few of the theories are potentially consistent with this, but as you probably know, I believe the closest is the three tribe theory.

That also brings me to a technical issue I have with Sleeeve's summary--combining a merged camp competing as 1, 2 or 3 separate tribes are mere variations of 1 theme is very misleading. A pure early merge, for example, would NOT be consistent with Susan's statement, but living together and continuing to compete in teams would be consistent with Susan's statement. As you know, IceCat and I have had detailed discussions on the pros and cons relating to whether his preferred scenario (pure early merge) or my preferred scenario (merged camp with three tribes) is more likely. Sleeeve broke out the swap theories into three categories (trade 1, 2 or 3 people), but not the merged camp theories. That notwithstanding, Sleeeve did an amazing job. I hope he starts a vote thread on this issue to see which option people think will happen (and I hope if he does this, he breaks the merged camp theory into 3 separate categories).

Assuming Susan is correct, the one thing I think we can be sure of is that there will continue to be tribe based competitions past E6.

  Top

Bebo 21083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-06-01, 08:54 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Bebo Click to send private message to Bebo Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
5. "Bravo to Sleeeve plus weak evidence"
Applause for untangling the messed-up skein of threads to make some sense of it all!

I also read on E!Online that their gossip maven Wanda has heard that there will be three tribes and that the Mallies will fall. Not hard evidence, but wanted to bring it to the table nonetheless...

http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Trans/Emmys2001/index3.html

  Top

StarvingButStrong 74 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"

11-06-01, 08:54 AM (EST)
Click to EMail StarvingButStrong Click to send private message to StarvingButStrong Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
6. "Another 'con' for some of the speculations"
LAST EDITED ON 11-06-01 AT 08:57 AM (EST)

(I've read a lot of the spoiler threads but not all. Apologies if this was covered and I just missed it.)

The mechanics of the Reward and Immunity Challenges were undoubtedly thought up long before filming, and some of the past ones anyway have required a large investment in time/effort to set up. If this remained true, the producers would have a strong incentive to make sure they could still be able to use those set ups.

So I think this means that the ideas that destroy the two team concept (merger to all individuals/three teams) are much less likely than those that preserve it (swapping of 1/2/3 members.)

  Top

Fast Eddie 625 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-06-01, 09:27 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Fast%20Eddie Click to send private message to Fast%20Eddie Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
7. "RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode 5"
Great job. This was very much needed. I have only one quibble: for the early merge theory you say:

Cons: Loss of tribal identity with all living together.

I consider that a Pro. In fact, it's the strongest reason for actually doing this. The problem all along has been that after a merge, people's tribal loyalties are too strong and the weaker tribe gets picked off, making things too predictable. This game is about a winning person, not a winning tribe.

  Top

ItzLisa 3350 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity"

11-06-01, 09:49 AM (EST)
Click to EMail ItzLisa Click to send private message to ItzLisa Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
8. "RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode 5"
Sleeevie, we had the beginnings of a really good discussion about this on Fanatics (how it got started there, I dunno!), so if you don't mind, I'm just gonna copy and paste what I think about the whole enchilada.....

I only see "three tribes" in the loosest sense of the word - meaning, Samburu is split in two, the OFA and the GXA, and Boran is one united tribe - in a sense, that's what they mean by "three tribes", I don't think it's meant to be taken literally. Even Probster said at this past week's TC to Samburu - "You essentially have split into two tribes" because of their horrible differences with each other.

The water situation is more troubling for Samburu. Yes, this is "Survivor", but the fact is that the human body can't live without water for more than a couple of days. One can go longer without food, but all bodily functions shut down rapidly without water - death can occur in as little as two to three days. Mark Burnett isn't going to let the remaining Samburu's die in the African climate with no water. I think the "twist" is simply going to be similar to Probster's exchange with the S2 gang when they had no food left - the exchange of something of value (shelter, or whatever that would translate into in S3 terms) for new pots to boil water in, or perhaps their own supply of fresh water to last them till the merge - maybe an amount akin to what they received upon arrival in episode 1, with a new boiling pot. Maybe they have to give up a portion of their food supply, or a vaulable tool?

I don't see an early merge just for the sake of the respective food (Boran) and water (Samburu) problems. It makes for too many people on one merged tribe before it's time to do so. And Boran's water supply was only enough for one gallon of water per tribe member until the merge - that's not enough water to split up among that many additional people. Plus, Boran's food isn't a "shortage" problem - they have enough, it's just that it's gross. Samburu got the spices, but not anything of real value - just some stuff to make their s.hitty food taste better and one or two extras (marmalade, etc.). It's still essentially the same food as the Boran's have. The real situation is the water, which doesn't help any of them if they have to split it all up by adding six extra people to the mix. I think the "twist" is Samburu exchanging something for a small quantity of water and boiling pots, which isn't really a "twist" at all - it's MB's usual misleading ploy to make sure we all tune in, but it's probably the same thing he did in S2 when the rice ran out.


****************************************

"Why is Bubbles bouncing on top of that boy?" (Pooh's daughter after viewing my sig pic)

  Top

Krautboy 2750 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest"

11-06-01, 09:55 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Krautboy Click to send private message to Krautboy Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
9. "Spoiling Safari ?"
Fine work Sleeeve!

Given all these scenarios, how will the Spoiling Safari game work this week if there is a twist and/or no reward challenge?

Krautboy

  Top

SurvivorBlows 15230 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-06-01, 05:25 PM (EST)
Click to EMail SurvivorBlows Click to send private message to SurvivorBlows Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
32. "RE: Spoiling Safari ?"
Good question Kraut... you only get points if your tribe wins the RC.

If there is no tribe that wins the RC, then it will be impossible to award points to either pick. Therefore the 250 RC winner points will not be awarded to any user (so this week would then have a maximum of 1250 points instead of the usual 1500 possible points.)

-SB

  Top

George Tirebiter 2982 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest"

11-06-01, 10:56 AM (EST)
Click to EMail George%20Tirebiter Click to send private message to George%20Tirebiter Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
10. "RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode 5"
Wow, sleeeve! This forum has been such a tangle, I can't believe you sorted it all out so well--Thanks!

I totally missed the Kelly necklace pic--that seems HUGE, regardless of when it happens. Likewise, the SEXSEXSEX theory--seems like they would've played that up in a big way, as they did previously (only to gloss over the fact that nothing really happened, later.)

And just so no one forgets to make crap of me (if I was wrong to fall for it), I will wave my freak flag once more and say it seemed obvious that IF there is a 3-tribe split, they HAVE to live in a centralized camp--with numbers that low in each group, they would have to share sentry duties, et al. I haven't worked too hard to try to guess whether they would then compete for individual immunity, tribal immunity, or a hybrid (individuals winning immunity FOR their tribe?) or how the food & water supplies would be dealt with. . .

My only really strong expectation is that the first 15 minutes will not really be as earth-shattering as MB has tried to make us believe. . . he doesn't exactly have a great track record, as far as being accurate or realistic with his promises. . .

GT

  Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-06-01, 11:26 AM (EST)
Click to EMail AyaK Click to send private message to AyaK Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
11. "Targets"
One quick comment: whenever I think of the weakest members NOT being targets, I think of Rodger. Kucha protected him thanks to its numerical superiority. But in Ogakor, the weakest members were targets due to the losing streak (bye, Mad Dog & Bitchell). Similarly, in S3 so far, Samburu has not been forced to confront the problem of weaker members (e.g., Brandon), while Boran has (thus, Mama Kim knows she's about to go, as Jessie and Diane have already gone).

Bur now, due to numerical equality, NEITHER tribe has the luxury of carrying a really weak member. The weak person will have to be a target, to prevent numerical inferiority at the merge. This seems to be true REGARDLESS of whether there is ANY kind of "twist" this week. Also, someone who can't compete effectively (due to injury, say, or to dehydration) would be a liability that would have to be addressed, regardless of existing alliances ... right, Mitchell?

The more I think about this, the more I think that this "three tribe" stuff is completely an MB plant, the same way the "Rodger? Horses!" was last year ... perhaps based on the "three groups" that Itzy references (GXA, OFA, Boran).

The Swedish swap works, but it changes the feel of the game.

Under this theory, the "no preview" stuff isn't to conceal a shift in the structure, but rather to hide the fact that there is NOT a shift in the structure. Is MB this devious? You tell me ... didn't last week's preview talk about a discussion (Kelly and Clarence) that was NOT in the show, to deflect focus away from Linda?

Thought: Jeffy's comments at TC were INTENDED to create dissention within Samburu (yes, they were -- think about it!). Why bother if there is a structural shift coming up that will create dissention all by itself?

In thinking through all these alternatives, what if the "twist" simply involves how the Samburu will get water until the merger? What if they are instructed to negotiate a trade with Boran for water or for boiling pots? This would be consistent with African tribal life (barter is the main economic engine), it wouldn't muck up the game too much, and it might involve each team sending an emissary to the other team to negotiate.

I know IceCat raised similar thoughts in another thread, but I don't remember which one. Anyway, there is nothing definite here ... except for this choking feeling I'm getting from MB's attempt to cram this idea of major structural change down my throat. Wouldn't it be better TV to watch the GXA disintegrate from the pressure, instead of jerking them around? One thing MB knows (damn him!) is good TV.

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-06-01, 11:42 AM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
13. "RE: Targets"
AyaK--

I think you have missed the significance of Susan's comments (assuming they are accurate). Susan's comments were in her summary of E6--NOT a summary of E5 (the episode this Thursday). Thus, she is talking about the TC vote in the episode that, under the old rules, would be the last TC before the merge. Thus, with no more team competitions starting in E7, there is no need to keep strong members of your tribe, and there is an incentive to get rid of them as potential individual immunity threats.

Thus, as I stated above in this thread, if Susan's statements are accurate (admittedly, a big if), then it MUST mean that team competition of some kind extend beyond E6. This change alone would be a major change in the stucture of the game. Of course, to justify continuing team competitions beyond E6, it seems likely (although not necessary) that another more significant change occurred in E5 (can you say "three tribes"?).

  Top

Bungler 497 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Daytime Soap Guest Star"

11-06-01, 11:49 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Bungler Click to send private message to Bungler Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
14. "RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode 5"
LAST EDITED ON 11-06-01 AT 11:51 AM (EST)

Sign me up for the tribe that's saying the so-called "twist" won't really turn out to be anything substantial at all. The preview says all alliances and friendships are broken and shattered, and be sure to watch the first 15 minutes. What do I believe out of any of that BS? That something's going to happen in the first 15 minutes.

And what usually happens in the first 15 minutes? REWARD CHALLENGE!

So I think this whole "twist" nonsense comes down to the Reward Challenge. And of the vidcaps we have this week (of which many are extremely suspect), which ones can we fairly reliably assume are from Ep 5? I think that we can safely assume that the Lex/Kelly treemail scene is reliable. Lex says, "Oooh," and sounds very intrigued. Then we have a scene of another Boran 5 inside their boma (they're by their water tank), in a "rah-rah" huddle. But where is Kelly? She was there for treemail, but now seems to be gone. Lex is still dressed exactly the same as treemail though. So I think this directly follows treemail. And Boran's still happy. They're all smiles, and Ethan's clapping. So they're not unhappy that someone's missing. I think they've just sent Kelly off somewhere and are huddling to encourage themselves, as any typical football team would do before a game, or even a big play.

What does this signal? That RC involves the absence of at least one tribe member. What could this be? A tribal swap? Maybe, but I doubt it. An emissary sent to the opposing camp to get information? Possible, but I doubt it. What's the reward? Rewards always tend to be tangible items or trips that make the survivors feel good. So what's left? Well, what if the treemail says something like, "This challenge is mental, go back to camp and choose your smartest cookie to send away for this challenge"? Kelly's a recent college graduate and would fit that bill better than just about all of her tribemates. Who from Samburu could we consider to be intelligent, or capable of winning a mental challenge? Well, I'd have sent Linda, but she's a goner. So who's left? That selection could cause a good amount of bickering within Samburu.

I don't know if I'm way off track here or not, but I really think this is a lot more simple than we're speculating, and it has almost everything to do with Reward Challenge. And what's so "game-changing" about sending one tribe member to RC? Well, it'd be the first time it's been done. Has a tribe ever had to select one person from their midst to carry the tribe's hopes at RC? No. Choose the wrong person, and that could cause all sorts of strife. And in the vidcaps that we haven't yet debunked as red herrings from previous episodes, we see Samburu looking mighty anxious and upset (wide-eyed Brandon, frustrated-looking Silas, Lindsey gasping "Oh my god"). Could they be waiting to find out how their chosen one fared at RC?

Bungler

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-06-01, 12:10 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
15. "RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode 5"
Bungler--

Your theory ignores A LOT of evidence we have. It ignores the previews where people say things like "we were in shock" "I cannot believe this is happening". Perhaps these are out of context quotes, but sending just one person to RC would not elicit such responses in my view. It also ignores the statement in the promo that "the game is changed forever". How is the game changed forever by sending only one person to RC? You may argue that it is just hyperbole, but the game is not really changed at all in any significant way. They have effectively had challenges come down to one person, for example, in the tie break on the blood drinking that came down to Kelly v. Linda. Your theory also completely ignores Susan's statement that weaker players are now at risk again. Furthermore, to the casual viewer of Survivor, a single person RC would really seem like no big deal. I doubt most people who watch really care about that kind of detail.

While of course all of the things I mentioned to support my theory may be red herrings, I think the twist has to be more than you are suggesting. Also keep in mind that VidCaps and promos are not the best source of spoilers for the type of information you are using them for because we have no time context. Last episode, people were trying to use Linda's "thank you" comment to try to figure out whether the team won or lost a competition. We know now that it happened before any competitions and had nothing to do with winning or losing. You have no idea when the Boran group cheer happens. You have no idea whether Kelly is just out of the picture and they are all waiting for her to join in the cheer. In my opinion, you are making a very big leap from very little evidence. There is so much more evidence to support the 3 tribe theory (as well as others, but the 3 tribe theory is my favorite), I have a hard time believing the "twist" will be so mundane.

  Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-06-01, 12:33 PM (EST)
Click to EMail AyaK Click to send private message to AyaK Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
17. "Evidence?"
zzz, you have continued to talk about the "evidence" surrounding the three-tribe theory. But so far, none of it is what I would consider credible evidence.

Jeff's comments on BB2? Since when has Jeff EVER given us a good spoiler? Remember "Lis kicks butt in the challenges?"

Futurizmo.com? Is this spoiler better than the "treehouse for TC" one?

