Jeff Probst blogs 'Survivor: Nicaragua': Episode 12

survivorImage Credit: Monty Brinton/CBSOkay, I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that there is a bit of an implied contract when you agree to be on Survivor.

On our side, we promise you the adventure of your lifetime. Something you have never experienced before and will probably never experience again. It’s a multi-million dollar, life-changing thrill ride that will test you on every level. We promise, and we always deliver. Always.

In exchange we expect only two things from you: Show up… and play. That’s it. When you fail to do one or both of those requirements you are not living up to your end of the bargain. One might say you are in breach of our implied contract.

That’s my new philosophy regarding quitters on Survivor. You’re breaking your contract. There are certainly exceptions to the rule, such as medical evacuations and family emergencies, but I’m talking about the contestants who just decide they don’t want to play anymore. In this case, Naonka and Purple Kelly.

You’d think that by the time you have gone through the long arduous process of casting, meeting the executives at CBS, suffering through your immunization shots, getting your passport, arranging to leave your life for 39 days, getting on a plane, meeting with the press, and then lasting 28 days to give yourself a 1-in-9 shot at winning a million dollars, that this would be a no-brainer. Of course you’re going to finish; quitting would be foolish, right?

I’m not going to rehash the events of the quit, that’s just a waste of time and space.

I will however mention that when Naonka had the chance to walk away from the reward in exchange for tarp and rice, I truly believed she would do it. I was initially shocked when she didn’t move. Shocked. Naonka had just told everybody she wanted to quit. She knew she would be eating real food and sleeping in a real bed within hours, and all she had to do was stand up and say “It’s the least I can do before I quit.” She would have redeemed herself just a little bit.

But upon reflection I can clearly see that my expectation was flawed. Naonka has been consistently selfish for 28 days, and for her to stand up and suddenly do the “right thing” would not be consistent. Naonka went out the same way she came in, “Looking out for numero uno.”

In addition to not being a lawyer, I’m also not a psychologist, but it never seems to stop me from offering up an opinion. So here’s my take on whether they will regret this later in life:

I don’t think Naonka is going to regret her actions for one moment. I think Naonka has a lot of maturing to do and it doesn’t appear to be coming anytime soon. Quitting Survivor doesn’t make Naonka a bad person in my eyes, it was just disappointing. I’ll be curious to find out the reaction from Naonka’s family at the reunion show.

In the case of Purple Kelly, I think she will learn a lot from this experience and will at some point regret not sticking it out for 11 more days.

When you quit, when you give up and walk away from a task, even though you know you have some gas left in the tank, you are in a sense giving up on yourself. Purple Kelly had a lot of gas left in her tank. She’s a very strong and resilient young woman. Naonka gave her permission to quit and she took it and ran. I have a feeling the next time Purple Kelly is in the same situation she will think a long time before quitting.

I know a lot of you are angry right now because Naonka and Purple Kelly are allowed to be on the jury, so let me explain.

The reason they will both be members of the jury is because a precedent had already been set back when Janu quit in Survivor: Palau. Janu quit the game but was allowed to be on the jury, so we used the same reasoning with Naonka and Purple Kelly. It wasn’t an emotional decision, just an issue of fairness.

And yes…Marty, Alina and Brenda were very upset when they found out these quitters would still get to have a vote to decide who wins the million dollars.

Naonka and Purple Kelly quitting just blew this game wide open. It’s like we’re starting over. Their quit benefits some and penalizes others. The person who lost the most was Sash. He not only lost Purple Kelly, who would have voted any way he wanted her to, he also lost Naonka and her idol. He could have taken those two to the end with him and probably been a shoo-in for the million dollars. Instead he now must scramble to make something happen, and other than Dan, everybody else is a threat to win the game.

From a show point of view it’s an awesome turn of events. It changed everything and makes for an exciting and unpredictable finish.

Everybody left in the game has a legitimate shot to win.

Everybody except Dan. Dan’s best hope was to go to the final with Naonka and Purple Kelly. Now that they’re gone, I cannot think of a scenario in which Dan could beat anybody to win. This makes Dan a great person to take to the end. The dilemma is going to be who else do you take to the final?

I am not picking on Dan, I actually enjoy Dan quite a bit, and I could be wrong and Dan could win. If he does win, stay glued to your television because there is a very good chance that at the live show, as I read the last “Dan” vote, I will become light-headed and pass out on the CBS stage. Fortunately, Dancing With The Stars tapes nearby, so Tom Bergeron could run over and handle the rest of the reunion show.

Okay, so we are down to seven: Jane, Benry, Fabio, Holly, Sash, Chase, and Dan. There is going to be a lot of scrambling happening from here until the end. Here is my assessment of what each player needs to do:

Chase needs to form an alliance and stick with it.

Fabio, Benry and Jane need to start winning immunity or they are in danger.

Holly needs to keep mothering and nurturing and keep the attention on others.

Sash has the most work to do since his rug has been pulled out from under him.

Dan doesn’t need to do anything; it’s been working for 28 days. Why change?

It looks like we might have an exciting finish….

See ya next week.

UPDATE (Dec. 2, 12:00pm):
In response to so many comments about last night’s episode I wanted to add a follow up on the topic of quitters being allowed to be on the jury. When Janu quit and was allowed to stay on as a member of the jury, the precedent set was one that says “if we are in the jury phase of the game and you quit, you will still be a member of the jury.” Here is why the Janu precedent is important….

If you take it one step further, you realize that the decision has major ramifications because whoever Janu was in an alliance with, may still benefit from her vote at the end of the game. It could be a million dollar vote… from a quitter.   Not the greatest situation but that’s the precedent that was set.

So, we did not believe it would be fair, based on precedent, to suddenly change the rules and say to Naonka and Purple Kelly, “you cannot be on the jury.” Because that could unfairly penalize someone in their alliance.  If that person made it to the final and Naonka and Purple Kelly were not on the jury that could make a case that it was “unfair”… based on the precedent set with Janu.

We always strive to be fair. When you remove the emotion of the situation it’s easy that this was the “fair” thing to do.  It wasn’t a popular decision on location and we understand that as fans you really don’t like it at all, but it was the fair decision.Will we look to make changes in the rules from this point forward…? Consider that a big YES. Thank you for your input, we listen to your feedback and in this case we agree with you.

I’m sure we’ll deal with this at the live reunion show on Dec. 19th as well.

Check out an exclusive deleted scene below as well as pre-game interviews with NaOnka and Kelly. Then, make sure to read Dalton Ross’ Survivor: Nicaragua episode 12 recap.

Comments (1319 total) Add your comment
Page: 1 2 3 47
  • rmsrmsrms

    The most amazing thing (except there appears to be a new player with the name Benry or something) is NaOnka really believed she could win – (and if she believed that so strongly . . . and WITH an immunity idol, she was just an idiot for quitting!!!

    I have a theory that from day one, that this cast collectively really had a sense that as important as it was to make it to the end, it was just as important to bring along a weak player. And as evidence of that thinking, there were comments in the first episode that if the one-legged woman made it to the end, she would get the sympathy vote.

    They may have played it down with editing, but why else would the tribe have kept NaOnka and Dan so long????? People wanted to bring them to tribal knowing it would increase their odds of winning (over the perceived weaker players)

    • shelby

      A new player called Benry? What have you been watching this season?

      • rmsrmsrms

        it was joke, he gets very little airtime!

      • Agree

        Whatever. Purple Kelly just joined the season two episodes ago. And even in the one where Brenda was voted off, she didn’t get airtime until tribal council, when it was made clear that even the people on the island forgot who she was!

      • dally

        I think Purple Kelly’s “invisible girl” edit was punishment for quitting the game.

      • Mem

        Quitting the game means you quit the game. The jury members are still part of the game, so by definition these two should not be allowed to be on it. When they said “I quit” that should have meant the end of their involvement in any aspect of the game. It’s a simple matter of logic. My guess is that this decision was made by Legal and not by the producers.

      • chad

        Fabio should have got to ‘smuff’ Nay’s torch, and the Jury should have ‘smuffed’ Kelly’s (at least now we know why she got no air-time). If I had been there when Jeff asked what to do with the torches I would have had a hard time not yelling out ‘Shove it up thier Bleeps!’ Lame lame lame

      • CP

        I laughed, rms ;) (& I agree with dally on PK)

      • Snsetblaze

        Mem – you are probably right. I remember when Janu was on the jury and everyone was complaining then about it on the boards. Yes, precedent had been set but a clause could have been put into the contracts after the Janu situaiton whereby all participants in the game agree that by signing the contract to play, if they choose to quit, they automatically forfeit their chance to be on the jury. That would have taken care of the precedent.

      • Karl

        Agree on Kelly’s punishment. An attractive young woman has never been this behind-the-scenes on Survivor as Kelly was. I am thinking you’re right that the editors cut her out as much as they could as punishment. But then the question is why was Naonka given so much air time? Were her antics just too much to ignore?

      • Dan

        I don’t think they were punishing Purple Kelly. I think she was just completely and utterly uninteresting and boring. Probst finally gave her a chance to talk about strategy at the Tribal Council where Brenda got the boot and she had absolutely nothing to say. It was just stammering cliches.

