|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Every Month, the Editorial Page with one-quarter byte September 2000's "Two Bits" are titled : When Does Bending Rules Become Cheating...?["my two bits" about the cheaters on CBS' Survivor series]In a scene on CBS' Survivor, Susan and Richard are talking in whispers, while not looking directly at the camera. The topic is of their "Alliance," aka their "unholy alliance" (popular online nickname) or "Cheater's Alliance" (my own opinion). This alliance is a bullied way to control Tribal Council; the supposedly secret ballot, to vote for who each teammate personally feels should leave that week. This Alliance means that all votes are controlled by said cheaters; Sue and Rich just discuss beforehand who they want gone, strong-arm two additional teammates to vote with them, and it's a done deal. "It's only a game," says Susan and Richard. However, if it's just a game, why create an alliance at all? A few might debate if this is really cheating; who cares how they resulted in their decision of who to vote for? The key here is that it's supposed to be a secret vote, not a strong-armed vote among an in-team "gang." As soon as they entered Tribal Council, confident that they would not be voted off --even if they should've been-- they were cheating. If the decision to vote off said "weekly target" was each teammates' own, individual ballot choice, fine. Instead, the decision was Susan and Rich's alone. So much for just playing a game. Admittedly, cheating was hardly invented by Sue or Rich. The most memorable cheaters involved the now-well-known sweepstakes, where the rule was to "enter as much as you like." Some computer geeks used office equipment to print thousands of entries. They wound up winning nearly all the prizes. Yes, for all intent, these kids cheated, and yet rules never stated that duplicate entries were unacceptable (now, all contests state this in advance, often as rule #1!). The point here is, sometimes rules just assume too much from the contestants (insert "assume" joke here). After all, how many horse races actually state, in writing, that you can't simply short-cut through the middle of the race track? It's just presumed that you're not a total moron. I guess that presumption is unjustified sometimes. Susan's best defense, when asked about the Alliance by series host Jeff Probst, is that this is not unlike the practices done in big business. Well...not exactly. True, any business world is the worst offender of rule bending. However, broken rules often lead to an employee's walking papers, or even a jail sentence. Sue may retort with her "it's only a game" comment, and, indeed, it helps if you think of it as just part of the game. With that in mind, if you break too many rules --even rules that may not be liked by everyone-- then why play the game? Even in the board game Monopoly, it's not a happy thing when Grandma lands on your hotel, can't pay, and is out of the game. However, rules are rules. You may bend rules a bit, and say that she can "pay later," though too many bent rules makes playing a game pointless. This applies to games, business, and everything in between. This poses a good question, when does bending rules become broken rules? I guess that depends on the rule in question, and the trickery of the player. Was it within the best interests of the Olympic-hopeful Ice Skater, Tanya Harding, to have her only competition hit in the ankle? Well, it got her into that Winter's Olympics, that's for sure. Even with adequate proof of her shenanigans, judges could not definitively keep this cheater from playing (read: nobody thought ahead that someone would be that conniving). I sense, however, that the judges were more intrigued at how Tanya would compete with her rival, under more fair conditions. The end result was classic TV: Nancy wins the Silver, while Tanya cries like a 6-year-old, because her shoelaces won't tie just right. For victims of cheating, true justice is sweet. This end result, actually, is quite typical. With no sense of sportsmanship, and no sense of fair play, a cheater's reaction to losing anyway is like that of a spoiled child. In Survivor, this is equally apparent. No sooner did Richard get very close to being voted off in Tribal council in episode 9, then he wants to know who voted for him and why...this when he was cheating in Tribal Council in the first place! Similarly, Susan called this near-defeat of her beloved Cheater's Alliance "back stabbing." When Kelly eventually voted her off for good (bravo!), she called Richard a "snake," and Kelly a "rat," even though Susan had helped them do the exact same thing, to a dozen earlier contestants. Sue just ranted on and on, like the sore loser that she was. Gee, kids, what happened to your cutie-patootie attitude; "It's only a game," hmmm? Yes, Sue and Richard, Survivor WAS only a game. What a shame, however, that the game wasn't played with the sportsmanship and fair play it deserved. If it was, the final winner would be akin to someone winning the gold at the Olympics, with fame and endorsements galore. Instead, the final Survivor was just a result of cheaters, back-stabbers, and turncoats! I guess it should be no surprise, then, that earlier this summer, the police were after two of the former Alliance members; one for alleged credit card fraud, and another for alleged child abuse. While one or both of these charges have been dropped by the time you read this (and at least one lawsuit has been filed), it's unlikely any "alliance" can help them now, one way or another. Sorry, kids; the game's over. I'm Techtite, and these are My Two Bits...
|
