Mafiascum.net

So I made this topic because there's one aspect of Survivor I find difficult. It's not the challenges. It's not the typical being active, or surviving 39 days, or making it to the Final Tribal Council. I can handle that just fine.

Off this site, I have participated in multiple Survivor games, both short and longterm. I've made the Final Tribal Council more often than not, but I always seem to get second place, and can't win over enough jury votes to claim the victory.

To those who have won-- how did you properly manage the jury?

bring an open cheater to the end

Flatter the shit out of them. Fake those personal relationships.

I don't know. I won a somewhat bitter jury that didn't like my opponent even though I didn't do much once and narrowly scored the winning vote with a surprise I withheld until closing speeches the other time. Being a lovable curmudgeon is probably a good idea.

Definitely don't use blue text, though.

Blame the other member of the Final 2 for creating the controversial reward item that got you both to the end.

1. get to FTC
2. idk

Performative gameplay + don't be a dick

GET REALLY DRUNK

create memes of the players to show them you really care

Hot guys TBH

boudica was a very hot guy

throughout the game, and then try to lose them as fast as possible during ftc like you're mitt romney after the primaries

In post 4, Xalxe wrote:Blame the other member of the Final 2 for creating the controversial reward item that got you both to the end.

will The Culture ever change to the point that dragonite would win ftc

I think the key is convincing people you had a plan for how you wanted to play the game from the start, and you stuck to that plan. Explain how everything you did fit into that plan. Even if a lot of it is revisionist history, that's how I won both times

Answering questions and making jury members feel like their question and viewpoints are validated was how I've handled it. I won once by the nature of actually answering a question while my opponent tried to convince me to joint-ignore a juror.

I'd echo CC's comment about having a plan from the start. Internal consistency in your answers counts more than pandering individually to each juror.

Be honest; own your game. You helped eliminate the Jury from the game; the last thing they want to see is you trying to skate around the truth.



Otherwise, it's kinda like a job interview: Focus on your strengths as much as possible; downplay your weaknesses.

Of course, that's only for when you're actually FTC; more often than not, your fate is already determined before you even get that far.

There isn't actually a catch-all consistent way to win over a Jury. You've spent weeks with the people in the game; you have to use that time and experience to find out what the Jury will want to hear.

it depends.

sometimes, you poison the well on someone else then bring them to the end
other times, you need to be sweet and suck up

one thing i think most winners do at some point is that they're able to pick up on the differences between their games and their fellow finalists, and highlight why those differences matter
everyone's game usually has some layers of overlap and if you spend time building up some particular aspect of your game that can be easily applied to someone else, you're making their case for them
isolate the differences and make sure people know them

No it's posting the pics of the hottest guys.

In post 13, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:I think the key is convincing people you had a plan for how you wanted to play the game from the start, and you stuck to that plan. Explain how everything you did fit into that plan. Even if a lot of it is revisionist history, that's how I won both times

I believe you beat me because I was unable to do this.
Therefore this is probably the case, even though me as a juror possibly won't vote for it.

Owning your game is a biggy. The jury knows exactly what went down and if you try to play it off as something else, they’ll call you out on it. You betray someone? That’s fine just own it and explain why

Everything that happened before the FTC doesn't matter. I don't mean that people won't walk in decided already because they will.
But all the strategy, the alliances you made before that, the way you convinced people to do things or won challenges and put fifty hours a week into the game?
Throw all the things you think you earned in the garbage because they're not yours anymore. They belong to the people you took them from.
You have to convince them they care about giving it all back to you. I think if you play the game this way its easier to convince people along the way you matter.
I don't know if that's helpful advice but it's the way I think of it.

I like shadows explanation

The second explanation*

In post 20, grumpy wrote:Owning your game is a biggy. The jury knows exactly what went down and if you try to play it off as something else, they’ll call you out on it. You betray someone? That’s fine just own it and explain why

Strongly disagree with this