Sue Hawk's comments about the weaker people being at risk? It's certainly possible that tribal competitions could continue past merge; that would break up the Pagonging. But why does that require three tribes? Wouldn't it be just as effective (and probably more so) with two?

Simply put: Survivor isn't so broken that it needs a fix that would so radically alter the fundamentals of the game as a "three-tribe" approach would. It's just not going to happen. But I know I won't convince you, since others have tried and failed, so have fun visualizing it until Thursday night.

  Top

Ogachu 58 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"

11-06-01, 02:18 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Ogachu Click to send private message to Ogachu Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
19. "Look carefully at the wording..."
LAST EDITED ON 11-06-01 AT 02:19 PM (EST)

ZZZ, Look again at the wording of Susan's statement:

"Normally, this is the time when you vote out someone who is physically threatening to you in individual challenges. But now that circumstances have changed, the weaker players will again be the targets."


The words "normally this is the time" is very important. In Ep6 in Survivor I/II, this was the last TC before the merge. The perfect chance to oust the person you think stands a good chance of winning alot individual immunities after the merge (Colby is a perfect example of one to vote off). Susan is merely stating that instead of using that logic, the tribes continue their prior strategy of voting off weaker members (which, may I interject that Boran is the only one using that particular strategy. Samburru just picks the ones they don't like, which could be spoiler information itself) I think she is referring to this one Tribal Council, not long term here.

"Your big country ass is climbing a palm tree in the middle of Africa, you realize that, don’t you?" -- Clarence / S3

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-06-01, 02:50 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
21. "RE: Look carefully at the wording..."
Ogachu--

I think you have missed my point. There is no way that I believe that Susan knows who is booted off in E6. As a matter of fact, I highly doubt she knows who will be booted off this week in E5. What she claims to know is what the twist, i.e., rule change, was that they implemented in E5.

I agree that the TC she is talking about is the E6 TC and that the statement may not apply beyond that. However, this tells us at least 2 things (if she is correct). ONE--E7 will still have separate tribe competitions for immunity (be it 2 or 3 tribes). This, in and of itself is a rule change. TWO--the voting for weaker players is a result of the rule change, NOT a result of innner politics among the tribes. As I stated, she has no idea which tribe goes to TC and who is voted off in E6. There is no way they would give her this information. She is talking about an outgrowth of the rule change. Of course, from this statement alone we could not know that the rule change is not simply delaying the merge by a week. However, we also have her statement that the tribe members were split apart.

Thus, based on her entire preview, we know that there really is a significant rule change. As I stated elsewhere on this thread, I really believe the ONLY possible theories we have discussed that even remotely fit the clues is either a swap or three tribes. I believe three tribes better fits the clues. Others disagree.

  Top

Ogachu 58 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"

11-06-01, 04:25 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Ogachu Click to send private message to Ogachu Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
27. "RE: Look carefully at the wording..."

>I agree that the TC she
>is talking about is the
>E6 TC and that the
>statement may not apply beyond
>that. However, this tells
>us at least 2 things
>(if she is correct).
>ONE--E7 will still have separate
>tribe competitions for immunity (be
>it 2 or 3 tribes).

ZZZ -

If you agree that the TC she is talking about is the E6 TC, what would make you think E7 will still have separate tribe competitions for immunity??? She is only dealing with days 16, 17 and 18, no further. Nothing in her statement leads me to believe that the merge doesn't take place as usual on E7. It does seem to confirm that the early merge does not take place on E5 as alot of people thought. I personally feel its a swap not 3 tribes, but whether its 2 or 3 tribes, I do not believe the separation of tribes will extend past E6


"Your big country ass is climbing a palm tree in the middle of Africa, you realize that, don’t you?" -- Clarence / S3

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-06-01, 04:51 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
30. "RE: Look carefully at the wording..."
OK--let me try this one more time. The reason her statement (if true) must mean that tribal competition extend beyond E6 is rather simple. I will try to take this one step at a time. The old way of doing things had a merge at the beginning of E7 with the IC in E7 being individual competitions. If there is going to be a merge this time at the beginning of E7, you have the same incentive you would always have at the TC in E6 to vote out a strong person.

Let me put it this way. You are sitting at TC at the end of what we call E6. You know that this is the LAST tribal TC. You know that the next day the tribes (be it old tribes, new tribes, swapped tribes, whatever, it does NOT matter what the composition of the tribe is at the TC for E6 for my analysis to hold) will be merged. You know that from that point on you are going to have to compete in individual competitions for IC against everyone else, including everyone at TC with you for E6. What is your incentive: to vote off the strongest member of the tribe that you are not alligned with. That is your best chance post-merge no matter what the composition of the tribes have been for E5 and E6. Thus, if there is going to be a merge in E7, you will always have an incentive at the TC for E6 to vote off a strong member because you can no longer be advantaged by the person's strength.

Now let me take you through the other path. Whatever the twist has been, it includes tribal ICs at least into E7. Now you are sitting at TC at the end of E6. What is your incentive. You know that the only way you can be safe for the TC in E7 is if your tribe wins immunity. You know that your tribe is less likely to win immunity if you vote off a strong person and more likely if you vote off a weak person. Thus, at the TC for E6, you now have an incentive to vote off a weak person (although in my pick of three tribes you also have an incentive to try to vote off the strongest person on the other tribe that is with you at TC). If the merge will take place in E8, then at TC for E7 you would have the incentive to vote off the strong person.

The only pre-merge TC that you have a really big incentive to vote off a strong person is the TC just before the merge because you and your tribe can long be advantaged by his or her strength. Susan says that in E6, you have incentive to vote off a weak person. Thus, E6 must not be the last episode before the merge (which it was in S1 and S2). I have made my thinking as clear as I can. I hope you understand my point now.

  Top

Ogachu 58 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"

11-07-01, 09:54 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Ogachu Click to send private message to Ogachu Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
42. "RE: Look carefully at the wording..."
>
>The only pre-merge TC that you
>have a really big incentive
>to vote off a strong
>person is the TC just
>before the merge because you
>and your tribe can long
>be advantaged by his or
>her strength. Susan says
>that in E6, you have
>incentive to vote off a
>weak person. Thus, E6
>must not be the last
>episode before the merge (which
>it was in S1 and
>S2). I have made
>my thinking as clear as
>I can. I hope
>you understand my point now.
>


I have always understand your point and excluding the 3 tribe issue, I agree with your assessment with one exception. Susan does not say that in E6, they have the incentive to vote off a weak person. She simply implies that instead of going with the norm and voting off a strong person while they have the chance, they continue to follow suit and vote off a weaker player. It's all in the way you interprete it, I guess. You have your interpretation, I have mine.


"Your big country ass is climbing a palm tree in the middle of Africa, you realize that, don’t you?" -- Clarence / S3

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 10:11 AM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
43. "RE: Look carefully at the wording..."
OK--I will try this one more and after that we just agree to disagree.

Here is the EXACT quote from Susan--

"Normally, this is the time when you vote out someone who is physically threatening to you in individual challenges. But now that circumstances have changed, the weaker players will again be the targets."

First she says that normally in E6 your incentive is to vote off a strong person. I think we both agree on that. So it is the second sentence we seem to have a disagreement about. She says that "now that circumstances have changed, the weaker players will be targets." She is CLEARLY tying the vulnerability of weaker players to the changed circumstances. The changed circumstance she MUST be referring to is the rule change that she just talked about the sentences prior to the quotes above where she talks about alliance members being split apart. Splitting apart alliance members, in and of itself, would not cause weaker members to be targets if the complete merge is to occur in E7. Delaying the merge would.

I also believe strongly that MB would NOT tell Susan who was booted in E6, so she cannot know for sure that a weaker member is in fact booted in E6. For alliance reasons, a strong member may very well be booted in E6. If Susan knew for sure that a weaker member were booted in E6, MB would never let her print what she printed and narrow our field on who might be booted. She is clearly speculating that based on the rule change, weaker players SHOULD become target again. I also don't think Susan would feel comfortable making that statement if she knew for certain who was booted in E6. She respects that that information is to be kept confidential, and she would never give it away that easily.

I don't know if I convinced you, but I gave it my best shot. I suggest that you go back to TV Guide (or other sources) and read her ENTIRE review. In context, I think you may be convinced of my reading of the "weak player" comments.

  Top

Ogachu 58 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"

11-07-01, 10:55 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Ogachu Click to send private message to Ogachu Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
44. "RE: Agreed -- we disagree!"
ZZZ -

It's not your job to convince me, that's the great thing about these boards...to each his own. Like I said before, you have your interpretation and I have mine.

Leave it be and we shall see!

"Your big country ass is climbing a palm tree in the middle of Africa, you realize that, don’t you?" -- Clarence / S3

  Top

MDSkinner 716 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 12:12 PM (EST)
Click to EMail MDSkinner Click to send private message to MDSkinner Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
46. "RE: Look carefully at the wording..."
zzz -

I have been reading a great deal of your posts, and I will say that they are all well thought out and they all have very valid points. But from my perspective, as well as from many others that I have seen, it seems that the majority of your solid evidence is coming from sources that are directly linked to MB(Susan, Jeff V, Sean, etc..). For me, I have come to the point where I actually do not believe anything that any of them say prior to a show, even though the past has shown that some of them are correct and some of them are not correct.

So as far as this whole three tribe thing goes, I think you will find it very difficult to convince a number of people that because these certain people mention it as a possibility that it necessarily will happen. It may happen, it may not happen, but until it or any other possibility can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt(which none of these can) people are not going to buy into this as any more than just another possibility.

So as to Susan saying that weak players are the target, I say, she is not to be trusted. Just my thought, and I may be dead wrong.

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 12:28 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
47. "RE: Look carefully at the wording..."
MD--

Thanks for the encouragement (at least I think it was encouragement). I agree with you 100%. It is very possible that to drum up talk during this lull period MB planted this idea over the summer and has perpetuated it. But if he did that, he did that intentionally--not beyond possibility. From what I have gathered, the three tribe scenario has also been leaked to some media (including a DJ in LA who apparently announced it on the air today). So MB seems to want us to believe it is the three tribe scenario. For some people that is enough to convince them in cannot be the three tribe scenario.

Prior to last Friday, I did not believe the three tribe scenario either because I thought Susan and Jeff V were pure speculators. But I kept coming back to the "official" promo that said "every friendship and alliance shattered." Of course that comes from MB. But it is aimed not just at us, like the Jeff V comments, but aimed at the casual viewer. As I have stated elsewhere, this promo may be PURE hyperbole. But I just think he really pisses off a lot of casual viewers if his "twist" does not really affect friendships and alliances very much. The only plausible scenario that really does this is the three tribe scenario.

The other thing that strikes me is the tone of Susan's comments. She is not speculating or talking about general strategy the way she has in just about every other article she has written. This time she stated it as a fact--in print--in TV Guide. She will look like an ass if the twist has no relation to her article. So even though people see her on "MB's payroll" she still wants some credibility.

If it is not the three tribe scenario, I will admit that MB got me and I bit at all of his red herrings and false rumors. But no other explanation rings true for me, so I am sticking with it. Just 1 more day.

  Top

MDSkinner 716 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 12:40 PM (EST)
Click to EMail MDSkinner Click to send private message to MDSkinner Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
48. "RE: Look carefully at the wording..."
<<Prior to last Friday, I did not believe the three tribe>>
<<scenario either because I thought Susan and Jeff V were pure>>
<< speculators. But I kept coming back to the "official" promo>>
<< that said "every friendship and alliance shattered." Of>>
<< course that comes from MB. But it is aimed not just at us,>>
<< like the Jeff V comments, but aimed at the casual viewer.>>
<<As I have stated elsewhere, this promo may be PURE>>
<< hyperbole. But I just think he really pisses off a lot of>> <<casual viewers if his "twist" does not really affect>> <<friendships and alliances very much. The only plausible>> <<scenario that really does this is the three tribe scenario.>>

I agree with you, and I do not think that MB will try to piss off the casual viewer in any way. But(and there is always a but), I think that even if they ended up doing to Swedish Swap thing, that this could quite plausibly "shatter every friendship and alliance". I say that because, for the Mall Rats, say that any one of them(Say Brandon) is switched over to the Boran tribe in place for say MamaKim, then this would in fact shatter the alliance completely. The reason for this is because, it is likely that Frank and Teresa would be able to pull MamaKim over to their side, such that if those three voted for Lindsey, then there is only two Mall Rats left, guaranteed. To the casual viewer, this would definitely satisfy that need.

So I think that as low as the single swap would easily satisfy this need to the casual viewer, and a three way would even more. I think there are just too many possibilities to think this is a given.

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 01:15 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
49. "RE: Look carefully at the wording..."
MD--

Again, in general I agree with your reasoning which is why I believe that if it is not three tribes, it MUST be a swap of some kind. So the obvious question is how to chose between a swap and 3 tribes. I make the decision based on two basic rationale.

1--Why would MB spread rumors about three tribes if it is really a swap? It seems like a lot of bother to plant all those rumors of 3 tribes when the real answer is a swap. The answer may be that he thought that the swap answer would be too easy to figure out, and he wanted a mystery so he threw out a red herring to make people look in the wrong direction. But I just find that hard to believe. Yes--I know he has been accused of it before (stories about Rodger and a horse--etc.). But speculation about the nature of the swap (e.g., 1, 2 or 3--is it really going to be a swap or something else--etc.) would have been enough to get people talking. He would have still achieved his goal of buzz and uncertainty. He did not need rumors of three tribes to do this. And, he only gets the effect for one week because within the first 15 min of the show tomorrow we will know for sure. A lot of work for little pay off.

2--My own view of what really accomplishes his goal of shaking up alliances. This reason is purely subjective and other people are free to have a completely different view. I just think that under any variation of the swap, the incentive to stick with old tribal alliances is still very strong. I think you have the most incentive to break tribal alliances in a three tribe scenario with 2 losing tribes going to TC. You have a tension between voting off weak members of your own new tribe or trying to gun for strong members of the other new tribe. That analysis has to be weighed against old tribal alliances. Very messy, very unpredictible, very MB.

So can I say for sure that the evidence is conclusive and I have no doubt about the three tribe scenario? NO--I cannot say that at all. I am just glad I only have to wait one more day to find out.

P.S. I am also hoping that Alicia's review of E7 that gets posted on TV Guide's website tomorrow morning (or maybe even late tonight) will give us more clues on what the twist will be.

  Top

MDSkinner 716 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 02:11 PM (EST)
Click to EMail MDSkinner Click to send private message to MDSkinner Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
50. "RE: Look carefully at the wording..."
zzz -(btw, I like this name, very easy to type)

As always your rationale is very good and based on solid logic, but again I have to respond, because I think it is fairly easy to point out the opposite in these cases.