      • Ken

        They probably figured Janu was a one-off and no one would ever quit voluntarily with 11 days left to the money. (Janu quit on day 27.) Kelly was vunerable but NaOnka seemed a shoo-in to the end, if only as a guaranteed way to keep votes from one person. (After the food stealing she had no shot to win.)

        I’m glad in his tweets that Jeff said they’ll revisit this issue in the future rules. Quitters should not get on the jury and should be penalized some of their prize money.

      • Probst4Ever

        They’re going to have to put 10 Martin Luther Kings on the next season to make up for Naonka.
        I thought Kelly Blond would be voted out next, so maybe the game wasn’t altered in that sense. Marty is probably wondering if he could have convinced Naonka to quit earlier.

      • Jasmine

        “except there appears to be a new player with the name Benry or something”..LOL! Right?? I thought the exact same thing…too funny!

      • Stephen

        They wanted Naonka to come off as a crazy bitch, and Purple Kelly to come off as a airhead barbie (when she wasn’t on editing exile). Mission accomplished on both parts.

      • Dexter

        Holly benefits greatly from having Invisible Kelly and Na’Onka on the jury. I just wish Brenda and Marty were still in the game. Though I must admit it is refreshing to see a finish without an obvious powerplayer/goat combination. Absence of strategic idol play has hampered this season but its to be expected from time to time (I don’t think we will ever top Samoa/HvV in that department).

        Bring on Redemption Island I say! Though it really should be Hatch and not Boston Rob. A RichardHatch/RussellHantz final two spooning session would be the ultimate survivor moment in so many ways.

      • Soap On A Rope

        Did you notice on the Ponderosa video that Purple Kelly was concerned about the “Lack of sleep lines” on her face. She still has no clue what has just happened to her.

    • BestPlayer2NeverPlay

      I’ve tried to get on this show so many times and there are so many people that would be willing to do anything to get on. Yet who do they choose? Quitters!!! As much as I am glad not to see or listen to AnnoyOnka anymore and to the purple airhead, it disgusts me that they quit. It ruins the game. I’ve been dying to get on this damn show and they choose these losers that quit! 2 losers in one damn episode! Annoyonka is a selfish child. She knew that she was leaving and yet did not step up and give up her reward for rice and tarp.Go Smuff her damn torch. Whatever the heck smuff means! These people are idiots! Well I guess I can’t blame purple airhead, she’s been out of her element from day 1. She’s use to everything handed to her on a silver platter. I’m sure her daddy hired a nice expensive agent to get her on this show. 11 days in the cold rain without your mommy and daddy must be real tough. Damn! They cant hold out for 11 days! What were they thinking when the decided to go on this damn show? Did they think it would be as easy as a walk on the beach? I didn’t think this season could get any worse until now. My favorite show just hit rock bottom!

      • Jeff Probst

        I’ve already told you a dozen times, we don’t take people who stoop to levels of dorkiness heretofore unvisited on Survivor. We automatically shoot down anyone who does magic tricks in their audition video. We’d actually cast Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer before we’d put someone as dorky as a 3rd rate David Copperfield on. Try and reach a maturity level beyond 3rd grade and we’ll see, but FYI, it doesn’t help when you add the dorky traits of claiming to be great at something you’ve never even attempted and come here and whine about wanting to be on the show. In summation, LESS DORKY + LESS WHINY + MORE MATURE = STILL A MILLION TO ONE SHOT THAT WE’D EVER WANT YOU. Think about it….we wanted people like Naonka and Kelly, and wouldn’t even consider you after seeing your video. That should clue you in…

      • dougp

        Awesome reply from Jeff.

      • judygirl

        I’m not buying the “fairness” excuse of why the two quitters get to be on the jury. This show changes rules all the time, it should have changed the rule on quitters in re being on the jury right then and there. If a person forfeits going on in the game, they should forfeit getting a vote–put them on a plane right away and get them outta there. They don’t even deserve the luxury of The Ponderosa. That said, I couldn’t be happier to not see that sociopath, NaSnotka, on the show anymore.

      • LeeAnne

        Wow. Jeff, your reply hits a level of awesomeness that isn’t even even measurable. The only problem is, most of us don’t know the history here. I would pay money to see this dork’s dorky video…if only to find out what exactly it is that puts him so low on your list of potential contestants. It must be EPICALLY dorky!

      • amy

        I’ve tried many times too but didn’t have a camcorder the first time, so sent app. without a tape; rented one the 2nd time but it didn’t have sound on the final copy, and the 3rd time I guess I was just too boring for them. But I’ll say this, I’m a single white mom raising 3 biracial kids alone on one income in the ghetto of Milwaukee, I work at the PD (that alone should tell you I might be a little wacky), and I don’t have any debt other than my car payment, which I negotiated a very low interest rate for. All these things should show that the last thing I am is a QUITTER, OR, boring. It bothers me so much that more than a few of the people they seem to pick are boring and talk about quitting or DO quit, when there are so many of us average joes who maybe don’t look good in a bikini or a bra, but we’d probably be much more interesting if given the chance. I myself like watching the contestants who appear to be more ‘average’, like Jane.

      • Matt

        I don’t think the real Jeff Probst responded to your/this post… lol

      • Scooter

        That was not Jeff Probst replying in the comments section. If he has any further input to add, he does so on the blog post itself. Jeff would never use the likes of Hitler and Dahmer to make a point.

      • KD

        People, if you think Jeff Probst would ever speak to someone like the post here does, you don’t deserve to call yourself a fan of his. Unfortunately this board is set up so that any idiot can sign on using Jeff’s name, as we can see.

      • Handsome Smitty

        Jeff just showed what a — I’ll use the word ‘jerk’ but you all know what I’m thinking – he must be in real life; attacking someone who obviously loves his show on such a personal level reveals how classless the Classy claim to be.

      • BestPlayer2NeverPlay

        dougp is trying to be Jeff P. Get a life man. Not interested in your lame comments

      • JoeB

        Get a life guys. Jeff Probst does not talk like that. People here impersonate Jeff to get attention. I saw this guys video on youtube and I liked it a lot. Best- dont listen to these a$#ho You did a nice job. good luck!

      • BestPlayer2NeverPlay

        Thanks Joe. I don’t give people that talk about Hitler or dahmer the attention that they are craving.

      • Ian

        Of course it’s not Probst doing the commenting. Though I find it pretty funny myself.

      • A. Hitler

        Get real Jeff, if that is who you really are. I am far too busy playing a far more painful game of survivor with the devil to get involved with your silly show. Though watching it is part of the punishment down here.
        Heil me!

      • Skyler

        Will we be getting input from Dahmer as well? LOL

      • Jeff Probst

        OK Guys you got me. I’m not really Jeff Probst. Don’t give me a hard time. I felt a bit insecure just wanted to be funny and be Jeff. I am 40 and still live with my mom, so please just cut me some slack. @Best- Your video was really awesome. I do sincerely appologies for my words. If anyone is a dork it’s really me. I also appoloies about the reference to Hitler and Dahmer, that was just tasteless

      • sarah h

        I thought the fake Jeff was hilarious, just because it WAS so obviously fake. Or so I thought. Turns out a lot of dedicated “fans” are now disillusioned. Prob. start writing complaint letters to the network. I <3 it!

    • Skyler

      Yes, if NaOnka really thought she could win, then her quitting is even more appalling. Especially with the HII in her pocket (I hadn’t even remembered that). Btw, who else really felt for the jury members? Marty & Brenda were pissed and Alina was crying. I don’t blame them. Wish the jury members could replace the quitters….

      • BestPlayer2NeverPlay

        NO,No,No. Never bring back people that lose. They tried that one season and it didn’t make sense. It was the worst decision ever.

      • Misty

        Naonka didn’t leave with an immunity idol in her pocket. Sheesh! Watch the show…she GAVE it to Chase!

      • Joe

        Alina was crying because she has to spend 11 days with NaOnka.

      • AJ

        I thought she gave the idol to Chase earlier in the day.

      • Paul

        You know they do that on Top Chef. What someone quits, they bring back the last person who was eliminated. Since 2 people quit Survivor, they should’ve brought back the last 2 people eliminated: Brenda and Marty. No wonder Top Chef 6 won the Emmy for Best Reality TV Show this year and Survivor wasn’t even nominated.

      • Paul

        WHEN instead of WHAT

      • MEGS

        They can’t do that!! The people that have already been voted off shouldn’t be allowed to come back because it is an unfair advantage. They’ve gotten good food and good sleep. They have been resting for days and they would be too strong if they were brought back. They shouldn’t get a second chance.
        And on another note, NaOnka and Purple Kelly have to join the jury otherwise the jury would be short on two votes. Plus they wouldn’t be able to bring in the two people voted off before Alina because they’ve missed the last 4 tribal councils and wouldn’t have enough information to make an informed decision on who should ultimately win the million.
        As stupid and unfair as it is for survivors to quit, I think the producers have handled the quitters in the best way possible.

      • SarahJane

        @Joe, I’d probably cry if I had to spend 11 days with NaOnka too…

      • BestPlayer2NeverPlay

        MEGS – Don’t even try to respond to those idiotic ideas of having people that lost come back and try for a 2nd time. These people have the same idiotic ideas as the producers that ruined Pearl Island’s season.

      • LGH

        I agree with Skyler- I wish Marty or one of the other junors could replace the quitters.

      • ParadiseFlorids

        I like you idea! Give someone that loves the game a chance to win and put the quitter in the jury house.

