RHAP: We Know Survivor - Breaking Down Tie-Breaking w/ Dwight Moore

Episode Date: March 14, 2025

Today, on a special bonus podcast, Survivor 43's Dwight Moore breaks down the tie-break mechanics in the latest episode of Survivor 48.

Hey, Rob Cestronino here. And in addition to tracking everything that's going on on these reality TV shows, I love tracking things about my personal fitness. That's why I love the newest smartwatch from Amazfit. It's got all the features I need to keep my day on track, but without the sky-high price tag you usually see with other smartwatches.

Let me tell you about the Amazfit Active 2 smartwatch. The display is gorgeous. It's a 1.32 inch AMOLED, and I don't really know what that means, but basically it means that you can read your notifications even when you're outside in the middle of the day. It's got incredible battery life. No more scrambling for the charger.

Half the time you have a smartwatch, the battery is on like 3%, you gotta take it off. I'm missing all of the steps that I'm taking, what's the point? It's also got a great app called the Zep app which gives you in-depth health insights, everything from sleep quality to steps and AI driven coaching to help you get the most out of your workouts with 160 plus workout modes for whatever you're doing. You wanna try it out? Head on over to amazefit.com slash Rob. That's A-M-A-Z-F-I-T dot com slash Rob for a special discount. Seriously, if you're looking for a smart watch that checks all of the boxes,

fitness, style, battery life without burning a hole in your wallet, give Amazefit a shot. TD Direct Investing offers live support. So whether you're a newbie or a seasoned pro, give Amazefit a shot. the best casino action is just a click away play thrilling games like premium blackjack Pro the dazzling MGM grand emerald nights or try to score in Gretzky goal lucky tap. It's all

here at bed MGM visit bed MGM dot com for terms and conditions 19 plus to wager Ontario only please play responsibly if you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connix Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. FEDMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

Hey everybody, what's going on? Rob Sestrino here setting up this clip that came from our Patreon Q&A. I invited Survivor 43's Dwight Moore onto the call to talk a little bit about the tiebreak rules that we saw put into action in This week's Survivor episode Dwight had a really great Twitter thread Explaining his thoughts on all of it and some problems that he saw in the way that the Survivor tiebreak Rules are as they were explained in this week's episode So I said hey Dwight come in, let's talk about it. And so here's a clip from that Patreon Q&A call, and I hope that you might be interested

in checking out the full thing. You could check it out as a member of our amazing Patreon community. Survivor is better when you're part of a tribe, and join us every week for my Survivor Q&A, taking your calls at robsonwebsite.com slash patron. Here's my conversation with Dwight about maybe a broken tie break.

We've got a special treat for you here today because I thought that this would be such a fun thing to talk about that this person had an incredible Twitter thread about the tiebreak vote and all of its ramifications, of course, that he knows a thing or two about convoluted rules from playing Blood on the Clock Tower. Please welcome back from Survivor 43, the great Dwight Moore is here to talk about all this stuff.

And Dwight, I thought it would be super fun to like walk through this tiebreak scenario with somebody who really knows the rules and get your thoughts on all of it. Yeah, okay. So yeah. Dwight, how are you by the way? I am doing great. Glad to be on this.

Next, it's like a week in a row on the Q&A. Thank you for answering the call. Of course, of course. Gladly love to talk about rules and errors like this. But for me, I probably shouldn't have made that long Twitter thread, but I was like, I just had to, you know, I gladly. Love to talk about rules and errors like this. It's fun for me. I probably shouldn't have made that long Twitter thread, but I was like, I just had to. I was like, please talk about this.

I loved it. I read it yesterday morning, and I was like, we should get Dwight to come on and talk about all this. Yeah, I'd love to. So yeah, so the big thing for me with this, it was another unprecedented situation where we had another tie where one person in the tie can't vote, one person can.

So we had this precedent set on season 47 where it was Sam and Sierra, and folks was like, okay, usually on tie votes, the two people in the tie can vote. However, because one person already lost their vote, we're allowing the other person to vote to consider the fact that one could vote, one did when it happened.

