SEAN'S QUESTION

"Jeremy: Tell the jury how you overcame the obstacles faced"

1. I had to work, and it time away from me in the game.  I won't argue this a reason I should beat Jarrod.  However, I will say that it somewhat negates his Aussie social handicap (that would be such a bad thing to say without context lol).  Additionally, it helped make me a Sandra-esque challenge competitor.  I did at least try to message everyone in the game at least once though so that they knew I wouldn't ignore them.  Even though some of them ignored me :P.

2. I had to build those damned fires.  Throughout this game I became the #Firemaster or something else Chris called it.  I would have rather avoided those fires.  However, I did choose the superior strategy to win both of those duels whether I was lucky (Joe duel) or not (Alex R. duel).

3. Everyone single person on the jury has voted for me at least once, yet I sit here.  I think that is certainly overcoming something.
-----

" and why they deserve your vote over someone like Jarrod."

1. The biggest reason that I deserve their votes is that I played for their votes.  While Jarrod certainly made decision that gave him a clearer path to the finals.  I made decisions so that if I sat here I would have a good shot to win.  Basically, I tried to make it so that anybody that took me to the finals was making a mistake.  I'm not sure if I achieved this, but I would consider it if I were on the jury.  Basically, I'm argue that Jarrod shouldn't have taken me (even though I would have taken him too :P).

2. This is connected to the reason above.  I tried to get every jury vote along the way.  Jarrod played the game to get here and hope the jury votes would be here.  I think you have to take total goats to guarantee a win that way.  I really believe that at least 75% if not more of the jurors talked to me more in general than Jarrod, and some of it wasn't even game talk.  I was forging relationships.

3. I played the most honest game of the winners and still got here.  Again, I wouldn't have been so honest if we had finished the Pagonging, but everyone made their moves against me first.  People don't really have a reason to be upset at me.  You (Sean) are the only person that I even slightly screwed over, but I made you understand that I only did it because I had to.  I feel Jarrod did do some unnecessary things like making a deal with Rich, and pseudo-breaking our F4 by voting out Eddie.

ANDY

"Everything I'm hearing is contradicting something someone has said at some point."

- Could you give some examples?  I thought everything has been unraveled pretty well.
-----

"I want all 3 finalists to say who they think they played this game most like from CBS Survivor, with one word to defend your answer. Any more, you lose my vote. I want a short and simple answer."

- Yul Kwon= Diplomatic

RUSS'S LIST OF FUN STUFF

"then why didn't you just directly tell me "Fuck off, I am done talking to you"? You kept the conversation going repeatedly, and /I/ was the one who ended it.  You did not stop talking to me until /I/ stopped messaging you -- so how can you be this paragon of morality, ethics, and game validity when you were engaging me in conversation up until I decided to end it? "

- I was hearing you out to be respectful.  I should have ended it long before I did.  I don't believe that you ended the conversation though.  I knew you would stop talking to me the second I said that I, "didn't care about your vote"  Again, I shouldn't have talked to you, but I don't think either of us like being wrong, and we were both trying to prove our points.  The argument because ridiculously circular.
   
"If it were really a matter of "ethics" -- if there is supposed to be this impenetrable wall between jurors and the game -- then you wouldn't have listened or responded to ANYTHING I had to say, yet you did."

- We were talking (I thought) as friends after you were voted out.  You are the one that started a game type conversation.  I probably shouldn't have said anything, but I didn't bring game into it.

"I am seeing a disconnect here between your words and your actions, and it makes me believe that it was a matter not of ethics but of strategy -- that if I had had, say, seven of nine jury votes on my side, you'd have done whatever I said, but because I couldn't in any world even say I had more than three, you felt safe in not doing what I wanted you to do, and are now trying to make it look like an issue of "ethics" to make yourself look good and to make me look bad."

1. The fact of the matter is that I would have played with you differently to begin with if you had 7 of 9 jury votes under your wing.  I personally didn't even think at the time, nor do I think so now, that you would carry much weight with anybody except for Alex G.

2. You look bad because you tried to force somebody to do what you wanted while outside the game with blackmail.  If you simply had brought it up and said this seems smart then I feel that is more the type of thing you see on tengaged groups.  People do not outright blackmail players in the game from jury in any group games I've ever been in.

