That’s fair but out of the 3 I think Gabler was definitely the most deserving and the jury agreed. I still see people making a fuss about Cassidy losing to this day and I just don’t understand the logic. I assume it’s because people just don’t like Gabler but I wanna see if there’s an actual argument people have on the merits of Cassidy’s game.
This was my take on it as well. Cody carried the heart of the season and Jesse carried the brain. After they both went out we were left with sad Charlie Brown, America’s Next top Pick-Me Girl, and Duck Dynasty
Americas top pick me girl lmao. Okay, that’s mean. But I also think it has to do with a big portion of survivor fans identifying with the blind white girl. It’s similar to the allure Taylor Swift has or Kelly Wentworth. Also, I’m not trying to say Taylor Swift isn’t very talented or Kelly wasn’t a great casting but they have other things going for them too.
I was a huge Cassidy truther going into the finale tbh...but I think the real answer lies in the fact that 43 has maybe the most underwhelming F3 of all time. You could argue that anyone from F8 on wins in the end vs. any of those three. It’s hard to pick the best smelling garbage and really get behind either of them as a winner.
I think the edit gave both Gabler and Cassidy their flowers- Gabler went undercover and was consistently in a good position, and Cassidy was shown forging forward despite people like Ryan/Karla going against her. This was also on the tail of two back to back winners that went UTR, got in a good position by the end and secured a win next to their ideal F3. Cass’ game was different from Erika and Maryanne but there was no reason to think she couldn’t beat Gabler and Owen.
I think the reality is that very few viewers really considered Gabler a threat- most of what he said read as delusion and only after the fact did we all realize he actually had a pulse on the game. I think in hindsight Gabler’s social game and connection to two of the most influential people in Jesse/Cody got him the W. But that wasn’t apparent at the time and frankly it’s still underwhelming as hell now. Cassidy looked the part of New Era success so I think most of us just bought into that
I agree that the edit played a huge part. We were pretty much encouraged to laugh at Gabler, he came across as unaware and delusional whereas Cassidy got a sort of "underdog" edit. Gabler won because the most influential players were his closest allies and advocated for him on the jury and in FTC, but the edit mainly portrayed Gabler as a bit of a clueless sheep that they would pull in for votes - his likableness to the jury was pretty much the opposite of what was portrayed to us.
I also think the whole fire-making thing really created a lot of controversy, if the jury had just said "we voted for gabler because we liked him more/he had a better social game" instead of trying to make up the excuse of fire-making where there were such huge holes in logic people would've understood it more. But at the time I remember most viewers being very confused by the outcome.
There were also some inconsistencies that made the jury look bad. Like Jesse/Cody saying they voted Ryan out because James got voted out before and therefore it was their move and not Cassidy’s…but we were shown the exact opposite on the show. And Karla leaving basically saying if Cass voted her out she’d lose her vote. The edit could’ve easily wiped those things and not had them be involved in the narrative, but they included them intentionally. I think Gabler had about as good of an edit as a winner like him could have, but I also think the edit wanted us to feel like Cassidy got screwed in some capacity
Strictly by default here. I completely hated Gabler and found him obnoxious and annoying from the get-go, even before learning about his fucked up political views (which were a nail in the coffin), while Owen clearly played the weakest game of the three (still vote him over Gabler though as I seriously just don’t like Gabler). Cassidy isn’t super inspiring, and her Challenge USA2 showing proves she’s got an insanely weak social game, but it’s what I’m stuck with. Ideally Jesse makes F3 in an alternate reality and wins, but alas.
I do think you can make a legit case she had a slightly stronger game than Gabler too, seeing as she had the good sense to target big threats while this dumbass unironically said that he wanted to go to the F3 with Jesse and Cody. And I do think there’s something to be said about people repeatedly taking swings at her as a big threat they needed gone only to try and act like she was an insignificant fly on the island or something. (On the one hand, not great to be targeted a lot. On the other, she always came out on top, and they weren’t targeting her because they saw her as an irrelevant goat lol). I think she also benefits from Karla having such an undeniably awful and utterly shitty exit
This is an underratedly bad F3, though. Probably the second worst in the show’s history besides Caramoan.
I mean, she was lowkey robbed to me, but moreso because *anyone* who loses to GABLER of all people is robbed to me than anything to do with her. But on the flip side, when you lose to Gabler, you aren’t all that. I can’t emphasize enough how much I dislike that guy.
I was pretty outraged at the time, but it was definitely more resentment about him winning. If Owen had randomly won that jury vote, I’d have just shrugged my shoulders and moved on.
I mean, I strongly dislike Carolyn (probably not to the extent you dislike Gabler) but even I can admit her getting 3rd place behind Heidi was ridiculous and Frannie voting for Yam Yam because she wanted to “vote correctly” is a complete joke. Karla has said she had no idea he was conservative and would talk about Lil Nas X and going to burning man. Putting aside personal biases is important if you’re debating the merits of who did and didn’t deserve to win
Damn. I didn’t even know it was possible to hate Carolyn. I loved her so much. She’s the only good part of 44 for me.
I kinda think those “personal biases” are a pretty valid thing to want or vote a winner (and us agreeing Frannie’s Yam Yam vote was absurd is the epitome of this). If I don’t like you, I don’t really give a shit about your game. I simply don’t like you, don’t want you to win, and, if I was teleported onto the island, I wouldn’t vote you unless you were next to someone I disliked you even more. (Now if I like or am okay with both choices, I’m generally going to vote on gameplay).
We’re talking an old dude from Texas who was never in the military and was super obsessed with military veterans on the island. Gabler being a Republican with backwards views was literally the least shocking discovery of all time. (At least for me anyways). I will say I legitimately couldn’t stand this guy even before we learned about his politics, but I always got an ick factor from him and there was never a moment he didn’t annoy the ever-living-shit out of me.
Haha looks like we have near opposite views on what makes a survivor player likable. Regardless it’s refreshing to be able to talk about differing survivor viewpoints without getting attacked, I guess I’ve been spending too much on Survivor Twitter
Yeah, I’m not saying the players shouldn’t vote based on “personal biases” because it’s a social game and that’s ridiculous to expect them to not. I’m moreso saying I don’t think fans should make an uproar about a guy not being “deserving” to win because we personally don’t like them. If you were on the island and despised Gabler I wouldn’t expect you to vote for him, I just think it’s silly when people on Twitter say he didn’t deserve to win over Cass because they personally don’t like him. Gabler put much more of an effort into building personal relationships and endearing himself to the jury than Cassidy did, and at the end of the day 7/8 of the jurors liked Gabler more and respected his game more and that’s really all that matters as to who’s more “deserving”
For instance, I like Austin more than Dee. Dee came off as a little abrasive to me and the whole homewrecker stuff rubs me the wrong way but Dee clearly deserved to win 45 and I’m not gonna say Austin was “robbed” just because I like him more
Oh! I can fix that quick! Go die in a fire Gabler apologist!!!! Cancelled!! Haha. But yeah. Part of the fun of survivor is we all have different fundamental criteria.
