1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Possible rule change. Survivor players please vote

Discussion in 'ThePHINS.com Team Survivor' started by Dolfan984, Mar 13, 2011.

Possible rule change. Survivor players please vote

Poll closed Mar 20, 2011.
  1. Overturn the rule and go back to last years rule

    6 vote(s)
    40.0%
  2. Keep the new rule

    9 vote(s)
    60.0%
  1. Dolfan984

    Dolfan984 Underrated Free Agent

    4,054
    973
    113
    Apr 26, 2009
    Bay Area, CA
    "Fourth is simple. If a tribe gets over a 1 person lead, they will have to sit out someone out on the next challenge. If you're up 2 members you have to sit 1, 3 members you sit out 2 etc. The same person CANNOT sit out back to back challenges."

    Some people have pointed out that they do not feel a team should be punished because they're winning challenges. If you won, you deserve to have all the teammates who helped you win. Also because you might be sat out, you might not have a chance to shine.

    The other side of the argument is having the rule keeps the possibly weaker team from having an even bigger hill to climb if they do end up losing a couple challenges in a row. It's closer to what the actual survivor does, and allows me to have games like Team Battleship without it being an obvious advantage for the majority tribe.


    Also realize that for some challenges you cannot really sit anybody out, like the guess the picture challenge. Those kind of challenges are also really good if the game became lopsided and the rule gets overturned by you guys.

    Only participants votes will count. I need your vote before the draft starts on Sunday. I need you to post your vote in this thread. Whether you explain why or why not is up to you.


    The new rule has passed

    8 against - Monstblitz, SICK, GISH, Rocky Raccoon, Skeet84, Finfangirl, pennphinfan, Trowa

    11 for - DrAstroZoom, denderfeliac, PSG, GridIronKing34, BIG E, 2k5, Tractor Traylor, Stitches, dukane5, Hurricane, Finascious D
     
  2. Dolfan984

    Dolfan984 Underrated Free Agent

    4,054
    973
    113
    Apr 26, 2009
    Bay Area, CA
    Sigh I hate not being able to edit polls. Please post your vote as well. >.<
     
  3. MonstBlitz

    MonstBlitz Nobody's Fart Catcher

    20,955
    9,771
    113
    Jan 14, 2008
    Alexandria, VA
    I've gone back and forth on this. At first I liked the rule because of what happened to Dender last year. But then I realized that was at a point where there were no official teams anyway so this rule wouldn't have prevented anything. So I'm changing my vote to say keep it the same.
     
    SICK, denderfeliac and Dolfan984 like this.
  4. DrAstroZoom

    DrAstroZoom Canary in a Coal Mine Luxury Box

    8,919
    8,786
    113
    Jan 8, 2008
    Springfield, Ill.
    I think sitting people out would make it closer to the actual Survivor, so I'd vote for that.
     
    denderfeliac and Dolfan984 like this.
  5. denderfeliac

    denderfeliac I Prematurely Blue Myself

    505
    199
    0
    Jun 28, 2010
    Right behind you
    I vote to keep the rule for a couple reasons......
    a. Were playing SURVIVOR so why not use the more authentic rule.
    b. Its going to only affect certain challenges e.g. Battle ship some challenges this rule wont be necessary e.g. word scramble/guess the picture.
    c. It adds a new element of strategy, you have to organize before hand to decide who to sit and inactivity can come back to bite you in the arse.
    [​IMG]
     
    Dolfan984 likes this.
  6. GISH

    GISH ~mUST wARN oTHERS~

    19,895
    9,750
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Over Yonder
    im against sitting people.
     
    SICK and Dolfan984 like this.
  7. Stitches

    Stitches ThePhin's Biggest Killjoy Luxury Box

    48,293
    23,710
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Katy, TX
    I have to think about it more, and am honestly not sure which way I lean. I can see and appreciate both sides, so I would prefer to abstain unless my vote proves to be absolutely necessary. :P
     
    Dolfan984 likes this.
  8. PSG

    PSG Clear Eyes. Full Hearts.

