Episode 8 of Survivor 47 brought back the fan-favorite auction (in new era shackles), and featured some brilliant emergent gameplay, with Rachel making use of her Shot in the Dark to assess whether she needed to play her idol. It was a struggle between tribes for dominance, and a struggle for the show to shave off some of its new era excesses. (The show did this by adding more events, not taking anything away.)

Even so, there's a lot to like about where the episode ended up: Multiple strong players making big moves is always fun, and even with Lavo + Tuku flying the W flag this week, there's no guarantee that the power structure can't be dismantled and reassembled differently next episode. Or the episode after that. This is one of the most Survivor-capable set of contestants yet, and there is no clear frontrunner for the win at this point. With 10 people left, there are well over five who feel like plausible winners. That's fantastic. Because of this, 47 has the hallmarks of a great season.

That said, since we've now had the second appearance of the new era Survivor auction, and the basic format, which had clear problems the first time, has not changed, it wasn't a perfect episode. Despite the show's own self-congratulatory presentation of it all.

The new era auction is actually kinda dark, man

I know, I know, it's very out of character for me to take something that seems fun (as quoted above) and form an Eeyore dark cloud over it, but this all started with Caroline reading the auction letter, and she and everyone else starting to leap up and down, flipping their shit. Caroline even gave a breathless confessional, seemingly thrilled to be a part of such a "bucket-list event."

My immediate response was: "Huh? It's the auction. It's not *that* exciting."

But why it was so exciting to these contestants became clear (after distractions from Sam cosplaying as Rick Devens, and Sierra trumpeting her Easter egg-hunting prowess) a few minutes later, when Gabe talked about how thrilled he was to finally eat, since he hadn't been on any food rewards: These people are starving. As far as we have been told, they didn't even get rice at the (two-episodes-long) merge.

As Gabe told the audience, "I haven't gotten a single food reward yet." Caroline had done so just once, when she had one hot dog and a bun (no condiments) at the Social Hour back in Episode 5. Five days earlier! And nothing since then. So of course she's beaming from ear to ear, "bucket-list event" or not.

While I'm happy they finally got to eat (Andy didn't), it feels pretty gross if the show took Caroline's excitement, which was probably partially about not starving to death, and turned it into some phony show promo along the lines of: "Oh my gosh! A classic Survivor event! I'm such a big fan!"

Not only that, but the reason they're starving in the first place is because the show is extremely sensitive to criticism about the season being 26 days now, and they ratcheted up the suffering by taking away the rice, as a way to compensate. It's completely unnecessary. Sure, it has led to outbursts like Liz Wilcox's "I'm pissed!" last season, but again: She was starving! Feel free to call that "iconic," but it feels wrong to celebrate an extreme emotional response to physical deprivation.

Anyway, the reason I bring up all the starvation is: One of the highlights of the old auction was people bidding on covered items, some of which were sumptuous feasts, others of which were sad jokes, like a bowl of rice (which would now be seen as a luxury). Guess which two players scored those booby prizes this time? That's right: Gabe (coconut filled with water) and Caroline (fish eyes). That feels much less "fun" than it did when the contestants were receiving basic sustenance. Now it just feels cruel. Either give the contestants rice, or don't do the bogus items. Doing both at once is not entertaining.

(Sierra did make sure both Gabe and Caroline were later picked to join her in gorging on chocolate and peanut butter, but that was the final item of the auction, and it also meant that Andy, whose participation was dependent on someone being allowed to share, received nothing.)

The structural problem of the new-era auction itself

Then there's the continuing problem of the structure of the new-era auction itself. Where before the auction ended at a pre-determined number of items (as now), now there are STAKES (no steaks, though). The person holding the most cash when time runs out loses their vote. On paper, this probably seemed like an exciting twist. In practice, it makes the latter half of the auction a grim, turn-by-turn glacial race for everyone to blow their cash on a single item. It's not an auction. There are no bidding wars possible. There is no choice. It's just people liquidating their assets in desperation.

