Warning: Minor spoilers from Cambodia & Game Changers

For those of us who've watched the more recent seasons of survivor, we saw historic events where no one got any votes.

The first time this happened was in Cambodia at final 6. The 2 people that received votes played idols, and with the revote, it was 3-3 again, causing a potential rocks scenario where only one person would actually be drawing rocks. Meaning instant elimination.

The second time, it happened in Game Changers at final 6. One person was already immune from the immunity challenge. Then, three idols and a Legacy Advantage were played at that tribal. So all the votes went on people who played idols/legacy, and no one got any votes. On the revote, only one person was actually eligible to be voted for. So they were out by default.

It got me thinking, isn't that a bit too extreme of a situation? Getting out simply because everyone else is immune, despite you not actually getting any votes against?

I think that at a tribal, if no one gets any votes during the tribal council, then no one gets voted out. Simple as that. And we move on to the next round.

Sometimes we revote because there is a tie for the majority vote. But to say it's tied at 0 votes is just... wrong to me.

This would avoid destructive scenarios where someone is out or is the only one to draw rocks simply because everyone else is immune, which I think is good.

I understand why they would never do it on the real show - They are set at 39 days. But here, it's different. We don't have a tight schedule.

We do have some interesting situations though. For instance, in an 11-person tribal, if 2 people get voted but these 2 people play idols, should the round reset? What happens to the person who won immunity but finds out it was for nothing since no one actually got out?

That's all I'll say, it's an open discussion! I want to know what you guys think about all this.