After spending far too much time previewing the entire Game Changers cast here and here, we're back today to take a closer look at the newly-announced twists with THRHAParade's Josh Wigler and offer first thoughts about how the changes might impact both the game and the TV show. As always you can listen on the player below, here, or on iTunes here.
I don't think your interpretation of the rule change is right. The way Probst explained it in the clip was:
"In the event of a tie vote at Tribal Council, there will be no re-vote. We will go immediately to a tiebreaker. That means, if there is a tie, you will have an open discussion at Tribal in front of everybody, and if you can unanimously agree on which of the tribe members who are tied to send home, they go home. If you can't unanimously agree, the people who are tied are now safe, everybody else draws rocks."
So a 6 person majority splitting the vote 3-3 between two people would be fine. The issues arise when there's 3 or more people in the minority. For example, lets say it's 9 vs. 3. Before this rule change, the majority could split the vote 3-3-3 to defend against any idols. Now, those three people could arrange for two of them to vote for each other, and make the vote 4-4-3-1. There's a tie, but one of the minority members is now included in the 'consensus' stage, and can force the majority to draw rocks.
Which essentially means the majority is now forced to just pile the votes on one person, and cross their fingers that they don't have an idol.
I don't think your interpretation of the rule change is right. The way Probst explained it in the clip was:
ReplyDelete"In the event of a tie vote at Tribal Council, there will be no re-vote. We will go immediately to a tiebreaker. That means, if there is a tie, you will have an open discussion at Tribal in front of everybody, and if you can unanimously agree on which of the tribe members who are tied to send home, they go home. If you can't unanimously agree, the people who are tied are now safe, everybody else draws rocks."
So a 6 person majority splitting the vote 3-3 between two people would be fine. The issues arise when there's 3 or more people in the minority. For example, lets say it's 9 vs. 3. Before this rule change, the majority could split the vote 3-3-3 to defend against any idols. Now, those three people could arrange for two of them to vote for each other, and make the vote 4-4-3-1. There's a tie, but one of the minority members is now included in the 'consensus' stage, and can force the majority to draw rocks.
Which essentially means the majority is now forced to just pile the votes on one person, and cross their fingers that they don't have an idol.