After round five, Probst announces who has the most cash, strongly hinting that this person should shoot their entire wad on whatever covered item he's currently holding. The items have to remain covered, because that's the only mystery left, since it's clear who's going to buy whatever's under the colorful fabric. This late-auction segment is now so boring/grim that even the editors try to fast-forward through it. Probst announces the player with the most cash. Then he pretends there isn't another item ... except there is! Then the player with the most cash comes up and takes their item, even if it's something they can't eat (Kyle and the wings). Rinse, repeat, etc. How is that "fun"?

The old auction was, in fact, fun. You learned a bit about the contestants based on how they chose to spend their money, who was willing to outbid their castmates, how the person being outbid received that competition. We saw the contestants making choices, with very low stakes, and usually everyone came away with something. Sometimes they could pool their cash (no longer allowed) or share items (also not allowed, except when Probst says so).

The current new-era version of the auction is so relentlessly not fun, especially at the end, that the show had to introduce distractions like the mini-challenge where Sue, Sam, and Caroline ate beetle larvae, in order to pay a pre-determined price ($200) for a breakfast spread. Taking away even more choices to break up the monotony. Yay?

On twitter, Ari Bacher suggested a small variation that would keep the "stakes," but make the competition more interesting: Have either the highest or the lowest cash total at the end lose their vote (which it is to be decided by rock draw, or something, and not revealed until the end). That way, bidding wars are once again a thing, and production doesn't need to booby-trap the proceedings with the "cash back" trick. The only problem I see with this scenario is the Andy situation, where someone starts with $0, has no way to participate, and could also get further screwed at the end.

A simpler solution is this: No stakes. The auction was yanked away in the first place because Probst was mad that the savvier players were hoarding their cash in order to max out their bid on a late-round advantage, refusing to bid on any food items early. That's the entire impetus for the "person with the most cash loses their vote" twist. So now that Australian Survivor's twist of hiding an advantage/clue in one of the food items has been imported to the US version, let's leave that in, but otherwise switch back to the original format. We've established advantages are no longer offered as a-la-carte items, so there's no reason to hold out in hopes of bidding on one. As such, can't we just go back to the original format? Please? Make auctions fun again!

How screwed is Kyle now?

Looking back at Survivor history, it's obvious you have to vote out someone after they've won three immunity challenges in a row, right? Right?

Well, actually ... no.

By my count (I can't rule out that I missed one), there have been 19 times where someone won at least three straight ICs in the first 46 seasons. There are three possible outcomes after such a streak:

1. They then advance to the final two/three. This is the most common outcome (12 times - chronologically, Wiglesworth, Colby, Heidik, Tom Westman, Ozzy, Amanda, JT, Fabio, Mike Holloway, Brad Culpepper, Chrissy, and Nick Wilson - for 7 winners out of 12, all but Brad in their first season), but it's kind of a non-result, because the other players don't have the opportunity to vote that person out after that. So let's move on.

2. The obvious move: They're voted out at the earliest opportunity. Surprisingly, this has happened just three times, one of which required a lot of work: Darrah in Pearl Island (out at Final 4); Erik in Micronesia (out at F5, which required him to hand over the necklace); and Tasha in Cagayan, when she was beaten by fellow outnumbered challenge beast Spencer, and was out at F6. Seriously, these are the only times the other players have made the "obvious move"! So that leaves...

3. The three-straight-necklaces winner somehow stays in the game, despite missing out on immunity on their fourth (or later) try. This has actually happened more times (four) than being voted out! Crazy, right? As always, there are extenuating circumstances. Once, at least.

Example 1 is Terry Deitz in Panama: Exile Island. He won five straight ICs, lost to Aras at F4, but still couldn't be voted out because of his super-idol (which was good through the F4 vote). Not really a choice, I guess.

Example 2 is Bob Crowley in Gabon. He won three straight, did not win at F4, ended up in a 2-2 tie with Matty, then won his way into the final three via firemaking tiebreaker. So 2/3 of the non-Bob people made the "obvious move" and tried to take him out when the opportunity presented itself. Sugar, instead, voted with Bob against Matty ... not the *best* choice, but she probably would have lost to Matty, too. Eh.

Example 3 is Joe Anglim in Cambodia. This one makes the least sense. At Final 9, Spencer narrowly beat Joe in the seated "The Game is Afoot" challenge. Joe had won the previous four ICs in a row. The target that night was ... Stephen? (In the next IC, Joe passes out, Keith Nale wins, and they vote Joe out, setting aside any sympathy they may have had.) Still, famous jury threat Stephen Fishbach, going out before Joey Amazing?