"That is my impression. So I guess my questions here are... is that impression wrong, and if it is wrong and it really /is/ just an issue of "ethics", then how was it not hypocritical to engage me in conversation? And how can you paint yourself as somebody wholly concerned about the validity of the game when you weren't even the one who ended our conversation and when you never told me to back off out of principle?"

- Again, I ended the conversation from my perspective anyhow.  It was hypocritical for me to engage you in the conversation at all, but you again you started the game type conversation and were trying to change the game from the jury.  I was simply defending my position which did not change over the course of the conversation.  As for ethics, to a degree I don't think talking to me or any of us made you unethical.  I still don't think you should have cared about where Sean finished but that is irrelevant.  The thing that made it unethical is you were THREATENING to try to turn every jury vote possible against me.  I remember you saying that you would use the conversation to turn the entire jury against me during the conversation.  It is things like this that I think are ethically questionable.
-----

"I would like you to admit that you were continually engaging me in conversation about the game until /I/ stopped the conversation and explain how that can possibly jive with your image of yourself as someone concerned about the "ethics" of the game."

- Again, I never changed my opinion in the slightest during the

RUSS'S POTPOURRI

"JEREMY: You have admitted that you have trolled and done things for the lolz. Why should the jury reward as a winner somebody who trolls and does things for the lolz rather than the other two people who were always focused on winning?"

- I was probably more focused on winning than both of them.  I actually attempted to do these to secure jury votes during the game instead of counting on getting them all tonight.  As for the trolling, I knew was safe.  Alex wasn't gonna do anything you didn't want done, and we all know that you really didn't want Sean in the final.  Jarrod wanted to win (as you said) and knew that he had to vote out Sean to have a shot.  I ultimately told Sean that I was gonna vote for him but didn't want to and offered to self vote because it would create drama and be funny.  Also, I didn't have to vote Sean off that way.

The only person I really trolled during the game was Alex G. when he irritated me by saying the same thing over and over.  And as for the 'trolling' at the F4 ending up funny.  It certainly did.  Alex G. went on a rant about how big a slimeball (actual word he used) that Jarrod was.  Basically, it gave me the ammunition to call Alex G. temperamental which makes his vast array of insults towards me tonight much less pertinent.
-----

"JEREMY: Short and simple please name all the mistakes you made in this game."

1. I threw the challenge the round Mearl left.
2. I didn't read the rules and thought purple rocks were the tiebreaker (not saying that I coulda changed this anyhow).
3. I didn't make false promises with Russ, Joe, and Alex.  I also failed to talk to Eddie as much as I guess I should have.
4. I didn't end my the conversation with you about voting for Sean at F5 right away.
----

"@Jarrod: Good point that you received 0 votes despite being very present and a threat. Didn't know that you had 0 and by all rights you "should" have had at least ONE, since you were always visible, so that's a good selling point. Thanks."

- What about my giant selling point :P.  I received 16 votes over the course of the last 9 TCs and still made it here.  Everyone on the jury voted for me at least once.  Alex voted for me twice.  Hell, I voted for myself.  Jarrod is the only one of the 12 of us that didn't write my name down, and yet I'm here :P.  In all seriousness, props on that though.

ALEX G.'S POTPOURRI (I waited a little for this fun stuff)

"Jeremy is pompous and self-righteous, so it's hard to talk to him about anything."
" Jeremy's stupidity shines brightest."
"Calling MMA pompous isn't irrelevant.  Pompous: affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important."

- Tell me how you really feel about me (lol).
-----

"MMA thinks he's all that, and just like you, he thinks he's getting the win."

- I never said I thought I was going to win.  I think everybody that didn't publicly insult the jury has a shot.
-----

" Jeremy lacks considering he once spent an hour arguing with Russ over the fact that using racist/homophobic terms are okay if they know you're joking because it won't affect anyone!"

