In post 706, Haschel Cedricson wrote:Excellent answers, all of you.
I'm going into this FTC with an open mind, and while certain directions are starting to look more attractive than others my vote is not locked in. Every juror gets to choose what kind of game is the best to reward, and I personally want to give it to the best
overall
game.
So what does this mean for all of you? Social. Strategic. Structural. You need to convince me you were the best in at least two of these, and I don't care which two. Do that, and you have my vote.
Please rank the three of you in each of those categories, and be specific when it comes to explaining why your #1 in each category is placed there.
This is actually a good question, but it's not one I relish answering. I know I made tough choices that some felt seemed like I don't have a heart. But I value the games that both Bella and Scoots put together, and by forcing me to put someone bottom in a category it makes it seem like I don't. Still, it's interesting, fair question and I'm going to answer it as fully as it deserves.
I also know that humility probably demands that I put myself second in a category. But I'm not going to do that because it's not how I feel the game went, and I want to be true to the game I feel like I played.
If "Social" simply means likability, then I'm last for many people, I think. I think Bella and Scoots are great! You want to have a barbecue and invite fun, awesome people? You're going to call Bella and Scoots, and you'll see if you have enough space for Zoraster as the date gets closer.
But I think Social means so much more than that. It's the Social GAME you play that matters: how the relationships you develop allow you to influence and control the game. Otherwise all of this is just a popularity contest and particularly in a non-anonymous game that's troubling.
But on the other hand, if it's about Social
game
, then
Social is the Most Important Thing In the Game
because without it, all the strategy in the world is worthless. Taking advantage of the structure gets you nowhere.
My Social Game is the thing that
enabled
me to use the structure of the game to execute my strategy.
So I'm going to put the rankings as:
1. Zoraster
2. Scoots
3. Bella
My relationships
were
sincere in this game. But I also used them to get where I needed to be, which is where the gameplay part comes in.
Interestingly, I'm going to answer a Strategic point Bella made with a Social point from me to illustrate some of my social game. She says that I wasn't prepared for how upset she and DV would be when Vash went home. That's partially true, but I knew it'd be upsetting for them (
I
was upset), particularly Bella. But saying things people don't want to hear early so that they can come to terms with them is often
necessary
. Bella needed time to process her grief, and I knew that. If Vash went and I had come out later at f7 with the plan to get us three to the end together, she would have been mad at me still AND she would have reacted poorly. I think she would have seen herself as a free agent and there I'd stand, not being properly respectful of Vash's vote out. That's not a safe place for Zoraster.
But because I
Bella I knew I had to get out in front of it and make my point early, allow her to be mad at me (unpleasant because I love her), apologize for it, and then have us come to the right choice together. I would have played it differently if it hadn't been Bella. But knowing how people react and process things is essential to playing a good social game. Productively having conflict and resolving it is difficult, but necessary. It's also, for what it's worth, an important life skill to have both in one's personal as well as professional life, but I digress.
Similarly, at the Ent vote Bella pushed me hard to consider saving Ent. I talked to Ent, and he convinced me that I at least wasn't dead in the water if I brought it back to Bella. I knew that my relationship with Bella as well as DV at this point was tenuous and I needed their trust going forward and I wouldn't have it if I kept barreling ahead. Sometimes you make a Social Game Play to further your strategic one. I offered to save Ent to Bella (and I meant it!) because (a) I didn't think she'd accept it -- I think she wanted it to be entirely on
shoulders that Ent went home and I was pretty sure I had put the work in to convince her that het staying was the right play; and (b) I knew there's only so far you can push your allies and dictate the game to them. Bella feeling like I
listened
to her was important in establishing a relationship that would eventually end up with her picking me to go to FTC with her.
Another example of Social Game Play was the Brom vote. Strategically, getting rid of Brom (who wanted to get back together with Bella to form an alliance with her, scoots, dv, brom and myself as the bottom) was the right call. But the reason I went with Brom instead of an Ent vote (or even an Ent/DK split) that round wasn't
just
that it was theoretically good for me. It was because I
KNEW
I could bring Scoots back into the fold even after blindsiding him. I was right, and we became great friends and worked together the entire rest of the game. I read Scoots. I knew what I needed to do to reestablish trust. I did it.