So I'm hoping for that. Had that ever happened before? Because I know at that time and I had done the podcast with Christian that week and he was at that moment like a since when are we having this? Did you know, had there ever been a scenario in the past where was that a rule change going into survivor 47? As far as I've looked up, I think that was not a rule changes. It was like the first time it had happened. First time it happened. Where's a tie in one person didn't have a vote. So as far as I've looked up, I think that was not a rule change. It was just like the first time it had happened. First time it happened. Where it's a tie and one person didn't have a vote.

So as far as I'm aware, that was not a rule change. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about that. But this is the first time they had to actually come to that and realize, okay, we need to have a rule in place for this scenario. So fair, again, I think that rule is a good one because it does account for the difference in voting status between two players on a re-vote.

I think the one thing that isn't accounted for is like, and someone correct me about this, I'm not sure. There's a three-way tie. I think the one thing that isn't, I can't afford like, and someone correct me about this, I'm not sure if there's a three-way tie. I think the rule is none of them, is all of them or none of them, I think it's on the three-way tie. It's a wrap. Let me ask the chat on that one

and we could look up the three-way tie. Cause somebody asked that question earlier and I think that on the three-way tie, none of the people in the three-way tie are allowed to vote. Now, Dwight, let me just get your overall thoughts on this. So that were you thinking that Survivor got it right in terms of the tie break, or do you think that there is an issue

with what happened in this tribal council? I think they interpreted the rules as they currently have them correctly, and I think those interpretations are wrong. Okay, great. To extrapolate on that a bit further. So as we established in 47, we have this, you know, rule change when one person votes one can't.

So on 48, we have the same scenario, one person, Ty, can vote what cannot, that being Sy can vote Justin can't. If we go to this revote, we're on this revote again, I'm sorry, say, say and said, directly able to vote. And then we go to this deadlock phase, and suddenly the rule where one person has a vote and one doesn't is thrown out the window.

And it's now only Cedric, which I think having those two phases of the voting system, the revote and the discussion phase, have different rules accounting for the lost voting status is unrecognizable. I don't think that should be a thing where the status matters at one point and one doesn't. Because, of, like, this is to go to a bigger example, but let's go on to back to 47. Let's say, because 47 was a four for one. How would it happen? Let's throw out the one that

was four to four between Sam and Sierra and you have a revote and go to deadlock again. And I think as the rules are in term currently, Sam would not get a say in this and be a forced, um, like it'd be the seven. So confusing. Is that actually a person named say also involved with this? It doesn't, it doesn't help with the argument. I say, say sort of saying a lot, but, um, Sam and Sierra are in this tie. This was a four, four.

Yeah. The reboot happens. Sam goes on the reboot. Sierra does not. And then you go to the discussion phase and then Sam will have gotten, Sierra, Sierra voted on the reboot. Sierra does not. And then you go to the discussion phase and then Sam was Sierra, Sierra voted on the reboot. Sam did not. Is that right? I believe it's Sam. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Whatever. Examples, whatever. In this case, in this case, Sierra would have gotten to participating in discussions. Sam wouldn't have. And the way the rules current interpreted, I think it would be the seven people would get to discuss,

not include Ciara, but once again, that throws out the fact that Ciara voted, Sam did not. The rule I would currently propose is that- So I don't even think that there is a discussion. I think it's that in that scenario, the Survivor 47, that there was a tie and that they had to do a revote. They did a revote. And I don't think that, and the revote,

because it was odd number of people voting, I don't think could have been deadlocked. I started to stare by saying throughout the one vote. That's what I started to stare by saying that. So exclude that. Let's say it wasn't possible to have a deadlock. The rules would have been, as we saw in 48, Sierra would have then been removed from this conversation to start people talking.

