Structural

[Lucifer Morningstar]

I'm not sure where else to put this question, so it can go here. For both of you, what do you think each juror is looking for from you in order to give you their vote? Do you think you've done enough to show that for each person? If you were on the jury, what criteria would you be using to vote and in what ways does the game you played fit that?

I value everyone's opinion and don't want to discount any jurors, but truth be told I think it's probably an unrealistic goal for me to win every juror's vote here and I think there's a decent chance it's impossible to do that without contradicting myself and making a mess of the game I played. I'm trying to highlight my game and what I think it represents and do so in a way that hopefully makes the jurors that appreciate the way I played inclined to vote for me. For other jurors who prefer something else, I'm trying to highlight the ways I played that might fit still their criterion and also show them that perhaps they should evaluate the game a little bit differently. Like if you're the type of juror who loves blindsides for instance and thinks they're fun to watch and the best part of Survivor, then I think it's highly improbable that you'd vote for me over Hercule because I never really pulled off a blindside and he did. But I do think that if you value challenge prowess especially in clutch situations and the resilient gameplay of someone who was on the bottom at times and lost some allies and struggled a little bit, but still ultimately persevered and never gave up hope and fought hard to get here- then I think I can make a compelling case that you should vote for me.

It's been a long time since I was on a jury and it changes depending on the individual circumstances. Unless I feel personally wronged by a finalist, I think I'm often willing to go into TC very open-minded and listen to the different arguments and side with who made the better case.

[Hercule Poirot]

So going into F4 I knew I wanted to target Rust or Hercule. Early on, I actually considered giving Leon my immunity necklace since I thought I had much better odds winning a tiebreaker challenge in the event it was necessary (I wasn't sure it was at that point) and wanted to keep him safe, but after some of the stuff I heard I decided I was firmly against that, because I wasn't that convinced he'd vote with me if I was vulnerable- I felt like having leverage in that situation was important for me. Personally, I was leaning towards Rust, but I knew Leon really preferred getting Hercule out and I was prepared to go with that if I needed to.


So at the start of the TC, we kind of agreed to vote Hercule- but then a few hours after it started- Leon decided to pitch the idea of tying the vote between Hercule and Rust and forcing the two of them to do a firemaking challenge. I was strongly opposed to this, I wasn't certain they were voting Leon at that point, but I was suspicious about it and even if it was possible from a strategic perspective it didn't make a lot of sense to me. I felt like we needed to try to take out the bigger threat and forcing a firemaking challenge seemed like a no decision and I thought that was a pretty bad idea, so I told him I really didn't want to do that. Then early the next morning he sent me a message about still wanting to vote Hercule, but a couple hours later- before I could respond, sent me a message that he'd changed his mind and was OK with Rust. So we agreed to vote there and I thought things were set. I did get a message from Rust saying that the jury was 'a lot more pro-Leon than I realized' or something along those lines about 20 minutes before TC ended, which I took to mean Hercule and Rust were voting Leon, but I felt OK about it since there should've at least been a firemaking challenge. Obviously, it didn't work out and I'm still not exactly sure what happened since I haven't heard from Leon since- I don't know if he was trying to force a 2-2 tie and didn't realize they were voting for him or hoping for a 2-1-1 vote where Hercule went. It didn't make a lot of sense to me.

I know zis wasn't a question for me, but I just want to clarify. Zis was my most impressive round of ze game and zis post tells me zat M. Morningstar at least still does not understand what I was did. I 'ave to assume zat some Jurors who weren't even zere might not understand either.

First of all, I will say zat M. Morningstar giving up 'is Immunity necklace to M. Kennedy would 'ave been an incredibly impressive move, even if eet might 'ave led to 'im going 'ome. I think zat was ze winning move for 'im zis round.

So M. Kennedy was telling me prior to ze vote zat 'e wanted M. Morningstar out. I still don't know if 'e truly wanted me or M. Morningstar gone 'ere if 'e 'ad ze choice. I was clearly ze superior move, so if M. Kennedy was planning on booting M. Morningstar at 4, zat ees a 'uge failing on M. Morningstar's part where even though eet was in both of zeir interests to work together, M. Kennedy still wanted to take 'im out. I 'ope zat M. Kennedy can come to FTC and give us some clarity on zis.