      • qwikgta

        I agree. I was thinking that they should do this too. Have a simple “pick a rock out of a bag” odd 2 rocks get back in. or odd rock is out, other 2 in. That would have been a hell of a twist.

      • Skyler

        @Misty: Cut me break. I don’t like to repeat myself in comments, but I’ve already mentioned that I was celebrating the holiday with my family last night and only got to see TC. I’m planning on watching the whole thing either tonight or tomorrow. “Sheesh” to you! ;)

      • Mac

        Paul, as much as I agree with you on the “Top Chef” rules, unfortunately in this game when you’re out you have to be out.

        Reason? – they’ve eaten and had a better night sleep (or few) than the contestants, therefore it’s a HUGE unfair advantage. “TC” and other shows they are on equal grounds save not cooking/sewing/whatnot. They’re equal all other aspects.

        Letting them in would be even more unfair than it was to let the quitters stay on jury.

        Trust me, if they did what Michael Supkin tried to come back to the game (he didn’t eat until they told him with his burned hands he wouldn’t have a shot due to health risks), or the ghost tribe did in Pearl Islands (same living conditions as the real tribe), then they’d had a shot. Unfortunately, the moment they fed themselves it was over for good – this go.

      • LMNOP

        Here’s an idea: take the two players who were voted out prior to the first person on the jury. Put them on the jury. What’s not fair about that?

        So what if the two weren’t present at a couple of tribal councils? They have all the tape–let them see it. It’s not the same as being there, but I think this solution works much better than allowing 2 quitters on the jury. That’s just wrong on so many levels.

      • Caleb Jones

        Well, if they brought them back to replace the quitters, wouldn’t that be very unfair. The jury is well fed bathed and having fun with all the food clothing and shelter they want. then they get back in the game against the starving tired and weakened players. I would sue if I were a player and that happened.

      • Brandy

        I totally had Breach of Contract on my mind when they quit. Their quitting was certainly unfair to everyone both in and out of the game.

      • Skyler

        @Caleb: You make a good point. In another comment on this post, I explained that I had changed my opinion on bringing back jury members for the very reasons you cite. I think my initial opinion was based on wishful thinking, as the other three members of the jury really wanted to be there and play. I feel bad for them sitting there and watching their tribemates quit when they would do anything to take their places. But, yes, I agree that a player would have a pretty legitimate reason for a lawsuit in this case….

      • paulab

        One idea that someone mentioned on these message boards was allowing the remaining survivors to vote a jury member back into the game when someone quits. I think that would make for an interesting dynamic…. watching people who might win or lose an alliance “work” the person who intends to quit. But then again, it may distract from the game as more contestants see it as a viable choice. I’m mixed on whether they should be allowed to stay on the jury. In the end, Kelly P. is just young and dumb and Naonka is the biggest psycho loser to ever play. BTW, Chase is an idiot. It annoys me to watch him.

    • ACC0

      I don’t care if 1/2 of the cast members are culled from actual applicants.

      I don’t care of 1/2 of them are recruits.

      I don’t care if they are model handsome/sexy or not.

      I don’t care if the contestants are ugly or not.

      I don’t care if the contestant is a champion whatever or a couch potato.

      I don’t care how many triathlons the people are in. (Which is becoming more & more of a requisite to be on Survivor)

      I don’t care how old or young the contestant is.

      I don’t care for green eggs & ham either.

      What I DO CARE about is that I want to see contestants there who WANT TO PLAY — WHO WANT TO WIN–AND KNOW HOW TO PLAY — WATCHING FRM PAST SEASONS & IMPROVING ON IT.

      Lynn — learn from Nakonka (although she did make for great TV), Purple (yet another forgetable blonde) Kelly & Dan. Also, thank you for finally casting a season with some of the most strongest, real women ever. This is usually my complaint with past Survivors seasons (bland women who look good in bathing suits but are dragged by & don’t stand up to the puppetmaster who takes them to the final three — casting women like Jane, Holly & Brenda made it harder for the Mr. Farty of these season do fart his way to the end). Keep casting the women strong like you did this season.

      I don’t think I’m the only one with my casting opinions — I think that goes for most posters here.

      • GoddessLu

        “I don’t care for green eggs & ham either”–love a good Seuss reference. BTW who is Lynn? Agree that Holly, Brenda and especially Jane are 3 of the most capable women ever in this game. Jane is a superstar–she actually trained for the show, lifting things, doing more cardio, exercises to acclimate herself to the heat. If that ain’t a Survivor, I don’t know who is!

      • ACC0

        Lynne Spiegel Spillman is Survivor’s Casting Director. Some of her well-known methods such as scouting around Los Angeles & finding future cast mates at bars, restaurants, hair salons or acquiring friends of friends (ie. — Stephen of Tocantins)have been controversial & irritated many because it decreases the chances of people like you & me or someone like Holly of getting on the show. But the way I see it — is do whatever works. But if you are going to half recruit (and it is my opinion that Survivor should half recruit) — scout the US – not just LA (which I think they do).

        I will say this for Lynne, not very many people can spot a Machiavellian puppetmaster type on sight. I can — and so can she — & as much as I loathe those types in real life — Survivor wouldn’t be worth watching without a couple of these a-ho*es per season.

      • Katie

        I have restrained from even reading your your blog and definitely from making a comment this year for the simple reason of smart asses like last week all over the teacher for defining herself as being a teacher before making her comment and spoilers, jerks who just can’t help but criticize your opinions or picks and those who seek out one person to hate, and I’ve done good! However, last night was the last straw! I am so in agreement with Acco here. I have NEVER missed an episode of Survivor, used to write in on this blog all the time, am still an all time fan, would give anything to be in one of the reunion shows and used to dream about being a constant but my MS put a halt to that dream, however… last night was unbelievable! I was screaming to the top of my lungs “BURN THEIR TORCH! BURN THEIR TORCH!” The disappointment that there were no consequences to just setting their and saying I quit especially after the NaOnka has been the devil herself all season and to get to go vacation in that beautiful plush resort for the next 11 days erks me! I was so VERY happy to see you guys cast these strong women as Acco mentions! I mean BB was a joke this year. It was a modeling show and I was overjoyed that Survivor had picked such real people with such a diverse look and age even if I was disgusted by the old and young set up, it showed you realized that we wanted to see people of all ages, all looks, all ethic groups. But quitters are quitters! At least at the finally tribal council before coming back to the US as a symbol that they did not complete the journey, make them BURN THEIR TORCHES, marking them as quitters of the journey!

      • NotBostonRob

        Katie – I had the same reaction – just unceremoniously toss those torches into the fire and say, “Get out of here!” Quitters should never have their torches snuffed because “the tribe has not spoken.” They don’t even deserve their torches. And quitters never ever should be on the jury; they forfeit their right to have a say in who wins the million dollars. If they have a strong alliance in the game that might change who wins, then that alliance better keep them in the game. If they quit the game, then they quit the entire game.

    • wtf

      Every1 is making naonka complicated when she is really so simple. The bizarro logic that naonka thinks with is different from the average moron. By quitting, naonka can say that she would/could have won for the rest of her life.
      Like Russell, and other unlikable people before her, she had zero chance of jury votes. By quitting, she doesnt have to face that

      • BestPlayer2NeverPlay

        Russell deserved to win his first season, and didn’t. Annoyonka had no shot.

      • Skyler

        What you say makes complete sense. On the other hand, Naonka’s logic makes no sense. If she could have won, then why quit? And since she quit, she never could have won. Anyway, I think Naonka’s betting on the hope that most of people she meets in life won’t have the reasoning powers of a 10-year-old. I think she will be sorely disappointed when she finds out that’s not the case…

      • wtf

        @best – dude, pls just kill yourself

        @skylar – thats bizarro logic. it kinda makes sense, kinda not. I grew up with it, I married it, I divorced it. It still makes very little sense to me.

      • Rob

        pitch perfect assessment.

      • jane

        I agree that Russell should have won each time. Outwit/Outlast/Outplay- he did it all. The jury had a personality conflict but they should have given him the win because he truly did outplay, outwit, and outlast.

      • Cyberkim

        When speaking directly to the camera, Nay is optimistically delusional. Off camera and alone, she knows just how crazy angry she is and really doesn’t stand a chance of winning. By the way, does anyone know if the players get prizes or money for just being on the show and if they do, what or how much?

      • sdm

        You are so right WTF, I just hope life comes back and bitchslaps NaOINKa a thousand times over.

      • Skyler

        @wtf: Bizarro logic is just that… bizarre! LOL

      • Liz

        I think that Russell had the ultimate flaw. He assumed that the jury would vote for him because of his manipulation skills. He forgot that it’s a game where emotions run high. I think he didn’t deserve the win. Sorry kids. If you don’t get the votes you don’t deserve to win.

      • Pat

        Russelstiltskin did NOT deserve to win. If he had, there would definitely without a doubt be one less Survivor fan. Thank goodness the juries did not reward the sociopath with the million, and it’s quite disturbing that there were enuf fanatics out there to vote for him as fan favorite. Scary.

      • Navigator


      • KD

        Jeff had it right when he called her a seven-year-old. She is. Though she is a bratty, spoiled, and awful seven-year-old. I would hardly stoop to insulting all seven-year-olds because I have known many kids that age (and younger) with more class and manners than Naonka will ever have.

