Saturday 21 March 2020

Survivor Cambodia: a case against alliance


Alliance is an essential part of survivor that can guaranty you to go far into the game.  With some luck and evasion of tribal council in beginning of the game the prospect could be a slam dunk.   But the failure of the idea appears when one fall lower in the hierarchy of the alliance. Then, that person may fall on 5th, 6th or 7th place considering the alliance is a successful one. This is terrible considering that you might be punished for your loyalty and would have lost the game the moment you joined such an alliance. But, what to do once you find yourself in one such position?

Voting blocs

Enter “Voting Blocs”. The idea might not be unique to this season and definitely has been played several times on the previous seasons. But, only in this season the idea was defined (in the tribal council of episode 7 by Stephan fishbach to be precise) and played as the prominent strategy. Voting blocs can be explained with the term “coalition”. Coalition is a political term meaning a temporary alliance for combined action, especially of political parties forming a government. In the account of survivor it can be further specified as an alliance formed based on a case basis. The case can mean any of the following things: majority of votes, common strategy or target, also simply could mean a method to survive from being voted out. It has the upside of being in an alliance without dealing with the limitation of gameplay in the fear of backlash

Ethics of playing the voting blocs

Survivor much like the real world society has a fascinating history of what it considered and not considered as a taboo. In Borneo forming an alliance was considered as a taboo, even as cheating by some. But after seeing how successful an alliance can be and with victory of Richard hatch, it became norm at with which the game is played in later seasons.  Same can be said about the “hidden immunity idol” in Guatemala, callous gameplay by Russell hantz in Samoa, flipping on the alliance in any of the early seasons. But similar to the alliance mindset all of those also became the norm at which the game is played in the later seasons. All of those things that considered taboo earlier became ideal to win the game in more recent seasons. Two out of three recent winner share similar callous gameplay with the ability in finding hidden immunity idols and also they were willing flip on their alliance for their advantage. Even the jury started to reward more aggressive gameplay contrary to anyone but you attitude towards these players. Thus making the argument of ethics affected by the time when it is made and also as a subjective concept.

What is not so great?

Despite of the great potential in playing the voting blocs game there is a huge flaw in it. This flaw maybe the reason it was not so popular option after Cambodia. When you trade trust and loyalty for a more devious gameplay you might get caught at your own game at some point. When there is no trust there is only chaos and you are destined to lose your control over it. Limiting your gameplay with an alliance might be a trap but it is more efficient to take you to the end if you are in a safer position in the hierarchy. Whereas waging an all out war with voting blocs has no promising path to the end.
How the season hold up?
The season is a great watch considering all contestants was willing to play a fierce game. Most of them as the tagline for the season said, acknowledged the growth they needed to win and toiled onto it. Splitting tribes frequently with less time in between left majority of the contestant with no true allegiance and thus sowed the seed for the voting blocs’ strategy. The early merge reinforced the forthcoming unpredictability of the season. The immunity idols felt easy to find nevertheless added more drama. The challenges were not so special. The setting was great, cast was one of the best. Jeff varner, Jeremy Collins, Joe anglim, Kelley wentworth, Stephen fishbasch, Spencer Bledsoe, Ceria eastin and Andrew savage are some of the best performers of the season. Even the winner felt deserving leaving a sense satisfaction.  
Verdict
Playing voting blocs may open up multiple options and at the same time may not be handicapped by an alliance but trust is required to get to the end. The winner of the season with an undisputed 10-0-0 vote proves that a long term alliance build on trust is still a viable option.
Share:

0 comments:

Post a Comment