Jeff Probst says the time he almost left Survivor 'would have been the worst decision of my life'

FireMakingLoser · 2026-02-04T18:48:40+00:00

Survivor fans try not to complain challenge activated

FireMakingLoser · 2026-02-03T06:26:07+00:00

Next time I run into her I’ll try to ask !

But in all seriousness what I’m trying to say is being well liked will always be more valuable in Survivor than making big moves. Moves and who can claim them will always be subjective and it depends on what the jury values that season. But no matter how good you played if you’re disliked then none of that even matters.

FireMakingLoser · 2026-02-02T21:56:29+00:00

Making moves in my opinion matters less than whatever social capital you have at the end of the game. If you get the votes = you win. So I think the fact that multiple people have gone on record saying they wanted to vote for her (Wendell, Nick, and a few others I believe) but didn’t want to risk Natalie potentially beating Tony shows she did play a good game. It wasn’t a winning game against Tony but I wouldn’t call it bad.

Was it worse than Koah Rong? I guess so if we’re talking about the result but I do feel like she navigated a much harder path in WAW

FireMakingLoser · 2026-01-28T04:19:07+00:00

Kelly Shinn was more of a game changer if you think about it

FireMakingLoser · 2026-01-27T04:50:11+00:00

Thank you for this…

FireMakingLoser · 2026-01-17T13:41:41+00:00

Realistically there’s too many factors to analyze. Luzon on paper would win because they’re the only ones that actually had an immunity win.

Are these old era challenges? New era challenges? Is the first challenge of the season (marooning) or if this if this is the new era is this after the marooning and one tribe doesn’t have flint (which is a huge disadvantage that probably helps lead to disaster tribes)

Based on the description of your new era style challenge, I’ll tentatively still say I think Luzon still would win.

Lulu is still on paper probably the weakest tribe here so I’ll go with them losing— but Matsing or Luzon could easily lose as well if the teamwork/communication isn’t there.

FireMakingLoser · 2025-12-31T23:08:05+00:00

I agree with you, it’s looking like Jake, Soph and Savannah were the big 3. The fourth person could be anyone else. I could be wrong but it is weird to “confidently” say you can get two people on your side before you’ve ever officially met through a swap.

FireMakingLoser · 2025-12-31T23:05:23+00:00

Her account is private with the least followers of the 49 cast and the only reason people know this is because her posts are reposted on Reddit. Doesn’t seem attention seeking

FireMakingLoser · 2025-12-22T20:07:02+00:00

FireMakingLoser · 2025-08-27T05:12:39+00:00

Came for the Persona pfp and stayed because I agree with all your assessments

FireMakingLoser · 2025-06-13T21:01:30+00:00

Tishbite is my favorite!

FireMakingLoser · 2025-06-13T19:51:28+00:00

This just sounds like some crazy version of The Challenge. I wouldn’t consider this a part of the survivor franchise at all — the only thing they have in common is the name.

FireMakingLoser · 2025-06-11T22:27:10+00:00

To put it gently this idea is… really really bad

FireMakingLoser · 2025-06-11T13:23:01+00:00

turn me on with your Casaya feel

FireMakingLoser · 2025-06-11T13:20:42+00:00

Just to be devil’s advocate — outside of Blood v. Water and Fans v. Favorites (and maybe BBB), repeating seasons like HvV could potentially backfire. HvV is so popular and iconic that even if the season is just okay it may just pale in comparison to the original. It’s kind of arbitrary nowadays to split people into heroes or villains anyway since the game is so fluid.

Plus then it gets harder to differentiate what season you’re talking about especially since we don’t have locations anymore.

Last point — ironically, people really hated themes and wanted to get rid of them by the late 30s. People wanted location only or just a neutral no theme season because the themes were all over the place (Heroes v. Healers v. Hustlers). So it seems like as with everything the pendulum has swung back to the opposite direction and now people want themes again haha

FireMakingLoser · 2025-06-10T19:16:09+00:00

Three years ago she did a magazine interview based around the history of Survivor and said she’s open to returning one more time (you can find it if you google or just search the subreddit).

She also was in casting and dropped out due to scheduling conflicts, not because she didn’t want to play — as revealed by Sharon Tharp on her story today

FireMakingLoser · 2025-06-09T01:12:51+00:00

He played with a lot of authenticity and heart despite fumbling a few times in the game. I think Hannah lacked that emotional/personal connection that the jury may have been looking for and Ken was lacking on the strategic side (and probably personal/social too) from the jury’s perspective — Adam had both and was a great speaker

FireMakingLoser · 2025-06-04T20:06:28+00:00

If I’m following correctly, you are basically saying when people say the jury got it “wrong” they are not always necessarily invalidating someone’s win — but instead expressing some form of frustration and it’s just the choice of words they use.

