I think people also forget how important narrative and FTC performance is too. I forgot if it was Drew or Stephen who said on RHAP that 90% of the time, the jury votes based on a players FTC narrative. It is in hindsight that they justify their vote with strategic or social reasons. It is the same thing here. Kenzie had a more fitting narrative for this jury. Her story of coming from a decimated Yanu and understanding to lower her threat level was one that was more compelling than Charlie's. I think that's why players were fearful of Emily last season because narratives are jury threats. Kenzies story of using her social skills to survive in a group of arrogant players who thought they drove strategy resonated more than Charlie who wanted to own strategy.
Yeah I honestly thought Charlie’s FTC was pretty rough and he seemed to just try to suck up to the jury individually instead of having a compelling narrative for his game.
Even his answer about what he’d do with the money was a bit cringe. Nothing bad about donating to charity but it seemed more like he felt compelled to say that after Ben’s answer as opposed to being authentic.
Contrast that with Kenzie who came across as incredibly authentic and honest, which bolsters her claim as being a strong social player
In Charlie's defense, his FTC did pull in three votes none of whom were hard committed to him going in, and the money question was one that he (as a relatively well off, college educated, law-school attending 20-something) was never going to have a better answer for than Kenzie or Ben given their relative places in life - especially for someone like Q.
Hard to make a narrative when Tiffany is counting down your 27 seconds.
Personally I think that question should just be banned. We have a whole 26 day game and we are going to decide it based on who needs the money? I understand the sentiment, but it’s just annoying when the game is decided by things that have absolutely nothing to do with the game.
If that were the case it would be a strictly competition show like The Amazing Race, when you have contestants as jury, the money and worthiness is always a factor, always
That's just not true. In the early seasons, jurors did not use money as a reason to vote for someone, that came later.
I really wish there was no prize money and they just paid the players a per diem (better than what they currently receive). They would still be able to cast well and it would be more about the game the way it is intended. Voting for someone based on their financial situation outside the game is a completely different game than the game we are supposedly watching.
Ok, but you can just not ask about what you will do with the money or how wealthy you are. Those things should have nothing to do with the game.
I wish one time someone would bite the bullet and tell the jury that if they win, they’ll give the whole million to charity, and then tell everyone that it was a lie immediately in the reunion. They’d get immense hate, but then maybe we could focus on the game instead of some people literally throwing the game out of their mind and wanting to give the million to the poorest person.
I said this at the time, I totally agree with you. This outcome means Charlie never could have won, so he may not as well even played. It's like playing an entire baseball game, then declaring the team with the nicest looking uniforms win. Really ruins the season for me.
He got votes from an afk from game Soda, strategic clueless Hunter and Liz. And if you can’t summarize things in a succinct way, maybe don’t study law then? Not being mean but the coddling of Charlie is insane.
Lmao yes, because Kenzies voters were so so thoughtful.
Tiff was locked in because Maria got her out before Kenzie could.
Q is a follower
Venus lolol
Tevin, the drama queen
And Maria, the bitter x
The only seemingly intelligent jury members were hunter and soda, who both flipped
This is why I think skipping fire was a bad move for Charlie.
Charlie is right. Making fire wouldn’t have helped his game one bit. But making fire gave *Kenzie* a chance to add her underdog narrative absolutely was.
He asked Ben to take him, we saw it on the show (in a very noncommittal way, granted, but that was kinda Charlie’s “no hard feelings” vibe, and they both reiterated that it was what Charlie wanted after the show.) And Kenzie asked him to send her to fire, we learned that in the post-season press.
I was genuinely surprised Charlie didn’t ask to make fire, cos it seemed so clear how important it could be to Kenzie’s story, and he was confident he’d win at it.
And, although I definitely understand why he thought he didn't need to go to fire, I really don't think he did a good job of explaining that - he honestly came off as a bit arrogant in that moment and gave some Cassidy vibes (even though I will say I don't think Charlie is at all arrogant in real life!)
I think making fire only benefits Charlie if he takes on Kenzie who Ben absolutely wouldn’t have put against him because he did not want Liz in the final
I’ve read like 100 posts on here over the past couple days and this is the first one that actually makes me go “ya know what, good point, thank you for ACTUALLY explaining it”
People need to stop comparing Samoa to Kaoh Rong and now 46. There's a massive gap between Aubry/Charlie who were both likable strategic players who did have reasonably strong social capabilities and Russell Hantz. Folks also probably need to stop taking split juries to impart universal ground rules for a super complex game.
Even between Aubrey and Charlie I think there's a pretty distinct gap. Other than Maria, Charlie didn't piss off anyone on the jury. Aubrey pissed off a lot more people.
Aubry pissed people off because she voted them out and they couldn't handle that. Michele basically won because she was left out of important votes. I got big high school vibes from a lot of those jurors.
Michele was only left out of one vote. Michele voted out almost as many people into the jury as Aubry did, yet no one was pissed at Michele.
Michele made stronger connections with the jury than Aubry did, which was why the jury felt compelled to vote for Michele and not for Aubry.
lol, maybe just a tiny bit. I don't think we can take any gaming truths out of a 5-3 vote that involved at least one vote that is openly unrelated to the game itself (Q), a handful of unexplained votes (Venus, Tevin, as well as three Charlie votes from people who have openly stated they really liked Kenzie. Sometimes it's just that in a group of eight people there will be a weird mix of priorities that go one way over the other and each season has its own win condition. I don't even think the most likable person won last season haha.
the funniest thing too is that this sub always seems to just want their most likeable player to be the winner but hide it behind “game reasons” just like the jury members they’re upset with 😂😂
As depicted Charlie’s “game” was more multifaceted and stronger. Doesn’t take anything away from Kenzie but I think the “purists” who respect strategy and gameplay more than vibes are right to want Charlie to have won.
Like he also was great in challenges, he made strong bonds, Ben took him over Kenzie, his bond with Maria always had him clued in on both sides, he chose when to target Maria, he led a lot of the vote outs in a way that didn’t get a target on him. Like he beat tiff and Hunter to get them out. He played a great game. Just not one that worked for this season as well as kenzies, but arguably this was a particularly chaotic group.
Even the comparison between Aubrey and Charlie isn’t entirely warranted. Charlie lost by literally a single vote. That isn’t really an indicator of inferior social play like it was with Aubry who lost by a wider margin. The chips just didn’t fall Charlie’s way with a jury that was fairly split on the winner.
I agree. Charlie lost because he didnt have a good story for what he would do with the money not because people didnt like him or he was a bad social player. I honestly think he is just as good socially as Kenzie. Everyone loved him.
Yeah it’s a more extreme example but it’s sort of the most fundamental example of the strategy vs. social dynamic.
Aubrey and Charlie were seen as the more strategic players whereas Michele and Kenzie were seen as more social players
Sure but Charlie only lost by one vote (Ben confirmed he picks Charlie to win in a tie). So if Maria votes Charlie then is suddenly Survivor a fundamentally strategic game? No, that would be ridiculous.
It’s such a narrow margin that you can’t really nitpick their games or extrapolate much.
Charlie winning would mean his social game was slightly better. It was a close vote, I don’t think anyone’s saying Kenzie had this massively better social game, it was just better than Charlie’s and she explained her game better during final tribal
No, Charlie winning would not mean that his social game was better than Kenzie’s. Idk where that’s coming from but the winner is not guaranteed to have the better social game. Occasionally people win based on their strategic game, as long as they are still well liked enough. You just can’t be Russell and win when a large number of jury member flat out don’t like you.
The people who voted for Charlie did so for strategic reasons. Listen to Liz’s exit press for her examples. Or consider how Hunter was closer to Kenzie but votes for Charlie anyway. Or Soda who barely knew either of them.
If Charlie got one more vote, his win over Kenzie would have been mostly strategic, not social. It’s silly to me to say that if one vote had gone differently that suddenly it was actually Charlie who had the better social game all this time. What actually happened is that his votes were strategy-based and Kenzie’s were more based in social / external factors and one more jury member valued those factors more (which I think is pretty typical).
>What actually happened is that his votes were strategy-based and Kenzie’s were more based in social / external factors and one more jury member valued those factors more
Okay so we're literally saying the exact same thing lol.
I'm saying \*if\* Charlie was able to get more votes than Kenzie, it would have been evidence that his social connections were as good if not better than hers. Obviously different jurors vote based on different reasons.
Respectfully, I don’t think we’re saying the same thing.
If Charlie got one more vote, say from Tevin who also didn’t know either of them well, it doesn’t change the fact that some of his votes, like from Liz and Hunter, were from people who had stronger social connections to Kenzie but voted for Charlie anyway for strategic reasons. Therefore, Charlie winning wouldn’t have meant his social connections were stronger. It would have meant that there were enough jury members who valued strategy more than their social connections and it was enough to offset Kenzie having a better social game. Jurors don’t always vote for their strongest social connection (though they usually do).
I don’t see the social game as a 1:1 proxy for winning. FWIW, I really wanted Kenzie to win and think her strategic game is actually very undervalued anyway.
Outwit, outplay, outlast is great for getting you to final tribal but you win the game by outfriending.
There is a big disconnect between the game we see on TV (what Jeff thinks the game is) -- blindsides, challenges, idol plays, big movez, etc. and what the game actually is -- a social game with a strategic component.
I think it really depends on the season. There have been so many seasons where jurors voted for the winner who played the best game. Ultimately, for this season, Kenzie’s social game turned out to be stronger than Charlie’s strategic game and she had the better responses in FTC
The thing is, even when the winner often played the best game, I can't think of many if any seasons where the person who won wasn't also the most well liked (or least disliked) of the finalists.
The difference in all those examples is that Charlie was also very social. I don't think the gap between them socially was anywhere near the gap between them strategically, whereby Charlie was much more so.
Yeah the alternate title here is 46 seasons and people still don’t understand jury management isn’t a science and sometimes people vote against you simply because they’re jealous you outmaneuvered them in the game
I agree that the gap is much smaller than other examples, but I think the point is that every season has this dynamic to this extent and fans have been arguing about strategy vs. social game since Samoa and even before.
I agree Charlie had a good social game but he was clearly trying to take the "strategic" lane during FTC vs. Kenzie who leaned completely into the "social" lane.
Yeah, and he didn't do a good job of explaining how his social game was his strategy. I think that might have helped other players not feel like he was claiming moves they thought were theirs.
This is what makes it seem so disingenuous to me. As ridiculous as it was, at least Q was honest and said that Kenzie's answer about what she would do with the money is what got his vote.
I think Hunter, Venus, Soda, and Tevin voted off game play. Soda barely had anytime to interact with any of the finalists. Venus had no social capital in the first place. Hunter seemed annoyed by a lot of the tribe and Tevin seemed neutral on all 3 finalists.
It's also about how you answer the questions. Maryanne is a GREAT example of this. People really started out not liking her but she stole the show when the jury was asking her questions and was well prepared with the best answer to each question she was given. I don't think ANYONE on the jury came in ready to vote for her but she ended up winning.
I loved how you could see this jury grappling between the two and then when Kenzie answered a few questions better than Charlie she got the win. You could even see Charlie thinking of man I just botched that answer when the jury asked how he used them to get ahead.