And personally, I think the rule should be consistent across considering the revote and the discussion the same, where anyone who participates on the revote should get to discuss about the rocks. And even though, yes, that could mean in this 47 example, Sierra could just strong arm and say, okay, we're either voting out Sam or going to rocks. And I actually think that should be how it's interpreted, because it does, I think it needs to properly, this is a whole nother discussion, people are gonna be like, you're a real lost vote. I don't, but I think it actually does need to,

you know, punish players who lost their vote more so. And that's like, they should have less weight throughout the entirety of tribal, not bring down the person that had a vote alongside them. If they have no vote throughout tribal, they should lose their vote throughout tribal and other people should have a say when they do not. That should be distinctly, that should be made vote throughout tribal and other people should have a say when they do not. That should be distinctly,

that should be made clear throughout the entire tribal and not arbitrarily taken away at one certain phase of the whole voting process is how I believe the rules should be done. It should be consistent. And it was not consistent on the episode. All right, so your major point of contention is that on the second revote

that say should have still been involved in that decision, it should not have been between just Cedric making that call. It should have been. It should have been, since Say was able to vote on the revote, then Say should be able to participate in discussion.

Because my understanding of the deadlock rules is you need to convince people who voted that second time to just change their mind. And you need them to break away from the door or they're going to go to rocks. In this scenario, say you vote on the re-vote, say you're saying stick to voting out Justin, and suddenly her vote's been taken away, which is going against the whole premise of deadlock, which is people voted for the same person multiple times. You need to convince them to break away from it. And suddenly removing Say's voice, even if she

got a vote, her opponent didn't have a vote the whole time. So why are you now bringing her down to his status of having no vote? And that's just my problem with this. So after Say and Justin tie for the on the second time, what would you have seen, wanted to see happen? Unfortunately, I think it should have just been like Cedric Eilert realizes, and this is because, it's unfortunate that Snare was down to four players the first time it happened, so people are gonna say like, it shouldn't just be Cedric, so Justin's immediately eliminated,

but rules need to be consistent, and the fact that the first time this happened wasn't such a low tribe example, is unfortunate for this argument, because people are to say like, oh Justin shouldn't be gone immediately. But going to the bigger example once again with Sam Sierra, I think if some people are, let's say it was like a split down the middle tribe and like Sam Sierra were opposite alliances, right? And Sierra has a vote, Sam doesn't, and then okay, now does Sam's alliance in this case agree, okay, we're going to vote out Sam or do we also play hardball and say okay, we're gonna go to rock and even this year would be safe

I think in this scenario, that's what should happen and you like they shouldn't have the option of Sierra anymore quote unquote because because you had a vote in stand-up people they voted between what has about one doesn't yeah for bigger examples, but yeah I think in this one it should have just been Cedric has to either vote out Justin or go to Rox, which is go home for him in this scenario. See, I almost wonder if, because it's, in this tiebreak scenario, you know, Cedric and Sey have tied, okay?

So, and Cedric has already cast his vote for Justin at the point where it's this tie vote. I guess, yeah, I guess Cedric has to either change his vote to vote for Justin because he already voted for say, if he, like I feel like he cannot, he should not be able to vote say out in that scenario. Like I think his two decisions need to be either

change your vote to vote out Justin, or it's now deadlocked, they're safe and you go home. I don't think that Cedric should have the option to vote out say in that spot. Like why does he get the only decision? Like he should be able to either like if this was a normal tie, you know, you either get to somebody needs to change their vote. I mean, look, look back at the going back to say Millennials versus Gen X where it's like,

okay, Will Wall could switch his vote and go to the other side, but it's not like that he's picking who's who like the everybody could just like, this is a bad example, but does it make sense what I'm saying? Like, like, Cedric already voted for first say, like, he shouldn't get more control over like, now he's like an extra vote for say, like, he can switch his vote to Justin or then it should default to, all right, well now those two are safe because they tied their vote, that's the rule. And now Cedric, you automatically go home. So I kind of feel like he's strong heart.

