RULE DIFFERENCES EXPLANATION
Why are the rules different?
The simple explanation is that Online Survivor began in 2000, and attempts to stay true to old-school Survivor. The current version of Survivor relies more on gameplay, advantages, luck, etc. and is in direct contrast to the original version, which relied on relationships and allowing contestants to be in full control of the game. This series tries to emulate the original style of Survivor as much as possible. If you are new to Survivor or started watching after the first several seasons, you have probably become accustomed to rules such as going to rocks in a tie or hidden immunity idols canceling out votes. None of these things existed when Survivor began, and some of them were only added recently.
Online Survivor has rarely copied a twist from the real Survivor. The series' philosophy has always been to use the original season as a template, then do "twists on the real Survivor's twists" that better reflect the spirit of the original game. If the real Survivor keeps a twist permanent, then Online Survivor keeps the corresponding "twist on the twist" permanent to establish its own "Survivor parallel world" that stayed true to the spirit of the original game. It's very hard to describe the core concepts of the original Survivor for anyone that didn't watch it from the beginning, but I've attempted to do so below...
The Spirit of the Original Game
In the core concept of the original Survivor, contestants are in control of the game through their votes, and those votes indirectly choose a winner by eliminating people one by one until only one remains -- the Sole Survivor. In other words, the focus was on the contestants, their interpersonal relationships, and what type of society they would build each season through their votes. Please don't misunderstand. Online Survivor still has twists, advantages, and gameplay. However, anytime something new is added, the spirit of the original game is always strongly considered.
To play devil's advocate: "But some of Online Survivor's rules cancel out entire Tribal Councils, don't take into account the will of everyone in the game, or prevent the will of the tribe by giving too many people immunity". Yes, you are correct. However, the original spirit of the game was not "Everyone always votes with complete freedom for whomever they want, and the will of the tribe always goes home". No, even in season 1, contestants were limited in who they could vote for, either by tribe or by immunity. This was an integral part of even the early game. The spirit of the original game is not complete freedom in who you can vote for. The combination of people at Tribal Council, who holds immunity, and how many people hold immunity will change. However, there is one thing that should never change, and the original spirit of the game can be summarized simply as this...
In other words, "The Tribe has spoken". Not, "The Tribe has spoken, but we're going to ignore that and eliminate this other person that only got 1 vote", and certainly not "We're going to randomly eliminate someone that got 0 votes since you can't decide". Obviously, there are tiebreakers, and you can also be eliminated for health reasons, or ejected for conduct or inactivity, but by following this core concept, you are preserving one very important hidden aspect of the game. The person fated to win can never be eliminated. Even with mass immunity and only 2 options to vote for, at worst, the tribe's 2nd-to-last choice is eliminated, and the winner is preserved. Survivor's current rules allow the fated winner to be eliminated early through complete randomness, which is a shame. With the original spirit of the game in mind, please check below for an explanation of how and why each rule difference came to be...
Rule 6.2: Tie Vote Origin
Quite simply, this was Survivor's official rule in its first three seasons. Go back and watch season 2 or season 3, and you'll see this rule play out. As it is part of Survivor's original format, Online Survivor has never deviated from it. The real Survivor's rock-picking tiebreaker is the exact opposite of the original spirit of the game described above. The will of the tribe is completely ignored, and someone who possibly didn't even receive one vote at the Tribal Council is randomly eliminated. This makes no logical sense, and the tribe has definitely not spoken after this elimination.
Rule 6.3: Hidden Immunity Idol Origin
At the time Hidden Immunity Idols were unveiled, an "Immunity Idol" only referred to having tribal immunity. In creating this twist, the same concept was used. If the Hidden Immunity Idol was played correctly, the contestants would be split into two "temporary tribes", with one holding immunity. To determine the tribes, the most obvious solution was to divide them based on who voted against the idol holder and who didn't. This is an obvious division between two groups of people, and the twist essentially applies the tribal immunity rules to the Tribal Council vote.
Again, the real Survivor's hidden immunity idol destroys the original spirit of the game described above. By cancelling out large chunks of votes, you are saying "your vote doesn't matter" to multiple people, and you are no longer listening to the will of the tribe. What's more, it doesn't even accomplish its goal of flipping the game. Usually, someone is cheaply eliminated by a small number of votes, and the majority alliance stays intact. However, Online Survivor's rule does just the opposite. It forces the majority alliance to turn on each other prematurely, exposing cracks and essentially resetting the game. It also does so while keeping the original spirit of the game in mind. The person eliminated receives the most votes at the new Tribal Council.
