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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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 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.

 

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%

 

I vote for not keeping people out.

 

I am for the rule only if it is more than a one person advantage. That way it will be an advantage but it won't be super unfair.

 

This.

 

why not have those games in the begining of the competition so that wont happen? theres gotta be a way or a bunch of games you can backload the competition so if someone has a big numbers advantage it wont be as bad....?

I just hate handicapping a team thats kicking ***, should be more of a motivation to not lose.....

imo the survivor last year was a blast, alot of close games, and the rule was how it is then....why change it? Not gunna get a much better competition than we had last year.

 

You don't know me very well do you? :up:

:innocent:

 

You make a good point. To that I would say this - if a team has a big lead, odds are they are going to still be carrying a little bit of "dead weight" i.e. players who aren't overly active. Might not be the case if the captain drafted a team full of rock stars, but I would say a couple of them would not be those guys who are going to sit there setting their alarm clocks in the middle of the night to "take shots". While the team that has the disadvantage has likely weeded out some of the weaker members by then and should be able to still make it competitive. They would still have a disadvantage, no doubt about it, but it shouldn't be too drastic.

Also, like Sick said games where numbers are important could be more towards the start of the game. I think it will be fun either way, I just think this way would be easier and would give teams more incentive to not lose challenges. Plus it's less work for you! :up:

 

I ended up voting to keep the "new" rule. I just kept thinking about Top Shot and the strategy they have to have when teams get uneven.

 

I love that we're already debating fiercely and the game hasn't even started yet. Hell, with the way this poll is going we could just make it people who like new rule on one team and people who don't like it on the other. Providing Skeet and Trowa vote differently on this thing.

 

I agree...keep it as close to the real Survivor as possible.

 

i can totally see the merit in the intent of the rule, but i just don't think it's fair to teams that work hard to win challenges, and the individuals who wont get to compete. My real problem with this rule is that in conjunction with redemption island, you're really really hammering the winning team by giving the losing team multiple opportunities to catch up.

 

After some thought, I'm fairly sure I will be on the team with a 3 man advantage, so I'm voting for the old rule. :up: