Board Thread:Virtual Tribal Council/@comment-27638357-20160519221405/@comment-27638357-20160522174014

Tozza6 wrote: Zypker124 wrote:

Tozza6 wrote: Aubry and Cydney clearly headlined the game and orchestrated the voting procedures, dominating and dictating the game, and all of a sudden people think Michele is a threat? Why?

Because she won the game. That's why. Having KNOWN who was on the jury (AKA Jason and Scot who both had an extremely high chance of being bitter towards the people that voted them out), Aubry realised that Michele was the only one that could beat her since she did not control Michele like she did Tai and Cyd. In my opinion, this is circular reasoning. You can see what I mean based on this fantastic tweet: https://twitter.com/domhrv/status/733297779267776514 You're saying all of sudden people thought Michele was a threat because she won. That doesn't make any sense. Michele won after people started to think she was a threat. In my opinion, we're just all revising history and thinking that because Michele won with the jury she had, she HAD to know the jury she was up against would benefit her. That doesn't make any sense, at all. 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. 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 ship based on odor and texture?". No. There's a high possibility he just happened to get lucky. I'll refute your other points later. You aren't making much sense to me right now, because you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I didn't mean she was a threat because she won, I mean that AUBRY REALISED THAT MICHELE WAS THE ONLY PERSON THAT COULD BEAT HER BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T CONTROL HER LIKE SHE DID EVERYONE ELSE. Besides, that tweet has flaws because if you think of it like this:

Michele won b/c the jury respected her game the most (or played a better social game, whatever).

Why did she have a good social game?

Because Michele had formed better relationships with the jury, who respected her game over Aubry's. This was PROVEN CORRECT by the vote.

And can I just say, that I think Aubry played a far better game than Michele personally, but Michele simply got the votes at the end, and Aubry should have realised that with the jury that they had, Michele was the only one that could beat her. I don't recall Aubry ever saying she didn't think she couldn't control Michele. If you look at the voting histories, the only time they didn't vote in sync were at the F8 and F4. The F8 is her fault for not being aware enough, since she seemed blindsided for not being aware of the way the vote was going, and the F4 vote seemed more to me that Cydney was able to convince her to side with her. Based on the way the jury was reaacting during the fire-making challenge, it seemed pretty obvious that Aubry was the more liked player of her, Cydney and Tai. I'm not saying Aubry is a god-tier player, so for me it can be excused that Aubry didn't get 3 votes on Cydney at the F4.

Like I said before, I never saw evidence of the "social game" during the game. You conceded my point that not making enemies is NOT equivalent to having a good social game, and Aubry said the former, not the latter. Michele has got a fantastic edit for someone of her type of gameplay who just plays under-the-radar the entire way through, and should've received a Sophie Clarke edit where she's largely invisible. [This is where I start to become more Edgic-like, so you can pull out all the groans :P.] But she got a fantastic amount of confessionals that explained her gameplay and thought process even when it was absolutely unnecessary. Who could forget her talking about how good the cheeseburger was? If Michele had made strong social bonds, we would've seen it. If the editors are already trying to paint Michele in a positive light, there's no reason not to include scenes of her actually putting her thoughts into practice.

I don't believe winning Survivor means you played a good social game. It could entirely be that the jury had a case of Bitter Jury Syndrome (BJS) and decided not to vote for the people who actively played a tactical game to fight to stay in the game in Aubry and Tai. You could argue that Aubry should've been aware of this, as Ian's link suggests, but just because Aubry failed to lock down the votes doesn't mean Michele did anything to get them. The dominos just happened to fall her way. In her exit interviews, she even says she didn't know whether she won or not, and if her social game was sufficient enough, as Ian's link says it should be since "Survivor is a social game", then she should've been confident she had the vote locked down, since it looks to me that she focused solely on her social game while Aubry was focusing on both social and tactical. You can argue that exit interviews aren't canon, but it's not like Michele is gaining or saving face by saying she didn't know if she won.