What you said is perfect. It's like Cedric in a sense got an extra vote because of the current interpretation of the rules, right? Because it's a Lattai example, one person votes one doesn't, it gives way to say having a vote, and suddenly it's removed, giving Cedric effectively an extra vote because it got all the deadlock. And I think, yeah, some people will disagree with me forever about this. I think someone's saying in chat, it's like proposing Justin's limiting as soon as Mary Sean the Dark hits. Unfortunately,

in the world that I'm proposing, yes, I'm saying with the current interpretation of the rules, or not, with the rules I'm proposing, when re-vote happens and then, yeah, say it's forced to say Justin's name because of the tie, Cedric's options should be either Justin has to go home or Cedric self-liminates. That is, and it sounds absurd, but I am proposing that if there's going to be consistent ruling, that's how this specific scenario with the shot in the dark hitting and these votes, it should have resulted in exactly Justin going home almost as soon as that shot in the dark hit.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Because there needs to be a consistent ruling. And the only way to have a consistent ruling that actually respects the re-voting and the one person had one doesn't is saying that the rule should be, if you vote on the re-vote, you should talk in discussion phase. That's just a consistent rule that would allow for those to matter all the time. Dwight, do you think that all of this could just be solved when we say like

we have a four-person tribal council that should we have fire making at a four-person tribal council? Would that solve all this? Honestly, that would be kind of fun too. I'd like that, that'd be interesting. It's interesting because I think that this was similar to like at the Merg, well actually it's different because the person with the shot in the dark doesn't get a vote, whereas it's not like that somebody who won individual immunity, like you wouldn't have this

at the final four, because the person who won individual immunity still would get to cast a vote. So this was a truly odd scenario that we had here where that there was two lost votes in a four person tribal council where we had a tribal council with four people, but only two votes. Yes. I'm impressed. It's wild it's wild. That's what happened. Um, I do want to like acknowledge something in the chat saying, uh, to go back to talk about second chances. Uh, Kimmy didn't have a say in the tie vote when she went home.

Yes. And that's something I did cover in like a little video I made. So what happened in Cambodia is they did the first vote. It was three, three, idle played in the second vote was considered a quote unquote revote, but L six people voted. So it was between Tasha and Kimmy. And you can assume in this case, there is an implied actual revote because the first one had no vote. So it's an implied revote between Tasha and Kimi where Tasha and Kimi don't vote. So then those four people have discussion.

So again, you have to kind of like consider that implicit revote happening there. Tasha and Kimi voted on the revote? They voted on the revote. They did. It went from 3-3 to another 3-3 vote. But because the first vote had zero votes, because both people played Isles, Jeremy and Kelly, there was a second, all six players voted. But you can assume there is a third implicit revote where it goes to 2-2.

So was that first revote where all six people voted because the vote was actually had it had it been, you know, because the votes were for three votes for Jeremy, three votes for Kelly. Now it's like, get up, everybody vote again. And then it got tied for what Tasha and Kimmy on the on the read on the re-vote. And I think that they didn't really consider that, you know, this is this is a re-vote, but it's not really a re-vote because we knew people. Right. Yeah. It would be implicit re-vote between Tasha and Kimmy.

Those two don't vote. And I say those four have discussion leading to what happened, what we saw played on the episode. Right, and then Jeremy and Kelly are both immune, so you can't vote for them. Keith Nail says, like, I'll just go to the house, that's fine. And then, like, Kelly, like,

Keith will do that. Yeah, so, and I think another part of the whole discussion is... Yeah, someone's saying, yeah, rules for that, you need to have your vote not written in the tie. Yes, and the rules for tie votes in Survivor up to Season 47 were, if you're part of the tie, you can't revote. But suddenly, the rules were changed to account for lost votes. And I'm saying, why are people saying, everyone was okay with the 47 ruling of tie vote, like nothing, the re-vote should have Sierra vote stand. Everyone was basically okay with that for the most part because yeah, we should count for lost votes. So why are people suddenly not okay with this matter in career discussion phase? Rules need to

be changed to account for changes in mechanics. So the new era is going to have a lot more lost votes. It's going to be part of the game and that will account for in the re-vote. But now we're not accounting for that in discussion phase and that's just a major problem I see with the design of the game. They're not having consistent rulings. They didn't make this clear. I think a lot of people, you know, while I'm watching the episode in Texas, people will be like, people thought Cedric voted himself out because of, you know, it makes sense with

