Board Thread:Virtual Tribal Council/@comment-27638357-20160519221405/@comment-27638357-20160525222635

JojoFromKocamo wrote: I stand by my opinion that there is no such thing as "not deserving to win." If Michele won, Michele won. When you guys say it might've been a bitter jury, that makes no sense because Michele voted for most of the people on that jury just like Aubry. Here's why she won.

-She won the most Immunities and individual challenges of anyone this season. The best physical game can sometimes be the whole reason someone gets a certain jury member's vote. For example, Scot was an NBA player so he seems as though he'd highly respect a good physical game.

-Contrary to what you all are saying, Michele DID have a good social game. She was nice and became friends with everyone whereas Aubry was an anxious mess when it came to talking to her enemies.

-Everyone is surprised Nick didn't vote for her, but Nick didn't vote for Michele because he was BITTER. And to be BITTER at someone they had to have made strategic moves. Nick of course was salty because she, Julia, and Cydney flipped to vote him out. Also Michele voted out her closest ally which takes a lot of balls. Aubry wouldn't have done that, I guarantee.

Good job Michele ;)

JOJO

Personally, I think the divide between "Michele won", which I agree with, and "Michele should've won", which I disagree with, is obviously large. I go back to my cookie example:
 * "Let's say someone baked 10 cookies, and one was chocolate chip while all the others were oatmeal raisin, and there were 10 kids who were tasked with trying to select the chocolate chip. They all look the exact same. Then let's say each of them grabs a cookie within five seconds, and one of them gets the chocolate chip cookie. Do we revise history with hindsight and say "Oh, that person must have know it was chocolate chip based on odor and texture?".

For this scenario, I don't think we say the person deserves it. It could've been entirely luck, or the person just happened to back into it with the dominos falling their way. I'm not saying that's what happened to Michele 100%, but I'm trying to point out the flaws in that philosophy. Now time to refute your other points:
 * First off, Aubry was clearly the leader of the alliance headlining the eliminations. If you're looking at the hard evidence, every time they basically just tell Michele who to vote for. Michele was just a number and not a very large helping hand in the eliminations, especially when compared to Aubry.
 * I think you misinterpret what a "bitter jury" is. Bitter juries are simply juries that come across as bitter. It doesn't mean they vote for the "wrong" person, it just means they're bitter.
 * When has challenges played a real part in getting someone's vote? You could argue Mike and Fabio, but it was more so because they were underdogs then their immunity wins. Obviously, their immunity wins catapulted them to the end, but it seemed to be that challenge wins weren't a factor so much as the underdog story. This may not be the best example, but in Cagayan, Woo won more individual challenges than Tony and still lost in the BvBvB format. Scot and Jason never mentioned challenge wins as criteria as far as I've heard in their FTC speeches or Ponderosa videos. And it's completely backwards logic, because the tribe they were originally on, To Tang, lost so many challenges, and the two of them were always at least 33% of the entire team, so even if I do accept the premise, it's an inconsistent voting procedure, and if we're talking about justification.
 * Where is evidence of the "social game"? I never saw it, really. You can read all my previous points I made regarding this. We were shown no evidence she had a good social game. In fact, fellow castaways told us Michele didn't even talk to Jason and Scot after the camp sabotage in direct conversation. Michele has received a fantastic edit and is portrayed in a positive light, so there's no reason we can't be shown the scenes of her socializing if it exists. We never really heard Michele having a social game, or her social connections with other people aside from Julia, but that connection was mostly stemmed off Anna and Julia really starting up the girls' alliance. THe most I heard was Aubry talking about Michele being a threat and her not making enemies with the jury, but as I said previously, that does NOT equate to a good social game.
 * Pfff, please. Nick was not bitter. You can use his Final Words and Ponderosa as proof. Nick and Michele were tight allies throughout most of the game. If you argue this is what made him bitter, then there's NO CHANCE he'd be dating Michele right now. I mean, I think Michele showed her true self in the game, so unless you're suggesting Nick changed, which doesn't seem to be implied, the relationship would not exist. In addition, Michele was not a moving cog in the elimination of Nick. She just happened to agree. I believe it is because Nick values strategy heavily, as we see since he is a former RHAP blogger who blogged about strategy in the original BvBvB. If you have a good social game AND you're tightly aligned with him for 24 days, there is NO excuse in losing the vote, especially looking at Nick's Final Words and Ponderosa where he doesn't come across as bitter.