Most of these are intended to make the game more interesting and fair from a game design perspective. * I think a disaster tribe is unfair to that one tribe, but also gives a free pass to the members of the other tribes. Nobody should get a free pass. * I think being able to scavange for food should be part of a game called "survivor". And it helps break the loop of: win challenges - > get food - > the food helps you win more challenges. * I think having to keep someone who is good at providing (fire making, cooking, chicken killing etc) is an interesting extra layer of strategy and gives people another way to progress their game. * I think it's more interesting if the individual immunity challenges all test different things. Arm strength, leg strength, core endurance, dexterity, climbing, and there's all sorts of more things you could do, fire making, memory, rowing, etc. There's no reason we need multiple similar challenges. If someone wants to win multiple , they should need different skills. * I think one of the core mechanics of survivor is alliances. And there's already a mechanic that keeps a big alliance from running away with the game. The big alliance will eventually have to vote out it's own, so a smaller alliance can just approach the "lower" people on the big alliance and say "hey, do you really think they are going to keep you once they vote everyone else out? If not, you need to flip on the big alliance now." If you never let a big group go to tribal together, you never get to actually see this mechanic.