Finally, I talked about it in my opening statement, but reading you was social game in itself. All these categories bleed into each other, but the strategic decision to make a move on you because you wanted to deprive me of my non-Haschel approved allies came from my social game of knowing that's what you wanted.
---
Most important to my social game I
worked as a dictator. I was
collaborative with people to make moves, and I'd guide them toward the answer I wanted. And as a result people viewed me as their partner. Doing that takes a lot of work, and a lot of people fail at it. It's why, forgive me for bringing it up, even though there was a post-merge easy choice vote of Haschel vs. DV that neither of you got to "win" that battle until McMenno left: both you and he pretty much declared what you wanted to do rather than leading people to water, letting them see how it benefited them, and feel like they were part of that decision. But I always did this.
---
Why Scoots over Bella? I think it's a close call, but I look at where Scoots came in. Bella had the love and respect of many people in this game upon entering, and Scoots came in as a total newbie. Scoots made sure that he was never in trouble, and whether that was because his threat level was low or because he played a great social game is up to the jury, but as a challenge threat he did have to work to create the feeling in many people that he wanted to work with them or else they'd want to target him even if they thought they could beat him. He was obviously helped by being immune for 4 rounds in the merge, but that doesn't take away from that fact.
Bella also played a good social game, so please don't interpret my 3rd place mark for her as indicating otherwise. But I think it was flawed. Again, she's amazing. But she put herself in a position where even her likability wouldn't have protected her but for winning the FIC. She was also very much at risk at f5 if het got immunity. That's partially a strategic flaw, but its source is in the social game. Still, she played an excellent Social game too! I know Menno thinks he's scraping the bottom of the barrel here, but I really view the three of us as all very strong in this area.
1. Zoraster
2. Scoots
3. Bella
Forgive me for making this short, but I'd really like to direct you toward my other answer
here. The structure of the game was incredibly important to my success at this game, and I utilized and adapted to its quirks to get me to where I am more than anyone else in the game. I should also say that even in this FTC I used the non-anonymous nature of the game to do a lot of research. Even the "meme" of this question (which I was not aware of) was something I had to look up. If this had been an anonymous game and you had asked me this question, it would have been tough for me to answer this question.
Scoots in my mind is second because he utilized the abundance of puzzle-type challenges to both help his tribes and help himself. I'm not sure if this many timed puzzles is normal for a survivor game, frankly, but if structure is about what makes THIS game this game, this game's structure revolves around them.
1. Zoraster
2. Bella
3. Scoots
I think I've made my case pretty forcefully that I had a plan going into this game and I executed it.
Bella has to make the case she was #1 in Strategy because she had already posted about how the structure wasn't her thing, and I
really
respect her attempt because it made me think. It's a good post. I would put her at #2 anyway, but after that post it's pretty firmly number 2 because I don't think Scoots used much strategy in the game.
But ultimately, the strategy I outlined in my
Opening Statement says it all. I established strong individual relationships with people that enabled me to be secure and make moves against those who I needed to in order to thrive. I managed threat levels incredibly well. It all led to a game that I am really proud of and was in control of, despite spending virtually all of the game in TC.
I actually don't know what she means by her last point. I wanted every vote that came down except the Vash one. Sometimes I led, sometimes I didn't (if i was always the one leading the vote I would not have been executing my threat level strategy well), but
each one
was beneficial to me.
Every
single vote but Vash: Formerfish, Elsa, Ansky, Utah, Overkill, Bro, Kilby, Panth, Brom, DK, McMenno, Haschel, Entreri, Radja, het. All of them shaped the game and put me one step closer to being at the end to make my case. Each was one that I decided was the best course of action and could have altered if I had wanted to (okay, maybe not the Formerfish one).
The only other one I didn't really want at first was DV, and I readily admit that wasn't a strategic decision -- it was one from the heart. As for it being a decision that hurt me more than her? I don't think so. I'll be curious to hear when Monty makes you all raise your hands at the reunion if DV had been here instead of Scoots, but I think DV had a chance to beat us BOTH and take votes from us BOTH. DV is more than just a nice guy, after all.
.
