Survivor: Gabon - featuring Melee champion Ken

[mitch2302]

thats what you get for blasphemy.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I call dibs: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=211129

 

[choknater]

Don't get me wrong. It's fun seeing more pics, but those were from private albums. It's just respectful.

Hahah nice, maybe we should do it more.

 

[Yuna]

Umm, it's a TV show. The powers that be don't give 2 craps about what's fair or random or who deserves what. They care about making the show as entertaining as possible. Watching that tribe switch happen and then watching Onion being too stubborn and arrogant to do anything but whine as their ship went down in flames (instead of um I don't know, ADAPTING?) was highly entertaining.
Why does no one talk about how Susie's name was written down along with Dan's the week before that tribe switch? I'm sure that placed just the right amount of insecurity in her that might have caused her to flip. The Dan vote was the beginning of the unravelling of the Onion, Susie just pulled the string a bit.

This is not at all what I'm talking about. I did not ever argue whether it was right or wrong, fair or not fair, whatever.
a
The subject of randomness in Survivor was brought up, I mentioned the last switch-around. I didn't say it was totally unfair, I did not say CBS should/shouldn't have done this or that, I did not say anything except pointing out that it was quite random and randomized the game and results, comparable to items (since we were drawing Smash parallels).

Not once did I argue any of the things you're currently arguing. I don't know why they did it, if it was planned or not. I don't know if they intentionally stirred things up. I'm not arguing those things.

Well, this season, Sugar was all the randomness it needed.

But Sugar was still a player. The "randomness" was still in the hands of the players.

Even the first tribe-switch was kinda not-random. People still got to pick tribe members. The last one was just totally random. Pick a stone out of a bag without looking. Yay!

Unless they start ranking how you did in challenges and the person with the lowest score goes home, there will always be "randomness" in Survivor. The social aspect and alliance-forming parts of the game assure this.

edit: @ that Reality News Online quote:
huh. I did think it was odd that at the beginning of the episode after Ken wrote down Matty, Sugar said "matty has to go next." So it really was Crystal being mean to him that made her switch.....how ********.

That's not randomness. That's just another way of determining who stays. The decision is still up to the players, a democracy. Are elections random? No, never (as long as they're run properly). Neither are tribals.

It's not random, it's just that the fate of the players aren't in their own respective hands. But at least it's in their hands as a collective.

 

[Quail Man]

I wanna see Survivor: Antarctica.

Survivor: New York FTW

I wanna see Survivor: Philippines (for obvious reasons). I'm sure they'd find some way to deal with the terrorists

Survivor: General Brawl Discussion

Seriously, not ONE person would be able to survive that.

"What happened to Lisa?"
"She's stuck in a locked post."
"Oh, gotcha"

No, they should have Survivor: Soviet Russia.

 

[Steeler]

So unless they got a Ken impersonator to do that or Ken was blatantly lying to his closests ally, Crystal, for no reason, I'm calling shennanigans.

remember how ken needlessly lied to susie, crystal, and matty about charlie being the brains of the whole kota operation? it was just a ploy to pay him back for screwing up ken's idol shot at the merge dinner. ken could have just said "charlie's a likeable guy, he's an II threat, let's take him out" but instead lied about charlie. OBVIOUSLY ken's not going to admit to his allies that this is all just payback, but ken didn't need to make up a lie either. perhaps that's what happened with crystal there, too.

 

[Yuna]

remember how ken needlessly lied to susie, crystal, and matty about charlie being the brains of the whole kota operation?

That was with all of them together, though. He had to lie to get them all to vote for Charlie (since Charlie wasn't much of a physical threat and people hated Randy). They had no reason to vote for Charlie, so he made one up.

OBVIOUSLY ken's not going to admit to his allies that this is all just payback, but ken didn't need to make up a lie either. perhaps that's what happened with crystal there, too.

Crystal is his closest ally. And he had no reason to lie to her about this. Charlie was an iffy choice to vote off since he wasn't an immediate threat at all, hence why he had to spin that lie about Charlie actually being a threat. Besides, there were plenty of reasons to vote for Corinne. Corinne was already on the chopping block.

