Defining Your Position

DEFINING YOUR POSITION

HOME

This is the second article in a series that will likely consist of five or six articles. The first, Opening Game explored basic strategy surrounding the very early parts of the game up until one of the following things happens: a tribe is down to six players, there is a player swap, there is a merge. If you haven't read that first article you may find some of the terminology that I introduced there to be a little confusing here, as I will not explain it again. You may want to read the first one before diving into the second.

When should you be concerned with your position in the tribe?

In a word, always. You might wonder then, why didn't I talk about this is the first article. The reason is during the opening phase the functioning of the tribe is far more important than a particular player's social position in it. The first article underlined the importance of two things: One, settle out any leadership conflicts and getting the tribe functioning as a team, and two, securing yourself a second. If these two issues have yet to be dealt with, then your own position within the tribe is relatively meaningless. If your tribe is losing challenges, then that just means the likely best outcome is that you will end up the leader of a losing team.

That being said, from the moment the game begins you should be looking at how relationships are unfolding and where you fit into them, but unless you are the one the cross-hairs of elimination are being drawn to, you should be keeping your cards close to your chest - for now. The first article was about building a team. This article is about defining your role within that team. Subsequent articles will be about refining your position so that you have the greatest odds of ending up on top.

If you don't know where you stand in the social pecking order (and don't kid yourself for a second that there isn't a social ladder to your tribe) then you will not know how to adapt your play from this stage on.

It's All About Support ...

Okay, how to define your position. First off, don't believe promises that are being thrown your way. In this game, talk is cheap and it is behaviour that is important to watch. Who is hanging around with whom? Who are getting along very well and conversely, who are at each other's throats? And here is the most important question to ask: if push came to shove and a player needs to make a tough decision, who is that player they are most likely to go to for support and advice? Who is their confidant? For each player in your tribe, draw an arrow to the one, and only one, player they are most likely to go to. I've done it here for the Yasur tribe from Survivor-Vanuatu.

Yasur Tribe Support at the end of the opening (just before the swap):

Ami -> Leann
Eliza -> Julie
Julie -> Eliza
Leann -> Ami
Lisa -> Ami
Scout -> Twila
Twila -> Scout

Notice how this tends to pair up players. In the above example we have three, mutually supporting pairs: Ami<=>Leann, Scout<=>Twila, Eliza<=>Julie. The first two of these are very strong bonds making these four players (Ami, Leann, Scout and Twila) very powerful players. The second pair is less strong and may represent more of a default pairing. Eliza has shown that she will jump all over the place so Julie certainly can't rely upon her support.

Next, look for the player with the most support arrows going to them. In this example, that would be Ami. Ami should be thought of as the game leader and if she is also the tribal leader around camp and during challenges (and in this case, she is) then she is most certainly to be thought of as the one at top of the social ladder. Whomever the leader is paired up with automatically becomes the second banana in the tribe. In this case that player would be Leann.

... And, Of Course, Alliances.

Next, determine the alliances. This game naturally favours players making final four pacts. Look for four - or often three - player alliances, holding on to the support structure that has already been determined. Look for the alliance that is controling (in all likelihood, they are in the majority now. This would be the dominant alliance in the tribe. A dominant alliance can sometimes consist of only three players (Colby-Keith-Tina or Ethan-Lex-Tom being two good examples) but never can this alliance be more than four. That doesn't mean an alliance may not have support lines coming in from outside, but it is important to distinguish that the loyalty to those outside supporters will be less than to those within the alliance. Any players outside of the dominant alliance are tertiary players and should be looking elsewhere for players to whom to give support.

Let's stick with Yasur.

Dominant Alliance:Ami, Leann, Scout & Twila.
Tertiary Players: Eliza, Lisa & Julie

Okay, let's rate these players according to their social standing.

First: Ami
Second: Leann
Third & Fourth (tied): Scout & Twila
Fifth & Sixth (tied): Eliza & Julie
Seventh: Lisa

You can probably separate them further (likely Scout is higher than Twila and Julie higher than Eliza), but there really isn't that much of a need. There is certainly some subjectivity in this but it isn't as difficult as it looks if players keep their eyes open and trust their instincts. As a viewer, I've been doing exactly this at F9 for several seasons and can almost always split the players up correctly, only missing in minor details. I can't imagine how someone living with these people 24/7 wouldn't be able to do it.

