Post by Athena on Aug 20, 2021 16:46:27 GMT
Challenges
Both players only won one individual immunity challenge apiece, however, Jesus' challenge win is immediately more impressive for obvious reasons. Otherwise, both players were actually fairly inconsistent when it came to challenge performance. However, I believe Jesus performed slightly better on average overall. Especially as far as the individual immunity challenges were concerned, I remember a spate of challenges during the middle of merge where Jesus came second or very close to winning multiple times in a row. Even disregarding those, I think the (unfortunate) feat of the FIC really just puts Jesus a mark and a half above MH in this category. Yes, it shouldn't have taken that long, but the fact is, I KNOW I would have given up long before Jesus. The fact that Jesus didn't give up is more impressive to me than if he'd gotten a much shorter time on the challenge.
Strategy
Here, each player approached the game in vastly different ways. MH was underhanded, overhanded, direct, visible, flashy. They made things happen each round so that in the FTC they could point back at them as accomplishments. Jesus was not concerned with taking credit for events, and preferred to make sure each round guaranteed him maximum safety by leaking the correct information at the right time, and stirring up trouble without the risk of the trouble getting traced back to him. Both strategies obviously worked for each player. But, overall, I do think MH had the more foolproof strategy, as evidenced by their slot acquiring zero votes throughout the game and the fact that so many people viewed them as a threat but could never get the leverage off the ground to pose a threat to them. MH's active opposition to threats to their position meant that anyone targeted by them was scrambling to counter, failing in the process because of being caught of guard. MH striked first and hard in every engagement. While Jesus' strategy worked, I also think he ultimately came into more danger than MH did throughout the game.
Social
I may diverge from other jurors in this category, but I am actually more impressed with Jesus' social game than I am with MH's social game. I realize there is some bias entering in here due to Jesus getting to know me better and spending more time with me but... that's the way it goes sometimes. Overall, I value Jesus' "just a guy" empathy with people more than I value MH's ruthless strategical genius. I feel like even when Jesus wasn't always honest with people, he still was considering their feelings and didn't want to hurt anyone. When he lied, it was just because it would be awkward to tell someone he'd be voting for them. As such, the number of relationships he built this game (far greater than I had thought while I was playing) were built off a very genuine base.
The real kicker for me is that I don't think, even in the post-game questioning phase and final speeches, that MH was being honest in facing how much they hurt people. It seemed to me that they were still trying to maintain that they were equal parts "empathetic, kind, fluffy" player and "cold, calculating, strategy" player. Granted, they are literally a hydra. But, that's not how the game works. You *can't* be both. In the end, you choose an action that lands on one side or another and the consequences are doled out. It doesn't matter how much arguing goes into the leadup to that decision, that decision can still really be only one or another. The fact is, MH definitely leaned into the "cold strategy" side of play this game. That's how they got to where they are. From my perspective, even though the "nice, fluffy" side of them was *real*, it was simply utilized to cover for the strategical decisions they made. In that way, they utilized both sides, but their literal actions clearly affected people in one way.
I can understand not getting this during the game, and thinking that you're mixing the two styles together seamlessly. But, during the questioning phase, *several* players came out describing how hurt they were by several decisions MH made during the game. They did finally apologize in their final speech, but even then they were insisting that "both realities were true," they both treated people as Jesus would and used people like pawns. And, unfortunately, the two worlds are directly in conflict. I think you have to own up to one or the other as the dominant force behind your actions, even if you behaved as if that wasn't the case during the game.
Like, "using a great social game" for your "great strategy game" just means that Maat's selfish gameplay won out every time.
Lastly, I don't really think everything MH did was necessary for them to win the game.
================================================================================
anyway, both players played tremendously well. I am predisposed to the way Jesus approached the game and probably biased because I knew him better overall. But honestly, I won't be unhappy no matter who wins, but I am going to
Vote: Jesus
Both players only won one individual immunity challenge apiece, however, Jesus' challenge win is immediately more impressive for obvious reasons. Otherwise, both players were actually fairly inconsistent when it came to challenge performance. However, I believe Jesus performed slightly better on average overall. Especially as far as the individual immunity challenges were concerned, I remember a spate of challenges during the middle of merge where Jesus came second or very close to winning multiple times in a row. Even disregarding those, I think the (unfortunate) feat of the FIC really just puts Jesus a mark and a half above MH in this category. Yes, it shouldn't have taken that long, but the fact is, I KNOW I would have given up long before Jesus. The fact that Jesus didn't give up is more impressive to me than if he'd gotten a much shorter time on the challenge.
Strategy
Here, each player approached the game in vastly different ways. MH was underhanded, overhanded, direct, visible, flashy. They made things happen each round so that in the FTC they could point back at them as accomplishments. Jesus was not concerned with taking credit for events, and preferred to make sure each round guaranteed him maximum safety by leaking the correct information at the right time, and stirring up trouble without the risk of the trouble getting traced back to him. Both strategies obviously worked for each player. But, overall, I do think MH had the more foolproof strategy, as evidenced by their slot acquiring zero votes throughout the game and the fact that so many people viewed them as a threat but could never get the leverage off the ground to pose a threat to them. MH's active opposition to threats to their position meant that anyone targeted by them was scrambling to counter, failing in the process because of being caught of guard. MH striked first and hard in every engagement. While Jesus' strategy worked, I also think he ultimately came into more danger than MH did throughout the game.
Social
I may diverge from other jurors in this category, but I am actually more impressed with Jesus' social game than I am with MH's social game. I realize there is some bias entering in here due to Jesus getting to know me better and spending more time with me but... that's the way it goes sometimes. Overall, I value Jesus' "just a guy" empathy with people more than I value MH's ruthless strategical genius. I feel like even when Jesus wasn't always honest with people, he still was considering their feelings and didn't want to hurt anyone. When he lied, it was just because it would be awkward to tell someone he'd be voting for them. As such, the number of relationships he built this game (far greater than I had thought while I was playing) were built off a very genuine base.
The real kicker for me is that I don't think, even in the post-game questioning phase and final speeches, that MH was being honest in facing how much they hurt people. It seemed to me that they were still trying to maintain that they were equal parts "empathetic, kind, fluffy" player and "cold, calculating, strategy" player. Granted, they are literally a hydra. But, that's not how the game works. You *can't* be both. In the end, you choose an action that lands on one side or another and the consequences are doled out. It doesn't matter how much arguing goes into the leadup to that decision, that decision can still really be only one or another. The fact is, MH definitely leaned into the "cold strategy" side of play this game. That's how they got to where they are. From my perspective, even though the "nice, fluffy" side of them was *real*, it was simply utilized to cover for the strategical decisions they made. In that way, they utilized both sides, but their literal actions clearly affected people in one way.
I can understand not getting this during the game, and thinking that you're mixing the two styles together seamlessly. But, during the questioning phase, *several* players came out describing how hurt they were by several decisions MH made during the game. They did finally apologize in their final speech, but even then they were insisting that "both realities were true," they both treated people as Jesus would and used people like pawns. And, unfortunately, the two worlds are directly in conflict. I think you have to own up to one or the other as the dominant force behind your actions, even if you behaved as if that wasn't the case during the game.
Like, "using a great social game" for your "great strategy game" just means that Maat's selfish gameplay won out every time.
Lastly, I don't really think everything MH did was necessary for them to win the game.
================================================================================
anyway, both players played tremendously well. I am predisposed to the way Jesus approached the game and probably biased because I knew him better overall. But honestly, I won't be unhappy no matter who wins, but I am going to
Vote: Jesus