- I don't expect Russ to back me up, but he should here because you are either doing some ridiculous reaching or you are super naive.  We were having a discussion about language that bridged into things like comedians using racist/homophobic language.  If you don't understand what the discussion was about that is entirely on you.
-----

" I started to really talk to people, and I mean REALLY. I ended up getting Eddie to flip to me when he was 100% with Jarrod/Jeremy at the time"

- You didn't talk to more than half of the jury.  Also, you may have gotten Eddie to flip or Eddie may have flipped to YOU because it was smart.  You are the only person that I'm pretty sure Eddie or anyone would have beaten at the end.  I even told Eddie at one point that you were the most beatable.  You shouldn't have had to convince Eddie to go with you.  He should have wanted to on his own and probably did based upon his flipping back and forth.

ALEX'S POTPOURRI CONTINUED

"I don't like the fact that Jeremy put all his cards in one person just to play the Jury. The goal of Survivor is to make sure the Jury will vote for you in the end, but Jeremy's made it so he only had to clutch onto one person so that the Jury would vote for him. That's something I don't respect."

- It doesn't matter if you don't like it.  Also, I didn't put everything into one person.  I put everything into every person.  Russ wasn't mad at me until the F5 discussion about Sean.  I assume I talked more to Joe than any of you whether he trusted me or not.  I know for a fact I talked to Andy, Coldan, Nick, and probably Sean more than any of you.
-----
   
"Not once in my time here did I think Jeremy was a nice guy. The entire time he decided to make arguments to make them, made stupid moves to make them, and berated people just to berate them. Do I think that's a good winner? Not at all."

- Me and Russ liked (as in enjoyed) to argue if that is what you are referring to.  What stupid moves are we referring to or is this hyperbole.  Who did I berate?
----
 
" I called MMA a bigot, and that was probably one of the worst things I said."

- Just wow (lol)...
-----

" Talking to you guys could have been used as a sign to get me out if I'm "fraternizing with the enemy" so to speak... You attempted to talk to me, but at the time talking to you was considered "taboo" because everyone knew you were talking to everyone."

- You are 100% right that not talking to them or significantly to most people made it easier for you to reach the finals.  This is your problem.  I certainly had a lesser chance to make the finals because I was collecting jury votes along the way.  However, I sit here tonight with a legitimate shot to win.  You chose to alienate jury votes along the way.  It makes it much easier to take you to the end and easier for you to convince people to go with you to the end.  However, it doesn't matter if you don't win when you get here.

Basically, I played the game to win.  You played the game just to make it here tonight and hope things worked out.  The jury has the power to prove me wrong and grant you the win, but from my perspective I don't think it will happen.

JARROD'S MUCH SMALLER BATCH OF POTPOURRI

"MMA played an impulsive and emotional game. He trolled and put himself in unnecessary danger (self voting at the final 4)."

- I'm not sure what I did that was impulsive.  Probably my most emotional problem in the game was that I didn't want to vote for you after you saved me.

However, let's be clear.  I wasn't in any danger at the F4.  I knew that you felt Sean was the biggest threat and would only vote for him.  I knew that Alex was afraid of Russ giving him a spanking if Sean made the FTC.  I more or less did decide to vote for Sean, but told him I'd self vote 'for the lolz' if he preferred it.  I think you know as well as I do that I wasn't in any danger.
-----

"Not talking to every member of the jury but I didn't want to be that false person who speaks to everybody without any intention of actually making a move with them."

- I don't think you are trying to turn this on me.  However, in case you are I can honestly say that I wasn't a false person to the jurors.  You can do one of three things with every juror especially if you know they are leaving.  A). Lie to them out the door which is stupid.  B). Ignore them which can also make them upset.  C).  Talk to them honestly and outline why you are doing what you are doing.  I talked to them so that they wouldn't feel ignored, but I wasn't disingenuous with any of them.
-----

"Myself, Jeremy and Eddie had a kind of unspoken final 3 deal."

- I thought it was spoken :P!
-----

"The main obstacles I faced in this game were post-merge. Knowing that this game was not decided by rocks and tiebreakers coming into the merge I made sure I had somebody from the runner-ups (Rich) watching my back to ensure my elimination wouldn't be determined by a firemaking challenge."

- Again if the jury wants to hold this firemaking challenge against me, that is fine.  But I would have legitimately done the same thing and gone to the same person (Rich :P) if I knew the tiebreaker was a duel and not rocks.  If I woulda got the votes no matter what at that first merged tribal then ignore this :P.

