History Headscratchers / Survivor

** This might actually be a brilliant move on his part, by [[spoiler: taking his wife's place]] He has given his tribe an unnofficial 11th member. She will side with their team giving them the 11-9 advantage provided that he survives.

* In Danielle's defense, it's likely she also loses to Terry, as he had two of his allies on the jury, Courtney felt betrayed by Danielle and started bonding with Terry before she got voted out, and Shane made it perfectly clear in his jury speech he felt Terry deserved it more than her or Aras, so that's potentially four votes. Also, Aras threatened that himself and Cirie wouldn't vote for Danielle if she voted him out, whether or not he was telling the truth. So, Danielle felt like it was better for her to take Aras than Terry.

* Two huge headscratchers for me on rewatches of previous seasons, both involving similar scenarios with people that effectively made the decision for the final elimination. First, on Panama, when Danielle backstabbed Terry in the face of an explicit agreement that everybody knew she had, and then on Fiji, Dreamz infamous refusal to honor his car deal with Yau Man. How in the name of God did that make ANY sense to either of them? It got them to the final jury vote, but they both lost in a HUGE landslide because the jury was disgusted with them - Danielle only got ONE legitimate vote and lost 5-2 (only getting a 2nd because Shane had a fit that neither deserved to win and made them pick a random number that she won) while Dreamz got ZERO in the face of the first unanimous vote. Danielle in particular is idiotic - she had won her spot, she had a well known deal with Terry, most of the members of the jury were from the alliance she had been part of, and Aras was significantly more popular than her in the first place. There was absolutely zero chance she was going to win over Aras, while she had at least a reasonable chance of convincing them to vote for her over Terry, the guy that almost everybody on the jury had been trying to get rid of from the merge and only survived because of an absolutely dominating immunity challenge performance, and who she could bring up had promised to play the immunity idol to protect her at the vote of four, forcing her to do the tiebreaker instead. It just makes no sense that she thought that she had a better chance of winning votes against Aras than Terry. And of course Dreamz - how the hell did he think for one second that he had the slightest chance of winning the final prize after his disgusting backstab?!? He made a big deal about how he thought he was going home if he gave up the immunity (which from all the discussion definitely didn't seem to be the case - Cassandra was going to get tossed), and he when trying to justify it kept blabbing on and on about CHANCE FOR MILLION DOLLARS!! He guaranteed that he had absolutely zero chance of winning. He traded a moderate chance of getting voted off followed by a very high chance that his sob story would have given him the win (with a huge plus for honoring a tough deal), in return for a guarantee to the final three and a ZERO chance at the final win.

* Two huge headscratchers for me on rewatches of previous seasons, both involving similar scenarios with people that effectively made the decision for the final elimination. First, on Panama, when Danielle backstabbed Terry in the face of an explicit agreement that everybody knew she had, and then on Fiji, Dreamz infamous refusal to honor his car deal with Yau Man. How in the name of God did that make ANY sense to either of them? It got them to the final jury vote, but they both lost in a HUGE landslide because the jury was disgusted with them - Danielle only got ONE legitimate vote and lost 5-2 (only getting a 2nd because Shane had a fit that neither deserved to win and made them pick a random number that she won) while Dreamz got ZERO in the face of the first unanimous vote. Danielle in particular is idiotic - she had won her spot, she had a well known deal with Terry, most of the members of the jury were from the alliance she had been part of, and Aras was significantly more popular than her in the first place. There was absolutely zero chance she was going to win over Aras, while she had at least a reasonable chance of convincing them to vote for her over Terry, the guy that almost everybody on the jury had been trying to get rid of from the merge and only survived because of an absolutely dominating immunity challenge performance. It just makes no sense that she thought that she had a better chance of winning votes against Aras than Terry. And of course Dreamz - how the hell did he think for one second that he had the slightest chance of winning the final prize after his disgusting backstab?!? He made a big deal about how he thought he was going home if he gave up the immunity (which from all the discussion definitely didn't seem to be the case - Cassandra was going to get tossed), and he when trying to justify it kept blabbing on and on about CHANCE FOR MILLION DOLLARS!! He guaranteed that he had absolutely zero chance of winning. He traded a moderate chance of getting voted off followed by a very high chance that his sob story would have given him the win (with a huge plus for honoring a tough deal), in return for a guarantee to the final three and a ZERO chance at the final win.