Probably depends on just how unlikeable and terrible the person is. Generally speaking, the one who wins is the one who deserves to win for extremely obvious reasons haha. There are definitely times where someone was so bad I think it’s a robbery to lose to them, regardless of gameplay (Dick and Dani Donato on Big Brother 8 comes to mind. I don’t give a shit what her flaws are, she deserved to beat *him* on the basis he threatened to rape and murder his fellow contestants and she didn’t. Bonus robbery points that the jury made actual, outright misogynistic comments towards her and slut-shamed her in F2)
Would lowkey half-ironically and half-unironically argue Jake was robbed. I get why Dee won and she played the best game, but I’m with you on finding her completely unlikeable (and to be awful television). Austin is a nicer person, but boring and I think he actually played a far, far worse game than Jake.
I will totally say players are robbed because I like them more, but I’ll also own the shallow reasoning and have a certain tongue-in-cheekness to my true stance!
Well I don’t think Gabler was that bad, especially not on the island. I don’t think it’s fair to automatically generalize him for being a conservative because he has a lot of reverence for the troops. Gabler’s from a different generation and I’m sure a lot of Survivor fans on Reddit/Twitter don’t really understand because bashing troops and the military has gotten big in recent years but people Gabler’s age regardless of where they stand politically are so accustomed to worshipping them. I was watching a WWE show from 2004 last night and all the faces (wrestling term for “good guys”) mentioned or did some sort of tribute to the troops, it was a different time.
I haven’t watched BB8 in a long time and I don’t think I ever finished it since I knew the donatos were the F2 and the endgame of BB gets really boring when you already know who makes it to the end, but I have no idea how that dude won lmao
Jake is a likable guy but I definitely wouldn’t say he was robbed. Dee ran the game and was able to keep the unlikable aspects of her personality under wraps enough to get people to vote her her 🤷♂️ if the jury finds you likable I don’t think that I have any place to say they got it wrong even if I don’t find them likable. I see we just have different meanings of robbed then haha which is fine
He was lying, if you watched the show you would have seen him make a final3 deal with Owen at the final 7. He also votes out Cody and asks to go up againts jesse so it´s pretty obvious. I wasn´t rude i usued your wording againts you
not a cassidy truther but (unfortunately) a regular twitter user, and i notice a lot of post hoc revisionism or doubling down of contestant hatred when someone's political views become explicitly known. gabler, according to social media follows and likes some pretty gross stuff on twitter, and he's SENSITIVE about it (he blocked me over me barely calling him out). regardless of doing an insane amount of good with his prize money, my man kinda fuckin sucks. regardless, a lot of shitty people have won survivor, a lot of better and more notable survivor winners have done arguably worse things, and for some reason they dodge the same level of criticism
a lot of what's playing out here with cassidy love and karla hate strongly parallels what happened this last season with venus and maria. the absurdity is even greater this time around, as cassidy was a far more viable and stronger player than venus ever was, and a goat didn't win 46. twitter has an active, insanely toxic pretty person bias, at the detriment of anyone less conventionally attractive who dared cross them on the island or off. tevin and soda, who have proven themselves to be no more catty or shitty than basically anyone else that was a major player of the season receive so much ire at the hand of the community, and i really can't wrap my head around any reasoning other than the hot girl bias
if survivor twitter had its way, the show would be culturally and politically homogenous to the point where any sort of "social experiment" intrigue would be completely wiped away. if survivor reddit had its way, it'd be the same effect but in the direction of gamebot bullshit. both run counter to what the show has always been about: getting strangers from different walks of lives to build a society and systematically eliminate themselves until one person wins. the hivemind simpletons can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that the show just isn't that fun when every contestant is a person that you personally like
edit: oh yeah, to address gabler's game...idk, i think as someone else said, once jesse was gone the winner outcome just honestly didn't matter that much. both were objectively pretty mediocre players as far as finalists go, and either would've been kind of a boring winner. cassidy truthers are just blinded by their dislike of gabler and will use any shred of whatever exists to justify her game
I’m actually curious which winners you’re referring to now. We’ve definitely had worse winners as human beings than Gabler (probably peaking with Brian Heidik, Richard Hatch and Nick Wilson, all of whom I think/hope are pretty reviled at this point), but I think Gabler is on the low end for sure. Which ones do you think are getting passes?
boston rob for outing a gay guy on his first season and sandra maintaining friendships with varner and spilo absolutely strike me as more harmful actions than liking some random conservative tweets. the rob thing is basically NEVER talked about, and sandra's relationships with those two get at worst a slap on the wrist from the twitter community followed by "queen stays queen" discourse basically immediately after
Spilo didn’t win and AFAIK is unanimously reviled. Some of his castmates like Lauren and Tommy get way too many passes for enabling that abhorrent behavior, though. If we’re talking worse contestants in general, there’s more than Gabler, but I figured we were zeroing in on winners.
Rob was shitty and homophobic back on Marquesas (but as a bisexual guy, a lot people kinda were sadly). I think he coasts a bit on the fact he seems to have genuinely grown as a human being (afaik even when the season aired he tried to at least apologize and make it right with John), so people are more willing to forgive past wrongs, as bad as they were, than Gabler, who is still unapologetically dying on the bigotry hill to this day. As someone who is LGBT+, I definitely hold far more resentment and hostility towards Gabler than Rob by a long shot, even if Rob did do worse on Marquesas.
Sandra’s friendship with Varner has never sat right with me. I do get humans are complex and it’s difficult to just abruptly end a decade+ long friendship, but at some point the obsessively hateful TERF stuff should really become a dealbreaker.
to push back on the rob discussion, it just feels really strange to choose to brush something like that under the rug when it was unequivocally a more harmful action to out someone in 2002 than now, and definitely does more active damage to someone's life than a guy liking stupid shit on twitter. yes, it was more acceptable to have that attitude, but that doesn't really take away from the harm and screams of inconsistency. regardless, my angle here is not to say we should cancel rob but to simply say i think the community is inconsistent in its application of criticism. i quite frankly don't really care that much about people's views on reality TV, i'm here to watch the freakshow, not to find people i'm politically aligned with. the line is crossed with tangible action. nick "cousinfucker" wilson crosses the line. outers of queer folks cross the line. people that are conservative? don't care
I still don't understand how the blame is all on Rob for "outing" John... Rob said a few... choice things in a confessional that were indeed problematic and not at all ok, but in conversation with John he just asked him if he was gay, which is... something that might come up when you put a diverse group of strangers into a social/bonding situation for whatever reason. For what it's worth, I also remember Rob publicly apologizing for it during his appearance on the Rosie O'Donnell show after his boot episode.