At ze beginning of ze round, 'e ees right zat M. Morningstar and M. Kennedy were both voting for me. Ze moment I saw zat M. Morningstar 'ad Immunity, I knew zat zey probably would, and I pressured both of zem into confessing eet to me.

When M. Kennedy sent you zat first message suggesting a firemaking challenge, zat was as a result of hours of work on my part convincing 'im zat sending me to a firemaking challenge was better for 'is game. 'E was not going to outright vote to keep me because 'e thought eet would ruin 'is relationship with M. Cohle, but I did convince 'im to send eet to a firemaking challenge, which of course I knew would send 'im 'ome, but 'e didn't know zat.

But M. Morningstar smartly would not do zat, so I 'ad to change tact. With zose double messages zat you received ze next morning from M. Kennedy, M. Morningstar, did you not wonder why M. Kennedy 'ad changed 'is mind? Zat was ze point where 'e started lying to you, and 'e started doing zat because I convinced 'im to. 'E was unwilling to vote for M. Cohle, but 'e was willing to lie to you to get you to vote for M. Cohle, because I told 'im zat unless I got a chance to make fire, 'e was never going to get my Jury vote, and I explained to 'im zat without my Jury vote, 'e 'ad truly no 'ope of winning. Lying to you was from 'is POV ze only way to force a tie without voting for M. Cohle, so zat was what 'e chose to do, and 'e told me zat 'e was going to do eet. 'E trusted me so much, even while 'e was telling me zat 'e was voting me out.

Eet seems to me like M. Morningstar 'ad all of ze tools at 'is disposal to prevent zis vote. 'E 'ad a suspicious message from M. Cohle. Why did M. Kennedy not know about zat suspicious message? You absolutely could 'ave made 'im realize what a mistake 'e could be making. 'E 'ad M. Kennedy changing 'is mind seemingly without being convinced to by someone else. When 'as M. Kennedy done zat ze whole game? 'E would change 'is mind, but usually only after 'e 'ad a conversation zat prompted 'im to. I knew from ze beginning zat M. Kennedy was probably voting for me once M. Morningstar won without 'aving to be told. M. Morningstar's reads zis round were bad, and what good reads 'e did 'ave, 'e did nothing about. If 'e suspected zat M. Kennedy might be getting votes, zen why didn't M. Kennedy?

Zis round was not M. Kennedy just doing things without any reason. 'E did 'ave a reason. Zat reason was me. Zat reason was ze hours of work I 'ad put in all game building up our relationship, and ze hours of work zat I put in during zis round to make sure zat 'e did what I needed 'im to do to keep myself safe.

I was ze only one zat round with all of ze information. I knew exactly what was 'appening every step of ze way. I engineered zat vote, and in my opinion eet ees one of ze most impressive things I 'ave seen in a game in a long time. If you 'ave any specific questions about what I did or 'ow I did eet, I would welcome zem, but you should not accept zat zis was just M. Kennedy doing random things in a way zat none of us could 'ave predicted when one of us consciously set zose things up.

I applaud you for making a big move, Hercule- but there's a few things I want to clarify here.


First off you claimed that you had to pressure me into telling you I was voting you at first there- that's false. You may have had to pressure Leon, but to say you had to pressure me is a fundamental misunderstanding about how I was trying to play those final few rounds. I considered everyone in that situation to be my friend and an ally at least at some point during this game and with no idols in play, I was being honest. I delayed telling Rust in particular that I was voting him until late in TC, because it was a fluid situation and even when I told him I wasn't certain he was going home- but I had no qualms about telling you, Penelope or Rust what was happening and being transparent. I simply wanted to make sure that's what I was doing before I revealed it.


You also talk about how I could've easily prevented this and I want to respond to this as well. First off, Rust sent me that message with minutes left in TC and by the time I saw it there was even less time left. If I recall things right, I don't remember Leon being online during that period until after results occurred either. What I presented Leon with during that tribal council and what I told him throughout was completely honest on my part, I told things how I saw it and never deliberately withheld information from him at that F4. You may have lied to him numerous times at that tribal council, but please don't paint me as a liar too. I valued my relationship with Leon and was honest with him.


