Shawna will treat you gingerly...or will she?

[Sydney Wheeler]

May 12, 2012 8:55:35 GMT -5 Chelsea Meissner said:

I never made Tom or Mick give up or swayed them to do so, as Chelsea made it sound. Chelsea wanting to take myself and Matt to the end had to do with us being her two best friends of all pre-existing relationships, not because we were the "strongest" which obviously looks like a better explanation.

I think I’ve stated a few times that you two were the people I trusted the most in this game, I’ve stated that both of you were people I knew outside the game, and then I also stated that you both were the strongest people in the game at that later point. Bottom line is, I would have taken you both to the end because we were loyal to eachtoher, we supposedly had an alliance, and you guys were strong; it was respectable. All those reasons contributed to the fact that I wanted us in the end. I’m not twisting anything to make it look like a “better explanation”.

I told you time and time again that I didn't want Matt at the end. But it came to a point where I had to play up to that with you for strategy. It was never my end-game plan as Matt was playing with your safety in mind, not mine. It is definitely an exaggeration when you pitch you wanted Matt and myself in finals for the reason that it is the "best battling for the title." It makes it look like the main reason you wanted us at the end with you was because you wanted the best to win it all - which just is a jury card. It should be very clear to all you wanted us there as we were your best friends from before the game.

I feel like you’re being a little defensive now. I never said that I didn’t play this game without pre-existing relationships in mind. This whole thing was a pre-existing relationships party of sorts. All I was pointing out was that at the end of the game, the majority of people left were your pre-existing relationships and people that wanted to keep you around most: Tom, Mick, and Sandra was then against me, because two of the bonds were unbreakable and loyal until dead. You did form a deal with Mike – kudos – but you weren’t the only one who branched out outside pre-existing relationships socially. I'm not taking it harshly, just trying to clear it up.

Sandra would have voted us both out and could have easily written my name down. The way the end game shaped up, which I helped shape, made it so she couldn't do that. Thus, she had to go after to you and vice verse. What deals did you make with the other side that have you "branching" out? Talked to Chase a couple times, I gather? But I don't think there is much depth to it. You never watched out for him like I did with Mike. Which was my point. I didn't mean just talking to them..I meant considering them to further your own game.

I don't think I'm over-exaggerating my feelings on this matter. I just think you need better reasons as to why your game works over mine. Your statements twisted some things, so I wanted to make it accurate. If I lose this game, I want to know I went down trying with all the right facts.

I don’t think I said you gave up so Sydney could have more odds? I said that in the game Mick basically laid down his torch for her and that you seemingly rolled over here in the finale. I never said that you did it so Sydney had a better chance to win. But the fact that you even brought that up as a reason proves quite interesting. As for the spinning things, I’m not. I’m telling things how I saw them. You’re more than welcome to debate anything you’d like.

Thanks, Sydney and Tom! Thanks again, Shawna!

"Mick was going to bow out at four, because his only goal in this game was to be a vote for Sydney and help her make the end. And as we can see with Tom right now, it’s like he’s basically doing the same thing."

Your statement^

You implied Tom was rolling over for me here in the finale. Mick did not LAY his torch down for me. You know better than anyone I wanted to take him to the end of this game. It's not my fault he wasn't up for it.

[Chelsea Meissner]

I could sit here and debate your points all day, but in reality, I still have another person’s question to answer, and I’ve pretty much said all I had to say about the matter in this thread. Tom doesn’t deserve to be here, that’s my point. Sorry, Tom. You saying you want to quit and then starting to answer questions all of a sudden out of nowhere is silly. But thank you for picking yourself back up and trying again. It’s better than flailing your arms and running away because someone’s trashing you.

Sydney, you did mold the ending in that way, and I’ve said that, and it was your work. It was a good move; all I was doing was pointing out how two people would have never voted for you based on pre-existing relationships, so the people out of the loop [Matt] got the cut because of it. Everyone got the cut because of it. I’m also kind of tired of you saying that pieces of my game didn’t have depth or that I had no depth in Semhar’s question, when you said I was just “black and white”. It’s a little insulting, but it’s your opinion, and you’re more than welcome to it.

In addition, I respect that you’re bringing these points up and debating them. That’s what this whole medium of a Tribal Council is for. What I don’t respect is Tom trying to build off your approach and trying to seemingly double-team me. I don’t know if this was a planned approach or because Tom just can’t start it and do it himself. It’s really kindergarten. Tom, you know your game was sub-par to Sydney and mine. The post I made to your ‘giving up’ last night said to keep going regardless. Instead you acted defeated because it was your birthday. Okay, then.