      • LFC

        Do people really think that Russell made it to the end of Heroes vs. Villains because he was some sort of Survivor genius? He stayed as long as he did because other contestants knew he would never, ever beat them in a jury vote. He’s as much a strategic genius as Naonka is–and had she not quit, she almost certainly would make it to the end like Russell did.

        “Outwit, Outplay, Outlast”–whenever people bring these up regarding Russell they just say “he did all three” and leave it at that (and it’s a dumb commercial tagline regardless, not some almighty moral philosophy, but that’s another thing), but sabotaging all of your jury votes is not outwitting or outplaying, it is just being stupid and in Russell’s case, pointlessly mean.

        Russell was made to look better than he was for most of Heroes vs. Villains because it was entertaining. But remember Danielle said to him at final tribal, “no one’s going to vote for you.” She knew everyone else thought he was a disgusting troll.

        He never had a chance. Get over it and stop cheering for the sociopath.

      • wtf

        If any1 cares, I really didnt mean to compare Naonka to Russell, except for the jury vote thing. Russell is like the evil villain from a bad movie. He was born, and will die, an a%^hole. Naonka is more like Coach Wade. They live in a differnt place than the rest of us.(bestplayer2neverplay knows, he lives there too). I feel sorry for them both

      • Skyler

        @LFC: I agree that Russell could not win because he was so open with his manipulation and meanness. Nonetheless, he did have shrewd skills in playing the skills. He was consistently able to survive multiple TCs where the target was on his back (or on a member of his alliance’s back). Maybe he didn’t win much sympathy, but he certainly had the skills to make it to the end. Perhaps he was shooting for 2nd place because he’s already a multi-millionaire LOL

      • changesurvivor?

        You guys are still talking about Russell? Funny how those who hated him keep his legacy strong as ever. First rule of TVland guys, it doesn’t matter what kind of attention you get, it’s just the attention that matters. If you hate Russell then stop posting about him.

      • Skyler

        @changesurvivor: I’ll admit it. I liked watching Russell. I was rooting for him in Samoa. Though in HvV I thought Parvati deserved the win. And she would have won if not for the awful Final 3 format.

    • BestPlayer2NeverPlay


      • c. acuff

        the quitters should not be allowed on the jury, they should get back those who were voted off to replace them

      • Lon

        Who said life is “fair”? They quit, they should be removed from the game – no jury.

      • Jerri

        @BestPlayer2NeverPlay, you remind me of NaOnka when she said she could win it all. hell, you’d probably quit 28 days in too. Loser.

      • BestPlayer2NeverPlay

        Jerri- I am not a quitter. Don’t judge me if you don’t know me.

    • Sash Fan

      I was thinking this was the WORST EPISODE EVER, until I read Probst’s blog. This does open the game up a bit, shake up Sash’s plans, and bring a whole new vibe to the camp.

      Just next season — state it up front — if you quit you will not be on the jury.

      With the Ponderosa videos on the web, plus continued screen time for the jury, I think contestants think quitting and sitting on the jury is almost as good as placing, say, 4th. So if they don’t think they can win, they just quit. Does not make for good TV.

      • John Debono

        Oh no, it still is the worst episode ever, there’s just some small room for redemption to not replace Thailand as the worst survivor season.

      • Zoey

        How do you like sash? When Russel Hantz was in an alliance with Parvati, he gave up an immunity idol to save her because beneath that horrible, evil, villainous playing, he would not have given up her trust. He practically handed her $1 million. But Sash, voted out his most trusted ally because he thought it would help him.

      • Skyler

        @Zoey: Speaking of that, you know what I miss? EPIC tribal councils. All this season has been ho-hum. No crazy dramatic twists. Nothing unexpected. The person targeted at the beginning of the episode always goes.

      • D

        Skyler-get real. Naonka said something unexpected and weird every single week. Don’t remember people getting bleeped out at TC before.

      • wtf

        @Zoey – Im a little confused. How did Russell practically hand Parvati a million? She didnt win

      • Skyler

        @D: You’re right that there have been some really entertaining tribal councils. What I mean by “EPIC” tribals is when the outcome is totally shifted because of shrewd planning and strategic HII moves (which there were a lot of last season). I meant epic in the game-playing sense, as opposed to the entertainment/oddball factor. But, yes, you are right that NaOnka definitely gave some unexpected commentary! :)

    • 12345

      Jeff, if you actually read my comment, please tell the producers that in the future, quitters shouldn’t be allowed to remain on the show in any form or fashion – no jury, no appearance fee, no reunion show. Change the contracts they sign and the rules… by allowing them to stay in the game as part of the jury, you’re sending a signal to everyone that it’s okay to quit, and that’s not what Survivor is about. Quitting is the ultimate sin in Survivor for me… lie, steal and cheat all you want, but don’t quit. I never liked how you let Janu still be on the jury in Palau, and I definitely don’t like it now. Like others have said, you guys change the rules all the time… if it’s a legal contract thing, then change it for next season, please.

      • sara

        Jeff IS a producer, and is equally to blame for the moronic decision to allow these two quitters on the jury. And there is no sugar-coating it Jeff – that was bull cr*p.

      • Sue

        I agree completely, 12345. If a player quits the game, he/she should be out entirely. Survivor is all about twists and turns, and unexpected changes (like the first time there were 3 finalists at the end instead of 2). As producers of Survivor, you are entitled to make changes to the rules; you are not obligated to follow a precedent. But the next contract should make it clear: quitters neither receive (nor deserve) the same privileges accorded those who stayed in the game until they were voted out. It’s just not right.

      • lorelei

        Naonka was rewarded for quitting, she admitted that “staying in a manion” was the best vacation she ever had, wished she could stay longer. If there was ever incentive to quit here it is. Quitters should be SENT HOME!

      • captain obvious

        All Jeff had to do was state that by quitting the game they were forfeiting their right to be a jury member. not sure if that wouldve swayed them or not-but I seriously doubt Naonka or Purple Kelly were thinking of the Janu precedent at the time.

      • Jasmine

        12345….agree 100%! You quit you should be gone completely!! I don’t even think they should be allowed on the stage when the winner is drawn. Jeff, you did say we would be angry but your explanation just doesn’t make us feel better! Maybe you should rethink the rules for future Survivor seasons. So disappointed! Quitters are Losers and should lose all privileges in being any part of the show in any aspect!

      • dh

        well said

      • D

        @Jasmine-You know it is a good suggestion that they can still do. Have the two quitters sit in the audience and not up on the stage is another variation. I wouldn’t ask them any questions either but ask the ones who DID NOT quit what they thought of the quitters. Really, we have heard enough from both of them already.

    • Alan

      Jeff, your show has changed the rules before, so why can’t you change it now?

      • dally

        I think the rules would have to be changed before the season started and can’t just be changed on the fly (no matter how much NaOnka and PK deserved to be dumped from the jury).

      • Mac

        Dally is right – when they sign the contract CBS has to honor it. While some cases you can tell things are iffy, Burnett has a huge franchise here and won’t change it on the fly for risk of suits (and NaOnka reads as one who would do it, but we’ve had one – Stacy season one – file a case of game manipulation).

      • Alan

        But the rules get changed all the time. What about some seasons when someone gets evicted at the start of episode 1 before the show even begins? What about when they suddenly have double evictions? Or when they allow the person sitting out the reward challenge to join the winning team? Or when they force the winning tribe to also go to Tribal?

        I mean, this is entertainment, not a binding legal employment contract. The producers can do what they want. But even if they can’t, at least they should have changed the rules after Janu so it didnt happen this time.

      • changesurvivor?

        I don’t get why everyone wants those two out. We want to keep them around so they can get smacked around a little more during the Q&A sessions, then smacked around even more during the reunion show. Though I imagine they’re going to get one helluva bad reception wherever they are from this point on. I actually half worry about what they’re going to have to face in real life.

      • Carnut

        The only people in life that can quit and still get benefits are politicians! When you quit you should be done, period! I wish someone had screened Naonka more closely as I hate to see such a morally bereft person gain money and notoriety. It’s too bad someone didn’t borrow that poor girl’s artificial leg and beat some decency into that “proud strong black girl”. What a poor representative for all the decent Afro Americans out there! I don’t think even Gloria Alred would come to her aid……on the other hand “birds of a feather….”

    • Audra

      I was actually hoping that NaOnka was able to talk herself into staying with “I can totally win this game”, having her make it to the finals and everyone, in their time to comment, ripping into her “game play” and why she wouldn’t be getting her vote. THAT would’ve been a fun final tribal council!

    • denver Jo

      I had jury duty once. I sat on the jury for 10 days only to find out at deliberation time that I was picked as an Alternate. I did not get to decide on the outcome of the case, yet I stayed for the entier time.

      Jeff, why not in the future, keep 2 extra castoffs to server as alternates on the jury in case someone quits? That way the quitters just go straight home, and then the alternate becomes an actual juror. That way they would have set through any missed tribal councils and you keep a full jury on hand.

      • Heidi

        Denver Jo I LOVE THIS IDEA. Makes the most sense to me.
        Because its a numbers game, they’d know if they were alternates but I think they’d still be willing to participate in such a way. The only other clause would be they’d have to stay in a separate location from the remainder of the jury members so they couldn’t affect the game UNLESS someone quits.

