Post by silas on Mar 7, 2012 13:46:43 GMT -5
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury
First of all I want to thank everyone for a wonderful game experience. As a primarily Big Brother game player, I greatly enjoyed my time in this survivor game. I think that everyone in the Jury is very deserving of where they are and would be deserving members of the final 3. I want to say that i like all of you. The reason why I say all of that first is that I'm the kind of person that when we get down to this final stage where we fight for votes, i'm not afraid to tell it like it is, point out other's flaws, or argue why I am more deserving than others. So i hope you understand that I will fight as hard as possible to win this and not afraid to be negative as well as positive, even though i really like you all.
In my opening statement I want to address the 2 elephants in the room. The first elephant is "SILAS!!! You were voted out once! How could you deserve to win the game??" My answer to that is that the game of survivor has changed. Just like in several other reality shows, the prospect of a returning player is no longer a foreign concept, and if that individual shouldn't be able to win, then why bring them back. If you look at the last real season of survivor, had Ozzy made it to the final tribal it was clear he would have win despite not being voted out once, but TWICE!!! There are reasons for why I was voted out the first time, both for reasons in and out of my control. I learned from those mistakes, paid my penance by a long stay on DMI and having to survive 5 do-or-die eliminations, and once I returned to the game played a very strong game to get where I am now.
The second elephant is "SILAS!!!! Russell won tons of challenges, so clearly he should win!!" My response to that is that first of all, challenges are only a portion of the game. And i'd like to argue that in an online game, challenge power gets too much credit. This isn't the real show with jumping/climbing/swimming/puzzles/balance etc. Most of these challenges come down to internet/posting speed or expendible free time to win endurance challenges. Not to take anything away from Russell, he won those challenges fair and square, but I don't think the traits that go into winning those challenges prove who is a better player. And while I might not have won individual challenges since returning, I proved my own challenge abilities starting at DMI and needing to survive 5 elimination rounds and win 3 heads-up showdowns that often featured multiple parts to the challenges, so I won challenges too.
When we look at strategy and social game play I do think in this post-merge game I played a better game than russell. In a weird way his ability to win challenges I think made him lazy or not need to play the strategic game. He just kind of viewed the game as "bad guys here, good guys here" and just voted. I feel that I had more of an effect on who went home, and especially the rounds that Lex and Gary were eliminated, those occurred due to my work. Again I don't mean this to say "russell sucks" but to encourage strategic gameplay to be viewed over challenges, and in this aspect i believe i was better. I also was able to navigate through this game with no prizes or hidden immunities and was able to tiptoe around all the landmines of the other prizes people had and maneuver myself to the end.
I don't want this to look like i'm picking on Russell and not Ami. I think I am deserving to win over both of them, but I wanted to address the idea that has been floating around that russell in the end = guaranteed win. Would he deserve his win? Sure. Would Ami? Sure. Would I? Yes, and i believe more so and am willing to defend that. I just ask that the jury keep an open mind and not make up their mind until the end of this process. I look forward to all of your questions and that you can appreciate and respect the game that I played. Thank you.
First of all I want to thank everyone for a wonderful game experience. As a primarily Big Brother game player, I greatly enjoyed my time in this survivor game. I think that everyone in the Jury is very deserving of where they are and would be deserving members of the final 3. I want to say that i like all of you. The reason why I say all of that first is that I'm the kind of person that when we get down to this final stage where we fight for votes, i'm not afraid to tell it like it is, point out other's flaws, or argue why I am more deserving than others. So i hope you understand that I will fight as hard as possible to win this and not afraid to be negative as well as positive, even though i really like you all.
In my opening statement I want to address the 2 elephants in the room. The first elephant is "SILAS!!! You were voted out once! How could you deserve to win the game??" My answer to that is that the game of survivor has changed. Just like in several other reality shows, the prospect of a returning player is no longer a foreign concept, and if that individual shouldn't be able to win, then why bring them back. If you look at the last real season of survivor, had Ozzy made it to the final tribal it was clear he would have win despite not being voted out once, but TWICE!!! There are reasons for why I was voted out the first time, both for reasons in and out of my control. I learned from those mistakes, paid my penance by a long stay on DMI and having to survive 5 do-or-die eliminations, and once I returned to the game played a very strong game to get where I am now.
The second elephant is "SILAS!!!! Russell won tons of challenges, so clearly he should win!!" My response to that is that first of all, challenges are only a portion of the game. And i'd like to argue that in an online game, challenge power gets too much credit. This isn't the real show with jumping/climbing/swimming/puzzles/balance etc. Most of these challenges come down to internet/posting speed or expendible free time to win endurance challenges. Not to take anything away from Russell, he won those challenges fair and square, but I don't think the traits that go into winning those challenges prove who is a better player. And while I might not have won individual challenges since returning, I proved my own challenge abilities starting at DMI and needing to survive 5 elimination rounds and win 3 heads-up showdowns that often featured multiple parts to the challenges, so I won challenges too.
When we look at strategy and social game play I do think in this post-merge game I played a better game than russell. In a weird way his ability to win challenges I think made him lazy or not need to play the strategic game. He just kind of viewed the game as "bad guys here, good guys here" and just voted. I feel that I had more of an effect on who went home, and especially the rounds that Lex and Gary were eliminated, those occurred due to my work. Again I don't mean this to say "russell sucks" but to encourage strategic gameplay to be viewed over challenges, and in this aspect i believe i was better. I also was able to navigate through this game with no prizes or hidden immunities and was able to tiptoe around all the landmines of the other prizes people had and maneuver myself to the end.
I don't want this to look like i'm picking on Russell and not Ami. I think I am deserving to win over both of them, but I wanted to address the idea that has been floating around that russell in the end = guaranteed win. Would he deserve his win? Sure. Would Ami? Sure. Would I? Yes, and i believe more so and am willing to defend that. I just ask that the jury keep an open mind and not make up their mind until the end of this process. I look forward to all of your questions and that you can appreciate and respect the game that I played. Thank you.