I agree with you Pepe, but wonder if we have this backwards.

This situation sort of reminds me of two types of people I have seen in the office place over the years. Both are inclined to make non-politically correct statements. One guy - we will call him Pete - makes them without knowing that they are offensive. The other guy - Dave - knows he is crossing the line but says them anyway.

From my experience people are way more offended by Dave than by Pete, the latter of which gets some "excusure" due to naivety.

But on Survivor we seem much more willing to forgive the person who knowingly crosses the line. Why do some people call Russell's game "smart offensive" and Naonka's game just "offensive".

IMO the difference is that Survivor is a game that doesn't require the players to follow the norms of society. Certainly some of the greatest players of Survivor ever have had to make some moves that are not acceptable in society. Is lying okay? Stealing? Throwing a challenge? How about walking around nekid?? I think Hatch did all of these, and many of us feel he is the greatest Survivor ever.

The conundrum for us as viewers is to evaluate these people with unclear "game-society" expectations.

(all this is pre-quit - after the quit Naonka is just a "game-dog" (with apologies to dogs everywhere))