1
Spoiling Survivor
The Anatomy of a Knowledge Community
Survivor (2004)âthe astonishingly popular CBS show that started the reality television trendâdoes not just pit sixteen strangers against one another. Around each carefully crafted episode emerges another contestâa giant cat and mouse game that is played between the producers and the audience. Every week, the eagerly anticipated results are fodder for water cooler discussions and get reported as news, even on rival networks. Survivor is television for the Internet ageâdesigned to be discussed, dissected, debated, predicted, and critiqued.
The Survivor winner is one of televisionâs most tightly guarded secrets. Executive producer Mark Burnett engages in disinformation campaigns trying to throw smoke in viewersâ eyes. Enormous fines are written into the contracts for the cast and crew members if they get caught leaking the results. And so a fascination has grown up around the order of the âbootsâ (the sequence in which the contestants get rejected from the tribe), the âfinal fourâ (the last four contestants in the competition), and especially around the âsole survivorâ (the final winner of the million-dollar cash prize).
The audience is one of the largest in broadcast television. In its first eight seasons, Survivor rarely dipped out of the top ten highest-rated shows. The most hard-core fans, a contingent known as the âspoilers,â go to extraordinary lengths to ferret out the answers. They use satellite photographs to locate the base camp. They watch the taped episodes, frame by frame, looking for hidden information. They know Survivor inside out, and they are determined to figure it outâtogetherâbefore the producers reveal what happened. They call this process âspoiling.â
Mark Burnett acknowledges this contest between producer and fans is part of what creates Survivorâs mystique: âWith so much of our show shrouded in secrecy until itâs broadcast, it makes complete sense that many individuals consider it a challenge to try to gain information before itâs officially revealedâsort of like a code they are determined to crack. While itâs my job to keep our fans on their toes and stay one step ahead, it is fascinating to hear some of the lengths these individuals are willing to go.â1
Into this intense competition entered ChillOne. Before his sudden fame within the fan realm, he claimed to be a lurker who has never previously posted to a discussion list. On vacation in Brazil for New Years 2003, he said, he stumbled into a detailed account of who was going to get bumped from Survivor: Amazon, the seriesâ sixth season. He posted this information on the Internet and lived through months of intense grilling by the spoiling community to defend his reputation. To some, ChillOne was a hero, the best spoiler of all time. For others, he was a villain, the guy who destroyed the game for everyone else.
As we have seen, the age of media convergence enables communal, rather than individualistic, modes of reception. Not every media consumer interacts within a virtual community yet; some simply discuss what they see with their friends, family members, and workmates. But few watch television in total silence and isolation. For most of us, television provides fodder for so-called water cooler conversations. And, for a growing number of people, the water cooler has gone digital. Online forums offer an opportunity for participants to share their knowledge and opinions. In this chapter 1 hope to bring readers inside the spoiling community to learn more about how it works and how it impacts the reception of a popular television series.
My focus here is on the process and ethics of shared problem-solving in an online community. I am less interested, ultimately, in who ChillOne is or whether his information was accurate than I am with how the community responded to, evaluated, debated, critiqued, and came to grips with the kinds of knowledge he brought to them. I am interested in how the community reacts to a shift in its normal ways of processing and evaluating knowledge. It is at moments of crisis, conflict, and controversy that communities are forced to articulate the principles that guide them.2
Spoiling as Collective Intelligence
On the Internet, Pierre LĂ©vy argues, people harness their individual expertise toward shared goals and objectives: âNo one knows everything, everyone knows something, all knowledge resides in humanity.â3 Collective intelligence refers to this ability of virtual communities to leverage the combined expertise of their members. What we cannot know or do on our own, we may now be able to do collectively. And this organization of audiences into what LĂ©vy calls knowledge communities allows them to exert a greater aggregate power in their negotiations with media producers. The emergent knowledge culture will never fully escape the influence of commodity culture, any more than commodity culture can totally function outside the constraints of the nation-state. He suggests, however, that collective intelligence will gradually alter the ways commodity culture operates. LĂ©vy sees industry panic over audience participation as shortsighted: âBy preventing the knowledge culture from becoming autonomous, they deprive the circuits of commodity space ⊠of an extraordinary source of energy.â4 The knowledge culture, he suggests, serves as the âinvisible and intangible engineâ for the circulation and exchange of commodities.
