
At its core Survivor is not that different from those social experiments on YT where a group of strangers have to agree on one person to get a lot of money. Yes there is a vote off every round as opposed to just one vote for a winner, but there have never been any rules regarding the criteria the players have to use to decide their votes. The types of jury questions y'all hate are necessary to remind you what show you're watching because you clearly don't get it.
tbh im on the same page. i may not like when personal stuff is used to determine the winner, but the whole point of the game is to send people to the jury in a way that would make them vote for you. and the game has been able to last for 25 years because each jury has a different criteria for voting, and the show would be boring if its the same path to win and each winner wins for the same reasons. i dont think its fair but its necessary for the show to
I think it's fair bc even if you don't have a huge sob story you can probably still sell your own story well if you're a good speaker, or you can just lie, or you can convince your jury that your game is so good that it doesn't matter. The game has always been about doing whatever it takes to get the votes from your specific castmates. Just because the meta has evolved to mostly reward big moves and stuff doesn't change that.