    9,757
    3,429
    113
    Nov 24, 2007
    North of the Border
    Keep the new rule.
    Why? Because gish voted for the other one.
     
    denderfeliac, SICK and Dolfan984 like this.
  9. Dolfan984

    Dolfan984 Underrated Free Agent

    4,054
    973
    113
    Apr 26, 2009
    Bay Area, CA
    Not a problem. You have about a week to decide. If it gets over 10 votes either way it's over though :P
     
  10. GridIronKing34

    GridIronKing34 Silently Judging You Club Member

    23,309
    16,060
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    Denver, CO
    I prefer the new rule... Just for something different, honestly. And while I don't watch Survivor (I have issues with keeping up with a scheduled TV show); I think I'd rather keep it closer to the real game.
     
    denderfeliac and Dolfan984 like this.
  11. Dolfan984

    Dolfan984 Underrated Free Agent

    4,054
    973
    113
    Apr 26, 2009
    Bay Area, CA
    cbs.com has all the episodes. for this season. it's 4 in and it's been a really good season.....the third challenge involves a slide puzzle at the end :lol: give it a chance, you might end up really liking it (i was skeptical at first)
     
    denderfeliac likes this.
  12. Rocky Raccoon

    Rocky Raccoon Greasepaint Ghost Staff Member

    27,731
    27,792
    113
    Dec 2, 2007
    Jersey
    Tough call. I'm going to go against it because I don't think a team should be punished for winning challenges.
     
    SICK and Dolfan984 like this.
  13. Trowa

    Trowa A world of pain

    5,790
    2,699
    113
    May 8, 2008
    I have yet to officially decide my feelings on this rule.
     
    Dolfan984 likes this.
  14. Dolfan984

    Dolfan984 Underrated Free Agent

    4,054
    973
    113
    Apr 26, 2009
    Bay Area, CA
    LMAO ok, you called it ******ed and that's why I started the thread. I have to say I'm a little surprised. :P
     
  15. Dolfan984

    Dolfan984 Underrated Free Agent

    4,054
    973
    113
    Apr 26, 2009
    Bay Area, CA
    I'm honestly like Stitches...and now Trowa where I'm on the fence and see good points on both sides. I'm happier I started this thread now, than I was when I initially thought of it.
     
  16. pennphinfan

    pennphinfan Stelin Canez Arcade Scorz

    5,826
    2,535
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Los Angeles
    i'm just trying to think of ways this rule could be abused somehow. is the person who has to sit out also immune if his/her team loses? otherwise the team could vote to have someone sit out against their wishes, then tank a team challenge, and vote off that person. I suppose that could happen anyway but if that were the case the person who was sitting out wouldn't even have a chance to try to win the challenge against his/her teams wishes

    i'm also on the fence right now, i'm a think about this.. back to jurassic park
     
    MonstBlitz and Dolfan984 like this.
  17. Dolfan984

    Dolfan984 Underrated Free Agent

    4,054
    973
    113
    Apr 26, 2009
    Bay Area, CA
    No that person will not be immune. But you also cannot sit out someone back to back challenges. The captain will decide who sits out, and I'd like to think Skeet or Trowa aren't out to get anyone personally. I'd also think that if someone couldn't make a challenge for some reason, like when Monst had that Ice Fishing trip or whatever it was last year, that would be a good person to choose to sit out.
     
  18. pennphinfan

    pennphinfan Stelin Canez Arcade Scorz

    5,826
    2,535
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Los Angeles
    ok so when its down to like 6-4 and there's a guy on the 6 man team who realizes he's better off siding with the other 4, but the captain on the 6 man team finds out. He can make that person sit out, then tell his team about this guy's "treason", tank the challenge, and vote him off. I realize that sounds complicated, but just saying wouldn't be surprised if it happened.
     