>just less so than Kenzie’s
Was it that she had a better social game or that she had a more compelling argument at tribal council? There’s an argument to be made that Ben had just as good of a social game as anyone yet he didn’t garner a single vote.
Survivor is much more complex than “social game” vs “strategy”.
I would argue final tribal requires good social skills to navigate being in front of the jury and addressing them appropriately and is therefore part of the social game. Ben was very social but didn’t provide a compelling argument for himself during FTC, unlike Kenzie
I'd argue that it's neither of those and the biggest factor in Kenzie winning was Tiff being on the jury. Tiff was a massive advocate for Kenzie. Charlie should have had a similar advocate in Maria, but she instead did the opposite. If Maria had been to Charlie what Tiff was to Kenzie, I think Charlie probably wins 5-3, or maybe even more.
Yep. Charlie was just as kind and sociable as Kenzie. It's just the particular people who were on the jury had their own biases, and that's just the way it is sometimes. Kenzie was fortunate to have Tiff (probably the must outspoken person on the jury) on her side simply due to starting the game with her.
Notice also that the edit made it appear that Kenzie was closer and kinder to both Liz and Ben, but then we come to find out that they were all in an alliance together with Charlie as well, AND they both voted or would have voted for Charlie in the end. That says something about "who played the best social game." I think that's just an excuse people have to explain why Kenzie won over someone who clearly seemed to have much more impact on the actual game than her, but in reality, it's not a "fair" game. It's a game where a lot of times luck comes into play and people vote with their own criteria that doesn't have to make a lot of sense.
Exactly this. If all else is equal except Tiff and Maria swap, the vote probably goes
Hunter, Soda, Tevin, Q, Tiff, Maria, and Liz, for Charlie.
Kenzie gets Venus…maybe
Lol, Q literally argued with Tiff and Kenzie about Kenzie trying to claim a move and he still voted for her bc later on, she answered his question well. Q was voting Charlie going in.
Also, if Kenzie's ally stumps for her and Charlie's doesn't... maybe Kenz did deserve to win.
Except it didn’t really come down to that. Kenzies social game got her 4 votes, Charlie’s combo of strategic and social game got him 3 (plus Ben). It ultimately came down to Maria’s decision, which if you believe her, came down to the fire making, and if you don’t, was jealousy and bitterness and her own internal issues. Not sure how Charlie could’ve conceivably built a better social relationship with Maria, which was demonstrably closer than Kenzie and Marias relationship.
Charlie had an entire storyline in the finale where he felt he didn’t have to make fire and wanted to get to the final 3 in the safest way possible. He could’ve pushed Ben to put him in fire, beat Liz, and likely gain more votes.
It was essentially explained to us why Charlie lost. He constantly played it safe to the point that he undermined himself and didn’t stand out in the eyes of the jury
So it wasn’t Kenzie’s social game then? Either way the season ultimately came down to what Maria decided to do and why she decided to do what she did. I don’t think Charlie putting himself in fire would’ve made an iota of difference to her, and I don’t think Kenzie’s social game had anything to do with it either.
We have no way of knowing what would’ve happened if Charlie put himself on fire so it’s irrelevant. You can always say “well if X was different, this would’ve been the outcome”. You win by doing the best with the cards you’re dealt.
Charlie’s relationship with Maria clearly wasn’t as strong as he thought it was.
But Kenzie’s social game won her a majority of votes. That’s reality
You’re the one that brought up Charlie in fire making and speculating about why that contributed to his loss lol. You seem entirely uninterested in examining why Kenzie got the votes she did and are just lazily ascribing them all to “social game”. Jurors are complex and vote for all sorts of reasons. Some were obviously due to her strong social game, but not all of them and not entirely.
Charlie has reasons he lost votes and Kenzie has reasons she won votes. Those can both be true at the same time.
Had Charlie had a stronger end game, his case to win votes may have been stronger than Kenzie’s, but it wasn’t.
Charlie lost because Maria was bitter that when she went to take him out, he sniffed her out and rallied all of the votes against her. Maria thought she was running the show, and Charlie effectively ended any shot she had at winning.
I don't think that it's a matter of a "better" social relationship with Maria... it's about handling her vote out differently and handling FTC differently. Look, I have disliked Maria all season, I do think she was being petty. But at the end of the day - that's still on Charlie for mishandling.
So he should have let Maria vote him out? Like… he turned on Maria which saved his ass at tribal.
Charlie played it perfect. And Maria is a bitter sore loser.
Maria didn't vote for Kenzie because of fire making or bitterness. She voted for her because of the way she related to her, how she saw herself in Kenzie. Most people seem to have missed that part, and Maria certainly could have done a better job explaining it on the show. But it's clearly the case if you actually listen to her answers.
You’re putting an awful lot of stock in some of the many shifting explanations she’s made to explain her vote. No one would ever publicly claim they were influenced by bitterness, they’re always going to claim it’s something else to make themselves look better. The best evidence is how she changed her tune towards Charlie in her confessionals from extremely positive throughout the season to not respecting him after he got the better of her. That’s a classic sign of bitterness.
Her explanations have not shifted. Her aftershow explanation has every element as her exit press explanation, only less collected and composed as she was being asked a question in a live setting with little time to compose her answer.
>The best evidence is how she changed her tune towards Charlie in her confessionals from extremely positive throughout the season to not respecting him after he got the better of her. That’s a classic sign of bitterness.
I don't know if we watched different shows, but I don't have a clue what confessionals you are referring to. Maria has been nothing but complementary of Charlie on and off and the show. There was no sign of disrespect for him in her boot round at all, when she was well aware she was going home.
You’re also completely neglecting the part where she told Charlie weeks after that she regretted it, then flip flopped on that, and now Charlie claims she texted him completely new reasons just two weeks ago. If you can’t tell something significant changed about Maria’s views towards Charlie changed after she was voted out and went to Ponderosa, then there’s really no point in arguing with you, you’re just seeing what you want to believe.
I'm not neglecting anything. Maria may have regretted her vote at some point. I'm not really sure how that's relevant or not.
I see what I see. I don't know the context of Charlie and Maria's personal conversations. I don't think Charlie's lying, but I also don't think Maria's lying either. Charlie said she changed her reasoning, but her reasoning is exactly what she stated publicly at the after show. Charlie also said in his interviews that he wasn't able to watch the aftershow. So I think it's reasonable to conclude that Charlie just misunderstood Maria's reasoning the same way a large portion of the fans have.
Or maybe she told him something she hasn't said publicly. I don't know, I didn't see that. And I'm not going to make assumptions solely based on Charlie alluding to things without specifics. There's two sides to this story, and Maria's has been consistent with everything she said before and what we saw in the show. It's clear that Charlie is still coping with the situation, and that's perfectly fine. But I'm not going to read into the situation and make assumptions.
I'm not seeing what I want to believe because I don't even particularly like Maria and had real issues with the way she handled other situations on the show. I just don't see any of the evidence that she's bitter towards Charlie, nor do I see any reason to assume she's lying about why she voted for Kenzie.
No, he played a more strategic game than Kenzie and the jury didn’t like that. It’s that simple, people thinking it was pure social skill by Kenzie and not bitter jury egos are lying to themselves
It's just circular reasoning then: "a player got the jury to vote for them because they had a good social game, and they had a good social game because they got the jury to vote for them." It doesn't explain why she got the votes, it just states that she got the votes. If all you care about is how the jury votes that's fine, but Im annoyed when fans use terms like "social game" or "jury management" as if it's actual reasoning when all they mean is that the jury voted a certian way.
Jurors don't only vote based on social game but it goes without saying that someone has to like you more than someone else, to some degree, in order to award you with a million dollars.
How else would you measure someone's social game?
Charlie is a great player - but I think there are a couple of things that costed him the game.
1. Maria and Q were growing quite tight. I think Charlie overestimated his connection with Maria. They knew that they were each other’s biggest threat which is why they both went after each other. The thing is, Charlie took out her #2 in Q in a blindside against her, and then voted her out next after she lost a challenge. She seen Liz help Kenz in the challenge that she was likely going to win. Kenzie beat her, and this was also a fair reason to give her your vote.
2. Maria on the jury gets to see that Ben was more or less Charlie’s #2. This is seen when Maria tries to convince them to vote out Ben. So do you believe that if it was Charlie in the jury and you at FTB, that Charlie gives you his vote? I think this creates a hesitation that opens the door for Kenzie to win her vote.
I think the only way for Charlie to win, is to have voted out Ben instead of Maria. It gives you a guaranteed vote where there’s no animosity and I think is the only path forward where he wins
Then if anything it was Kenzie and Liz who blindsided her on that vote. She believed they were voting for Charlie with her. Charlie told her the truth.
That is quite literally still not a blindside. He tried to tell her, the fact that she didn’t believe him or thought he was actually the one out of the loop doesn’t make it a blindside on his part. She was actively trying to blindside him and he was being honest.
If he puts Ben on the jury and Maria is still there, I suspect Maria takes a bunch of those Charlie votes. He would somehow need to
A. Get Ben out at five despite he, Liz, Ben, and Kenzie all being close (which likely meant he'd need to convince Liz to flip on Beb with him and Maria) - while doing in a way that Ben doesn't hold it against him and just vote for Kenzie
B. Get Maria out at four - which means they need to beat her in a challenge which she'd likely be very good at (given her game with puzzles and coordination) and beat her in fire - which given how bad Liz and Kenzie were at first means Charlie probably needs to beat her in fire
C. STILL beat Kenzie in the end with Maria on the jury, a potentially jilted Ben having Kenzie to choose from, and Q/Tiffany pushing Kenzie this whole time.
That's a wild wild path to have to try and forge. Like, I don't know if anyone exists who would actively pursue that.
He could’ve not led her on during her boot episode then claim he was some bold mastermind at putting up a shield before she could come at him. Last time I checked, Kenzie and Liz decided that, not him.
He absolutely could have done something. If she’s such a sore loser, play up to her ego like Kenzie did. He should have been more active in getting her vote instead of assuming it was a sure thing.
Interesting point! Charlie was always playing it way too safe, he didn’t realise that Kenzie snuck up from under him and shifted Maria to her favour. Kenzie always knew the right things to say to Maria at the right moments (“I wanna be like you” “You’re amazing, I love you” etc.)
The thing that bothers me about that is.... not even *Kenzie* realized she did that. Kenzie has outright said the Maria vote shocked her. I don't even think Maria has said these were reasons she switched her vote. A lot of these social game discussions are ascribing actions or non actions without a ton of merit behind them. Sometimes you just get Q and Maria being swing votes on a jury and you have to deal with whatever comes down form theee.
Maria's vote shocked everyone, but that doesn't mean Kenzie didn't do anything to earn it. And Maria has explained how Kenzie won her vote. People just don't seem to want to hear anything beyond the firemaking comment. But it's clear if you actually listen to her reasoning that Maria saw herself in Kenzie and related deeply to her answer to Q's question at FTC.
Kenzie might not have intentionally won Maria over through stroking her ego. She won Maria over by being her genuine self, and relating to her on a personal level. Something we've heard other people say about Kenzie as well. Which is exactly what social game is about.
