Jury Voting Philosophies

[Klick]

Vote who you want tbh

[Klick]

There was a thread on F2 vs F3 a couple of years back, it had some nice discussion
viewtopic.php?f=120&t=74911

For a long time I've favored F2s, largely because it's a more natural conclusion to the game - why stop voting a round before you can? It also creates a more proper balance between pre-FTC and post-FTC imo - everything that happens before FTC shouldn't only give you a 33% chance of winning (I know that's simplistic, but still).

I don't think F3s discourage playing 'well', though. They just require playing differently. I think F3 Survivor is a different game than F2 Survivor in a sense.

PEdit: I mean as long as you didn't outright mislead the players and just left it ambiguous I don't see why not. I also don't really see

why

though.

[Klick]

But how do you define that merit? What are good plays, what are bad plays? Ultimately, every finalist got to the end in their own way.

[Klick]

There are multiple ways to get the jury to vote for you. You as a finalist have influence on who is on the jury. And to that end, there are several right ways to play a game.