"Why would MB spread rumors about three tribes if it is really a swap? It seems like a lot of bother to plant all those rumors of 3 tribes when the real answer is a swap.......A lot of work for little pay off."

I really don't know what I believe here, but I do think that this could very well be worth it for MB. The reason that I say this is because, first off, this is really not a lot of work at all. He could have had all three of these people in the same room at the same time when he told them that he would not mind if they "eluded" to the fact of the three tribe scenario. It is a two minute deal, and it can pay off wonders by giving his show this sort of response over the internet community if nothing else. The difference between the 3 tribe scenario and a swap is that the boot pick is much more difficult to decipher if a third tribe is brought in, and MB does not want us to be able to determine the pick, even if it is just for this week(I think back on Gervase X for a similar situation where the possible spoiler did not impact the game into the final four or even the final 6). One sentence to these three in the same room accomplishes this for him therefore, it may not be much work at all, and it is causing quite the stir here. In fact I would argure that this is causing a lot of publicity for his show at a very small price. So as for you first rationale, I see where you are coming from, but I am not sure that it is any more of solid ground than anything else about this weeks episode.

As for part 2, I think you are right, it would bne very mess and very MB. But I think that even a one person swap(let alone two or three would accomplish the same thing) as I pointed out in my above post. Those old alliances(which to me means the Mall Rats for the most part, since they are at this point really the only remaining known alliance), would be completely demolished with a one person swap, as long as it was the right person.

As for Alicia's review, if MB has payed any attention to the net at all over the past week, then he will totally play this up in what info he gives Alicia to add to her review. So, in her case, I will once again have to say that I can not trust it at all, since she is on payroll as much as any of the others, and may not be able to be trusted.

On a lighter note, I too am ecstatic that there is only one more day of waiting, and this is a most enjoyable debate.

  Top

dabo 26942 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-07-01, 02:23 PM (EST)
Click to EMail dabo Click to send private message to dabo Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
52. "RE: Look carefully at the wording..."
The three teams rumor got its start during the summer when it was originally part of the no-merge rumor, this came out of a press conference with Les Moonves in which Moonves basically refused to answer questions about changes in Survivor, one of those questions being about a whether there would not be a merge and would there be three teams. This all happened while filming was underway before the merge would have happened anyway, and as we've seen the Samburu tribe was essentially two mini-tribes pretty much from the get-go. Why would MB go to all this trouble? What trouble did he have to go to at all, this thing has a life of its own.

"If the race of man should be left naked upon a desert island, we should become extinct in six weeks. A few individuals might linger, but in a year would become worse than monkeys." (Samuel Butler, "Erewhon")

  Top

Bebo 21083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-07-01, 02:40 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Bebo Click to send private message to Bebo Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
53. "RE: Look carefully at the wording..."
>1--Why would MB spread rumors about
>three tribes if it is
>really a swap?

What we're doing here answers that question. He wants his cash cow to continue to produce, so he wants people talking about, thinking about, obsessing about his show. He wants to do anything reasonable to keep us watching and keep his show on top. Publicity, publicity, publicity!

It's not a lot of bother to start a rumor -- it's a lot easier than some of the things he's already done, such as doctoring pictures (the Fake Final 4 from S1) and the meticulous effort he puts into the previews (like this week's, that uses a lot of stock footage from already-aired episodes). Starting a rumor is as easy as saying "Did you hear..." to a few people. It's also cheaper.

Instead of thinking "Oh, it's either Theresa or MamaKim getting the boot this week, I'll go to a movie instead since I won't be missing much" (or worse, turn on Friends), people are a lot more eager to be sitting down tomorrow night and not missing a moment. I know my VCR will be set -- it worked, MB.

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 02:54 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
55. "RE: Look carefully at the wording..."
Bebo--

You missed my point. MB has an incentive to start the rumor if absolutely nothing were to happen and he just wants people to talk (like the Rodger horse rumor). But my point is that he already put out information that there would be a "twist" and that "alliances would be shattered." Those public announcements alone are enough to start a speculative frenzy. He does not need to add a three tribe rumor on top of it to get people talking about what the twist might be.

In my own mind, I have narrowed the possibilities to either a swap or three tribes. If it is the swap, why tell people it is three tribes. Just don't tell them anything and let them wonder what the twist will be. They will never know for sure if it is a swap, and even if they do they cannot know if it is a swap of 1 2 or 3 members.

So given the fact that he was going to get his buzz going by the official promos--why add a false rumor of three tribes (a rumor that has been "officially confirmed" by CBS this week in a variety of media outlets like KROQ in LA) when he would get the buzz he wants anyway.

If the twist is three tribes, then MB will know based on how many people refused to believe the rumor that he can leak just about anything and he will not be believed.

  Top

Bebo 21083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-07-01, 04:55 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Bebo Click to send private message to Bebo Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
65. "RE: Look carefully at the wording..."
>You missed my point.

Nope, just didn't agree with it.

MB's approach since the beginning of S1 has been a combination of accurate clues (Richard's quote in the first episode about winning the million), misdirection (using reaction clips from prior episodes in preview), and flat-out fabrication (the fake final 4). He has a pattern of consistent behavior through S1 and S2 that I don't think is suddenly changing. He has used and manipulated the rumor mill in the past, so I see that as a likely approach again.

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 05:26 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
67. "RE: Look carefully at the wording..."
Bebo--

OK let me try again. You may have understood my point, but I do not think your comments are completely responsive to my point. Yes--MB uses the rumor mill to send out false information. Everyone knows about the fake final four. Supposedly he started a rumor about Roger falling off a horse. I agree--he tries to trick us up. But he always has a purpose. In the fake final four, he was trying to hide the success of the Tagi alliance. In the Roger quote, presumably he was just trying to send a wild rumor to see where is goes. My point is not that MB is not willing to spread a rumor, my point is that he generally does it for a reason and there is no good reason here.

The reason he might want to spread a false 3 tribe rumor would be to get people talking and waiting for it to happen--to speculate on when it might happen and how it would work. In other words, to create buzz. But here, he has told us when it will happen (assuming it will happen) but saying the "twist" will be E5. He has created buzz about the episode by the promos alone. They alone, without any three tribe rumors, would get people speculating about what the twist might be. He could be guaranteed that people would come up with all sorts of possibilities. He had no need to feed a three tribe rumor.

So I agree that MB is capable of placing false rumors. I agree that this might be one of them. However, I have also suggested why I think this time he had no incentive to do it. That is the point to which that you seem not to respond. You explain that MB lies and misdirects. But you have not explained why you think THIS rumor is a lie. I think you admit sometimes he tells the truth. Rather than assuming one way or the other, I have examined what I think MB's motivations would be and THIS time think he has no real reason to start the rumor because the buzz around E5 would happen anyway. I don't think I have yet heard from you why you think it is more likely that this rumor is false.

  Top

Bebo 21083 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-07-01, 05:29 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Bebo Click to send private message to Bebo Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
68. "To quote Dieter..."
LAST EDITED ON 11-07-01 AT 05:37 PM (EST)

This has grown tiresome.

What started out as a lively debate of possible scenarios has turned into semantics.

You think the 3 tribes is the most likely scenario. I think the Swedish switch is the most likely scenario.

That's really all that needs to be said.

Edited to add: Sleeeve, you did a phenomenal job getting rid of the debate and paring the SOTS down to a concise resource for sorting through all of the speculation. I'm sorry that I was involved in bogging down this thread with debate that clouded it up again. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the debate taking place -- far from it -- but we probably should have been doing that on the other threads and kept the SOTS clean for true spoilage information.

  Top

Dalton 1271 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beef Jerky Spokesperson"

11-07-01, 02:17 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Dalton Click to send private message to Dalton Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
51. "RE: Look carefully at what MDSkinner is saying...."
I need to interject here...I agree with MDSkinner and add that he almost always sees this "spolage" stuff in a realistic way.

As to the "rumors about a 3 tribe split" --- folks, this has ALREADY HAPPENED!!! Since E-3 this game has had 3 tribes:
Boran
Samburu - OFA
Samburu - GXA.....that is three tribes who have existed now for 2 going on 3 episodes. The contestants did this to themselves!!

If MB has any problem in the game NOW -- it is pulling off some "rule change" that throws a monkey wrench into these 3 alliances because frankly they are getting boring and predictable (which is a TV "no-no"; ratings are everything).

