Board Thread:Season 46 - Kariba/@comment-34802226-20180414225919/@comment-33060993-20180415194549

You seem pretty set on the notion that I'm selling my game as something it isn't, but you don't have any evidence to back it up. You tried to back it up with the Matthias vote, and I explained exactly how it went down and my contribution, just like I did in my Dan's "Crucial Points" response and my Jack's "Key Role" response. You're repeating this, almost irrationally, because the weaknesses of your game are being actively revealed and I think you're aiming to shift the conversation point to hide this. It's fairly obvious that you looked at the one thousand words on why you shouldn't win, and picked concise bulletins, erased context, and tried to dispute them. And I'll continue to dispute, especially if I believe you're backtracking or shifting conversation points, because I won't let this experience end without fighting till the last second, especially if you're giving a false impression of the game you played. More and more contradictions and mistakes are being revealed, in my opinion, and I really hope that if they find time, the jury reads this, because it perfectly demonstrates why your game was not as effective or impactful as you pegged it out to be.

"She flipped back and forth, but she never stood up.”

You did an interesting job of spinning this into reiterating your positives, without focusing on the negatives I addressed. Were you the one who started the vote on Drew? Because that would be standing. Did you stand to save Dovile, which is something you claim to have wanted? I agree that sitting down is a perfectly plausible approach to this game, but for someone who is arguing that you played a "more effective" game, I just don't think those two align to the extent you believe they do, because I stood and did what I could to influence outcomes to my benefit.

"On the note of the F7 vote, can we just talk about how strategically atrocious that was?”

You act as if it was YOU who did it, though. Vincent THREW YOUR NAME, and you had, per your OWN words, been trying to work with Hals and Matthias to vote Vincent - but instead voted out Louise WITH Vincent, which has been regarded as Jack's initiative. Louise was a threat, undoubtedly, but that doesn't make this your move. It makes it another instance where you followed to an outcome that you spent days, per your own words, regretting.

"Bleurgh, the next tribal council was a mess and I hate even thinking about it. IM SORRY LOUISE!! That’s all I can say and I totally own this mess of a mistake."

"My perception was off and I had little time so I just made a snap decision to be selfish which turned out to be unnecessary. Not only that, I misused my advantage and lost a friend."

"She voted correctly, but did she voted the way she wanted to?”

So at F10, you wanted Dovile to leave? At F7, you walked into the vote saying "this is round Louise goes" because what you saying you wanted Vincent out in the tribe chat heavily implies otherwise. And at F4, you wanted to see Hals leave? This is not some sort of reference to an ideal F3, but rather your intentions for each round and your desire to vote majority directly clashing in a way that sheds a negative light on your game. And also... for someone who, per what YOU said in the tribe chat at F7, campaigned for Vincent to leave, why is he your ideal F3? If you tried to vote me out last round, how am I your ideal F3? The logic doesn't flow. You don't target your ideal F3.

"It’s part of the reason she was so ineffective with him at F6. She told him his actions were “unredeemable” and he felt burned when she needed more friends than enemies.”

Yes, you needed his vote for Matthias. Where you failed to secure it, I did. If that even was your initiative, you flopped on the execution. You can try to shift the subject to your reliance on your idol, but both Hals and I called that, so people were not as fooled as you think.

"yet she made no mention of her social game in her speech other than to say it was a foundation for strategic bonds”

"In my speech I specifically reference my social game being undermined, and I clearly regard it as the worst part of my game."

"There were definitely flaws - poor jury management being one of them."

"and my social game was a useful tool in creating strategic bonds, until it was undermined by the blindsides I was a part of."

In the summary of your speech, you clearly identify jury management as your biggest flaw - after all, it's the one you included in your summary, not the social game - 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. And you're entirely right that your blindside approach undermined others' trust of you and was why my role in the Matthias vote was as essential as it was.

Why was her speech so concise about pre-merge?

Or because per your own words, you were "the stupid goat" and if you'd faced a similar situation to what myself, Dovile, Louise, and Jack navigated, I don't know that you would've survived. And your challenge performance was decent, but Vincent and Drew carried Hwadze 2.0 on trivia, you had the third lowest score and the overall impression of you walking out, per my knowledge, is that you were a number up for grabs, not a voice to be considered, which indicates you might not have been able to survive that phase if not for the stronger challenge performances of others, especially if you, Vincent, and Drew were outnumbered 4-3 on Hwadze 2.0.

"Is that enough reasons?"

Do they justify what would have been a game-losing move, especially compared to me, who you think you were more effective than? Because I don't think they do. Hals' social game and jury management was stellar compared to yours, and I know I'd walk into FTC leaning towards her.

"She received no votes across the game. Let’s keep that tradition up tonight.”

I stand by it, because it's a concise way to summarize what I was saying with a bit of humor. Call it whatever you want xoxo <3

So yes, I stand by what I said and even when you took my arguments out of context, they retain their validity to the game you played. I would summarize, but I think I'm satisfied with my summary above. Thank to anyone who elects to read through all of this - I really hope you find it worth your time and possibly your vote!