Rule 6.4: Last Chance Immunity
Last chance Immunity is a twist on the real Survivor's "Shot in the Dark". Once again, Online Survivor always does "twists on the real Survivor's twists". In this instance, just like Hidden Immunity Idols, the Shot in the Dark destroys the original spirit of the game described above. It cancels out large chunks of votes, disregarding the will of the tribe. Online Survivor's rule allows people in danger one last chance at Immunity, while also adding an interesting layer of strategy. When targetting someone for elimination, someone must sacrifice their own shot at future safety to cancel out the target's LCI. If they don't, the target receives Immunity, and the game could undergo an interesting shakeup. Regardless, the elimination will be determined by votes, and not random chance, preserving the spirit of the original game.
Rule 6.5: Mass Immunity Origin
This one is a unique case. The real Survivor never encountered a situation where there was mass immunity until the finale of season 34. When they did, they went contrary to the original spirit of the game by not voting and just eliminating the 1 person without immunity. Online Survivor, on the other hand, almost encountered this situation about 2 years earlier. The possibility of all but 1 person holding immunity and no vote occurring was met with criticism, and rules were created to ensure it wouldn't happen. The game of Survivor is about voting and manipulating people's votes, not about an Easter Egg hunt of who can find the most immunities. This rule gives everyone a fighting chance and ensures they can only be eliminated through a vote, and not by default.
Final Four
This is not a specific rule, but rather a format of the game. In the current version of the real Survivor, at Final Four, the rules completely change. Whoever wins Immunity chooses one person to take to the Final Three, while the remaining 2 compete in a Fire-Making challenge. However, in OLS, the Final Four is identical to Survivor's first 34 seasons. As it is part of Survivor's original format, OLS has never deviated from it. There is no Fire-Making, and a traditional vote occurs, as always. In the case of a tie, the tiebreaker (votes accumulated all season) becomes very important. The Final Four Fire-Making has become very unpopular among many fans, so I probably don't have to argue this one as hard. However, the Final Four Fire-Making format has nothing to do with the core concepts of Survivor. Survivor is a political game about votes, and to throw all that out the window and not vote makes absolutely no sense.
Final Three/Two
Again, this is not a specific rule, but a format of the game. In the current version of the real Survivor, at Final Three, the game ends and the jury votes for the winner. However, the Final Three/Two in OLS is identical to Survivor's first 12 seasons, and seasons 16/18/28. A Final Three Challenge is played, and someone else is voted out to determine the Final Two, who then face the jury. Variations on how the person is voted out have occurred, but the important part is that someone IS voted out. While I consider some other rules (especially the tiebreaker) to be more stupid and unfair than this, the Final Three Format has always been the thing that irritates me the most about the current Survivor. Why?...
The moment you no longer have a Final Two, the game is no longer "Survivor". Think about it logicially, for a moment. Outside of the "Survival" element, the game is named as such because the entire concept of the game is "eliminate people one by one until there is one left... A Survivor". In the original format, the jury was effectively voting OUT the final person, to leave a Survivor. In other words, 5>4>3>2>1. Not 5>4>3>...ok pick a winner. If you can't comprehend that, then pretend 4 people faced the jury, or 5. The winner is no longer the "Survivor". You're just stopping the game prematurely and picking a "Winner", not a "Survivor".
I understand the argument behind the Final Three. There's a belief that the final immunity is too powerful, too many deserving players were being voted out in 3rd, and/or that it was making the Final Two boring, because the worse player was being drug to the end. However, there are two main issues with that argument. One, you can still change HOW the final three works. For example, you can have no immunity and/or allow the jury to vote. To just ignore the elimination is extremely lazy. Two, deserving players are voted out ALL THE TIME. After instituting the Final Three Format, they're now just voted out at 4 or 5 or even earlier. That's kind of the entire point of the game. Too much emphasis is placed on that Final Tribal Council. It's as if two deserving people HAVE TO be there, when in reality they don't. The strategy of the game is eliminating those people AT ANY TIME. If the eventual winner can get rid of a threat before the Final Tribal Council, so be it, congratulations. That's what Survivor is. People eliminated one by one, sometimes fair, sometimes not, but eliminated one by one until there's only one remaining, a SURVIVOR. We don't just stop that process prematurely and "pick a winner" from those remaining. That's not Survivor.