Hence the "hostage" swap or "tribe member" chosen to cross over to the other of the TWO official tribes. Switching out ONE tribe member would be a BIG deal to most ordinary viewers of Survivor...simply because MB has never used it before. In the first 2 seasons "Tribal Loyality until the Merge" WAS the standard and norm for the show. This time it isn't working according to plan because of the AGE split between 20somethings and 40somethings in Samburu.
~~~~~~~~~~

The other topic is EX-Survivors of S-1 and S-2.

Susan has a paying gig writing for TV Guide. CBS knows what the "Title" of each episode is and TV Guide is given this info. in advance (depending on their publication lag time). Susan's article (same for Alicia or whoever) is the TITLE given by CBS.

As for the "speculation" and "prediction" written by Susan or any other "former" contestants...that is all it is--their opinions!!!

MB does not have any of these former contestants "on his payroll". EGADS, why would he even want to? Also, CBS and/or MB are certainly NOT "leaking insider scoops" to them; to do so would harm not help the well-known "secret outcome" of the show the way that MB wants it to unfold one episode at a time.

The "formers" are certainly trying to use their 15 minutes of fame by earning money on radio, mags, tv, whatever...but that doesn't make them EXPERTS on what actually happens during S-3; anymore than it makes any of US on this board "experts".

Sure, sometimes Jeff or Richard Hatch or Susan or Alicia actually get something right; but to consider them as reliable "sources" and to believe they are being given "inside advance secrets" is giving them way too much credit and giving CBS and the Evil Burnett way too little credit. IMO.

Dalton

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 02:45 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
54. "RE: Look carefully at what MDSkinner is saying...."
Dalton--

OK--let me clarify a few things. I am convinced that Sean and Jeff V were just repeating Internet rumors they heard and have no inside information. I also agree they are not on MB's payroll (that was someone else's words and I was just repeating them--I think the person really means they will do anything to suck up to MB). The point remains that someone put this rumor out last Sept. Someone else--or that same person--is going to media outlets this week and "confirming" that the twist will three tribes.

As far as saying the three tribe rumor has already happened, I think that is a little silly. In no way is a tribe made up of two competing alliances actually two separate tribes. They have to compete as one tribe, they have to vote as one tribe, they have to live and share resources as one tribe. Every meaningful aspect of being a tribe is present for the entire group. There is nothing inherent in being a tribe that says you have to like each other, or vote as a group, or get along, or act rationally in the way you form alliances within the tribe. The OFA and the GXA are 2 alliance in ONE tribe. If the swap really is the twist, then the 3 tribe rumor was a LIE; it was not a reasonably interpreted reference to the split in Samburu.

As far as Susan goes--that is a trickier proposition. I have a hard time deciding for sure what I think. In the past, people have foolishly tried to use her review in their spoiling when it was obvious to me at the time she was merely speculating and knew nothing more than we knew. So the obvious question is--why do I believe her now? The reason is that her wording is completely different than any she has used before. She speaks from a point of view of reviewing E6 by reference to what happened in E5. Of course, we know she wrote it before E5 aired. But it is written from the point of view of someone that assumes the reader already saw E5 and is looking forward to E6. Remember, the edition of TV Guide she wrote it in is for the TV Guide week that starts this coming Saturday. If she wrote it assuming the reader already saw E5 (but of course knowing that many would read it before E5 and some even before E4), then her review would be idiotic if the twist is inconsistent with the events of E5.

So there are 2 possibilities. 1--All she knew was that a "twist" would occur in E5 and assumed it would be the Internet rumors she heard about and acted as though that were fact. That is possible because she can be a reckless person from time to time. But I think she would be taking a big risk because her review could turn into pure gibberish if she guesses wrong. OR 2--Someone at CBS told her what the twist would be but said not to be too specific in her review. Based on reading her review over and over again, I get the sense someone told her something definitive. She just does not seem to be speuclating at all on the nature of the twist that happened the prior episode in E5.

Even if Susan was told something, I admit her words are vague enough to be consistent with a swedish swap. I just think they make much more sense in a three tribe scenario.

So I come back to the conclusion that it must either be three tribes or a swap. I have looked at all the evidence and three tribes just seems more consistent (especially with "every friendship and alliance shattered") So I don't have 100% certainty by any means. But I will be competely shocked if the twist is not either the three tribes or some form of swap (like if the twist is a rule infraction or sex).

So I ask you--why do you think the swap is more likely than 3 tribes?

  Top

MDSkinner 716 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 03:03 PM (EST)
Click to EMail MDSkinner Click to send private message to MDSkinner Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
56. "RE: Look carefully at what MDSkinner is saying...."
<<So I ask you--why do you think the swap is more likely than 3 tribes? >>

Let me answer this one just with a quick thought. I really only have one reason for this, since I do believe there is as much evidence for one as there is for the other, and there is no really good evidence for either one. The reason that I think the Swap is more likely(and I think the one person swap) is because it has been done before, and it is tried and tested, and it can just as easily "shatter the alliances and friendships" as anything else could. If it had not been done before on another of MB's shows, I would probably disregard it all together. But it has been done, and it worked, and it is not such a change in the rules that it would likely have any legal ramifications.

So basically, it is an easier change, it has worked before, and it still satisfies all of the general public's idea's for shattering friendships and alliances, as well as Survivor changing forever etc.... For these reasons, the one person swap does seem the most likely to me.

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-06-01, 02:39 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
20. "RE: Evidence?"
AyaK--

You want evidence, I will give you some evidence. I have to admit I have been bad at really collecting all of it because I am a little lazy (unlike the amazing Sleeeve who is great at sifting through and getting all the evidence). I will try, however, but I still may miss some.

1--It has not be stated only by Jeff V, but also by Sean that there will be 3 tribes. These reports came out even before S3 started. Why put out this red herring by multiple people? Just to give us something to argue about--I don't think so. MB likes misdirection, but not this kind.

2--Liz kick butt reply. This discussion last season confused me. My recollection is that is was Jeff P (not Jeff V) that made the statement in question, but that is not really the point. I think people always took that comment the wrong way. My recollection is that what was said was that the game is exciting because you never know when someone LIKE Liz starts kicking butt in competitions. It was stated as a conditional statement and was taken by some people as if it were stated as fact. The statement then took on a life of its own without people looking back at the original quote.

3--I agree that the statement about weaker players being vulnerable only means group competitions will continue beyond E6, but it is certainly consistent with 3 tribes and means there will be some real rule change (not just an RC where only 1 person competes, an eviction based on a rule infraction, etc.).

4--Susan said other things. She said "can hold together now that their members are split apart?" Not all people put together (like an early merge would do) but SPLIT APART. While a 3 person swap might also be consistent with this statement, the members would not be "split apart" to the same extent a three tribe scenario would. However, I admit that my second choice is the 3 member swap because it is the only other theory that seems to come close to being supported by the evidence.

5--The preview said "every friendship and alliance shattered." Again a 3 member swap (or even 1 or 2) might be consistent with this, but the 3 tribe scenario is more consistent. A TC of 2 losing tribes is the most likely to break up alliance (more so than a swap in which people have more incentive to stick along old tribal lines).

I think there is thus overwhelming evidence that there is a "rule" change and that it affects the composition of the tribes. This seems to limit the possibilities to either a swap of members or three tribes. It rules out all the other possibilities (such as the one that Bungler is pushing and the one that IceCat is pushing). I think that the three tribe theory is more likely than the swap for two reasons. ONE--it is more apparent that old tribal alliance are affected in a three tribe scenario than a swap scenario. I have a hard time seeing in a swap scenario how, at least for Boran, old tribal lines would not hold completely. For Samburu, again I think alliances would hold but because of the division, Frank and/or Theresa might try to straddle tribal lines (but NOT alliance lines). TWO--I have a hard time imagining why Sean and Jeff V would both say it is a three tribe scenario if it is really a swap scenario. This is unlike a situation where MB realizes that the person booted is too obvious so he tries to throw out miscues to make people think it will be someone else. Here, it would not be miscues, but downright lies. And to what effect? I end up thinking to myself, "Oh my, what a surprise, I thought it would be a three tribe scenario but it is really a swap." I don't think that is the kind of drama MB is looking for. If he had kept Sean's and Jeff V's mouths shut, we would not know for sure what the twist would be. Why try to lie and say it is one thing when it is another. Especially when he has resorted to misleading but not downright lying before. And why would Sean and Jeff V be willing to lie for him (although maybe he lied to them).

OK--I think I have given you "evidence." De-bunk at your pleasure. And by the way, I will not run and hide if I am wrong (although I might not have too much to add in the future). However, if I am wrong and you are right, I will freely and publicly admit your superior spoiling ability. I hope you will do the same for me if it comes out the other way.

  Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-06-01, 03:24 PM (EST)
Click to EMail AyaK Click to send private message to AyaK Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
23. "MB Lying?"
zzz, I hope that you continue to have a lot to contribute in the future, and I'm really not arguing about spoiling ability. I've been through this before, trying to make all the clues match up ... it was back in S1, and my conclusion from it was that Richard Hatch didn't win (thank you, National Geographic Adventure magazine for your help in that conclusion).

From that experience, I don't trust MB any further than I can throw him. In S2, he blatantly lied before E6, saying that no one from the cast suffered an injury which required hospitalization during the game. This was (to put it politely) a lie. In S2, he also said that there would be horses as part of a challenge and then asked what you think of when you think of horses? "Rodger" ... alluding to the "Rodger gets thrown from a horse" Internet rumor. This was (to put it very politely) deliberate misdirection.

MB is aware of everything that goes on regarding the Web spoilers. Never before has he so completely choked off our flow of information. Be honest -- if a BIG, UNPREDICTABLE change was coming up, WHY WOULDN'T HE BE PLAYING IT UP? It's UNPREDICTABLE, remember? And three tribes would certainly be that.

Thus, that leads me to the following conclusions:

1. If we knew what was going to happen, the results would NOT be unpredictable.

2. Thus, the change CANNOT be so dramatic that it would destroy our ability to successfully predict the boot.

3. A corollary: the change is also not so dramatic that it provides great visuals, or MB would use them (remember the splashing in the water when Michael got burned?).

4. Therefore, the change will not involve a three-tribe split.

Of course I can be wrong. I hope that I'm not, though, because my prediction for this week becomes a flat-out guess if I am wrong!

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-06-01, 04:16 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
26. "RE: MB Lying?"
AyaK--

I feel honored that I have gotten two big wigs around here (you and IceCat) to get into an extended debate wiht me (a genuine newbie--you know the drill, long-time lurker, etc.) about what the twist will be (of course you have a different theory than he does). I have to admit that I had a hard time really following your conclusions. It seems to me that the simple answer is that MB is not concerned that knowing the twist would give away who is booted. No matter what the twist is--we cannot necessarily know who the boot will be. You believe you have figured out that it is a 1 person swap and who those people are. That certainly helps in making a boot prediction (most likely the switched person on the tribe losing IC). But telling us it is a 1 person switch does not tell us who the switched people will be. I also don't understand your point about visuals. No matter what the twist would be, it would not include visuals MB could use without completely giving away the entire twist. With the fire, he had a way to show alarming visuals without giving away the entire event. Furthermore, a three tribe split would not provide dramatic visual at all--they would be pretty boring. In my opinion, no matter whether the twist is a swap or three tribe scenario, MB cannot use visuals from the twist and they are not dramatic--so it really does not help us determine the twist. Finally, I have NO idea how the first 3 points lead to your 4th point.

If I am correct, MB would not tell us or show us complete evidence because he likes things to be somewhat uncertain. It is a more exciting promo to say "Watch next episode to see what happens--you don't want to miss it" rather than "Watch next episode when they break into three new tribes." The second is just not as catchy (and yeah, I know the first quote is not exactly what the promo said but it is the sentiment). And the examples you gave of MB lying were his own lies, not lies of survivor players. I cannot see them lying for him, and they would be pretty angry at being used as his dupes.

I keep going back to Susan's words "Now we'll see just how strong alliances are. Can they hold together if their members are split apart?" Assuming all that Susan is told is what the twist will be (not who is traded or who is booted or what the make-up of the new teams will be), she cannot know that alliances are broken apart in a single-member swap. As a matter of fact, some alliances would necessarily have all of the members stay together (e.g., either GXA or OFA is broken apart, but not both). I also go back to the promo that "every friendship and alliance is shattered." Again, this is just not that consistent with a single-member swap.

My second choice is still a three-member swap. But I have to maintain the evidence is most consistent with three tribes.

  Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-06-01, 04:48 PM (EST)
Click to EMail AyaK Click to send private message to AyaK Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
29. "Explanation"
LAST EDITED ON 11-06-01 AT 04:50 PM (EST)

Here are the points I was trying to make:

MB was supposedly very upset last year that one of the Web groups was correctly predicting all of the boots. As a result, he has made information MUCH less accessible for E5. But there has still been some info, because it's necessary to promote the show. He needs to be able to show trailers, people want to read what's coming up in their local newspapers, etc. Of course, last week's description included activity that was NOT in the show in its attempt to mislead us, but there was still a promo.

But for this episode, there has been NO info. If you go to zap2it.com, you'll find that the listing for this episode simply says, "A fifth person gets voted out of the tribe." Nothing else.

The trailers are similarly devoid of content. No giant balls rolling, no blood drinking, no house building, no people falling onto nets, no nothing.

Normally, such lack of content in your promotion would be considered a HUGE negative, especially during sweeps month. So why is MB doing it?

Well, let's come back to the point about who is getting booted. If nothing were to change, we know who gets booted: Mama Kim if Boran loses IC, Teresa if Samburu loses IC. No question about it.

If the switch were dramatic, though, like a 3-player swap or 3 tribes, we'd have no idea who gets booted, because we wouldn't know the tribal dynamics yet. Thus, MB would have no reason to hide that from us. He could even play it up -- "come see how all the dynamics will change"! He wouldn't have to hide the ball, just like he didn't have to hide the ball in E2 and E3 (when we all incorrectly predicted the boot). After all, the "twist" isn't why people are going to tune in; they want to know who gets booted instead!

If it really involved a dramatic reshuffling, MB could have us speculating on the reshuffling all week ... and we'd have no idea how it went or who gets booted.

Therefore, I believe that the twist doesn't involve a dramatic reshuffling. If MB gave us ANY visuals, they'd show that a dramatic reshuffling doesn't happen.

Why would MB want to create the illusion of a dramatic reshuffling? One, because it would lead us away from the obvious boot choices: Mama Kim and Teresa. Two, because Rachel's pregnancy is boosting "Friends" over "Survivor" in the ratings so far this year ... so tune in early (and miss "Friends") to see it!

If there really was a dramatic reshuffling, people WOULD tune in to see it, and MB would promote it accordingly. Why do you think that it wouldn't make for good visuals? Was Linda's sarcastic "Thank you" bow a good visual? Imagine how many more of those scenes you'd have in a real reshuffling. He wouldn't have to say "watch while they break into three new tribes"; he could just show the tantrums. Instead, he recycled a number of nondescript clips from past episodes. Why?

My take: the fact that MB isn't using such dramatic scenes means they don't exist ... and the only way that they wouldn't exist is that there isn't a dramatic reshuffling, only the illusion of one.

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-06-01, 05:05 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
31. "RE: Explanation"
OK--

Let me get this right. You think that the "twist" is a 1 person swap. You think that the visual of a 1 person swap is not dramatic but the visuals for a three tribe scenario would be. I don't see it as that dramatic. It would just be different teams competing.

If MB showed us the visuals of RC and TC we would KNOW which of the possible twists it is because we would just look at who is wearing the same colors and they are on the same team. Thus, the lack of visuals can mean anything. It can mean he wants to hide that there has been NO change or he wants to hide what the change is. Either way, he cannot show the visuals.