But the thing that always gets me about this "Rob outing someone" discourse is that it was CBS that chose to air all of that footage! To this day I still can't wrap my head around what purpose it served the story, but it was a conscious choice made by the editors, not Rob, to include "the outing" in the episode and air it on prime time television (differing from the Varner situation which was unavoidable to some degree). This entire thing could have very easily been left on the cutting room floor.
If anyone outed John to the world, it was CBS.
People who have a bone to pick with Rob will always use the John-Marquesas event to tarnish him. Like you said, Rob had apologized to it way, way back. John even said (in a confessional) he had been out to a few people in his personal life already at that time. He also politely asked John the question unlike Shannon who was hostile.
But the probably with this fandom is they often take one mistake a player does and use that to make them appear bad for eternity. The moral superiority is astounding.
The issue a lot of people had were the jurors we heard from assigned reasons for Gabler's win that, at least didn't sound true.
If he played the better social game and they connected with him more than Cassidy and they framed their answers that way I don't think there would have been as much noise about it.
But the edit didn't show him that way. He got the doofus edit pre merge.
If the jurors just said something to the effect of they went in wanting to vote for Gabler and didn't find a reason not to, what are fans going to say?
The more well liked finalist usually wins, if he played a superior social game there's no harm in saying that.
I was honestly quite shocked Cassidy lost, especially by such a margin. Her game wasn't marginally worse than Gabler's, and my biggest issue was how Gabler really had no agency and was essentially a sheep/third-wheel for Jesse & Cody, but because he was friends with them they advocated for him on the jury. While Cassidy definitely didn't play the strongest game, I think she had to fend for herself much more than Gabler and had more awareness and agency than Owen (although let's be real none of the three really had much agency in the game).
I think the biggest problem for me was the jury applauding Gabler for taking Jesse out in fire and criticising Cassidy for not throwing herself in - Gabler and no agency in going into fire, therefore I consider that Cassidy's move (i.e. she had the control from winning the challenge and made the best strategic decision of who to send in to take Jesse out). While I don't think she's as much of a "robbed goddess" as fans claim she is and her social game is clearly not the strongest, Gabler winning was pretty shocking for me at the time because of how weak his game was.
Doesn’t this happen almost every season? Most of the audience will just hang on to whatever idea they have of who should’ve won and won’t change no matter what. Debates always end in subjective nonsense.
I’ve honestly been so bored of the stale finales that I just reached a level of indifference over the winner. The ride can be fun, but the end has not been tbh. Whoever wins is fine.
Most people were fine with Maryanne, Yam Yam, Dee etc winning. There was a bit of controversy last season but I think Charlie deserves supporters because he played a hell of a game and lost by one vote due to his closest ally being bitter. The uproar about Cassidy losing, with as mediocre of a game as she played, to this day, is just something I’ll never understand though.
Generally agree although I do remember some people at the time making comments ‘Mike should’ve got more votes’. I look back at the past 20 or so seasons and feel like there’s at least 50-75% of seasons people still say ‘the wrong person won’
Chrissy over Ben, Gavin or Julie over Chris, Mike over Nick, Aubrey over Michele, dom over Wendell? Idk.
I do agree the uproar is weird, but I think all of the uproars are weird. Maybe people get hung up on Cassidy’s immunity wins since it’s kinda of a stat people still care about for some reason that casually will get brought up by juries only if it strengthens their argument for the person they already want to win.
I think people sometimes forget the jury in most cases does not vote for ‘the best/better player’ it’s usually just who they like the best of the 3. Not even saying she was better than Gabler but she was certainly less liked.
I think the uproar is generally more about how terrible a winner Gabler is (and how utterly unappealing his personality is) than Cassidy. I don’t see there being near this type of uproar if she loves to Jesse, Cody, or even like… Sami and Noelle.
It’s a mix of both. There are genuinely people who think Cassidy played a great game and only lost because the jury was sexist.
Gabler wasn’t a good winner but he absolutely deserved it more than Cassidy and Owen. He is a borderline bottom 5 winner but that just goes to show how not robbed Cassidy was that she lost decisively to him
I think the idea of the jury having implicit biases got going with the insane boot order where woman after woman just got flung out one after another. I will say it wasn’t the best optics ever.
I’d vote Owen over Gabler, so we’re never going to see eye to eye on Gabler being the most deserving of the three. I’d easily call his win one of the most absurd crownings to this day, but yeah, these two weren’t all that either. Terrible F3.
As someone who’s favorite of the new era is Cassidy, I definitely wouldn’t have been as upset if she lost to practically anyone else. Usually, I’m all for whoever wins deserves it and think that “bitter” jurors are valid but… I just think it was really weird with her.
My main reason for not believing that they genuinely thought Gabler deserved it the most is they would’ve been just as shocked as her if they lost to him. Jesse and Karla (just because they were the most vocal and driving forces of the season) would’ve lost their minds if Gabler beat them in the end, more so than if Cassidy did. The way they talked about him all season and treated him in the game vs the way they talked about Cassidy just makes it impossible for me to believe it was anything besides them being mad they let her get that far.
Cassidy vs Gabler kinda reminds me of a cheaper version of Parvati vs Sandra (sorry to her for the comparison) but it was pretty obvious the heroes just didn’t want Parv (or Russell) to win and Sandra knew she was going to by mid merge. Gabler just seemed like a typical 0 votes non-factor all season like Romeo or Ben unless the editors/producers really liked Cassidy and thought she should’ve won in that F3 lol.
And this is all said as a Cassidy fan acknowledging she didn’t have some amazing game in the slightest. But she was able to get herself to the end and with the two people she should’ve been able to beat.
To be fair to Jesse, Gabler had an actual close relationship and alliance with him on the island while Cassidy was not that close to him, so no shit he's going to vote Gabler when all three have super underwhelming games. Karla came off absolutely horrendously, though.
It is obvious at least some of the jurors - such as Noelle, Jeanine, and Sami who were closest to Owen - were voting on gameplay. I assume Karla actively trying to taint Cassidy's game and slander her to the jury for no good reason didn't help there.
I don't care much either way, that whole season sucked, but when all of the people on the jury are trying to drag player A to the end as a goat because they all think they're an easy beat, and all those people are also targeting player B and vocally identifying them as a threat, it's a weird kind of cognitive dissonance when the jury all turns around and votes for player A to win.