About Leon changing his mind- That situation was unique. I don't recall another situation where Leon was in a position like he was there. He was an important swing vote. The fact that the decision there required him to think through things more thoroughly than past decisions made perfect sense to me and I think you're underscoring the fact that we had discussed the pros and cons of this vote the night before and he gave me a disclaimer that he was half-asleep and wanted to rethink things later. It didn't seem far fetched to me that he had genuinely changed his mind. Furthermore, if the mistake I made in that situation was trusting Leon, then I'm OK with that. My path to get here was built on trusting my allies and I was happy to do that time and time again. Leon had been honest with me and given me no serious reason to doubt him, so I wasn't going to. Trust was and is important to me and I tried to keep and maintain it whenever it was possible.


Congratulations on making the move you felt you needed to in that scenario and thank you for providing more insight into what happened, but your assumptions about my behavior were fundamentally wrong and presented from an egocentric point of view and that needed to be cleared up.

Thank you for ze clarifications, M. Morningstar. I did not intend to mischaracterize any of your actions during zat round, and I apologize for doing so. To an extent, both of our perspectives on zat round or on any round are going to be egocentric, because we can only truly know our own thoughts and can interpret ze actions of zose around us, but eet ees 'ard to truly know another person's perspective unless zey explain eet to you.

I assumed zat I convinced you because you came to me telling me zat you were leaning towards voting me out and zen after our talk, you ultimately decided not to. But if you always preferred M. Cohle or were just weighing your options at zat point, zen zat was an inaccurate assumption, though I think an understandable one.

I also did not realize zat you received zat message from M. Cohle close to deadline, at which point obviously I understand why you didn't 'ave a chance to tell M. Kennedy about eet. I also was not suggesting zat you were intentionally withholding information from 'im, but rather zat you just weren't communicating with 'im well enough to get across ze potential danger zat 'e was in. Because I do think you understood zat M. Cohle and I voting for M. Kennedy was a possibility early in ze round, which ees definitely to your credit, but for me, if I thought zat was a possibility, I would make absolutely certain zat M. Kennedy also realized zat eet was one, and M. Kennedy clearly did not realize zat. Zat was ze only point I was trying to make.

With ze M. Kennedy changing 'is mind thing, 'e changed 'is mind at ze Mlle Hopps elimination after a conversation with M. Cohle I believe. 'E changed ze mind at ze M. Briscoe elimination after conversations with multiple people. 'E changed 'is mind at ze M. Peralta elimination after a conversation with Mlle Hopps. 'E never changed 'is mind spontaneously like zat, but with ze additional context of your conversation, I can understand why you were unable to figure out zat 'e was lying to you. Honestly eet didn't make sense for 'im to be lying to you zere. But eet ultimately was partially a failure of communication between ze two of you zat caused M. Kennedy's elimination, and zat ees not entirely on 'im.

I don't think zis round was like 'orrible play on your part or anything, and I per'aps oversold my case a leetle in zat post (though I don't think anything I said was bullshit, M. Pikachu), but I do think ze point 'olds zat you can't just wash your 'ands of ze round when zere really ees no reason zat M. Kennedy should not 'ave competed in a tiebreaker, especially given zat you 'ad ze Immunity necklace around your neck.

Je suis désolé for misrepresenting your perspective on some things. Eet was a complicated round with a lot going on, and I was just trying to 'elp ze Jurors make sense of eet. I do think eet ees my best move of ze game, and I don't think eet 'as been discussed very much at FTC, so I wasn't sure if everyone 'ad a clear idea of what actually 'appened, especially since M. Kennedy 'as not 'ad ze chance to chime in 'imself. Bringing some clarity was my only intention.

[Leon Kennedy]

I wasn't sure if I'm allowed to say things other than questions, so I didn't bother to respond, but now it's clarified to me that it's fine.

I was in fact considering voting for Lucifer IF only Hercule wins immunity. Regarding the 2-1-1 vote, I didn't suspect that I was digging my own grave at that time. I was too trusting of Hercule and I respect my relationship with him. Not to mention, he was emotionally manipulating me into something I'm super against to. I've convinced myself that I was the goat of this game and Hercule bribing me with his jury vote was very tempting as well as making me feel guilty about voting him because of our so-called "relationship", that's why I tried to force a tie to send him in a firemaking challenge with Rust. It was a hard decision for me because I was set on voting for him and getting him out, just like I had always planned.