You seem to assume that the only thing he cares about hiding is who is booted. If you were correct that the only reason he would want to hide the twist would be because telling the twist would help to solve the boot question, then you would be correct. But I think he has another reason to hide the twist. It is simple--it make for better suspense. If he gave the visuals, we would not be arguing about this all week, generating interest among hard core fans. If he gave the visuals, he could not use the type of suspenseful promos he has used because he would just reveal the "twist." That is not as interesting and then people would not have to see the first 15 min to find out for sure what the twist will be. Thus officially, the twist must remain undisclosed.

So why tell Jeff V and/or Susan and/or Sean. I think that is because a structural change like this is harder to keep secret than the boot order. He has let these people know and realizes that people like you will not believe them anyway. He gets the best of both worlds. He has made his suvivors feel important, he has had increased talk about S3 and he has never officially confirmed it so people will still speculate. If he has them feed a lie, he risks pissing them off for no good reason. MB may be willing to risk this or they may be willing to knowingly lie for him. I do not eliminate it as a possibility. I just think the other is more likely.

  Top

true 9689 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-06-01, 03:32 PM (EST)
Click to EMail true Click to send private message to true Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
24. "RE: Evidence?"
>>>1--It has not be stated only by Jeff V, but also by Sean that there will be 3 tribes. These reports came out even before S3 started. Why put out this red herring by multiple people? Just to give us something to argue about--I don't think so. MB likes misdirection, but not this kind.

Well, I'm not sure exactly what Jeff V said on BB, but I am guessing that he was just speculating, and until I see an exact quote that he "knows" that there will be 3 tribes, I don't give it much weight.

Now, about Dr. Sean..I checked his website and found his latest comments about the "twist". He says the 3 tribe thing is just his guess. Here is the link-


http://www.survivorsean.com/discussion_board/index.php3?thread=3be409021c6a7&parent=3be42839f1a38&post=3be4358a9b11f

While I think Sue Hawk may have some information, I think she may also be doing some speculating. Alicia's preview, written for week 5 gives no indication that she knew anything. If someone was tipping them off, I think they would both know about it.


true

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-06-01, 04:29 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
28. "RE: Evidence?"
Thank you very much for the link--quite enlightening. I wish Sean had been more specific on the sources of rumor and what other rumors he thought were out there. The Jeff V quote can be found on this site under a thread with Jeff V and BB2 in the title (I cannot remember the whole title anymore). It was written on Sept. 2 and it said something along the line that on S3 at some point they will become 3 tribes living in 1 location. Not stated as speculation, but perhaps it was.

I also think Alicia was told not to talk about the twist until after the episode in which the twist occurs. When the E7 review is posted for TV Guide (I think it comes out late Wed or early Thurs) we will see whether she makes reference to it as if she knows what the twist was in E5. I have a feeling her review of E7 will be very enlightening. If it is not, I will reassess my conclusion about the twist.

One thing we do know is that the promo says "every friendship and alliance is shattered." This may be massive hyperbole, but the three tribe scenario is most consistent with this clue. While a 3 member swap is somewhat consistent, I would imagine old alliances would actually stand pretty tough in a 3 member swap. I think that would be even more true in a 1 member swap. Only where 2 losing tribes have to go to TC together would old alliances really and truly be tested.

I am ready to be wrong, but I still think I am right.

  Top

true 9689 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-06-01, 06:08 PM (EST)
Click to EMail true Click to send private message to true Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
33. "RE: Evidence?"
I guess the point I was trying to make about Jeff V. and Dr. Seans comments is this- if they actually had real information about the twist, they wouldn't be talking so freely about it. It is supposed to be a big secret after all, and if they had just let it slip by accident, I think it would mean more, but they both discussed it publically, therfore, I have to dismiss their comments as speculation.

>>>I also think Alicia was told not to talk about the twist until after the episode in which the twist occurs.

I find that a little hard to believe, since her commentary for week 5 makes zero sense in relation to the "twist" that occurs in this episode. I can understand her not wanting to give anything away, but, she appears completely clueless, and her comments about targeting the strong, are the exact opposite of what Sue says will be happening in week 6. It just makes me believe that Sue, while having some idea that a "twist" will occur, doesn't have any real information, and may just be speculating along with the others.

Here's the text of Alicia's week 5 comments-


Survivor: Africa
The Twist
60 min.
By Alicia Calaway
Days 13, 14 and 15 are critical, and strategy is at the forefront of everyone's mind. If a player is physically strong but isn't part of a strong alliance, he or she should tone it down a bit to avoid being voted out. Up to this point, weakness was a target. Now, strength becomes a target, too. For example, in Australia, if Kucha had lost the immunity challenge just before the merger, Jeff, Nick and I were going to vote against Michael because he was just too strong to compete against one on one. Flying under the radar is the smartest way to play this game. You don't want to stand out in any way.

It's also during this period when everything starts to come to a head. The camp is set and you're not absorbed with work anymore. You have more time on your hands, which means there is more time for people to make you crazy. This is when Kimmi and I got into a fight. I didn't like her from the beginning, but at this point in the game, we had more time to talk and get on each other's nerves. You really have to keep your emotions in check. If you lose your cool, you can bury yourself really quick. You have to remember that any little thing can make the difference between staying and leaving. Take hygiene, for instance. By the end of the second week, hygiene is a big issue. Players begin to realize how dirty everyone is. Anything you can do to stay clean helps. Not only did Kimmi make us notice her by being outspoken, she made us notice her by smelling bad. So we got rid of her. You don't want to get voted out over something you can control.

I'm not saying that your 3 tribe theory is wrong or right, but I don't think it is as obvious as you think it is. I do believe there will be some change in the rules, but I am leaning toward something much simpler than 3 tribes, but more significant than simply an early merge.

In other words, I don't have a clue!

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-06-01, 06:35 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
36. "RE: Evidence?"
You make a valid point. I will reserve judgment until Alicia's E7 review comes out late Wed or early Thurs. If she seems to know about the rule change, then I am correct that they told Alicia and Susan about the rule change only after Alicia wrote her E5 review (and her review of E7 will likely give us more clues on the nature of the twist if not give it away all together). Remember, in Susan's review of E6 she knew the change happened in E5 (written before E4 and the E5 promos were broadcast) and talks in her review as if she KNOWS (not speculates) on how the rules changed. If Alicia still seems clueless about the rule change in her E7 review, then I will be more inclined to believe that Susan heard rumors about a rule change and correctly speculated that it would happen E5. We will have Alicia's E7 review before E5 is shown, so more on this topic at that point.
  Top

AyaK 10426 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-06-01, 12:21 PM (EST)
Click to EMail AyaK Click to send private message to AyaK Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
16. "The Swedish swap"
LAST EDITED ON 11-06-01 AT 12:46 PM (EST)

As you see, I agree with you (and I hope all the "Three Tribes" people stick around after E5, just as the "Black Gretchen" people stuck around in S1 and the "SurvivorBillybob" and "Uncle Camerman" people stuck around in S2). However, an alternate explanation is possible that is consistent with the Swedish swap.

In Expedition Robinson, each team chose a player from the other tribe as a "hostage". The hostages competed in the next challenge; the winning hostage won immunity for his or her new tribe.

The advantage of this as a means of selection is obvious (and should have been obvious to me but wasn't). The player you lose is probably still loyal to you. You want to draft a strong hostage (to win immunity for your tribe), but not someone who will disrupt your existing voting patterns ... and it may actually be better in some circumstances to draft a not-so-strong hostage, if you're sure that your ex-member will stay loyal.

If this were the case, wouldn't everyone be nervous? The GXA has a 4-2 edge. If the other tribe drafts Frank or Teresa, they're OK. But what if the other tribe drafts Kim P or Linz or especially Silas? Then they have to draft someone who WON'T side with the OFA and force a 3-3 tie. Who would your first thought be? Kelly, of course.

In Boran, the situation is different. The new person will be the outsider but will be very valuable if he or she can contribute to two IC victories in a row. However, the Boran probably have no idea how serious the split in Samburu has become. They probably expect that Samburu will draft one of their strongest members, knowing little about the demographic issues in their rival. So who would they draft? I don't know, but probably Frank or Silas.

Edited to add: This alternative answers ONE question that's been bugging me all week: why has MB given us so many Kelly spots in the Survivor Insider clips? At first I thought it was because Kelly was going to go before Mama Kim within Boran, and MB was interviewing her because of her vulnerability. But that's not the case -- it's obvious that Mama Kim is going next if things don't change.

So there are two problems here -- why are there all the Kelly interviews ... and why has he told us how vulnerable Mama Kim is? Answer: the Kelly interviews are there because MB intended to use Kelly (the articulate and attractive college student) as the "narrator" of Boran ... but then he changed his mind when she got swapped out. And we know about Mama Kim because, post-swap, she is no longer the most vulnerable member of Boran.

I'm not saying this is going to happen -- but it's an interesting alternative.

My apologies for turning this into another discussion thread...

  Top

Outfrontgirl 6830 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-06-01, 03:00 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Outfrontgirl Click to send private message to Outfrontgirl Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
22. "RE: The Swedish swap"
AyaK,
this reasoning strikes me as mostly very plausible and accounts for a lot--particularly the use of Kelly in the clips, so I would like to engage in thinking some more how it might play out. First, I have a question about the rules of the swap:

>In Expedition Robinson, each team chose a player from the other tribe as a "hostage". The hostages competed in the next challenge; the winning hostage won immunity for his or her new tribe.

Are you saying that the hostages go head-to-head with each other and the teams don't compete? Sounds like it. If so, was it announced beforehand as a mental challenge on Robinson? Because if physical and one-to-one, wouldn't they just draft the athlete?

I can see the GXA picking Kelly as a member, but less so as a challenge winner. Isn't the only time they've seen her in the spotlight when she lost the blood challenge?

I can see Boran picking Silas. "Daddy Lex" is really the head decision-maker there and I doubt he would pick Frank. It's not hard to tell that Frank's a leader-type male, which Lex wouldn't want. So far, Lex has gotten the strong younger males and older weaker Tom to allow him (Lex) to direct, and Silas would appear of the same ilk as Ethan.

Lastly, the Insider Clips have revealed that Kelly and Clarence want to join with Kim and vote out Lex, if possible. I doubt we would see those clips if it were going to happen, which leads me to think the Boran alliance structure shakes up. If Kelly were swapped, Clarence would lose his only ally.

As to the question of the hostage's continued loyalty--the L-E-T alliance of Boran should know that Kelly has no incentive to remain loyal. Lex and Tom have pushed her to the fringe of the tribe by not allowing her a function. She sees herself as a target protected only by the weaker target of Mama Kim. If I were Boran I'd write her off as an ally the moment she leaves camp, so they would have to pick someone they think can win IC and who might join them.

Again, they are focused on strong men, so I would say Silas. This is also smart because that will leave Samburu with one strong man (or 2, if S drafts a man).

If Samburu drafts Kelly purely for her GXA demographics, they are as stupid as they appear. They need another strong man. They ought to pick Ethan or Clarence, who are both young, but I agree that Kelly is the most likely not to ally with Frank and Teresa from the Mawlers point of view.

Well, I'll wait to speculate on who might win immunity until I hear back on whether only the hostages compete for IC and if they were given any clues as to the type of IC on Robinson.

  Top

PagongRatEater 12996 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-06-01, 01:34 PM (EST)
Click to EMail PagongRatEater Click to send private message to PagongRatEater Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
18. "New Voting thread"
Really good stuff sleeeve! I especially enjoyed the Survivor Insider letter. Extremely interesting and insightful. I've never heard of it though and I'm curious about it's origin. It shows how much the show has been edited to present us with certain biases about each tribe and create false impressions that support the story line. (ie not showing divisions in Boran).

If anybody has some insight or more information on this, I'm quite curious.

There are so many theories out there about what might happen this week and I'd have to say that there is very little spoiler information that actually points to any one of the theories being significantly stronger than any other the others. There is a real possiblity that there will be a significant change to how this game is played and I have a feeling that it will spell disaster for the GXA which would be nice since it is about time we see the tribe everyone hates get their commupance(sp?). I think that this week it may be in order to actually have a vote on what, if anything, happens to shake things up. Without having a better idea of what is going to happen, it is going to be really tough to pick someone on the boot thread.

Great work sleeeve!

  Top

sleeeve 3456 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity"

11-06-01, 03:45 PM (EST)
Click to EMail sleeeve Click to send private message to sleeeve Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
25. "More Information"
>I've never heard
>of it though and I'm
>curious about it's origin.
>
>If anybody has some insight or
>more information on this, I'm
>quite curious.

Survivor Insider is a service provided through the Official Site that you can pay for. It provides about 30 minutes of additional footage that ended up on the cutting room floor after each episode of the show.


You never know what might be up my sleeeve...

  Top

Dalton 1271 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beef Jerky Spokesperson"

11-06-01, 06:16 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Dalton Click to send private message to Dalton Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
34. "RE: More Information......"
I'm adding this bit to this thread for consideration.

I subscribe to a weekly CBS Newsletter (called "CBS eyeMAIL")that discusses ALL CBS shows...so naturally now they include a section on Survivor: Africa each week.

Last week the written blurb was about Dr. Carl being booted; followed by a "contestant" picture and biography information.
Last week the picture & Bio. were of LINDA. (And, ooops Linda was the contestant booted next!).

Here is what this week's newsletter says:

"CBS eyeMAIL

A confrontation with Lindsey, who narrowly avoided being voted out of the tribe a week earlier, proved costly for Linda Spencer, as the younger members of Samburu continued their war against the older tribe mates.
This week there's a big surprise in store for the competitors AS THE RULES OF THE GAME CHANGE <caps mine> and alliances and friendships are shattered."

THEN the article proceeds to show a picture of KELLY GOLDSMITH and gives her complete biography!!!

It makes me wonder if it could possibly be as simple as the ONE contestant pictured and talked about IS the NEXT BOOTEE???
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After listening and viewing the CBS promo clip and all the talk about whatever "it" is happens in the first 15 minutes --- the contestants certainly sound "stunned" and "shocked" by it.

(I am very tempted to bring up my already posted theory that a herd of elephants stampede through the Samburu camp site...LOL).

I don't believe there will be 3 separate camps or 3 separate tribes. I don't believe the Merge will happen earlier either.

I think it's possible MB WILL switch out ONE tribe member; but still say it will be done in a way that gives the tribe no control over their "pick". And YAWN to drawing straws --- much more interesting letting each team pick a member of the other tribe to cross over without knowing which of their tribe mates will be leaving.

MB is going to throw in a "rule of the game change" --- the CBS eyeMAIL flatly states it as fact. But I don't think it's going to be as BIG a change as people are allowing it to become. For example: "Kelly's Necklace"....can anybody swear Kelly didn't already have or was ever seen to wear a necklace in the past 4 episodes? Maybe Lex or Ethan found a "heart-shaped rock" and MADE a necklace for her (shades of Rodger/Liz).

As to believing that Susan, Jeff, Alicia, Gervese, Dicque, Sean or any of the other S-1 and S-2 people "Know the inside scoop" or are being "fed the goods by MB" --- that is just laughable, IMO!!!

Dalton


  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-06-01, 06:25 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
35. "RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode 5"
OK--I hate to become a nuisance, but I just thought of something that I do not think anyone has quite said before. It goes to Susan's credibility. Susan's E6 review was printed before E4 was shown and before the promos for E5 were shown. Thus, at the time she wrote it, there was no way she could have known for sure that a twist or rule change would occur in E5 unless someone told her. As far as I know, the promo for E5 at the end of E4 was the first time the network or MB made any public announcement that E5 would have a twist or rule change. But Susan's review of E6 clearly indicates that the rule change happened during the prior episode, E5.

The best speculator in the world could not have made the leap that a rule change would occur in E5 at the time Susan wrote her review of E6. If she was told that there would be a rule change in E5, she was also presumbly told what the change would be (but was told to keep her review of E6 vague to keep people guessing). Furthermore, she did not seem to be speculating; her intro paragraph seemed to be statements of fact (the second paragraph contained some personal opinion and speculation). I highly doubt she was told who ended up on what team or who wins any of the challenges. But is seems clear that she was told in no uncertain terms what the rule change would be (we will have a better idea when Alicia's review of E7 comes out later this week either late Wed or early Thurs).