* Two huge headscratchers for me on rewatches of previous seasons, both involving similar scenarios with people that effectively made the decision for the final elimination. First, on Panama, when Danielle backstabbed Terry in the face of an explicit agreement that everybody knew she had, and then on Fiji, Dreamz infamous refusal to honor his car deal with Yau Man. How in the name of God did that make ANY sense to either of them? It got them to the final jury vote, but they both lost in a HUGE landslide because the jury was disgusted with them - Danielle only got ONE legitimate vote and lost 6-2 (only getting a 2nd because Shane had a fit that neither deserved to win and made them pick a random number that she won) while Dreamz got ZERO in the face of the first unanimous vote. Danielle in particular is idiotic - she had won her spot, she had a well known deal with Terry, most of the members of the jury were from the alliance she had been part of, and Aras was significantly more popular than her in the first place. There was absolutely zero chance she was going to win over Aras, while she had at least a reasonable chance of convincing them to vote for her over Terry, the guy that almost everybody on the jury had been trying to get rid of from the merge and only survived because of an absolutely dominating immunity challenge performance. It just makes no sense that she thought that she had a better chance of winning votes against Aras than Terry. And of course Dreamz - how the hell did he think for one second that he had the slightest chance of winning the final prize after his disgusting backstab?!? He made a big deal about how he thought he was going home if he gave up the immunity (which from all the discussion definitely didn't seem to be the case - Cassandra was going to get tossed), and he when trying to justify it kept blabbing on and on about CHANCE FOR MILLION DOLLARS!! He guaranteed that he had absolutely zero chance of winning. He traded a moderate chance of getting voted off followed by a very high chance that his sob story would have given him the win (with a huge plus for honoring a tough deal), in return for a guarantee to the final three and a ZERO chance at the final win.

** Two options: she doesn't burn it this time, and becomes a target. Or, she burns it, and the clue doesn't give anyone else a better go at finding the idol.

** It's done in order to discourage tie votes, and so that instead of having to implement a tiebreaker challenge, we have the more fair (and interesting) system of encouraging people to flip sides in order to break the tie and remove the need for a tiebreaker. Purple Rock has been very successful in this this: the only three times the vote went to purple rock since its inception were [[spoiler:Marquesas, which (a) would not happen according to the current rules: Kathy and Neleh would compete in a firemaking contest, and (b) Paschal willing to sacrifice himself is an anomaly and would not be repeated my most competitors]], the second being [[spoiler:Blood vs. Water, where Tyson said in post-game interviews that he would have flipped if not for Redemption Island,]] and the third being [[spoiler: Millennials vs Gen X, where Jessica vocalized wanting to avoid rocks but not flipping on Hannah- ultimately, out of six people she drew it, to everyone else's horror.]]

* In those seasons with returnees mixed with "[[CreatorsPet favourites]]"...why in the ''hell'' do these people who're long-time fans of the show ''not'' vote these guys out ASAP? Haven't they ''seen'' Fans vs. Favourites, where ''even the returnees'' admitted that returnees have an unfair advantage when it comes to those kinds of seasons? I dunno about you, but if I got onto a season and saw two returnees coming off the plane to join us, I'd get that person out as soon as possible...or suspect that everyone's going to get too starstruck to

** Rupert has NEVER been exactly what one might call a good player, and that's putting it lightly. His multiple appearances have more to do with his personality and persona(His first season had a pirate theme, and he looks a lot like a traditional pirate) than his tactical capabilities.