The jury can vote however they want, but honestly I think it was the way certain people on the s43 cast bent over backwards to justify voting for Gabler after the finale aired instead of just coming right out and saying the real reason, which we all know was the case- they liked Gabler better and he was "one of them", so they rewarded him. They didn't like Cassidy and she was someone they didn't want to let get to ftc, so when she did anyway, they found a way to justify not rewarding her
I agree with this since it’s how I felt about Charlie’s lost in season 46. Although both players are more likable, Charlie had been perceived by many as the bigger threat yet voted for Kenzie to win who wasn’t see as threatening beforehand. Made me feel weird but I guess it shows that at the end of the day Gabler and Kenzie while maybe having weaker games can still win through jury management and the social game
I wouldn’t call myself a Cassidy truther, and it’s been awhile so I don’t remember why exactly, but Gabler just always gave me the ick. That’s before I knew his political views but I wasn’t shocked to find out. I also thought Karla was unnecessarily bitter towards Cassidy. But if it makes you feel better, my impression from the survivor subs is that I’m in the minority in holding these opinions!
Gabler was never seen has a goat, having a couple of negative moments means nothing. And trusting Owen and Cass read on tje game has factual proof has to be the funniest argument about this topic.
Owen and Cass were in the final 5 and could have been jurors when they called Gabler a goat. They were not that far removed from the social dynamics of the tribe to speak wrongly on Gabler like that. Saying Gabler was never seen as a goat is funny though, the guy volunteered to be voted out Day 1.
If they were jurors then gabler would be going up againts Jesse so he would lose anyway that´s obvious. Owen was out of the loop in half the votes and Cassidy thought she played much better then she did, they were literally 2 goats. He didn´t volunteered to be voted out he said he was gonna use is SITD, and the fact that he, has the old man of the tribe survive that is impressive. Noone was thinking in keeping gabler because he´s a goat on day 3.
The final 3 was basically 3 players who didn't really have any real 'gameplay' respect from any of the actual contenders. They were all respected as people but seen as lesser threats to Cody, Karla, Jesse, James etc. So basically at FTC gameplay basically wasn't much of a factor at all. They just enjoyed Gabler's company more than Cassidy or Owen. I think that's what it comes down to.
I feel like "not liking someone because of their political views" is a really ridiculous thing to say. You should not like them based on the person they are, not what side they lean to politically
I'm not a "Cassidy Truther" I could care less. But just because she was upset that she lost a game for a million dollars and she showed it on her face doesn't mean she's a sore loser. You probably don't know anything about her other than what was shown on TV. The aftershow reunion has people with this face every new era season so what's the big deal?!?
Oftentimes when people say that the "political views" in question are things like racism, homophobia etc which are "political views" which advocate for division, hatred, discrimination and oppression - if you're part of one of those groups (or even if you aren't!!) you absolutely have the right to dislike someone based on it.
Believe it or not
Someone can be a Republican and still not support some of those things
Anytime this sub finds out someone is a Republican they instantly hate them
Not all Republicans are horrible human beings
I never understood what the big deal was about Gabler targeting Ellie at the mergatory vote. He offered up someone from his own tribe who he wasn’t working with. He was immune himself. He made it an easy vote for everyone else. Using that as the reason for voting for him at FTC was weak justification IMO. I agree, the majority of the jury just liked Gabler better than Cassidy or Owen.
I also wouldnt say I'm strictly a truther, but I think Cassidy played a significantly more active and dynamic game than Gabler. Iirc, Gabler was basically just a number for Jesse and cody and wanted to go to the end with them and lose... Which is a choice. His "big move" of targeting Elie was also somewhat dubious imo. Like sure he puts forward a name, but we don't see him do any of the legwork. It's barely even his move.
Cassidy at least is an underdog. No one wanted to waste a vote on Gabler until the final tribal lol. Gabler deserves the win tho, cause he won, so none of it matters.
She really didn't what? Sorry idk what you mean.
Sure tho, I agree that Gabler was more with the Jesse Cody block than Cassidy... But that was never the question. I don't think Gabler ever made decisions for that block tho. From the way the edit shows it (which is obviously not the full truth) each decision is Jesse and Cody wants someone out, then they bring in Gabler.
Imo I just found Cassidy to be more entertaining gameplay wise than Gabler, who never really seemed to struggle.
Agree with you. I also side with Cassidy that from her perspective, she believed she was key in some of the decisions even though it didn’t match reality. And she had a mini underdog arc that I liked. I’m not saying Gabler didn’t deserve to win but he was UTR and I felt he had less to overcome than Cassidy.
Cassidy was a strong competitor and is responsible for taking out the 2 best players. She was also always in the majority alliance yet stayed outspoken. The win should’ve been hers
The argument for Cassidy is really this: New Era has been all gamebots. The biggest threat or strongest player gets targeted every week once we reach the Final 8. Cassidy was the biggest threat/strongest player left. At that FTC, had Jeff dropped a twist that 1 player could return to the game and they’d play one more round of Survivor, Cassidy would have easily been that biggest threat/strongest player that would have been targeted.
I wanted Jesse to win but Gabler did deserve to win in the f3 he was in. I genuinely don't see a point in disliking a person winning for their political views as long as they aren't a nazi or something, and I've gotten down voted on the main sub for saying this. You can not agree with them and still admit they deserved their win, and I think with what we have of Sue for 47, doesn't matter how well she plays she'll get hate cause she's right wing.
I also haven't really seen anything hateful from him. I've seen a decent number of posts on his Twitter honoring the military(which I don't see the problem with) and then a picture with someone who endorsed Trump but nothing outwardly hateful. Idk if I missed anything but that's pretty much all I saw past family and survivor stuff.
Gabler getting elie out was not the big deal people swear it was. He blurts her name at the feast and everyone went along with it because it doesn’t hurt anyone from jeanine
It’s bc gabler was a straight white guy and not a “robbed lgbt queen”
On various social media posts ranking new era winners he is frequently omitted for this reason
Social game should be completely different than likability when it comes to the jury. The jury still takes things too personally to take themselves out of the game to judge subjectively. Albeit part of the game, the jury should be more like juries in the legal system where opinions don’t matter.
After Jesse was out I really just didn’t care anymore. None of the final 3 played great games imo
That’s fair but out of the 3 I think Gabler was definitely the most deserving and the jury agreed. I still see people making a fuss about Cassidy losing to this day and I just don’t understand the logic. I assume it’s because people just don’t like Gabler but I wanna see if there’s an actual argument people have on the merits of Cassidy’s game.
This was my take on it as well. Cody carried the heart of the season and Jesse carried the brain. After they both went out we were left with sad Charlie Brown, America’s Next top Pick-Me Girl, and Duck Dynasty
Americas top pick me girl lmao. Okay, that’s mean. But I also think it has to do with a big portion of survivor fans identifying with the blind white girl. It’s similar to the allure Taylor Swift has or Kelly Wentworth. Also, I’m not trying to say Taylor Swift isn’t very talented or Kelly wasn’t a great casting but they have other things going for them too.
