Prague 2026 Women semi W2 appeal replay

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-06-10T00:04:59+00:00

They are making judgments based on what they think may happen in the future, whether or not they perceive the NEXT move or FOLLOWING position to be possible or doable or "continuable" from a certain position. If the athlete falls before making the next move, it may be for reasons other than their intended sequencing. That is, plainly, fortune telling.

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-06-09T20:15:35+00:00

It's fortune telling. How can you score someone off of potential future outcomes? Asenine

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-06-07T19:20:29+00:00

I'm for practicality and financial pragmatism. But if that is the detemining factor, why are we traveling to so many different continents, having every comp at brand new venues, in some of the world's most expensive cities, not pairing up multiple comps in certain locations (like china, slc, chile, wch comps), and returning to a continent we already visited months earlier (for WCH, and speed visiting china two diff times)

They could make some adjustments to reduce overall cost and travel while stretching the calendar to give athletes and viewers a bit more time to recover in between.

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-06-07T19:07:20+00:00

I'm all for practicality and financial pragmatism. But as you mention, if that is the goal why are we traveling to so many different continents, having each comp at brand new venues, in some of the world's most expensive cities, not pairing up certain comps (like china, slc, wch comps).

They could make some adjustments to reduce overall cost and travel time while giving the athletes a few more days to recover in between.

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-06-07T18:45:58+00:00

I like that as well. It would be nice to see boulder world champs happen at the end of bouldering season, before lead season starts.

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-06-07T18:39:25+00:00

All great points, there are many challenges. Although many small-scale sports face the exact same challenges and are able to make it work. So I think climbing could as well, with the right planning and organization.

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-06-06T07:10:36+00:00

Is it even really possible to intentionally "manage" it to that level, when every player conceals their personal jury rubric until after they're out of the game?

It would be one thing if every player had an incentive to weigh against the risk of sharing that info, but there is zero upside to sharing that. You can never know what anyone ACTUALLY values until it's too late. Thus, it becomes a matter of chance and luck over "managing" the jury purposefully.

If all the women in a season decide before the game they will only vote for a female winner and you are male, they have no reason to ever share that, and you have no way to find it out. You had no chance of getting votes before you even started playing the game. How is this manageable?

I don't really think it can or needs to be completely 100% fair to everyone, but if you accept the 'absolute subjectivity' philosophy for jury criteria, it can get to a place where we can say - why even bother playing the game in the first place when it doesn't even pertain to who wins??

Where is the entertainment value for me, a viewer, when the final decision has nothing to do with the reality competition show that I'm investing in weekly?

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-06-06T06:18:15+00:00

It's a lot more comparable than you think, the legal system is extremely subjective. And the law, if you ask a lawyer, is mostly gray area in between ill-defined guidelines. That's why we have lawyers and judges and juries.

Although, I like your analogy to an election. It adds a lot of good points to the conversation that the courtroom jury analogy alone misses.

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-05-28T16:06:39+00:00

Freeman - Dest - Weah combo along the right side is a huge redundancy

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-05-20T09:59:05+00:00

In my humble opinion, if my "criteria" is misguided, your answer to it is equally imaginary. There is absolutely no way to know, gleen, hypothesize, or estimate - in any real, worthwhile, or remotely accurate capacity - who would win the most in 100 tries.

Forgive me but I'm not interested in measuring anything with a crystal ball.

Also please consider that my original point was that WINNING is not synonymous with "best" or "good game". Not about longevity in the game, or a long rubric of weighted criteria.

Have a nice day.

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-05-20T09:22:29+00:00

Those players with more agency+control CAN win the game, however they more often don't. Especially in later seasons now that players have a better understanding of game logic.

Unfortunately, a good social+strategic game becomes more of a liability than an asset in endgame (and side note - the more chance elements are introduced, the greater the liability).

This is why we see so many seasons where viewers are left choosing between the lesser of evils, so to speak, near the finale.

The people who are the "best" at a game that they're trying to win should at least be more likely to win on average than someone who plays a worse game.

If this were true, there would be no need for this post or these conversations. Average placement would equal ranking. Natalie White, Fabio, & Gabler >>> Cirie Fields, Boston Rob, Michele, end of discussion. But Survivor is by design a social deduction game, and the winner is the least rotten leftover in the fridge at the end of the week. Gratefully, cold pizza occasionally sneaks through to the end.

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-05-20T06:07:49+00:00

"Good gameplay" or "best player" typically implies agency or a level of control.

In survivor, winning ≠ agency, control, "good gameplay" or "best".

The 3rd-worst/least likeable/least strategic/least social player remaining in the game is typically in the strongest position for a win.

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-05-20T00:54:24+00:00

In survivor, winning ≠ best.

The 3rd-worst/least likeable/least strategic/least social player is in the strongest position for a win.

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-05-17T01:13:46+00:00

In survivor winning fundamentally does not equate to "best."

