|
|
Post by Sandra Diaz-Twine on May 6, 2012 23:15:55 GMT -5
To be quite honest with you, I expect them both to say they were working *together*. If that's the case, Sydney would get my vote because Chelsea would be just another of her pawns pretty much. But only if both of them say so. I don't think Mick and Tom could really surprsie us at all, but we shall see. Another thing I disliked about Sydney is that she told me who Mick was, but asked me to *repsect* him and not tell anyone. Yeah, sure, that's why she told me. xD
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandra Diaz-Twine on May 6, 2012 23:18:37 GMT -5
I see that she planned it that way to have everyone left wanting to take her. Yeah, that's pretty much the case. When I was pleading to her [knowing that whoever she voted would go, because Mick-Tom would do thte same] I told her that she'd be in the same position at F4, and she asked me "as in safe?" and I told her yes. Just her odds would be better as of winning, but she decided not to do that. Hence why I said she's playing for Chelsea in a way. |
|
|
|
Post by Sandra Diaz-Twine on May 6, 2012 23:24:14 GMT -5
About the pre-game alliances on Salchicha. It's not that we all signed up together for this game, we just knew each other and Chelsea made the best out of Matt winning the captain's challenge because they are pretty close and everyone on that tribe was a friend of hers and since she's taking games personally she probably would want to work with us.
Personally for me, as I said in one of my other comments, I was put in that position to go with them. I tried to work with Chase at the Amber re-vote, and he denied. I tried to work with Semhar and Mike at the swap, but they both denied. I had a good deal going on with Misty and Steph L. and I was planning on working with them at the merge as well but neither made it. I was also planning on working with Jay-Tom when we hit the F6 [which I would've liked to be me-Matt-Chels-Tom-Jay-Sydney], but Jay screwed it up a little too early.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandra Diaz-Twine on May 6, 2012 23:33:10 GMT -5
Now that Sydney won Immunity, and if she was honest about keeping Chelsea to the end, Mick would join us because according to her he's fine with losing and he'd be a Jury vote for her~
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandra Diaz-Twine on May 7, 2012 0:35:13 GMT -5
I just wanted to adress this .. I found it really funny and desparete when you guys were trying to convince people that they'd be used as pawns when that was what you wanted to do. xD Chase, I read somewhere here in the Jury that you wanted Amber gone, and the way you handled that whole situation was absolutely terrible. You were really trasnperant and totally screwed yourself in the long-term. And then you talk about skill - just hilarious and priceless to watch. I could careless about challenges to be quite honest with you, this isn't BB. And I didn't make it far becasue of pre-existing relationships, but because I knew how to position myself and who would take me farther rather than be all over the place and desparete to look good in people's eyes while failing horribly at it. I give you the leadership qualities on Chorizo, but that's about it.
Obviously Sydney is taking Chelsea to the Finale because she feels confident that she can beat Chelsea, because of her *flaws*. Funny stuff. Though I love how Chelsea played Sydney like a fiddle. An example of this is that she told her Matt/her would have had the chance to vote Tom at 9 only when it was convient, and according to Sydney they've discussed everything when in fact Chelsea is using her to advance in the game. Hopefully they both make it to the Final TC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chase Rice on May 7, 2012 1:31:07 GMT -5
Theres a lot to catch up on here haha.
