1) I mean I'm a pretty old school player in terms of my view of Survivor so I'm less interested in mechanics like idols and challenge wins than agency in the game and social strategy.
2) I hope we have enough people that aren't just automatic Mipha votes that if she's there at the end that it isn't a done deal. I like Mipha plenty, to be clear, but I'm far more interested in voting for someone who stayed in the game. I hope the recent jury members realize that those of us who were voted out pre-merge aren't just in the tank for a returnee win.
3) I don't have any burning questions, I'm mostly looking for people talking about how they controlled the game to get the final 3 they wanted, and that their perceptions of their desired final 3 match up with how the jury is leaning.
4) No, fuck off.
5) I'd probably tell Urbosa that while I'm willing to vote for her, I need a lot more than immunity wins and advantage plays to justify a vote for her. Like if she played that power on Epona because she thinks people will automatically vote her over him, that's a mistake to me. It's just as much a move to convince someone to make you safe as it is to make someone else safe.
Since it's the day before FTC opening speeches I should probably talk a little about my thoughts.
Anyone who's seen my posts in the jury chat can tell I'm leaning towards Urbosa. It'd probably take some actively bad FTC answers from her and/or some spectacular answers from Revali or Mipha to have me vote otherwise, I'll be honest. Revali is such an enigma to the jury, and I think they're not allowing for the potential for a good FTC performance. I feel like he might have to tack into "actually I wanted Urbosa here because nobody likes her" in order to get traction?
I have a harder time imagining an argument for Mipha getting my vote. I know some people will think it's unfair, some people think well if the game structure includes a battleback mechanism then you shouldn't hold that against people, but I'm always going to prioritize people who never got voted out. The historic battlefield of Survivor is littered with the bodies of great players who were recognized as such and voted out, it happens every single season, the nature of the game is that you have to make it to the end without getting voted out. I'm not saying I can't imagine voting for someone who got back in to win, but Mipha's case isn't super strong to me. Honestly, if she'd voted for Urbosa at 5, even if it didn't matter, it would have at least seemed like she was trying to build a winning case. Revali at least has the excuse that he was receiving votes, so you can't begrudge him trying to guarantee he doesn't go, and Kohga voted Urbosa.
As for the jury, I haven't counted the votes but I know people aren't crazy about Urbosa at all, but also nobody seems psyched to vote for Mipha or Revali other than maybe Riju for Mipha and Epona maybe for anyone but Urbosa. We'll see how it goes, I hope we make a reasonable decision, however it goes.
Not crazy about the tenor of jury questioning so far, people are being so rude towards Revali and Mipha for no good reason. I like Sidon but he seems so goddamn intent on this idea that Actually You Should Have Kept Me which they definitely shouldn't have because he was a serious jury threat. Like take it as a compliment and learn from the experience dude. Epona's just being a straight up dick, it's not pleasant.
Urbosa's really kind of getting on my nerves with this "oh gosh actually winning immunity hurt my game more than it helped" shtick. I swear to god she's talking me into voting for Revali
Urbosa's response to me was good, though I think Revali's point about Urbosa wringing her hands about losing Oven when she had a billion fuckin advantages to use is pretty valid. That said, I'm not going to begrudge someone for working in their own best interest (even if it's seen as "greedy" or cowardly or whatever).
I honestly wish I could get over my resistance to a returnee winner but it's just not in me. Mipha's great, but the fact that her argument for winning seemed to include "well I knew I had votes on the jury" really rubbed me the wrong way, because we talked extensively about Winners at War and while I did go out of my way to say that I was judging this game differently than I would a CBS season, I think she should realize that my vote isn't going her way.
I'm not sure we need another day and a half at this point but whatever, better to err on the side of too much time.
I think my feelings are pretty set on voting for Urbosa though honestly, Revali made a really good case in my opinion. If he won, I wouldn't really mind it. I've got more to say I guess but I should probably hold off until actually casting my vote.
I was rereading Mipha's thread a bit because I do want to give her a fair shake when I make my decision and she said Patricia gave her a FTC advantage which I don't think anyone's asked about? I actually noticed it when I read her opening statement the first time but kind of forgot about it until now. I'm assuming it's a remove-a-juror and probably don't want to ask about it. I assume it'll be used on Sidon so whatever.
I was thinking more about the FTC advantage and remove-a-juror seems almost too prosaic for this game? I wonder if it's like giving someone an extra jury vote? Or something even more complicated? I've never been a fan of removing jurors, but then again I'm not a fan of pre-merge jurors so who knows. Also, curious how Teebo will vote considering he never said a thing to the final three.
So I think that all three of Urbosa, Mipha, and Revali showed their passion and desire in advocating for themselves in FTC, and everyone should be proud of what they've accomplished here, I think you all argued your hearts out.
That said, I definitely think some of those arguments were more valid than others. I'll be honest, Revali to me far and away had the best jury performance from my perspective. I think he had really thoughtful and well reasoned points to make that were articulated extremely well and there are few things I would change about it.
Mipha brought up some valid points, and I admired her standing up to Sidon, whose behavior in FTC seemed really rude and unnecessary even if I can understand the source of his anger. I have a hard time casting my vote for Mipha though, because I don't think she played better than Revali or Urbosa, even taking redemption out of the equation. The argument of whether Mipha played better seems to hinge on whether people were willing to vote for her, which ends up being really circular and is sort of like a jury argument Rorschach test. It seems to be persuasive to some people who went to the jury predisposed to vote for Mipha, but sadly it's not really persuasive to me (sorry, because I do like you a lot but that doesn't affect my vote here much).
Which brings me to Urbosa. Urbosa was immune from 8, and specifically both Mipha and Revali did not want to sit next to her at the end. Mipha and Revali both brought up some very good points about flaws or missed opportunities in Urbosa's game, but I think Urbosa was able to point out other examples of events that spoke to her skills in social and strategic areas of the game.
If Urbosa were just some challenge robot (a Terminator as Oven put it), I might not be impressed, but I think she's a good and well-rounded player (if flawed in ways, as we all are) who just happened to also be a dominant challenge beast. If I were to vote for Revali (and believe me, I would actually love to, I think he did a fantastic job in FTC), I would have to answer the question "What more would Urbosa have had to do to get my vote?" and I honestly couldn't find a reasonable answer to that.
I cast my vote for Urbosa. Great job, you did very well and if you win it's well-deserved.
I cast my secondary vote for Revali. I have a bad feeling other people don't respect your game as much as I do but I think really think you did a terrific job in FTC and should be really proud.