Corinne and Bob were next to go, anyway. Crystal was going to vote for them, anyway, but then they came up with the 2nd fake idol and stuff. If Ken had just told Crystal that he knew it was fake, she would not have hesitated to vote them out. Why the random, totally unnecessary lie?

And if he really was playing Bob and Corinne for their votes at the expense of Matty's, why did he turn on Bob the very next episode? Even if his plan had succeeded, Bob would still have known that Ken (and his ally Crystal) had voted for him when the vote turned out to be 4-1 unless Ken was going to mindgame everyone and vote for Matty instead, making it 3-2. He would also have become suspicious if everyone had randomly gone to him and said "We're voting Ken out" only to turn around and not do so. So he would've just sacrificed Matty's vote for Corinne's while Bob's vote would've gone to someone else instead of having Bob's vote potentially going to himself + Matty's + Corinne's already in the bag.

 

[Steeler]

well, in an interview ken stated that he talked the matty vote with both sugar and crystal, and they both said it was fine. ken then talked to corinne and bob and they told him that he'd have their jury vote if he put matty's name down.

iirc, crystal said that she believed the idol was most likely fake, but wasn't sure.

about the next few episodes... i think bob offered the immunity necklace to ken without ken asking for it at first, so ken decided to spin this to his advantage by then backstabbing him and removing the biggest immunity threat in the game. obviously this completely ruins ken's previous plan of earning bob and corinne's votes so...i think ken just made an error here and decided that the chance to eliminate bob was worth more than those two jury votes. perhaps ken totally forgot about those jury votes.

i think ken just decided to take a huge risk (which backfired after angering and losing matty, sugar, and susie) and then made the risk he took pointless by plotting to take bob out anyway.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

But Sugar was still a player. The "randomness" was still in the hands of the players.

Even the first tribe-switch was kinda not-random. People still got to pick tribe members. The last one was just totally random. Pick a stone out of a bag without looking. Yay!

I know. I was just expressing my overall distaste for how Sugar played. You are absolutely correct.

The bottom line is that Survivor is a TV show. We as smashers are good at analyzing the "competitive aspect" of games, but introducing random twists and seeing how players deal with those random events makes for a better show. Survivor is unique in being a spectacular blend of a game and a sitcom. The drama is natural.

 

[Subach]

With all due respect, I don't think Ken represented gamers very well.

Getting genuinely mad about Bob "stabbing him in the back" when he was about to do the same thing to him seemed hypocritical.

I understand if Kenny was genuinely mad about losing, but I think it was possibly for him to handle it a bit more gracefully.

I'm sorry if I came off as too harsh, I just wish that this didn't end for gamers possibly worse off in the national eye, when this was an opportunity to show that yes, we're good people too.

Just my two cents.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

With all due respect, I don't think Ken represented gamers very well.

Getting genuinely mad about Bob "stabbing him in the back" when he was about to do the same thing to him seemed hypocritical.

I understand if Kenny was genuinely mad about losing, but I think it was possibly for him to handle it a bit more gracefully.

I'm sorry if I came off as too harsh, I just wish that this didn't end for gamers possibly worse off in the national eye, when this was an opportunity to show that yes, we're good people too.

Just my two cents.

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree for the most part. The reason you don't see more people jumping down Ken's throat about it is as I pointed out before: these players are starving, tired, irritated, etc. and likely had lapses in judgment normal to being that unhealthy. Also, Ken was an extremely good sport when the game was over. He commended his opponents for taking him out and accepted his loss.

With that said, I think Ken represented gamers just fine. He didn't let his emotions get in the way most of the game, and he knew how to not be a scrub.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

With all due respect, I don't think Ken represented gamers very well.

Getting genuinely mad about Bob "stabbing him in the back" when he was about to do the same thing to him seemed hypocritical.

I understand if Kenny was genuinely mad about losing, but I think it was possibly for him to handle it a bit more gracefully.

I'm sorry if I came off as too harsh, I just wish that this didn't end for gamers possibly worse off in the national eye, when this was an opportunity to show that yes, we're good people too.