        I kinda thought Holly made a million dollar decision last night.
        I was surprised, though, that the tribe wasn’t also mad at Dan for not manning up and missing reward to help his tribe, since he hasn’t done anything so far in the game to help win a challenge, help around camp, etc. Its kinda crazy to me that the tribe is fine with that.

        Wish Jeff had burned the torches. I think he had a moment of weakness because Kelly is young and he thought she’d be hurt enough by viewer and family reaction, he wasn’t going to rub it in. If it were just Naonka, I think that torch would be ashes right now.

        JEFF please read the above solution by Denver jo for years to come!!

      • Keylarq

        @Heidi – Dan was NOT one of those offered the option to take the tarp & rice. Only the actual players that won were included in the offer. It would indeed have been interesting to see if he would have done it.

      • TTThunder

        If I were Dan, I’d ask Jeff whether I can trade place with Holly since she was bursting her ass to win the game, but I didn’t…

        So I did not deserve the reward!

        I think he would prove Jeff wrong (that he had no chance to win) if he had done that…

    • Adele

      Nice try, Jeff, on trying to make a positive spin on your huge blunder of letting two quitters stay in the game as members of the jury. Saying that a precedent was set years ago doesn’t cut it. You have been able to change things up whenever you wanted. My prediction is that this episode will always be remembered as the one where Survivor “jumped the shark.”

    • Kevin D

      From a strategic point of view you want to bring the least popular player with you to the final two and somebody like Naonka would have been perfect. I don’t think Naonka really believed she could win. I think even on a subconscious level she knew she was on the outs and there was no way the jury was going to give her the million bucks.

    • HatefulVictimNayNay

      I just finished watching this episode on my DVR and I’m still so disgusted that I could spit nails. Naonka embodies all the worst qualities of what makes our civilization the wreck it has become. How she can justify her hateful selfishness with a straight face mystifies me as much as so many others with similar socio-economic backgrounds who somehow manage to paint themselves as victims while they eviscerate everyone around them just baffles me. Hopefully, the amount of screen time devoted to this hateful pig will serve to illustrate the transparency of her stupidity as an example for others to improve their own internal lies. There is a special place in hell reserved for her and everyone like her.

      So she quit. No surprise there. When this sort of person gets backed into a corner where they can no longer come up with excuses for their evil ways then they run away.

      • Marjie

        Yes, indeed, you are quite correct in your passion! One thing to add would be the fact that she may be facing unemployment when she returns to the real world; after all, who would want her as an employee? Is she going to put her job first? Co-workers? Clients? Well, no. Jane was right: everything counts in this economy and her attitude doesn’t amount to much. And then, too, how do the people CBS/Survivor Producers didn’t pick to be on the show feel now that TWO people renigged on their contract? Mega-pissed for sure!

      • changesurvivor?

        Wow, so poor people suck because their such victims. Do you live in the states? Are you completely unaware of what just happened these last few years? And the bailouts going out to all the big firms that were whining about how they were victims was what? Justifiable? NaOnka was a bit of a wack job because she was a radical narcissist. I don’t think it had anything to do with her socio-economic background.

      • Skyler

        THANK YOU, changesurvivor. There are plenty of people from similar socioeconomic backgrounds who are NOTHING like NaOnka. Take it from someone who used to be on food stamps and lived in the back of a truck and now goes to an Ivy League university. Even people who are not as lucky as I am are not necessarily immoral people. Some of the most genuine, honest, and GOOD people I have met were from that low point in my life. Just from experience, one can not (and SHOULD NOT) make radical generalizations about an entire economic class of people. It’s a methodological sin. NaOnka was just a whack job, which is a separate matter from her socioeconomic background.

    • jay

      no ponderosa
      no jury
      go home and be warm and dry

      • tee

        no reunion show
        just leave

      • tee

        ‘smuff” their torches?
        HELLS NO!
        throw ‘em in the trash and try to forget the whole thing ever happened

      • Caleb Jones

        and charge them for the flight home as well!

      • changesurvivor?

        I like the whole idea of making them pay for their own way back. After all, as Mr. Probst said, they were guilty of a breach of contract. But hey, at least these last few episodes gave some life to what was otherwise a fairly lackluster season.

    • TTThunder

      I think when we have a quitter, we should allow either:

      A. The person who was just voted out to come in the game instead.

      In this case, it would mean that Brenda and Marty would come back!

      B. The person who was first to be voted out to come in the game instead.

      In this case, it would mean that Wendy and Shannon would come back!

      C. Randomly pick a person who was voted out to come back.

      However, in order to save the person just came back from being the next to be voted out. Give him/her an immunity idol!

      • TTThunder

        Just read that many do not agree that getting someone back would be a real advantages…

        I do not think so, since I think the remaining must be thinking the same – just vote them back (and that’s why I propose to give them the idol, so at least they can stay for 2 games…)

  • question

    I know men can joke about PMS, but it is a real condition. Could that have been a factor in the two woman wanting to quit?

    • Monky

      aaarrgh! How I hate them for quitting. I mean they cost us Brenda and Marty – two fabulous n most importsntly entertaining players.

      I can belive that bitch Naonka voted out her ally and friend brenda just a night ago! the next night she quits. what a total bitch. hate her no end. I think she is the most hateful person to play this game ever!

      and to keep them on the jury? seriously? whatever with the janu reasoning. you shld change that fr these two morons. I can imagine the three jurors were very upset about it. Also the fact that they get to enjoy ponderosa with them is absolutely beyond believable Jeff Probst!

    • answer

      No one mentioned it, so why would you?

    • Christina

      That isn’t a stupid question, but no…in this case it is simply the younger generation not understanding that life takes work and sometimes you have to really suck it up and suffer to actually earn your money. I can them the “Shoulder-shrugging” generation, because most of them, when as a boss or a teacher you ask them to do something, they shrug their shoulders and walk away. It is going to be the complete downfall of our future society, lazy shiftless kids with no concept of responsibility.

      • Christina

        sorry *call

      • Skyler

        As a member of the younger generation, I can assure you that not everyone is Bartleby the Scribner. That’s what makes the distinction between someone who goes far and someone who fails — determination.

      • Linda

        I’m NOT a member of the younger generation but feel deeply insulted for them by your comments. There have always been selfish aholes and lazy no care idiots and there always will be. Some of the worst I’ve met are my (mature) age. Please! Don’t paint an entire generation with the same brush

      • Mole

        I kinda like that my generation is “shoulder shrugging”…makes it easier for me to plow ahead of them!

    • Yoyo

      Women won 9 out of 20 seasons of Survivor, and all had to have one or two periods during the show.

      • julie

        i would think they would stop getting their periods under such harsh conditions where they are rapidly losing so much weight. no? i dunno really, but i know at this stage they are all so scrawny and malnourished, it must affect them.

      • D

        No- at least one of them must have been post-menopausal.

  • shelby

    Kudos for not blowing a gasket Probst.

    • Scottie

      Why didn’t the quitters have their torches thrown down like Osten? :( That was so dramatic and exciting D:

    • darclyte

      It looked like it was reeeally close there for a moment or two.

    • wipeout

      I wish he would have blown a gasket. If nothing else, why not come right out and call Naonka selfish for not giving up reward?

      • Django

        I agree with Dalton… Dan should have given up reward. All he did was sit in a giant chair and kick his useless little legs…

      • Juneau

        I had the same thought. No one was calling him selfish. If Nay (POS) wasn’t going to do it, he should’ve. He didn’t earn it. And it was his only chance to contribute ANYTHING to the game at all.

      • bethmania

        I don’t think Jeff gave Dan the option of turning it down. I believe he specifically asked if anyone on the winning team wanted to forfeit. Dan wasn’t actually on the winning team- he was only going to the reward because he had picked who the winning team would be.

      • Heidi

        I haven’t read Darlton’s blog yet but I made that comment, above. I was stunned that Dan didn’t see it could be his one contribution and even more surprised that no one there called him out on it. They seem totally fine about the fact that he has done NOTHING but be a generally nice guy the entire time he’s there. I’d say he made just as selfish a decision as Naonka by not volunteering to give up reward. He did nothing to earn it.

      • Chris

        To those folks wondering why Dan didn’t give up his reward as a contribution, watch the episode again. Jeff called out by name the folks that could give up their reward…and Dan wasn’t one of them.

      • Caleb Jones

        and if dan could have, he shouldn’t have. if he’s in the final 3 all he says is ‘i gave up reward to get you tarps’ and he’s the winner! so they would have a reason to vote him out at last!

    • sara

      Are you kidding? That was part of the problem. He SHOULD have blown a gasket. Give us some indication that you and the other producers actually still give a frig about the franchise Jeff!

      • Kristie

        I have been a huge fan of the show since the beginning. I have been very disappointed in this whole season and now this. To allow quitters to be on the jury is unforgivable and I will no longer watch.

    • Kathy

      Jeff does not take kindly to quitters. And I agree that these two should be done. No jury, no nothin’.

      • Jeanene

        These two should have gone from Tribal to the next plane home. No Ponderosa, no jury, just gone.

      • Meeghan

        @Jeanene My first thought was “Put them on the next plane back to wherever they’re from!” Then I thought, no, just leave them on the side of the road and let them get themselves home. In any case, I don’t ever want to have to see those stupid girls again. I agree with everyone saying ban them from the reunion.

