I will start with the Steve/Phillip argument even though I don't think it will have much of an effect on the outcome of the game. When there is a heated dispute, I look at three things:
1. Based on the substance, who made the weaker argument?
2. Who was the first to stray from the substance of the argument and get personal?
3. Overall, who was less civil?
In this situation, my answers are: Steve, Steve, Phillip.
1. We can peel away all the side stuff about the tribes eating alone, sleeping alone, and Phillip "stealing Zapatera's" rice. Phillip said it was everyone's rice, and he is correct. When push comes to shove - the rice had to go into "Zapatera's" pot. You can not let "Ometepe's" food sit there and rot. Andrea was the first one to ask for help, and Steve said no. When Phillip asked, Steve's answers became less definitive and more evasive. He said 'we have to wait and ask Ralph'. Why? Time is of the essence. Steve then changed the subject and said they should have all discussed dumping the rice on the blanket in the first place. Maybe so, but it's spilt milk. Who spilt it is an issue for another time. Right now, the rice is on the blanket, and the one and only issue is what should be done with it. Substantively, Steve didn't have much of an argument. The pot isn't his personal property. It isn't Zapatera's property. It's tribal property. The episode never even answered what happened to the rice. It must have gone into the "Zapatera" pot once the dust had cleared. Steve's argument was so weak, they never even showed the resolution!
2. Steve got personal first. Steve called Phillip a "lunatic." Phillip is crazy, but that isn't the issue. The issue is what should be done with the rice. Steve was wrong, so resorted to name calling.
3. Overall, Phillip became less civil than Steve.
So, Phillip wins two out of three points. Steve started it. He was jeopardizing the food supply of a half-starved tribe in order to antagonize them. He got personal first. I've known a lot of crazy people. They hate it when you call them crazy - especially when they are making a rational argument - and, at the start of that argument, Phillip was more rational. Even though Phillip ultimately became less civil, I'm more sympathetic to Phillip than Steve. This doesn't mean, because Steve started it, that Phillip now had the right to say whatever he wants. If Phillip had gone too far, I would side with Steve. But, I don't think Phillip went too far. Calling someone "a lunatic" to their face is incredibly disrespectful. I'm not saying Phillip's response was correct, but Steve started it.
I think the producers laid the ground work to help Steve in that encounter. I've complained about the goofy music and overall criticisms of Phillip this season. It seems that all of that was a foundation for this incident. So, when Steve called Phillip a lunatic, it didn't seem that rude. The viewers have seen Phillip called crazy a number of times, and are desensitized to the name-calling, but I understand why it ticked Phillip off. It's one thing to call Phillip "crazy" in confessional, but it's another to say it to his face. Furthermore, when Jeff summarized what had happened at tribal council, he did so in a pro-Steve manner. Jeff made it sound like Steve was willing to negotiate about the rice, when Steve was more dismissive than that. This whole season has been anti-Phillip.
Julie then stole and buried Phillips' trunks (personal, not communal property). That is one of the lowest things I've ever seen on this show. She then mocked Phillip at tribal about it. I am not a fan of thieves. Julie has bothered me all season. and is now one of my least favorite players ever.
As for the game - the duel was very entertaining with a lot of drama. The immunity had less tension, mostly because Boston Rob simply owns puzzles. I would like to know why they voted out Julie instead of Ralph or Steve, but the decision-making wasn't shown. Nevertheless, I'm glad it was her. As for the argument's impact on the rest of the game - Phillip might have a harder time organizing a coalition in the later stages. However, it looks like Phillip is less likely to go against Rob now than he ever was.
They still need to get rid of a whole bunch of people in very little time. I don't know how they are going to do it. I get the feeling that this season's structure was designed to keep Rob or Russell in the game as long as possible. Hence, there are still 11 people alive with only four episodes left. Normally, I would handicap the field at this point, but there are simply too many people still kicking about. It will have to wait for next week.
1. Based on the substance, who made the weaker argument?
2. Who was the first to stray from the substance of the argument and get personal?
3. Overall, who was less civil?
In this situation, my answers are: Steve, Steve, Phillip.
1. We can peel away all the side stuff about the tribes eating alone, sleeping alone, and Phillip "stealing Zapatera's" rice. Phillip said it was everyone's rice, and he is correct. When push comes to shove - the rice had to go into "Zapatera's" pot. You can not let "Ometepe's" food sit there and rot. Andrea was the first one to ask for help, and Steve said no. When Phillip asked, Steve's answers became less definitive and more evasive. He said 'we have to wait and ask Ralph'. Why? Time is of the essence. Steve then changed the subject and said they should have all discussed dumping the rice on the blanket in the first place. Maybe so, but it's spilt milk. Who spilt it is an issue for another time. Right now, the rice is on the blanket, and the one and only issue is what should be done with it. Substantively, Steve didn't have much of an argument. The pot isn't his personal property. It isn't Zapatera's property. It's tribal property. The episode never even answered what happened to the rice. It must have gone into the "Zapatera" pot once the dust had cleared. Steve's argument was so weak, they never even showed the resolution!
2. Steve got personal first. Steve called Phillip a "lunatic." Phillip is crazy, but that isn't the issue. The issue is what should be done with the rice. Steve was wrong, so resorted to name calling.
3. Overall, Phillip became less civil than Steve.
So, Phillip wins two out of three points. Steve started it. He was jeopardizing the food supply of a half-starved tribe in order to antagonize them. He got personal first. I've known a lot of crazy people. They hate it when you call them crazy - especially when they are making a rational argument - and, at the start of that argument, Phillip was more rational. Even though Phillip ultimately became less civil, I'm more sympathetic to Phillip than Steve. This doesn't mean, because Steve started it, that Phillip now had the right to say whatever he wants. If Phillip had gone too far, I would side with Steve. But, I don't think Phillip went too far. Calling someone "a lunatic" to their face is incredibly disrespectful. I'm not saying Phillip's response was correct, but Steve started it.
I think the producers laid the ground work to help Steve in that encounter. I've complained about the goofy music and overall criticisms of Phillip this season. It seems that all of that was a foundation for this incident. So, when Steve called Phillip a lunatic, it didn't seem that rude. The viewers have seen Phillip called crazy a number of times, and are desensitized to the name-calling, but I understand why it ticked Phillip off. It's one thing to call Phillip "crazy" in confessional, but it's another to say it to his face. Furthermore, when Jeff summarized what had happened at tribal council, he did so in a pro-Steve manner. Jeff made it sound like Steve was willing to negotiate about the rice, when Steve was more dismissive than that. This whole season has been anti-Phillip.
Julie then stole and buried Phillips' trunks (personal, not communal property). That is one of the lowest things I've ever seen on this show. She then mocked Phillip at tribal about it. I am not a fan of thieves. Julie has bothered me all season. and is now one of my least favorite players ever.
As for the game - the duel was very entertaining with a lot of drama. The immunity had less tension, mostly because Boston Rob simply owns puzzles. I would like to know why they voted out Julie instead of Ralph or Steve, but the decision-making wasn't shown. Nevertheless, I'm glad it was her. As for the argument's impact on the rest of the game - Phillip might have a harder time organizing a coalition in the later stages. However, it looks like Phillip is less likely to go against Rob now than he ever was.
They still need to get rid of a whole bunch of people in very little time. I don't know how they are going to do it. I get the feeling that this season's structure was designed to keep Rob or Russell in the game as long as possible. Hence, there are still 11 people alive with only four episodes left. Normally, I would handicap the field at this point, but there are simply too many people still kicking about. It will have to wait for next week.
No comments:
Post a Comment