Immunity Challenge 9: Pretty Persuasion

The judges will decide on the most best argument and the contestant described in the winning challenge will be the next to leave the game.

Well, well, well, we find ourselves at this point. Interesting dilemma, to say the least. See, the challenge of this week's IC is that we have to put ourselves in the Judge's shoes and while, individually, we each have our own motives for wanting the others gone, we can't rely on our own strategies of "that person can't be trusted", or "that person is the biggest threat". While those are all valid reasons coming from the players' perspectives they won't float this time around.

Nope, what we have to do is convince the JUDGES why someone must go -- an entirely different ballgame -- because saying "Just cuz" isn't going to cut it.

I think the person who should go is Jason. I have nothing against Jason personally. I've enjoyed reading his past entries. He has made posts that were hilarious, thoughtful, and well-said. Let's face it, the man has come up with some great, solid entries in the past.

Ahh, but there's the key - "in the past". Since the game has started all of that has changed. It's as if Jason has been making only half-hearted attempts at playing this game since it began. He has written more than one entry which has been viewed as "throw-away", "weak" and generally "half-assed."

Even in this very important IC that has the potential of blowing the game wide open there's no effort being made. It's as if he randomly drew a name from a hat and tossed it out there. There's no solid reasoning behind his decision. It hasn't been developed as well as Jason is capable, per pre-game entries, of doing.

A second reason Jason should be the Judges' choice is that it is questionable if Jason really understands the complexity and spirit of the game. His current IC is the perfect example, again. He obviously didn't understand the whole "whining incident" thing as a way to put some spark into a game which was, up until that point, floundering in the water. Nope, it went right over his head.

Lastly, he is basing his reasoning on booting someone out on the premise of people forming alliances and strategizing.

*gasp!!*

Umm, hello? That's what this whole game is about. It's called Survivor, not Candyland. Yeah, alliances were formed. It's the nature of the game and it's a rare bird who can get through the game without being in one. Not saying it can't be done, just saying that it's a facet of the game 99% of the time. Besides, if Jason wants to lamely use the excuse of "He should go because he was in an alliance" then he'd better back his wagon up and ask himself if he really wants to go there.

"Hello pot, I'm kettle."

Yep, exactly. Jason was in at least one alliance himself and no one else bitched about it and no one else thinks that that alone is a valid reason for anyone to be booted. As a matter of fact, that's a really crappy reason. As much as any of us would like the game to be "just about the writing", it isn't. It also includes strategy and anyone who doesn't understand that is in over his/her head here.

The whole spirit of the game is clearly outlined on the logo. Outwrite, Outwhine, Outlast. Has he met those three credos? Except for outlasting, which he lucked into by simply being a non-threat and by riding on coat tails, he's hasn't. Does he understand them? It's very doubtful, given his lack of effort in the game.

So yeah, the judges should do Jason a favor and let him out of a game that he clearly doesn't understand and clearly isn't having any fun at.

Words and Images � bisa-pet