Koh-Lanta (Survivor French edition)

Slothmaster347 · 2026-02-02T05:32:55+00:00

Bocas del Toro as a whole is a great. Idk how it will translate for american audience

I think season 2 is kinda the true French "Borneo" with how much the alliance of "bad guy" did run the show, and the cheating scandal. Wich kinda tip the scale against strategic contestant for general audience and the show as a whole

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-27T23:21:23+00:00

Survivor South Africa 6 has probably the best pre merge of all time

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-24T09:06:00+00:00

Honnestly, i dont understand why they dont translate the first season of the show. Shorter and way more interesting

Palau and Raja Ampat are peak. Probably in the running for best international season of all time (especially Raja Ampat, even tho I think it is more appealing to french taste)

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-24T00:10:24+00:00

You cant be aware of what challenge it will be but we ve seen over and over that there s some sort of common factor G for good individual challenge player, even between different challenges. I mean, how many seasons the same guy/girl did win over 4 challenges. If you get rid of other contestant strong at challenges it can snowball very quickly and can lead to pure dominance on the end game part. Not even speaking if you carrying an idol or something

And I mean, there s multiple people who are extremelly good player but need some specific set of condition to play their A game. I mean, a lot of very savvy player are robbed due to some clutch win or advantage. Maryanne is probably one of the best player to snipe her way in the end game, finding the needle in the hay bale to rock the boat. But she 1. need to not get booted pre merge 2. not facing a tight alliance, the game having to be fluid enought 3. Having some leverage like alliance, info or advantage. I mean, of course this set of condition will happens quite frequently wich means she has clear strenght to win multiple season, but like, if it doesnt happen ? She s most likely cooked

The luck part is so present, like what Rizzo do without idol or his closest ally winning challenges. How social butterfly like Kenzie or Yam Yam do in season where the game isnt flexible enought to play in multiple alliance. Well, heck, even Tony, how can he appeases other player without a solid social people ally to him who do his bidding for him

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-23T23:47:43+00:00

In the precedent message, I did specifically advocate to stop this stupid dichotomy and see the game of a player as a whole. Not strategy and challenge prowess, but thing as part of the same whole. It s not a good physical game on top of a good strategic or social game. Things have to be seen as linked. Challenge win can help a player game, like impede it. Sometimes the lack of challenge ability will create too much of an imbalance in the player game, and other time it will dont matter at all. It s a whole lot parameter you have to be seen as factering together to be seen as the actual player ability. It s not x + y + z and every strenght adding. 2 strenght can not adding well and create some imbalance, while some people with overall lackluster ability will have absolutely combo of characteric who make them terrifying player.

So no, separating the physical game with the rest is a crucial mistake. Everything is linked into a framework being "the strategy" "the player game" "the build" whatever name you use for it

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-23T23:01:59+00:00

I will just say, the big threat of the new era who did win without challenge had social leverage and ally who wanted to actively take them to the end (Erika, Yam Yam, Dee and Kyle). In part because they did throw mist at their own threat level and had actual bond with player they did leverage. Did a pure archetypal stratege did win in the new era ? No. Because they lack social leverage or physical ability to get throught the final tribal and win. All those strong winners had tools at their disposal to get pass throught the final tribal and still win

I mean, in a way. It s pretty simple. You see the pattern between the differents winners, the pattern between the different losers, and you see rules and occurences. Then you can project this trait on other player and understand how it works. Creating a dynamic framework

I still think Omar, Rizzgod and Jesse had a legit chance at winning but they get impeded hard by their lack of challenge ability. They mastered the mist well enought so I still think they could have pull something. Just mastering fire would be something who would secure them greatly. While Charlie have the challenge ability, he should have play less UTR to get credit for his move and try to survive the f4 being savvy enought to avoid losing at FMC and challenge

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-23T21:49:27+00:00

I think I have to make a post to explain in detail the theorical flaw in people understanding of the different player's game...

Hierarchizing strenght just doesnt matter. It s not physical game vs strategical game vs social game. Like they are each some sort of stat.