For Sandras last post. At the merge, I was in trouble and only had 1 move left and that was trying to convince people they were getting played and would be a pawn, so I didnt have a choice but to use that card because I had no moves left. However, I posted somewhere in here that the BEST thing the "middle" players (or who I felt were the middle players at the time) of Jay, Steph, Sekou, Tom, Mick, Savage etc. They should have gotten together and voted off both my side of me-Sem-Shawna-Mike AND the other side of Matt-Chelsea-Sydney-Sandra because our sides were so firmly against each other that they could have went back and forth picking off one from each side. It would have taken us at least 3 rounds I would say to figure out what they were doing, since the first would be them going to one side, the 2nd they could flip and then the 3rd they would flip back. By that time, those 6 would be the majority and could then go to final 6 together and they would have all had a great shot at winning and flipping the whole game around. So that was their best move IMO but obviously that didnt happen. So of course I knew I was feeding out a bunch of BS, but I had no other cards left to play at that time. I didnt have cards left to play because my tribe lost several of the early challenges and couldnt get idols for later in the game. So the other side held all the idols which gave them more power than us since they could keep the pawns on their side by scaring them into thinking they might use them on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandra Diaz-Twine on May 7, 2012 1:42:01 GMT -5
Yeah, that makes sense, but that wasn't really going to happen because Mick was with Sydney and so was Tom. Jay thought he was with Matt, Sekou wasn't even around, Steph had Savage only and that's about it. It's a good plan on paper but it was never going to happen IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chase Rice on May 7, 2012 1:44:27 GMT -5
Also as far as the wishy-washy goes. I agree about 90%, I did have a hard time choosing which way to go, but the only reason things flipped so much about each vote was because we had no idols and knew the other side had them all, so things had to be changed often. Also, I always felt like Bobby Jon, Tom and for a while Mike were leaking info to the other side, so when they would ask me questions about votes,I would give them info and then have to go back and change everything with my allies because I had to make sure that what info was being passed on was always different so that the other side couldnt predict what we were going to do and the only way I really felt safe was to make sure NOBODY, not even myself or my own alliance knew what it was doing until the very last second. So this made people feel uncomfortable with me because they knew I flipped stuff around a lot and wasnt really solid on certian moves. So that hurt me at the merge for sure
|
|
|
|
Post by Chase Rice on May 7, 2012 1:45:37 GMT -5
Yeah, that makes sense, but that wasn't really going to happen because Mick was with Sydney and so was Tom. Jay thought he was with Matt, Sekou wasn't even around, Steph had Savage only and that's about it. It's a good plan on paper but it was never going to happen IMO. Oh yeah, now that I know where more people stood in the game, it wouldnt have worked at all. i agree |
|
|
|
Post by Chase Rice on May 7, 2012 1:56:01 GMT -5
But anyway, back to the important peoples games......Syd and Chelsea. Personally I think both made a lot of great moves and did a great job at keeping themselves safe in the game. However, Sydney has the power to get rid of Chelsea who is her strategic equal IMO and Sydney claims to make moves 'to have the best shot at winning' so she got rid of Matt and stuff. However, she has the best shot against Tom/Mick and its obvious. So if she backs down now from her original strategy of 'playing to win' then I just dont think id be able to vote for her. That eliminated her whole reason for voting out Matt/Sandra and anyone else she was ever aligned with and it moves from being 'strategy to win' to 'who I like most' because she picked off all her other 'friends' under the notion of setting herself up to win but by taking Chelsea that makes all of that other just seem like bull shit. Why is her alliance to Chelsea more important than her alliance to Matt, Sandra, Mike or whoever else?
Technically Sydney is in the best spot since Tom/Mick want her in the end and Chelsea is only 1 vote so had no choice but to keep her (plus she won immunity so ya know) but I dont wanna give her the win for being "the most safe," Tom and Mick dont seem to care about winning and are only here to advance Sydney further. Very similar to someone like Jordan going back on Big Brother to advance Jeff along since she had no real interest in winning the game. So I dont fault Chelsea for not having 2 zombies fighting to keep her alive but, Id have to fault Sydney for NOT taking advantage of 2 zombies who want to throw themselves in front of a bus for her especially in a game like Survivor.
On the Redemption Island season Boston Rob set himself up by taking Phillip and Natalie to the end where they both just conceded to Rob getting the win because they just did whatever he wanted right to the end. Whereas someone like 4th place Ashley played a solid game and while she wasnt "in control," she was in the majority and its not her fault that 2 people were crazy enough to lay down their whole game for Robs benefit. Rob was smart and took the 2 weaker players, but if he took Ashley it would jeopardize his chances. This is a really similar situation IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandra Diaz-Twine on May 7, 2012 2:17:29 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree with what you said. I told that to Sydney but she was reluctant about it. I told Tom I was voting Chelsea, and tried to talk with Matt [knowing who he is] but he doesn't really care about the game all that much so it was never going to work with him.
However Chelsea had a few zombies in the game and didn't put herself in that great of a position, but she has Sydney which is just as good to make it to the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chase Rice on May 7, 2012 3:02:40 GMT -5
Yeah im pretty sure ill vote Chelsea just because I understand her game more than Sydneys but Im open between the 2 if they are both in the finale
|
|
|
|
Post by Semhar Tadesse on May 7, 2012 3:17:44 GMT -5
I think if Sydney says she took Chelsea to the end because she wanted to win against the best, I might give her a bigger chance at my vote, just because it would show she didn't take the easy way out. And it would show some confidence on the game she played, I have always hated when people take two pawns because it makes me feel like they know they didn't play all that great so they had to go against trash to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandra Diaz-Twine on May 7, 2012 3:30:21 GMT -5
I think that's what she is going to say actually, but then, she could've taken Matt too for the same reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Semhar Tadesse on May 7, 2012 3:37:24 GMT -5
True, but in a strategic way she couldn't control the votes and ensure making the finals without using Tom and Mick as her little bitches.
|
|