Anyways, I really didn't want to vote for Rust cause I didn't want to piss him off if I did send him in the firemaking challenge and he won it. That's why I had to make Lucifer flip on Rust while keeping my vote on Hercule. I just really assumed Hercule is voting for Rust and Rust is voting for Hercule. If Lucifer actually hadn't considered flipping to Rust, none of this would have happened. I really like Rust and he's actually the person I wanted to be with in the F2. I was also doubting Lucifer at that time, that's why I wasn't being completely honest with him. I don't know if Lucifer really wants me to be with him in the F2. Doubting Lucifer impacted my decision and clouded my judgement on the F4.

To clarify, my ultimate goal is to at least be in the 2nd place, but I wasn't really sure who will actually take me to the F2 because I really thought Rust and Lucifer were so close together that they'd take themselves into the F2 and leaving me behind in the F3. With Hercule, assuming he won a firemaking challenge with Rust, I can guarantee being in the F2 because there's no way Hercule would take Lucifer and Lucifer would take Hercule in the F2 instead of me.

I hope this makes sense. I don't know where to put this question, but I figured to put it in here along with my post.

Hercule, do you think emotionally manipulating someone for your #BigMoves will earn you a jury vote?

[Leon Kennedy]

But eet ultimately was partially a failure of communication between ze two of you zat caused M. Kennedy's elimination, and zat ees not entirely on 'im.

I actually agree with this.

Lucifer, when I tried to beg you to take me in the final two, I felt like you weren't really sincere about it, which made me feel embarrassed, and then that embarrassment went into doubting. We both know that we hadn't really communicated so much during the whole merge. We were distant because of Jake and after Jake was gone, I didn't also know how to communicate with you because our message gap were so big. It's like every time I come online, I'm only talking to Hercule and Rust, mostly Hercule, that's probably why Hercule managed to emotionally manipulate me.

I think if you told me about you thinking that there is a possibility Hercule and Rust are targeting me, then I would've realized it instead of being blinded by my relationship with Hercule and doubting where I truly stand on you.

[Lucifer Morningstar]

Thanks for the clarification, Leon. I know it's hard to know in the moment and it's all hindsight now- but I did want to go to the F2 with you and I should've clarified that earlier. I don't know how accurate this is, but at the time I thought the two of us against each other would be the fairest scenario for us. I also hoped that my willingness to vote Rust at F4 would show you that I was serious about us going to F2 and that I was not attached to going with Rust like you had seemed worried about.

[Leon Kennedy]

Thanks for the clarification, Leon. I know it's hard to know in the moment and it's all hindsight now- but I did want to go to the F2 with you. I don't know how accurate this is, but at the time I thought the two of us against each other would be the fairest scenario for us. I also hoped that my willingness to vote Rust at F4 would show you that I was serious about us going to F2 and that I was not attached to going with Rust like you had seemed worried about.

Hmm, I actually didn't realize that until now. I guess the whole F4 TC, I was super blinded by my relationship with Hercule. :<

I have no hard feelings from you, btw.

[Hercule Poirot]

I wasn't sure if I'm allowed to say things other than questions, so I didn't bother to respond, but now it's clarified to me that it's fine.

I was in fact considering voting for Lucifer IF only Hercule wins immunity. Regarding the 2-1-1 vote, I didn't suspect that I was digging my own grave at that time. I was too trusting of Hercule and I respect my relationship with him. Not to mention, he was emotionally manipulating me into something I'm super against to. I've convinced myself that I was the goat of this game and Hercule bribing me with his jury vote was very tempting as well as making me feel guilty about voting him because of our so-called "relationship", that's why I tried to force a tie to send him in a firemaking challenge with Rust. It was a hard decision for me because I was set on voting for him and getting him out, just like I had always planned.