Just my two cents.

Well, it wasn't the backstab that he was upset about, but merely that he was insisting Bob was still holding himself as "the good guy" when that just wasn't the case. I don't think he wanted an apology. He merely wanted Bob to admit he was playing the game, and in doing so, isn't the paragon he's been made out to be.

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

You guys should take a look at that interview to get Ken's take the Bob conflict clarified.
Ken wasn't mad at Bob because he lied, he was mad at Bob because he claimed to be a man of his word and he wasn't. What Ken wanted Bob to say at final TC was "I was never going to keep my word, I'm playing the game". Ken also wanted Sugar to admit that she was playing him, that's why he was dissatisfied with her answer.
Off course it frustates him that people around him claim to be playing honestly when they really aren't.... They're really playing the game, just like he is.

Oh, and that interview is obviously 100% real and I don't think Ken is lying to the interviewer for no apparent reason.
Just because he said one thing at one time doesn't mean that his (and crystals) knowledge of what was actually going on and his (and crystals) plan developed further later on.
Also, he said at one point in the show that it was a strategic move to get jury votes (from corrine and bob). And at another point in the show he said it was to gain Bob's trust (iirc, mightve been an extra clip)

BTW, after reading interviews of Sugar I REALLY take back wanting her to win.... read it and you'll find out why >.>

I wanted Ken to win, and after that probably Charlie since they where the most strategic players. As much as I dislike Charlie, I really wanted a strategic player to win...

like in the first season of survivor I love watching Richard (the winner of the first season) destroy all the alliance-moralizing scrubs, and how everything he does has a strategic thought behind it. He never forgets that it's a game, he acts as if it is a game and plans accordingly. I love that.

 

[Subach]

Well, it wasn't the backstab that he was upset about, but merely that he was insisting Bob was still holding himself as "the good guy" when that just wasn't the case. I don't think he wanted an apology. He merely wanted Bob to admit he was playing the game, and in doing so, isn't the paragon he's been made out to be.

Does being a paragon or even just a fairly good guy
mean that he has to blindly throw the game, though?
I don't deny that Bob definitely did his share of playing the game, but IMO not giving Ken his immunity is less bad than Ken trying to get his trust to stab him in the back.

 

[Cyntalan Maelstrom]

Does being a paragon or even just a fairly good guy
mean that he has to blindly throw the game, though?
I don't deny that Bob definitely did his share of playing the game, but IMO not giving Ken his immunity is less bad than Ken trying to get his trust to stab him in the back.

No, but I don't think that's what's asked here. Mike above summed it up pretty well, though, so I'm not gonna regurgitate.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oLS8I2kpCk

Marcus is still a huge scrub.

 

[crazn137]

BTW, after reading interviews of Sugar I REALLY take back wanting her to win.... read it and you'll find out why >.>

Links please

 

[TK Wolf]

Ken clarifies that he did indeed want Bob to say he was playing the game. He wasn't looking for an apology or anything about being "a man of his word":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gqGUNgxWoY&feature=channel_page

 

[Shake~]

Dunno if anyone has posted this yet, but Ken got 15th in the top 15 of Dalton's list or whatever it is.
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20221152_20221155_1532220,00.html

 

[MajorasMask999]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQSeSTH_Uuk

Never forget.

 

[victra♥]

Dunno if anyone has posted this yet, but Ken got 15th in the top 15 of Dalton's list or whatever it is.
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20221152_20221155_1532220,00.html

Wow! Props to Ken.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQSeSTH_Uuk

Never forget.

omg, I cried. That was so sad, but amazing. D=

 

[Sir Bedevere]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQSeSTH_Uuk

Never forget.

That's so incredibly homosexual, it's manly.

Captain Falcon manly.

I cried Falcon Tears.

Props man.

 

[metalmonstar]

That is pretty impressive to get top 15. I bet he would have been placed higher if he actually won though. I am so glad Sugar isn't on that list at all.

 

[LieutenantSerg]

Anyone know where I can watch Episode 14 so i can let it load first then watch it?