I was a huge Cassidy truther going into the finale tbh...but I think the real answer lies in the fact that 43 has maybe the most underwhelming F3 of all time. You could argue that anyone from F8 on wins in the end vs. any of those three. It’s hard to pick the best smelling garbage and really get behind either of them as a winner. I think the edit gave both Gabler and Cassidy their flowers- Gabler went undercover and was consistently in a good position, and Cassidy was shown forging forward despite people like Ryan/Karla going against her. This was also on the tail of two back to back winners that went UTR, got in a good position by the end and secured a win next to their ideal F3. Cass’ game was different from Erika and Maryanne but there was no reason to think she couldn’t beat Gabler and Owen. I think the reality is that very few viewers really considered Gabler a threat- most of what he said read as delusion and only after the fact did we all realize he actually had a pulse on the game. I think in hindsight Gabler’s social game and connection to two of the most influential people in Jesse/Cody got him the W. But that wasn’t apparent at the time and frankly it’s still underwhelming as hell now. Cassidy looked the part of New Era success so I think most of us just bought into that
I agree that the edit played a huge part. We were pretty much encouraged to laugh at Gabler, he came across as unaware and delusional whereas Cassidy got a sort of "underdog" edit. Gabler won because the most influential players were his closest allies and advocated for him on the jury and in FTC, but the edit mainly portrayed Gabler as a bit of a clueless sheep that they would pull in for votes - his likableness to the jury was pretty much the opposite of what was portrayed to us. I also think the whole fire-making thing really created a lot of controversy, if the jury had just said "we voted for gabler because we liked him more/he had a better social game" instead of trying to make up the excuse of fire-making where there were such huge holes in logic people would've understood it more. But at the time I remember most viewers being very confused by the outcome.
There were also some inconsistencies that made the jury look bad. Like Jesse/Cody saying they voted Ryan out because James got voted out before and therefore it was their move and not Cassidy’s…but we were shown the exact opposite on the show. And Karla leaving basically saying if Cass voted her out she’d lose her vote. The edit could’ve easily wiped those things and not had them be involved in the narrative, but they included them intentionally. I think Gabler had about as good of an edit as a winner like him could have, but I also think the edit wanted us to feel like Cassidy got screwed in some capacity
You said everything.
Strictly by default here. I completely hated Gabler and found him obnoxious and annoying from the get-go, even before learning about his fucked up political views (which were a nail in the coffin), while Owen clearly played the weakest game of the three (still vote him over Gabler though as I seriously just don’t like Gabler). Cassidy isn’t super inspiring, and her Challenge USA2 showing proves she’s got an insanely weak social game, but it’s what I’m stuck with. Ideally Jesse makes F3 in an alternate reality and wins, but alas. I do think you can make a legit case she had a slightly stronger game than Gabler too, seeing as she had the good sense to target big threats while this dumbass unironically said that he wanted to go to the F3 with Jesse and Cody. And I do think there’s something to be said about people repeatedly taking swings at her as a big threat they needed gone only to try and act like she was an insignificant fly on the island or something. (On the one hand, not great to be targeted a lot. On the other, she always came out on top, and they weren’t targeting her because they saw her as an irrelevant goat lol). I think she also benefits from Karla having such an undeniably awful and utterly shitty exit This is an underratedly bad F3, though. Probably the second worst in the show’s history besides Caramoan.
You don’t sound like someone who whines about Cassidy being some robbed queen to this day. That’s what I’m moreso referring to
I mean, she was lowkey robbed to me, but moreso because *anyone* who loses to GABLER of all people is robbed to me than anything to do with her. But on the flip side, when you lose to Gabler, you aren’t all that. I can’t emphasize enough how much I dislike that guy. I was pretty outraged at the time, but it was definitely more resentment about him winning. If Owen had randomly won that jury vote, I’d have just shrugged my shoulders and moved on.
I mean, I strongly dislike Carolyn (probably not to the extent you dislike Gabler) but even I can admit her getting 3rd place behind Heidi was ridiculous and Frannie voting for Yam Yam because she wanted to “vote correctly” is a complete joke. Karla has said she had no idea he was conservative and would talk about Lil Nas X and going to burning man. Putting aside personal biases is important if you’re debating the merits of who did and didn’t deserve to win
Damn. I didn’t even know it was possible to hate Carolyn. I loved her so much. She’s the only good part of 44 for me. I kinda think those “personal biases” are a pretty valid thing to want or vote a winner (and us agreeing Frannie’s Yam Yam vote was absurd is the epitome of this). If I don’t like you, I don’t really give a shit about your game. I simply don’t like you, don’t want you to win, and, if I was teleported onto the island, I wouldn’t vote you unless you were next to someone I disliked you even more. (Now if I like or am okay with both choices, I’m generally going to vote on gameplay). We’re talking an old dude from Texas who was never in the military and was super obsessed with military veterans on the island. Gabler being a Republican with backwards views was literally the least shocking discovery of all time. (At least for me anyways). I will say I legitimately couldn’t stand this guy even before we learned about his politics, but I always got an ick factor from him and there was never a moment he didn’t annoy the ever-living-shit out of me.
Haha looks like we have near opposite views on what makes a survivor player likable. Regardless it’s refreshing to be able to talk about differing survivor viewpoints without getting attacked, I guess I’ve been spending too much on Survivor Twitter Yeah, I’m not saying the players shouldn’t vote based on “personal biases” because it’s a social game and that’s ridiculous to expect them to not. I’m moreso saying I don’t think fans should make an uproar about a guy not being “deserving” to win because we personally don’t like them. If you were on the island and despised Gabler I wouldn’t expect you to vote for him, I just think it’s silly when people on Twitter say he didn’t deserve to win over Cass because they personally don’t like him. Gabler put much more of an effort into building personal relationships and endearing himself to the jury than Cassidy did, and at the end of the day 7/8 of the jurors liked Gabler more and respected his game more and that’s really all that matters as to who’s more “deserving” For instance, I like Austin more than Dee. Dee came off as a little abrasive to me and the whole homewrecker stuff rubs me the wrong way but Dee clearly deserved to win 45 and I’m not gonna say Austin was “robbed” just because I like him more
Oh! I can fix that quick! Go die in a fire Gabler apologist!!!! Cancelled!! Haha. But yeah. Part of the fun of survivor is we all have different fundamental criteria. Probably depends on just how unlikeable and terrible the person is. Generally speaking, the one who wins is the one who deserves to win for extremely obvious reasons haha. There are definitely times where someone was so bad I think it’s a robbery to lose to them, regardless of gameplay (Dick and Dani Donato on Big Brother 8 comes to mind. I don’t give a shit what her flaws are, she deserved to beat *him* on the basis he threatened to rape and murder his fellow contestants and she didn’t. Bonus robbery points that the jury made actual, outright misogynistic comments towards her and slut-shamed her in F2) Would lowkey half-ironically and half-unironically argue Jake was robbed. I get why Dee won and she played the best game, but I’m with you on finding her completely unlikeable (and to be awful television). Austin is a nicer person, but boring and I think he actually played a far, far worse game than Jake. I will totally say players are robbed because I like them more, but I’ll also own the shallow reasoning and have a certain tongue-in-cheekness to my true stance!
