*Debate* Is Survivor really just a game?

[OldSoul]

But can you put aside all feelings and realisms because something only goes for a short period of time? Take a look at Heidi. She put aside her life as a teacher, to play in the game of Survivor. Though her actions were in the bounds of the game, her decisions on the show definitely affected her reality. No longer is she working as a teacher, arguably because people held her accountable for her actions. Her stripping down for food was what she thought was required of her to play the game survivor - winning at all costs. Clearly, this affected her real life, so you can't divorce the game from reality.

Please pardon a brief deviation from the theme, but I just have to shake my head if this happened to Heidi.

Personally, I think her and Jenna would've got the peanut butter anyway... but once the idea of stripping for it was put out there... I mean, what producer or emcee would turn down such an offer knowing it would give them all sorts of ammo in plugging that episode?

What's disturbing to me is how puritanical we here in the US can be sometimes. Violence abounds in our movies, tv shows and even real life... but show a little skin and people get into a tizzy. I can't believe she'd get fired ... after all, [getting back to the theme] it IS just a game. It's not like she stripped for her students.

I may be showing my age here, but when in Jr. High in Colorado, my art teacher participated in a "group-streak" with hundreds of others at C.U. Of course the paper was there to cover it and she had the unlucky honor of being the one in front of the lens when the shot was taken... arms spread above her head and the look of pure diversion on her face. BTW, she was very attractive. The next day, that picture made page one (of course, with the obligatory black box in front of the obvious spots). Now, me and all the guys (and some of the ladies) in the class were thrilled about it, but of course she was instantly fired and we never saw her again. Too bad, 'cause she was a great art teacher.

[back to the theme here..] If, while playing a game on a remote island where people walk around half naked all day anyway, on camera, ... someone bares it all, I can't believe that in real life, they should pay ANY price for that.

[toque]

Quite a few people have argued that it is just a game, kind of like poker,(I agree) and they should put aside their emotions while they play it. Especially when part of the jury. I disagree. I still contest that emotions are a part of the game and should be taken into account while playing. Ever get peeved during poker and try to do anything with the other players to take the guy on a lucky streak down?
But it is just a game and after it's over... it's time to let the pettiness go.

[Colombian]

Quite a few people have argued that it is just a game, kind of like poker,(I agree) and they should put aside their emotions while they play it. Especially when part of the jury. I disagree. I still contest that emotions are a part of the game and should be taken into account while playing. Ever get peeved during poker and try to do anything with the other players to take the guy on a lucky streak down?
But it is just a game and after it's over... it's time to let the pettiness go.

Lots of games are full of emotion - I used to get so pissed-off at my older brother when playing Risk that I'd plot with friends or other siblings to take him out. Personalities and emotions play into every part of life whether at work or play.

I think some people are confusing the terms 'Fun' and 'Games'. They are not synonomous. When my younger kids play ninetendo - it's not uncommon for fighting to errupt and mean things to be spoken (the controllers are then tucked away for a few weeks). And how about sports? How many school or league sporting events have you attended and witnessed emotion taking control of some players if not entire teams? Sports are still regarded as games and rightfully so.

This question proposed at the beginning of this thread is quite stupid because there is no valid argument that could ever be made that would support Survivor 'not' being a game.

[Siryn]

I don't think that there is any game that exists that hasn't had its share of sore losers. So yes, it's still a game, despite the role of potential sore losers in it at the end.

[mrcorkles]

I think some people are confusing the terms 'Fun' and 'Games'. They are not synonomous. When my younger kids play ninetendo - it's not uncommon for fighting to errupt and mean things to be spoken (the controllers are then tucked away for a few weeks). And how about sports? How many school or league sporting events have you attended and witnessed emotion taking control of some players if not entire teams? Sports are still regarded as games and rightfully so.

This question proposed at the beginning of this thread is quite stupid because there is no valid argument that could ever be made that would support Survivor 'not' being a game.

I was just about to post here that you made an excellent point about gamesmanship and sportsmanship when I read that the question posed on the thread was stupid....

I realize in a general sense that it is a game. I have said before though that it is a game like no other,because of severity if the environment,etc. One of the reasons I posed the question was because I think I would find it hard to seperate the game from the emotions. There seems to be a 'knee-jerk' idealism when people are asked if Survivor is just a game,I wanted to see if there were others out there who thought outside the box and considered the other factors. Thanks for calling it 'quite stupid' though.

[Colombian]

I was just about to post here that you made an excellent point about gamesmanship and sportsmanship when I read that the question posed on the thread was stupid....

I realize in a general sense that it is a game. I have said before though that it is a game like no other,because of severity if the environment,etc. One of the reasons I posed the question was because I think I would find it hard to seperate the game from the emotions. There seems to be a 'knee-jerk' idealism when people are asked if Survivor is just a game,I wanted to see if there were others out there who thought outside the box and considered the other factors. Thanks for calling it 'quite stupid' though..

