I've only seen who wins the show, I haven't watched the reunion yet.
If Spencer couldn't have won (<3 <3 <3) then I'm glad Tony did; I actually would have rather seen Kass win than Woo, it makes me so mad when people get to the end because someone dragged them there and they didn't do anything, and seeing them win leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I was so proud of Spencer's (<3) jury speech. It all seemed so familiar
As far as jury strategies, there's no real incentive to follow through on your threats once you're voted out. Off the top of my head I remember Parvati and Candice telling Yul they would vote for him if he got rid of Penner before them. He did, and I know Parvati ended up voting for Ozzy in the end anyway (she wrote "Oscar" on his vote, that's why I remember). The way I saw it (at least in the forum game) was that I just wasn't going to tell people how I'd vote, because that gives them incentive to vote me off. Well, I only told the people I wouldn't be voting for how I'd be voting
I think jury decisions are so personal and so unique to each game and the relationships you form in those games that coming up with a "jury reputation" couldn't have any measurable effect on one person's success. Maybe in shorter games that you play a lot more times it can work but I think Survivor is too big. Just my opinion.