Retiring from LSG's and Mish Mash, for the most part. If you want to contact me, I suggest going outside and enjoying what the world has to offer, instead.
in all honesty despite being the world's longest broken record re voting i actually see the tactical/'flawed' incentives of jury voting in an F3 as a positive; it fits in well with the rest of the game and it's not like the game "stops" just because your vote is for someone to win rather than lose, imho
In post 29, Cephrir wrote:We were going to try RCV in disney but we kinda forgot
i hate to say it but as much as i love a good rank, it's just too convoluted to really fit with the vibe of survivor
my great fear is that in implementing it you just make it a game of whoever can best manipulate the idiosyncrasies of any particular voting system
hate to say it but fptp is so dumb yet simple that its extravagant tactical flaws are actually a net plus in that context
In post 29, Cephrir wrote:We were going to try RCV in disney but we kinda forgot
i hate to say it but as much as i love a good rank, it's just too convoluted to really fit with the vibe of survivor
my great fear is that in implementing it you just make it a game of whoever can best manipulate the idiosyncrasies of any particular voting system
With respect, isn't Survivor already a game of whoever can best manipulate the idiosyncrasies of any particular voting system?
I've voted in a Jury once, and I voted for the person that orchestrated my leaving bc it was the best play for the game imo. Willing to vote on merit bc there's no personal stake in it. I don't think I'd every take an attack on me in a game seriously as an attack on my character as a person so I'd like to reward those who did things to create their chance at victory.
In post 36, Klick wrote:But how do you define that merit? What are good plays, what are bad plays? Ultimately, every finalist got to the end in their own way.
I pretty much strongly agree with this. There's no "one right way" to play this game. That's why it makes the jury's choice somewhat subjective to the people who are on it, which is why "jury management" and "jury threat" are relative terms that people like to throw out. Like what I value in who I choose to vote for as a jury member is going to likely vary from other people on the jury. Obviously, this doesn't always pan out and sometimes there really is a "Clear Winner" sometimes, but I don't see things in black and white when it comes to being on a jury much like Klick described here.
I mean there is one right way to play in any given game. It is the way that gets the jury to vote for you. It is important to remember that when it comes to survivor, the Jury is always correct.
I think sometimes people have a certain strategy and believe themselves entitled to a win, and if they don't get it, that the jury was 'wrong' or 'toxic.' And that leads to deeply unpleasant endgames and after-games.
There are multiple ways to get the jury to vote for you. You as a finalist have influence on who is on the jury. And to that end, there are several right ways to play a game.
