Based on the Jury's criteria for who should win, I think this would be a more appropriate slogan. It bothers me greatly that the game is played one way and then judged another. This isn't the "who gives the most hugs" competition. This season of Survivor proved to me one thing: people are hypocrites. They all lie, back-stab, form alliances, deceive, etc. If they don't they align with someone who does or they leave the game early. That's how the game is played. Yet when jury time comes around they act like they don't. Take the hero fan favorite Rupert for example. He gets up at Tribal Council and talks about how Russell took the easy way out by lying, deceiving, manipulating, etc and that the real difficult thing is to remain honest. Yet then at the reunion show he gets up and says "I stole, I lied, I manipulated, and I was one of the heroes! The game is what the game is." Everyone does it and it's wrong to deny that.
Last season Jeff said "I think Russell was the victim of a jury of bitter people. If I were playing Survivor, no matter how much I despised someone, if they kicked my ass in the game I would give it to them. Period. Outwit. Outplay. Nobody outwitted or outplayed Russell. Not even close." and I think that holds up just as well now. It shouldn't be about making friends, that isn't one of the three terms used in the slogan.
Instead they are Outwit, Outplay, Outlast. That should be the criteria the jury uses to name the Sole Survivor. But what do they mean?
Well, to me Outwit is about strategy. Who is the one who was able to keep everyone on their toes? Who found the most hidden idols? Who was running the show and blindsiding people left and right? That person has Outwitted the others.
Outplay is about the physical elements of the game. Who has won the most challenges? Who has helped build shelters? Who can you count on to pull their weight? That person has Outplayed.
Outlast is kind of tricky. Technically all three of the finalists have outlasted. But which one was on the chopping block the most times and yet still lasted? Sandra said herself that she tried her hardest to get rid of Russell three times and yet he made it all the way. While they didn't really want Sandra there, she mostly flew under the radar. There was always someone else just a little bit higher up on the hit-list than her.
I agree with Russell that there is a flaw in the game. The jury gets to pick whoever they want, for whatever reason they want, and that isn't fair. Russell says to bring in America, let them vote. Turn this into Survivor Idol. That I don't agree with. I do think they should keep the jury because they see things we don't. But instead of just letting them pick randomly, they should score the finalists. Have them fill out a questionnaire about them. "On a scale of 1-10 how strategic was Pavarti", "On a scale of 1-10 how instrumental was Sandra in challenges", "On a scale of 1-10 how helpful was Russell around camp", "Rank the 3 finalists in order of who you would least like to go up against again (#1 gets 10 points, #2 gets 6 points, #3 gets 3 points)", etc. Then whoever has the most points in the end wins that persons vote.
What do you think?