The final example is none other than two-time winner Tony Vlachos, this time in Winners at War. After not winning a single necklace in his previous two seasons, Tony went on a surprise IC-winning streak that petered out at the F7 IC. He was able to swing a 3-2-[0] plurality vote against Jeremy after losing, and didn't receive a single vote himself. Maybe nobody believed Tony could win another immunity challenge? (They were close, he was 1-for-4 the rest of the way).

So what does this mean for Kyle? The smart move is: Leave him in for now. If he doesn't win the next IC, keep in mind that there will still be 5-6 more immunity challenges this season. There will likely be *many* other opportunities to take him out before firemaking. He's not going to win 8 ICs this season. And if everyone wants him out because he'll win, it should be simple to rally the votes at another time.

Then again, the best move for Lavo now is to flip back to Gata, and collectively whittle down Tuku numbers. But they can't easily do that without pissing off Gabe, Caroline, and Sue ... unless they propose taking out Kyle, who everyone recognizes is a challenge threat. And who conveniently isn't as close to the other three Tukus. (Unclear if the other two tribes are aware of that, though.)

So there's no real reason to vote out Kyle next time, but there's also a great reason for Sol, Teeny, and Genevieve to do it anyway.

Jeff Probst vs. reality

One of the most consistently wearying aspects of the Jeff Probst-as-showrunner era is that he frequently lies to the press. Often for no reason. Take, for example, the auction.

When the auction re-emerged to much fanfare in Survivor 45, then promptly disappeared again in Survivor 46, fans wondered what was going on. Dalton Ross of EW asked, and Jeff Probst answered: it was because the auction was "too much work" in 45.

On the one hand, Probst's story of a weary crew begging off of too many overly complicated, multiple-location twists and events in the season filmed just a few weeks later rings very true. Survivor 45 had the highly convoluted pre-merge idols Austin and Sabiyah had to work through to get, and the teams-of-three RC in three stages, with the first group having to do a journey to get their votes back, and the winning three competing for individual immunity. There was a lot of time-filling busywork that season.

On the other hand, the idea that the auction was cut because of this is obviously complete and utter bullshit.

Here's the money Probst quote: "I woke up and realized: Okay, they're telling me we will do anything for this show, but just know we're on fumes. And so for 46, the auction was like, that's just too much. We can't do it again."

Again: Nice that he's looking out for his employees, but also complete bullshit. Did he actually expect anyone to believe this?

The auction itself is far easier to build than even the simplest challenge. It's bleachers and a desk. The show has food service churning out meals for ~700 people. A few extra plates is no big deal. The auction is also quite simple to film, there are really only two or three cameras needed at most, and no complicated drone work or swift-moving action footage. It *is* true that setting up, filming, and editing the pre-auction scramble for cash is extra work, but that's a choice Probst made, not something intrinsic to the auction.

The main actual reason, which Dalton managed to nudge out of Probst several paragraphs in, was that the show was told by CBS that 45 would have 90-minute episodes, whereas there was no such guarantee for 46. With the scavenger hunt and the auction requiring a huge amount of episode landscape to fully air (especially with the inability to skip or speed through multiple rounds towards the end, due to the high-stakes vote-losing intrigue of the late-round items), they couldn't risk having to cram a new-era auction into a 60-minute episode. So they skipped it entirely. Why couldn't he just say that?

It's the same thing with the show's brittle defensiveness about shortening the season to 26 days, and always filming in Fiji. The audience is well aware these things are being done now because it's much cheaper to do things that way. (Obviously, the 26-day thing was initially to accommodate Fiji's COVID quarantine rules, but those are now gone.) Having a fixed location is simpler for the crew, and Fiji offers steep discounts for filming there. From a budget perspective, a 26-day season means you have to pay the crew for 2/3 of the time you would for a 39-day season.

So just say it! We want to watch Survivor! Temu Survivor is better than no Survivor. If these adjustments are necessary to keep the show on the air, just come clean with us! Please stop assuming we're all ignorant children.