Is managing a bitter jury the responsibility of finalists or a flaw of the juror?
In a subjective game like Survivor, will it ever be possible for a member of the jury to completely remove their feelings from their final vote?
The paradox of Survivor has been the same from Day 1 of Survivor: Borneo—eliminate all the other players while still having good enough relationships with them that they want to give you $1 million. It’s harder than it seems.
Because over the last 26 years, we’ve seen many a jury vote in favor of a less active finalist (compared to a dominant, strategic player) simply because they’re angry they aren’t sitting at the end or didn’t have a positive relationship with the power player. Does that mean the finalist played a sloppy social game? Or did the jury just let personal feelings overcome objective gameplay?
While at its heart, Survivor is a social experiment, it’s also a game that requires deception and betrayal. And by the time players are sitting on the jury at Final Tribal Council, they’ve had enough time pass at Ponderosa that they should be able to separate their own personal interpretation of the game with the facts of gameplay.
Because when we see players like Stephenie LaGrossa Kendrick in Survivor 50 doing no more than praising one finalist and completely ignoring the gameplay of the others sitting at the end, it’s kind of weird to watch…
Read more: LEAKED! The curse of the Survivor Final Three
But at the end of the day, Survivor isn’t an objective game. Because of the human element involved, it’s very subjective when we get to Final Tribal Council and the jury’s personal opinions and feelings are almost always taken into account. So while it’d be great to see less bitter juries over the years, it’s ultimately the finalist’s responsibility to manage the jury, no matter how much or little their emotions tie into their final questions.
Of course, as the viewer, we have a lot more information than the jury does. But that’s what Final Tribal Council is for, right? For the jurors to get all the facts and dissect them how they need to in order to make a $1 million decision. And because the game has no universal rulebook for what makes a “good” player the right person to win, each season’s jury gets to create their own rubric where their subjective feelings may or may not play a huge part.
But true dominance isn’t just being able to pull off major blindsides. It’s voting them out in a way that preserves their respect and allows them to see you as a distinguished adversary and not an opponent they’re still fighting after their torch gets snuffed.
Come back here often for Survivor spoilers, news and updates.