Anyways, I really didn't want to vote for Rust cause I didn't want to piss him off if I did send him in the firemaking challenge and he won it. That's why I had to make Lucifer flip on Rust while keeping my vote on Hercule. I just really assumed Hercule is voting for Rust and Rust is voting for Hercule. If Lucifer actually hadn't considered flipping to Rust, none of this would have happened. I really like Rust and he's actually the person I wanted to be with in the F2. I was also doubting Lucifer at that time, that's why I wasn't being completely honest with him. I don't know if Lucifer really wants me to be with him in the F2. Doubting Lucifer impacted my decision and clouded my judgement on the F4.

To clarify, my ultimate goal is to at least be in the 2nd place, but I wasn't really sure who will actually take me to the F2 because I really thought Rust and Lucifer were so close together that they'd take themselves into the F2 and leaving me behind in the F3. With Hercule, assuming he won a firemaking challenge with Rust, I can guarantee being in the F2 because there's no way Hercule would take Lucifer and Lucifer would take Hercule in the F2 instead of me.

I hope this makes sense. I don't know where to put this question, but I figured to put it in here along with my post.

Hercule, do you think emotionally manipulating someone for your #BigMoves will earn you a jury vote?

Salut M. Kennedy. Eet ees good to see you.

I know zat I did you wrong. I cannot even tell you 'ow 'orrible I felt during zat tribal. Eet ees ze worst zat I 'ave ever felt about something I 'ave done in a game on an emotional level.

But mon ami, eet was necessary unless I wanted to compete against you in firemaking, and I 'ad no guarantee zat I could win zat. Ze alternative was me going 'ome, either at 4 to firemaking or at 3 if I did not take you out. So I can't regret something zat ees ze only reason I am sitting in ze end. I was not just doing eet to make a big move. I was doing eet to keep myself in ze game.

I 'ate ze fact zat you put "relationship" in quotation marks. Our relationship was real for me. I genuinely adored you as a person, and I loved playing with you and making eet as far as we did.

But also, just as you were able to separate emotions from game when you planned to take me out at 4, I was able to do ze same thing. When my back was up against ze wall, I did what I 'ad to do to keep myself safe. I'm so, so sorry zat eet came at your expense.

With regard to your Jury vote, eet ees yours to decide to do what you please with, but during our discussion zat round, you argued zat if our relationship was real, even if you took me out, I should still vote for you, and I agreed with zat. At ze time I pretended to disagree because I 'ad to in order to get you to keep me, but I think at ze end of ze day, you should decide your vote not just based on a single round, but on your relationship with me overall. I think we spent so much time bonding and getting to know one another, and if you allow zis single round to overshadow all of zat, zat seems like a shame to me.

If I lose zis game, everything zat I did your round was in vain. Your elimination was in vain. If you still can find eet in your 'eart to choose to look at ze good and not ze bad, zen your elimination actually meant something because eet 'elped propel me to win ze game.

I'm sorry for what I did zat round. As much as eet was smart on a game level, on a 'uman level eet was extremely dirty. But I think you know me well enough and we 'ave spent enough time getting to know each other for you to know zat zat round does not represent me as a person. Ze Hercule you are voting for does not 'ave to be ze Hercule who emotionally manipulated you. Eet can be ze Hercule you bonded with on SVU. Eet can be ze Hercule you socialized with and got to know throughout ze game. Zat ees ze person I think you should vote for.

And if you can't find eet within yourself to vote for me, zat ees alright and I understand, mon ami. Zis game ees emotional, and your elimination ees still fresh. But I 'ope zat you can forgive me, as you did after ze M. Briscoe round. I 'ope zat you can understand why I did what I did. And I 'ope zat we can still be friends after zis game, because our relationship did mean a lot to me, and I 'ope eet meant a lot to you too. I'm so, so sorry.

[Hercule Poirot]

I'm not sure where else to put this question, so it can go here. For both of you, what do you think each juror is looking for from you in order to give you their vote? Do you think you've done enough to show that for each person? If you were on the jury, what criteria would you be using to vote and in what ways does the game you played fit that?

Also I skipped over zis question. Oops. Je regrette, M. Grouch.