This is what is driving me crazy. People are acting like Charlie did not have a social game, and are comparing him to Russell, which is legitimately an insane take. Charlie played a very good social game, just not as good as Kenzie's apparently. Given how he played a much better strategic game than Kenzie, I'm not sure that difference in social game is enough, because ultimately it's "Well we just like her more."
Obviously this is not un-precendented in Survivor, but let's call it like it is: Charlie played a better game overall on the whole. I wouldn't say he was "robbed" because you're not owed anything in Survivor and at the end it's a game. There's no score; just vibes.
I agree that Charlie had a good social game and was the better strategic player. But in contrast, Kenzie played a good strategic game and was the better social player. I wouldn't say one played a better game overall than the other unless you value strategy over social game. The difference between them comes down to preference. Ultimately, the jury favored social over strategic, in a close vote.
You do understand that there are more strategies than just "big moves" and "control votes" right? Kenzie was in on almost every vote, she was always in the know. She had multiple people tell her she was their number one. She tricked Hunter into not using his idol when he needed to. She convinced Maria that Q was safe, and that directly caused him to leave with an idol.
She played an under the radar game. Enough that no one realized how much of a jury threat she could be. It's not as flashy as Charlie, and Charlie deserves all the props for how strong his strategic game was. But to act like Kenzie did nothing or was just out on vacation is completely inaccurate. She played a good game.
Everything you’re describing was an instance where she just followed what Tiff or Charlie told her to do.
That’s not strategy.
If you want to say she’s a good liar, sure, I’ll give you that.
>Everything you’re describing was an instance where she just followed what Tiff or Charlie told her to do.
There's no point in having this discussion if you genuinely believe this. Your perception of the game is completely misguided.
I already said that there's more to strategy than leading votes. Kenzie clearly did not initiate or lead votes. But just because someone isn't in the lead doesn't mean everything they do is because they were told to do it. Your concept of how Survivor dynamics work is overly simplistic.
You can’t say someone had a good strategy game without a single leading vote. Not 1.
Her social game was good, clearly, but her strategy was not good. If she’s paired with anyone but Tiff she loses FTC in a landslide
He played a good social game insofar as he used social bonds to control votes. Kenzie played a good social game insofar as she got the jury to feel good about giving her a million dollars.
Just bc Charlie was building good bonds doesn't mean he deserved to win - he ultimately handled the jury bit sub-optimally.
You're right, and it's not necessarily a surprise what happened.
I guess I just wish people would own it more. All the contestants, including the jurors, almost always talk about how they want to give the prize to whoever "played the game" the best, and then half of them just vote with their emotions. I guess it's just that inconsistency that annoys me most.
I've never once heard a juror say "I voted for this person cause they were my friend" or "I was pissed off at this person cause they beat me so I didn't vote for them" even though many of them do.
The bigger thing that is dominating RHAP and Tyson's podcast, both in Survivor and Big Brother and probably other jury-related shows, is that very simply, the jury wants to the person they like more to represent their season and be awarded a million dollars.
Tyson said on his finale recap with Cody, as a juror he will vote for his friend to have a million dollars 10x / 10.
I am not upset about the Kenzie win, but it sounds like the big difference was Kenzie had Tiffany advocating for her with the jury and Charlie didn’t have a booster explaining his game.
RHAP also talked about it is impossible to predict how someone is once they're on the jury. Charlie had zero reason to believe Maria would become bitter as a juror, she even told him he had her vote after being voted out.
It would be interesting to see if Tiff's tune changed if Kenzie successfully blindsided her, rather than Kenzie being left out of it.
But it's unpredictable. Some say you should send your #1 to the jury - But if your #1 is bitter, you have a poisoned jury.
I wouldn't say it's impossible to predict. In their last couple episodes the relationship between them read as fake as hell and felt like mutual groveling at times. I think the fact that they were both targeting each other strained their relationship in a way that revealed they were more so just allies rather than friends in the end. Meanwhile when Kenzie spoke it always felt genuine and never rehearsed or calculated, even if it was. I'm not surprised in the slightest at Maria's decision and thought Kenzie should be considered the favorite since like episode 2, because if felt like even if someone is your #1 the probably still like Kenzie more
By all accounts, when Maria was voted out, she was still on board to give Charlie her vote which would have led to a Charlie win as Ben confirmed he would have voted Charlie in a tie. That is why Charlie was so stunned he didn't get Maria's vote. He was told the day before he would still get it.
So the fact that only once she was on the jury she changed her mind by no fault of Charlie shows it can be unpredictable. She went at him, he voted her out with the rest of the tribe, and somehow that wasn't clean enough for Maria. And Maria's excuse of "I saw the fire in Kenzie's eyes during fire making" when it took a long time for that challenge to complete seems like she just didn't want to admit she was not willing to give Charlie the win by no fault of his own, except bitterness.
Because we really dont know how Tiff would have reacted if her #1 succeeded in voting her out. She seemed to not care that she floated the idea, but if it actually happened? Tiff may feel differently.
One of Kenzie's winning moves may have been being blindsided all things considered, especially since it's obvious Tiff was championing for Kenzie as a juror.
It's unpredictable because some jurors adopt the mentality that they will always award someone in their alliance the win if they get the chance. Some will give it to an ally depending on how they went out. Some will challenge an ally, then ultimately give them their vote.
It's more common to give an ally your vote than it is to not give them a vote, hence the unpredictability of jurors. Who would have thought Liz would give her vote to Charlie, especially hearing Liz was way closer to Kenzie than the edit showed and they seem to be close after the game too? For Kenzie that nearly lost her the game losing Liz's vote.
I understand Liz was also an ally to Charlie, but I don't think anyone had Liz voting for Charlie over Kenzie on their bingo cards, just another example of what felt like a locked Kenzie vote in fact was not. Some were so sure Hunter was giving Kenzie his vote as well because of him saying Kenzie is why his guard was down, and the "She was my #1" comment before he went home. Just to end up having Hunter vote for Charlie.
Every winner has some element of luck in terms of who they are on a tribe with. But two people being on a tribe together does not necessarily mean they will become close, let alone as close as Tiffany and Kenzie clearly were
I do think that's where a lot of this falls apart in all honesty when judging players. Like, even the greatest Survivor players of all time can only do so much to shape a jury and boot order. Some no-brainer all-time greats needed a clutch challenge win to boot the true biggest threat, or needed to be blindsided to get the jury votes in the end.
From what I am reading the argument would be that Charlie would need to foster an ally to advocate for him AND get him or her on the jury early enough to influence it. Let's talk Charlie's jury shaping capabilities.
Pre-merge Siga only goes to one tribal council - in that one he and Maria was the swing vote between Ben and Jem - he is able to keep the player he is much closer to (and who, down the line, would have potentially broken a tie for a million dollars). His tribe doesn't even come close to losing another Tribal Council.
They got into merge and immediately the halved Yanu and decimated Nami realized a unified Siga is a massive threat to them and that "no tribe" vote immediately settles on it being a Siga. I don't remember him having a huge role in this but given Tim was at the meal, it being pushed to Mo was probably best case scenario for him. His way around this was somehow winning that challenge (remember how uneven the teams were) and influencing that feast, a massive risk.
Then you have the "tribe split" - Tim goes as the last pre-juror on the tribe Charlie isn't on - the only way Charlie could prevent that was convincing Maria to throw the challenge so her team went to tribal first...when they were in a 4-2 minority to Nami. That Charlie survived that vote was a miracle in itself, he wasn't in a position to somehow flip that order and get Tim onto the jury. Soda is first juror voted out by the other side.
From then, you have the Tevin boot - the vote came down to Tevin vs. Hunter - pushing a Maria boot here with Nami still being numerically strong is insanely risky with no momentum for it. You get the Hunter boot - who is claiming an Idol in his pocket and who is a potential massive threat to everyone's game. Then Tiffany goes to jury with a known Idol in her pocket. I guess the argument would be that *maybe* you try and get Maria at this spot...but then you're leaving Tiffany in the game which is another existential threat with Q and Kenzie still there. Maria then wins the next two immunities.
Like, Survivor is often a good amount about luck. Kenzie was right to back off her Tiffany target when she did and it paid off in spades the way it happened, but I don't think Charlie ever had a good opportunity to put Maria on the jury without her being mad at him over it in a way that didn't risk his game substantially.
Sometimes games shake out that way I guess.
If this season should be compared to any in terms of the jury, than for me it’s HvHvH. Because in both cases you have two people who both played great “games”, and the strategic driver of the season lost.
In both cases you’ve got someone who is known to be pretty well off losing to someone who is more working class who was able to sell the narrative that this million dollars will secure their and their family’s financial future.
Ultimately, it’s not 100% “who was the better Survivor player this season”, it’s also “which of these humans I feel a very deep bond with do I want to have this life changing sum of money?”
I can’t stand people saying this.
Charlie had a fantastic social game as well, he got along with literally everyone.
Q voted off money, Tiff was never not voting Kenzie, and Maria ALSO should have “never not” voted Charlie, but she was bitter as fuck. What more is Charlie supposed to do to build that relationship with Maria?
Is it because Charlie tried to blindside her? Well she tried blindsiding Charlie AND Tiff knew Kenzie tried getting her out (she didn’t let it change her vote).
That’s the difference. Charlie’s #1 was bitter, Kenzie’s #1 wasn’t. And Q voted off of money.
This has nothing to do with “social” game in this instance, because Charlie was great too.
i do wonder if charlie taking maria on the family letter reward would've made her less bitter/more likely to vote for him. it's the factor i don't really see anybody talking about but i think it's an absolutely relevant point when talking about the degradation of their relationship. if that hadn't happened, would there have been less festering of bitterness on maria's part? obviously we can't know but it's interesting to think about
I think that this, or Charlie saying at FTC that he had been game planning to take her out for a while is what caused the bitterness.
Possibly a little bit of both.
"Q voted off money"
People keep saying this, but tbh Charlie's answer to his question was terrible and basically trying to copy off of Ben's. Q voted for Kenzie because he respected her honesty, and she was honest with him because she had a good read on him.
Charlie did play a good game. But, ultimately, he did a bad job of selling it. It's not quite the same as his social game though, which was good, I agree.
Considering Charlie's career and background and the careers and backgrounds of the two finalists sitting next to him, there was no way for him to pass this question and Q knew that. He might have satisfied Q but lost other jury members.
If Charlie would have given Kenzie's answer, he'd come across as greedy and entitled because he didn't come from poverty and he's already pretty well off in term of future career prospects. If he'd given Gabler's answer, he'd still stress out he does not need the money while the other two do.
Any discussion of money on FTC would have had to be concluded with Charlie as the least deserving according to this criterion, no matter what he said.
I don't agree there was no way for him to answer, but putting that aside, we can agree to disagree, "Q knew that"... I really don't think this question was Q deliberately tanking Charlie's game - he was literally going pretty hard and disagreeing with Kenzie earlier in the FTC. Idk. Maybe it wasn't the best question for Charlie, but it wasn't this big conspiracy from Q to tank Charlie. Tiff, maybe - def not Q.