    Dolfan984 likes this.
  19. Dolfan984

    Dolfan984 Underrated Free Agent

    4,054
    973
    113
    Apr 26, 2009
    Bay Area, CA
    I agree in extreme cases, but in this case (if it were last years rules) and the team with 6 somehow won, the numbers would still be 5-4. If you're going to possibly backstab your tribe and you get caught, you probably deserve to lose. Look what happened with SICK, and he was a captain! (and a really good one at that) If you look at the last four challenges from last year, there's no way one person could solo another team. If a team wants to throw a challenge it's really hard to do too much about it as one person.
     
    denderfeliac and pennphinfan like this.
  20. Big E

    Big E Plus sized porn star

    31,903
    8,694
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Bloomington, IN.
    I voted new rule.
     
    denderfeliac and Dolfan984 like this.
  21. Skeet84

    Skeet84 New Member

    7,661
    2,275
    0
    Dec 14, 2007
    I dont think a team should be punished for winning. However the main reason I don't like this rule of sitting people is say one has to sit a person for a challenge like battleship and other team ends up winning a couple of challenges than has to sit someone for word scramble. They can still unscramble words without us knowing. So biggest thing is that sitting people can't be enforced for every challenge and could give a team a certain advantage.
     
    Trowa and Dolfan984 like this.
  22. Dolfan984

    Dolfan984 Underrated Free Agent

    4,054
    973
    113
    Apr 26, 2009
    Bay Area, CA
    Sitting people wouldn't be possible for some challenges. For the one's that are, like battleship then yeah, you'd sit someone out. For the word scramble where you send me the answers in one team PM, nobody would be sitting out. For each challenge I'd let you know whether someone has to sit out or not.

    The point of it is for a game like battleship if the numbers are 9 vs 6 somehow the team with 6 is going to be really screwed going against 9 people. You can say well the other team won enough they deserve their members. I think a 7 vs 6 game would be much more intense and close.
     
    denderfeliac likes this.
  23. Dolfan984

    Dolfan984 Underrated Free Agent

    4,054
    973
    113
    Apr 26, 2009
    Bay Area, CA
    By the way guys I appreciate everyone's questions/opinions. Even if the new rule passes it's going to be much more refined from all the input you guys gave me.
     
  24. MonstBlitz

    MonstBlitz Nobody's Fart Catcher

    20,955
    9,771
    113
    Jan 14, 2008
    Alexandria, VA
    I think PSG raises a good point, but not even just for the reason of sitting people just to vote them out. If someone doesn't even get a chance to participate in a challenge and everyone who did participate did well, the person who sat out could automatically be more likely to get voted out especially since captains are most likely to sit their weakest players. I don't like the idea of someone getting voted off without having a chance to prove their worth in a challenge. That's just me though.

    Also it seems like the best argument for keeping the new rule is "it's more like the real Survivor". I think what works on TV doesn't necessarily always translate to a message board survivor game.
     
    Big E and Dolfan984 like this.
  25. SICK

    SICK Lounge Moderator

    72,726
    35,404
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Charlotte NC
    Agreed 100%
     
    Big E, MonstBlitz and Dolfan984 like this.
  26. Finfangirl

    Finfangirl Season Ticket Holder Luxury Box

    9,928
    51,109
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    Bay Area, Ca
    I vote for not keeping people out.
     
    Dolfan984 likes this.
  27. 2k5

    2k5 I miss Ted Ginn Jr.

    2,781
    1,309
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Milwaukee, WI
    I am for the rule only if it is more than a one person advantage. That way it will be an advantage but it won't be super unfair.
     
    Dolfan984 likes this.
  28. Dolfan984

    Dolfan984 Underrated Free Agent

    4,054
    973
    113
    Apr 26, 2009
    Bay Area, CA
    Yeah it would only be sitting people after they were up by over one member.

    I'm hoping it's a close race again like last year though :P
     
  29. Dolfan984

    Dolfan984 Underrated Free Agent

    4,054
    973
    113
    Apr 26, 2009
    Bay Area, CA
    In my opinion the best argument is what I said earlier. I'll just put it in quotations.

    "The point of it is for a game like battleship if the numbers are 9 vs 6 somehow the team with 6 is going to be really screwed going against 9 people. You can say well the other team won enough they deserve their members. I think a 7 vs 6 game would be much more intense and close. "

    A team with 50% more shots is probably going to win that challenge. It would be a pretty safe bet.

