Friday, December 23, 2011

To Fill the Requirements You Must Know the Requirements

"Ok, so I'm just gonna cut to the chase. It's on our buffs. It's about outwitting, outlasting, and outplaying. And when it comes to outplaying I felt like I held my own in challenges. When it came to individual immunity, I won three individual immunities. When it came to outwitting, I definitely felt like there were two parts to it. And one part was the strategic part. And I felt like I did that well. I made a five person alliance from the beginning and I wanted to keep that five person alliance to the end. And it wasn't necessarily the easiest thing to do, but I made sure that my strategy revolved around it. And then the other half of outwitting I think was the social game. And I think it became more clear to me a couple tribals ago that maybe I wasn't so good at the social game. I felt like I made some genuine friendships back at Upolu, but, you know, I’m not a used car salesman. I came out here and I was myself. And I do think I was as honest as possible, so I think I filled the requirements.” - Sophie Clarke

If a player wants to win the game, he has to convince the jury that he is more deserving than the other two people he is sitting in the final three with (or other person, in the case of a final two). The sticking point here is "deserving." What does it mean to be "deserving" of winning the game? Aren't you just the person who played the game the best? And isn't the person who won the game the person who played the best? Well, yes, but when the game is still being played--which is true while the final tribal council is going on--it's impossible to say who is most deserving based on the criteria of "the person who won the game deserved to win." This is the challenge faced by the players arguing to the jury, and it's what makes Sophie's opening statement so incredible. For the first time in Survivor history--both externally and internally to the game--someone attempted to explain what the requirements are for being deserving of winning the game.

Sophie Clarke delivered the best final Tribal Council performance in Survivor South Pacific because she knew what she wanted to say. She broke her game and the game of Survivor down to their most basic level--what their defining characteristic or characteristics are--beyond the generally given "Survivor is Survivor." That statement is certainly true. A thing is what it is. However, it is not sufficient. In order for Sophie to know what she wanted to say, she had to know what she was talking about--the game of Survivor in general and her game specifically. Why? Because every argument is based upon a foundation, some fact or set of facts in reality that the points (and ultimately the claim) in the argument refer to. To better demonstrate what I mean, I'm going to quote Erik Caronda's jury comments from Survivor Samoa:

"If there's one thing that I've learned in this game it is that perception is not reality. Reality is reality, and you (Natalie) are sitting there and that makes you just as dangerous as any one of those guys there. You would say that you are probably the least deserving of the title of Sole Survivor, but maybe, just maybe, in an enviroment filled with arrogance, delusional entitlement, maybe the person who thinks she is least deserving is probably the most."

What Erik is doing here is explaining how his beliefs about the game changed because of what happened in reality. He does this through two steps. First he says that what happens in the game is what happens in the game. The people sitting in the final three are the people sitting in the final three. This statement is the same as the one I already made about who deserves to win the game, just taken back one round of the game to the final three. Second he defines what he thinks are characteristics that a deserving winner would NOT have--arrogance and entitlement. Since Natalie had neither, he deemed her most deserving and voted for her---and because of this content, Erik's speech is the logical predecessor of Sophie's.

What makes Sophie's speech more impressive than Erik's is its two major difference from it. The first is the level of detail. Erik only claimed that someone is, in reality, more deserving of winning the game. He then said that, in the specific instance of Survivor Samoa, Natalie was that person. It's great that he was able to figure it out for his purposes, but not going into detail about what it means to be deserving leaves a player like Sophie in the dark. She is forced to either argue that she deserves to win because she is like Natalie or figure out why Natalie deserved to win beyond the simple statement that she won the game. Sophie tackled that foreboding task with seeming ease.

Just as Erik stated why Mick and Russell didn't deserve to win, Sophie could have easily argued why Albert and Coach didn't deserve to win. Don't misunderstand me. Sophie certainly talked about why Albert and Coach (ok, mainly Albert) shouldn't win at some points, but the primary thrust of her arguments were positive--why she deserved to win. This perspective can clearly be seen in her opening statements. She stated a condition of what it meant to be deserving and then provided a concrete example of how she filled that requirement. She then stated another condition and then another relevant example. It was an approach that let the jury know where she stood and what they would be voting for if they wrote her name down. It was something that Albert and Coach did not do and perhaps the power that pushed her to the final victory.

