Could one player have blocked anyone from activating it?
Robert Voets/CBS
In effect, it was one big game of chicken.
In the end, Teeny blinked.
‘Survivor 47’ contestant Teeny Chirichillo.Robert Voets/CBS
So why did she cave?
Did they not remember what happened onSurvivor 45?
If there were only two amulets still in the game, it would become a steal-a-vote.
Austin Li Coon on ‘Survivor 45’.CBS
If there was only one person with an amulet left, it became a full idol.
But if there were only two of them left, then only two people had to agree.
And if only one of them was left, the idol was all theirs.
Jeff Probst on ‘Survivor 47’.Robert Voets/CBS
Again, incentive to get rid of the others.
Thats definitely not something I would want hanging around my neck at the merge.
The printed-out rules were a bit murky on the subject.
‘Survivor 47’ host Jeff Probst.Robert Voets/CBS
That makes it seem as if all it took to activate the advantage was a volunteer.
Because that is what I would have done.
So I went to host and showrunnerJeff Probstfor answers.
Dalton, this is further evidence you would have been a good player, Probst responds.
Your observation is correct.
One player could kill this advantage and nobody could stop them.
But lets get back to Probst clarifying the rules question.
The spirit behind this amulet advantage was that in order toshareit, you mustallagree that youwantto share it.
Again, Caroline and Andy!
So upset at you right now!
