Survivor: 7 reasons why Edge of Extinction twist is an institutional failure

Juries shouldn’t impact active players’ chances before Final Tribal Council

For 37 seasons, Survivor treated fire as a representation of life. Once your fire is out, so are you. However, some seasons tinker with that representation, although there is a clear distinction between those voted out and those still playing in the game. Sometimes, players from the active game would come to visit those part of the waiting game, usually in challenges.

Each of those scenarios clearly separates the players on either side of the line, as nobody should have their game affected by somebody whose fire has been snuffed out. Edge of Extinction not only disrespected this sacred rule, but players from the other side got to choose their champions in an attempt to garner favor should they come back.

At three separate times, players on the Edge of Extinction found advantages they could gift to anybody who’s still in the game. Had David Wright not given Rick Devens an Immunity Challenge advantage to hold fewer balls than the competition, he would have likely been the next person voted out. The entire foundation of the final 40% of the game changed because a member of the jury gave their friend a power.

Even the extra votes gifted to Aubry (from Rick) and Aurora (from Aubry), while not being decisive changes, affected the mentality of those wielding power. Aubry held too much power for her own good, feeling obligated to hold onto power as long as she could in order to not waste it. Aurora used her extra vote advantages to gain sway with Ron, Victoria and Gavin, allowing her to stay in the game longer than she should have at her threat level.

All these powers changed the course of the game because members of the jury wanted even more power in Survivor. I guess the show thought “deciding who wins a million dollars” wasn’t enough, but this is way too far.