Being able to argue for herself increased the value Sophie took from the game. She earned the title and the money. She is now a million dollars richer (well, pre-taxes anyway) and is in an elite group of 22 people. The title of Sole Survivor can never be taken away from her for the rest of her life. No matter what happens to her (barring NCAA investigations), she can always look back on her accomplishment and be proud. In other words, in order to be the most deserving, she first had to know what it meant to be most deserving. Only then could she go about checking the boxes and explaining how she did.

Unless we're one of the lucky few who get to play the game, we'll never have a chance to be able to check those boxes. However it is still to our advantage to figure out what they are exactly. Why? Because, like Sophie, the more we know about them, the more value we get out of Survivor. It is impossible to talk about what it means to deserve to win Survivor if you don't know what it means to be deserving. Yes, you can always say a player deserved to win if he won, but that only points back to the question of what does it mean to be deserving. Imagine if Sophie had argued that she deserved to win because she deserved to win. No one would have taken her seriously, and she might not have won at all.

The title of Sole Survivor is an achievement and people deserve to be praised for it. However, they're not the only players who deserved to be praised. Many players check many of the boxes but fail at the most important ones. Knowing what it means for a player to be deserving, allows us as fans to praise players for checking any assortment of boxes--and that is what being a fan is about. You appreciate the thing you're a fan of. I don't know about you, but I'm a fan of Survivor so I appreciate it and those who excel at it.

Erik taught us that Survivor is Survivor (reality is reality). Sophie taught us that there are requirements to fill to win the game. She also provided us with a good start as to what those requirements are. Now it's up to us to define them on a detailed enough level to know who the players we appreciate the most are and argue for them. Otherwise we're just doing Coach Things. I suppose that's good enough for three votes. I just prefer to win.


Anonymous said...

This is fairly accurate, but still hyperbolic. Yes, Sophie gave a great FTC speech, but is that more impressive as having the game won before you get there? Near the end of her speech, Sophie actually expresses that she was lackluster in the social part, as evidenced by her fight with Ozzy earlier on. She was simply better than the other 2, which isn't a stretch. In exit interviews, Ozzy has stated that the game was Coach's to win or lose, based on a back-and-forth between the two players that lasted 5 or 6 minutes. If Coach had answered it correctly, he would have won, and Sophie would have been marginalized.

I think your point that Sophie won by not being as eccentric as the others is fairly debatable. Sophie completely broke character at F5 TC and was reduced to a blubbering mess. If the theme of the season was that the calm and collected player survives over the emotional, Rick would have stayed and Sophie would leave. You'd have to be a fool not to see that. And no, Sophie did not "regain her poise", Probst offered her that option, and she brushed him off.

I like Sophie and think she played well, but I found this whole post to be fairly comical.

Jayemel said...

@Anonymous: Your two points seem to be misunderstandings of my last two columns. Below I'll attempt to explain them to you.

1. The point of the article you are commenting on was not to analyze why the result of the Survivor South Pacific final tribal council was what it was. It was to understand Sophie's argument and what it teaches us. As I said, "For the first time in Survivor history--both externally and internally to the game--someone attempted to explain what the requirements are for being deserving of winning the game."

2. I never said the theme of the season was "that the calm and collected player survives over the emotional" (although, even if that were the case, it's impossible to say Rick was calm and collected, as he was barely shown, so he couldn't be characterized as anything). I described the theme as, "Beloved characters new and old were unable to get their hands on the million, falling victim to their tragic flaws. In essence, they were unprepared to deal with the game because they didn't know how to deal with themselves."

As for the poise point, nowhere did I say she regained her poise at that same Tribal Council. In fact, if you look at what I wrote, the two points AFTER my use of the word poise are about things that happened AFTER that Tribal Council: "And it was at that Tribal Council Sophie showed how to truly deal with your demons. As Ozzy barraged her with insults, pointing out her (possibly tragic) flaw and driving her to tears, she acknowledged it, put it in proper perspective, and regained her poise. Like with all the other information she had gathered, she turned around and used it in the final Tribal Council to argue her case. Most important of all, she actually slayed the dragon: after beating Ozzy in the final immunity challenge, she was knighted by Coach and then declared herself the new Dragon Slayer as she voted out Ozzy."

Davego said...

As you know, I am a fan of the game. I mean that in the same sense that you and Russell are fans of the game. (That's right, I said you and Russell have something in common!)

As such Sophie's speech appealed to me because it was a plea toward the type of person that should win the game... someone that outwitted and outplayed and thus outlasted. However, I don't believe that is what won the game for her.