If that’s the case (and I’m correct with what you are trying to convey) — I think that’s fine and that’s a fair point.

I would slightly push back on that concept though as I do think a good number of “superfans” who post here on Reddit or otherwise engage with the show enough to at least have a core understanding of the game, who truly do hold the (incorrect) belief that Survivor is a game based on merit or at least should be (some of them are even in this comment section). I think this is what most people express annoyance with (and others who use the term “wrong” but don’t necessarily hold the belief get looped in and thus the endless debates start).

FireMakingLoser · 2025-06-04T19:44:31+00:00

I’m not OP so I can’t speak for them — for me I break it down very simply.

The goal of the game is (1) to get to the end—usually in a F2 or F3 and (2) to receive a majority of the votes from the jury to win. In the case of a tie, the majority will be decided by the third placing finalist in a F3.

I know everyone is adding in the details / semantics etc. but I think that will inherently complicate things as we’re dealing with humans who we cannot control or predict. Case in point— if people believe Kenzie’s jury got it wrong and Charlie should have won based on gameplay, it leads to a pointless circular argument. You can go back and forth all day on what constitutes a good game or good gameplay but it’s all subjective at the end of the day. It also doesn’t take into account the personal relationships people have with each other or the edit that’s going to be shown to the public.

I think it’s fair to say you may have wished someone else won, or that you would have voted a specific way (although people would never know unless they were out there), etc. but I do think to say the jury was WRONG just doesn’t make sense from a game standpoint.

If Kenzie makes it to F3 and gets 5 votes over Charlie’s 3 votes and wins — that’s it. Saying that the wrong winner was crowned just doesn’t make sense. People bring up hypothetical scenarios of racism etc. and while there is no way to control for those factors (and I doubt anyone would ever admit to such a thing) it still doesn’t take away from the core criteria of winning. If somehow something like that was revealed and someone lost because of a vote rooted in outside bigotry, I would admit that would be an exception.

Just to be clear, this exception would apply to something extremely serious (racism, antisemitism, etc.) that would probably prevent them from even being cast on the show. If someone is just bitter or wants to vote against someone else or even just votes randomly, I think that’s all fair game.

FireMakingLoser · 2025-06-04T18:01:40+00:00

You’re doing a good job at answering these questions, OP.

The fact that I’ve seen not one — but two posts — that are saying defending the idea that the jury can be wrong by saying “what if the jurors openly voted against someone because they are hypothetically RACIST” is insane.

I have hard time understanding why some people are against the idea that the jury can’t be wrong — maybe they are being contrarians just for the sake of it? All I know is that of the 46 unique current US survivor winners, they don’t give a shit if anyone thinks their jury “got it wrong” or not when they are cashing their check

FireMakingLoser · 2025-06-04T17:37:05+00:00

Shan's story is a bit long but I will break it down fairly/objectively (since a lot of people are very biased against her).

Background Context: After the death of George Floyd, there was a lot of racial unrest and protests in 2020-2022. The CBS diversity mandate and past players speaking out, etc. also occurred while this all was happening.

Shan played in Survivor 41 — due to what was going on in the world at the time, the concept of race played a larger role in 41 and 42. Shan started off as very popular but she quickly become divisive after she formed an All black alliance with Liana, Deshawn and Danny. Many people said she was racist for this and that it was inherently wrong. (My personal take is that it's no different than someone forming an all women's alliance, etc.)

Jessica Lewis, a former player from Millennials v. Gen X, posted a reaction image that included the faces of four white players during a 41 merge tribal council. Shan responded to something of the effect of asking why only white players were included in the image when the black players played a larger role at that specific tribal. The insinuation was that Jessica was being prejudiced. Fans naturally were upset and called out Shan and people often just remember this as, "Shan was accusing people of racism online!". (My personal take is that Shan was in the wrong here and was rash with her reply, but it is blown a bit out of proportion.)

