Okay, if that's what you meant, I either mis-read it, or you mis-wrote or, or a little of both. What you just wrote, though, is clear enough, and I agree. However, statements like...
But I think it tells us very little about his ability to survive in the harsh environment of Nature
Voting each other off the island Because someone is More fit than You and is better liked than you, or is just not Hated as much makes for Mean, Nasty, and Less than Honorable Behavior.
...are part of why I interpreted things the way I did. Your first statement is correct, of course. But since the main point of Survivor wasn't wilderness survival, I jumped to the conclusion that you were missing the point. The second statement sounds an awful lot like an ethical judgement on Richard's strategy (can you see why I interpreted it that way?). Whereas I feel, because this was a game, using the rules to advantage isn't unethical.
Anyway, your second post clears things up, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Interesting that the final 2 came down to Richard and Kelly. I think if it came down to Richard and Rudy, Rudy would have won. Richard and Susan, a toss-up. He was smart to surround himself with such abrasive people.
Richard's only real mistake, I felt, is that he was too-visibly the leader of the alliance, and too pompous about how secure he felt. As obnoxious as he was, he still beat Kelly, which goes to show how wisely he chose his alliance-mates. But if he were simply less pompous, it wouldn't have been so close, and he would have been able to beat Rudy if he needed to. Of course,I feel the same way about Susan -- if she had censored herself a bit, it might have been her and Kelly at the end. Refusing to make any personality compromises at all was Susan's downfall.
Joe