Board Thread:Season 46 - Kariba/@comment-34802226-20180414225919/@comment-33060993-20180415211712

'''Posting same thing at top and bottom - Thanks faves for reading if you did and if not, I implore that you read my initial argument for this question, as I believe wholeheartedly that Roisin is actually trying to make a mess of responses to hide a well-articulated argument on why she wouldn't win. '''​​​​​​​

Did you stand to save Dovile, which is something you claim to have wanted?

Once again, for someone who was "more effective than I", you were simply unable to reach your target on your vote. I think if you weren't so rigid on preserving your statistics, you might have been able to.

You act as if it was YOU who did it, though.

You, now: "Getting out the person who was voted playing the game the best in Touchy Subjects is a bad move?"

That wasn't the rationale behind the move, you act as if it was beneficial for your game, when the rationale you provide in your speech and in the tribe chat is:

You, at the time: "Don’t come for my ally and next time u won’t go home"

You, two days ago: "I just made a snap decision to be selfish ​​​​"

That doesn't sound like you weighed out the consequences, it sounds like you made a snap decision based on paranoia or the defense of Hals, either of which have little to no link to what you're rebranding this move as. Regardless of contribution, taking out the biggest threat was not your priority this vote. It was Jack's or Hals' move and you were used as a paranoid number with skewed priorities. You call it a mistake in your speech, yet refuse to accept it as such now. I'd go back to the former before you continue to undermine your own credibility.

 for someone who, per what YOU said in the tribe chat at F7, campaigned for Vincent to leave, why is he your ideal F3?

"It was never my desire to vote Vincent out, it was simply a momentary potential defensive plan."

So should we interpret this round as you were led to a plan to vote out your ideal F3 by one ally, but eventually switched to a plan by another ally? Okay, Roisin. If that's the case, it seems like you don't even know what you wanted, indicating a lack of initiative and impact on your part.

'Yes, you needed his vote for Matthias. Where you failed to secure it, I did.'

"Honestly I don't know how many times I need to say this."

I think you've said it enough. You blatantly ignored the first excerpt, wherein I identified my desire to vote Matthias out.

"This LITERALLY shows that the reason you fixed on Matthias rather than Jack as you had previously been discussing, was because I had said to Vincent I was voting him."

The reason I fixed on Matthias was because he was throwing my name out? I think you exaggerate your impact here entirely. The context of that conversation is a follow-up to a conversation we had the day before. In this case, where you failed to convince him - I succeeded and it was something I had already been set on from the second I heard Matthias informed Jack, from you, from Jack, and from Vincent.

Your interpretation here is wrong: ''Vincent wants to vote Jack --> Roisin tells Jake and Vincent she is voting Matthias --> Jake decides to vote Matthias, which Vincent follows. ''

You cut out the part wherein Vincent and I discussed it the day before and a game plan for the vote and then, a day later, he expressed hesitations after you two talked. I convinced him where you couldn't and you needed his vote. And we switched to Matthias not because of what YOU were doing, but because of what he was, which was making multiple plans with multiple people and giving us cause for strategic concern. I don't deny your involvement - after all, you were a vote for him, I just think I was the glue that held this vote together and equally as set on voting him from the second the circumstances changed. We've proven I'm not naive, so petty insults won't deter the fact that I was effective in accomplishing a strategic aim, something you're so insistent on proving otherwise.

I've legit explained this round five times now. I don't know what you want here, since you're the one who called "totally untrue" on my gameplay and have increasingly acknowledged every aspect of my involvement but one.

But you backtracked on this opinion after Dan's prompt, which referenced your dictation as a hindrance to your social game, indicating your "awareness" is another player's commentary and not your own intuition.

Firstly, this is literally the most minor point ever and epitomises your arguments are becoming.

Is it? Because for someone preaching awareness, you didn't know about this, but have now honed in on your social game as weaker, when you initially called it jury management. It's evidence for a larger argument that you're shifting your story.

if you'd faced a similar situation to what myself, Dovile, Louise, and Jack navigated, I don't know that you would've survived.

Looking for arguments in hypothetical situations that didn't even happen is again quite embarrassing.

The hypothetical displays how fragile your position was and how it was luck or the merit of other players that ensured your survival. We consider hypotheticals because it's how we advance. Your strategy for that phase indicates you didn't, as it wasn't "play stupid goat but dominate in challenges so I can make it through this period unscathed" - it sounds like you were legitimately on the outs. It's reflective of your positioning. At all times, it should have been solid enough to survive. You provide no evidence that you had a network in place for if Hwadze 2.0 went to tribals. Once again, you resort to insults and condescensions where arguments are failing you. You're trying to paint a view of me as desperate. To the contrary, I'm not going to wither back and let you attack my game.

"He can call it insecurity with my own game all he wants; the common theme (again) is Jake being unable to own his OWN GAME which I've had no problem doing."

The topic of discussion here is what Dovile asked me: Why should she not vote YOU? I answered. When others asked on my flaws, I answered. It's almost like I'm supposed to address the jurors and answer their questions without being antagonized every step of the way. And ultimately, we've been asked two questions on "why the other shouldn't win?" On both counts, it was you who went into defense mode. But it's okay for you to argue when I address your flaws and refuse to acknowledge them, but if I reiterate what I was talking about, I'm naive and embarrassing and can't accept my own. So you're allowed to dispute or acknowledge what people believe your flaws are, but I can't (wherein I've been nowhere nearly as defensive, but rather critical - admitting mistakes and clarifies on perceptions accordingly) A double standard? I think so.

I'll end this mess on a new fave quote:

"I know I made a lot of mistakes" - Roisin

'''Thanks faves for reading if you did and if not, I implore that you read my initial argument for this question, as I believe wholeheartedly that Roisin is actually trying to make a mess of responses to hide a well-articulated argument on why she wouldn't win. '''