Possible rule change. Survivor players please vote

Sigh I hate not being able to edit polls. Please post your vote as well. >.<

I've gone back and forth on this. At first I liked the rule because of what happened to Dender last year. But then I realized that was at a point where there were no official teams anyway so this rule wouldn't have prevented anything. So I'm changing my vote to say keep it the same.

I think sitting people out would make it closer to the actual Survivor, so I'd vote for that.

I vote to keep the rule for a couple reasons......
a. Were playing SURVIVOR so why not use the more authentic rule.
b. Its going to only affect certain challenges e.g. Battle ship some challenges this rule wont be necessary e.g. word scramble/guess the picture.
c. It adds a new element of strategy, you have to organize before hand to decide who to sit and inactivity can come back to bite you in the arse.

im against sitting people.

I have to think about it more, and am honestly not sure which way I lean. I can see and appreciate both sides, so I would prefer to abstain unless my vote proves to be absolutely necessary. :P

Keep the new rule.
Why? Because gish voted for the other one.

"Stitches wrote:

I have to think about it more, and am honestly not sure which way I lean. I can see and appreciate both sides, so I would prefer to abstain unless my vote proves to be absolutely necessary. :P

Not a problem. You have about a week to decide. If it gets over 10 votes either way it's over though :P

I prefer the new rule... Just for something different, honestly. And while I don't watch Survivor (I have issues with keeping up with a scheduled TV show); I think I'd rather keep it closer to the real game.

"GridIronKing34 wrote:

I prefer the new rule... Just for something different, honestly. And while I don't watch Survivor (I have issues with keeping up with a scheduled TV show); I think I'd rather keep it closer to the real game.

cbs.com has all the episodes. for this season. it's 4 in and it's been a really good season.....the third challenge involves a slide puzzle at the end :lol: give it a chance, you might end up really liking it (i was skeptical at first)

Tough call. I'm going to go against it because I don't think a team should be punished for winning challenges.

I have yet to officially decide my feelings on this rule.

"Trowa wrote:

I have yet to officially decide my feelings on this rule.

LMAO ok, you called it retarded and that's why I started the thread. I have to say I'm a little surprised. :P

I'm honestly like Stitches...and now Trowa where I'm on the fence and see good points on both sides. I'm happier I started this thread now, than I was when I initially thought of it.

i'm just trying to think of ways this rule could be abused somehow. is the person who has to sit out also immune if his/her team loses? otherwise the team could vote to have someone sit out against their wishes, then tank a team challenge, and vote off that person. I suppose that could happen anyway but if that were the case the person who was sitting out wouldn't even have a chance to try to win the challenge against his/her teams wishes

i'm also on the fence right now, i'm a think about this.. back to jurassic park

"pennphinfan wrote:

i'm just trying to think of ways this rule could be abused somehow. is the person who has to sit out also immune if his/her team loses? otherwise the team could vote to have someone sit out against their wishes, then tank a team challenge, and vote off that person. I suppose that could happen anyway but if that were the case the person who was sitting out wouldn't even have a chance to try to win the challenge against his/her teams wishes

i'm also on the fence right now, i'm a think about this.. back to jurassic park

No that person will not be immune. But you also cannot sit out someone back to back challenges. The captain will decide who sits out, and I'd like to think Skeet or Trowa aren't out to get anyone personally. I'd also think that if someone couldn't make a challenge for some reason, like when Monst had that Ice Fishing trip or whatever it was last year, that would be a good person to choose to sit out.

"Dolfan984 wrote:

No that person will not be immune. But you also cannot sit out someone back to back challenges. The captain will decide who sits out, and I'd like to think Skeet or Trowa aren't out to get anyone personally. I'd also think that if someone couldn't make a challenge for some reason, like when Monst had that Ice Fishing trip or whatever it was last year, that would be a good person to choose to sit out.

ok so when its down to like 6-4 and there's a guy on the 6 man team who realizes he's better off siding with the other 4, but the captain on the 6 man team finds out. He can make that person sit out, then tell his team about this guy's "treason", tank the challenge, and vote him off. I realize that sounds complicated, but just saying wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

"pennphinfan wrote:

ok so when its down to like 6-4 and there's a guy on the 6 man team who realizes he's better off siding with the other 4, but the captain on the 6 man team finds out. He can make that person sit out, then tell his team about this guy's "treason", tank the challenge, and vote him off. I realize that sounds complicated, but just saying wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

I agree in extreme cases, but in this case (if it were last years rules) and the team with 6 somehow won, the numbers would still be 5-4. If you're going to possibly backstab your tribe and you get caught, you probably deserve to lose. Look what happened with SICK, and he was a captain! (and a really good one at that) If you look at the last four challenges from last year, there's no way one person could solo another team. If a team wants to throw a challenge it's really hard to do too much about it as one person.

I voted new rule.

I dont think a team should be punished for winning. However the main reason I don't like this rule of sitting people is say one has to sit a person for a challenge like battleship and other team ends up winning a couple of challenges than has to sit someone for word scramble. They can still unscramble words without us knowing. So biggest thing is that sitting people can't be enforced for every challenge and could give a team a certain advantage.

"Skeet84 wrote:

I dont think a team should be punished for winning. However the main reason I don't like this rule of sitting people is say one has to sit a person for a challenge like battleship and other team ends up winning a couple of challenges than has to sit someone for word scramble. They can still unscramble words without us knowing. So biggest thing is that sitting people can't be enforced for every challenge and could give a team a certain advantage.

Sitting people wouldn't be possible for some challenges. For the one's that are, like battleship then yeah, you'd sit someone out. For the word scramble where you send me the answers in one team PM, nobody would be sitting out. For each challenge I'd let you know whether someone has to sit out or not.

The point of it is for a game like battleship if the numbers are 9 vs 6 somehow the team with 6 is going to be really screwed going against 9 people. You can say well the other team won enough they deserve their members. I think a 7 vs 6 game would be much more intense and close.

By the way guys I appreciate everyone's questions/opinions. Even if the new rule passes it's going to be much more refined from all the input you guys gave me.

I think PSG raises a good point, but not even just for the reason of sitting people just to vote them out. If someone doesn't even get a chance to participate in a challenge and everyone who did participate did well, the person who sat out could automatically be more likely to get voted out especially since captains are most likely to sit their weakest players. I don't like the idea of someone getting voted off without having a chance to prove their worth in a challenge. That's just me though.

Also it seems like the best argument for keeping the new rule is "it's more like the real Survivor". I think what works on TV doesn't necessarily always translate to a message board survivor game.

"MonstBlitz wrote:

I think PSG raises a good point, but not even just for the reason of sitting people just to vote them out. If someone doesn't even get a chance to participate in a challenge and everyone who did participate did well, the person who sat out could automatically be more likely to get voted out especially since captains are most likely to sit their weakest players. I don't like the idea of someone getting voted off without having a chance to prove their worth in a challenge. That's just me though.

Also it seems like the best argument for keeping the new rule is "it's more like the real Survivor". I think what works on TV doesn't necessarily always translate to a message board survivor game.

Agreed 100%