What won it is, sadly, what wins it so often: she was less hated by the Jury than the other people at the final.

Did she truly outwit? No, because ultimately she hid behind Coach's moves. She picked a person, followed them to the end and then at the last minute jumped in front of them to declare how well they had played. The same happened with Sandra in Rupert's first season. My proof? At what point during the season did you ever think "Wow, Sophie is really outwitting everyone's gameplay and taking them out?" Never. On the outwit front Coach should have won. (as much as it pains me to say that.)

Did she outplay? Sure, she won 3 challenges but where they truly pivotal? It may have saved her once, but I don't think she was really ever at risk. If anyone outplayed it was Ozzy. But he demonstrated, just like those challenge kings before him, that it is not enough.

No, her claim was she outlasted. She picked the right person to carry her to the end and made sure not to hurt too many feelings. I wouldn't even say it was an outstanding social game as people didn't really like her, they just didn't dislike her as much as the others.

And, this is the flaw in the game ala Russell... Sophie followed the best strategy: pick a great player, cuddle up to them and do as they say while offending as few people as possible.

And to a fan of the game this is just not a respectable play even though it is the most effective.

My proof? Ethan. Amber. Vecepia. Sandra. Sophie.

So, while the appeal of "I played the best" appeals to me, it is rarely the case. It is really "I made it and pissed the fewest people off."

Jayemel said...


In regard to Russell:

While I believe Russell makes a fundamental mistake in openly disrespecting other players in the game, I have always walked a middle ground (or shall we say Midside?) with my opinion of him. He took Hidden Idol play to its logical end--keep finding the Idol and playing it. He also made sure he got to the end. He definitely has skill as a Survivor player, but results have shown that he hasn't won. You have to acknowledge that in any analysis of his game play.

In regard to Sophie:

There is no valid reason to throw Sophie's immunity wins out as unimportant. She won them. That was part of the game she played to win. That's like saying, "Team X won by 7 points, so the last 6 don't really count toward them playing well."

The jury and editors disagree with you that Sophie didn't outwitted Coach and Albert, and I am going to have to side with the evidence they presented me. Sophie was aligned to the F3 with Coach, Albert, and Rick. She got Coach to vote out his two most important allies--Cochran and Edna--and side with her at F5. She also managed to convince both Coach and Albert that she wasn't jury threat to them. That is all pretty much the definition of outwitting in Survivor.

In regard to there being "a flaw in the game:"

The game is the game. The idea there there is a flaw in it is based on a wish for it to be something other than it is. It is basically saying "The game's purpose is to find X, but it finds Y, therefore it is flawed." However, the game's purpose is not to find anything. It is just to be played. The question you have to ask yourself is, do you like what is found when it is played? From your argument, it seems to me that you don't. Personally if there were a game that rewards the type of person I don't like, I would ignore the game as unimportant.

However, I find that Survivor rewards the good, and for that I enjoy it. Yes, sometimes people win because other players made more mistakes, but that happens in any sport. As far as your specific examples, Ethan, Sandra, and Sophie played the best games on their seasons. Amber and Vecepia, on the other hand, are outliers due to extremely unique circumstances (as is Bob and possibly Danni).

Yog said...

Laptop malfunction meant I couldn't finish out watching the Season by reading your accompanying blogs, but I'm all caught up now, back for the new series and looking forward to your thoughts on proceedings.

Anonymous said...

You can match a businesѕ new receiρt againѕt this invoice.
Outsourcing is present in 14 busineѕs cοuntries
including seven that are not addгessed. The compаny fіled for Chapter 11 bаnkruptсy protеctiоn on Feb.
But the ѕource of conflict involving different nations.

Тhe Envy Speсtгe XT wіll
be аѵailablе for other more important matters.
The acсommodation is very spacious with lounge anԁ dining areа
сan actually rеnder your home feel more at home.

Ηeгe iѕ my web pagе :
: internet marketing system

Anonymous said...

Get the facts propecia generic vs. name brand - propecia generic brand

Anonymous said...

Rolls Royce PhantomRolls Royce Phantom has a timeless design with no chances of getting retired in next
ten years or so. Second, Search Used Cars are complex and small,
so they don't need extra focus for a third pedal or to remember which way to turn the stick to switch to electric drive in heavy traffic.

Feel free to surf to my page :: buy used car online