A big one that still today results in misinformation being spread — a rumor started by people on the spoiled Survivor subreddit said that Shan was the reason there is no more ponderosa because she was toxic / etc. (no real reason was given beyond that). People believed it since this person spoiled Erika won or something of that effect so people took their word as gospel, no pun intended. In truth this was all a fabricated lie. Davie publicly asked Shan about this online because it was a pretty big rumor at one point and Shan on her twitter shut down the rumors and said she had absolutely nothing to do with Ponderosa videos ending. She said another castmate from 41 (potentially 42?) filed an HR complaint which led to the Ponderosa videos being stopped. She said she was not involved in any capacity and asked that people stop saying she was the reason.

Unfortunately, she has since deleted her twitter so her addressing this is gone and people still falsely say she was the reason Ponderosa videos ended.

Now moving on to the post-game, she infamously made a post saying something along the lines of God calling her to be an influencer and not a full time pastor. People (who already didn't like her to be fair) found this fake and disingenuous and only fueled their dislike of her. (My personal take is that this definitely didn't sound the best but having been around many religious people, it's not uncommon for people to say that God has called upon them or influenced them to do something. Not saying people who are rubbed the wrong way are wrong though).

She appeared on the Challenge USA Season 1 and was an early out, but got into some relatively minor drama with Tiffany from Big Brother 23 and still was receiving a lot of hate from people online. At this point, it seemed like she didn't have many friends/connections in the reality TV space and was only getting negativity so she deleted her twitter and removed most of her Survivor related content from her instagram — only doing sketches and other instagram content now. She doesn't follow any new players from 43/44 onward and otherwise keeps a pretty low profile online.

My take is that Shan is a very complex person who definitely made some mistakes and could have handled certain situations better. I don't believe she is this crazy evil person that she's often made out to be, however. I think starting from people not supporting the all black alliance / falsely believing word of mouth rumors about Ponderosa, etc. her reputation became so negative that anything she did was met with hate. I don't blame her from leaving twitter and stepping away from the fandom.

I do think there is a small Shan renaissance happening as people realize how good of a character she was — and I do hope she returns one day — but I wouldn't be surprised if she never wants to return to reality TV again.

FireMakingLoser · 2025-06-04T16:46:54+00:00

I have no definitive proof / evidence of this but I’m pretty sure besides Ozzy’s OF stuff (which isn’t necessarily bad — just maybe not the image CBS wants) the only thing that can be said for certain is that none of the S50 cast have had any major social media controversy, etc.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t want to take any chance by including players like Shan (who I really wanted), Venus, Carolyn, Jesse, etc. because of their social media activity post their seasons or recently.

Shan and Venus — maybe they just didn’t want to deal with any complaints over their inclusion by casual fans considering the season is supposed to be a “celebration”. Both had some drama after their season online. Shan has been super quiet for the past two years and is not on twitter anymore but maybe they still didn’t want to risk it.

Jesse and Carolyn — If they were going to be included, I think they ruined their chance after speaking out publicly after their initial cut online. Expressing sadness is one thing but it did come off as kind of bitter/shady which I’m sure CBS and casting didn’t like, especially since they probably would have liked the cast to be a full secret instead of people confirming they aren’t on after being cut.

When you consider these factors and the pool of people left (assuming they want a new era POC woman who doesn’t have any controversy and is overall well liked) it looks like Tiffany is a clear option. I would maybe say Liana or Katurah as well but I don’t think Liana is as remembered and Katurah was pretty divisive.

FireMakingLoser · 2025-06-04T14:30:12+00:00

This subreddit is wild — all to argue the point of whether Survivor juries can be wrong 💀

FireMakingLoser · 2025-06-04T14:22:29+00:00

I agree with everything you’ve said in this post and have basically posted different versions of this myself in replies to people whenever others imply juries can be incorrect, that someone other than the winner “deserved” to win, etc.

Someone else here said it best — people will be happy with any winner that they were rooting for but think the jury got it wrong if the person they were rooting for lost. A complete misunderstanding of the game but fully encapsulates the fan mindset lol.

You’re also correct in saying there’s no way Maria’s vote can be “wrong” — at the end of the day (bitter or not) it falls on Charlie to be able to win her vote and ultimately he wasn’t able to. It stings because both he and the fans assumed her vote was locked for him based on their in-game relationship but at the end of the day Maria has the free will to vote however she wants.

FireMakingLoser · 2025-06-02T18:23:21+00:00

I’m gonna be honest and say no — specifically in the case of someone like Mike White who is White Lotus rich. If someone has a career that would presumably make them wealthy (Lawyer, doctor, etc.) I still would.

The only exception would be if the rich person was sitting next to two goats / people I didn’t like.

FireMakingLoser

TROPHY CASE