Gonna list things that sometimes makes me want to facedesk. Feel free to add to the list and I'll add it if I like it.
When asked for a vote to save, responds with "I'll try" and then voting against them anyway.
"Me and my best friend aren't f2 and haven't whispered all game, why are you splitting us up."
"I'm not a threat, so you guys are so stupid for voting me out."
Players taking the game personally.
Thinking that people suddenly trying to be best friends with you is genuine when they are simply looking for safety because you just won HoH.
Thinking that you're the only one "playing the game"
Refusing to vote for the player that "had to win challenges to stay in" in jury because you were too strategically inept to vote them out before they went on to win the last few challenges in a row.
Thinking that there's only one "right" way to play the game
Arguing that you technically didn't betray your f2 because they weren't your "first f2 deal".
Players taking the game personally.
Thinking that a flashy game automatically means good gameplay.
"I said I wouldn't nominate you... but I didn't say anything about renom after pov... so technically I didn't lie..."
Pretending to use random.org to decide the nomination. - Facewall bonus if they post a screenshot of whatever number they got.
Thinking that you're the only one "playing the game"
Getting mad for getting stabbed in STAB!
Someone asking if they can give their HoH away cause "they don't want to hurt anyones feelings"
Players taking the game personally.
Pretending to have no opinion on anything when talking strategy with someone.
Tryharding in the d1 HoH only to nominate newbies.
Thinking that there's only one "right" way to play the game
Players thinking that alliances are meant to be upheld all the way till final 2.
"If you didn't win in challenges you clearly floated your way to the end"
Being proud of yourself for making a "big move" when all you did was destroy your own game.
Thinking that you're the only one "playing the game"
Thinking that two people helping each other equates to a final 2 deal between them.
Trying to claim a finalist played a bad game because they didn't play your game.
Suiciding out of the game because your circlejerk friends didn't make it in.
Thinking that a non-flashy game automatically means bad gameplay.
Players taking the game personally.
Suiciding out of the game because the game isn't going your way.
Deluded people that think they got out for being a threat when they simply sucked at the game and didn't deserve to stay.
Pretending to have no opinion or power on anything.
Continuing the "no opinion" charade by pretending to use random.org when winning HoH.
"I'm not a threat, so you guys are stupid for voting me out."
Announcing out loud that you're not going to kiss the HoH's butt, because for some reason you think that it's different from whispering them
When you betray your closest ally because "they are a huge threat" and then you get voted out next.
Being deluded enough to think that you played better than someone else only because you made it further than them.
1) When asked for a vote to save, responds with "I'll try" instead of either telling the truth (won't vote for them) or flat out lying to them: GUILTY
2) Asking for an alliance d1 only to not talk to them for the rest of the game.
I've gotten better at not doing this, but I was really egregious at this.
3) Being proud of yourself for making a "big move" when all you did was destroy your own game.
GUILTY
4) Pretending to have no opinion or power on anything: GUILTY, although sometimes I really do have no opinion on who should be voted off, so I'm just asking around to find out what the general thoughts are.
Some additions:
Someone who hasn't talked to you all game whispering you suddenly "Hey can you try and help campaign for me"
I think the people should vote in jury is that they should weigh each person's social/strategic/physical qualities, average them, and the higher one gets your vote. That's loosely how I vote for jury. And if they tie (in my loose ranking system), then I have to think for a little bit longer.
Feel this, that game is a good example. Kasbow dominated the immunities and won his way to the end. However, if he was not safe, he definitely would have been voted out. When compared to your game, you were in no danger the entire game pretty much, and you had a bomb social game ofc, and you still had an immunity win under your belt. I valued the balance of your game more than Kasbow's immunity-reliant game.
I see what u sayin. For me personally, social/strategic game outweigh physical game when I'm deciding my jury vote. I can definitely respect players who rely on physical game because that's a huge part of getting to the end and it shouldn't be ignored. But I tend to lean towards the players who have the most rounded games. If you dominated socially, played a good strategic game, and still managed to win a couple comps, that makes me want to vote for you. If you relied on immunity and competition wins to make finals, and your social game was subpar IN REGARD TO ME PERSONALLY (AKA they weren't a decent human being TO ME or they didn't talk TO ME at all) during the game, then I certainly will not vote you to win against a player who was nicer to me, as long as they had an impact in the game in some way of course. Obviously this is all relative to the players themselves, but yeah like, just bc you can slay competitions isn't an end-all-be-all to earn my jury vote
It makes sense to vote for someone who played a dominant physical game. What people often forget, is everything else that happened, and whether the physical threat was actually a threat for the other finalist. This would come down to jury performance, usually.
And Hard, you do know why people use physical threats as a basis for their vote... Because it's easy!
N1ed got it right with his B answer.
deletedabout 8 years
I think my question is how players like this can possibly be perceived as a threat.
People base it on physical game because A. They're thinking in the now, and they want to actually control the challenges. OR B. They're actually basing it on social game, and this physical threat isn't playing social at all. No one is going to vote out the person who they've been allied with all game, which is why social/strategic players can actually win. If people actually did see social threats and try to vote them, it'd be a major drag.
I agree with Bobby people normally find Physical threats better in jury then social a example is this is I lost a game a week ago to a physical threat with no social game where I had a social game but no physical I feel it's depending on the jury member but more physical then social
I disagree, it seems a lot of jury members translate physical skill into smart strategy, especially in BB. And unless the physical player is like, the worst person in the world, they win over the social based player that wins less challenges.