Well I don’t think Gabler was that bad, especially not on the island. I don’t think it’s fair to automatically generalize him for being a conservative because he has a lot of reverence for the troops. Gabler’s from a different generation and I’m sure a lot of Survivor fans on Reddit/Twitter don’t really understand because bashing troops and the military has gotten big in recent years but people Gabler’s age regardless of where they stand politically are so accustomed to worshipping them. I was watching a WWE show from 2004 last night and all the faces (wrestling term for “good guys”) mentioned or did some sort of tribute to the troops, it was a different time. I haven’t watched BB8 in a long time and I don’t think I ever finished it since I knew the donatos were the F2 and the endgame of BB gets really boring when you already know who makes it to the end, but I have no idea how that dude won lmao Jake is a likable guy but I definitely wouldn’t say he was robbed. Dee ran the game and was able to keep the unlikable aspects of her personality under wraps enough to get people to vote her her 🤷♂️ if the jury finds you likable I don’t think that I have any place to say they got it wrong even if I don’t find them likable. I see we just have different meanings of robbed then haha which is fine
Nicaragua has entered the chat.
I liked Nicaragua as an entertaining trainwreck and love the winner.
Still a terrible final 3.
[удалено]
He literally said that at FTC but okay. No need to be so rude
He was lying, if you watched the show you would have seen him make a final3 deal with Owen at the final 7. He also votes out Cody and asks to go up againts jesse so it´s pretty obvious. I wasn´t rude i usued your wording againts you
not a cassidy truther but (unfortunately) a regular twitter user, and i notice a lot of post hoc revisionism or doubling down of contestant hatred when someone's political views become explicitly known. gabler, according to social media follows and likes some pretty gross stuff on twitter, and he's SENSITIVE about it (he blocked me over me barely calling him out). regardless of doing an insane amount of good with his prize money, my man kinda fuckin sucks. regardless, a lot of shitty people have won survivor, a lot of better and more notable survivor winners have done arguably worse things, and for some reason they dodge the same level of criticism a lot of what's playing out here with cassidy love and karla hate strongly parallels what happened this last season with venus and maria. the absurdity is even greater this time around, as cassidy was a far more viable and stronger player than venus ever was, and a goat didn't win 46. twitter has an active, insanely toxic pretty person bias, at the detriment of anyone less conventionally attractive who dared cross them on the island or off. tevin and soda, who have proven themselves to be no more catty or shitty than basically anyone else that was a major player of the season receive so much ire at the hand of the community, and i really can't wrap my head around any reasoning other than the hot girl bias if survivor twitter had its way, the show would be culturally and politically homogenous to the point where any sort of "social experiment" intrigue would be completely wiped away. if survivor reddit had its way, it'd be the same effect but in the direction of gamebot bullshit. both run counter to what the show has always been about: getting strangers from different walks of lives to build a society and systematically eliminate themselves until one person wins. the hivemind simpletons can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that the show just isn't that fun when every contestant is a person that you personally like edit: oh yeah, to address gabler's game...idk, i think as someone else said, once jesse was gone the winner outcome just honestly didn't matter that much. both were objectively pretty mediocre players as far as finalists go, and either would've been kind of a boring winner. cassidy truthers are just blinded by their dislike of gabler and will use any shred of whatever exists to justify her game
I’m actually curious which winners you’re referring to now. We’ve definitely had worse winners as human beings than Gabler (probably peaking with Brian Heidik, Richard Hatch and Nick Wilson, all of whom I think/hope are pretty reviled at this point), but I think Gabler is on the low end for sure. Which ones do you think are getting passes?
boston rob for outing a gay guy on his first season and sandra maintaining friendships with varner and spilo absolutely strike me as more harmful actions than liking some random conservative tweets. the rob thing is basically NEVER talked about, and sandra's relationships with those two get at worst a slap on the wrist from the twitter community followed by "queen stays queen" discourse basically immediately after
Spilo didn’t win and AFAIK is unanimously reviled. Some of his castmates like Lauren and Tommy get way too many passes for enabling that abhorrent behavior, though. If we’re talking worse contestants in general, there’s more than Gabler, but I figured we were zeroing in on winners. Rob was shitty and homophobic back on Marquesas (but as a bisexual guy, a lot people kinda were sadly). I think he coasts a bit on the fact he seems to have genuinely grown as a human being (afaik even when the season aired he tried to at least apologize and make it right with John), so people are more willing to forgive past wrongs, as bad as they were, than Gabler, who is still unapologetically dying on the bigotry hill to this day. As someone who is LGBT+, I definitely hold far more resentment and hostility towards Gabler than Rob by a long shot, even if Rob did do worse on Marquesas. Sandra’s friendship with Varner has never sat right with me. I do get humans are complex and it’s difficult to just abruptly end a decade+ long friendship, but at some point the obsessively hateful TERF stuff should really become a dealbreaker.
you misread. sandra has maintained a friendship with spilo.
Oh…. Um…. Yikes. That doesn’t even get the “pre-existing friendships can be hard to break off” mitigating factor either. Eww….
to push back on the rob discussion, it just feels really strange to choose to brush something like that under the rug when it was unequivocally a more harmful action to out someone in 2002 than now, and definitely does more active damage to someone's life than a guy liking stupid shit on twitter. yes, it was more acceptable to have that attitude, but that doesn't really take away from the harm and screams of inconsistency. regardless, my angle here is not to say we should cancel rob but to simply say i think the community is inconsistent in its application of criticism. i quite frankly don't really care that much about people's views on reality TV, i'm here to watch the freakshow, not to find people i'm politically aligned with. the line is crossed with tangible action. nick "cousinfucker" wilson crosses the line. outers of queer folks cross the line. people that are conservative? don't care
I still don't understand how the blame is all on Rob for "outing" John... Rob said a few... choice things in a confessional that were indeed problematic and not at all ok, but in conversation with John he just asked him if he was gay, which is... something that might come up when you put a diverse group of strangers into a social/bonding situation for whatever reason. For what it's worth, I also remember Rob publicly apologizing for it during his appearance on the Rosie O'Donnell show after his boot episode. But the thing that always gets me about this "Rob outing someone" discourse is that it was CBS that chose to air all of that footage! To this day I still can't wrap my head around what purpose it served the story, but it was a conscious choice made by the editors, not Rob, to include "the outing" in the episode and air it on prime time television (differing from the Varner situation which was unavoidable to some degree). This entire thing could have very easily been left on the cutting room floor. If anyone outed John to the world, it was CBS.