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

http://www.fancast.com/tv/Survivor:...bon---Live-Reunion-Show/videos?autoPlay=false

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

Just because he said one thing at one time doesn't mean that his (and crystals) knowledge of what was actually going on and his (and crystals) plan developed further later on.
Also, he said at one point in the show that it was a strategic move to get jury votes (from corrine and bob). And at another point in the show he said it was to gain Bob's trust (iirc, mightve been an extra clip)

Reality TV World: Going back to that Tribal Council where you were trying to flush out Corinne's fake idol, why were you so quick to believe that the idol was real? We all saw [Marcus throw the idol] out into the ocean.

Kenny: Oh, okay. The whole thing with that fake idol was that I thought it was real before Tribal Council, when Corinne made up that whole story and then Crystal came back and was like "Yeah, it looked real to me."

When I saw it, or I didn't even see it, but what I noticed was you know the individual Immunity Necklace?

Reality TV World: Yeah.

Kenny: One of the heads from the idol thing were missing from there. Bob cut one of the heads off and made a little idol out of it with the beads from the torches and a string he got from Exile. And I was like "Wait a minute, that looks like it was just Survivor-made [things]," and you know, it was real metal. It was Survivor-made. And you know when something is handmade, and when something is taken from Survivor [stuff], and he just took it off of Survivor [stuff] and put it together.

I was like "Wait a minute, there's no way he could've made that, it looks legit." But when I saw one of the heads missing I new it was fake. But when I went up to Corinne and Bob and made another deal with them, and besides Corinne said that if I put down Matty that night that she'd give me her jury vote with Bob too and could probably get [Marcus Lehman] and [Charlie Herschel] to give me their jury votes so that if I could make it to the Final 3 that I would win it hands down.

It was about that time that Sugar kept saying that we gotta get rid of Crystal and not to pick Matty, because there's a chance that it might come down to a fire challenge [between he and Crystal] and that Matty might win, and then I can go to the Final 3 with those two.

So I told Crystal to put down Corinne and then I put down Matty['s name hoping] for the jury votes. But at that time... they made it seem like I backed out on my alliance playing Corinne and Bob, and saying "Oh my God I'm gonna back out of this alliance." But I knew exactly that Corinne was going to go home that night.

http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/ken-kenny-hoang-dishes-about-his-time-on-survivor-gabon-8176.php

=O

There's loads of other stuff clarified in that interview, like the Charlie-*** incident. It's worth a read.

Links please

http://survivorsucks.com/topic/43398/t/Castaway-Interview-Jessica-Sugar-Kiper.html

 

[Yuna]

You guys should take a look at that interview to get Ken's take the Bob conflict clarified.
Ken wasn't mad at Bob because he lied, he was mad at Bob because he claimed to be a man of his word and he wasn't.

Bob not giving Ken his immunity when he found out what Ken was planning to do does not make him "not a man of his word".

That or your definition of "a man of his word" = "Someone who would keep his word, no matter what, even if it made him an idiot". You can be a man of your word but still not do what you've promised under certain circumstances... like finding out the person you'd given your word to was planning on using your promise to stab you in the back and take you out.

In that situation, I think it's perfectly acceptable to break that promise and still be a man of your word. And Ken was mad because Bob lied? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Ken had lied all season. Then Bob lied to him twice and Ken got mad? Hmmm... so what if Bob lied? It's part of the game, right?

Also, the question still remains, why did Ken dwell on it? As far as I know, Bob didn't waltz around Nobag claiming to be "a man of his word" in some kind of drive for votes. He didn't brag about it. Heck, he only said he was a man of his word to Ken.

So why did Ken bring it up at Final Tribal? What was so important about that one thing that forced him to bring it up when there were a jillion other, more relevant (to the other players on the jury) questions he could've asked? Especially not when Ken had just brought it up at his own elimination just days prior.

Why was Ken so determined to "expose" Bob as someone who wasn't a man of his word, as if it would turn the game upside down or something? It still smells like bitter vindictiveness. Of course, this is totally OK and it's not like Ken was alone in being bitter and vindictive at Final Tribal.

