So, I'm largely set on how I am going to vote here, even though where I ended up was not where I expected to, but you both still have a chance you could change my mind depending on how you write your closing speeches.

Hercule, you've spent a lot of time here trying to give people exactly what you think that they want from you, and as much as possible have tried to frame your game according to those assumptions. It is commendable that you have the social skills in which you can do that. However, what I want from you in a closing is for you to be unapologetic about the game that you played. Don't tell us what you think we want, tell us what you think is true and accurate, flaws and all. Take a risk.

Lucifer, you've done the opposite imo. You've never pretended that your game was anything more or less than it was. You've presented it with all of its flaws and asked us to consider voting for it anyways. And using the hand you were dealt with the skills you had to their fullest potentials. And that kind of selfawareness is rare, and not something easily taught. What I want from you is, what has this game taught you? In what ways have you improved as a player and a person through this game?  What kind of specifics can you point to? I want you to give the shinest most flattering version of your game with details that you can.

I think you've both played your hearts out and should be commended on all that you've done. You've also both been incredibly gracious and haven't let any of the stress of FTC goad you into giving less than your best in your answers as politely as possible, so well done.

So... my vote was pretty up in the air and could go either way, but there is something in the answer to me Hercule gave that lost my vote entirely.

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.

So the first part of this is great, it's exactly the kind of thing I do consider, yes. But then... he keeps talking. Like at this point, the betrayal isn't what is keeping me from wanting to vote for him, I'm over that, I get it and it sounds like he needed to do that and I'm not torn up about it. That's whatever. But then... he brings up that he knows I'm a social player and respect social game, that is true, but then it feels like he forgets that being a social player means you recognize real fast when people are trying to heavily influence you and your emotions. The moment he brings up our close relationship and to only focus on the good times of it, that's where I'm out. I had a good relationship with both him and Lucifer, but the difference there is when I told Hercule things, he used a lot of the against me and they were part of him stabbing me. Lucifer didn't use information in a way that was bad. But that's also not what I was going to be voting for either. But Hercule also keeps talking and brings up how earning my vote would make him feel even if he lost, and that's just..... no. That's not good enough, and I won't have my heartstrings pulled on like that and be happy about it.

I've also really liked how Lucifer has handled this FTC. He has never once pretended that he did more than he actually did. He's presented his game exactly how it was, flaws and all, and has just earnestly said "this is what I've done, I'm proud of it, and I hope you vote for it. If it's not what you're looking for, that's okay too, but it's what I've done." and that kind of simple straightforwardness appeals to me quite a lot. It's incredibly raw and vulnerable in a way that I admire. I'd rather have that than be told exactly what people think I want to hear and be pandered to. So, unless something huge happens before voting starts, I know where I am voting now and I am content in that.

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?

Oh I have opinions on this.

I think the best format is singular threads for each finalist. Then questions don't get asked multiple times, their opening and closing speeches can be put in the thread at the exact same time and not give either finalist even the slightest edge on that front, all information pertaining to someone's entire game is in a single place that you can much more easily find, finalists don't have to maintain attention on multiple threads, jurors don't either, jurors who don't have too many questions at all don't end up with an empty thread. It also puts the focus on each finalists specific game, and I think it makes our job as jurors much much easier without too much restriction.

I think this format is by and large the worst. I do have a difficult time trying to figure out where any of my questions should be placed because from my perspective all of these aspects are interconnected and you can't really ask about one without asking about the others. Also I don't like that it's so much easier for questions to be lost and forgotten when you have all finalists answering in the same threads. Also with the categories chosen, it feels like it's implying that those three facets are the only ones that matter and the only ways to play and win. And a lot of nuance is lost with the generalizations. Also it feels like FTC is giving focus to the mods of the game rather than the players or the jurors when you have a whole section that is geared towards that, and it kinda feels like an additional obstacle for everyone who played the game to have to overcome. And FTC is hard enough without adding in any sort of extra restrictions on top.

Jurors having their own individual threads is okay, but not great either. Yes it pulls the focus to be on the jurors, which FTC is just as much about them as it is the finalists, but it can put a lot more pressure on everybody. If you have jurors without many questions, they have empty or short threads. Jurors who want to do their due diligence then have a lot of threads they need to read to have any sense of what each person did, finalists have to keep on top of multiple threads and hope that things aren't lost. They also end up being asked almost the exact same thing in multiple places if a juror just hasn't read all the other threads before they ask what they want to know and having to refer people to other threads, which you also have to remember who asked you what, can be annoying. It's also a mess to read after the question phases have ended when you're trying to compare and contrast each person's game and how they answered everything against each other, and makes the jurors jobs harder imo, but also can make it so finalists don't get as much consideration as they would if there are jurors who just don't want to read 6 other threads.