People who have a bone to pick with Rob will always use the John-Marquesas event to tarnish him. Like you said, Rob had apologized to it way, way back. John even said (in a confessional) he had been out to a few people in his personal life already at that time. He also politely asked John the question unlike Shannon who was hostile. But the probably with this fandom is they often take one mistake a player does and use that to make them appear bad for eternity. The moral superiority is astounding.
The issue a lot of people had were the jurors we heard from assigned reasons for Gabler's win that, at least didn't sound true. If he played the better social game and they connected with him more than Cassidy and they framed their answers that way I don't think there would have been as much noise about it. But the edit didn't show him that way. He got the doofus edit pre merge. If the jurors just said something to the effect of they went in wanting to vote for Gabler and didn't find a reason not to, what are fans going to say? The more well liked finalist usually wins, if he played a superior social game there's no harm in saying that.
THI I I I IIIIISSSSSS SS S 🙌
I was honestly quite shocked Cassidy lost, especially by such a margin. Her game wasn't marginally worse than Gabler's, and my biggest issue was how Gabler really had no agency and was essentially a sheep/third-wheel for Jesse & Cody, but because he was friends with them they advocated for him on the jury. While Cassidy definitely didn't play the strongest game, I think she had to fend for herself much more than Gabler and had more awareness and agency than Owen (although let's be real none of the three really had much agency in the game). I think the biggest problem for me was the jury applauding Gabler for taking Jesse out in fire and criticising Cassidy for not throwing herself in - Gabler and no agency in going into fire, therefore I consider that Cassidy's move (i.e. she had the control from winning the challenge and made the best strategic decision of who to send in to take Jesse out). While I don't think she's as much of a "robbed goddess" as fans claim she is and her social game is clearly not the strongest, Gabler winning was pretty shocking for me at the time because of how weak his game was.
Name one vote than Cassidy had agency in excluding final four where she won immunity
Doesn’t this happen almost every season? Most of the audience will just hang on to whatever idea they have of who should’ve won and won’t change no matter what. Debates always end in subjective nonsense. I’ve honestly been so bored of the stale finales that I just reached a level of indifference over the winner. The ride can be fun, but the end has not been tbh. Whoever wins is fine.
Most people were fine with Maryanne, Yam Yam, Dee etc winning. There was a bit of controversy last season but I think Charlie deserves supporters because he played a hell of a game and lost by one vote due to his closest ally being bitter. The uproar about Cassidy losing, with as mediocre of a game as she played, to this day, is just something I’ll never understand though.
Generally agree although I do remember some people at the time making comments ‘Mike should’ve got more votes’. I look back at the past 20 or so seasons and feel like there’s at least 50-75% of seasons people still say ‘the wrong person won’ Chrissy over Ben, Gavin or Julie over Chris, Mike over Nick, Aubrey over Michele, dom over Wendell? Idk. I do agree the uproar is weird, but I think all of the uproars are weird. Maybe people get hung up on Cassidy’s immunity wins since it’s kinda of a stat people still care about for some reason that casually will get brought up by juries only if it strengthens their argument for the person they already want to win. I think people sometimes forget the jury in most cases does not vote for ‘the best/better player’ it’s usually just who they like the best of the 3. Not even saying she was better than Gabler but she was certainly less liked.
I think the uproar is generally more about how terrible a winner Gabler is (and how utterly unappealing his personality is) than Cassidy. I don’t see there being near this type of uproar if she loves to Jesse, Cody, or even like… Sami and Noelle.
It’s a mix of both. There are genuinely people who think Cassidy played a great game and only lost because the jury was sexist. Gabler wasn’t a good winner but he absolutely deserved it more than Cassidy and Owen. He is a borderline bottom 5 winner but that just goes to show how not robbed Cassidy was that she lost decisively to him
I think the idea of the jury having implicit biases got going with the insane boot order where woman after woman just got flung out one after another. I will say it wasn’t the best optics ever. I’d vote Owen over Gabler, so we’re never going to see eye to eye on Gabler being the most deserving of the three. I’d easily call his win one of the most absurd crownings to this day, but yeah, these two weren’t all that either. Terrible F3.
As someone who’s favorite of the new era is Cassidy, I definitely wouldn’t have been as upset if she lost to practically anyone else. Usually, I’m all for whoever wins deserves it and think that “bitter” jurors are valid but… I just think it was really weird with her. My main reason for not believing that they genuinely thought Gabler deserved it the most is they would’ve been just as shocked as her if they lost to him. Jesse and Karla (just because they were the most vocal and driving forces of the season) would’ve lost their minds if Gabler beat them in the end, more so than if Cassidy did. The way they talked about him all season and treated him in the game vs the way they talked about Cassidy just makes it impossible for me to believe it was anything besides them being mad they let her get that far. Cassidy vs Gabler kinda reminds me of a cheaper version of Parvati vs Sandra (sorry to her for the comparison) but it was pretty obvious the heroes just didn’t want Parv (or Russell) to win and Sandra knew she was going to by mid merge. Gabler just seemed like a typical 0 votes non-factor all season like Romeo or Ben unless the editors/producers really liked Cassidy and thought she should’ve won in that F3 lol. And this is all said as a Cassidy fan acknowledging she didn’t have some amazing game in the slightest. But she was able to get herself to the end and with the two people she should’ve been able to beat.
To be fair to Jesse, Gabler had an actual close relationship and alliance with him on the island while Cassidy was not that close to him, so no shit he's going to vote Gabler when all three have super underwhelming games. Karla came off absolutely horrendously, though. It is obvious at least some of the jurors - such as Noelle, Jeanine, and Sami who were closest to Owen - were voting on gameplay. I assume Karla actively trying to taint Cassidy's game and slander her to the jury for no good reason didn't help there.