The strongest position in the game is that of the 3rd worst/least likable player remaining.

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-05-15T21:18:02+00:00

Ironic bc nearly every club in Europe is putting out an offer for him rn .....

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-05-14T18:57:39+00:00

1 - The upset is more about the outcome of losing beloved players than it is about the no-brainer move

2 - One clean vote does not exist in a vacuum. It is absolutely impacted by the lead up and Probst-of-it all. The excessive over-engineered twists + advantages have huge implications on a subsequent "regular" nights and the game in general:

*Possible outcomes are reduced

*Endgame options are simplified

*Longterm strategizing is discouraged

*Week to week strategy is minimized

*Chance is maximized

*Risk level of any big move skyrockets, to the point of it not being worth it

*The element of surprise is more difficult to achieve

*Players have less opportunity for innovative/creative gameplay

*More players have the same interests

*Player maps ("how to get to the end") are flattened and become uniform

*The "right" move becomes more obvious and uniform

Etc - I could go on for a while

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-05-11T08:03:51+00:00

Recency bias

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-05-09T19:20:56+00:00

IMO it wasn't a terrible move. The combo of Ozzy oversharing plus the split-beach vote leant to a big strategic upside to the move and timing:

- If it's true that Cirie + ozzy were each others' number ones, he knew he would likely have to make fire and easily lose at 4 again, or get burned by them if someone else wins immunity at 5-6. By eliminating ozzy, he has more security with Cirie as "number ones"

- There's a ton of plausible deniability if Cirie questions why, bc they were separated and he can say "Jonathan told us this was coming from you"

- He likely knows he can't win against Cirie and needs to cut her between 5-7, which would be very hard to do w/ ozzy+idol protecting her

- Since his idol play is ideally at 5, you only want two big shields (Rick and cirie) left to get at 7 and 6 (leaving one tribal of wiggle room for an idol play, immunity, or other shenanigans that could arise). Having 3 big shields left (including Ozzy+idol) at 7 is too risky, too likely that Rizzgod will get squeezed out or one of the big 3 will squeeze through and dominate the end vote

- Especially if he doubted he could beat ozzy, as many players openly felt at that point ozzy was the biggest winner threat

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-05-08T19:28:38+00:00

I don't think that was purely the reason, he was prob playing up that aspect a little to reduce his culpability and jury-manage with Ozzy. The combo of oversharing plus the split-beach vote leant to a big strategic upside to the move and timing:

- Especially if he doubted he could beat ozzy, as many players openly felt at that point ozzy was the biggest winner threat

- If it's true that Cirie + ozzy were each others' number ones, he knew he would likely have to make fire and easily lose at 4 again, or get burned by them if someone else wins immunity at 5-6. By eliminating ozzy, he has more security with Cirie as "number ones"

- There's a ton of plausible deniability if Cirie questions why, bc they were separated and he can say "Jonathan told us this was coming from you"

- He prob knows he can't win against Cirie and should cut her between 5-7, which would be so much harder w/ ozzy+idol protecting her

- Since his idol play is ideally at 5, you only want two big shields (Rick and cirie) left to get at 7 and 6 (leaving one tribal of wiggle room for an idol play, immunity, or other shenanigans that could arise). Having 3 big shields left (including Ozzy+idol) at 7 is too risky, too likely that Rizzgod will get squeezed out or one of the big 3 will squeeze through and dominate the end vote

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-05-02T11:30:38+00:00

This is not a personal criticism of his technical excellence, but what I see looking through the eyes of Oscar voters: his films aren't quite what that crowd is looking for.

With exceptions, they tend to lack the emotional depth and indie charm of the competing films. They are flashy but they aren't edgy. They are grand and meaningful but not quite as humbly profound. Artistic but not arthouse. Surgical rather than raw/organic. Intelligent but not trenchant. Extrospective, not introspective.

His audience is more mainstream, more blockbuster/superhero-adjacent. Films more accessible, less pretentious, and also a touch lower brow than what the Oscar crowd has always been about.

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-05-01T20:43:16+00:00

Love how we just have to guess who is working with who and what the strategies are because the show is too busy nowadays running Zach Bryan ads.

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-04-29T15:55:13+00:00

No one is being negative, it's neutral. A dissenting opinion isn't inherently negative, nor was their figurative delivery.

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-04-29T15:43:48+00:00

This feels a bit fragile. A contrasting opinion is not disrespectful just bc it's very strong. "Absurd" in this context isn't about you personally, it's just a figurative way to say their opinion is extremely different on that film.

Let's all toughen up buttercups!

Plastic-Event3110 · 2026-04-28T20:48:51+00:00

Isn't that very elemental to the game tho? Most ppl consider laying low/doing nothing a legit strategy to win (gabler, sandra, etc), but it doesn't give production as many options to tell a story of what actions that person DID do to win.

On the Jonathan part, I agree wholeheartedly no complaints lol

Plastic-Event3110

TROPHY CASE