The article reflects on a recent episode of Survivor, where the introduction of the 'Shot in the Dark' twist significantly altered the outcome of the Tribal Council. Despite appreciating this twist, the author criticizes the overall changes in the game following Winners at War. They argue that smaller tribes lead to a flawed game dynamic, where critical decisions are made by a singular person rather than the collective tribe. The author also comments on a contestant's personal life, suggesting it detracts from his gameplay.
I hate nothing more than being wrong, so I must admit that the Shot in the Dark turned out to be a halfway decent twist this week. After saying for a few seasons that it's never used correctly and it doesn't add anything to the game, it turned Tribal Council totally on its head.
This episode proved that all the things I (and plenty of other fans) hate about the post-Winners at War status quo created a crisis in the game itself, which led to one person on a tribe of four deciding who gets to go home.
No one who believes in the integrity of the game and its ideology - that the tribe decides who wins and loses - should be onboard with these changes.
David needs to dump his girlfriend. She is more in love with some idealized, imaginary lifestyle than she is with David, the person, so even if he wins, he needs to show her the door.
Collection
[
|
...
]