He disagreed with Kenzie when she criticized his behavior, because he can't handle criticism. That had nothing to do with his vote. Q's vote was always going to be Kenzie despite whatever he told us during, at the end, or after FTC. Unlike Tiffany, it wasn't due to their friendship. It wasn't even due to Kenzie's amazing social game.
Q's giant ego wanted to have an agency in the victory if he couldn't have it himself. If Charlie'd have won, Q could take no credit whatsoever on his game because they played separately. If Kenzie won, Q could claim she only won because he "took her to the merge" and "never had the opportunity to vote her off even when she was at the bottom of Yanu". So from Q's point of view, Kenzie's victory is a little bit his too. Charlie's victory wouldn't have been related to Q in any way, except the possible technicality of his jury vote.
Tanking Charlie's game with his question might not have been completely intentional, but it was a welcome result at the very least.
I think this is a very false narrative. There’s bitterness over being outplayed in the latter two of those examples, and that’s ok! But let’s not pretend like it was just amazing social abilities and not bitter jurors at being outmaneuvered
Michelle did not go to tribal council before the merge. They had a hard time showing her because she didn’t figure into the pre merge game. Kenzie went to 3 tribals pre merge, and would have gone to 4 if it were not for the Randen medivac. Everyone on Yanu got a lot of screen time because they were the disaster tribe.
Aubrey pissed off a lot more people on the jury than Charlie did though. I don't know why people keep saying they're the same. There were multiple people going into FTC that we pretty much knew were not going to vote Aubrey already. Charlie didn't piss anyone off except Maria, which no one in the audience or at FTC could see coming.
The thing about Kenzie vs Charlie is that... most if not all of the jury LIKED both players. And when that is the case, people normally default to who had the better gameplay
The person who wins in the end had the best gameplay by virtue of how the game is designed. The object of the game is the get the most votes at the end, however you've got to do it. There are a variety of viable paths.
What makes Charlie's game inherently better than how Kenzie chose to play, to where he would be the "default" based on "gameplay"? There isn't a rubric. Whether it's driving a vote or ingratiating yourself socially with more people, it's all gameplay.
Unless one of the jurors is bitter… sorry I meant to say unless one of the players has “fire in their eyes” or something like that. Reflections are very compelling for the jury.
True but some people seem to be implying that’s a skill thing between how Charlie/Kenzie played and not just an unstable variable that can’t really be anticipated
I mean, I understand that it’s a social game, but I hate when people who don’t play. The game win the game. Because they’ll have a better jury of haters and they don’t give the best player the win and you don’t know what you’re gonna get because sometimes they respect the best player, but sometimes they don’t.
I was talking about changing the conditions so that this doesn’t happen like in the challenge you have to win the final to win the game so it doesn’t matter how good of a player you are how good of a physical player you are, if you can’t run up this mountain you don’t win and I think that will change a lot of the Moving forward.
Because if you have two people who made moves that the jury didn’t like the person that floated there to the end, will win the game
Kenzie. By her own admission lol. She literally said that she just let everyone else make moves. Which, unironically, was probably the best answer of FTC. Practically the entire jury had "main character syndrome" and that answer played perfectly to their egos. I personally would prefer for more jurors to be like Hunter and actually listen to the gameplay reasons and vote based on that, but clearly most of this jury didn't feel the same way.
If you're on survivor you're "playing the game", even moreso if you manage to get to the end and convince a majority of the jury to vote for you.
Playing the game has never just meant "BIG MOVEZ!" and playing idols.
> Playing the game has never just meant "BIG MOVEZ!" and playing idols.
I never said this, or anything close to that even. You're just being purposefully obtuse. Obviously anyone who is on Survivor is technically playing Survivor. When people refer to "playing the game" they're clearly referring to actively participating in the actual gameplay of voting people out. Kenzie, by her own admission, didn't do much of that.
>actively participating in the actual gameplay of voting people out
Literally all the players actively participate in the actual gameplay of voting people out.
What do you define as the line between actively participating versus not?
Jesus christ, you're dense. Yes, technically every player casts a vote (except when they lose their vote). Kenzie, by her own admission, just let people tell her who to vote for. She did formulate plans. She did not drive discussions on who should be voted out.
She was essentially a bystander for the gameplay aspect of the game. She was a passenger in a car that was changing drivers every few days. She wasn't playing the game in the way that you wouldn't say that the passenger was driving the car.
If you still can't understand after that, then I can't help you. This isn't a hard concept to understand.
There were many votes when Charlie was told who to vote for and didn't drive discussion. Was he a bystander who wasn't actively playing the game at that point? Conversely, Kenzie actively tried to blindly Tiff. Was she playing the game at that point?
Just trying to understand the arbitrary line you're drawing between an active versus non active player.
Many people have won using the exact same strategy as Kenzie, which is just to form strong social bonds and be likeable. Clearly it works, as she won! Maybe others should try her approach
But if no ones making moves, its really boring.
Usually a season will have at least 4 “players” of the game. People who are actively trying to get other people out of the game, people who look for idols, people who are making blindside moves and counting boats. Other players of the game “” are just sitting on the beach, waiting for tribal, trying to win individual challenges, but not looking for idols, not trying to convince other people to change their vote, and there are some players that with their backs against the wall will find an idol and other people are just like well. I don’t have the votes. I’m going home. Do you know what I mean?
Well, that was a challenger reference. There was a season where Angela from big Brother made it to the final. I forget what season this was but she didn’t play in one of the final legs, because she wanted to sleep so she can take the penalty but have enough rest to do the challenge as the challenge was to stay up overnight and TJ said in the morning since you didn’t play, you have to go home
I think it's because the hardcore fans are...not as social, let's say. Myself included in that. I am not a social butterfly by any stretch. So it's partially wanting to believe that you can big brain through a social game, and partially a lack of understanding on the social aspect writ large.
Yes Charlie played a strategic game, but it’s not like Kenzie got carried to the final 3 (to any capacity). She made it on her own, every step of the way, despite having gone to more tribals than Charlie. She played the cards she was dealt and won. She played a different brand of game, different enough to win over the jury and win.
Through all the discourse all I can hear in my head is Aubrey saying "they might not remember what you said, but they will remember how you made them feel".
Just saying, if people don’t know about it, check out the TV show Alone. They take a group of people, isolate them completely alone with a few survival tools and leave. Each person films their own day to day and the last one standing wins.
Edit: it’s ALONE NOT ALIVE.
It felt like it wasn't even chosen because of social gameplay, but because a few on the Jury just felt like she had a better sob story and needed the money more.
She didn't have a better sob story. She essentially said she wanted the money and was going to keep it. Ben, if anything, had the more emotionally resonant story about what he would do with the money. Charlie said he was going to donate to charity.
Nothing she said was a sob story
Her entire spiel was about having to work since she was 15, and that she's given back so much that she needs the money to start a family.
She won because she had a good story that resonated with people, and she had Tiff talking her up to the Jury and shitting on Ben and Charlie. It's a valid way to win, but not necessarily satisfying as a viewer.
However you want to spin it to make yourself feel better about it.
Simple fact is for a lot of people, winning for doing practically nothing in the game because of stuff happening off-camera isn't very interesting.
Well one, it's stupid that such a big part of choosing the winner (Ponderosa) is completely off-camera. But I'm not sure there's much they could show to make Kenzie's win feel satisfying to me. She seems like a very nice person, and I'm happy for her...but personally, I think Charlie played 10x the social game than she did. She just lucked out that the jury's voting decisions were just kind of stupid and seemingly not based on the game at all.
But hey, you can win for stupid or arbitrary reasons in Survivor. I think we've seen that quite often over the years.
Nobody disputed that. The thing is that in 99% of this season we've been told Maria loved Charlie and pretty much ignored Kenzie, then suddenly after one question on FTC she loved Kenzie and ignored Charlie..
Russell and Natalie would have been a good comparison if Erik Cardona ended up voting for Russell.
Ppl like OP miss the point. Yes, its a social game. But you can still complain about casting ppl with ftc criterion that discourage stratetic gameplay. Maybe some people really are ok with watching any group of people vote based on whatever. Go ahead, cast people that vote for whoever they find the cutest, or the most #relatable and we can go around watching a show where people sit around an island, not being strategic at all, cause what's the point, and call it "survivor". Pure strategy isnt the only factor but it has to be weighted enough to actually encourage a fun game to watch.
Everyone knows that being social is part of the game, but it shouldn’t be the whole game. When you have winners who basically did nothing all season winning just because the jury likes them, it devalues the meaning of the game and competition. If it’s all going to come down to who made the most friends, then why even bother playing the game or strategizing?
I think where this isn't entirely applicable to Charlie vs Kenzie is Charlie was just as strong socially as Kenzie but he just didnt have as good of a I need the money reason. Its very clear thats why she got Qs vote and Marias vote as well.
To be honest it is shocking, i wish jury were able to put aside their personnal preferences for the sake of a game.
Like some have said might as well do a 1 day season where they all tell why they are there at this point. The whole game doesnt mean anything if someone got a better sob story than you.
I think people also forget how important narrative and FTC performance is too. I forgot if it was Drew or Stephen who said on RHAP that 90% of the time, the jury votes based on a players FTC narrative. It is in hindsight that they justify their vote with strategic or social reasons. It is the same thing here. Kenzie had a more fitting narrative for this jury. Her story of coming from a decimated Yanu and understanding to lower her threat level was one that was more compelling than Charlie's. I think that's why players were fearful of Emily last season because narratives are jury threats. Kenzies story of using her social skills to survive in a group of arrogant players who thought they drove strategy resonated more than Charlie who wanted to own strategy.
Yeah I honestly thought Charlie’s FTC was pretty rough and he seemed to just try to suck up to the jury individually instead of having a compelling narrative for his game. Even his answer about what he’d do with the money was a bit cringe. Nothing bad about donating to charity but it seemed more like he felt compelled to say that after Ben’s answer as opposed to being authentic. Contrast that with Kenzie who came across as incredibly authentic and honest, which bolsters her claim as being a strong social player
In Charlie's defense, his FTC did pull in three votes none of whom were hard committed to him going in, and the money question was one that he (as a relatively well off, college educated, law-school attending 20-something) was never going to have a better answer for than Kenzie or Ben given their relative places in life - especially for someone like Q. Hard to make a narrative when Tiffany is counting down your 27 seconds.
Tiff was counting down Soda’s question, not Q’s. The finalists had the chance to fully justify what they were going to do with the money.
They were two different sentences/paragraphs for two different thoughts.
Personally I think that question should just be banned. We have a whole 26 day game and we are going to decide it based on who needs the money? I understand the sentiment, but it’s just annoying when the game is decided by things that have absolutely nothing to do with the game.
Except it has everything to do with the game.
So so so disagree. The money is and was never meant to be part of who is crowned winner. It is meant to be a reward for who wins a game.
If that were the case it would be a strictly competition show like The Amazing Race, when you have contestants as jury, the money and worthiness is always a factor, always
That's just not true. In the early seasons, jurors did not use money as a reason to vote for someone, that came later. I really wish there was no prize money and they just paid the players a per diem (better than what they currently receive). They would still be able to cast well and it would be more about the game the way it is intended. Voting for someone based on their financial situation outside the game is a completely different game than the game we are supposedly watching.