** It's used to discourage tie votes and to give an incentive to players to pick sides. Tie votes used to be broken by past votes(meaning, of the people who are tied, had the most votes cast against them in previous rounds) happened one apiece during the first two seasons, but with alarming frequency in the third season, ''Africa''. For whatever reason, the producers didn't like that.

** It's done in order to discourage tie votes, and so that instead of having to implement a tiebreaker challenge, we have the more fair (and interesting) system of encouraging people to flip sides in order to break the tie and remove the need for a tiebreaker. Purple Rock has been very successful in this this: the only two times the vote went to purple rock since its inception were [[spoiler:Marquesas, which (a) would not happen according to the current rules: Kathy and Neleh would compete in a firemaking contest, and (b) Paschal willing to sacrifice himself is an anomaly and would not be repeated my most competitors]] and [[spoiler:Blood vs. Water, where Tyson said in post-game interviews that he would have flipped if not for Redemption Island.]]

** Also, by the time your tribe goes to Tribal Council, you've been there at least a few days. You're already hungry, probably cold and wet, and maybe you've been struggling to make fire and keep it going and find food. You're also paranoid and worried that you're going to be the first one out. And here's this guy standing there who's done this before and proved he can handle the conditions, who can contribute more on the survival side than most people because of his experience, and who assures you that if you team up with him you'll be safe for a long time. All of a sudden booting him doesn't seem nearly so urgent.

** No points if you guess what Monica did with the clue the second go-around.

* The current strategy of the men's alliance on Tadahna, to vote out the loved one's of the strong players on the opposing side in hopes of them trading places and going to redemtion island fails for two reasons. 1, By voting out a person and if the enemy tribe gains them, they will be less likely to side with the loved ones who voted them out. 2) If the loved ones don't swap out, that's basically putting a big target on themselves by the returnees for going after their loved ones.

** Rupert has NEVER been exactly what one might call a good player, and that's putting it lightly. His multiple appearances have more to do with his personality and persona(His first season had a pirate theme, and he looks a lot like a traditional pirate) than his tactical capabilities.

** Rupert has NEVER been exactly what one might call a good player, and that's putting it lightly. His multiple appearances have more to do with his personality and persona(His first season had a pirate theme, and he looks a lot like a traditional pirate) then his tactical capabilities.

* What, exactly, was Rupert Boneham thinking on Blood vs. Water? All right, so you [[spoiler: took your wife's place on Redemption Island. Touching move, and will show selflessness.]] But now, what have you really done? [[spoiler: Either your wife goes straight back to the tribe that just voted her off (meaning they'll vote her off first chance they get in all likelihood), or she'll go to a tribe where she is the only non-returnee (meaning she's an auto-outsider, and will likely be the first one voted off).]] In either case, [[spoiler: Rupert has pretty much just ensured that, assuming he survives on Redemption Island, he'll have to face his wife, an unenviable position.]] Maybe it's because I'm new to Survivor, and have never seen Rupert Boneham play, but that seems to show a stunning lack of strategy for a four time player.

* Is it just me or do they really need to hide these idols better? They're finding these idols within the first few days now.

* Since they seem to be invoking RealityShowGenreBlindness, has anyone ever ''tried'' to be someone who'll be so epically stupid they'll hand the season's designated "carry" the million? Other than Fabio?

** It's used to discourage tie votes and to give an incentive to players to pick sides. Tie votes used to be broken by past votes(meaning, of the people who are tied, had the most votes cast against them in previous rounds) happened one apiece during the first two seasons, but with alarming frequency in the third season, ''Africa''. For whatever reason, the producers didn't like that.

* The "Purple Rock". why do they do this, still?

* What happened to the Russell Factor? It looks like after Nicaragua, people have been pulling idols out of nowhere with no clues in the first week. We finally got to see a clue, and it's the same poem. What happened to those visual cues? Did they ever state whether or not they thought the visual cues were ''too'' abstract or ''too'' much of a giveaway?