The Cold Hard Truth.

Now it's time to face hard reality. Below is a table of each of the final twos up to Survivor-Vanuatu and the social ranking and type (dominant or tertiary) they occupied at the close of the opening stage of the game. It is important to understand that the chart represents their position just at this time. Typically this is only after a tribe's second boot and things can - and do - change over the course of the game. In Vanuatu, Twila was pushed out of the dominant alliance; in Australia, Tina and Colby soon moved from tertiary players to dominant one when they ousted Mitchel; in Borneo, Kelly moved into the dominant alliance and then moved out again; and there are many more examples.

Season	Winner	Social Position		Second	Social Position		Vote
Season	Winner	Rank	Type	Second	Rank	Type	Vote
Borneo	Richard	First	D	Kelly	Fourth	T	4-3
Australia	Tina	Fifth	T	Colby	Fourth	D	4-3
Africa	Ethan	Second	D	Kim	Fourth (tied)	T	5-2
Marquesas	Vecepia	Third (tied)	D	Neleh	Fifth (tied)	T	4-3
Thailand	Brian	First	D	Clay	Second	D	4-3
Amazon	Jenna	Second	D	Matt	Fifth (tied)	T	6-1
Pearl Islands	Sandra	Second	D	Lillian	Sixth	T	6-1
All-Star	Amber	Second	D	Rob	First	D	4-3
Vanuatu	Chris	First	D	Twila	Third (tied)	D	5-2

So, what is to be gleaned from all of this? Quite a lot actually. First off, with the two exceptions (Tina winning over Colby and Amber winning over Rob) every time the jury voted for the person that occupied the higher social position. This was even true when the higher ranking player was from a different tribe than most of the jury! Even the two exceptions bare closer examination. By the time of the middle-game, Tina definitely had control of the game over Colby (actually, she likely did once Mitchell was gone) and, although Rob was certainly running the show over Amber, the jury all knowing each other previously certainly had an influence in the very bitter voting of some of their members.

The other thing to notice is how poorly tertiary players have performed against the dominant players. Tertiary players have only garnered a total of 14 votes compared to the 28 votes that were cast against them and they lost except for Tina, and Tina would become an N-player very early in the next phase of the game. The cold, hard truth is that for a tertiary player to make it to the final two, they have to do so over the backs of dominant players and those dominant players tend not to appreciate upstarts. If this sounds petty and vandictive, it is, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation. This doesn't mean a tertiary player cannot win this game, Tina showed us they can, but it does mean they have to take control of the game very soon or plan to sit beside another tertiary player in the final two.

Let's make some more pigeon holes.

In the last article, I introduced the idea of an N-tribe, that is a tribe with but a single source of leadership and presented an argument that the tribe that achieves N-tribe status first is at a significant advantage in the game. In this article, I've introduced a method of seperating players into dominant players - let's call them D-players - and tertiary players - T-players. The dominant players, of course, can be divided even futher because there has always been a self-supporting pair at the top of every dominant alliance. I'm going to call these players N-players (yes, N for Nash again). From here on, I'll use D-players to present only dominant alliance members who are not N-players.

That means each player still in the game at this stage can be defined by their type of tribe (N-tribe or not) and then further divided into one of three player types (N, D or T). That gives us six distinct catagories a player can fall into. Let's split these players (113 of them over the first nine seasons) into these six catagories. You are bound to disagree with some of my divisions - too bad, this is my website. The winners are bolded.