But still, it's didn't make Ken look that good. Before, he was just smart, cunning and conniving (which is totally fine on Survivor). This, this was just bitter and vindictive.

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

Bob not giving Ken his immunity when he found out what Ken was planning to do does not make him "not a man of his word".

That or your definition of "a man of his word" = "Someone who would keep his word, no matter what, even if it made him an idiot". You can be a man of your word but still not do what you've promised under certain circumstances... like finding out the person you'd given your word to was planning on using your promise to stab you in the back and take you out.

It's perfectly acceptable to not hold a promise like that in a situation like that, and Ken didn't even expect that. He just didn't like how he claimed he was a man of his word when he wasn't, he wanted Bob to admit he was playing the game.
If your definition of a "man of his word" is someone who doesn't keep his word you're just plain wrong, and there's nothing to argue about.
You're going to deny that just for the sake for arguing, but everything I just said is confirmed in his interviews, so go suck a ****.

 

[Yuna]

It's perfectly acceptable to not hold a promise like that in a situation like that, and Ken didn't even expect that. He just didn't like how he claimed he was a man of his word when he wasn't, he wanted Bob to admit he was playing the game.
You're going to deny that just for the sake for arguing, but everything I just said is confirmed in his interviews, so go suck a ****.

Of course, as usual, you didn't even read my post. I said that, IMO, you can not keep your word in a situation such as the one Bob faced and still be a man of your word.

Being a man of your word does not mean having to keep your word no matter what. Then you're just a chump.

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

I know you're making me reply just to make me look a stubborn idiot.... I know this but I still keep responding because you know, I'm an idiot

How can "A man of his word" not mean that you're a man of your word? It's in the name, idiot. God, what's wrong with swedish education, people can't even understand three english words?

I'm not saying you should always keep your word. But if you don't, you're not a man of your word. It doesn't matter if it's a good thing or not. You're still not a man of your word.

Sorry Yuna, but you really shot yourself in the foot here. There is no way you can weasel yourself out of this one, I suggest that you ignore this post and leave the thread for a little while to save yourself from embarrassment. Like you did last time I made to big of an idiot out of you.
Even if you're good at arguing it won't help you, because you're wrong. It really must suck that you are wrong AND have no skills when it comes to arguing :/. Sorry bud, but you don't have a chance here.

 

[choknater]

victra are u a girl

 

[Yuna]

It's in the name, idiot. God, what's wrong with swedish education, people can't even understand three english words?

It doesn't mean you should always keep your word. But if you don't, you're still not a man of your word.

The irony.

Did you just say "A man of your word doesn't mean you should always keep your word, but if you don't, you're not a man of your word"? Um... what?

Sorry Yuna, but you really shot yourself in the foot here.

Every rule has an exception. Breaking your word once for very understandable reasons does not "a man not of his word" (or whatever) make.

And at least I didn't just say something only to contradict myself the very next sentence.

There is no way you can weasel yourself out of this one, I suggest that you ignore this post and leave the thread for a little while to save yourself from embarrassment. Like you did last time I made to big of an idiot out of you.

I never left the thread, ever. I just don't patrol it the way you do for whatever reason. Also, enjoy your new infraction.

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

Did you just say "A man of your word doesn't mean you should always keep your word, but if you don't, you're not a man of your word"? Um... what?.

No, I said "You shouldn't always keep your word" as in, being a man of your word isn't always a good thing. Why didn't you understand that? Don't you understand english or are you just plain ********?

Every rule has an exception. Breaking your word once for very understandable reasons does not "a man not of his word" (or whatever) make..

So you can lie and still be a someone who doesn't lie (a man of his word), as long as you're lying is for a good reason?

That post was below your standard by the way Yuna, if you want to convince you're going to have to write something longer.

 

[Yuna]

No, I said "You shouldn't always keep your word" as in, being a man of your word isn't always a good thing. Why didn't you understand that? Don't you understand english or are you just plain ********?

This is what you said (irrelevant yammer removed):
"How can "A man of his word" not mean that you're a man of your word? It's in the name."