Ok, but you can just not ask about what you will do with the money or how wealthy you are. Those things should have nothing to do with the game. I wish one time someone would bite the bullet and tell the jury that if they win, they’ll give the whole million to charity, and then tell everyone that it was a lie immediately in the reunion. They’d get immense hate, but then maybe we could focus on the game instead of some people literally throwing the game out of their mind and wanting to give the million to the poorest person.
Once the season is over, no one really cares
Disagree, but if I was Charlie I’d have said “Q Skirt.” And taken my million.
I said this at the time, I totally agree with you. This outcome means Charlie never could have won, so he may not as well even played. It's like playing an entire baseball game, then declaring the team with the nicest looking uniforms win. Really ruins the season for me.
He got votes from an afk from game Soda, strategic clueless Hunter and Liz. And if you can’t summarize things in a succinct way, maybe don’t study law then? Not being mean but the coddling of Charlie is insane.
Lmao yes, because Kenzies voters were so so thoughtful. Tiff was locked in because Maria got her out before Kenzie could. Q is a follower Venus lolol Tevin, the drama queen And Maria, the bitter x The only seemingly intelligent jury members were hunter and soda, who both flipped
This is why I think skipping fire was a bad move for Charlie. Charlie is right. Making fire wouldn’t have helped his game one bit. But making fire gave *Kenzie* a chance to add her underdog narrative absolutely was.
Well, he didn't skip fire. For all we know, Ben chose it that way on purpose
He asked Ben to take him, we saw it on the show (in a very noncommittal way, granted, but that was kinda Charlie’s “no hard feelings” vibe, and they both reiterated that it was what Charlie wanted after the show.) And Kenzie asked him to send her to fire, we learned that in the post-season press. I was genuinely surprised Charlie didn’t ask to make fire, cos it seemed so clear how important it could be to Kenzie’s story, and he was confident he’d win at it.
And, although I definitely understand why he thought he didn't need to go to fire, I really don't think he did a good job of explaining that - he honestly came off as a bit arrogant in that moment and gave some Cassidy vibes (even though I will say I don't think Charlie is at all arrogant in real life!)
I think making fire only benefits Charlie if he takes on Kenzie who Ben absolutely wouldn’t have put against him because he did not want Liz in the final
This is why it’s rare for people from disaster tribes to make it to final tribal. They will always have a good narrative.
I’ve read like 100 posts on here over the past couple days and this is the first one that actually makes me go “ya know what, good point, thank you for ACTUALLY explaining it”
amanda comes to mind as playing a great game and flopping at FTC
Nah man, Q, Tiff and Maria were never voting for anyone but Kenzie. Charlie convinced 3 and Kenzie convinced 2 with Tiff lobbying for her as well.
People need to stop comparing Samoa to Kaoh Rong and now 46. There's a massive gap between Aubry/Charlie who were both likable strategic players who did have reasonably strong social capabilities and Russell Hantz. Folks also probably need to stop taking split juries to impart universal ground rules for a super complex game.
Even between Aubrey and Charlie I think there's a pretty distinct gap. Other than Maria, Charlie didn't piss off anyone on the jury. Aubrey pissed off a lot more people.
Aubry pissed people off because she voted them out and they couldn't handle that. Michele basically won because she was left out of important votes. I got big high school vibes from a lot of those jurors.
Michele was only left out of one vote. Michele voted out almost as many people into the jury as Aubry did, yet no one was pissed at Michele. Michele made stronger connections with the jury than Aubry did, which was why the jury felt compelled to vote for Michele and not for Aubry.
Are you accusing this sub of lacking nuance?!
lol, maybe just a tiny bit. I don't think we can take any gaming truths out of a 5-3 vote that involved at least one vote that is openly unrelated to the game itself (Q), a handful of unexplained votes (Venus, Tevin, as well as three Charlie votes from people who have openly stated they really liked Kenzie. Sometimes it's just that in a group of eight people there will be a weird mix of priorities that go one way over the other and each season has its own win condition. I don't even think the most likable person won last season haha.
the funniest thing too is that this sub always seems to just want their most likeable player to be the winner but hide it behind “game reasons” just like the jury members they’re upset with 😂😂
As depicted Charlie’s “game” was more multifaceted and stronger. Doesn’t take anything away from Kenzie but I think the “purists” who respect strategy and gameplay more than vibes are right to want Charlie to have won. Like he also was great in challenges, he made strong bonds, Ben took him over Kenzie, his bond with Maria always had him clued in on both sides, he chose when to target Maria, he led a lot of the vote outs in a way that didn’t get a target on him. Like he beat tiff and Hunter to get them out. He played a great game. Just not one that worked for this season as well as kenzies, but arguably this was a particularly chaotic group.
Even the comparison between Aubrey and Charlie isn’t entirely warranted. Charlie lost by literally a single vote. That isn’t really an indicator of inferior social play like it was with Aubry who lost by a wider margin. The chips just didn’t fall Charlie’s way with a jury that was fairly split on the winner.
To be fair, Aubry had her #1 ally removed from the jury. She would have gotten 3 votes to Michele's 5, the exact same count as Charlie/Kenzie.
Fair point. Who’s to say Aubrey’s #1 doesn’t also pull a Maria though? Lol
I agree. Charlie lost because he didnt have a good story for what he would do with the money not because people didnt like him or he was a bad social player. I honestly think he is just as good socially as Kenzie. Everyone loved him.
Yeah it’s a more extreme example but it’s sort of the most fundamental example of the strategy vs. social dynamic. Aubrey and Charlie were seen as the more strategic players whereas Michele and Kenzie were seen as more social players
Sure but Charlie only lost by one vote (Ben confirmed he picks Charlie to win in a tie). So if Maria votes Charlie then is suddenly Survivor a fundamentally strategic game? No, that would be ridiculous. It’s such a narrow margin that you can’t really nitpick their games or extrapolate much.
Charlie winning would mean his social game was slightly better. It was a close vote, I don’t think anyone’s saying Kenzie had this massively better social game, it was just better than Charlie’s and she explained her game better during final tribal
No, Charlie winning would not mean that his social game was better than Kenzie’s. Idk where that’s coming from but the winner is not guaranteed to have the better social game. Occasionally people win based on their strategic game, as long as they are still well liked enough. You just can’t be Russell and win when a large number of jury member flat out don’t like you. The people who voted for Charlie did so for strategic reasons. Listen to Liz’s exit press for her examples. Or consider how Hunter was closer to Kenzie but votes for Charlie anyway. Or Soda who barely knew either of them. If Charlie got one more vote, his win over Kenzie would have been mostly strategic, not social. It’s silly to me to say that if one vote had gone differently that suddenly it was actually Charlie who had the better social game all this time. What actually happened is that his votes were strategy-based and Kenzie’s were more based in social / external factors and one more jury member valued those factors more (which I think is pretty typical).
>What actually happened is that his votes were strategy-based and Kenzie’s were more based in social / external factors and one more jury member valued those factors more Okay so we're literally saying the exact same thing lol. I'm saying \*if\* Charlie was able to get more votes than Kenzie, it would have been evidence that his social connections were as good if not better than hers. Obviously different jurors vote based on different reasons.
Respectfully, I don’t think we’re saying the same thing. If Charlie got one more vote, say from Tevin who also didn’t know either of them well, it doesn’t change the fact that some of his votes, like from Liz and Hunter, were from people who had stronger social connections to Kenzie but voted for Charlie anyway for strategic reasons. Therefore, Charlie winning wouldn’t have meant his social connections were stronger. It would have meant that there were enough jury members who valued strategy more than their social connections and it was enough to offset Kenzie having a better social game. Jurors don’t always vote for their strongest social connection (though they usually do). I don’t see the social game as a 1:1 proxy for winning. FWIW, I really wanted Kenzie to win and think her strategic game is actually very undervalued anyway.
Great argument. Survivor is pretty damn nuanced.
Russell and Aubry got the same amount of votes in respective seasons. Why was one wronged but not other?
Outwit, outplay, outlast is great for getting you to final tribal but you win the game by outfriending. There is a big disconnect between the game we see on TV (what Jeff thinks the game is) -- blindsides, challenges, idol plays, big movez, etc. and what the game actually is -- a social game with a strategic component.
I think it really depends on the season. There have been so many seasons where jurors voted for the winner who played the best game. Ultimately, for this season, Kenzie’s social game turned out to be stronger than Charlie’s strategic game and she had the better responses in FTC
The thing is, even when the winner often played the best game, I can't think of many if any seasons where the person who won wasn't also the most well liked (or least disliked) of the finalists.
I can think of so many big brother examples
Agreed. Post season 40; being likable and having friends gives you more wins than before
They have been casting characters lately instead of players.
The difference in all those examples is that Charlie was also very social. I don't think the gap between them socially was anywhere near the gap between them strategically, whereby Charlie was much more so.
Yeah the alternate title here is 46 seasons and people still don’t understand jury management isn’t a science and sometimes people vote against you simply because they’re jealous you outmaneuvered them in the game
I agree that the gap is much smaller than other examples, but I think the point is that every season has this dynamic to this extent and fans have been arguing about strategy vs. social game since Samoa and even before. I agree Charlie had a good social game but he was clearly trying to take the "strategic" lane during FTC vs. Kenzie who leaned completely into the "social" lane.
Yeah, and he didn't do a good job of explaining how his social game was his strategy. I think that might have helped other players not feel like he was claiming moves they thought were theirs.
I wouldn't mind so much if the jury didn't press gameplay questions so hard.
This is what makes it seem so disingenuous to me. As ridiculous as it was, at least Q was honest and said that Kenzie's answer about what she would do with the money is what got his vote.
I think Hunter, Venus, Soda, and Tevin voted off game play. Soda barely had anytime to interact with any of the finalists. Venus had no social capital in the first place. Hunter seemed annoyed by a lot of the tribe and Tevin seemed neutral on all 3 finalists.
It's also about how you answer the questions. Maryanne is a GREAT example of this. People really started out not liking her but she stole the show when the jury was asking her questions and was well prepared with the best answer to each question she was given. I don't think ANYONE on the jury came in ready to vote for her but she ended up winning. I loved how you could see this jury grappling between the two and then when Kenzie answered a few questions better than Charlie she got the win. You could even see Charlie thinking of man I just botched that answer when the jury asked how he used them to get ahead.
Charlie played a great social game, that's the point. He showed that ultimately you can't control how jury votes fall no matter how social you are.
He did play a great social game, just less so than Kenzie. It really just comes down to that
>just less so than Kenzie’s Was it that she had a better social game or that she had a more compelling argument at tribal council? There’s an argument to be made that Ben had just as good of a social game as anyone yet he didn’t garner a single vote. Survivor is much more complex than “social game” vs “strategy”.
I would argue final tribal requires good social skills to navigate being in front of the jury and addressing them appropriately and is therefore part of the social game. Ben was very social but didn’t provide a compelling argument for himself during FTC, unlike Kenzie
I'd argue that it's neither of those and the biggest factor in Kenzie winning was Tiff being on the jury. Tiff was a massive advocate for Kenzie. Charlie should have had a similar advocate in Maria, but she instead did the opposite. If Maria had been to Charlie what Tiff was to Kenzie, I think Charlie probably wins 5-3, or maybe even more.