N-Tribe First	N-Players	Richard (Borneo), Rudy (Borneo), Michael, Nick, Lex (Africa), Ethan (Africa), John (Marquesas), Tammy, Brian, Clay, Roger (Amazon), Butch, Christa, Sandra, Rob M (All-star), Amber (All-star), Ami, Leann
	D-Players	Sue (Borneo), Elizabeth, Roger (Australia), Tom (Africa), Gabriel, Robert, Ted, Rob (Amazon), Alex, Rupert (Pearl Islands), Tom (All-star), Scout, Twila
	T-Players	Dirk, Kelly (Borneo), Sean (Borneo), Alicia (Australia), Jeff, Kim J, Clarence, Kelly (Africa), Zoe, Kathy (Marquesas), Paschel, Neleh, Helen, Jan, Ghandia, Matt, Dave, Jon, Trish, Shawn, Sue (All-star), Alicia (All-star), Julie, Eliza, Lisa
Not First N-Tribe	N-Players	Gretchen, Jenna, Jerri (Australia), Amber (Australia), Silas, Lindsey, Rob (Marquesas), Sarah, Penny, Jake, Jenna (Amazon), Heidi, Andrew, Ryan O, Kathy (All-star), Lex (All-star), Jerri (All-star), Jenna (All-star), Chris, Travis
	D-Players	Colleen, Greg (Borneo), Mitchell, Colby (Australia), Kim P, Brandon, Sean (Marquesas), Vecepia, Ken, Erin, Shawna, Tijuana, Osten, Shii Ann (All-star), Rupert (All-star), Chad, Lea
	T-Players	Gervase, Joel, Tina (Australia), Keith, Frank, Teresa, Hunter, Gina, Shii-Ann (Thialand), Robb, Deena, Christy, Jeanne, Lillian, Darrah, Richard (All-star), Colby (All-star), Ethan (All-star), Rory, John K

And lets throw some numbers together.

N-tribe First?	Player Type	# of Players	# in Final 2	# of Winners	F2 Percentage	Win Percentage
Yes	N	18	7	5	39%	28%
	D	13	1	0	8%	0%
	T	25	4	0	16%	0%
No	N	20	2	2	10%	10%
	D	17	2	1	12%	6%
	T	20	2	1	10%	5%

Get 'N The Game.

The most obvious thing to note is the outstanding success of the N-Players. All but two of the winners were N-Player at this early stage. Of the two that weren't, Tina would be an N-player by the start of the next phase and even Vecepia was N-ish as when the Maraamu tribe was at six players, there were two pairs running the show: Rob and Sarah, and Sean and Vecepia, neither pair with more support. I gave Rob and Sarah the N-Player status only because they were D-Players even before the coup while Sean and Vecepia were T-Players as soon as Peter was voted off. Keep in mind that, on average, there are about 13 players left at this stage in the game, yielding an average win percentage only 8%, yet N-Players on the tribe to first make N-Tribe status have a outstanding 28% win percentage. That's better than 1 in 4! In fact, 7 of the 18 N-Players of the first N-tribe (39%) made it to the final two. That's an outstanding success rate and obviously the two players that have put themselves into this position become the players to beat.

So, If You're Not 'N You're Out? (Okay, that's the last pun.)

I wouldn't quite say that, but clearly non-N-players are at a significant disadvantage. One interesting thing to note is that the four winners that came out of the non-N-tribe are scattered through the three types (two Ns, one D and one T). Perhaps this shouldn't be too surprising as social strata tend to dissolve if a tribe begins to struggle just to remain alive at all. Still, these players are at a disadvantage because their tribe is less functional than their opponents (only 11% of them have made it to the final two compared to 21% of the more team orriented opponents). Moreover, four of the six got there only when breakdowns could be found in the more dominant tribe - this doesn't always happen - and the other two (Tina and Colby) were certainly helped when Michael, the Kucha leader, had to be taken out of the game due to injury. However, once there they have an outstanding success rate. Four of the six were up against members of the more dominant tribe in the final two and three of that four won. So, although it is clear playing to be at the top of an N-tribe is still the way to go, not being in this elite group hardly guarantees defeat.

Throughout the rest of these documents I will talk about the strategies that should be employed by the different player types, but for now I need to include one, more unusual, subgroup: the T-leader. Seemingly a contridiction in terms, these are players that are the undisputed leader of their tribes and have the almost universal respect of tribemates. In fact, they have so much respect that their fellow players are all afraid of the potential of sitting opposite to them in the final two, thus preventing them from being N-players. From a game perspective, they are certainly at a disadvantage and will have an uphill battle, but if in the final two, they would have to be considered the top of the heap. Of yet, there have only been two T-leaders: Rupert from Survivor-Pearl Islands and Tom from the just completed (as of this writing) Survivor-Palau.

Rating Strategic Strength.

All the above is really about rating a player's social standing within the tribe, and it is obvious to see that social standing plays a huge part in the eventual outcome of the game. The one other defining factor for a player that should be considered towards how to deal with that player in the future is the player's strategic strength. What needs to be considered in particular is to gage how aggressive a player will act depending upon their situations. This obviously takes a great deal of judgement on your part, but it is this skill to read people and predict their actions - often before they have decided what they are going to do themselves - that is an essential skill to any true master of this game.