      • Caleb Jones

        jeff WANTS to talk to them in the reunion, folks! He’s aching to ask them about quitting a million dollars again!!!

      • Skyler

        @Caleb: Absolutely on point. Of course Jeff will give them attention during the reunion show. Look at the uproar their decisions have made on this blog.

    • Adele

      I’m disappointed in Jeff and the other producers for allowing these two quitters to be pampered at the Ponderosa and then be on the jury. Is that really fair to anyone else who “stuck it out” in the game? Absolutely not! It bothers me that the producers haven’t already changed the rules after past seasons and told prospective contestants that if they quit, they immediately go home and are done with the show. And what especially bothers me is that this is another classic example of why we’re in such financial trouble in this country. There are way too many people out there who quit and then “expect taxpayers to take care of them at the Ponderosa and still let them be on the jury.” You know what I mean? As far as I’m concerned, this show has finally “jumped the shark” and is now in decline.

      • D

        If you quit, you don’t get unemployment, you know.

      • Skyler

        @D: YES, thank you for bringing that up! In the job market, quitters are NOT rewarded (unless they’re quitting to go to a better job, which is a different matter altogether).

  • JohnB

    why the @#$% should the two quitters be allowed on the jury, they should be ban them from the jury AND final live reunion show.

    • Scottie

      They made it to that point in the game, regardless of how they left they still played for 28 days. They earned that right just as much as Alina, Marty and Brenda did.

      • redriding

        whatever you CBS mole. Get over it! they do not have the same right as the others because the other jurors didnt quit. They fought their butts off to stay till the last minute. It probably requires such a large amount of mental stress to fight for your place in the game.

        They two dimwits just quit. Like so ridiculous that they get the same comforts and joys as marty, brenda and alina. they shldve ostracized them immediately.

        Silly producers. They shld not have anything to do with the game. They quit the game remember Jeff – so let them truly ‘quit’ the game by packing them back home!

        Back to the game. Im rooting for fabio and sash. I hate Jane so hope she’s next to go

      • BestPlayer2NeverPlay

        They didn’t earn a damn thing! You allow them to be on the jury, it messes up the game. You do not allow them to be on the jury, it messes up the game. It’s a no win situation.

      • Scottie

        You say that the first 3 fought their butts off to stay in the game, but Kelly and NaOnka fought just as long.

        Why so bitter? Leave them be. How the hell did their quit impact your life so badly?

      • LSLKahuna

        Here is why the two quitters should not be on the jury. All other jury members were voted out by the other players. So, that could influence their final vote, since they might not be inclined to vote for someone that voted them out. The quitters were not voted out (although NaOnka should have been voted out, or worse, long ago). So, they don’t have this same dilemma to deal with. That totally changes how the jury thinks. I don’t like it, and agree that the quitters should be left behind and not given any more air-time or influence on the game’s outcome.

        As an aside, I’m really not all that worried about NaOnka. Based on her behavior and obvious lack of any morals, she’ll be in prison soon enough. Let’s just consider her selfish movie choice to be her “last meal”.

      • Caleb Jones

        agreed!!! They actually voted themselves out if you think about it!

    • davey

      It kinda disgusts me that they are allowed on the jury after quitting the game – this season seriously gets worse and worse every episode! The finale will be one big snooze-fest!

    • Jake

      Survivor is a game with almost no rules, and what few rules there are change from time to time. Please set the new rule that if you quit, you’re not on the jury. If you quit, then you don’t really care. So you shouldn’t have a say in the final.

    • sandy


      • really?

        I’m pretty sure Jeff had nothing to do with the decision to keep any of the quitters on the jury. He is the host – those kind of decisions are made at a higher level. He may have input, but he didn’t sit at that tribal council and make that decision.

      • Bijou

        @ Really. Jeff has plenty of input. He not only is the host, he is also one of the executive producers of the show.

      • Snsetblaze

        Really? Jeff’s also an executive produce nowr. While when the decision was made for Janu back in season 7, he might not have had any influence on the decision (I am unsure if he was a producer that far back), Jeff certainly does now.

      • Michael Tx

        He is also a producer and has PLENTY of influence

      • Don’t yell!

        Why do people insist on typing in all caps when they see others typing in plain English? I think they should have a Survivor season of those people, the people that advertise dating Web sites on here, and former Survivor quitters. Give them all the warmth, food and water they want, but they need to survive each other’s annoying personalities and character flaws.

    • wtf

      when has any1 been banned from the reunion show? from what i know, every1 has to be at the reunion show, on penalty of getting sued if they dont

      • MEGS

        They’re not penalized if they don’t go to the reunion show. They’re offered 10 grand if they show up, which is a pretty good indication of why everybody does.

      • tickles

        Jerri was booed so hard at the reunion she ran off the stage crying.
        I hope Naonka gets the same reaction. If I lived in her town I would get a prothesis leg and wave it at her every time I saw her!

      • KC

        I have a feeling Noanka will chicken out of the reunion show now that she knows how disliked she is.

    • franbo

      they definitely shouldn’t be on the jury and the rules should be amended now-you quit, you’re gone!!!

  • Sara J

    Ah, precedent be damned – it is so wrong to let these two be on the jury or let them even be at the Ponderosa with the other players. If you need more jury members, pull in some of the last players voted off. Or just have a smaller jury. Quitters should be sent away – not continue to “play” by sitting on the jury.

    • rmsrmsrms

      my thought exactly, so you did it once in the past, screw the precedent and decide to do it differently this time!!!

      • BestPlayer2NeverPlay

        As much as I cant stand quitters, and these 2 are bastards, you can’t change rules around. Why allow it one time and not another?

      • SL

        What do you mean you can’t change the rules?! Remember the Medallion of Power this season? Do you remember Hidden Immunity Idols in the first few seasons of Survivor? Remember that horrible idea of bringing back the Outcasts back? The rules are constantly changing! Ok so when Jano quit it was the first time it happened and they didn’t know what to do. They should’ve immediately decided after that to NEVER let any other quitters on the jury!

      • Tajah

        Completely agree with SL. This game sometimes is unpredictable, and perhaps when Jano decided to quit the producers had to think fast and were unsure what to do. Make a decision starting next season that people who quit Survivor are not allowed on the jury, period.

      • Snsetblaze

        At the time Janu quit, there was probably no clause in the contract to address the situaiton. They could have corrected that. These two did not earn the right to be on the jury.

      • chris

        Actually Jeff; having those two in the jury is really off balance. I, as someone who loves this show, don’t want to see either of them again..much less paling around at the Ponderosa,e ating well and having a vacation while the others really suffered. The three voted out suffered and are trying to deal with it, the ones remaining in the rain also suffered, and are chin up making it through. You should at least separate the two quitters so they are somewhat punished, not getting all the goodies that you save for those who have been voted out and are hurting. These two should have their own tent, eat separate from the players that deserve the good care and not be invited to go to the great trips you take the others to. They can join the rest of the jury to discuss the game during a cocktail hour or something, but then back they go to their separate area. In the way it has been set up now, your are giving positive reinforcement to a young generation who already think they deserve things they haven’t worked for. Everyone watching is getting the message. These two need to be allowed to quit, but not be rewarded for it.
        C. Huber

    • Scottie

      Why? I don’t like when people quit but they played the game longer than the other 3 jury members and earned the right.

      • David Michael

        Look at Big Brother, when they kicked one member off for breaking the rules, they ended up with an even amount of jury members, they decided to use the phone/text system and allow viewers to be the tie braking vote, if needed. I think it would be a great option in Survivor. The “quitters” should have been net home, not eligible for any secondary prizes and not be allowed to participate in any official Survivor events.

        You quit, you walk away, and shouldn’t benefit in any financial gain.

      • Ellen

        No way did they ‘earn the right’. A quit is a quit is a quit. “Precedent” be hanged. The rules of Survivor change a bit each season. Quitting means “I no longer want to be a part of your game, I am out”. It is such a massive slap in the face to the other competitors and such an expensive inconvenience to the production that any other involvement should be terminated. They should be punished and their appearance fee should be withdrawn. They certainly shouldn’t have the right to potentially cost someone else $1 million.

        Also, as deluded and selfish as Naonka is,I bet her family are 100% behind her at the reunion. She had to learn her shocking behaviour from somewhere.

      • AB

        And in the Ponderosa Naonka talks about Ponderosa is a free vacation for her. She’s never been out of the US…blah, blah, blah. Why should the show be paying for her “vacation” when she quit?

      • KC

        I really think Noanka quit because she knew she wasn’t going to win, and thought Why spend 11 days in deprivation when she can go to Ponderosa and lie around and have meals prepared for her?

    • BestPlayer2NeverPlay

      If you pull in other players from before it changes the game around. Unfortunatly, this is a no win situation. As much as these people are bastards, I think you need to have them on the jury.

      • sandy


    • dh

      precedent be damned is right. for naonka and p-kelly to pat themselves on the back for their 28 day effort is deslusional

    • James

      I don’t understand Probst taking the “precedent” angle…they modify the rules all the time (final 3 vs final 2, how to handle a voting tie, hidden immunity idol, etc.) – why did they feel they had to stick to a precedent from 10 seasons ago that most casual viewers won’t remember?