    Both sides have good points. I'm very curious how the last 8 votes will turn out.
     
    denderfeliac likes this.
  30. Tractor Traylor

    Tractor Traylor Crafty Veteran

    851
    293
    63
    Jan 5, 2008
    Kansas City, MO
    This.
     
    denderfeliac and Dolfan984 like this.
  31. SICK

    SICK Lounge Moderator

    72,726
    35,404
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Charlotte NC
    why not have those games in the begining of the competition so that wont happen? theres gotta be a way or a bunch of games you can backload the competition so if someone has a big numbers advantage it wont be as bad....?

    I just hate handicapping a team thats kicking ***, should be more of a motivation to not lose.....

    imo the survivor last year was a blast, alot of close games, and the rule was how it is then....why change it? Not gunna get a much better competition than we had last year.
     
    Big E, Dolfan984 and MonstBlitz like this.
  32. Trowa

    Trowa A world of pain

    5,790
    2,699
    113
    May 8, 2008
    You don't know me very well do you? :up:

    :innocent:
     
    SICK, Dolfan984 and MonstBlitz like this.
  33. MonstBlitz

    MonstBlitz Nobody's Fart Catcher

    20,955
    9,771
    113
    Jan 14, 2008
    Alexandria, VA
    You make a good point. To that I would say this - if a team has a big lead, odds are they are going to still be carrying a little bit of "dead weight" i.e. players who aren't overly active. Might not be the case if the captain drafted a team full of rock stars, but I would say a couple of them would not be those guys who are going to sit there setting their alarm clocks in the middle of the night to "take shots". While the team that has the disadvantage has likely weeded out some of the weaker members by then and should be able to still make it competitive. They would still have a disadvantage, no doubt about it, but it shouldn't be too drastic.

    Also, like Sick said games where numbers are important could be more towards the start of the game. I think it will be fun either way, I just think this way would be easier and would give teams more incentive to not lose challenges. Plus it's less work for you! :up:
     
    SICK and Dolfan984 like this.
  34. Stitches

    Stitches ThePhin's Biggest Killjoy Luxury Box

    48,293
    23,710
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Katy, TX
    I ended up voting to keep the "new" rule. I just kept thinking about Top Shot and the strategy they have to have when teams get uneven.
     
    Dolfan984 likes this.
  35. MonstBlitz

    MonstBlitz Nobody's Fart Catcher

    20,955
    9,771
    113
    Jan 14, 2008
    Alexandria, VA
    I love that we're already debating fiercely and the game hasn't even started yet. Hell, with the way this poll is going we could just make it people who like new rule on one team and people who don't like it on the other. Providing Skeet and Trowa vote differently on this thing.
     
    Trowa, SICK and Dolfan984 like this.
  36. Dolfan984

    Dolfan984 Underrated Free Agent

    4,054
    973
    113
    Apr 26, 2009
    Bay Area, CA
    Oh I will. But at this point it's so close back and forth I'm going to let the majority decide. But if the old rule wins out, then yeah I will front load those competitions.
     
  37. dukane5

    dukane5 New Member

    367
    105
    0
    Jun 9, 2009
    Los Angeles, CA
    I agree...keep it as close to the real Survivor as possible.
     
    Dolfan984 likes this.
  38. Trowa

    Trowa A world of pain

    5,790
    2,699
    113
    May 8, 2008
    i can totally see the merit in the intent of the rule, but i just don't think it's fair to teams that work hard to win challenges, and the individuals who wont get to compete. My real problem with this rule is that in conjunction with redemption island, you're really really hammering the winning team by giving the losing team multiple opportunities to catch up.
     
    MonstBlitz and Dolfan984 like this.
  39. Dolfan984

    Dolfan984 Underrated Free Agent

    4,054
    973
    113
    Apr 26, 2009
    Bay Area, CA
    A pre-merge RI player coming back would only go down if a team was getting absolutely smashed. At that point for the sake of competition I might put someone who's been on a roll on RI back in the game.
     
  40. pennphinfan

    pennphinfan Stelin Canez Arcade Scorz

    5,826
    2,535
    113
    Dec 13, 2007
    Los Angeles
    After some thought, I'm fairly sure I will be on the team with a 3 man advantage, so I'm voting for the old rule. :up:
     
    Dolfan984 likes this.

Share This Page