Snipped up drench quote wrote:i think lines were crossed, and i'm responsible for that, and i'm unreservedly sorry. i didn't have to manifest it like that. i certainly didn't need to say some of the things i said. devaluing people instead of devaluing how they acted was when things went too far. and i'm sorry for that.
If you had said that, p much everyone would have moved on.
But instead you said:
Drench wrote:i think it's incumbent on everyone to do different things. it is incumbent on the players to ensure that the jury they're creating is going to be favourable (this is just a game thing), but it is equally incumbent on the jury if not more so, in retrospect, to ensure that they are not multiplying and adding to the hurt emotions already in the game and already present with them. because there will be some, and juries will be bitter, and that's going to happen, but i think the ball was dropped (and hugely by me, like, wow) in the jury being unable to put a cap on how many people got hurt. usually in our games at least one side can do at least a part of it. there was a total breakdown on both sides here. this doesn't apportion equal blame, because i would put that on the jury for the echo chamber getting so........echoey............., but it apportions some blame both ways. so i think that there would have been a bitter jury, but certainly the inability to regulate the intensity of emotion on the jury side added a lot of hurt that could have been avoided.
at the same time, lambasting people for being emotional prima facie is anti-survivor. that is never going to not be true. people can (and did) go too far. but being emotional is part of the game. remove emotion and you don't have survivor anymore. jurors can and should be able to vent at the players who voted them off, whether for strategic reasons, or personal reasons. and in the former, if they take it too far, they're going to look pretty silly after the fact for excoriating someone who played better than them. in the latter, no such dice. emotion in that context isn't strategic. just because someone's in and you're not don't invalidate your emotions.
at the end of the day, sometimes people are assholes to people. sometimes, players will be assholes to other players on the way out. telling those jurors that they can't be assholes back defeats the point of a jury. you might as well have a bunch of computers playing chess. being major assholes, scorching the earth, well. but telling people they have to suppress what was given to them and not give it back suppresses one of the points of the jury.
you can certainly be anti-scorched earth. i think it is good to generally be anti-scorched earth. i think lines were crossed, and i'm responsible for that, and i'm unreservedly sorry. i was legitimately angry and hurt, and i can't be sorry for that because that's just how it turned out, but i didn't have to manifest it like that. i certainly didn't need to say some of the things i said. some of the things i said i would not take back, and i would keep right there, but devaluing people instead of devaluing how they acted was when things went too far. and i'm sorry for that.
but if you're anti-bitter jury full stop, as many spectators appeared to be, i think you're anti-survivor. i need to say that right now. (reasonably? rationally? appropriately?) bitter juries are part of this game. if you think juries should reward best game and that's it with no emotion considered, i think you don't understand what survivor is about. and you probably voted for russell hantz for fan favourite. and that's pretty silly.
this has been a bit of a ramble but at the end of the day maybe if i had just yelled in my confessional instead no feelings would've been hurt and i would still have the weight off my chest. but what's done is done and it is regretted, unconditionally. but if this means we can't post dank memes any more then that is a loss too great for this community to bear
