It can depend on the framing of their questions. If Tyson gets all the "justify why you betrayed me" votes while Ciera gets all the "way to go, we really underestimated you" votes, then their responses will be much tougher to judge. Tyson would have to play defense, while Ciera would be at ease (like Cochran getting…

I'm not convinced on the Bauskaski. She'd have a chance at their votes. Not convinced she'd get them. The fact that she's only still there because Laura M helped her beat Vytas doesn't speak well for her.

I think the biggest problem with F2 is that the person who wins the F3 immunity almost always lost the F3 person's vote (since they were the only person to vote them out and the wound is so raw). Whereas with a F3, there are multiple people to shoulder that blame.

Well, sure, Yul would say that. He's a mensch.

I think for people like Lill or Sugar, you get to a point where you realize you can't win, so you just decide who you'd rather lose to. (This probably applies to Kim Johnson as well).

I think the jury won't have a problem voting for Tyson, but they want to see him challenged. They want him to earn it.

Penner does this every time. He plays the role of the angry juror as one last test to the finalists.

There were definitely some real bitterness and hatred in that jury, but not everyone who voted against Rob was immovable. He lost by one vote. Had he convinced Shii-Ann to vote for him, he wins. Had he been a little more straight up with Big Tom, he wins. Sure, he was never getting Lex or Kathy or probably Alicia, but…

It is tenuous, but it would make a lot more sense for Monica to flip at the true F5 then this fake F5, since she's no longer trading down to F4.

In hockey, there are two assistant captains.

Arguing against Russell in Samoa is easy: he treated everyone like dirt, and thus they wouldn't vote for him. Think of the worst co-worker you've ever had. Would you ever vote to give them a raise?

I would've voted for Parvati as well, and a win by her would have been more satisfying for me. But I still view failures to win a jury vote as failures of the player, not the jury. They aren't an inconvenient adjunct to the game. They are the scoreboard.

Well, then, you'd have a problem if Hayden returned from RI to face Tyson and Gervase. Which do you hate more, RI or returnees? Or Hayden who already won a million dollar prize?

My point is that I think people think of RI as a bad thing… until they are on it. Then it's not so bad. Which is a situation that applies to almost everyone who makes up a final jury. So I think they just might have different biases than you or I.

Parvati made two critical errors that she has to own: 1, she didn't get rid of Sandra, a player with known ties to the jury. Instead, she let Coach, Danielle, and Jerri go ahead of Sandra (at Russell's behest). 2, and most importantly, she needed to distance herself from Russell. She thought he was a goat when really…

So if you were voted out and went to RI, would you quit the duel, as you feel like your continued presence in the game is an affront to it?

You just made me realize: the lack of a loved one's episode has killed our opportunity to see REALLY awkward product placement for Sprint.

Caleb is the fifth.

Now what if you had also been to RI, as will be true of every juror but two in this scenario? Would you still feel the same?

You've got my vote. (But not upvote, interestingly).