So if Susan was told what the rule change would be, then we know two things (1) there will be some change in the make-up of the tribes (she says that we will have to see if alliances can survive when their members are split apart) and (2) there will not be a merge prior to E8 (she says that the TC in E6 should put weaker members at risk which would only be true if tribal competitions continue into E7). This limits the possible twists to 2--swap tribe members or 3 tribes. However, I focus on the exact words "Now we'll see just how strong alliances are. Can they hold together if their members are split apart?" I know we cannot always put too much stock in the exact words people use, but a swap of only 1 person does not really "split apart" alliance members (only some alliances would be affected, not all). A three member swap would be closer, but again, they are not completely "split apart". As I think I have said elsewhere, former Boran members would likely have an incredible incentive to stick with their former tribe members to guarantee at least a 3-3 tie in the TC vote. Knowing this, the Samburu's would also have a similar incentive (unless Frank or Theresa cared more about revenge). Thus the new alliances would be pretty predictible, stick with old tribe members (similar to the incentive for the first vote post merge). The only scenario I can see in which alliances are really split apart and tested is three tribes in which the losing two go to TC together.

I apologize if my frequent posting on the same topic is getting annoying. This past week is the first time I have felt I had anything useful to add to the discussion and following these logical clues has become fascinating to me.

  Top

WaterRat 11 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Got Milk? Spokesperson"

11-06-01, 06:55 PM (EST)
Click to EMail WaterRat Click to send private message to WaterRat Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
37. "RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode 5"
>review was printed before E4
>was shown and before the
>promos for E5 were shown.

True ZZZ but the idea of a twist was published in TV Guide for a while prior to Susan's review. The episode description has been out for a while and is captured in one of the other threads. It clearly brings up the idea of a twist of some sort. It is still conceivable that Susan was told (as were the tv "guides") that there would be a twist...well ahead of her publishing date without giving anything else away. Anything beyond that could be fertile speculation.

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-06-01, 08:43 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
38. "RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode 5"
waterrat--

You may be right, but I do not remember hearing about a twist or rule change prior to reading Susan's review of E6. The only TV Guide description for E5 that I am aware of is the Alicia review that makes no mention of the rule change or twist. Remember also that Susan's E6 review went up on TV Guide's website last Thursday (or late Wednesday) which means that Susan had to turn it in to TV Guide at least a few days prior (possibly even up to a week prior, but I suspect more like a few days). Whether published descriptions of E5 were out by then that Susan could have looked at to know there was a rule change in E5, I don't know for sure. We just know it was written some time between E3 and E4.

So maybe Susan got a hold of the E5 twist title and riddle about thinking you know the game and then jumped to her own conclusions about the rest. That is possible. It just seems the timing makes that difficult (I wonder if there is any way to know for sure the first date the "riddle" appeared anywhere). Furthermore, her wording in her review really seems like she had more information that just that silly riddle. But at this point I fear I am just talking myself into arguments for my side because I have fought so hard to support my theory.

  Top

turtle 23 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Got Milk? Spokesperson"

11-07-01, 03:45 PM (EST)
Click to EMail turtle Click to send private message to turtle Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
59. "Hey, why not 3 tribes?"
zzz, for what it's worth, I like the 3 tribe theory too so you're not alone!!!! (tho' to be honest I've changed my mind more times than I count)

But don't expect a big complex theory for why, or references to possible spoiler material, cuz my reasons are based on one simple premise: MB is an evil bastard

I love the idea of 3 teams of 4 (2 each Samburu and Boran) vying for immunity, with the two losing teams going to TC. What happens there? WHO KNOWS!! and that's what I love about it....do you try and form an alliance in your new group? do you try and maintain old alliances through winks and nods? do you vote a weak member out of your own group in order to improve your chances in competition? or do you try and vote out a strong member of the other team to remain competitive?

As for a team possibly being reduced to 2 players, so what? Challenges have always been evened out before - teams with more members will sit someone out...which could be a life preserver for weak players like Teresa and Kim

Not to mention, you might not face the same team at TC the next time anyways, so the dynamics would change.

And the devilish part? Sorting out who gets what (ie. the 100 gallons of water)...this isn't a con, it's a pro - imagine the resentment of a former Boranian who busted their ass to win that oversized jug, only to have it taken away and given to some undeserving Samburan...who can't imagine MB coming up with something like this to really make his contestants pissed off at one another?

But the best part of all would be the post-merger aftermath. Since we assume that the teams will all merge into one eventually, I can just imagine the chaos - who are your allies now? is anyone even left from an old alliance? who can you trust to take you to the final two? with hurt feelings, double-crossings galore, and a hotbed of resentment, it would be one hell of a ride!!!

I don't think MB's original plan for Survivor was to rely on so much solidarity - he wanted a back-stabbing, every-man-for-himself, evil showdown...not the more effective but boring and predictable alliance (kind of like the neutral zone trap - effective, but what a snooze to watch!!). No offence to your spoiling successes last time round, but it was all pretty predictable, and no doubt that's the reason ratings are down this time around.

In short, MB is an evil bastard. He wants drama. He wants conflict. He wants to make things unpredictable. He wants ratings. And most of all, he wants to make it absolutely clear to contestants and viewers alike that HE's in charge.

Now, all of the above could be accomplished with a 1-3 person swap, and feel free to punch as many holes in this scenario as you like - it's all just for fun, and I'm happy to admit that I have absolutely no clue as to what's going to happen, and don't pretend to. Heck, I'm not even convinced of my own 'theory'!!

All I know is that if this week's 'twist' isn't something MAJOR, I'm gonna turn in my "Hey, I'm one of the 20.6 million still watching" card, join the basher board, and limit myself to reading the SB episode recaps, cuz they're freakin hilarious!

  Top

IceCat 17415 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-06-01, 09:06 PM (EST)
Click to EMail IceCat Click to send private message to IceCat Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
39. "Great Job on the SOTS, sleeeve..."
I could not imagine having to organize all of the threads...

You did a fantastic job!


September 11, 2001

  Top

Clarencetroy 4 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"

11-06-01, 10:23 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Clarencetroy Click to send private message to Clarencetroy Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
41. "RE: Great Job on the SOTS, sleeeve..."

These vidcaps show Silas and Theresa going somewhere on a cart of some type. The weird thing is Silas seems to have lost his necklace! Are they the 2 Samburu's who are swapped for Kelly and Mamma Kim?

  Top

Naked 887 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Fitness Correspondent"

11-06-01, 10:20 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Naked Click to send private message to Naked Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
40. "RED HERRING ?"
I have been reading this board fairly extensively this week, and I am exited about all of the diffrent theories that have come up. The only hard evidence that we have to go on this week seems to be contestants that played on other shows that "slipped" information ie. Susan, Sean, and Jeff. That, and a still of a nice necklace on Kelly. What if, nothing happens this week other than the normal everyday game. No merge, no 3 tribe, no switch. MB is not above outright lying to us. After all, he said that we should watch the first 5 minutes of this series for something that was supposed to be Big. Nothing happening would be a twist that we wouldn't forget, or possibly forgive... I don't know that I believe this, but Its something that should be considered...
Naked
  Top

MDSkinner 716 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 12:02 PM (EST)
Click to EMail MDSkinner Click to send private message to MDSkinner Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
45. "Great job sleeeve...."
This week has probably been the most sporadic week of spoiling with all of the different possibilities and scenarios that people have been coming up with, but you have definitely put this one together nicely. So many ideas all rolled up into one post really makes this easier to navigate through, so thank you for that.

My only issue with this whole mess is that no one really has any idea who is going to get voted off. I read in one person's post that maybe that was MB's idea, and I am starting to believe it. MamaKim and Teresa are the logical choices and it seems to me that MB is trying to move us away from that sort of thinking by throwing in this whole "twist" idea. At this point, I am not sure if there even will be a twist, and if there is I am not so sure that it is going to be a three tribe split just because Susan seems to think that it is or because Jeff Varner says it is(they are both on MB's payroll the way that I see it). There is no positive evidence in any direction, but a lot of possible evidence in every direction. It should be interesting to see who people end up picking this week, that is for sure.

  Top

Outfrontgirl 6830 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-07-01, 03:11 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Outfrontgirl Click to send private message to Outfrontgirl Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
57. "Swedish Switch"
Bringing the conversation back down to the bottom of the thread--

I am coming around to the one member swap theory.
dabo and zzz have an interesting conversation going about MB's own theories of the game's structure on the Animal Symbolism thread, but since my post has no animal references I'll answer over here.

I completely agree with zzz (and others) that Stage 2 of the game needs a shake-up to avoid predictable Pagonging. That is the essence of what the quotes say from MB, JP, LM as to why they threw in a twist. I believe that not due to their credibility but because their rationale makes complete sense. The players think they have the game figured out and they're playing by the numbers. Better TV will result from putting them on their toes, but I think far worse TV will come from throwing existing structures into complete chaos by dividing them up so they become unrecognizable.

I'm going to adopt the premise that the twist was planned in advance to make for a better, less predictable game without completely destroying the average viewer's comprehension of the dynamics in mid-game.

Pros of One-Person Swap
The one person swap shakes up alliances and friendships without obliterating tribal identity. With either a 3-person swap or 3 tribes--how can you even say which tribe is which any more? Tribal identity matters, but the game needs some room for minority alliances to pull in members from the other tribe after the merge to avoid the Pagong/Kucha for a third time (kiss of death for ratings).

A small tweak can allow the balance of power to shift dramatically and unexpectedly while keeping the identities the viewers have come to know fairly intact. A total change of group identities would disorient viewers (BAD), but a one-person swap breaks up the balance of power without creating chaos. The same players will for the most part be working together, but the fragility of their existing alliances will be exposed by a change of even one person who is completely open and opportunistic. Everyone on both teams will have to get on their toes and woo that vote.

In sum, I don't believe that utter destruction of alliances at this point moves the game forward. As dabo points out, it's a regressive move towards the beginning chaos. A shift in power, on the other hand, reinvigorates the game.

As an example of what a one-person swap could to to Samburu:
(I wrote this before seeing MD Skinner's post above. We have used the same example, but I'll post mine anyway as support.)
say Boran picks Silas (most likely, as Boran is fixated on strong men). Now the GXA's and OFA are 3-2 instead of 4-2. A new person comes in as swing vote. Say it is Kelly, because the GXA are afraid to bring in anyone who they think will side with Frank and Teresa. Everyone will court Kelly's vote if they go to TC (which is likely enough). Because of Lindsey's prior votes, Kelly, Frank, and Teresa could boot Lindsey. In one tweak the GXA in Samburu go from 4-2 to 2-3, and Kelly is still the swing.

Or Kelly could go with the GXA and boot Teresa, leaving Frank alone on the outside. But will Kelly remain bonded with the GXA after the merge the way Silas likely would? Probably not. She's a thinker and a worker. It's likely her loyalty will be one of expedience only.

In Boran, Silas brings male strength so that Boran has clear physical superiority. Do Boran boot MamaKim and become the first all male tribe? Or do they turn on Tom or Clarence as dispensable, now that Samburu has almost no strength? Clarence and Kim and weakening Tom could approach Silas and offer him a strong position by combining to oust Lex, the bossy Daddy. That would advance Silas' position in the tribe more than becoming the 5th male. In one twist, Lex could go from leader to bootee.

There are numerous possibilities, but this just shows how a one-player swap can shake up all the dominant alliances, because no one has more than a one person majority at this stage. The merge also becomes less predictable, because the swapped players have ideally convinced their new tribes they are loyal, but may be loyal to the old. All sorts of backstabbing can ensue.

3 Tribe Drawbacks
Now look at the problems created in forming 3 tribes:
Boran and Samburu as we know them would end. The skills the teams have developed in working challenges with the same players collapse. One or all three of the tribes need new names and identity. There is no reasonably equitable way to distribute twelve into 3 tribes. Either we'll have 4 Samburu, 4 Boran, and 2-2, or 3 tribes of 3-1.

I cannot see the three tribe competition being good game or TV, as it will look like a 3-ring circus. Switching back and forth between teams makes good TV, or a group of individuals competing, but not three teams for the camera to follow.

The TC will also feel all wrong to the viewers. Think about the scenarios. First of all, the 8 winners from two teams going to TC and voting out the losing 4 doesn't work. They all have to go, because the people getting votes must be present. Period.
So, 4 people will sit as targets with a safe group of 8? Isn't the whole psychodrama of TC about NOBODY IS SAFE?

Or--4 or less losing team players go to a tiny TC and vote off one of their own? What happens it they keep losing and get too small? The rules need to stay clear and simple for the most part. Repeated shuffles will only aggravate a sense of chaos begun with breaking up the tribes. Viewers need to be able to identify with established tribes as much as do the players. The important suspense is--which tribe wins? the one I'm rooting for or the other one? As in baseball, football, all team sports, the one-on-one team competition runs deep with the spectator.

As the numbers get smaller, the viewer easily shifts to rooting for individuals, but not to one team out of three. Also, if a 4-person losing tribe is voted against by 8, the 4 people don't have to turn on each other. The working dynamic of Survivor is that you bond and compete with a team and when you lose you turn on one of your own. The 3 tribes will get too small and can easily get seriously unbalanced in numbers too quickly. It's one thing to have teams 6-8 or 5-7, but 2-4-4? That's two teams with TWICE as many members as one team.

For all these reasons I believe 3 tribes would be a bad game and bad TV. If *I* get that I'm pretty sure the creator of this devilish game and his advisors will get it and won't go there.

Sue Spoiler
It's not out of the pale that she was given info about the rule change (and no insider facts as to the results) so the TVGuide preview would not be totally wrong about how the game works. The statement that alliances are split up follows logically from the swap per se.

As to the continuation of team challenges past Ep 6, as suggested by her preview--I believe Les Moonves (or MB or JP) said there were curve balls--PLURAL. A second twist could come by extending team challenges just one or two more episodes after the camp merge, so that two tribes will merge to one camp in Ep 7 as usual, and as Probe has repeatedly stated, but not immediately become one tribe for purposes of immunity.

That way the Pagonging, if it happens, occurs over a shorter span of time, and the time spent in one camp allows cross-tribal alliances to emerge before the switch to individual competition. In the past, the majority tribe has stuck together whether they liked each other or not, because they had a ticket to the final 5, or 3. If they merge at 8 or 9, the majority will be very slim and they will know the other tribe members well enough to approach them in advance. One improvement to the game would be for players to have more latitude in ousting annoying personalities and forming GGA--Good Guys Alliances. Viewers have craved that develpment in the past and not gotten it.

A swap will ensure that the prior votes get shared, which takes away the suspense of S2's merge episode, so the game might need this second tweak--just when they think (again) that they have their ducks in a row for an individual tiebreaker, they get thrown a second curve.

Pure Early Merge
I don't think there's an early merge. MB has given Samburu a few days to suffer for their inattention to caring for their water pots. They don't need water, only new pots. That doesn't call for something so drastic as a merge AND it looks and is a radical change in the game to pull one tribe out of the fire.

I believe the twist (for legal purposes) was pre-planned before shooting and set up as an option in the fine print--not a mid-game adjustment to circumstances. Probst has repeatedly referenced the date of the merge and if they had changed it in midstream they could EASILY have edited out those references so the viewer wouldn't go "what the hell?"

Possible variations: the swapped member brings personal stuff plus a portion of previously won rewards (blankets, etc.) plus one needed tribal resource. MB cannot fairly send Kelly for example, from a tribe with good water to one with no water, so maybe some resources will accompany the swap. That way he can save Samburu's ass in terms of not letting them die of thirst, but in the name of a swap so it's somewhat less obvious. Either that or Jiffy can pull another trade of a pot for some other physical resource.

