Structural

[Hercule Poirot]

I promise I'm not pandering for your votes. I just wrote zat in my confessional and zen I realized zat I could say eet 'ere.

[Lennie Briscoe]

Also can I just say zat I missed both of you, Mlle Hopps and M. Briscoe? You are such opposite people eet ees hilarious to me, like ze leetle devil and leetle angel on my shoulder. Trying to be in an alliance with both of you was such a delight.

Hahaha I'm reluctant to speculate who's the devil and who's the angel, I enjoyed our time immensely though. I truly can't wait until this is all said and done and we can talk BB Allstars 2, but I don't want to derail TC. Week 2 should be very interesting for the game.

[Hercule Poirot]

I'm going to turn in for ze night, mes amis. I believe zat I am all caught up on questions? If I missed your question, je suis désolé, but point eet out for me and I will respond to eet tomorrow.

Until zen, bonne nuit tout le monde.

[Judy Hopps]

Wait who is who?

[Judy Hopps]

Will say. I was so against your plan of Lennie at 5 because I was convinced you would turn on me at 5.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Finally, a bit of an easier one— how do you think challenges impacted your game, whether it be positive or negative? In what ways did you work with or around them to get what you wanted?

I think challenges impacted my game in a very positive way. I was able to do well in challenges and make it to merge without a lot of challenges and it helped me secure my spot in the finals towards the end of the game as well.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

For both of you, how did idols, secret powers, and the like impact your gameplay?


Poirot, specifically, with the Tiger Idol, had you always known that you would utilize it for the benefit of a group instead of yourself, or was that a split decision made during that tribal or was that always the intention?

Idols and other powers definitely had an impact. It contributed a little bit to the decision to vote Nick out on Strike Team and furthermore it was one of the reasons why I tried to keep a little bit of a lower profile during merge. I knew they were likely to pop up and could cause problems.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

I have a question for both of you: At any point during this game, did you ever try to purposefully do worse in a challenge to manage your threat level on that front? Did you ever sit out for similar reasons?

Hercule, this is something we talked about a little, but I want you to elaborate a little more on how you felt the swaps helped or hurt you. You were with Judy basically the entire game, how did this effect the way you played with her? Additionally, you were part of the tiger idol finders, and it was widely known that you found it first and let Judy keep while the target was on her. Was that a good move on your part or not?

Luci, I don't think there's any particular things I want to ask you about how you used this game to your advantage, because I think that's exactly what you did, you took the hand the game dealt you, and you used it as best as you possibly could and you are here. So, instead, what I will ask you is, is there something about the structure of the game that you used for your benefit that maybe we as the jury don't know about, or something you want to highlight about your play that you don't think we'd ask about and was vital to your journey this game?

I spent about 10 or 15 minutes on the first merge challenge and then submitted my score- I don't know if I would've won even if I had tried to go further, but I didn't want to win and I also never really was particularly vocal about early merge challenges. Like I tried to be there and be helpful but not overdo it. Besides that one challenge, I tried to win the merge challenges to a degree- this might sound weird- but I feel like I'm somebody that performs well under pressure and can kind of perform better when they need to? So like I wasn't not trying in the earlier challenges, but I was trying especially hard in the last few? Like I felt like those were important so I focused in and did my best and won them.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

For Lucifer. Do you feel like your plan was always to be a challenge threat. I feel like in your speech you talked this up despite not really exhibiting it as far as I can tell. Can you talk about your contributions to BAU challenges please as you did not enter merge seen as a challenge threat and didn't come in to you prime until the last couple after myself and Penny had been removed?

Poirot. I know most of the structural parts of game, but I will fact check on you with the above question if you take credit.

To clarify- I wasn't trying to say I was a challenge threat necessarily and I certainly wasn't portrayed as that  perceptually in the game. Like I said in my speech, it was 'quietly' one of my strengths. On the BAU- I found quite a few things in the logo challenge and solved about 2/3rds of my anagrams. And I think I had some clutch challenge performances in very important rounds. I wouldn't even say that I was better than you/Penelope at challenges in particular, but I won when it mattered most against you and I think I set myself up in a position to succeed. I knew that the FIC is really important so I made sure I had people there that I felt confident I could beat and then I capitalized on that opportunity.

[Hercule Poirot]

Will say. I was so against your plan of Lennie at 5 because I was convinced you would turn on me at 5.

Eet ees possible, but I don't think I would 'ave. You and M. Peralta were ze two people in ze game who I felt ze most confident actually intended to sit with me in ze end, which was something zat I never took for granted. M. Briscoe I thought wanted to, but also 'e would need to be forced into doing eet. 'E was definitely not going to choose to go to ze end with me over people 'e thought 'e 'ad an easier time beating. Zat ees just not ze kind of person 'e ees.