Thank you.

[Sydney Wheeler]

May 12, 2012 9:32:08 GMT -5 Chelsea Meissner said:

I could sit here and debate your points all day, but in reality, I still have another person’s question to answer, and I’ve pretty much said all I had to say about the matter in this thread. Tom doesn’t deserve to be here, that’s my point. Sorry, Tom. You saying you want to quit and then starting to answer questions all of a sudden out of nowhere is silly. But thank you for picking yourself back up and trying again. It’s better than flailing your arms and running away because someone’s trashing you.

Sydney, you did mold the ending in that way, and I’ve said that, and it was your work. It was a good move; all I was doing was pointing out how two people would have never voted for you based on pre-existing relationships, so the people out of the loop [Matt] got the cut because of it. Everyone got the cut because of it. I’m also kind of tired of you saying that pieces of my game didn’t have depth or that I had no depth in Semhar’s question, when you said I was just “black and white”. It’s a little insulting, but it’s your opinion, and you’re more than welcome to it.

In addition, I respect that you’re bringing these points up and debating them. That’s what this whole medium of a Tribal Council is for. What I don’t respect is Tom trying to build off your approach and trying to seemingly double-team me. I don’t know if this was a planned approach or because Tom just can’t start it and do it himself. It’s really kindergarten. Tom, you know your game was sub-par to Sydney and mine. The post I made to your ‘giving up’ last night said to keep going regardless. Instead you acted defeated because it was your birthday. Okay, then.

Thank you.

It's not fair to pin my pre-existing relations as the means to why people got "cut." The same goes for you too. Matt was his own undoing in this game, especially when it came to his and I's relationship. He would only tell you information, would leave me out of his plans, and he lied constantly. Despite having such a strong social game with him.

As for me saying your game was black and white, I'm sorry if that insults you, it is just my opinion. I think you'd make a good winner too! I happen to have some bias for my own game, but I just do think your game lacked a sense of depth when COMPARED to mine is all. It stands well on its own, but I'm just looking at them side by side and am trying to convey to the Jury why I think I should win over you. I considered variables outside our alliance.

Tom's feelings on this have got nothing to do with mine. But yes, I'm glad we can keep it as strictly a debate.

[Tom Westman]

uhm no, i only started posting because I read your comment it had nothing to do with Sydney. nor was this a planned attack nor are we scheming against you nor did i bomb some remote island to curse you out. no, so please stop insinuating and/or trying to read more out of what is given. your elaborations are far worse than your actual explanation.

[Chelsea Meissner]

May 12, 2012 10:06:08 GMT -5 Tom Westman said:

uhm no, i only started posting because I read your comment it had nothing to do with Sydney. nor was this a planned attack nor are we scheming against you nor did i bomb some remote island to curse you out. no, so please stop insinuating and/or trying to read more out of what is given. your elaborations are far worse than your actual explanation.

Okay.

[Tom Westman]

you dont have to bring up my shortcomings everytime you wanna explain how awesome you are, you don't need my failures to show them you are superior. I acknowledged you both are superior to my games, but to even stoop so low and put me in the strongest weakest question like i shud be in jury is going too far. you're already making a mockery of me which you don't even need to do. so i don't get it? if you are so confident that you can win this game leave me out of your accomplishments unless the question asks for it because i never dragged you in any of mine well not until you dragged me first.

[Chelsea Meissner]

Tom, you're taking this way too personally.

Calm down.

[Mike Chiesl]

This is what I call a Final Showdown

*eats popcorn*

[Shawna Mitchell]

May 12, 2012 6:16:46 GMT -5 Sydney Wheeler said:

As for the quitting thing Shawna, I think I know what you're referring to. Chelsea fully supported that decision (she agreed that I SHOULD do it), and actually told me NOT to play the game in the first place. (She was an Ex-Co Host of that series) There was a lot of things the PW's in that game didn't know about with what went on in conversations with the Host. I don't think that should come into play here at all since it has nothing to do with Sausage, but I would of course like a chance to explain to you when all is said and done if interested, because no-one likes their rep tarnished. I don't just leave games willy-nilly. But again, not going to talk about a different series right now.

anyways thanks again!