Eet ees so 'ard to know what each Juror wants. Every Juror ees different, but all zat you can ees make ze best case zat you can. I also don't think eet ees ever possible to know zat you've done "enough" to be guaranteed any Juror's vote until ze votes come in. Eet ees not over until eet ees over, and you shouldn't take any Juror's vote for granted or assume zat you 'ave no chance at eet. Like M. Morningstar, I don't think zis vote will be unanimous. I think we both 'ave different games, and games zat are good in different ways, so I absolutely see Jurors going different ways. I also think we 'ad very different personal relationships during ze game, so zat ees a factor as well.

I assume ze intent of zis question was to go person by person and try to guess what zey want, so I will try to do zat, but I really don't know for everyone, so if I'm wrong about 'ow you are deciding your vote, I apologize.

For M. Pikachu, I think M. Pikachu's question about why 'e specifically should vote for each finalist tells me zat 'e wants an argument specific to 'im as a Juror rather zan a general one, which ees difficile for me to make because we were only together for a single round. But I did try my best, and 'e said zat 'is vote would be determined by FTC, so I would love if 'e considered voting for me anyway.

For M. McGruff, I think 'is questions 'ave been extremely focused on ze game and 'e seems to be considering both options, so I'm 'oping zat 'e decides to vote based on game. I do think zat my game ees a strong one and ees ze kind of game M. McGruff might respect, so I'm 'opeful zat 'e could vote for me.

For you, M. Grouch, I think in order for me to earn your vote, I'd 'ave to convince you zat your blindside was not only a good move for my game, but a good enough move to be worth ze brutal backstab. We were so close in ze game, and when a relationship ees severed like zat, I understand why eet might be difficult for you to cast your vote for me. 'Owever, on ze other 'and, I think you know my game extremely well and saw eet play out, both while we were together in ze game and when you were on ze Jury, and I think a lot of my gameplay 'as impressed you, so I do think zere ees still a chance. Furthermore, I know zat you respect social play, and I know zat even though I ended eet prematurely, we 'ad an extremely close relationship in ze game. So my 'ope ees zat when you cast your vote, you will remember ze good times together and look at ze game zat I played and decide zat eet ees worthy. If I did get your vote, zat would mean so so much to me, even if I ultimately still lost ze game, because of 'ow your vote would represent you being willing to look past ze betrayal. I know zat you were close to M. Morningstar, but we were close as well. I'm not sure if I 'ave earned your vote yet, but if zere ees anything you need from me in order to consider eet, I would love to provide eet.

For M. Peralta, 'e 'as not yet posted so eet ees 'ard to know, but I think 'e will vote based on a combination of game and 'is personal relationships with ze F2. 'E was definitely someone I got close to during our time in ze game, and I 'ope zat 'e respects my style of play.

For M. Briscoe, I see 'im voting strictly based on game. I think 'e 'as a very clear idea in 'is 'ead about what types of play 'e values ze most, and I think (and 'ope) zat 'e will vote based on zat. But even if 'e doesn't, we 'ad an incredibly close relationship, and I think 'e knows my game and me as a person as well as anyone, so I 'ope zat 'e votes for me.

Mlle Hopps I think will also vote strictly based on game. She 'as a very strategic mind, and I think she wants to see strong play. But again, if she doesn't, we worked closely throughout much of zis game, and we were able to get as far as we did largely by relying on each other at times. After we spent so much time together plotting and scheming, and also socializing and really getting to know one another, eet would make me sad if she did not vote for me, but I do think she will vote based on game. If she thought M. Morningstar played ze better game, I think she would vote for 'im.

Mlle Garcia I think ees an interesting case where she ees someone who I connected with extremely well socially, but strategically we were opposed to each other for most of ze game. I do think zat she knows 'ow strong my play was, and I 'ope zat she respects eet. She and I always 'ad a lot of mutual respect for each other as people and as players. Although I was frequently working against 'er interests, I was always upfront about eet. I think in order for me to get 'er vote, she 'as to feel zat I played a better game zan M. Morningstar, but as long as she thinks zat, I do think she will vote zat way. And I also think she respects strong social play, so I'm 'opeful zat could earn me 'er vote if nothing else.

