TheMarshmallowBear wrote:
“
| Nifty: Obviously, you were the strongest challenge competitor in this game, and it's why you're sitting here right now. But the jury finds it hard to reward someone who only made it due to challenges the win. Explain the other aspects of your game to us.
| ”
|
–Jordan
|
I don't blame you for pointing this out as you had to submit this speech to Marish before you could see my opening statement. However, I believe I've made it very clear in both my opening statement and in my jury question answers so far that I did more than just win challenges to get here. The one reason that I had to win as many challenges as I did was because I had to at the end game, or else I would've been evicted. There was no other way around that--yourself, Eva, Tata, and Hunter were very solid at the F6 and there was no way you were going to betray each other if you had an opportunity to take me out at that point in the game. If there was a way to split you guys up and somehow brainwash all of you into believing that you didn't have to take me out, I would've taken that route instead of having to go on a challenge winning streak.
Socially: I was on good terms with everyone up until Week Six, and even then I had a strong enough connection with Edward to have him help me out in advancing into the Final 4. There was no way he was taking me out in Week Eight.
Prior to Week Six though, I made sure to talk to as many people as possible and at very key points.
-At Week Five, I hadn't talked to Alex very in-depth but once that week rolled around we hit it off and were on extremely good terms with each other.
-Week Two to Week Five, I was not going to be targeted by Michael at any point in that part of the game due to the bond we had and him feeling like we had to stick together to take out the other side of the house.
-Kyle was originally pissed at me Week Two, but once he realized that my intentions of him being a pawn really were just that he wanted to be on my good side for the remainder of his stay in the house.
-Hickman and I were very loyal allies and good friends in the house, talking with each other constantly from Week One to Week Three, where he (sadly) stopped talking to me after he got evicted. (HICKMAN IF YOU'RE OUT THERE, I'D LOVE FOR US TO TALK AGAIN SOMETIME :D) Anyways we had a very tight bond for two people who were meeting each other for the first time in an ORG, and definitely weren't going to directly target each other for that portion of the game. I only voted to evict him over Kyle during Week Three because I felt that Kyle would be better to bring deeper into the game due to him getting nominated so frequently.
Strategically: As I stated in my opening statement, every competition win I got prior to Week Seven was made with the intentions of making a big move out of it and not letting that competition win go to waste by taking out an easy target. However one thing I didn't mention in the opening statement and have mentioned quite a few times here in jury answers was turning Alex and Michael against each other in Week Five, and wiping off any potential target that might've been on my back that week. I did this by strengthening Michael's perception of there being a solid alliance between you, Alex, and Tata and then going behind Michael's back and straight-up telling him that Michael was targeting him for these reasons, but leaving out that I was a reason for this reason.
So, hopefully that helps you understand the other two aspects of my game. I know they weren't the most obvious aspects to see because they were hidden under me lying low in the early game and then having to break out with a bunch of challenge wins in the end game, but they definitely were there and I don't want them to go unaccredited.