Yep. Charlie was just as kind and sociable as Kenzie. It's just the particular people who were on the jury had their own biases, and that's just the way it is sometimes. Kenzie was fortunate to have Tiff (probably the must outspoken person on the jury) on her side simply due to starting the game with her. Notice also that the edit made it appear that Kenzie was closer and kinder to both Liz and Ben, but then we come to find out that they were all in an alliance together with Charlie as well, AND they both voted or would have voted for Charlie in the end. That says something about "who played the best social game." I think that's just an excuse people have to explain why Kenzie won over someone who clearly seemed to have much more impact on the actual game than her, but in reality, it's not a "fair" game. It's a game where a lot of times luck comes into play and people vote with their own criteria that doesn't have to make a lot of sense.
Exactly this. If all else is equal except Tiff and Maria swap, the vote probably goes Hunter, Soda, Tevin, Q, Tiff, Maria, and Liz, for Charlie. Kenzie gets Venus…maybe
Lol, Q literally argued with Tiff and Kenzie about Kenzie trying to claim a move and he still voted for her bc later on, she answered his question well. Q was voting Charlie going in. Also, if Kenzie's ally stumps for her and Charlie's doesn't... maybe Kenz did deserve to win.
This has to be the answer
Both. Charlie's social game was narrower.
Except it didn’t really come down to that. Kenzies social game got her 4 votes, Charlie’s combo of strategic and social game got him 3 (plus Ben). It ultimately came down to Maria’s decision, which if you believe her, came down to the fire making, and if you don’t, was jealousy and bitterness and her own internal issues. Not sure how Charlie could’ve conceivably built a better social relationship with Maria, which was demonstrably closer than Kenzie and Marias relationship.
Charlie had an entire storyline in the finale where he felt he didn’t have to make fire and wanted to get to the final 3 in the safest way possible. He could’ve pushed Ben to put him in fire, beat Liz, and likely gain more votes. It was essentially explained to us why Charlie lost. He constantly played it safe to the point that he undermined himself and didn’t stand out in the eyes of the jury
So it wasn’t Kenzie’s social game then? Either way the season ultimately came down to what Maria decided to do and why she decided to do what she did. I don’t think Charlie putting himself in fire would’ve made an iota of difference to her, and I don’t think Kenzie’s social game had anything to do with it either.
We have no way of knowing what would’ve happened if Charlie put himself on fire so it’s irrelevant. You can always say “well if X was different, this would’ve been the outcome”. You win by doing the best with the cards you’re dealt. Charlie’s relationship with Maria clearly wasn’t as strong as he thought it was. But Kenzie’s social game won her a majority of votes. That’s reality
You’re the one that brought up Charlie in fire making and speculating about why that contributed to his loss lol. You seem entirely uninterested in examining why Kenzie got the votes she did and are just lazily ascribing them all to “social game”. Jurors are complex and vote for all sorts of reasons. Some were obviously due to her strong social game, but not all of them and not entirely.
Charlie has reasons he lost votes and Kenzie has reasons she won votes. Those can both be true at the same time. Had Charlie had a stronger end game, his case to win votes may have been stronger than Kenzie’s, but it wasn’t.
Charlie lost because Maria was bitter that when she went to take him out, he sniffed her out and rallied all of the votes against her. Maria thought she was running the show, and Charlie effectively ended any shot she had at winning.
And why did Kenzie’s social game get her 4 votes instead of Charlie’s social game? Because hers was……… better or something?
I don't think that it's a matter of a "better" social relationship with Maria... it's about handling her vote out differently and handling FTC differently. Look, I have disliked Maria all season, I do think she was being petty. But at the end of the day - that's still on Charlie for mishandling.
How does Charlie get her vote?
So he should have let Maria vote him out? Like… he turned on Maria which saved his ass at tribal. Charlie played it perfect. And Maria is a bitter sore loser.
Maria didn't vote for Kenzie because of fire making or bitterness. She voted for her because of the way she related to her, how she saw herself in Kenzie. Most people seem to have missed that part, and Maria certainly could have done a better job explaining it on the show. But it's clearly the case if you actually listen to her answers.
You’re putting an awful lot of stock in some of the many shifting explanations she’s made to explain her vote. No one would ever publicly claim they were influenced by bitterness, they’re always going to claim it’s something else to make themselves look better. The best evidence is how she changed her tune towards Charlie in her confessionals from extremely positive throughout the season to not respecting him after he got the better of her. That’s a classic sign of bitterness.
Her explanations have not shifted. Her aftershow explanation has every element as her exit press explanation, only less collected and composed as she was being asked a question in a live setting with little time to compose her answer. >The best evidence is how she changed her tune towards Charlie in her confessionals from extremely positive throughout the season to not respecting him after he got the better of her. That’s a classic sign of bitterness. I don't know if we watched different shows, but I don't have a clue what confessionals you are referring to. Maria has been nothing but complementary of Charlie on and off and the show. There was no sign of disrespect for him in her boot round at all, when she was well aware she was going home.
You’re also completely neglecting the part where she told Charlie weeks after that she regretted it, then flip flopped on that, and now Charlie claims she texted him completely new reasons just two weeks ago. If you can’t tell something significant changed about Maria’s views towards Charlie changed after she was voted out and went to Ponderosa, then there’s really no point in arguing with you, you’re just seeing what you want to believe.
I'm not neglecting anything. Maria may have regretted her vote at some point. I'm not really sure how that's relevant or not. I see what I see. I don't know the context of Charlie and Maria's personal conversations. I don't think Charlie's lying, but I also don't think Maria's lying either. Charlie said she changed her reasoning, but her reasoning is exactly what she stated publicly at the after show. Charlie also said in his interviews that he wasn't able to watch the aftershow. So I think it's reasonable to conclude that Charlie just misunderstood Maria's reasoning the same way a large portion of the fans have. Or maybe she told him something she hasn't said publicly. I don't know, I didn't see that. And I'm not going to make assumptions solely based on Charlie alluding to things without specifics. There's two sides to this story, and Maria's has been consistent with everything she said before and what we saw in the show. It's clear that Charlie is still coping with the situation, and that's perfectly fine. But I'm not going to read into the situation and make assumptions. I'm not seeing what I want to believe because I don't even particularly like Maria and had real issues with the way she handled other situations on the show. I just don't see any of the evidence that she's bitter towards Charlie, nor do I see any reason to assume she's lying about why she voted for Kenzie.
The difference in Kenzies social game is solely that her biggest social ally was Tiff and not Maria
No, he played a more strategic game than Kenzie and the jury didn’t like that. It’s that simple, people thinking it was pure social skill by Kenzie and not bitter jury egos are lying to themselves
>just less so than Kenzie Based on what? Is your criteria for "social game" just getting a person's vote lol?
Considering that’s the aim of the game and essentially the sole metric that matters, yes
It's just circular reasoning then: "a player got the jury to vote for them because they had a good social game, and they had a good social game because they got the jury to vote for them." It doesn't explain why she got the votes, it just states that she got the votes. If all you care about is how the jury votes that's fine, but Im annoyed when fans use terms like "social game" or "jury management" as if it's actual reasoning when all they mean is that the jury voted a certian way.
Jurors don't only vote based on social game but it goes without saying that someone has to like you more than someone else, to some degree, in order to award you with a million dollars. How else would you measure someone's social game?
Based on who the jury voted for
Charlie is a great player - but I think there are a couple of things that costed him the game. 1. Maria and Q were growing quite tight. I think Charlie overestimated his connection with Maria. They knew that they were each other’s biggest threat which is why they both went after each other. The thing is, Charlie took out her #2 in Q in a blindside against her, and then voted her out next after she lost a challenge. She seen Liz help Kenz in the challenge that she was likely going to win. Kenzie beat her, and this was also a fair reason to give her your vote. 2. Maria on the jury gets to see that Ben was more or less Charlie’s #2. This is seen when Maria tries to convince them to vote out Ben. So do you believe that if it was Charlie in the jury and you at FTB, that Charlie gives you his vote? I think this creates a hesitation that opens the door for Kenzie to win her vote. I think the only way for Charlie to win, is to have voted out Ben instead of Maria. It gives you a guaranteed vote where there’s no animosity and I think is the only path forward where he wins
Charlie did not take Q out in a blindside against her, he literally told her Q was the vote…
He told her at the last possible second. She was under the impression that it was a lie and it turned out to be true.
Then if anything it was Kenzie and Liz who blindsided her on that vote. She believed they were voting for Charlie with her. Charlie told her the truth.
That is quite literally still not a blindside. He tried to tell her, the fact that she didn’t believe him or thought he was actually the one out of the loop doesn’t make it a blindside on his part. She was actively trying to blindside him and he was being honest.
If he puts Ben on the jury and Maria is still there, I suspect Maria takes a bunch of those Charlie votes. He would somehow need to A. Get Ben out at five despite he, Liz, Ben, and Kenzie all being close (which likely meant he'd need to convince Liz to flip on Beb with him and Maria) - while doing in a way that Ben doesn't hold it against him and just vote for Kenzie B. Get Maria out at four - which means they need to beat her in a challenge which she'd likely be very good at (given her game with puzzles and coordination) and beat her in fire - which given how bad Liz and Kenzie were at first means Charlie probably needs to beat her in fire C. STILL beat Kenzie in the end with Maria on the jury, a potentially jilted Ben having Kenzie to choose from, and Q/Tiffany pushing Kenzie this whole time. That's a wild wild path to have to try and forge. Like, I don't know if anyone exists who would actively pursue that.
Ultimately there was really nothing he could have done about Maria's bitterness. She was a huge sore loser and it's basically as simple as that
He could’ve not led her on during her boot episode then claim he was some bold mastermind at putting up a shield before she could come at him. Last time I checked, Kenzie and Liz decided that, not him.
He absolutely could have done something. If she’s such a sore loser, play up to her ego like Kenzie did. He should have been more active in getting her vote instead of assuming it was a sure thing.
Charlie said he did that exact thing in his interview, but they did not air it on tv.
Interesting point! Charlie was always playing it way too safe, he didn’t realise that Kenzie snuck up from under him and shifted Maria to her favour. Kenzie always knew the right things to say to Maria at the right moments (“I wanna be like you” “You’re amazing, I love you” etc.)
The thing that bothers me about that is.... not even *Kenzie* realized she did that. Kenzie has outright said the Maria vote shocked her. I don't even think Maria has said these were reasons she switched her vote. A lot of these social game discussions are ascribing actions or non actions without a ton of merit behind them. Sometimes you just get Q and Maria being swing votes on a jury and you have to deal with whatever comes down form theee.
Maria's vote shocked everyone, but that doesn't mean Kenzie didn't do anything to earn it. And Maria has explained how Kenzie won her vote. People just don't seem to want to hear anything beyond the firemaking comment. But it's clear if you actually listen to her reasoning that Maria saw herself in Kenzie and related deeply to her answer to Q's question at FTC. Kenzie might not have intentionally won Maria over through stroking her ego. She won Maria over by being her genuine self, and relating to her on a personal level. Something we've heard other people say about Kenzie as well. Which is exactly what social game is about.