      They still could have done a 7 member jury and final 2 without the quitters. My guess is they were worried about losing somebody else due to injury and then they’d have been $crewed for #s.

      • m.eliot

        The reason these two quitters are still on the jury has to be from a legal standpoint. Maybe next season the contracts will be amended to reflect some sort of backlash if peope do quit. I certainly want to see them at the reunion and listen to all the boos from the audience, cause I will certainly be booing them here at home.

    • Dee

      Okay, those 2 can be on the jury as long as we don’t see or hear from them ever again. Especially NaOnka.

      • Mimi

        My guess is they (producers) want NaOnka on the jury AND on the reunion show because they know that she and her obnoxious comments are ratings gold. They thought they had another miscreant Russell on their program so they are trying to keep her on the air as long as possible.

      • Luckyravenfan

        Not one but two quit. They should NOT be on the JURY to vote for the winner, to me that is a privilege , as those that are on the jury did NOT quit but were voted off or they would still be in the game. And Noanyaka SHOULD NOT HAVE participated in the reward with the rest of her team, she shouldn’t be rewarded for quitting… that took some nerve & I’m saying “nice words” at the moment. Everyone on my Facebook page agreed with me!! Quiters should sit on the sidelines period with dunce hats on!!!

      • AB

        The could still get their ratings by only allowing them to be on the reunion show. Even tho they quit, the were still part of the show and should be at the reunion.

      • wulfy

        Right. Jeff, if you are reading this, please- let this mean you are NOT ever bringing back Nanonka on a future “villains’ team or show. At least promise us that.

    • ASB

      Oh Jeff, honey, I love you so much. But what the heck? Precedent? That is beyond lame. But I still love you.

      • Adele

        I used to love you, Jeff.

      • Caroline

        Ya’ll are funny. No matter whose decision it was, it was probably in a contract signed way before this. I’m sure it will be reviewed.
        Future players- keep in mind who could be on the jury and get rid of the crappy players early. I’d love to see some strong endings instead of taking someone with you that you know won’t get votes…i.e. NaOnka. The player who are left will make it interesting for the remainder. Jane is awesome, but who knows what will happen. I still love you Jeff and Survivor!

      • Carolyn

        I am so glad that Nay is gone I have been hoping she would get out since she pushed the other Kelly over, as for Kelly Purple – who?? Didn’t see her and when we got to it was uninteresting. Kelly Purple left because she was used to hard times, Nay left because she knew she couldn’t win. They shouldn’t be on the jury though, I like put them in a tent with rice idea – funny!
        Really it couldn’t have happened to two better people – they were both annoying. I really hope that Survivor changes the rules so quitters don’t get to be on the jury.

      • Carolyn

        Oops Kelly Purple left because she was NOT used to hard times…..

      • Carolyn

        PS I love you too Jeff and I love your posts and I love Survivor – even when it drives me nuts!

  • Ken H.

    Am I the only one who thinks that Dan should have given up the reward in order to provide the tribe with rice and a tarp? He did absolutely nothing to earn the reward, other than choosing the tribe that would win. Here’s a guy that appears to contribute absolutely nothing around the camp, yet he blows the one chance he had to be a real hero. Dan was a doofus!

    • Scottie

      He didn’t have the option.

      • Anna

        He could have stepped up and presented the option of his own volition. Then it would have been on Jeff whether to say yea or nay but at least Dan would have been seen to be making the effort.

      • CP

        Dan is awful

    • caryn

      Dan wasn’t given the option – only the four that actually participated in the challenge were able to switch.

    • A

      Dan wasn’t given the choice to give up the reward. Jeff specifically named the 4 people who actually played in the challenge when offering the choice.

      I wish they’d just gone with a jury of 7 instead of 9.

    • MeLoveJane

      Great point, Ken. Dan should have given up his right not eat, not Naonka.

      • BestPlayer2NeverPlay

        Dan earned the reward by placing the right bet. Annoyonka was going to have all she wanted to eat right after tribal.

      • Kat

        bull*#@! Dan deserved to go on reward! It wasn’t his fault that he didn’t get picked on a team to participate. And it’s not his fault that he isn’t voted out yet. He is hungry too and is not quitting. He picked the right team to win and he deserves what he got.

    • Skyler

      Speaking of Dan, loved his eyeroll when Purple Kelly said her “joints hurt” in the rain. He may be useless, but he’s in pain and still doesn’t quit. In that respect, he’s a better player than the other two.

      • Cowcharge

        He doesn’t quit what? He hasn’t done anything to quit doing!

      • Christine

        Actually, it was Naonka who claimed her joints hurt with the cold/rain. She said something about it being due to her being anemic, I think.

      • Skyler

        @Cowcharge: LOL touche. Very true :) and @Christine: Yes, I think you’re right that it was Naonka. My mistake.

    • Sue

      Ken. H., I strongly agree! Dan did nothing to deserve the reward. If he were an unselfish person he would have stepped down to allow another player, who truly did work to win that reward, enjoy it. In a way he’s no better than NaOnka, but he’s quiet and doesn’t seek attention, so he is tolerated (and kept as jury fodder). Whatever small amount of respect I may have had for Dan has vanished due to this demonstration of his selfish nature.

    • K

      Thank you! That’s what I was saying last night and couldn’t believe no one else mentioned it. Yes Naonka should have volunteered, but it was no surprise that she didn’t. Dan should’ve stepped up and offered his spot considering he did nothing to earn the reward. Ugh this season sucks!

  • dirk pitt

    Jeff, I understand your reasoning about the Jury, but there has to be some future incentive to keep people from quitting. On the lite sight, perhaps they don’t get on the reunion show (I.e. Dead as far as survivor is concered). On the mildly tough side, take them off the jury. On the heavy side, no appearance/finish money. One thing is for sure, the reunion show is going to be quite interesting. Hey, perhaps you can have Russell Hanz interview Naonka: I’m Russell Hanz….I’m the greatest player ever….you’re stupid for qutting.

    I know some viewers have been a little upset at how “involved” you have been this season. Not me. And at last night’s tribal, you were great.

    Thanks for all you do for we viewers.

    Now let me toss one request out there…….please please please go on Rob Has a Podcast!

    • Pat

      “Me Russell. You Naonka. Why you quit? Me loud talk me tell lies me stab in back me find idols me stick head up Parv’s butt – but no win. You no win Stupid and do good to quit!”

  • Doug

    Precedent or not, in any game, when you quit, you don’t get to compete anymore PERIOD. That’s why neither should be on the jury and it would have been more drama as a result. Purple Kelly did nothing all season and everyone but her relatives has to be happy that the obnoxious Naona, hands down the meanest spirited ever on Survivor, is gone….even better that she went out a quitter.

    Jeff, why did you “smuff” out their torches though instead of just tossing them in the fire? And why include these two quitters in the reunion show? They quit and should be gone from everything going forward. Survivor changes rules all the time so don’t give us “provident had been set in earlier season”. Why have Survivor finales with three choices instead of two some seasons….hasn’t precedent been set from yr one through yr five with only two choices, etc…? Lame excuse, Jeff.

  • MCS

    As long as you continue to recruit people this problem will continue to occur. These people’s hearts arent in the game of Survivor, that’s why a) they’re quitting b) it has been a boring season with no gameplay. Get REAL people who are actually gonna play the game.

    • Scottie

      Yeah, I agree. You can hardly blame Kelly or NaOnka if they never watched the game. Stop recruiting useless people who have no idea what they’re getting themselves into and this wouldn’t happen!

      • Caitie F

        Wow Scottie – do you really like to read your own comments? Is it necessary to comment on everything said, and have two of your comments say the exact same thing? We got it the first time…saying it more often does not make you more right

      • Scottie

        Um wtf? Calm down. I can reply to a comment if I like. What crawled into your snatch?

      • Jason F

        Watch it buddy — on thin ground there. EW – can you do something about language like this?

      • changesurvivor?

        Aside from the poor choice in language, I’m with Scottie on this one. The one freedom we should have on this site is the freedom to comment on whatever we want however frequently we want to without some nimrod playing internet stalker and keeping tabs on us. If you don’t like our comments, here’s an idea. Don’t read them! Sheesh!

    • BestPlayer2NeverPlay

      From your mouth to the producers ears. Thank you! Well said!

    • gazebo

      I completely agree with this and knowing that so many real fans are rejected during casting, while producers go out and find pretty, dumb people instead, really burns me. We read stories of some fans applying 6,7,8 times with no luck. Give them a break! Why not cast real fans instead?

    • Sue

      Yes! Survivor needs players like Russell and Marty. They may be villians, they may be out for themselves, but at least they are playing the game and trying to win. That is so much more interesting than watching a selfish brat like NaOnka or someone like Purple Kelly, who was clearly out of her depths when it came to the maturity needed to participate in a game like Survivor. I don’t watch this show to see bratty whiners; I watch it because I’m interested in how people strategize. I tolerate the bratty whiners and attention seekers who get a lot of airtime because the rest of the show is so good, and Jeff is an awesome host.

    • LiLa

      Amen. We care far less about having “beautiful people” as contestants than having people who are fans who are wholly dedicated to playing the game.

  • Elizabeth

    Not a regular viewer, but having two people quit? totally agree with Shelby’s comment, but I wish you would’ve laid into them a little more.