"I don't believe that you ended the conversation though."

I mean... I don't know how it's a matter of "belief." Multiple times you said you'd stop messaging me but then kept responding, and then at the end of the conversation, I said that I was done talking to you and I actually stopped messaging you, when you hadn't stopped doing so for me. It would have kept going if I'd continued it, but I stopped. In fact, at one point, I even directly asked you "Is there any chance of Sean going 5th or should I stop wasting my time?" and you didn't even respond to that until I copypasted it again later. If doing what I did is SO egregious and you're SO opposed to it on a fundamental level, then you would have done one of the following:
1) Not engaged in the strategic conversation to begin with
2) Stopped it of your own volition at some point
3) Stopped it of your own volition on one of the multiple occasions on which you said you were going to
4) Stopped it when I gave you a very clear out to do so by asking you "Should I stop messaging you?", because /I/ was sick of the conversation

But you didn't do any of those. And your rationale of "Well I knew you'd stop responding after I said that" doesn't really mean anything, because I gave you a clear and direct chance to say that earlier on, because you didn't even try to send that until /much/ later (when you'd have wanted the conversation to end right away if it were a matter of principle + ethics), and because even then, that's still placing it in my hands to actually end the conversation.

"I probably shouldn't have said anything, but I didn't bring game into it."

It is irrelevant whether you brought game into it or whether I did, as you allowed me to do so by engaging in conversation about it until I stopped the conversation.

"The fact of the matter is that I would have played with you differently to begin with if you had 7 of 9 jury votes under your wing.  I personally didn't even think at the time, nor do I think so now, that you would carry much weight with anybody except for Alex G."

..So is it a matter of ethics or is it just a matter of me not carrying weight?

"You look bad because you tried to force somebody to do what you wanted while outside the game with blackmail."

But here's the thing -- it was a two-way conversation. It wasn't a matter of "force." That wording makes it seem like I harassed you and bullied you about it, which is not the case. So maybe I look bad to some people (though I myself still see nothing wrong with it whatsoever based on my beliefs about what is or isn't appropriate in, y'know, a silly Internet game) -- but you're misrepresenting things to try and make me look /worse/, is my point. You engaged me in the conversation and did not end it until I did, and if you were as concerned about ethics as you now want to pretend you were, you would have just said "Fuck off" at the outset of the strategic conversation. You are acknowledging your hypocrisy here and there in your responses... but you're also making a lot of excuses -- I dunno whether it's to make yourself look better in front of the jury or due to an internal lack of self-awareness.

"What about my giant selling point :P.  I received 16 votes over the course of the last 9 TCs and still made it here."

Due, per both your and Jarrod's accounts, to a conversation Jarrod, not you, had with Sean. And I don't really see how that's a selling point. All that tells me is that Jarrod managed to avoid heat despite being a jury threat where you did not.

And I have one other thing that I want to bring up (@JEREMY). This really, really bugged me.

Something that I have an incredibly low tolerance for is somebody who puts words in my mouth or biases into my mind that aren't there. Like if I'm explaining why Russell Hantz sucks at Survivor and someone says "Well you're just saying that because you dislike him!!" -- uh, no, fuck off; I dislike him for completely separate reasons, and if anything, I dislike him because he's so egregiously bad. It's just so annoying when I'm saying one thing, very clearly and directly, and somebody decides seemingly at random that I'm really trying to say something else -- even after I explicitly tell them I'm not.

This occurred during our conversation. You constantly accused me of trying to get Alex in the finals so I could vote for him to win, even though I made it abundantly clear that I didn't care who was in finals; I just cared about Sean /not/ being in finals (or F4.) And I /explicitly said/, "The only person I actively wanted to vote for was Joe. I don't care if you and Jarrod take Alex or Eddie to finals. This has absolutely nothing to do with Alex." My only goal was to get Sean out in 5th and after that I didn't care if it was Alex or Eddie in finals, because I had no particular desire to vote for Alex in the final three.