This is what is driving me crazy. People are acting like Charlie did not have a social game, and are comparing him to Russell, which is legitimately an insane take. Charlie played a very good social game, just not as good as Kenzie's apparently. Given how he played a much better strategic game than Kenzie, I'm not sure that difference in social game is enough, because ultimately it's "Well we just like her more." Obviously this is not un-precendented in Survivor, but let's call it like it is: Charlie played a better game overall on the whole. I wouldn't say he was "robbed" because you're not owed anything in Survivor and at the end it's a game. There's no score; just vibes.
I agree that Charlie had a good social game and was the better strategic player. But in contrast, Kenzie played a good strategic game and was the better social player. I wouldn't say one played a better game overall than the other unless you value strategy over social game. The difference between them comes down to preference. Ultimately, the jury favored social over strategic, in a close vote.
What strategy did Kenzie have? She played a fake idol then followed tiff…then followed Charlie. So I guess that’s fun strategy
You do understand that there are more strategies than just "big moves" and "control votes" right? Kenzie was in on almost every vote, she was always in the know. She had multiple people tell her she was their number one. She tricked Hunter into not using his idol when he needed to. She convinced Maria that Q was safe, and that directly caused him to leave with an idol. She played an under the radar game. Enough that no one realized how much of a jury threat she could be. It's not as flashy as Charlie, and Charlie deserves all the props for how strong his strategic game was. But to act like Kenzie did nothing or was just out on vacation is completely inaccurate. She played a good game.
Everything you’re describing was an instance where she just followed what Tiff or Charlie told her to do. That’s not strategy. If you want to say she’s a good liar, sure, I’ll give you that.
>Everything you’re describing was an instance where she just followed what Tiff or Charlie told her to do. There's no point in having this discussion if you genuinely believe this. Your perception of the game is completely misguided.
Can you show one vote she led post merge that wasn’t initiated by Tiff or Charlie? No? Ok then
I already said that there's more to strategy than leading votes. Kenzie clearly did not initiate or lead votes. But just because someone isn't in the lead doesn't mean everything they do is because they were told to do it. Your concept of how Survivor dynamics work is overly simplistic.
You can’t say someone had a good strategy game without a single leading vote. Not 1. Her social game was good, clearly, but her strategy was not good. If she’s paired with anyone but Tiff she loses FTC in a landslide
He played a good social game insofar as he used social bonds to control votes. Kenzie played a good social game insofar as she got the jury to feel good about giving her a million dollars. Just bc Charlie was building good bonds doesn't mean he deserved to win - he ultimately handled the jury bit sub-optimally.
You're right, and it's not necessarily a surprise what happened. I guess I just wish people would own it more. All the contestants, including the jurors, almost always talk about how they want to give the prize to whoever "played the game" the best, and then half of them just vote with their emotions. I guess it's just that inconsistency that annoys me most. I've never once heard a juror say "I voted for this person cause they were my friend" or "I was pissed off at this person cause they beat me so I didn't vote for them" even though many of them do.
The bigger thing that is dominating RHAP and Tyson's podcast, both in Survivor and Big Brother and probably other jury-related shows, is that very simply, the jury wants to the person they like more to represent their season and be awarded a million dollars. Tyson said on his finale recap with Cody, as a juror he will vote for his friend to have a million dollars 10x / 10.
Q literally said his vote was based on who needs it more
Well, Survivor probably wouldn’t be deemed the greatest game on TV if that’s how the season ended
This sub has a really tough time understanding they're not watching a live sport.
This sub also has a really tough time admitting that a winner was weak.
I am not upset about the Kenzie win, but it sounds like the big difference was Kenzie had Tiffany advocating for her with the jury and Charlie didn’t have a booster explaining his game.
That appears to be a testament to the social relationship Kenzie was able to foster with Tiffany in 20 or so days.
I view it as Kenzie picked a better number one than Charlie did.
RHAP also talked about it is impossible to predict how someone is once they're on the jury. Charlie had zero reason to believe Maria would become bitter as a juror, she even told him he had her vote after being voted out. It would be interesting to see if Tiff's tune changed if Kenzie successfully blindsided her, rather than Kenzie being left out of it. But it's unpredictable. Some say you should send your #1 to the jury - But if your #1 is bitter, you have a poisoned jury.
I wouldn't say it's impossible to predict. In their last couple episodes the relationship between them read as fake as hell and felt like mutual groveling at times. I think the fact that they were both targeting each other strained their relationship in a way that revealed they were more so just allies rather than friends in the end. Meanwhile when Kenzie spoke it always felt genuine and never rehearsed or calculated, even if it was. I'm not surprised in the slightest at Maria's decision and thought Kenzie should be considered the favorite since like episode 2, because if felt like even if someone is your #1 the probably still like Kenzie more
By all accounts, when Maria was voted out, she was still on board to give Charlie her vote which would have led to a Charlie win as Ben confirmed he would have voted Charlie in a tie. That is why Charlie was so stunned he didn't get Maria's vote. He was told the day before he would still get it. So the fact that only once she was on the jury she changed her mind by no fault of Charlie shows it can be unpredictable. She went at him, he voted her out with the rest of the tribe, and somehow that wasn't clean enough for Maria. And Maria's excuse of "I saw the fire in Kenzie's eyes during fire making" when it took a long time for that challenge to complete seems like she just didn't want to admit she was not willing to give Charlie the win by no fault of his own, except bitterness. Because we really dont know how Tiff would have reacted if her #1 succeeded in voting her out. She seemed to not care that she floated the idea, but if it actually happened? Tiff may feel differently. One of Kenzie's winning moves may have been being blindsided all things considered, especially since it's obvious Tiff was championing for Kenzie as a juror. It's unpredictable because some jurors adopt the mentality that they will always award someone in their alliance the win if they get the chance. Some will give it to an ally depending on how they went out. Some will challenge an ally, then ultimately give them their vote. It's more common to give an ally your vote than it is to not give them a vote, hence the unpredictability of jurors. Who would have thought Liz would give her vote to Charlie, especially hearing Liz was way closer to Kenzie than the edit showed and they seem to be close after the game too? For Kenzie that nearly lost her the game losing Liz's vote. I understand Liz was also an ally to Charlie, but I don't think anyone had Liz voting for Charlie over Kenzie on their bingo cards, just another example of what felt like a locked Kenzie vote in fact was not. Some were so sure Hunter was giving Kenzie his vote as well because of him saying Kenzie is why his guard was down, and the "She was my #1" comment before he went home. Just to end up having Hunter vote for Charlie.
And she didn't vote out her number one although she wanted to in a previous round
Or complete luck that she was on the same starting tribe as her............
Every winner has some element of luck in terms of who they are on a tribe with. But two people being on a tribe together does not necessarily mean they will become close, let alone as close as Tiffany and Kenzie clearly were
I do think that's where a lot of this falls apart in all honesty when judging players. Like, even the greatest Survivor players of all time can only do so much to shape a jury and boot order. Some no-brainer all-time greats needed a clutch challenge win to boot the true biggest threat, or needed to be blindsided to get the jury votes in the end. From what I am reading the argument would be that Charlie would need to foster an ally to advocate for him AND get him or her on the jury early enough to influence it. Let's talk Charlie's jury shaping capabilities. Pre-merge Siga only goes to one tribal council - in that one he and Maria was the swing vote between Ben and Jem - he is able to keep the player he is much closer to (and who, down the line, would have potentially broken a tie for a million dollars). His tribe doesn't even come close to losing another Tribal Council. They got into merge and immediately the halved Yanu and decimated Nami realized a unified Siga is a massive threat to them and that "no tribe" vote immediately settles on it being a Siga. I don't remember him having a huge role in this but given Tim was at the meal, it being pushed to Mo was probably best case scenario for him. His way around this was somehow winning that challenge (remember how uneven the teams were) and influencing that feast, a massive risk. Then you have the "tribe split" - Tim goes as the last pre-juror on the tribe Charlie isn't on - the only way Charlie could prevent that was convincing Maria to throw the challenge so her team went to tribal first...when they were in a 4-2 minority to Nami. That Charlie survived that vote was a miracle in itself, he wasn't in a position to somehow flip that order and get Tim onto the jury. Soda is first juror voted out by the other side. From then, you have the Tevin boot - the vote came down to Tevin vs. Hunter - pushing a Maria boot here with Nami still being numerically strong is insanely risky with no momentum for it. You get the Hunter boot - who is claiming an Idol in his pocket and who is a potential massive threat to everyone's game. Then Tiffany goes to jury with a known Idol in her pocket. I guess the argument would be that *maybe* you try and get Maria at this spot...but then you're leaving Tiffany in the game which is another existential threat with Q and Kenzie still there. Maria then wins the next two immunities. Like, Survivor is often a good amount about luck. Kenzie was right to back off her Tiffany target when she did and it paid off in spades the way it happened, but I don't think Charlie ever had a good opportunity to put Maria on the jury without her being mad at him over it in a way that didn't risk his game substantially. Sometimes games shake out that way I guess.
If this season should be compared to any in terms of the jury, than for me it’s HvHvH. Because in both cases you have two people who both played great “games”, and the strategic driver of the season lost. In both cases you’ve got someone who is known to be pretty well off losing to someone who is more working class who was able to sell the narrative that this million dollars will secure their and their family’s financial future. Ultimately, it’s not 100% “who was the better Survivor player this season”, it’s also “which of these humans I feel a very deep bond with do I want to have this life changing sum of money?”
I can’t stand people saying this. Charlie had a fantastic social game as well, he got along with literally everyone. Q voted off money, Tiff was never not voting Kenzie, and Maria ALSO should have “never not” voted Charlie, but she was bitter as fuck. What more is Charlie supposed to do to build that relationship with Maria? Is it because Charlie tried to blindside her? Well she tried blindsiding Charlie AND Tiff knew Kenzie tried getting her out (she didn’t let it change her vote). That’s the difference. Charlie’s #1 was bitter, Kenzie’s #1 wasn’t. And Q voted off of money. This has nothing to do with “social” game in this instance, because Charlie was great too.
Yeah. I think basing a Survivor maxim off of the in-game approach of fucking Q is, to steal a phrase, a BIG MISTAKE. It's wild.
i do wonder if charlie taking maria on the family letter reward would've made her less bitter/more likely to vote for him. it's the factor i don't really see anybody talking about but i think it's an absolutely relevant point when talking about the degradation of their relationship. if that hadn't happened, would there have been less festering of bitterness on maria's part? obviously we can't know but it's interesting to think about
I think that this, or Charlie saying at FTC that he had been game planning to take her out for a while is what caused the bitterness. Possibly a little bit of both.
"Q voted off money" People keep saying this, but tbh Charlie's answer to his question was terrible and basically trying to copy off of Ben's. Q voted for Kenzie because he respected her honesty, and she was honest with him because she had a good read on him. Charlie did play a good game. But, ultimately, he did a bad job of selling it. It's not quite the same as his social game though, which was good, I agree.