The new knowledge culture has arisen as our ties to older forms of social community are breaking down, our rooting in physical geography is diminished, our bonds to the extended and even the nuclear family are disintegrating, and our allegiances to nation-states are being redefined. New forms of community are emerging, however: these new communities are defined through voluntary, temporary, and tactical affiliations, reaffirmed through common intellectual enterprises and emotional investments. Members may shift from one group to another as their interests and needs change, and they may belong to more than one community at the same time. These communities, however, are held together through the mutual production and reciprocal exchange of knowledge. As he writes, such groups âmake available to the collective intellect all of the pertinent knowledge available to it at a given moment.â More importantly, they serve as sites for âcollective discussion, negotiation, and development,â and they prod the individual members to seek out new information for the common good: âUnanswered questions will create tension ⊠indicating regions where invention and innovation are required.â5
LĂ©vy draws a distinction between shared knowledge, information that is believed to be true and held in common by the entire group, and collective intelligence, the sum total of information held individually by the members of the group that can be accessed in response to a specific question. He explains: âThe knowledge of a thinking community is no longer a shared knowledge for it is now impossible for a single human being, or even a group of people, to master all knowledge, all skills. It is fundamentally collective knowledge, impossible to gather together into a single creature.â6 Only certain things are known by all âthe things the community needs to sustain its existence and fulfill its goals. Everything else is known by individuals who are on call to share what they know when the occasion arises. But communities must closely scrutinize any information that is going to become part of their shared knowledge, since misinformation can lead to more and more misconceptions as any new insight is read against what the group believes to be core knowledge.
Survivor spoiling is collective intelligence in practice.
Each fan I spoke with had their own history of how they became a spoiler. Shawn was a history major who loved the process of investigation and the challenge of weighing different accounts of a past event. Wezzie was a part-time travel agent who became fascinated with the faraway locations and the exotic people represented on the series. As for ChillOne, who knows, but it would seem from the outside to have to do with the ability to make the world pay attention to him.
Survivor asks us to speculate about what happened. It practically demands our predictions. Media scholar Mary Beth Haralovich and mathematician Michael W. Trosset describe the role chance plays in shaping outcomes: âNarrative pleasure stems from the desire to know what will happen next, to have that gap opened and closed, again and again, until the resolution of the storyâŠ. In Survivor, unpredictability whets the desire to know what happens next, but how that gap will be closed is grounded in uncertainty due to chanceâŠ. In its invitation to prediction, Survivor is more like a horse race than fiction.â7 At the same time, for those viewers who are most aware of the production circumstances, there is also an âuncertainty due to ignorance,â which is what galls these fans the most. Someone out thereâMark Burnett for oneâknows something they donât. They want to know what can be known. And thatâs part of what makes spoiling Survivor such a compelling activity. The ability to expand your individual grasp by pooling knowledge with others intensifies the pleasures any viewer takes in trying to âexpect the unexpected,â as the programâs ad campaign urges.
And, so, Survivorâs spoilers gather and process information. As they do so, they form a knowledge community. We are experimenting with new kinds of knowledge that emerge in cyberspace. Out of such play, Pierre LĂ©vy believes, new kinds of political power will emerge which will operate alongside and sometimes directly challenge the hegemony of the nation-state or the economic might of corporate capitalism. LĂ©vy sees such knowledge communities as central to the task of restoring democratic citizenship. At his most optimistic, he sees the sharing of knowledge around the world as the best way of breaking down the divisions and suspicions that currently shape international relations. LĂ©vyâs claims are vast and mystifying, he speaks of his model of collective intelligence as an âachievable utopia,â yet he recognizes that small local experiments will be where we learn how to live within knowledge communities. We are, he argues, in a period of âapprenticeshipâ through which we innovate and explore the structures that will support political and economic life in the future.
Imagine the kinds of information these fans could collect, if they sought to spoil the government rather than the networks. Later, we will look at the roles collective intelligence played in the 2004 presidential campaign and we will see signs that players of alternative reality games are beginning to focus their energies toward solving civic and political problems. Having said that, I donât want to seem to endorse a very old idea that fandom is a waste of time because it redirects energies that could be spent toward âserious thingsâ like politics into more trivial pursuits. Quite the opposite, I would argue that one reason more Americans do not participate in public debates is that our normal ways of thinking and talking about politics requires us to buy into what we will discuss later in this chapter as the expert paradigm: to play the game, you have to become a policy wonk, or, more accurately, you have to let a policy wonk do your thinking for you. One reason why spoiling is a more compelling practice is because the way knowledge gets produced and evaluated is more democratic. Spoiling is empowering in the literal sense in that it helps participants to understand how they may deploy the new kinds of power that are emerging from participation within knowledge communities. For the moment, though, the spoilers are just having fun on a Friday night participating in an elaborate scavenger hunt involving thousands of participants who all interact in a global village. Play is one of the ways we learn, and during a period of reskilling and reorientation, such play may be much more important than it seems at first glance. On the other hand, play is also valuable on its own terms and for its own ends. At the end of the day, if spoiling wasnât fun, they wouldnât do it.
The word, spoiling, goes way backâor at least as far back as you can goâin the history of the Internet. Spoiling emerged from the mismatch between the temporalities and geographies of old and new media. For starters, people on the East Coast saw a series three hours earlier than people on the West Coast. Syndicated series played on different nights of the week in different markets. American series played in the United States six months or more before they broke in international markets. As long as people in different locations werenât talking to each other, each got a first-time experience. But, once fans got online, these differences in time zones loomed large. Someone in the East Coast would go online and post everything about an episode and someone in California would get annoyed because the episode was âspoiled.â So, posters began putting the word âspoilerâ in the subject line, so people could make up their own minds whether or not to read it.