But even after I said this multiple times, you still insisted, "No, you're just trying to get Alex to the end." When there was no basis to think that and when I had said it wasn't the case multiple times. And this, in particular, is what got me really, really aggravated. I made it very clear, multiple times, what my motives were and were not.. and you still insisted that I just wanted Alex in the end due to your apparent inability to wrap your mind around somebody else's motives being different than yours would be in their.

So, I don't know, this isn't really a specific question, but it's something I want to bring up and have addressed. You were 100% wrong in that situation, and it REALLY annoys me when people continue to insist on the existence of things that don't actually exist in my mind.. so do you have anything to say to me about it?

ALEX R.'S QUESTION

"Sum up your entire game in one sentence.  Whichever I find most amusing/insightful/awesome will get my vote."

- Most people's recipe to win this game involve lies, ignored convos, , and convoluted plans they do hatch.... while I went through it chatting with all and using plenty of rest, dung, and a match

(That last point I raised will most likely be the last thing I bring up. But it really bugged me and I wanna address it.)

RUSS'S FUN STUFF... AGAIN (LOL)

"So, I don't know, this isn't really a specific question, but it's something I want to bring up and have addressed. You were 100% wrong in that situation, and it REALLY annoys me when people continue to insist on the existence of things that don't actually exist in my mind.. so do you have anything to say to me about it?"

- You don't remember the part where you more than hinted that I should take out Jarrod at the F4 as well.  I believe you were trying to get Alex here.  Whether or not you are telling the truth about this is with your own conscience.

- As for all the other stuff that you said in the post(s).  The 16 vote thing is kind of a joke.  I'm guilty of attempting to explain myself to you.  I feel I've taken accountability for that.  I didn't start the conversation, and I didn't try to coerce and/or blackmail somebody with multiple jury votes when they wouldn't give in to my opinion on a matter.  I know you were frustrated that I wouldn't do what you wanted, but you chose to react that way.  You alone are guilty of that.  I still think I more or less ended the conversation when I told you I wasn't gonna do what you wanted.  You making post afterward about being frustrated and whining about me wasting your time don't count.  You can continue talking about this if you choose, but you are the bad guy in this situation.

Finally, I caught up.  If anyone has more questions then feel free to post.

..lol

Alright.

"Alex wasn't gonna do anything you didn't want done."

This isn't true at all. Along with wanting me in the Finals, Russ has even told me himself that (before this) he might not even vote for me in the Final Three because he'll think a player is better. I don't expect him to vote for me just because we're friends.
Besides, I knew I couldn't beat Russ in any situation. I've seen it happen once before. I would have tried to do something when it came down to it, but I never had a plan to take out Russ in the first place. It's called being in an alliance with someone. Russ/I TALKED about what to do. And this seems to be something that people forgot in Oman as well. I don't consider alliances to have leaders or followers. I consider alliances to be a group of people working together. It's a point of view, obviously, but the fact of the matter remains that Russ/I were allies. I didn't do what he wanted specifically. We talked about what to do and acted accordingly.
---
And about all the things I've said about you; I have every right to not like you. Sean posted a message saying you thought you were going to the Final 3, and by such win it.
Talking to People=Talking to the people in the game. The Jury was out and there was no need to talk to them at that point.
And, as for alienating the Jury at the time. I really did not want to talk to people who were saying I wasn't going to win and didn't deserve to. And when I told them I wasn't they shot me down. Why would I want to talk to people who would put me down and say I wasn't going to win in the first place? They however, have been pinning you as the one who's going to win it all since the merge, so of course it's easy to talk to them when all they've said about you is good things.
---
"I knew that Alex was afraid of Russ giving him a spanking if Sean made the FTC."

Once again.  If Sean made the Finals, he was winning and you know it.
He'd have 5 RUs on the side. And I consider it to be a stupid move that you let him get to the point of the F4 because he could have won that Final Immunity Challenge and costed your game. When I told you this you didn't care. You told me you did NOT care if Sean made the Finals, when it would have costed your game dearly.
I told you you'd be an idiot if you let him get close to the Finals, and you did, which comments towards me thinking you made idiotic moves. Of course the latter was you going home, but the fact that you even let Sean get this close wasn't going to go well for you at all had he won the FIC.