Sydney, this game was a frickin orgy of pre-existing relationships. I'm still being surprised at people I knew in this game, some I didn't find out until after. My point to this line of questioning was just to take a subject that's been sort of a theme in this finale and build on it by applying it to other aspects of the game. Like the quitting issue, for example. My point wasn't to say I thought one way or another on the subject. I just wanted to see how both of you would answer it - er sorry I mean all three of you but I keep forgetting that Tom has thrown his hat back into the ring.

And, I think I know the game you're referring to as well. First of all, if you want to hear my opinion on that we can talk after the game....that's if you really want to hear it, lol. I may have an opinion on the subject of quitting games but I am certainly not a perfect person...and I'll just leave that right where it is, lol. Everyone makes mistakes and people also tend to play differently in different games, blahblahblah.

My point is, I did ask you all about pre-judging, past games, etc etc to get you talking about that subject and to see how you handled yourselves. I will be looking at this game when I cast my vote, though. I've been reading every single word, with the exception of the answers to Stephanie and Mike's questions which were a lot about how you felt about them, lol. I kinda skimmed that stuff since I could care less.

The main thing I am looking at with you, Sydney, is the fact that you keep drilling it into our heads that you had the control in the game going into the end because you had Mick and Tom who would never write your name down. That speaks of a definite strategy, especially since I think a finale of you, Mick and Tom would have probably won you the game. So, then when you talk about your reasons for keeping Chelsea, it was because of loyalty if I understand correctly, but that kind of blows your control issue for me since I don't think that was your smartest move if you were playing such a strategic, in-control game. To me it seems you want it both ways. You want to show how bad-ass you were for controlling two zombies who would eat their own brains out to protect you, but then understand that you were doing it more out of loyalty because you wanted your pal Chelsea sitting at the end with you too. These are two conflicting strategies and one lessens the other's strength in my opinion.

Also, in your answer above you basically outed Chelsea to me. I had no idea who she was and I would never have asked her until after the game. That wasn't cool.

Anyway, my point is I'm still undecided, as I think some others may be, and anything either of you (sigh, all of you) have to say is still being considered.

[Sydney Wheeler]

The main thing I am looking at with you, Sydney, is the fact that you keep drilling it into our heads that you had the control in the game going into the end because you had Mick and Tom who would never write your name down. That speaks of a definite strategy, especially since I think a finale of you, Mick and Tom would have probably won you the game. So, then when you talk about your reasons for keeping Chelsea, it was because of loyalty if I understand correctly, but that kind of blows your control issue for me since I don't think that was your smartest move if you were playing such a strategic, in-control game. To me it seems you want it both ways. You want to show how bad-ass you were for controlling two zombies who would eat their own brains out to protect you, but then understand that you were doing it more out of loyalty because you wanted your pal Chelsea sitting at the end with you too. These are two conflicting strategies and one lessens the other's strength in my opinion.

Also, in your answer above you basically outed Chelsea to me. I had no idea who she was and I would never have asked her until after the game. That wasn't cool.

Anyway, my point is I'm still undecided, as I think some others may be, and anything either of you (sigh, all of you) have to say is still being considered.

I don't think I was ever asked why I took Chelsea to the end over other my other alliance. I never really got into it, just mentioned in my opening I was most loyal to her and Mick. Loyalty - yes, I didn't want to lose a friend especially when someone else was asking to go. Chelsea and I had a pact very early on to go to the end with one another, and that was strengthened over the course of the game. I knew she'd never write my name down and vice verse. I'm not afraid of her like she's some big bad unbeatable beast. A couple people tried to use that strategy to turn me against her, but I was in a very secure spot and felt my decisions were being made with each passing round. We've played alongside eachother from the start so I feel turning on her would have been pretty low based on our relationship, and what it boils down to is I want to beat her. I have illustrated my power in comparison to hers in the later stages of the game, hoping it would be recognized. Whenever someone takes two people deemed "goats" to the end of the game, it doesn't look good, and Juries may try to dig deep into one of those goats to see if there is a case to be made, so the Final Tribal Council isn't so painfully boring for everyone involved. lol It wouldn't look good on me to backstab Chelsea anyway, especially when Mick was content with leaving. I was and am fine going against any of the players left, and while I know it'll be more challenging, it would be more rewarding at the same time to win against Chelsea.

Oops [about outing Chelsea to you]. She wasn't really an alias in this game really, so I didn't think she cared and figured everyone knew lol. I sort of figured everyone knew too

[Shawna Mitchell]

Oh, sorry, I could have sworn that was asked and answered. Anyway, I must have garnered the answer based on answers to other questions. Thanks for setting the record straight, though.