With M. Kennedy, I think in order to get 'im to vote for me, I need to convince 'im zat our relationship was real and not all an act on my part. I understand why 'e might doubt zat, because I was very convincing in zat final round, so if I was 'im, I would wonder if every interaction of ze game I 'ad with me was zat fake. I could never 'ave sustained zat level of manipulation for a whole game, and eet took a 'uge emotional toll of me 'aving to do eet for zat single round. If M. Kennedy thinks our relationship up to zat point was real and genuine on my part, as eet was, zen I think 'e will vote for me. If 'e thinks eet was all fake, zen I think 'e may not vote for me. But eet ees impossible to know for sure, maybe 'e could think eet was fake and still respect ze game move.

With M. Cohle, I think 'e will vote based on a combination of 'ow 'e was treated in ze game and of who 'e sees as ze stronger overall player. Similar to M. Briscoe, I think 'e 'as a very clear idea in 'is 'ead of ze types of play 'e prefers, and I do think I 'ave an excellent chance at zis vote.

If I was on ze Jury, I would vote for ze person with ze most agency. I would vote for ze person who most influenced ze arc of ze season. And I would vote for ze person who I 'ad ze closest relationship with, which as eet 'appens ees myself. As much as I like M. Morningstar, I do feel a bit closer with myself zan with 'im (zat's a joke).

As M. Morningstar said, I think both of us 'ave very different games, and if you are averse to voting for someone who got blood on zeir 'ands and was willing to lie and pull crazy blindsides even if zey caused some emotional pain, zen you probably aren't going to vote for me. Zat ees a game zat I would respect as a Juror, but not everyone ees ze same, and we all value different things. As long as you keep an open mind and honestly consider me, I'm content, though I do really want to win and I will be disappointed if I don't manage to. I think my game ees a strong version of ze type of game zat eet ees, but you 'ave to respect zat kind of gameplay in order to want to vote for me. I 'ope zat enough of you do.

[Detective Pikachu]

Please note when I said I smell bullshit was to hopefully stir the pot one last time.

I mean my vote was decided after rereading some things. One of you did something to another player that I cannot condone at all even if it’s in an Internet game.

[Grouch Cop]

Okay, another question for you both. Why should either of you win *this* game? I dont just mean why were your games ones to vote for, but rather, why is your game representative of the whole of Survivor: PD? What aspects of what you've done is a summary of what the experience of playing this game was like? Why are you the best choice for that?

[Hercule Poirot]

Okay, another question for you both. Why should either of you win *this* game? I dont just mean why were your games ones to vote for, but rather, why is your game representative of the whole of Survivor: PD? What aspects of what you've done is a summary of what the experience of playing this game was like? Why are you the best choice for that?

I see Survivor: PD as a game zat was irrevocably formed by ze fact zat one tribe, SVU, lost four challenges in a row during ze premerge, and lost another member during ze third swap. Zis created an incredibly asymmetrical merge where on ze one 'and, we 'ad an extremely tight knit minority group of 4 who 'ad gone through zis traumatic experience together, and on ze other 'and, we 'ad a tribe with ze overwhelming majority of numbers who were not as tightly connected in BAU. In some ways, eet ees incredibly fitting zat in ze end, we 'ave a representative from SVU and from BAU sitting 'ere, because I see zis as representative of ze battle zat 'as been going on ze whole season.

And I in many ways do embody zat conflict. I was solidly on ze SVU side ze entire merge, even as I built strong social bonds with people like Mlle Garcia and you outside of eet. Both sides were exchanging blows, people like Mlle Hopps flipped at various points, but through eet all, I fought for SVU, and I played a 'uge role in making zat narrative of SVU+M. Peralta vs BAU be ze narrative zat dominated. Ze fact zat we lost as often as we did was an extremely emotional experience for me, and I did feel bonded to every member of SVU after going through zat together, as I think most people would. I wanted us to all make eet as far as we could together after an experience like zat.

'Owever,  if I was to attribute ze fact zat I am sitting 'ere in ze F2 to any single relationship, eet would be to ze strategic partnership I was able to form early in ze merge with M. Cohle, despite us not 'aving met prior to zat point. M. Cohle ees a 'uge part of ze raison zat I was able to survive ze F4. M. Cohle and I 'elped to protect each other all throughout ze merge even while agreeing to be on different sides. M. Cohle ees someone I feel an incredibly tight bond with, and I enjoyed playing and taking on ze game together, so, so much.