I think keeping you until at least F4 gave me a very strong shot of making eet past 4, whereas with you eliminated at 5, final 4 became an extremely dangerous vote pour moi. I mean I think F4 ended up being an extremely dangerous vote for me with ze way things played out regardless, partially because I didn't keep people like you and M. Briscoe around down ze line, though eet being a F2 instead of a F3 was incredibly good for my game. But you even said yourself zat I was basically a lock for F4 at a certain point, and I never truly doubted from ze time zat M. Peralta went 'ome on zat I would make eet to ze F4, so eet was just a matter of making eet with ze best F4 zat I could to actually 'ave a shot at making eet to ze end.

Eet ees all kind of theoretical at zis point. Eet would also depend on who was in ze F5 with us, because you were scary in challenges and sometimes I felt confident zat I could beat you in ze end, but other times I doubted eet. I 'ad no immediate plans to take you out prior to ze M. Peralta and M. Briscoe votes, 'owever. M. Briscoe 'owever definitely did, and I knew zat zat was going to be a problem zat I eventually would 'ave to solve.

[Hercule Poirot]

Wait who is who?

No comment, mon amie, hahahahahaha

I meant eet more just to illustrate zat you are opposites pulling me in different directions zan to suggest zat one ees good and ze other ees evil. You both are angels naturellement 

[Scruff McGruff]

Quick question to both finalists and the jurors: What’s your favorite FTC format?

1. One like this that’s defined by social, strategic, and structural?

2. One where each finalist has their own thread to talk and answer questions in so that they’re less likely to miss things.

3. One where each Juror has their own thread to personally address the finalists?

In my opinion, I’m a big fan of number three since it doesn’t restrict any questions to one of three categories, it allows jurors to feel like they have more of a stake in the end, and is easier for finalists to keep track of and respond to— not to mention nobody really talks over one another.

[Lennie Briscoe]

I mean, I don't feel like I'm ever going to have a question and be agonizing over which thread to put it in, so that aspect of this format doesn't really bother me. The jury can do what they want with questioning, the same way they can vote how they want. It's not like there's going to be riots in the streets if I ask someone what their favorite immunity win was in the Social thread.

I'm relatively new so I haven't seen the per-Juror thread format but I'm not sure I'd care for that? I think that ideally, jurors pay attention to everything the finalists say, not just the answers to their own questions, and I could see hypothetical jurors easily just reading their own thread. Obviously people in any format can just skim over anything not directly pertaining to them, but I wouldn't want a format that optimizes for that.

I was considering asking the finalists to rate the social/strategic/structural format on a scale from 3 to 18 though.

[Hercule Poirot]

Quick question to both finalists and the jurors: What’s your favorite FTC format?

1. One like this that’s defined by social, strategic, and structural?

2. One where each finalist has their own thread to talk and answer questions in so that they’re less likely to miss things.

3. One where each Juror has their own thread to personally address the finalists?

In my opinion, I’m a big fan of number three since it doesn’t restrict any questions to one of three categories, it allows jurors to feel like they have more of a stake in the end, and is easier for finalists to keep track of and respond to— not to mention nobody really talks over one another.

I prefer number 3 aussi. I do understand ze criticisms of eet. Zis format focuses ze conversation on directly comparing ze games of ze finalists, at least in theory. I think in practice, a lot of ze Jurors just ask ze questions zey were going to probably ask anyway, but zey do eet in a way where ze finalists are more likely to forget to respond to a question. But I do think zat maybe in some situations eet could make eet easier to see direct points of contrast or give ze Jurors some way to think about ze finalists' games or at least a place to start from.

But also, each Juror 'aving zeir own thread ees so much more dramatique to me. I'm so nostalgic for old Survivor, so I love zat zis game was a F2, and each Juror standing up and 'aving zeir moment of glory and demanding zeir pound of flesh ees so satisfying. I know zat some Jurors are inclined to make eet all about zem, but honestly, eet ees all about zem. You all put hours and hours into zis game, and zen we voted you out. You've earned your right to 'ave zis moment and to say your piece. In zis format, some Jurors inevitably get lost in ze crowd.

I also think eet might be more aligned with ze way zat I think about ze game en général. I'm a social person. I value my individual relationships. I don't think your game being good in a general way ees enough. I think you need to prove eet to each and every Juror and give zem what zey need for zem to vote for you. And in zat format, each Juror can make zeir thread ze place where zey get what zey need to determine zeir vote.

[Hercule Poirot]

Also social/strategic/structural are not distinct things in my mind. Zey all go 'and in 'and, social and strategic especially. Your social relationships inform your strategy, and your strategy informs what you do socially. If your social game ees bad, zen you strategy 'as to be entirely différent zan if your social game ees good.

I think even looking at where we 'ave taken zese threads, we definitely 'ave blurred lines, but eet ees okay. At ze end of ze day, FTC belongs to ze Jurors no matter 'ow eet ees structured.