that ruling. It's because of 47 ruling, but suddenly it's incensed on 48. And I just don't really like how there's not a concrete, you know, structure about who gets to participate in discussion. I think the way you can talk about this is you can say like, yeah, people who would be in the rock draw should get to discuss about it. Okay. So why did, you know, Jeremy and Kelly get to discuss in second chances? So that can't be it. Okay. It should be people who, you know, like if- Do you want to see people out of this conversation? Do you want to see them like removed from

the tribal council during the discussion? What do you want to see people out of this conversation? Do you want to see them like removed from the tribal council during the discussion? What do you mean? Like when you say you don't want them to be part of the discussion? Do you want them like room like okay go stand over there so you can't be part of this conversation? They should be there to influence. I'm just saying you know like having having their voice actually made got it Okay, can we just like at at the risk of repeating ourselves? Could we just talk through it one more time and then get Dwight's ruling on what should happen at each phase?

Okay, so we have our vote, Mary plays the shot in the dark, Mary is safe, we count our votes, two votes for Mary, re-vote, everything still fine, right? Right. Okay. Yeah, so Mary found the dark hits. We have the travel play out again where Cedric. Cedric votes for Say.

Say votes for Justin. Okay, now what should happen? Okay, so that was the first vote. We re-vote with the rules established in 47. It was a tie between Say and Justin. Justin had no vote throughout the entire tribal council. So Say gets to vote again. Say will vote for Justin implicitly.

And now Cedric has a choice between Cedric, I mean, Cedric's choice between Sey and Justin. They go vote and we see what happens again. Sey votes for Justin, Cedric votes for Sey. The way I think the rules will be interpreted is if you participate in the revote and it's still deadlocked, you should have a Sey in the discussion phase. So at this point, I believe that say and said that should discuss

whether say or Justin should go home. Say is obviously going to say Justin going home. So that means Cedric basically has to vote out Justin or go home himself. That is a harsh ruling. But I think that needs to be consistent with respecting the rules about the revote, make that consistent with the rules about deadlock. Yeah. And in that scenario, say can convince Cedric to flip to Justin, but there are not two Justin votes in any scenario. So I feel like in that ruling, that then if Cedric does

not budge, the vote will continue to be 1-1, which forces us to the non-tied players having to draw a rock, and Cedric has to go home. Exactly. Say should be immune in this scenario. That is my interpretation. That's why I believe should be low ruling, yes. I agree, yeah.

I think we solved this solve this. And so there was no scenario where say should have gone home in that tribal council based on the way it played out. And Cedric will should have been much more at risk of either Cedric vote out Justin or you have to go home. Yeah, the fact that say survived this tribal I think also led to a lot like not much argument happening along. If they went home, I feel like there would be a lot bigger firestorm around this ruling, but it kind

of worked out the way in my opinion it should have. Yes, the way the survivor gods intended it. Right. Yes. Okay. Well, Dwight, this was incredible to talk through with this. I feel like that we really figured something out. Yeah, thank you for inviting me. I just need to talk. I just need to yapp about rulings. I love doing this for some reason. So yeah. All right. Of course, if you like hearing Dwight talk about this sort of stuff, you could play blood on the clock tower with Dwight, which he is doing constantly. A lot. Yeah. Dwight, how do people get more involved with hearing more about your rulings on blood on the Clock Tower. So yeah, I stream Clock Tower on Twitch at twitch.tv slash doing more on Saturdays and Mondays. And yeah, that's I think the RGP Discord has a lot of

people playing as well. New play games going on all the time. So I definitely say look at that, try it out if you want. And yeah, I'll try to hop in some time zone and play some games and get more time to do so. But I do want to do that more often. Okay, and check out Dwight on a new survivors playing Blood on the Clock Tower video that's going to be dropping very soon on the YouTube channel. Woo, fun.

Okay. Awesome. Dwight, thank you so much. Appreciate you hopping in and hopping in last week on the Q and A with Owen. No, thank you so much for inviting me to both of those last week and this week. I had such a good time. Okay. Dwight, talk to you soon, okay?

Have a good one. Bye. Bye. Bye.