Unfortunately, this is a skill that cannot be taught, but to help I've created five catagories of players based upon their potential for strategically aggressive play. I think it is important for a player who is out to win this game to evaluate each other player in the game in regard to these catagories. Here they are.

Type 1: A Type 1 player won't play in alliances and will vote as he or she sees fit at each individual tribal council. As it's become increasingly clear to everyone that this game is all about alliances, these types of players have become quite the rarity. At first they may seem harmless, but as the game progresses a stray vote can be deadly in a crucial tribal council. These players need to be gotten rid of. Examples of Type 1 players: Kelly Wigglesworth (Borneo), Gretchen Cordy (Borneo), Gabriel Cade (Marquesas).
Type 2: A Type 2 player is loyal to a tribe and will not vote against them even when riding in the fifth spot or lower. These players tend not to think too far ahead and concentrate more on not being noticed. They often tend to react once the cross-hairs are trained on them, but it is usually too late by then. If their tribe is in the majority after a merge or swap, they will not go over to the other tribe in fear that their position will be no better there. When in the minority tribe, these players tend to suck up to the N-players from the majority tribe rather than to try and instigate the T-players to rebel. For N-players, Type 2s are ideal T-players in the majority tribe, but they can be frustrating for other players that are low on the totem due to their reluctance to turn on dominant players. As minority tribe members, Type 2s are pretty much ineffectual. Examples of Type 2 players: Sean Kenniff (Borneo), Nick Brown (Australia), Penny Ramsey (Thailand).
Type 3: These players are happy as long as they are in the dominant foursome, but will make no attempts to elevate themselves to the level of N-players. In fact, they are usually reluctant to take on that roll in fear of drawing attention to themselves. These players are thinking strategically, feeling that riding third or fourth is the way to play the game, but their strategy is flawed - as shown in this and subsequent articles. Once in the final four, they still won't vote to eliminante one of the N-players, preferring instead to aid in the ouster of their fellow D-player. As minority tribe members, they tend to try and work a deal with the T-players of the majority tribe but are nowhere near aggressive enough when it comes to pot stirring. N-players need to keep the Type 3s in their own tribe secure and happy. If the majority tribe has more than four or five type 3s - or higher - in their tribe, the N-players will have a difficult middle-game to contend with. Type 3s in the minority tribe are not a threat if the majority tribe is fairly stable. Examples of Type 3 players: Teresa Cooper (Africa), Kim Johnson (Africa), Rupert Boneham (both Pearl Islands & All-star).
Type 4: As part of their game plan, Type 4 players have want to become N-players. If they become N-players early in the game they spend a great deal of energy in maintaining a stable and functional tribe. If their plan is to emerge as N-players later, they refrain from making their intentions obvious, still work towards tribal harmony but think ahead and plan a most advantageous time to take control. As minority tribe members, Type 4s aggressively try to stir up decent in the majority tribe by encouraging T-players to turn on the game leaders. Type 4s that are not yet N-players are very dangerous and need to be dealt with. Type 4s that are the N-players of the majority tribe are the leading contenders to win the game. Examples of Type 4 players: Richard Hatch (Borneo), Tina Wesson (Australia), Rob Mariano (both Marquesas & All-star though he was pushing Type 5 in Marquesas - okay, maybe in All-star too.).
Type 5: Type 5 players also want to become N-players but are too aggressive in their handling of the game. In the early going Type 5s typically target strong players (with the emphasis on physicallity as opposed to strategic strength) and all but ignore tribal harmonics. As T-players in a majority tribe, they tend to make attacks upon the N and D-players prematurely, again often targetting physical leaders as opposed to the actual game leaders. As minority tribe members they tend to flail about approaching virtually everyone in the majority tribe with plans that often make little or no sense. These players tend to think they are God's gift to the game of Survivor and that the other players are dumb as mud. If they manage to fluke themselves into the final two they will likely carry a lot of weight with jury members who think being aggressive and being smart are one and the same, but they have a greater tendency to shoot not only themselves in the foot, but the rest of their tribe as well. Type 5s need to be disposed of at the earliest possible opportunity. Examples of Type 5 players: Jerri Manthey (Australia but not All-star), Rob Cesterino (both Amazon & All-star), Jon Dalton (Pearl Islands), Chris Daughterty (Vanuatu).