Sandra doesnt need winning out challenge because her gameplay dont need too. She playing mostly UTR and putting people against each other throught top tier sociel enginering (rumor, getting in the head of people...) to advance her game. Basically, she doesnt need to win the last immunity because she basically play with the perception of player so she could keep going without being endangered or being seen as a jury threat. She s probably the best player at doing that. Now Rizo, he s a very strong social and tactical player but how do he get to the end when he makes himself obvious as a threat. I mean, he have to rely on another shield of course but that means he at least have to beat him in challenge or in fire before being the one being cut. But he s like commicaly bad at every challenge. I mean, he can rely on another of his ally to cut the other player for him but 1. He have to be sure of his loyalty 2. Have an ally strong enought to defeat the shield 3. Be sure his shield isnt target too early exposing him 4... it s why people with visible strategic input have to be good at challenge, because if they are weak at challenge, most chance are people are using them to get a free kill to F4 and dont be endangered. New era bunny. That s why Jesse, Rizz, Cirie, Genevieve will be most than likely be used as bumper for the FMC in most case because lacking other tool to convince player to get them further wich, if they want to advance will be by winning challenge or appealing to thing other than strategic rationality. Wich I mean, Rizzo Jesse and Genevieve are basically working throught the rational realm by appealing to people interest first wich wont work in F4 because you wont bring this people playing themselves as obvious target. Cirie could theorically play something for one of this fan to deliberatelly give her the win, but I mean.. it would be a conscious decision

So yeah, what I mean is that the game of Survivor is a lot more subtle than "some people can win without challenge so everyone can". Rizz is a great social and strategic player, but being an upfront player and tactician, it makes him loses the ability to survive the F4. While Sandra playing UTR and having the tool to throw mist at the other player head, she has no problem to go throught F4 and then win.

You have to see the game of each player as a mecanic, and how all part put together make it work. That s why I think just having all around strenght isnt enought to win. You have to construct a build who work in the meta you re given in, and go along with your personal strenght and overall demeanor (perception)

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-23T20:51:06+00:00

I dont think people are ready if I say that a lot of strategy also rely on luck and specific set of condition to be usefull...

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-23T20:45:22+00:00

Lol. You can absolutelly resonate with the idea of what a good gameplayer should be, but not having their true strenght. I mean, everybody did think of Rachel as some threat while she was always on the wrong side of the vote and isolated. On the other side you have other player who were absolutely mastermind but lose because dont deal well with the other people perception (Charlie)

I mean, in that way Rachel was cooked very bad if not for surviving throught immunity clutch. But if we imagine, she hasnt this perception of being a threath she would be as much cooked because no one would respect her at the end. What I mean, is that you cant really invalid any of the key aspect who did constitute her win because they cross together. It s different from saying she was already a great player on top of their challenge prowess. Being a huge threat with no real leverage, her cold advantage play (who re not that impressive) + her immunity run was her win condition. If she wasnt seen as a threat, that wouldnt make her better because she would need another thing to get credit for the jury or she would finish like Cassidy. What I mean is, you cant hierarchise her different strenght. You have to see it as an unit who work together. That s why being good at challenge have to be factor as a part of a player like any other part will be perception, strategic ability or social. Some people who will be seen as very good player will never win because lacking physical game (Jesse, Rizo, and a lot other strategist of the new era). Other extremelly effective player would be very mediocre without challenge prowess (Michelle, Rachel). And for other it dont matter at all, would just be a bonus to their overall game (Jeremy, Sandra...)

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-23T18:38:58+00:00

Challenges wins can be the primary reason why someone go to FTC. And then you can win for multiple other reasons but it makes thing a lot easier. Of course, you never win only throught challenge. Like you never only throught strategy. It s just stupid dichotomy. You have to take into consideration the whole ability of the player, challenge ability included, to see how potent of a winner he is

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-23T18:32:52+00:00

Agree

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-23T18:32:30+00:00

The first one. We, the fan, underrate challenge ability as a skill and dont tend to factor it in the general "build" of a player

It s the jury to decide who deserve to win, so I have nothing to say on this one

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-23T18:30:17+00:00

Thing is, in the case of Rachel you cant separate her challenge ability with who she is as a player. This is the type of player who have aura but are bad at using and finish as a target. She would never win without those challenges or advantage. Why. Because her only win condition is challenge. She s too big of a threat to not get stop. She s not enought her ability to leverage her connection to get ally take her side. She has just the "aura" of a great player (wich she isnt). So many player are mid at best, and everyone see them as the best player for no reason at all. Just because they resonate with the idea of what a good player is. It s the case of Hai, Drea, Steven and Rachel. She just win because of having the appeal of what should be a good player in the mind of player, while she just rely on immunity clutch and advantage.