This is also without adding in restrictions on how many questions you're allowed to ask. If you're limiting the questions jurors are allowed to ask, then 3 is equally solid to 2. But when it's a free-for-all, I much prefer 2.

Okay but, you say that the end game I wanted and you wanted were drastically different, right? And yet the people who followed me right out of the game were the people I didn't want in the game. The only difference between the endgame I wanted to have, and the one that happened is I was replaced by Leon. So, that sounds an awful lot like bullshit and you telling me what you think I want to hear. Our entire relationship was based on honesty, blunt honesty. And that's what I'm asking for from you. If me leaving was your doing more so than it was anybody else's, then I need a much better reason that what you've said. Cuz that's not good enough. I liked Lennie and would have loved to do things with him, as I told you, but we had just not been on the same side of the vote. I was more than willing to do other things, as I told you again and again. Lucifer going home instead of me would have sucked, sure, but that at least made sense as I could understand you would never think he'd place you over me. Hell, it would have put me that much firmly into having to work with you further because you'd be my best option, no? Which again, I told you. I was worried about going places with you because in the group of people you liked, you were the only one who actually valued me at all. And I told you about that, but I wasn't saying I needed you out of the game, just that the path you wanted going forward as you stated it to me, left me completely at your whim and mercy where I would have just been your puppet. I wanted options that meant we were actually working as partners, but that's not the path you chose. All you had to do was tell me that though, that's all you ever had to do. I'm just really finding it hard to see why this path to the end you had is one that fits with the way you and I talked about whether we had a path together to the end game. It's incredibly hard not to see the way you got to the end and with whom and how you played with them to be different from the kind of plans we were making together. If using what I told you and what I thought is part of your social game, then that's okay, but just say that rather than make it sound like you couldn't have gotten this with me in the game.

Also, I don't know where else to put this, so it gets to be tacked on here, I don't feel from either of you any sort of passion for this game. Did you have fun? Did you pour a lot of yourself into this? Do you even want to win this? Do you think the games you played should win this? Where's your emotionality, you both have it, where is it in your presentation?

Ugh, fine, I have nowhere else to vent these thoughts and I should have them some place people can see them later.

Jury as a whole may not be bitter, but I'm definitely pissy. I don't want to vote for either of these finalists, not really. I was hoping that they'd give me speeches that would give me what I'm looking for and neither of them are. I know damn well that Luci can elaborate on a lot of shit that will give him a lot of credit and I can vote for, but he isn't doing that yet. His opening speech was just so goddamn vague, and that's his hugest problem right now. He told me a lot of shit and I can only help him so much. Hercule on the other hand is doing the thing he's done all game which is appease people and do the least risky thing. It's not that I think safe play is bad, but I think pulling away from the fact you know what you did was safe is bad. Own exactly what you did the good and the bad, exactly how you did it. I don't want apologies, I want straightforward "yes, I did this and it worked. and I'm not going to apologize for the fact that I did it. It was best for me and my path forward, cuz I'm here and it was my intent." that's all I want. I need them to give me intent and also passion. I want them to sound like they believe they deserve it, neither is. Do they even want it?

I also hate this format so goddamn much. Cuz I have a lot of questions that I can never fit into a specific box, because you can't break down games into only 3 parts. That's not how people play at all. It's all interconnected and you can't pull games apart like that. I also think it generalizes far too much the intent anyone has behind stuff, and it's trying to force things which are ridiculously subjective into objective boxes WHICH DON'T FIT. Sure you can shove the circle into the square, but it's not a good fit and you're missing a lot of parts which are just as important.

Also, I've felt super terrible all day, and it's also hot, so I'm grumpy in general so take this with that grain of salt.

Oh also, Luci, I want more elaboration in why you chose Hercule over Rust in the end here. You touched a bit on it in the TC thread, but I want more than just that. You're not wrong that taking Hercule was a better move for the reasons you stated most likely, and the jury very much liked Rust's game, largely because we knew what he was doing as we'd been part of it at various points. So in what ways did you think you couldn't separate your game from Rust's? Why was having him in the jury the best move for you personally at FTC?

Which, Hercule, brings me to another question, in other places it sounds like you're attributing being at the end being due to things you did and ways you outplayed Lucifer into giving him two not great options. But he could have just as easily sent you home instead of Rust. Why do you think any part of you being here is due to your own strategy and actions? Are you merely here because you knew your game was worse than Rust's and you were an easier battle for Lucifer to try to win? Why is you being here a positive for your game, and not a positive for Lucifer's? Or is it not that cut and dry?