So, I think zat if I win ze game, zere are two main takeaways related to ze themes of zis season. Un, I think zat in order to advance in zis game, you did 'ave to pick a side. You could not be Mlle Hopps jumping from side to side as a rogue element. You 'ad to plant your flag, as I did when I voted out you. But deux, I think zat ze game-winning relationship if I do win will 'ave been one zat was not related at all to tribal lines. Eet will 'ave been due to my relationship with someone who on paper, I should not 'ave been working with, but because we 'ad a 'uman connection and our strategic interests aligned, we were able to make eet work. I think I represent ze fact zat as much as ze sides mattered in zis game so much, at ze end of ze day, we are all people playing a Survivor game, not numbers on one side or ze other. And in a game so defined by two sides duking eet out with one another, ze best strategy was to embrace zat narrative, but zen eventually, when ze time was right, to transcend eet.

[Scruff McGruff]

One last question for Hercule— you say your partnership with Rust was basically one of your most important connections bar none. What I want to know is— how would you distinguish your game from his? Assuming it was a F3 and he somehow won the challenge and allowed you to go with him (or something like that), how would you argue that your game is better than or different from his? Do you thibk Rust would beat you in any scenario?

[Hercule Poirot]

One last question for Hercule— you say your partnership with Rust was basically one of your most important connections bar none. What I want to know is— how would you distinguish your game from his? Assuming it was a F3 and he somehow won the challenge and allowed you to go with him (or something like that), how would you argue that your game is better than or different from his? Do you thibk Rust would beat you in any scenario?

'E definitely was. Without my connection to 'im, ze last few rounds of my game would 'ave played out entirely differently.

So I definitely feared sitting next to M. Cohle in ze F2, which was why I was not going to take 'im if I won ze challenge. 'E also feared sitting next to me. I think both of us always intended for ze other to be ze final Juror, and one thing zat was beautiful about our relationship was ze fact zat we both accepted zat for ze most part, until at F3 when 'e lied and said zat 'e wanted to take me to ze end, hahahaha.

I think eet would 'ave been a battle if we were in ze F2 together, and a battle I'm not sure zat I would 'ave won, but I would 'ave given eet my best. For me, when I was thinking about eet during ze game in ze situation where M. Cohle took me, ze biggest differentiating factor in our games, apart from ze fact zat we were on different sides, was 'ow cautiously we played. M. Cohle was a great player, but an extremely cautious player. During ze M. Pikachu round, 'e secretly wanted M. Pikachu to go, but even though I was telling 'im zat I was undecided, 'e never gave me ze slightest indication zat 'e preferred zat, leading me to think zat I did not 'ave ze votes. During ze M. Briscoe round, 'e was telling me zat 'e would vote Mlle Garcia, but 'e was afraid to because 'e didn't know for sure zat M. Kennedy wouldn't lie to 'im and leave 'im out to dry. 'E kept 'is thoughts extremely private, and I think zis sometimes caused 'im to miss opportunities for moves. And sometimes zis worked to 'is benefit too. Without 'is caution in ze rounds leading up to ze F4 and during ze F4 eetself, I'm not sure if zat move would 'ave been possible. 'E was a very careful player in a way zat I just was not.

With me, on ze other 'and, no one ever 'ad any doubt about where I stood on most things. I was not subtle. I was not particularly secretive about my opinions, except on a few occasions where I was pulling off blindsides. Everyone in ze game knew zat I did not want M. Briscoe and M. Peralta to go. Everyone in ze game knew my targets for most rounds. Everyone in ze game got regular updates on my relationship with Mlle Hopps. I think I played a bit more fearlessly zan M. Cohle in zis way by being very open about what I thought and wanted to 'ave 'appen.

I don't necessarily think zat one style of play ees better or worse in zis case. Zey are both just different. But in ze scenario where M. Cohle took me to ze end, zat was one of ze arguments zat I was going to make. I think zere ees an extremely clear contrast between a louder, more visible player vs a more subtle, secretive player, and although I am not sure zat my game would 'ave been rewarded in zat case, I would 'ave advocated for eet. I do think zere was an argument.

But I definitely think zere are scenarios where M. Cohle beats me. Actually I would give 'im ze advantage if I'm honest. So I definitely think eet was good for me zat 'e lost zat final challenge.