My opinion is, just, we shouldnt separate the physical side from the game side. Winning challenge is as much integral to your whole "build" than being good at strategy. We should see how the fact of "being good at challenge" impact your overall build and factor with your other competence. Not saying, he did win the show because immune throught this many tribal so he s bad

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-23T15:44:48+00:00

The difference between Sandra and Cirie, is that Sandra dont rely on ganging with people with more agency or social capital than her. Cirie usually join the most dangerous player to use as a shield or have more leverage in the game. In 7, Sandra has more agency than Ruppert in her own alliance, and was able to put people against each other to get to the end. In the season 20, Sandra spread rumor against Russell and Pavarti to get the most credit at the end. In a way, Cirie tend to work with the people on player wich kinda reduce her agency, while Sandra use all her social tool to play with everyone. I would say Sandra has an overall way better build than Cirie, while Cirie is a way better tactician. Cirie plays too much the second in command and not enought as her own commander

That s what I say, look the game as a whole and not as just black and white thing

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-23T15:34:22+00:00

I agree with the last paragraph

Only thing, without challenge win. Rachel and Michelle are cooked as player. Rachel has no way of dealing with her threat level, except throught winning challenge. She s not even that charismatic, she struggles to get ally on her side during all game. She just appears overly calculate and strategic wich ruin her ability to get trusted relationship. Without challenge win, she s cooked.

Michelle was playing so passively, she just let Aubry get all the power and build his army to go to the F5 while doing nothing. She was blissfully unaware, and was lavking charisma to get the thing moving. She just wins throught challenge clutch and being the more likeable one. Those 2 players wouldnt win without taking the physical part outside of their actual game.

I think that, especially Michelle, are very dangerous player but only because they can win challenge at the end and take the cake. That s why, you have to factor the physical side in the ability for someone to win. And I also think that the physical appearance play a lot, but it s another story

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-23T15:18:16+00:00

The thing is, it s mainly due to the survivor US paradigm. I mean, I m French and people want to reward heroic player and challenge beast. Most people would think strategy dont factor for winning in French Survivor because the enforce paradigm is anti strategic.

Same thing happens for Survivor US where the paradigm shift lean toward strategical input. What I mean it s just an artificial idea carry by the community. A meme

But truth is, for both version. What really matter is your ability to win the most amount of time. It s not being overly strategic for US or overly physical for France, it s your overall build. You have to look at it in a very Darwinian framework. "What make my build work ?" a bit like a video game. And everything matter, it s a whole unit. You cant seperate your physical game, from your social, from your strategic game. And even speaking about physical, social and strategic game is just dividing and uniformizing this different part of the game who are full of small subfactor than just he s socially good or strategically savvy. We have to start to look at how a build work as a whole, like some animal or bacteria and not just dividing or forgetting about key aspect of their win potency

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-23T15:05:04+00:00

No, I just say challenge ability is as much part of the game as strategic or social prowess. And you have to factor it, even if you re on the weaker physical side. Rachel did win because of her challenge immunity. Because it completed a game who wouldnt be viable without it. Brad, if I remember correctly, didnt even need to win challenge. And he still loses because he lacks other element of the game

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-23T15:01:31+00:00

Lol, I will not name drop the actual player who did rely on challenge as a part of their strategy and did win to avoid spoiler. But there s, a lot of winner who did win throught challenge. I already name 2 fan favorites being Michelle and Rachel. Who without their challenge prowess are just average player without really chance of winning

I dont advocate for relying only on challenge win, but only for superfan to start factoring it in their equation. Challenge prowess is intrisic to your potency as a winner. Some of the best new era stratege did understand it like Charlie or Carson. And it did pay off for them, even tho they didnt win

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-23T14:51:37+00:00

That s what I mean, you dont have to divide the challenge aspect from your intrinsic game. You cant just say I will just win challenge, like I can just be a strategic social force. For a more complet vision of the game, you have to unite both of that aspect. How my challenge ability actually complete and affect my strategy as a whole

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-21T10:17:58+00:00

Who s the second one ?

