@jouzu8.bsky.social
To be fair, David was going for Kamilla in a way people never went for Joe. Kyle had to navigate a tricky spot that could have ruined his game to save her.
Plus Kamilla came to Kyle to say they shouldn't sit together... Kyle also manipulated Joe at points but not Kamilla--they were true partners
Plus Kamilla came to Kyle to say they shouldn't sit together... Kyle also manipulated Joe at points but not Kamilla--they were true partners
May 22, 2025 at 12:40 PM
To be fair, David was going for Kamilla in a way people never went for Joe. Kyle had to navigate a tricky spot that could have ruined his game to save her.
Plus Kamilla came to Kyle to say they shouldn't sit together... Kyle also manipulated Joe at points but not Kamilla--they were true partners
Plus Kamilla came to Kyle to say they shouldn't sit together... Kyle also manipulated Joe at points but not Kamilla--they were true partners
Haha yess!! Also loved your pod (Ced/Sai pris. dilemma so fun)!
I think the best argument against vote disparity feeling unfair is that disparity is accounted for at the first vote! Often you'll win b/c you have a vote and they don't--isn't that enough for (usually) pre-merge, low number tribes?
I think the best argument against vote disparity feeling unfair is that disparity is accounted for at the first vote! Often you'll win b/c you have a vote and they don't--isn't that enough for (usually) pre-merge, low number tribes?
March 22, 2025 at 8:19 AM
Haha yess!! Also loved your pod (Ced/Sai pris. dilemma so fun)!
I think the best argument against vote disparity feeling unfair is that disparity is accounted for at the first vote! Often you'll win b/c you have a vote and they don't--isn't that enough for (usually) pre-merge, low number tribes?
I think the best argument against vote disparity feeling unfair is that disparity is accounted for at the first vote! Often you'll win b/c you have a vote and they don't--isn't that enough for (usually) pre-merge, low number tribes?
And I don’t think advantages should be contingent upon your original vote, esp. when said vote can be lost to the likes of Yahtzee journeys.
SAV shouldn’t both steal a vote and prevent extra vote from person (OP)
Losing vote shouldn’t bar playing EV
If you lose vote, an EV should allow SitD
SAV shouldn’t both steal a vote and prevent extra vote from person (OP)
Losing vote shouldn’t bar playing EV
If you lose vote, an EV should allow SitD
March 21, 2025 at 1:11 PM
And I don’t think advantages should be contingent upon your original vote, esp. when said vote can be lost to the likes of Yahtzee journeys.
SAV shouldn’t both steal a vote and prevent extra vote from person (OP)
Losing vote shouldn’t bar playing EV
If you lose vote, an EV should allow SitD
SAV shouldn’t both steal a vote and prevent extra vote from person (OP)
Losing vote shouldn’t bar playing EV
If you lose vote, an EV should allow SitD
Re: target status, pre-47 rules, possibly excepting vote advantages (will need to mull). I.e., tied leading vote-getters lose their OG votes, or nothing if already lost. But based on theme that these people are up for exile (so have lost say), not old mechanic that they can only vote for each other.
March 21, 2025 at 1:09 PM
Re: target status, pre-47 rules, possibly excepting vote advantages (will need to mull). I.e., tied leading vote-getters lose their OG votes, or nothing if already lost. But based on theme that these people are up for exile (so have lost say), not old mechanic that they can only vote for each other.
The low numbers, high advantages/lost votes game especially.
But you made a good case they did the best they could post-47. Think I’d like target status (as you say) to govern past the initial vote. And for lost votes/vote advantages to be non-status-related (maybe forget vote “status” entirely).
But you made a good case they did the best they could post-47. Think I’d like target status (as you say) to govern past the initial vote. And for lost votes/vote advantages to be non-status-related (maybe forget vote “status” entirely).
March 21, 2025 at 9:14 AM
The low numbers, high advantages/lost votes game especially.
But you made a good case they did the best they could post-47. Think I’d like target status (as you say) to govern past the initial vote. And for lost votes/vote advantages to be non-status-related (maybe forget vote “status” entirely).
But you made a good case they did the best they could post-47. Think I’d like target status (as you say) to govern past the initial vote. And for lost votes/vote advantages to be non-status-related (maybe forget vote “status” entirely).
Yea I think this is an amazing vote to do a case study on for future players. That said, I still don't think I fully understand how the SAV works in terms of when it carries through to re-votes and how it interacts with the extra vote. Excited for your pod!
March 21, 2025 at 6:53 AM
Yea I think this is an amazing vote to do a case study on for future players. That said, I still don't think I fully understand how the SAV works in terms of when it carries through to re-votes and how it interacts with the extra vote. Excited for your pod!
Yea this vote has so many layers! Last night I spent so long thinking about what if Kyle and Kamilla didn't play the idol, only the extra vote (under presumption extra vote still usable even if you tie for most votes). Created a flowchart based on K+K's position not knowing Thomas' journey outcome.
March 21, 2025 at 6:40 AM
Yea this vote has so many layers! Last night I spent so long thinking about what if Kyle and Kamilla didn't play the idol, only the extra vote (under presumption extra vote still usable even if you tie for most votes). Created a flowchart based on K+K's position not knowing Thomas' journey outcome.
Yea that's true and I suppose the 3-1 also assumes optimal play by the idol+extra vote pair, which is often not a safe assumption.
This is Bryan, also! We podded together in the summer with Josh! Last couple weeks of US Survivor have driven me crazy enough to make an account here for discussion.
This is Bryan, also! We podded together in the summer with Josh! Last couple weeks of US Survivor have driven me crazy enough to make an account here for discussion.
March 21, 2025 at 6:10 AM
Yea that's true and I suppose the 3-1 also assumes optimal play by the idol+extra vote pair, which is often not a safe assumption.
This is Bryan, also! We podded together in the summer with Josh! Last couple weeks of US Survivor have driven me crazy enough to make an account here for discussion.
This is Bryan, also! We podded together in the summer with Josh! Last couple weeks of US Survivor have driven me crazy enough to make an account here for discussion.
But after stealing the vote, isn't the main thing you're worried about an extra vote plus idol combo? If there is no extra vote, then you have a 3-1-1 into a 2-1 re-vote at worst. But if extra vote plus idol beats the 2-2 split using SAV, why bother with the 2-2? I guess BAV+idol could foil a 3-1.
March 21, 2025 at 5:39 AM
But after stealing the vote, isn't the main thing you're worried about an extra vote plus idol combo? If there is no extra vote, then you have a 3-1-1 into a 2-1 re-vote at worst. But if extra vote plus idol beats the 2-2 split using SAV, why bother with the 2-2? I guess BAV+idol could foil a 3-1.
What if Thomas chooses a 3-1 split with the stolen vote instead of 2-2? Could think Kamilla has an extra vote b/c of journey. If Fishbach is right re: SAV, and Thomas understood the rule, no point in a 2-2 split. If 3-1, 50/50 of whether the idol is correctly played. If wrong, Cali girls win 3-2.
March 21, 2025 at 5:08 AM
What if Thomas chooses a 3-1 split with the stolen vote instead of 2-2? Could think Kamilla has an extra vote b/c of journey. If Fishbach is right re: SAV, and Thomas understood the rule, no point in a 2-2 split. If 3-1, 50/50 of whether the idol is correctly played. If wrong, Cali girls win 3-2.