What is called the opposite of Double Standard?

Thank you for your reply Rationalissimo! I didn't know that term and it expresses exactly both the motive, the result and the form of the statement. So I guess it's something like Appeal to Cliche: the fallacy when sayings like , "leave no stone unturned" are accepted as truth, regardess of the situation, no?

Yes, although it's not always fallacious.

LessWrong refers to some of them as Fully General Counterarguments, which can be used to dismiss a wide variety of opposing opinions. Like the regular clichés, they have the impact of stifling critical thought.

Another interesting term (i.e Fully General Counterarguments) and another blog (Less Wrong) that I didn't know. Unfortunately I had conversations with people who used such frustrating counterarguments. I didn't know that was an identified tactic to break nerves, just to avoid conceding 'defeat'. I learned today something that had troubled me for some time in my conversations with desingenuous people, Rationalissimo, so thank you!

You're welcome; I can relate to the feeling of euphoria when one discovers the term for a concept one had in mind, but could not give a name to.

Thank you for your reply. The accident fallacy is indeed similar to what the argument was. My only objection to that is the "rule or law" part of the fallacy. Counting spoons of rice is not a rule or law. The "counting spoons of rice" came with a judgement. The judgement was unfair. I can't edit my initial post but what I should have written to be more clear would be:
What is called "when you JUDGE two situations using the SAME standard when in fact you should be using DIFFERENT standards"? You must admit it's pretty damn close to the Double Standard definition, isn't it? That's why I said the opposite. I had thought also the case of appeal to equality but it also doesn't feel quite right because it doesn't include the judgement part. +1 though from me, for your input. 

The backstory of the spoons is not actually important for the argument in question. I added it only to give the general frame. There was actually no argument about being hungry and despite that having more passion (actually the team that was saying they expected the supplies to be returned, weren't hungry, they had won all the previous prizes and also they could fish, so they were in a better condition than the others). The "we have more passion" statement was independent from the spoons incident, they would say even if the supplies incident didn't happen at all. But the other team used that incident to accuse them of being cheap/petty, ignoring the special conditions present. 

So forget the losing/winning situation. The fallacy is the following
"You are cheap/petty because you count spoons of rice"

This in NORMAL CONDITIONS would be a somehow reasonable thing to say, but it is invalid under such SPECIAL  CONDITIONS (the Survivor circumstance).  
So, what is wrong in that statement is that you "judge two situations (the everyday life and the Survivor life) using the SAME standard when in fact you should be using DIFFERENT standards", thus the opposite of  double standard .

It's impossible to take your question seriously as you keep changing the context. Obviously, not having seen the original program all we can do is rely upon your interpretation, and as soon as we respond to your interpretation you either change it or deflect to the program. So, unless you can put forward a coherent question I'm afraid you're on your own.  Call it a reverse double standard or whatever. You seem to have made up your mind by selective arrangement.

[To mchasewalker]

You inferred things like "We survived and won because we were passionately soulful about our survival in spite of being cheated" which cannot be inferred from what I wrote. I am responsible only for what I write, not for what you infer from what I write. I didn't offer an interpretation of the program. I wrote what the context of the "counting spoons" was.
No need to be hostile man. I don't get why "taking my question seriously" is impossible. Can you support you accusation of me changing or deflecting to the program? Where did that come from? Read my initial post again and then compare it and see if YOU added YOUR speculations.

My question was (copying from the original post):
"Is there a name for ignoring the conditions and using something like a cliche i.e something that in general would be true but not for the specific situation?"
Apparently, that question was coherent enough for Rationalissimo whose reply was exactly what I expected an answer to be, that's why I upvoted his answer. Check his answer if you will.

Thank you for your trouble to answer my question, but it was an answer to another question. Not what I asked. There's no shame in it. Then I tried to clear any misunderstandings and you accuse me of DEFLECTING and then downvoting my comment to you? Why the hostility man?

Fortunately, I'm not on my own as you said. Rationalissimo understood what I asked and answered it. The answer was  entailed in the term "thought-terminating clichés".

And then at last you made another assumption, that I have "made up my mind by selective arrangement". And finally you gave me permission to call it whatever I want? Thank you very much, you're very kind. This is supposed to be a forum to expose fallacies not to talk fallaciously to one another.

And again a COHERENT question:
what is called "when you judge two situations using the SAME standard when in fact you should be using DIFFERENT standards"?

First of all thank you for your reply. My objection is that Ad Hominem is when the attack is irrelevant to the argument. Here the initial argument was that they have a big heart or soul and the attack was that they can't have an big soul because if they did, they would show that big heart in all aspects so they wouldn't act as petty as with the rice incident. I think it would be Ad Hominem if they had said something completely irrelevant like that they don't clean themselves or that they have been unfair or something else not related to generosity. The fallacy I'm interested in is the fact that they used "You are petty because you count spoons of rice" which could be said independently (not only as a response to something else) and is invalid only with those special circumstances (the Survivor conditions) while in other conditions it would be a somehow reasonable thing to say.  So, what I mean is that they judge two situations using the same standard when in fact they should be using different standards, and that's why I say that it's the opposite of double standard 

What are they actually trying to argue or accomplish.  I never really understood that part. 

[To GoblinCookie]

I don't think they were trying to make an argument. They just tried to insult or to present the others as no better than them. Nobody wants to lose, so when the others claimed that they were better in some area (having more passion for victory), the others created a fallacious statement to refute their claim. But ultimately it was a jerk reaction to save their ego.  

In order to be a fallacy it has to be an argument, insults aren't fallacious unless they are arguments.  From what I had heard of this Survivor malarky it is pretty nasty tv-show. 

[To GoblinCookie]

Ha,ha you are right, it is pretty nasty. And to be honest I believe showing nasty things is actually the secret of success for every reality show - invoking high arousal emotions to the viewers. 
Now, back to what I think is a fallacy. Indeed the intention of that statement was to be insulting. But it was not just a statement "You are petty". That would be just an insult.
The implied argument was:
1)"In DAY-TO-DAY LIFE, if I borrow an amount of rice from you and I return it later, it would be petty of  you to count the returned rice spoon by spoon and make that much fuss about it."
2)"The norm is that people would say that someone who would count rice spoons is petty and a petty person can't claim to be soulful"
3)"(ignoring the SURVIVOR CONDITIONS) You counted the returned rice spoon by spoon"
4)"Therefore, I will judge your act as if you were in DAY-TO-DAY life and respond by saying what I would say then, that you are petty (for acting like that) and therefore you cannot claim to be soulful".
Do you see the argument now? It's similar to the example for double standard  where the husband says that he going to the strip club is perfectly acceptable (because it is he who goes) but when his wife goes it is a completely inappropriate thing to do because she is a woman (?) I guess. In the Survivor example it is the exact opposite: although they both acted the same (1.petty people in the day-to-day world that count the returned rice spoon-by-spoon and 2.Survivors counting the returned rice spoon-by-spoon) it would be fallacious to judge them both as petty. Do you see now why I said that it's the opposite of Double Standard? My initial question was if there's a more descriptive/elegant name for that kind of fallacious reasoning.
Also saying that someone who counts rice cannot be passionate about winning is non sequitur because counting rice spoons has nothing to do with being passionate about winning, but that's a different story/fallacy. 
Check also the answer of Rationalissimo about the 'Thought-terminating cliches'. I think it's descriptive of the trick they used to masquerade this whole insanity.