    Still an awesome host, though ;)

  • fluffybundles

    I don’t think the quitters should be on the jury either. They quit the game, that means they should have no further part in the game. The rules need to change.

  • Scottie

    Now I understand why NaOnka and Kelly Purple got the edits they did lol. I agree that Kelly will come to regret it later in life, but hey she’s 20 years old and that’s part of growing up. And she even admits this in her day after video. She was much more self-aware about the situation than NaOnka was. But then, when has NaOnka ever been self-aware?

    As far as them being jurors: they deserve it. It doesn’t matter how they left the game, they still played for 28 days and (arguably) played better than Alina, Marty and Brenda because they made it further. I know most will disagree, but I think they deserve it.

    Also, why are you pretending that you don’t know who the winner is? We all know you don’t find out when you read the last vote, so just stop it! :P

    • TTThunder

      Totally agree, at least Kelly seems to understand the situation and apologize to Marty, Brenda and Alina…

      While Naonka, well, I just do not want to waste my time on her… :-)

  • Russ

    What I want to know is, was the immunity challenge pushed back one or will that game be used for next season? I love the challenges and would be gutted if they never used a good one!

    • caryn

      That was an unplanned tribal – they had one on day 27 and the one we saw was an “emergency” tribal on day 28. I imagine they’ll have the regularly scheduled one on day 30.

      • Stephen

        They’ll space them out. If they go to day 30 for the next tribal, they’ll have 6 people left (which is usually where the second last episode starts, and still have 9 days to go. They’ll probably have the next tribal on day 31-32, go down to 5 on day 34-35, then have 37 and 38 for the last 2 eliminations. It’s really a bummer that there is 7 contestents left (4 eliminations) and still 11 days.

  • Doug

    Also, why expect Naonka to give up the reward when she had nothing to gain by doing so since she was quitting? One of the ones who was staying in the game should have done it like Holly did because they are the ones reaping the benefits from it, not Naonka. If I had been Naonka, i would have expected one of those guys to do it to aid the remaining members and themselves by being motivated by doing that for the others.

    • Scottie

      You’re a terrible person. NaOnka was leaving all her friends in the rain with no food or shelter while she went to Ponderosa to eat, she didn’t need the reward AT ALL, she could’ve easily let the other members of her team enjoy it and help the others out. No, she had no obligation to, nor did she gain anything from it, but it just shows what kind of person she is. A selfish one.

      • Big Daddy

        NaOnka proved again that she is just a playground bully. Quit when the going gets tough and make excuses. And, disappointingly in her case, play the Race Card.

      • Bijou

        How true, Scottie. She’s probably one of the only contestants ever to arrive at the Ponderosa and say, “OOF sorry, I’m stuffed…couldn’t eat another bite.”

      • Heidi

        Let’s not forget Naonka is also a thief. I think she should have gone home when they caught her stealing .

    • Sue

      NaOnka knew that by quitting she was going to be eating a big meal at the end of the day anyway. She could have redeemed herself a bit by giving up the reward and helping her team face the challenges that supposedly brought about her quitting. (The tarp would help her team stay dry – NaOnka would have been fine letting them continue to get rained on; she had no way of knowing someone else would step up to the plate). NaOnka is a selfish brat with the immaturity level of a young child. Jeff nailed it when he said that, several blog posts ago.

      • Katie

        You are too kind to her, good description but I coulda thought of another word much more fitting that starts with a B that would have fit better. However I have to agree with an earlier post. I think she had an a side motive and that being she can now always say, “Oh I quit! I could have won. I just chose to quit because no amount of money was worth what it was doing to my health.” We all know it’s not true, but she will convince her family and the scum she befriends AND HERSELF for the rest of her life that she could have won.

    • slirpee777

      I completely understand where you are coming from, Doug. Before this episode, I didn’t think Holly had a chance to win; now, after making this sacrifice for everyone, I think she has an excellent shot at winning the million dollars if she makes it to the end. It didn’t surprise me a bit that NaOnka wouldn’t step up and give up the reward, she is easily the most selfish pseudo-adult I have ever seen.

  • alfie

    Here’s an idea. Bring back voted out players if somebody quits. That way, some people still in the game will think hard to quit or allow anybody to quit..

    • Katy

      alfie’s idea is great … why give these quitters a free vacation? Once they quit, they should be gone from the show, period!

    • Linda

      Now I like that idea. If NaOnka had thought she was going to help some other player by quitting she probably wouldn’t have done it. Purple Kelly would have anyway.

      • m.eliot

        @ Linda – what surprised me was when she gave her immunity idol away because she wasn’t going to need it. That was a complete turn around of her character and behavior. Just a flash of humanity over 29 days.

    • BestPlayer2NeverPlay

      The game loses integrity when you start changing around rules

      • Soap On A Rope

        But the contracts each contestant signs say the producers have the right to change the rules at any time during the game.

    • Scottie

      That is so ridiculous. Why should people who have already lost be rewarded just because some other people are pathetic and quit? Not to mention they would have the advantage of being well-fed and rested while they were away.

      • Skyler

        Good point, I didn’t even think of this. If the jury members are brought back, they would have a serious advantage over the remaining tribe members.

      • BestPlayer2NeverPlay


      • Skyler

        @BestPlayer: You have been very vocal in calling everybody “morons” for this suggestion. Aside from the issue of jury members having an advantage because they’re well-fed and well-rested, I’m curious to know what your reasoning is. It must be good because you’ve been insulting people left and right over it. And I really hope your reason isn’t just “I’m the best player that’s never been cast so my word is gospel.”

      • BestPlayer2NeverPlay

        Skyler- Besides having unfair advantages it does not make any sense to bring back players that lost. I hope that others agree with me on this one. For some reason the producers also had this idiotic reasoning during Pearl Islands and it ruined the integrity of the game. You lose you are out. That’s the way life is Skyler. The colts messed up at the end of the Superbowl, they came so close to beating New Orleans and the Colts were a lot of fun to watch the entire season, maybe we should have them come back and play one more quater. Yankees do very well every year the are a lot of fun to watch, they missed the World Series this past year, maybe they should have had a 2nd chance. They have a lot of fans and they try so hard. President Obama is losing popularity do you think they should have a revote? GIVE ME A BREAK! YOU LOSE YOUR OUT! Yes Skyler whoever mentions this idiotic idea is a moron!

      • Skyler

        @BestPlayer: I think the examples you’re giving to support your point are pretty thin. Sports organizations (and especially presidential elections for goodness sake) have stringent codes & standards that are followed. Well, besides letting Michael Vick play again, but that’s a completely unrelated rant. The point being, Survivor is a reality television show that has changed things up on many, many occasions (as many other posters have pointed out). Entertainment programs are at a completely different level than huge sports conglomerates and politics. The fact that you even put the example of presidential elections next to the NFL example really confuses me. Your larger point, that when one loses you’re out, is fine in it of itself, but your supporting statements are the source of my skepticism. Furthermore, one could posit that there is such a thing as second chances, redemption, etc. However, conceivably you could counter that saying this is an entertainment program, the idea of redemption is irrelevant for x or y reason.

        Yet I think you missed the point of why I was asking you this question. I don’t understand why my initial suggestion makes me “a moron.” Upon reading many comments on Jeff Probst’s post, I have reconsidered my position and agree that the correct solution would be to put the last two voted out before the jury on the jury. I know that’s pretty unfeasible since they were probably sent home already, however it’s a decent remedy for future seasons.

        So I would appreciate it if you would not patronize me with comments like “that’s the way life is, Skyler.” I may be under the age of 25, but I am not unintelligent. And to accuse me of idiocy for a suggestion that I make about a TV SHOW is really low.

        Pull that rabbit out of your hat.

    • Linda T.

      I agree. If they quit, they should be gone for good. Bring back the last two who were voted out before they started putting people on the jury.

      • Frank Young

        Not a bad idea. If they’re worried about the number of jury members then bring back people voted out before jury…

      • BestPlayer2NeverPlay

        You guys are idiots! I can’t believe people are suggesting this.

      • Katie

        Oh, the ones who have rested and eaten and talked about everyone else’s game? Yeah, that’s real fair!

      • Meeghan

        I think Linda meant bring back two people to be on the jury, not back into the game. It’s reasonable to bring back new jurors to kick Naonka and Kelly off the jury. No one’s suggesting to bring back contestants who have eaten and rested to compete against people still in the game.

      • D

        Not sure why they can’t just go with fewer votes?? What is wrong with that?

      • Häakon

        You do realize they’ve already filmed the final tribal council and the quitter’s votes have already been counted…

      • Adele

        In response to Haakon, the jury members have already cast their votes, but the votes won’t be revealed until the finale. Therefore, unless there are serious legal ramifications in doing it, I think it would be brilliant if, at the finale, Jeff admitted they made a mistake to put those two on the jury and then threw their votes into the fire pit before he showed the rest of the votes and declared the winner.

        And, although I do still love you Jeff, it galls me to think that after 20 seasons, the producers may not have already figured out how to state in the contracts the contestants sign that you have the option to change the rules at any time and that you are not bound by decisions made in past seasons. In fact, I believe you have already been changing the rules in the middle of seasons, so I don’t understand why you can’t do it now.

      • Adele

        This season is driving me crazy!!!

Page: 1 2 3 47
Add your comment
The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject - or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.

Latest Videos


From Our Partners

TV Recaps

Powered by VIP