Over time, though, the fan community turned spoiling into a game to find out what they could before the episodes even aired. Again, it is interesting to think about this in terms of temporality. Most viewers experience Survivor as something that unfolds week by week in real time. The show is edited to emphasize immediacy and spontaneity. The contestants donât appear publicly until after they are booted and often they speak as if the events hadnât already happened. They can only speak concretely about things that have already been aired and seem at times to speculate about what is yet to come. Spoilers, on the other hand, work from the knowledge that the series has already been shot. As one fan explains, âThe results were determined months ago and here we wait for the official results. And a few people out there who participated know the results and they are supposed to keep it under lock. Hahahahahaha!â
They are searching for signs of the aftermath, trying to find out which contestants lost the most weight (thus, indicating that they spent more time surviving in the wilds) or which came back with full beards or bandaged hands; they seek leaks who are willing to give them some âsmall hintsâ about what took place, and then they pool their information, adding up all of the âsmall hintsâ into the âBig Picture.â Ghandia Johnson (Survivor: Thailand) thought she was smarter than the fan boards; she would post what she thought were tantalizing tidbits nobody could figure out. It turned out that the communityâat least as an aggregateâwas a whole lot smarter than she was and could use her âhintsâ to put together much of what was going to happen on the series. More recently, a news crew interviewed a Survivor producer in front of a white board that outlined the challenges for the forthcoming season; the fans were able to do a âframe grabâ of the image, blow it up, and decipher the entire outline, giving them a road map for what was to come.
On one level, the story of Survivor: Amazon was done before ChillOne arrived on the scene; his sources at the Ariau Amazon Hotel were already starting to forget what had happened. On another level, the story hadnât begun, since the cast hadnât been publicly announced, the show was still being edited, and the episodes wouldnât air for several more weeks when he made his first post at Survivor Sucks (http://p085.ezboard.com/bsurvivorsucks).
ChillOne knew he had some hot inside information and so he went where the hard-core fans hung outâSurvivor Sucks, one of the oldest and most popular of the many discussion lists devoted to the series. The name bears some explanation, since clearly these people are dedicated fans who donât really think the show sucks. Initially, Survivor Sucks was a forum for ârecaps,â snarky summaries of the episodes. On the one hand, a recap is a useful tool for people who missed an episode. On the other hand, the recapping process was shaped by the desire to talk back to the television set, to make fun of formulas and signal your emotional distance from whatâs taking place on the screen. Somewhere along the way, the Sucksters discovered âspoiling,â and the boards havenât been the same since. So, it was hereâto these people who pretended to hate Survivor but were pretty much obsessed with it âthat ChillOne brought his information.
Anticipating some reaction, he started his own thread, âChillOneâs Amazon Vacation Spoilers.â Surely, even ChillOne never imagined that the full thread would run for more than three thousand posts and continue across the full season. ChillOne made his first post at 7:13:25 p.m. on January 9, 2003. By 7:16:40 p.m. he was already facing questions. It wasnât until 7:49:43 p.m., that someone implied that he might be connected to the show. A few minutes later, someone asked whether this might be a hoax.
It began innocently enough: âI have just returned from Brazil and a trip to the AmazonâŠ. I will begin by saying that I do not have all the answers, or all the information about S6 [Survivor 6], but I have enough credible, spoiler type, information that Iâd be open to sharing.â8
Images from space
We would learn later that ChillOne had gone on vacation with a bunch of friends to Rio to celebrate the New Year but had wanted to see more of the country. He made his way to the Amazon and then learned that the Ariau Amazon Towers had been the headquarters for the Survivor production staff, and as a fan of the series he wanted to see the locations firsthand. He wasnât a spoiler; he mostly asked questions of the hotel staff trying to figure out what might be meaningful sites on a Survivor-themed tour of the Amazon. Where-as most of the people who came there were eco-tourists who wanted to see nature untouched by human presence, he was a tele-tourist trying to visit a location made meaningful because it was transmitted by television.
His first post focused primarily around the shooting location: âFirst off, the map posted by Wezzie is very accurate. Let me start by filling in some of the gaps.â This was a bold opening move, as âWezzieâ is one of the most respected members of the Survivor spoiling community. She and her partner, Dan Bollinger, have specialized in location spoiling. Offline, Wezzie is a substitute teacher, an arboretum docent, a travel agent, and a freelance writer. Dan is an industrial designer who runs a factory that makes refrigerator magnets. They live halfway across the country from each other but they work as a team to try to identify and document the next Survivor locationâwhat Mark Burnett calls âthe seventeenth characterâ âand to learn as much as they can about the area. As a team, Wezzie and Dan have been able to pinpoint the series location with astonishing accuracy. The process may start with a throwaway comment from Mark Burnett or a tip from âsomebody who knows somebody, who knows somebody, who works for CBS or a tourist company.â9 Wezzie and Dan have built up contacts withtravel agencies, government officials, film bureaus, tourism directors, and resort op...