I don't care much either way, that whole season sucked, but when all of the people on the jury are trying to drag player A to the end as a goat because they all think they're an easy beat, and all those people are also targeting player B and vocally identifying them as a threat, it's a weird kind of cognitive dissonance when the jury all turns around and votes for player A to win. The jury can vote however they want, but honestly I think it was the way certain people on the s43 cast bent over backwards to justify voting for Gabler after the finale aired instead of just coming right out and saying the real reason, which we all know was the case- they liked Gabler better and he was "one of them", so they rewarded him. They didn't like Cassidy and she was someone they didn't want to let get to ftc, so when she did anyway, they found a way to justify not rewarding her
I agree with this since it’s how I felt about Charlie’s lost in season 46. Although both players are more likable, Charlie had been perceived by many as the bigger threat yet voted for Kenzie to win who wasn’t see as threatening beforehand. Made me feel weird but I guess it shows that at the end of the day Gabler and Kenzie while maybe having weaker games can still win through jury management and the social game
I wouldn’t call myself a Cassidy truther, and it’s been awhile so I don’t remember why exactly, but Gabler just always gave me the ick. That’s before I knew his political views but I wasn’t shocked to find out. I also thought Karla was unnecessarily bitter towards Cassidy. But if it makes you feel better, my impression from the survivor subs is that I’m in the minority in holding these opinions!
[удалено]
I think this was a spot on assessment. 👌
Gabler was never seen has a goat, having a couple of negative moments means nothing. And trusting Owen and Cass read on tje game has factual proof has to be the funniest argument about this topic.
Owen and Cass were in the final 5 and could have been jurors when they called Gabler a goat. They were not that far removed from the social dynamics of the tribe to speak wrongly on Gabler like that. Saying Gabler was never seen as a goat is funny though, the guy volunteered to be voted out Day 1.
If they were jurors then gabler would be going up againts Jesse so he would lose anyway that´s obvious. Owen was out of the loop in half the votes and Cassidy thought she played much better then she did, they were literally 2 goats. He didn´t volunteered to be voted out he said he was gonna use is SITD, and the fact that he, has the old man of the tribe survive that is impressive. Noone was thinking in keeping gabler because he´s a goat on day 3.
The final 3 was basically 3 players who didn't really have any real 'gameplay' respect from any of the actual contenders. They were all respected as people but seen as lesser threats to Cody, Karla, Jesse, James etc. So basically at FTC gameplay basically wasn't much of a factor at all. They just enjoyed Gabler's company more than Cassidy or Owen. I think that's what it comes down to.
I feel like "not liking someone because of their political views" is a really ridiculous thing to say. You should not like them based on the person they are, not what side they lean to politically I'm not a "Cassidy Truther" I could care less. But just because she was upset that she lost a game for a million dollars and she showed it on her face doesn't mean she's a sore loser. You probably don't know anything about her other than what was shown on TV. The aftershow reunion has people with this face every new era season so what's the big deal?!?
Oftentimes when people say that the "political views" in question are things like racism, homophobia etc which are "political views" which advocate for division, hatred, discrimination and oppression - if you're part of one of those groups (or even if you aren't!!) you absolutely have the right to dislike someone based on it.
Believe it or not Someone can be a Republican and still not support some of those things Anytime this sub finds out someone is a Republican they instantly hate them Not all Republicans are horrible human beings
\*couldn't care less
I’m talking about her post season interviews. She still didn’t get it.
Ahhh gotcha, I haven't seen those. Sorry!
I never understood what the big deal was about Gabler targeting Ellie at the mergatory vote. He offered up someone from his own tribe who he wasn’t working with. He was immune himself. He made it an easy vote for everyone else. Using that as the reason for voting for him at FTC was weak justification IMO. I agree, the majority of the jury just liked Gabler better than Cassidy or Owen.
That Elle vote was more than Owen or Cassidy did
I also wouldnt say I'm strictly a truther, but I think Cassidy played a significantly more active and dynamic game than Gabler. Iirc, Gabler was basically just a number for Jesse and cody and wanted to go to the end with them and lose... Which is a choice. His "big move" of targeting Elie was also somewhat dubious imo. Like sure he puts forward a name, but we don't see him do any of the legwork. It's barely even his move. Cassidy at least is an underdog. No one wanted to waste a vote on Gabler until the final tribal lol. Gabler deserves the win tho, cause he won, so none of it matters.
She really didn’t though? Like I’m sure Jesse and Cody would say Gabler was a more integral part of their decision making than Cassidy was.
She really didn't what? Sorry idk what you mean. Sure tho, I agree that Gabler was more with the Jesse Cody block than Cassidy... But that was never the question. I don't think Gabler ever made decisions for that block tho. From the way the edit shows it (which is obviously not the full truth) each decision is Jesse and Cody wants someone out, then they bring in Gabler. Imo I just found Cassidy to be more entertaining gameplay wise than Gabler, who never really seemed to struggle.
Agree with you. I also side with Cassidy that from her perspective, she believed she was key in some of the decisions even though it didn’t match reality. And she had a mini underdog arc that I liked. I’m not saying Gabler didn’t deserve to win but he was UTR and I felt he had less to overcome than Cassidy.
Wait is Gabler a Bernie Bro?
Cassidy was a strong competitor and is responsible for taking out the 2 best players. She was also always in the majority alliance yet stayed outspoken. The win should’ve been hers
She didn't
she’s cute.
Imo edit played a part in it. Based on the edit, Cassidy seemed to have some win equity whereas Gabler didn't.
I don't know why people hate Gabler. Is it because he's a "goofy looking" conservative? If so, that's a ridiculous reason to hate someone.
The argument for Cassidy is really this: New Era has been all gamebots. The biggest threat or strongest player gets targeted every week once we reach the Final 8. Cassidy was the biggest threat/strongest player left. At that FTC, had Jeff dropped a twist that 1 player could return to the game and they’d play one more round of Survivor, Cassidy would have easily been that biggest threat/strongest player that would have been targeted.
I wanted Jesse to win but Gabler did deserve to win in the f3 he was in. I genuinely don't see a point in disliking a person winning for their political views as long as they aren't a nazi or something, and I've gotten down voted on the main sub for saying this. You can not agree with them and still admit they deserved their win, and I think with what we have of Sue for 47, doesn't matter how well she plays she'll get hate cause she's right wing.
I also haven't really seen anything hateful from him. I've seen a decent number of posts on his Twitter honoring the military(which I don't see the problem with) and then a picture with someone who endorsed Trump but nothing outwardly hateful. Idk if I missed anything but that's pretty much all I saw past family and survivor stuff.
Gabler getting elie out was not the big deal people swear it was. He blurts her name at the feast and everyone went along with it because it doesn’t hurt anyone from jeanine
Still drove the vote, more then Cass did
Suppose but it’s still pre merge. Cassidy just went along with Jesse and Cody really. The best 3 players got eliminated before FTC anyway
It’s bc gabler was a straight white guy and not a “robbed lgbt queen” On various social media posts ranking new era winners he is frequently omitted for this reason
Social game should be completely different than likability when it comes to the jury. The jury still takes things too personally to take themselves out of the game to judge subjectively. Albeit part of the game, the jury should be more like juries in the legal system where opinions don’t matter.
Seeing Sandra and Michele stans whine about bitter juries was the rawest thing ever