I"t doesn't mean you should always keep your word. But if you don't, you're still not a man of your word. It doesn't matter if it's a good thing or not. You're still not a man of your word."

You start out by talking about the definition of the term "a man of your word", you then say "It doesn't mean you should always keep your word". How is it obvious that by this, you mean that "Being a man of your word isn't always a good thing"? The "it" in this case could very well be the definition of "a man of your word".

Remember, English is not Swedish. "Det betyder inte" is not written the same way in English as it is in Swedish. Direct translations are bad.

So you can lie and still be a man of your word, as long as your lying is for a good reason?

Making a promise and breaking it =/= Lying

If you fully intended to keep that promise when you made it, then it was never a lie.

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

This is what you said (irrelevant yammer removed):
"How can "A man of his word" not mean that you're a man of your word? It's in the name."

I"t doesn't mean you should always keep your word. But if you don't, you're still not a man of your word. It doesn't matter if it's a good thing or not. You're still not a man of your word."

You start out by talking about the definition of the term "a man of your word", you then say "It doesn't mean you should always keep your word". How is it obvious that by this, you mean that "Being a man of your word isn't always a good thing"? The "it" in this case could very well be the definition of "a man of your word".

Remember, English is not Swedish. "Det betyder inte" is not written the same way in English as it is in Swedish. Direct translations are bad.

By "it" I meant what I had just said. I meant "This is the definition of a man of your word. And just because that is the definition of "a man of his word", it doesn't mean that you should always keep your word/be a man of your word"
Sorry for not making it more clear from a grammatical standpoint, but I thought my point would come across anyway. It's what I meant regardless. If you didn't get that it's not really my concern.

Making a promise and breaking it =/= Lying

Sigworthy?
I guess your definition of lying is as realistic as your definition of Yunas. You're delusional, what can I do

Spoiler

except baiting out retardedly long idiotic posts that noone cares about

 

[Yuna]

I guess your definition of lying is as realistic as your definition of Yunas. You're delusional, what can I do

Spoiler

except baiting out retardedly long idiotic posts that noone cares about

I guess you're incapable of comprehending plain English if you cannot see the difference between the "excuses" I make (which are not excuses at all) and Johns.

If you make a promise, fully intending to keep it and later decide not to keep it (especially not if you have valid reasons to), then it's not a lie.

The English (and Swedish) language agrees:
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

Bob did not lie when he said he'd give Ken his immunity if he fully intended to keep that promise (as he later claimed) at the time he said it. You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the English and Swedish (and pretty much every single other) languages.

 

[marshtric]

Wow..... this is incredible.

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

Bob lied when he claimed he had kept his promise at TC (and made it look like such through changing it slightly). Not necessarily when he made the promise IF he was planning to keep it (which we don't know for sure, he could've been lying when he said that)

What I said about breaking promises wasn't if someone made a promise they planned on keeping.
With that said, someone who goes around making promises he doesn't keep can't be called a man of his word.

And I just love how you spent your time looking up the definition of lying, linking it to me and everything. Good job, keep doing that and you might convince me you're a decent debater.


EDIT: Hey look at this, interview with Crystal. She talks about the night Corrine was voted and what she and Ken was planning. Second post here:
http://survivorsucks.com/topic/43022/t/Castaway-Interview-Crystal-Cox.html?page=6

Reality TV World: Did you ever talk with Kenny about the chance that the idol might not be real?

Crystal: Um, did I? Yes I did, yes I did. Because he was like "Either way, you vote for Corrine," and he was going to write down Matty's name in order to garner up votes in the jury for himself.

It looks like what Ken said in his interview was true and not "shenanigans". He didn't even lie to Crystal about anything (unless I'm missing something)

Spoiler

Sometimes making claims to stick out makes you look stupid. Now we shall all laugh at Yuna as he tries to deny being wrong about this.

 

[Shy Guy 86]

Is Ken out of this now? Or did this whole thing finished...

 

[Stroupes]

Is Ken out of this now? Or did this whole thing finished...

It ended a few days ago. Ken was voted out a couple of weeks ago.