|
|
Post by Chase Rice on May 4, 2012 16:43:15 GMT -5
I'm kind of surprised that Mick and Tom had no interest in voting Chelsea off this past round. Their best shot in the game seemed to be a Sandra/Mick/Tom finale, which I think Sandra would have won but they would at least have a shot at swaying some personal votes as opposed to going with Chelsea/Sydney who people don't seem to have as much personal issues with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Semhar Tadesse on May 4, 2012 17:08:22 GMT -5
Sandra, when did I attack your personal life? I don't recall doing that whatsoever.
I actually agree Chase, though it's kind of clear neither of them is really playing to win, otherwise they wouldn't have done the decisions that have they have been making for half the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by John McBain on May 4, 2012 17:36:49 GMT -5
Go Semhar <3
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandra Diaz-Twine on May 6, 2012 8:57:49 GMT -5
I agree, Chase. Glad at leat you didn't take my post ~to heart and are actually talking about the players left in the game. Here is what is actually happening. Tom and Mick are playing for Sydney. However Sydney is playing for Chelsea but is blind to it. Basically, Sydney's statement will be that Chelsea's game had flaws [aka the Matt vote] but if she makes it to the Finale, then that wouldn't matter. If Sydney wanted Chelsea gone, she'd have left and Mick/Tom would've voted her. I tried to tell her that. And in my personal opinion it was stupid of Sydney not to incrase her chances of winning. She claims she wouldn't vote out her friends, but she would. On the other hand Chelsea's game was up to Sydney. However I feel like she had a better use of their relationship/bond/alliance whatever you want to call it, especially if she makes it to the Finale. Because of that, I'd have a hard time deciding which one of them to vote for. Sydney had people doing whatever she wanted to, but wouldn't make sure she has the best chance of winning. Chelsea would've gone if it wasn't for Sydney, but it could be seen as her taking advantage of their bond. Semhar, you did it when you weren't in the *mood* to be *nice* to me because you had a rough day. Boo, thanks for the support. <3 And I DO remember you totally hating on me while playing together.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Chiesl on May 6, 2012 13:18:51 GMT -5
I don't think Sydney is playing for Chelsea, I think they are both working together to get each other to the end, but I think Sydney has more power as she has Tom and Mick, and could choose to get Chelsea out is she wants. The reason she voted Matt out because she knew she would be number 3 with them.
In my opinion she put herself in teh best position all game as she now has Tom who is closest with Sydney, Mick who is closest with Sydney, and Chelsea who is closest with Sydney.
I see that she planned it that way to have everyone left wanting to take her.
I think Chelsea is playing great too, but I still think Sydney has had this entired game in her control and has never lost it.
|
|
|
|
Post by John McBain on May 6, 2012 14:23:24 GMT -5
Mike are you a Spy sent by Gregg to see what I do?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Chiesl on May 6, 2012 21:33:22 GMT -5
Mike are you a Spy sent by Gregg to see what I do?  Shhhhhhhhhhhhh |
|
|
|
Post by Sandra Diaz-Twine on May 6, 2012 22:23:04 GMT -5
Sydney's rason to vote Matt was because she thought she couldn't beat him, period. She thinks she can beat Chelsea because her game has *flaws*. She put herself in the best position, but isn't making the best out of it. Out of the entire F5 Chelsea was her only competition and she's willing to take her to the end, which is .. stupid? She would say she was loyal to her *alliance*, but we saw what happened with Matt. Sydney's full of hypocrisy as long as you know the whole story. And Chelsea can dominate at Final Tribals, despite being fake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Semhar Tadesse on May 6, 2012 22:29:27 GMT -5
I, surprisingly, agree with Sandra. I think Sydney had a lot of chances to take out Chelsea, who we ALL pointed out was the best player left, so letting her skate to the finals while knowing how much stronger we consider it is an absolute fallacy. If Sydney wants to win she needs Chelsea gone this round. Period.
Sandra, if I did say something I do appologize, that day was absolutely awful and you weren't making things easy by coming over and attacking me, I do remember telling you to stop cause I was already an emotional mess but you kept pushing so I can see myself getting out of control and saying something completely uncalled for [though, quite frankly I don't remember]. I have NOTHING against you outside of this game, that is not who I am, and I don't hold grudges either. We were friends at one point, but this game we were mortal enemies, which happens. I'd love to talk things through with you at some point if you are willing, so we can stay in good terms. This is just a game and it should stay that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandra Diaz-Twine on May 6, 2012 22:32:28 GMT -5
I totally agree with you, Semhar. I also do have nothing against you, becase this is just a game. I tried talking things out with Shawna, but she acted like a kid. I don't hold grudges either so I don't see why we couldn't fix it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Semhar Tadesse on May 6, 2012 22:34:09 GMT -5
Okay, I'll hit you up soon then. I have a very busy night and the week won't be any better [I'm hosting a Hunger Games program for my college that goes the whole week until we crown a Victor] but I sure hope we can talk sometime soon |
|
|
|
Post by Sandra Diaz-Twine on May 6, 2012 22:42:39 GMT -5
Have fun then! On the flipside about Chelsea-Sydney, Chelsea could be seen as another pawn of Sydney's She hasn't really done anything this whole game and even let her cloest ally go without being abole to do anything. If she can convince me she used her relationship with Sydney to advance in the game, she will get my vote. If not, Sydney will get it most likely despite her foolish decision to take Chelsea. Well, only if both of them are at the Final Tribal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Semhar Tadesse on May 6, 2012 22:45:08 GMT -5
I think it's pretty obvious the questioning should be aimed to the two of them and trying to out-sell each other. Personally I intend to fully ignore the third player, as I don't think they can market themselves enough to get my vote, no matter what. If Chelsea/Sydney join us next, which I hope is not the case so we have an interesting finale, then the other one gets my vote automatically. I can truthfuly not think of anything Tom or Mick can say that would impress me enough into voting for them.
Then again I always go into FTC with an open mind, and weirder things have happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandra Diaz-Twine on May 6, 2012 22:54:16 GMT -5
Same here pretty much. I am leaning towards Sydne a little bit, but taking Chelsea to the end isn't at all wise and I don't think it should be rewarded at all. Then again, Chelsea was out of the loop quite a bit. She thinks I've wanted her gone for awhile, when in fact I never did. She's also made fun out of everyone and has been fake in this game, so my vote will be based on the Jury questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Chiesl on May 6, 2012 23:12:04 GMT -5
Yes you all bring up valid points, so I think how they answer the questions we have and figure out who was using who and who had most control of the game will be very interesting to see and I am looking forward to hearing what they have to say...that is if they are both in the finals which I hope they are.
Tom/Mick may surprise us too....you never know
|
|