I was careless with the 'stupid' word and apologize. Some excellent dialogue has come out of your thread MrCorkles.

I should have said it's stupid to say it isn't a game (as some in your thread have suggested) because there is no denying that it is a game.

Read on -

I disagree. Although technically it is just a game, it has consequences that will attach itself onto the person for the rest of their life, especially when pre-existing relationships are involved. An analogy can be drawn to a real life work situation. If you screw a workmate over to get ahead in your career, you have to live with the consequences. If you believe that your actions can be justified by the "it's just work" mentality, then thats entirely your business, but just don't expect the workmate to feel the same.

If technically it's a game, then it's still a game. As I said before, the words 'FUN' & 'GAME' are not necessarily synonomous.

I think we're getting hung up on the 'morality of strategy' argument and therefore inferring that you should not adopt a strategy that conflicts with your normal day-to-day conduct. I wholeheartedly disagree. Lying and deceit are acceptable, and encouraged, strategies in the GAME of Survivor. I would do it with glee if I thought it would propell me closer to the prize.

Consider this. Walking down the street, I would never run up, and grab another pedistrian and throw him to the ground - I would never consider that behavior. If I were to do it, I would probably be sued for assualt. However, if I'm on a football field and that guy is on the opposing team, carrying the ball, I will sure as hell make every effort to bring him down. And if I'm successful, I doubt that any assault charge could be brought against me that would stick.

You play by the rules - if you don't like throwing people to the ground in a game you shouldn't play football. If you don't like deceiving or being deceived in a game, you shouldn't play Survivor.

[fluff]

It is a game.

However, there are definitely chances for life changing moments when you put people into such an extreme situation. Like Keith having a life defining moment and realizing that he should propose to his fiance. Or Frank finding peace and solitude in Africa.

I don't think its possible to live 24 hours a day with people for that long without creating some kind of bond.

Whether you let that bond affect your game play is up to you.

I agree that all stars was unique in that the players knew each other well before going in. But it was still a game

I agree.

Even Mike falling into the fire was a life defining moment for him.
He said that once recovered he became a better husband and father.

The All-Star situation was unique and I think the series as a whole suffered due to the prior relationships clouding some people's thinking.

[Colombian]

I re-read my last two posts (and others the thread) and realized that I have been missing a lot of the point of the thread.

I have been too hung up on the 'game or no game' technical question which MrCorkles posed. I still think I am right that is is a game.

However, it is a game with dynamics like no other game. Dynamics that do present life-like situations and present challenges for contestants at decision making time.

One challenge for contestants is choosing a strategy that will propell them towards the prize.

Another challenge is dealing with defeat when they are eliminated. Some are good sports - Colby, Ethan, and Hatch to name a few, others are spoiled sports like Lex and Kathy. These people have probably always struggled when losing games.

Fluff, you bring up bonding. This is a very interesting point and one of the complex dynamics of the game. Given the timeline involved, as well as the intimate setting they find themselves in, there will be both positive or negative bonding.

This bonding plays a big part in the game come voting time. Some are better able than others to separate the bonding element when making decisions. Example - Colby faltered at the end of his original game taking the more popular of the two choices with him to F2 -a tactical move which probably cost him the million.

Additionally, those casting votes consider the bonding issues differently in casting their 'votes'. Some, will consider strategy most in making their decision and vote for the person based on the game's three-fold mission: outwit, outlast, outplay (Shii-ann, Jenna L.). Others will consider the life-like elements more and vote for the person they like the most (Kathy). Then their are the 'sour-grapes' bunch of which every jury has its share. These people are voting against, rather than for someone (Tom & Lex).

A recipie for success in this game in almost non-existent. All things considered, I think it's more a game of luck than a game of skill.

[Oceansands]

mrcorkles: I have given Kathy a lot of credit for being able to see past her personal feelings and voting for the best player to win in All Stars.

It's just a game, I disagree with your assessment of Kathy. She voted for Rob because of Amber lying to her and held a grudge because of it. Amber was the all around best player because she was able to play without making enemies. Part of the game is lying but also trying to keep other players from hating you. Rob wasn't able to do that, it's one thing to get in the final two by eliminating others but another to get the majority of the jury vote. It's all part of the game including the way the jury sees you.

[toque]

A recipie for success in this game in almost non-existent. All things considered, I think it's more a game of luck than a game of skill.

This is perhaps the most astute point regarding the game of Survivor I've read! I would be interested to see someone come into the game and really try to lose... I wonder how they would fare.

(BTW, great posts in this thread, I think)

Oh, I just saw the red lettering indicating this is now an archive. Sorry about that. Until next time.