In sum, the one-person swap is my theory du jour!


Don't think it won't happen just because it hasn't happened yet

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 03:38 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
58. "RE: Swedish Switch"
Outfrontgirl--

You have said a lot (well thought out as usual), and I will not try to address every point (many of which I have already addressed in the past and will try not to repeat too much).

The one point I have made in the past that you seem to have completely missed is how easy TC would be in a three tribe scenario. The 2 losing tribes go to TC and all 8 (or 7, 6 etc. as the game goes on) are vulnerable. That sets up a very interesting dynamic that I believe leads to good TV (the tension between the competing pressures of getting rid of weak members of your new tribe, getting rid of strong members of the other new tribe and maintaining old alliances).

As far as the 1 member swap breaking alliances--I don't see it. What alliances has MB shown us? GXA, OFA and arguable LET (the extra footage seems to confirm LET and suggest Kelly and Clarence also have an alliance with other possible mini-alliances, but MB has not shown this to the general public so it does not count for this purpose). In a single member swap, there is no way for MB to live up to the promise to "shatter every friendship and alliance." If Silas goes, the OFA is intact. If Kelly goes, LET is intact. Furthermore, Susans said that "Now we'll see just how strong alliances are. Can they hold together if their members are split apart?" In a swedish swap, their members are NOT really split apart. A member may be sent away. But, as I noted above, other alliances will necessarily remain completely intact.

It may surprise you, but the best argument I have heard against the 3 tribe scenario in my own mind is the problem of tribe names. It is alway annoying to have to come up with new names and new colors. Would MB want to have to do this so many times? Of course, my answer remains that I believe he did. But it certainly makes me wonder.

  Top

MDSkinner 716 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 04:00 PM (EST)
Click to EMail MDSkinner Click to send private message to MDSkinner Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
60. "RE: Swedish Switch"
<<In a single member swap, there is no way for MB to live up to the promise to "shatter every friendship and alliance." If Silas goes, the OFA is intact. If Kelly goes, LET is intact. Furthermore, Susans said that "Now we'll see just how strong alliances are. Can they hold together if their members are split apart?" In a swedish swap, their members are NOT really split apart. A member may be sent away. But, as I noted above, other alliances will necessarily remain completely intact.>>

Here is where I must disagree with you. Because once again, all that MB really needs to do is to shatter the Alliances and Friendships in the "general public's" eye. That is not saying very much at this point. For the majority of the people, I would argue that the only real friendship and alliance that is really in tact right now is the GXA. The OFA is already dimembered since they only have two people (that is no alliance), and Boran(to the general public) has shown nothing more than that they will vote together from week to week. They are a team at this point, so removing any one of them would break up that alliance to the general public. So when it comes to shattering friendships and alliances, I think even a one person swap satisfies that fairly easily to the general public, for the simple reason that if you remove one of the GXA, the game becomes completely different for the Samburu's.

So the way I see it, and I think the way the general public certainly could see it, this would definitely satisfy that need, if this were to be done.

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 04:25 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
63. "RE: Swedish Switch"
MD--

I know this back and forth on every little point gets somewhat tedious, but I guess that is the nature of these boards. The promo as I remember it said (correct me if I am wrong)--"Every Friendship" ... "Every Alliance" ... "Shattered". This language, at least to me, clearly suggests that there is more than one friendship (or group of friends like the GXA) and more than one alliance at stake. I believe that a casual viewer would see Frank and Teresa as still being in an alliance. I also think that the showed Lex, Ethan and Tom forming an alliance before and Kimj being at risk last week (thus implying that LET are still together and in charge). The fact that they have focused more on Samburu the last few weeks does not mean that people forgot them showing Lex going to Ethan to join Lex and Tom's alliance.

I also think that it is more reasonable for the twist to cause the shattering effect by necessity. Assume you are correct that it is the 1 member swap. At the beginning of the episode, when you find out there will be a 1 member swap, but do not know who it will be, you cannot know alliances are shattered. That information alone does not tell you that the GXA will be shattered because Frank or Teresa might go--unless you remember the promo that says the main alliance is affected, so you know Frank and Teresa are safe. MB hates to give away information like that early. I really think that the twist, once revealed, will lead the players and viewers to know immediately that all alliances will be broken apart no matter who end up on what team after the twist. Only the 3 tribe scenario does this.

  Top

MDSkinner 716 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 04:42 PM (EST)
Click to EMail MDSkinner Click to send private message to MDSkinner Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
64. "RE: Swedish Switch"
It is all about perception, and I think that the general public is smart enough to see that the alliance of Frank, Teresa, Linda and Carl is already history. If a new alliance is created with Frank, Teresa and another, I do not think that it means that the Frank and Teresa alliance still exists, but rather that the new alliance of Frank, Teresa and XXX exists. If you are going with this line of thinking then it would be impossible for you to believe that the addition of a 3rd tribe would in fact break up every alliance, because it is a guarantee that at least a few of the members of the GXA or of Boran would by necessity have to be together, which would mean that their little alliance would still be together even in a three tribe switch. So if you theory that Frank and Teresa are still considered to be an alliance is true, then there would be no possible way to break up every alliance. So I don't think you can take it thar literally and follow up with any of the idea's for the twist to be honest. (If I confused you here, let me know, I can expand)

I think the general public sees the only real existing alliance to be the GXA(and possibly all of Boran at this point), and therefore I think that switching one memeber would in fact break up those alliances, even if it is not to the dramatic extent that you are hoping for.


<<At the beginning of the episode, when you find out there will be a 1 member swap, but do not know who it will be, you cannot know alliances are shattered. That information alone does not tell you that the GXA will be shattered because Frank or Teresa might go--unless you remember the promo that says the main alliance is affected, so you know Frank and Teresa are safe. MB hates to give away information like that early. I really think that the twist, once revealed, will lead the players and viewers to know immediately that all alliances will be broken apart no matter who end up on what team after the twist. Only the 3 tribe scenario does >>

If you hear at the beginning that there will be a swap, right away it shakes everything up because everyone will wonder who it will be that is swapped. I don't think that the change that happens in the first fifteen minutes is going to change Survivor immediately, and I think it would be crazy to assume that it would. Most likely the change that is announced will foreshadow the big change that happens. And a one person swap would definitely do that, since everyone would be concerned with who it is going to be, and the GXA folks would be the most worried since they will just have the possibility of losing their edge. If you think that ALL friendships and alliances are going to be shattered within the first fifteen minutes, then you are really going out on a limb, I would have to say. I think that is something that will have to happen over time, and the announcement of a 1 person swap could(and I just say COULD) absolutely do that. Hell, who would want to be the one person swapped? Not a single one would probably wish for that. Just that announcement alone would shake up every member out there. So even though the information alone would not guarantee the GXA breakup, it would certainly scare them, and it could still end up completely breaking them up as we may see later in the show. I don't see how you can assume that whatever information that is given is going to let the audience know immediately that there is going to be a breakup of every alliance and friendship, when even if it were a three tribe merge that is not a guarantee. There is not a single scenario that will guarantee that just by hearing Jiffy say it.

I guess all of your points have counter points, and every scenario is just as likely as the next.

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 05:07 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
66. "RE: Swedish Switch"
MD--

I realize that I may not have been clear enough in my last post. To break up an alliance means that it does not stay completely intact. Thus, at least 1 member of GXA must be separated from the rest, Frank and Teresa must be separated and at least one member of LET must be separated from the other 2. In a three tribe scenario, with 2 from each tribe paired with 2 from the other tribe, this will necessarily happen, as long as Frank and Teresa do not go together (which would be likely just by the laws of probability even if the tribes are randomly selected). So a three tribe scenario, by its nature, will break up each of these alliances because no one of the new tribes will have all of the members of any of the former alliances. In the swedish swap--that is not the case. Either GXA remains completely intact or OFA (what is left of it) remains completely intact. Furthermore, unless L, E or T is the one swapped, LET remains completely intact. The fact that 2 of the GXA go to one tribe does not mean the alliance is not shattered because, although those 2 may still be alligned, they have been separated from their other 2 alliance members.

I think you completely misunderstood what I meant by the first 15 min. issue. I am shifting gears completely and assuming for this purpose that you are correct that the only real alliance is the GXA. What I was trying to say is that MB used as a promo that alliances would be shattered. Whatever the twist is we will know its nature in the first 15 min. I agree that we will probably not know the aftermath at that point. So if it is the swedish swap, we will find out in the second 15 min of the show who gets swapped. If it is the three tribe scenario, the new tribes would be set up in the second 15 min. So assume you are correct that it is the swedish swap. You are sitting at commercial thinking, "Gee I wonder who will get swapped out of Samburu. Well, MB told me last week that alliances will be shattered. The main alliance is the GXA. Thus, one of them must get swapped. Therefore, I know Frank and Teresa are safe from being swapped to Boran." MB would not want you to know that during the commercial. He wants to keep that in suspense until he is ready to tell you who gets traded. If it were the swedish swap, he would not have given away that alliances are shattered because he would want you to have to wait until later in the episode to know that Frank and Teresa are not traded.

Of course, I am making more of a clue than perhaps I have a right to do. That is what we do around here all the time. But those are my thoughts on the issues.

  Top

MDSkinner 716 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 07:12 PM (EST)
Click to EMail MDSkinner Click to send private message to MDSkinner Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
69. "RE: Swedish Switch"
LAST EDITED ON 11-07-01 AT 07:16 PM (EST)

OK, here we go again.


<<I realize that I may not have been clear enough in my last post. To break up an alliance means that it does not stay completely intact. Thus, at least 1 member of GXA must be separated from the rest, Frank and Teresa must be separated and at least one member of LET must be separated from the other 2.>>

I disagree with this completely. First of all I don't think that the general public see LET as an alliance(since this one has really only been displayed in the extra footage, thus you would have to have seen that or read these boards to know that is an alliance), and I really don't think that Frank and Teresa can any longer be considered an alliance. These two are just on the way out, plain and simple as long as things do not change. The alliance that they were a part of is no more. That is all there is to it. So I think if they are not separated it does not change things at all, and that this whole "friendships and alliances" thing can still easily hold true in MB's eyes(which is all that counts) as well as the publics.

<<
In a three tribe scenario, with 2 from each tribe paired with 2 from the other tribe, this will necessarily happen, as long as Frank and Teresa do not go together (which would be likely just by the laws of probability even if the tribes are randomly selected). So a three tribe scenario, by its nature, will break up each of these alliances because no one of the new tribes will have all of the members of any of the former alliances. In the swedish swap--that is not the case. Either GXA remains completely intact or OFA (what is left of it) remains completely intact. Furthermore, unless L, E or T is the one swapped, LET remains completely intact. The fact that 2 of the GXA go to one tribe does not mean the alliance is not shattered because, although those 2 may still be alligned, they have been separated from their other 2 alliance members.
>>
This is true, though it still does not guarantee the situation any more than the other scenarios do. And once again I go back to the fact that you are taking this whole thing very litterally, for some reason. There is no chance that every friendship and alliance will be broken in any scenario. The reason that I say that is because you can not get rid of enough people in Boran such that they will not be with at least one friend in any scenario. That being the case, I can not logically think that by the preview saying that all alliances and friendships will be shattered that it actually means ALL, to me it means that the major friendships and alliances will be shattered. This is one of those cases where we are trying to interpret what MB is saying by his preview, and who knows who is right? Not me, but I do know that previews have been very misleading before, and there is no chance that he can ruin every friendship and alliance no matter what he does. Thus I think that this statement can still be satisfied with as simple as a one person swap,


<<
I think you completely misunderstood what I meant by the first 15 min. issue. I am shifting gears completely and assuming for this purpose that you are correct that the only real alliance is the GXA. What I was trying to say is that MB used as a promo that alliances would be shattered. Whatever the twist is we will know its nature in the first 15 min. I agree that we will probably not know the aftermath at that point. So if it is the swedish swap, we will find out in the second 15 min of the show who gets swapped. If it is the three tribe scenario, the new tribes would be set up in the second 15 min. So assume you are correct that it is the swedish swap. You are sitting at commercial thinking, "Gee I wonder who will get swapped out of Samburu. Well, MB told me last week that alliances will be shattered. The main alliance is the GXA. Thus, one of them must get swapped. Therefore, I know Frank and Teresa are safe from being swapped to Boran." MB would not want you to know that during the commercial. He wants to keep that in suspense until he is ready to tell you who gets traded. If it were the swedish swap, he would not have given away that alliances are shattered because he would want you to have to wait until later in the episode to know that Frank and Teresa are not traded.
>>

I see no problem with this. I see no reason why at this point MB would not care what we were thinking. As long as we can not guess what it is BEFORE the show airs, I don't think he cares very much what we figure out after the show is already on. Once the show has aired, the publicity for that show is no longer important, what is important is the craze that he has stirred up before that show, and he has definitely done that here. So if the Swedish swap is announced, then we will all think that it will be a GXA member with xxx from Boran. What does he care if we figure that out while the show has aired. As long as he confused the hell out of us before hand, I think he still is sitting pretty.

For instance, when the whole Gervase X thing came out, the net felt confident that Gervase was in it until the end, but it was obvious in the episode that he was booted that if he did not win the immunity that he was gone. 20 minutes before that show was over, I knew for a fact that he was gone, and I would bet everyone else felt confident about that as well. MB did not care, because that week NO ONE picked the right bootee ahead of time. I see the same thing occurring here, and I see no reason why MB would care if it did.

Again, there is as much stuff out there to say a swap of some sort is possible as there is for the three tribe twist. Thank god there is only 23 hours and 40 minutes to wait.

Edited to add:

By the way, if you end up being right and there is a 3 tribe twist, then I will absolutely sing your praises tomorrow, since I tend to think that even though very possible, I think that a 3 tribe split is just too drastic of a change. I respect the fact that you have an unwaivering opinion, no matter what is thrown at you(and there is a lot).

  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 09:52 PM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
70. "RE: Swedish Switch"
MD--

I actually agree with most of what you have said. I was making my case as strongly as possible, and, in truth, I agree that we cannot take the "every alliance and every friendship shattered" too literally. I just think the three tribe scenario is much closer to this promo language. But, I can easily see MB justifying the promo even if many people like me quibble that we do not think it was really fulfilled. He does not really care about those kinds of complaints.

I do want to address one thing you stated that I think you are incorrect about. The LET alliance. I have seen none of the extra footage (I am too cheap to pay for it although I have read about it on these boards). I remember in one of the early episodes that Lex went to Ethan and said something about Lex and Tom swearing a loyalty oath on their sons to forge and alliance and asked Ethan whether he wanted to join. That was in a regular episode for everyone to see. They have not really focused much on it since, but I am sure that many people, even relatively casual viewers who at least watch all the episodes, remember the formation of that alliance. I agree that it has not been a focus recently and the GXA has been the main alliance focused on--but MB has purposely let the public know (or want them to believe) that LET is an alliance. So while the promo still may be great hyperbole that is not really justified if LET remain together, I think I am correct that LET is a publicly known alliance that regular viewers would know about.

