1 post or quitting left... until you know what. stop watching this thread, you did quit
1 post or quitting left... until you know what. stop watching this thread, you did quit
Until what? We already quit.Originally Posted by domka29
Sanity is overrated.
Until i told you.
You're supposed to capitalize the 'I'.
Sanity is overrated.
I know, i'm on my phone. So I didn't click the button to capitalize it, and it's not about spelling now, i'm just gladly waiting for few more words, cause after I realized I have 14 sign-ups - I decided to not change the game, cause few days later I wanted to host a BB game. And you all don't understand, that this is not based on tribe, it is based on strategy.
Imagine that on Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains, the Villains won Immunity, and then Jeff said: "Umm, no. Actually, You Lost! Go to Tribal Council!"
Sanity is overrated.
Never said that. I just said my minds. And i'm trying to explain about strategy which should be in the game.
Yes, strategy is good, but giving out Immunity to two tribe members for no reason isn't.
Sanity is overrated.
But it would be unfair if 3 Letus would vote out 2 Karas.
No, it wouldn't be. That would be the game. How do you know one of them won't pull a Cochran and switch over. Survivor is a numbers game. Take One World for example. The men are being decimated. But do the Producers give all the men immunity and force the women to vote someone out?
Sanity is overrated.
I can't help but agree with everything you said. Those people didn't win immunity nor found a hidden idol so they do not deserve to be immuned in any way. None of us chose to be part of a tribe where your former tribe was in a majority. And you don't seem to understand that any strategy is a strategy. It doesn't have to be yours to be a valuable strategy.
Kim: I am capable of a lot of thinking, but I'm failing to grasp the functioning of this Tribal Council.
Sugar: Let me breat it down for you:
Our tribe is safe this time but when we won't be safe from tribal council in an eventual week: You, Rob and I won't be safe because in our tribe it goes
Us 3 "vs." 2 (N'onka & Amanda) from the original tribes. They will be safe because we "have the numbers" and us 5 will have to vote between us 3 : Kim, Sugar & Rob
Which seems completly fair to our host...yeah...that's pretty much it. Hope I helped [you get mad at this twist]
Kim: Well let's just ally with NaOnka and Amanda to get rid of Rob. What's the problem?
OOC: I don't think our host understands strategy really well.
I dont understand it nor do I like it. I really dont know whats going on. I dont understand the host one bit. :/
But the host can run his game however he wants. So if you dont like it dont play?
It's not that I don't like the game, I just find the twist unfair.
I don't know how to explain this, this twist just doesn't make any sense at all. I don't mind twists and shockers and all that, as long as it remains fair to every player. In this case, it isn't. Yeah we could make alliances with people from a different original tribe but we could also want to ally with people from our original tribe. It isn't up to the host to decide what strategy he wants us to play, it just be up to the players to decide on a strategy that will bring them further.
My last question: should i continue this game?
Yes, that is not the question. The question is about the "twist". I'd say keep the game but remove the twist or make another one because this one is unfair.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