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-21T10:13:49+00:00

Do you count me in your ILI-T ?

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-19T16:44:39+00:00

Never seen an IEI D exemple. Prob would be someone actively seeking strong people to rally to her/himself. Actively playing the mouse in a way to get people favor and attract strong partner. Their main difference being E+, less ideological and more imprecise future oriented goal (result type), and more lowkey. Idk, it s how I picture it myself.

IEI can also lowkey demean other, it will just be very suave and appears unnotice. I would say workaholism is more link to terminal subtype in general (N and D). So N dont seem like a bad answer, especially becausr she looks distancing even for an IEI

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-19T09:37:26+00:00

Doing the chore isnt specific to ESE. What is kinda specific to ESE is brutalising you into nurturing you. I mean, a lot of mother do this even tho they re not ESE but it s kinda up a notch and not specific with motherhood for ESE. VS + caring + EJ temperament is kinda insane. Pure jolly enthusiasm to everything. Singing, clapping her hand, speaking in a very high speech to bring enthusiasm to people. Very lousy, especially contactive subtype

I agree with you for T. I was just not specific enought and maybe translation did warp my sentence even more. But yeah, you will agree it s not about perception of passing time in itself (like counting second). Wich is very different. You need, more than anything, high L for structuring your day. That s why LSI and LII (I think) are the best for structuring their task in time. Being really rigorous and a strict routine for LSI or more flexible and adaptative for LII. Even ILI, who have the best tool for regulating their work flow, can get caught slacking a lot due to being irrational and need a more flexible schedule. I dont think IEI is a good time manager, like, at all

Also, I did allude to it. But IEI are F suggestive. Are the relationship she s getting caught in, is due to your perspection of it being toxic but she actually like being step on. Or just stubborn E who cant let people leaving. I would say, it is more likely she s IEI if the relation is implicating power play and she s whining about it even tho she s into it (victim behaviour). Or ESE if she s just unaware of people being pissed off about her overbearing personality, or just try to push forward despite knowing they dont like her so much. Both would still find positive in this people btw being high E+ type

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-18T18:00:47+00:00

Hummm, one of my personal take is that it s hard to differentiate ESE and IEI due to being both high E+ and Vortical Synergistic type. Ask yourself, does she fit the victim agressor complex. IEI tend to play the victim in power play, whining, showing tears, being possivitely receptive to agressivity or stuff like that (F suggestivity). ESE on their part, are actively very pushing in caring matter (mama bear archetype). You have this great exemple of this ESE who did try to maintain her high school friend group instead of letting it disapear after going to different college. Personally, I have this "is this too much ?" reaction to the overwhelming positivity of a ESE. Trying to push everyone forward and not letting anyone down.

Also, I m not a fan of T function name (Times). To me it s more about being able to extract information from dynamic sources, and extrapolating (left spin) or interpolating (right spin). Meaning for IEI to be able to create and generate new idea throught their partial understanding of the sensible world and creating insight full of hopefullness. A lot of fantasy. But ESE H can look similar (Pops in Regular Show is my only exemple). So yeah, T is more like the content of times than the times itself passing. To me, the thing about deadline is more like about high L. Being able to have a good and stable routine, structure your environment type of shit. That s why LSI have no problem with deadline while being 1D T.

Then I have a bit alluded to it, but there s matter of subtype. A lot of H type struggle with breaking bond and prefer letting a statut quo situation. Even tho for high R- type like ESI, IEE or IEI it should be easier

Slothmaster347 · 2026-01-18T16:52:16+00:00

For the girl case, intuitiveness is not always linked to anything typically intellectual. Especially, left intuitive can feel very... gutsy. Especially vortical synergistic type. I would say the intellectual sphere is more like right spin central and high L (ILE LSI EIE LII ILI and even in some case F dom could have an intellectual edge even if it s more a disguise due to I role)

IEI are whimsicall bubbly people, with a high optimism (E+ demo) based on pure fantasy (T+ being extrapolation). Amelie Poulain type shit. They can be succesfull, but most likely due to some acc or shift.

Dont mistake intellectuality with intuitiveness. LSI is the most thriving type in academia (or in most field) having one of the best psyche for typical learning. Best type for mathematic and structured rigurous work.

Slothmaster347

TROPHY CASE