  Top

MDSkinner 716 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-07-01, 11:50 PM (EST)
Click to EMail MDSkinner Click to send private message to MDSkinner Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
72. "RE: Swedish Switch"
That is absolutely a fair statement about LET, and may be very true. I guess the only reason that I said that was because I personally have never really seen it as a strong alliance, but just merely something to get them to the merge. But that is definitely fair, because I am certainly not extraordinarily perceptive.

Again, this has been an enjoyable debate, and I can not wait to see what happens tomorrow. You may the smartest person on this board come tomorrow evening.

  Top

Dalton 1271 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beef Jerky Spokesperson"

11-08-01, 01:04 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Dalton Click to send private message to Dalton Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
78. "RE: The Boran Lex/Ethan/Tom "alliance"...."
MDSkinner....

From what all viewers have seen "on air" and some people have learned from the "insider vid clips"....L/E/T are the closest thing BORAN has to an alliance.

First, Tom and Lex are M.C.P. who have already ousted two women (Diane & Jessie) and according to KELLY L/T won't let the "girls" do anything physical. In fact Kelly is very frustrated that she is NOT allowed to contribute and show her strength. Mama Kim fails in every challenge but everybody "likes" her, etc.

Clarence got left out of the "Macho Guys" group over the "food" issue...but now he is really making an effort to be Tom's good buddy and his strength is keeping him safer than either of the "girls".

When push comes to shove I think the Macho Men of Boran (Lex/Tom/Ethan/Clarence) WILL stick together to get all four of them to the Merge at least.

Dalton

  Top

MDSkinner 716 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-08-01, 01:25 PM (EST)
Click to EMail MDSkinner Click to send private message to MDSkinner Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
79. "RE: The Boran Lex/Ethan/Tom "alliance"...."
That is very insightful, and since I have not seen the insider clips that is good information to know.

Thanks for the info Dalton, it is appreciated.

  Top

MC_Hampster 105 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"

11-07-01, 04:11 PM (EST)
Click to EMail MC_Hampster Click to send private message to MC_Hampster Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
61. "Brilliant!"
All I can say to your post is that it is absolutely brilliant! I say if the three choices are:


  • One Member Swap - Each team loses one member to the other team, by competition, randomness or some other method.
  • Early Merge - The two tribes merge next episode and continue to remain two tribes living together or become one tribe with individual challenges.
  • Three Tribes - The remaining players are split into three competing tribes, living together or not.

I would definately go with the one member swap at this point. However, as the show approaches, I'm getting more scared of the possibility of nothing happening. It's happened before.

Is someone going to start a voting thread on the twist? I wouldn't mind doing it.

-MC

  Top

40thandUp 43 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beauty Pageant Celebrity Judge"

11-07-01, 04:17 PM (EST)
Click to EMail 40thandUp Click to send private message to 40thandUp Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
62. "RE: Swedish Switch"
While moving offices has limited my weekly deciphering of all the info we gather and discuss here - I had to add my thoughts to the mix - albit a bit late.

It is obvious that the preview picks are a mixture of recycled shots with new ones. There also appears to some agreement that there is a shift of players between camps. I also discussed back a few weeks the 3 tribe idea - but no longer buy into that one even though they are basically aligned as such. I would prefer 3 from the start of the game - but I digress.

I agree that the twist as a something that was pre-meditated by MP/JP to counteract alliances that are created and as shown in the past carried them to the final few.

TWIST - I think that the loser of the IC has their bootee picked by the winner - either face to face or in a predone ballot. The losers may have to say their peace in order to try and avoid the kick(begging for mercy). Thus taking the wind out of the sails of the alliances as they know not who is being booted - until they drag their sorry butts to the TC.

Also I beleive that there is a trade of sort where supplies/water is exhanged beween the tribes as a member of two of each tribe is sent to discuss things with the other tribe. eg - sending Frank over would really cause he pot to stir back a Samburu - he could let his intentions be known about most likely jumping ship and as well as advise that Silas and Lindsey were sitting with votes. After the meeting the players return which can lead to even more concern and alliance questioning. Chances are that the players are picked by MB/JP and not given any real notice just picked to get up and go.

I see this satisfying the teasers we have but would gladly welcome some feedback to help me rid or solidify this idea.

Thus it is as a prime way for Silas to wind up as the bootee and thus become one of Dianes buds - and I am leaning towards him as I recap the the last episode.

40th


(if this theory was eluded to by anyone already - sorry for the duplicate and kudos where deserved - like I said office move has limited my full reading of everything)

  Top

Outfrontgirl 6830 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-07-01, 10:20 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Outfrontgirl Click to send private message to Outfrontgirl Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
71. "Burnett on twist, 11/07"
LAST EDITED ON 11-07-01 AT 10:28 PM (EST)

Apologies if this was posted on another thread and I missed it.
I post it not because I assume it's true but to add it the mix.

Burnett Promises 'Survivor' Surprise
"There are a few interesting changes coming up in 'Survivor 3,'" says executive producer Mark Burnett, calling in from New Zealand, "and a few other little interesting changes in four. It just keeps the contestants on their toes. Trust me, you'll see on 'Survivor' how they absolutely start to assume they know the game inside and out from seeing it on TV, and we absolutely did something in the game where it totally threw them for a loop. It's just witty and interesting and made a big change."
Los Angeles, Zap2It - 11/07/01

Threw them for a loop, eh? I know I'm going loopy. Witty?

Burnett is putting himself on the line quite a bit here that's it's something major, for those who still cling to the "pure hype" theory. Also I note that there are MORE and different changes in S4. Also, it's "changes" plural and they may not all occur this episode, IMHO.

--------------------------------
Oh yeah, and that miracle of journalistic accuracy, the New York Post has published that there will be three tribes. But read the article and their sources are Kelly Wiggelsworths analysis and internet spoilers. Talk about which came first, the chicken or the egg! Here's the link anyway:
http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/33655.htm


Don't think it won't happen just because it hasn't happened yet

  Top

Rose Red 419 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Daytime Soap Guest Star"

11-08-01, 01:29 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Rose%20Red Click to send private message to Rose%20Red Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
73. "MB, the new Hitchcock?"
Ok, so you don't believe the New York Post. I do. It's three new teams of four. They (CBS, MB et al)have got to somehow stop the FRIENDS juggernaut and the TWIST is causing more people to talk about SURVIVOR all over again, than they did since last season here in jaded ole New York. It's GOT be be something new and big(and witty?)or else all these potental tune-er-in-ers will just tune right back to FRIENDS. Also, I don't believe for ONE MINUTE that Susan wrote that article in TV Guide. Please, the woman can barely spell. It was an MB plant, but pointedly included "voting off the weakest members." That wouldn't mean that two teams(assuming the POST is right - another MB plant for sure, but I think it's true)would be voting TOGETHER at TC to vote off one person, because they'd immediately target the STRONGEST member of the new four-person team. So, it's three new mini-teams, but the challenges all still involve strength, hence the need to get read of "The weakest members." MB is having the time of his life laughing over all this, but this is the biggest gamble of his TV career. If this TWIST doesn't catch on with the general public, SURVIVOR will sink like a stone in the ratings. So it HAS to be the LOLLAPALOOZA he's promised or we're ALLLLL out of here. I know I am.
The Stingray (and many others) pointed out last season that Survivor's strong-voting-off-the-weaker-team was a flaw and predictable. MB has supposedly stated many times that he hates alliances, so this WILL break up ALL the alliances into different camps. So that means Tom, Lex and Ethan will be on different teams. Frank and Linda will be on different teams. And three of the four Playskoolers will be on three teams but one of those teams will have TWO of them on it. The Kims end up on the same team. We know that from the CBS website nick-names.
Also, because of fairness, or to create the illusion of fairness, there has to be something as random-seeming as straw-drawing to determine who goes where.(However why do I think Ethan and Tom still end up on one team? Just call my psychic.)
The trailers tell us the least EVER because they can't show any of the RCs or the ICs because we'd see the new groupings. I think this is significant, too. This is either the beginning of an all-time high for SURVIVOR or it's all over because MB has ****ed with his own great game to much.
MB reminds me more than any one else of the late, great Master of Suspense Himself, Alfred Hitchcock. The tension he has created in the past seasons have been really engrossing, thriller dillers. This is all a "Whodunit?" Except who have to figure out each week, Who's-Gonna-Get-It? This reminds me of when PSYCHO first opened.(I know most of you were not on the planet for this.) And he promoted the hell out of "You Will Not Be Allowed To Enter The Theater After the Film Has Started," which was unheard of in those days. Today, it's a standard movie-going policy. There were no coming attractions with scenes of the movie,just Janet Leigh screaming, off-camera, and a monologue by him doing a tour of the Bates Motel set. It revealed NOTHING, created HUGE suspense in the audience waiting to see it and of course became a cinema classic.
MB is that same kind of showman. HOWEVER, if the first fifteen minutes of Episode 5 aren't the most gripping EVER of SURVIVOR, it's really all over for the whole franchise, I think. We're all gonna feel cheated and ripped off.
And "Witty?" Well, that would put Tom, Lindsey and Brandon all on the same team? I'm laughing already!
  Top

Outfrontgirl 6830 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-08-01, 02:24 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Outfrontgirl Click to send private message to Outfrontgirl Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
74. "POST sources"
Rose Red,
I actually don't know enough about the Post to automatically discredit them, although I've heard the paper described as being like a tabloid.

The Post titles its article "May" be Three Tribes and uses words like "appears" and "rumors." It talks about ratings, gets people to agree a change is necessary, gets Kelly W. to say they need to ban alliances (now there's some irony for you).

When push comes to shove the Post turns to Internet Spoiler sites to support the three tribe rumor. I made the chicken and the egg comment to point out the circuitous logic:

1) Survivor Blows Spoilers board runs rampant with the 3 Tribe theory.
2) The Post reads it (and other sites) and picks up the rumor and prints it as a possibility.
3) Survivor Blows spoilers read the Post article as confirming the 3 tribe theory.

My mind is open to the three tribe possibility, but the Post as source, in this case, makes me smile at the absurdity of it all--particularly since nowhere in the article does the Post say there WILL be 3 Tribes.

  Top

Rose Red 419 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Daytime Soap Guest Star"

11-08-01, 02:53 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Rose%20Red Click to send private message to Rose%20Red Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
75. "Now It's Rosie O'Donnell and Howard Stern, too."
Gee, OutFrontGirl, you sure put the Post in perspective for me. However, being a journalist myself, I feel in my bones that Kelly and Sue are being fed things by MB. HE can't come out and say it, but he can keep us all up nights(like he's evidently doing tonight)with all this fun stuff he's spinning.Now also Rosie O'Donnell(who is on another station) and Howard Stern(who is affliated with CBS) both say the three tribe thing, too. I was inclined to the three-for-three swap, but now everyone's saying three tribes. It's brilliant PR, if you look at it that way, and MB has GOT to salvage his sinking ship FAST! I would expect CBS to be leaking this stuff, but the rival network ABC and ROSIE? Sounds like a press release to me. I know I, as a newspaperperson could NEVER print something that wasn't from a reliable source. Kelly the First gave what I thought was a planted article, and perhaps a red herring,but was actually a true spoiler when she was interviewed last year about having dinner with Jerri Manthey, and Kelly was quoted as "getting the impression that she hadn't won." So she was accurate as far as that goes.
All we can tell from the vidcaps is that Kelly the Second got Sambuccoed(the necklace), and Frank and Theresa got the news via tree mail, and woke up the startled Playskoolers with the news. They all seem to be reading something. The Boron(whom we alllll now love) pledge allegiance to each other in a five way handshake. Lex seems the happiest of those whose voices we've heard, and the yelps of pain seem to be coming from the GXA. So, actually, we know quite a lot. Especially with the excellent Vid Cap anaysis of Mr. Bungler. Also, the two Kims end up together. I can't believe I'm up this late obsessing about all this! But then that's what we all love about "Survivor". It's great entertainment. Even when it's not on! I.E. merely being discussed here.
I am so looking forward to seeing it at my friend's tomorrow night. We have a weekly "Survivor" at his place. It's the highpoint of my week.
  Top

zzz 703 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Reality Show Commentator"

11-08-01, 08:57 AM (EST)
Click to EMail zzz Click to send private message to zzz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
76. "RE: Now It's Rosie O'Donnell and Howard Stern, too."
Rose Red--

If you have read the board, you know that at this point I think it is just you and me supporting the three tribe theory. I recommend you got over to Fast Eddie's vote thread and lend your support for the theory there (at this point I am the only vote for 3 tribes).

Now that Alicia's review of E7 is out (I posted it as a separate thread), we KNOW that Susan and Alicia were given inside information. I have a slightly different interpretation than you of Susan's comments about weaker players being targets. I still think the two losing tribes go to TC together (although I admit it may be just one losing tribe as you seem to suggest) because it is more unpredictible and still makes weaker members of your own tribe a potential target. It actually creates a big tension between going after weaker members of your own tribe, going after strong members of the other tribe and balancing old tribal alliances. For example, if Kimj is on your team and blew the challenge, you may be better off getting rid of her to help your tribe in the next round than trying to off the strongest member of the other tribe at TC. I think that Susan was just giving her opinion on how she thought the realignment would affect voting. I do not believe anyone actually told her who was voted off, so she does not know for sure that a weaker member actually was targeted (just that the weaker members are more vulnerable in an E6 situation than under the rules of S1 and S2).

I also think that some of the clues you are taking from the VidCaps may very well be false clues. For example, for all we know, the group cheer in Boran takes place before they find out the news and has nothing to do with the realignment (just as Linda's "thank you" had nothing to do with winning or losing a challenge as so many tried to argue). Without a way to accurately time the events being shown, it is almost impossible to know what meaning to take. MB loves to throw things in the VidCaps that are misleading. He does not limit himself to only scenes from the actual episode being promoed and he loves to take things that look like that took place at one time but really took place at another. So I am not saying your interpretation is incorrect, just that we cannot be as confident about the meaning as you seem to suggest.

  Top

George Tirebiter 2982 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest"

11-08-01, 10:56 AM (EST)
Click to EMail George%20Tirebiter Click to send private message to George%20Tirebiter Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
77. "Trying to make sense of these references. . ."
In the first part of the quote, MB says "There are a few interesting changes coming up in 'Survivor 3, and a few other little interesting changes in four." Because the "four" isn't written out as "4" or "Survivor 4," can we be sure that's what he means? or does he mean in four episodes?

Forgive my inane nitpicking, but after a week of NON-clues (shades of IceCat's "t" thread!) I AM getting more than a bit "loopy!" Ack!

I've said for ages they needed to make the game more interesting, but this is NOT what I had in mind! He can't really afford to piss us off by having another flop of a "shocker," can he?

GT

  Top

Stairway2Dayton 104 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"

11-08-01, 02:09 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Stairway2Dayton Click to send private message to Stairway2Dayton Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
80. "RE: Trying to make sense of these references. . ."
well, it IS gramatically correct to spell out numbers under ten unless they are part of a title. Since "four" is only part of the title I wouldn't put too much stock in the way it is written.

S2D

  Top

UltMale 7 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"

11-08-01, 05:59 PM (EST)
Click to EMail UltMale Click to send private message to UltMale Click to check IP address of the poster
81. "RE: State of the Spoiling, Episode 5"
Just so that you know...
There will be NO swapping, and NO third tribe made.

Remember how Jeff P warned the tribe last week about a 5-5 split after the merger would favor Boran if not all 5 of the others are on the same page? That shows that NOTHING is going to change tribe-wise. Otherwise it would be inconsistent.

So, what could happen? My guess is greater conflict across and between tribes. What if the GXA see the 2 Boomers giving voting info to Boran? If I was Frank, I would publicly tell Boran about Lindsey's 4 votes and then say, "Either the next one gone is Lindsey, or Boran will also learn of Silas' votes". Thus, the Boomers are protected in tribal council because they know that voting off a Boomer would destroy the tribe. Blackmail will be new to Survivor, so it would fit.

My cousin thinks that it is a big discussion about 9/11, but I doubt it.

  Top


Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
about this site   •   advertise on this site  •   contact us  •   privacy policy   •