Possible rule change. Survivor players please vote

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.

"2k5 wrote:

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.

Yeah it would only be sitting people after they were up by over one member.

I'm hoping it's a close race again like last year though :P

"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.

In my opinion the best argument is what I said earlier. I'll just put it in quotations.

"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. "

A team with 50% more shots is probably going to win that challenge. It would be a pretty safe bet.

Both sides have good points. I'm very curious how the last 8 votes will turn out.

"DrAstroZoom wrote:

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

This.

"Dolfan984 wrote:

In my opinion the best argument is what I said earlier. I'll just put it in quotations.

"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. "

A team with 50% more shots is probably going to win that challenge. It would be a pretty safe bet.

Both sides have good points. I'm very curious how the last 8 votes will turn out.

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 ass, 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.

"Dolfan984 wrote:

I'd like to think Skeet or Trowa aren't out to get anyone personally.

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

:innocent:

"Dolfan984 wrote:

In my opinion the best argument is what I said earlier. I'll just put it in quotations.

"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. "

A team with 50% more shots is probably going to win that challenge. It would be a pretty safe bet.

Both sides have good points. I'm very curious how the last 8 votes will turn out.

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.

"SICK wrote:

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 ass, 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.

Oh I will. But at this point it's so close back and forth I'm going to let the majority decide. But if the old rule wins out, then yeah I will front load those competitions.

"DrAstroZoom wrote:

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

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.

"Trowa wrote:

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.

A pre-merge RI player coming back would only go down if a team was getting absolutely smashed. At that point for the sake of competition I might put someone who's been on a roll on RI back in the game.

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:

Still need votes from

Colorado Dolfan

Finascious D

and Trowa but we've been discussing the whole thing so I'm not worried about him :P

Thanks a lot everyone so far for their fast responses and solid opinions.

"dukane5 wrote:

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

So let's also all not shower or eat alot of food, just to keep it close to the real survivor.

Oh and NO SHAVING!!!!!!

"SICK wrote:

So let's also all not shower or eat alot of food, just to keep it close to the real survivor.

Oh and NO SHAVING!!!!!!

Yeah, I think the thing being lost here is that most of the challenges on Survivor are physical challenges meaning that teams NEED to sit players to keep things fair. None of the challenges in this Survivor are physical. At least I don't think so anyway. I'd kick some ass in a push-up challenge.

"MonstBlitz wrote:

Yeah, I think the thing being lost here is that most of the challenges on Survivor are physical challenges meaning that teams NEED to sit players to keep things fair. None of the challenges in this Survivor are physical. At least I don't think so anyway. I'd kick some ass in a push-up challenge.

"I can do 100 pushups in 30 minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!! I drive a dodge stratus!!!!!!!"

"SICK wrote:

So let's also all not shower or eat alot of food, just to keep it close to the real survivor.

Oh and NO SHAVING!!!!!!

And DEFINITELY don't pay your taxes

One more vote "for" the rule and it passes.

I voted to overturn.

Okay since both Trowa and Skeet both voted to overturn the rule, if it ends up a 10-10 tie, the tiebreaker will side with the captains.

well it looks like Finascious D logs on but ignores my pms...

and colorado hasn't been on since the 12th

so who knows when this gets decided :(

"Dolfan984 wrote:

well it looks like Finascious D logs on but ignores my pms...

and colorado hasn't been on since the 12th

so who knows when this gets decided :(

and their draft stock PLUMMETS...