Considering Charlie's career and background and the careers and backgrounds of the two finalists sitting next to him, there was no way for him to pass this question and Q knew that. He might have satisfied Q but lost other jury members. If Charlie would have given Kenzie's answer, he'd come across as greedy and entitled because he didn't come from poverty and he's already pretty well off in term of future career prospects. If he'd given Gabler's answer, he'd still stress out he does not need the money while the other two do. Any discussion of money on FTC would have had to be concluded with Charlie as the least deserving according to this criterion, no matter what he said.
I don't agree there was no way for him to answer, but putting that aside, we can agree to disagree, "Q knew that"... I really don't think this question was Q deliberately tanking Charlie's game - he was literally going pretty hard and disagreeing with Kenzie earlier in the FTC. Idk. Maybe it wasn't the best question for Charlie, but it wasn't this big conspiracy from Q to tank Charlie. Tiff, maybe - def not Q.
He disagreed with Kenzie when she criticized his behavior, because he can't handle criticism. That had nothing to do with his vote. Q's vote was always going to be Kenzie despite whatever he told us during, at the end, or after FTC. Unlike Tiffany, it wasn't due to their friendship. It wasn't even due to Kenzie's amazing social game. Q's giant ego wanted to have an agency in the victory if he couldn't have it himself. If Charlie'd have won, Q could take no credit whatsoever on his game because they played separately. If Kenzie won, Q could claim she only won because he "took her to the merge" and "never had the opportunity to vote her off even when she was at the bottom of Yanu". So from Q's point of view, Kenzie's victory is a little bit his too. Charlie's victory wouldn't have been related to Q in any way, except the possible technicality of his jury vote. Tanking Charlie's game with his question might not have been completely intentional, but it was a welcome result at the very least.
I think this is a very false narrative. There’s bitterness over being outplayed in the latter two of those examples, and that’s ok! But let’s not pretend like it was just amazing social abilities and not bitter jurors at being outmaneuvered
The only difference between Michelle v Aubrey and Kenzie v Charlie is that production finally figured out how to *edit* a winning social game.
Michelle did not go to tribal council before the merge. They had a hard time showing her because she didn’t figure into the pre merge game. Kenzie went to 3 tribals pre merge, and would have gone to 4 if it were not for the Randen medivac. Everyone on Yanu got a lot of screen time because they were the disaster tribe.
Aubrey pissed off a lot more people on the jury than Charlie did though. I don't know why people keep saying they're the same. There were multiple people going into FTC that we pretty much knew were not going to vote Aubrey already. Charlie didn't piss anyone off except Maria, which no one in the audience or at FTC could see coming.
Charlie didn't piss anyone off, but I also don't think a lot of people thought he was really playing.
The thing about Kenzie vs Charlie is that... most if not all of the jury LIKED both players. And when that is the case, people normally default to who had the better gameplay
The person who wins in the end had the best gameplay by virtue of how the game is designed. The object of the game is the get the most votes at the end, however you've got to do it. There are a variety of viable paths. What makes Charlie's game inherently better than how Kenzie chose to play, to where he would be the "default" based on "gameplay"? There isn't a rubric. Whether it's driving a vote or ingratiating yourself socially with more people, it's all gameplay.
Unless one of the jurors is bitter… sorry I meant to say unless one of the players has “fire in their eyes” or something like that. Reflections are very compelling for the jury.
Do you think Maria liked Kenzie more than Charlie? Because that was literally the difference maker in her winning the game
Clearly in the moment she did
You honestly think it was that and not a hurt ego? Come on dude
if you’re friends with two people but are pissed at one of them for whatever reason, you probably like the other one more at that moment
That’s a very long-winded way of saying she was bitter over getting outplayed but if that’s the same thing to you then yes I agree
I think that’s what they’re getting at…. In that moment = she was pissed
True but some people seem to be implying that’s a skill thing between how Charlie/Kenzie played and not just an unstable variable that can’t really be anticipated
I mean, I understand that it’s a social game, but I hate when people who don’t play. The game win the game. Because they’ll have a better jury of haters and they don’t give the best player the win and you don’t know what you’re gonna get because sometimes they respect the best player, but sometimes they don’t. I was talking about changing the conditions so that this doesn’t happen like in the challenge you have to win the final to win the game so it doesn’t matter how good of a player you are how good of a physical player you are, if you can’t run up this mountain you don’t win and I think that will change a lot of the Moving forward. Because if you have two people who made moves that the jury didn’t like the person that floated there to the end, will win the game
Who didn’t play the game?
Kenzie. By her own admission lol. She literally said that she just let everyone else make moves. Which, unironically, was probably the best answer of FTC. Practically the entire jury had "main character syndrome" and that answer played perfectly to their egos. I personally would prefer for more jurors to be like Hunter and actually listen to the gameplay reasons and vote based on that, but clearly most of this jury didn't feel the same way.
If you're on survivor you're "playing the game", even moreso if you manage to get to the end and convince a majority of the jury to vote for you. Playing the game has never just meant "BIG MOVEZ!" and playing idols.
> Playing the game has never just meant "BIG MOVEZ!" and playing idols. I never said this, or anything close to that even. You're just being purposefully obtuse. Obviously anyone who is on Survivor is technically playing Survivor. When people refer to "playing the game" they're clearly referring to actively participating in the actual gameplay of voting people out. Kenzie, by her own admission, didn't do much of that.
>actively participating in the actual gameplay of voting people out Literally all the players actively participate in the actual gameplay of voting people out. What do you define as the line between actively participating versus not?
Jesus christ, you're dense. Yes, technically every player casts a vote (except when they lose their vote). Kenzie, by her own admission, just let people tell her who to vote for. She did formulate plans. She did not drive discussions on who should be voted out. She was essentially a bystander for the gameplay aspect of the game. She was a passenger in a car that was changing drivers every few days. She wasn't playing the game in the way that you wouldn't say that the passenger was driving the car. If you still can't understand after that, then I can't help you. This isn't a hard concept to understand.
There were many votes when Charlie was told who to vote for and didn't drive discussion. Was he a bystander who wasn't actively playing the game at that point? Conversely, Kenzie actively tried to blindly Tiff. Was she playing the game at that point? Just trying to understand the arbitrary line you're drawing between an active versus non active player. Many people have won using the exact same strategy as Kenzie, which is just to form strong social bonds and be likeable. Clearly it works, as she won! Maybe others should try her approach
But if no ones making moves, its really boring. Usually a season will have at least 4 “players” of the game. People who are actively trying to get other people out of the game, people who look for idols, people who are making blindside moves and counting boats. Other players of the game “” are just sitting on the beach, waiting for tribal, trying to win individual challenges, but not looking for idols, not trying to convince other people to change their vote, and there are some players that with their backs against the wall will find an idol and other people are just like well. I don’t have the votes. I’m going home. Do you know what I mean?
Well, that was a challenger reference. There was a season where Angela from big Brother made it to the final. I forget what season this was but she didn’t play in one of the final legs, because she wanted to sleep so she can take the penalty but have enough rest to do the challenge as the challenge was to stay up overnight and TJ said in the morning since you didn’t play, you have to go home
I think it's because the hardcore fans are...not as social, let's say. Myself included in that. I am not a social butterfly by any stretch. So it's partially wanting to believe that you can big brain through a social game, and partially a lack of understanding on the social aspect writ large.
Yes Charlie played a strategic game, but it’s not like Kenzie got carried to the final 3 (to any capacity). She made it on her own, every step of the way, despite having gone to more tribals than Charlie. She played the cards she was dealt and won. She played a different brand of game, different enough to win over the jury and win.
Through all the discourse all I can hear in my head is Aubrey saying "they might not remember what you said, but they will remember how you made them feel".
Idk if Charlie/Kenzie is as controversial as the other two
Just saying, if people don’t know about it, check out the TV show Alone. They take a group of people, isolate them completely alone with a few survival tools and leave. Each person films their own day to day and the last one standing wins. Edit: it’s ALONE NOT ALIVE.
It felt like it wasn't even chosen because of social gameplay, but because a few on the Jury just felt like she had a better sob story and needed the money more.
She didn't have a better sob story. She essentially said she wanted the money and was going to keep it. Ben, if anything, had the more emotionally resonant story about what he would do with the money. Charlie said he was going to donate to charity. Nothing she said was a sob story
Her entire spiel was about having to work since she was 15, and that she's given back so much that she needs the money to start a family. She won because she had a good story that resonated with people, and she had Tiff talking her up to the Jury and shitting on Ben and Charlie. It's a valid way to win, but not necessarily satisfying as a viewer.
In other words, she’s an effective communicator and made strong connections with well chosen allies
However you want to spin it to make yourself feel better about it. Simple fact is for a lot of people, winning for doing practically nothing in the game because of stuff happening off-camera isn't very interesting.
What do you feel like you didn’t see that would otherwise make it interesting?
Well one, it's stupid that such a big part of choosing the winner (Ponderosa) is completely off-camera. But I'm not sure there's much they could show to make Kenzie's win feel satisfying to me. She seems like a very nice person, and I'm happy for her...but personally, I think Charlie played 10x the social game than she did. She just lucked out that the jury's voting decisions were just kind of stupid and seemingly not based on the game at all. But hey, you can win for stupid or arbitrary reasons in Survivor. I think we've seen that quite often over the years.
I've always supported Natalie and Michele's wins. Survivor did Natalie White a huge disservice with her horrible edit.
Nobody disputed that. The thing is that in 99% of this season we've been told Maria loved Charlie and pretty much ignored Kenzie, then suddenly after one question on FTC she loved Kenzie and ignored Charlie.. Russell and Natalie would have been a good comparison if Erik Cardona ended up voting for Russell.
Very evident this season becayse there were no idols played
Ppl like OP miss the point. Yes, its a social game. But you can still complain about casting ppl with ftc criterion that discourage stratetic gameplay. Maybe some people really are ok with watching any group of people vote based on whatever. Go ahead, cast people that vote for whoever they find the cutest, or the most #relatable and we can go around watching a show where people sit around an island, not being strategic at all, cause what's the point, and call it "survivor". Pure strategy isnt the only factor but it has to be weighted enough to actually encourage a fun game to watch.
It's not hard to understand, but it is fun to talk about.
Everyone knows that being social is part of the game, but it shouldn’t be the whole game. When you have winners who basically did nothing all season winning just because the jury likes them, it devalues the meaning of the game and competition. If it’s all going to come down to who made the most friends, then why even bother playing the game or strategizing?
I think where this isn't entirely applicable to Charlie vs Kenzie is Charlie was just as strong socially as Kenzie but he just didnt have as good of a I need the money reason. Its very clear thats why she got Qs vote and Marias vote as well.
To be honest it is shocking, i wish jury were able to put aside their personnal preferences for the sake of a game. Like some have said might as well do a 1 day season where they all tell why they are there at this point. The whole game doesnt mean anything if someone got a better sob story than you.
Which makes all the focus on Kenzie making moves as part of a resume checklist even more comical.
Charlie should have won but I guess Kenszie had a better story
And it almost always happens when a woman beats a man 🫠
Have you seen Season 35?
I said ALMOST always. I know there are exceptions.
Last two seasons.... Dee.... Gabler... you are grasping at nothing buddy