Sept 20/05: I'm modifying the types based upon catagories defined by at Ajv's Journal. It's essentially the same thing but more simple and easier to understand. The following is quoted from his article linked to above. My add comments are in square brackets.

Aggressive - willing to initiate strategy
OR
Passive - unwilling to initiate strategy

Predictable - easy to predict a player's moves
OR
Unpredictable - difficult to predict a player's moves

That leaves us with four prototypes for players:

Aggressive/Predictable - [AP Players (formally Type 4)] - These are the players who really take charge of the strategy discussions. They are predictable because they will make a decision that is in their own best interest. These players often do extremely well in the game, and that should make sense. A player who tries to initiate strategy should do better than one who does not. A player who makes moves in their own best interest should do better than one who does not, as well. Examples of this player include Colby from Survivor: Australia and Kathy from Survivor: Marquesas.

Aggressive/Unpredictable - [AU Players (formally Type 5)] - These players are, by far, the most interesting to watch on television because there is lots of action following them, but you never know what they are going to do! Great from a viewer's perspective, very tough from a player's perspective. These players tend to not do well and are generally seem as untolerable. It becomes difficult to figure out what these players will do, and further - they may be effecting everybody else around you with their constant manipulation. These players are the biggest headaches to have as opponents. Nobody has been successful using this strategy so far, and it's quite probable nobody ever will. My gut feeling tells me that one day a player fitting this prototype will eventually win, although it won't be for a well-crafted strategy [I'd through Chris from Palau into this]. I think this strategy could only work if there was an extreme amount of passive players or aggressive/predictable players. Examples of this player include Rob Mariano from Survivor: Marquesas (not All Stars, though, as he changed his game plan) and Lex from Survivor: Africa.

Passive/Predictable - [PP Players (formally Type 2 and 3)] - If I'm ever on Survivor, this is the player that I will be licking my chops to see. These are the players that guarantee you that million dollar check! The game is absolutely polluted with these types of players. These players generally look at superficial things, such as "not rocking the boat" and "not standing out as a threat", as the keys to winning Survivor. Often players who "want to win while maintaining integrity" fall in this category. Why are these players so great? Simple! They accept whatever decision you give to them. They don't care if they are going to finish 4th or 5th place - they stick with your alliance. What a beautiful thing to have! Consequently, these players usually finish from 3rd through 6th. They are dragged along and get a good finish and a decent pay day for helping the eventual winner win and getting that person a HUGE pay day. Way too many examples of this player over the years, but some include Rudy from Survivor: Borneo, Kim Johnson from Survivor: Africa, and Jan from Survivor: Thailand.

Passive/Unpredictable - [PU Players (formally Type 1)] - The very rare breed of Survivor. They don't initiate strategy discussions; however, you still can't figure out what they are going to do. They are not as dangerous as an aggressive/unpredictable player (who can manipulate everybody), but they are still extremely dangerous. You don't want somebody making an important decision if you have no idea how they are going to vote! The best example of this was Christy Smith from Survivor: Amazon and, to a lesser extent, Jenna Lewis from Survivor All-Stars. (I'm sure there were plenty of examples in Survivor: Borneo, but seeing how that game was essentially pre-alliance, I won't discuss them).

I'll be modifying my other documents to reflect this.

It's A Catagory Bonanza!

You may be realizing that the above four catagories of player strategic ability, combined with the six catagories measuring social position, give us twenty-four catagories into which you can slot a player (actually thirty-two if one considers the rare T-leader and I'm going to through in M-players later - he he). For example, Dolly Neely from Survivor-Vanuatu was a PP-T-player. You can obviously go a little nuts with this, but there is no need. What is important to recognize is that certain types of players in certain positions tend to create stable tribes (PP-T-players for example), other player-position combinations are inherently unstable (AP-T-players), while still other player types are either useless (PU-players) or dangerous to everyone interested in tribe stability (AU-players). During the opening stage, tribal stability should be the goal of everyone, but as the game progresses certain players will want to disrupt stability (T-players, Minority tribe members and - in the later stages - D-players) while certain players will want to maintain stability (Majority N-players). Knowing your own position, the positions of those around you as well as their player types is essential to a player's ability to steer the game towards a course that best increases their own chances of winning.