Juries are notoriously unpredictable.  Recall that last game here, "bippy" thought he was casting a sympathy vote for a buddy finishing in dead last, and it ended up as the deciding vote in that player's win.

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.

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?

so having 0 context for any of the game, not having read any of the questions, etc. my assumption is that the great Belgian detective is taking this one home. Y/N?

It might be tight depending on how burned players feel by Poirot's big moves.

We've never had access to the jury forum or their confessionals so it's harder to say than it would be usually.

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.