Board Thread:Season 18 - Heroes vs. Villains/@comment-24459371-20140820041332/@comment-5051226-20140820052558


 * ANDREI - If Survivor was a kindergarten class, your report card would read "Doesn't play well with others." You made it very clear in this game, since the get go, that I wasn't a part of your game. You never welcomed my opinions, comments or thoughts - if I was unable to read the 200 plus messages I received well at work, you were the first to say "We already discussed that." I am sure some of this was related to you feeling my strategy was not a good one, and that I didn't deserve to be playing - and technically my strategy didn't get me to the final 3. I played one way, you played another. The only issue is, I don't see much difference in the two forms of play - Sure you were stronger in challenges, but even in Turkey I never won a single challenge. Sure you were more active in the group convos, but in the end, we got the same information conveyed. Even you admitted you voted with the majority interest most of the time, despite reservations - which is the same for me until the Final 6 vote. So my question for you is this; can you tell me one incident where you made a decision that was not for the majority's interest and was completely self serving?

I definitely could have used some tact when it came to how I treated you, I'll admit that. I did not think you had a lot of free time to invest in this game, which is something I never held against you on a personal level, but a game level, that was the decisive factor in why I minimised your input and presence in my game; I could not rely on you for challenges before the merge, the combination of your busy schedule and our timezone difference made strategising inconvenient, and I had to worry about the possibility of you self-voting. Investing in your loyalty would have been disingenuous on my part, so I just did not do it, because it always gave me an easy option to vote someone out in case things went south.

Which brings me to your question: shanking you at F5 was completely self-serving. Those were really the only time when the interests of my alliance and my own interests clashed. I can go back on every other vote I cast and say "it didn't just benefit me, it benefited other people too!", but I do not think Luke benefitted from sitting against me at the end. I managed to convince him to vote you out (and granted, it would have been harder if you had not flipped the round before), and I effectively took a spot in the F3 that you would have had a good shot at taking.

I will also add that the only way that my vocal loyalty to Yang could be a viable and credible strategy is if it was genuine, and the only way for it to be genuine in the game of Survivor is if it is self-serving. I needed the tribe to have good reasons to keep me to get myself through the merge, I needed to be valuable to the post-merge Yang alliance to make sure I did not end up blindsided like you or Sole, I could not let Yin completely take over our tribe because there was no way in hell I would've made past the Final 6 without some form of immunity, and now that there are 5 Yang members on the jury, being able to go back and point to all these decisions and offers I made in order to advance the Yang tribe makes for a very convenient argument to get these votes. As I told Dan, I'm only willing to help people if it helps me, and it was easier to get people to help me if we had a common interest.

I hope this changes your perception of my story for the better, I hope it is enough for you to be invested in it, and if it is not, fair enough, I brought it upon myself. Cheers to you!