Tom's Court

[DoctorThrills]

For Tom to address the finalists.

[tom]

Hi finalists. Congrats for getting to the end, and I respect all 3 of you a lot.

My questions will be coming in the morning (if that's okay with the host). I like to look at the comments of the other jurors as well as my own thoughts. As usual, the other answers you have given have been really interesting, and I've gotten a better insight into two of you particularlyn as a result.

So, see you tomorrow for my questions.

[tom]

Well, thanks again to Thrills for hosting a great game! I really enjoyed taking part.

I have several observations and questions to all three of you. Questions will be intersperced with other notes, but I will summarise them for you at the end. Still, it would be useful and I would strongly advise you to respond to my observations as well.


ANTHONY:

Here's your answer in Donna's Court as to why you should win over the others:

I think that I played a solid game. I won challenges, I made the right alliances and I was nice to the people around me. I think I was in a good spot and stayed in one this entire game.

I think that the other 2 finalists should not win because they lied to a lot of people. I think thay they didnt have solid alliances because it seemed that they booted the people who trusted them. I think that I played the better game out of the 3 of us.

Personally, I don't think that this is a good answer. Did you really make the right alliances in this game? You may arguably say that you did, but clearly the "right alliance" was that of Warren and Nathan. I do agree that you were in a good spot throughout, however. Why do you think that you were in the right spot?

As to why the others should not win, you note that they booted the wrong people. This may be true (I'd agree in some cases), who exactly did you boot out? It seems that they were responsible for the departures of some of the participants, and I'm not sure you can say the same thing.

In short, I don't really know if you really did control this game, nor if you were the best game player. I can't really decide whether or not you got here because of mainly luck or because of your own merit.

So, to summarise, here are my questions to you (along with a few more):

1. Why were you in a good spot in this game? Was it because of your own doing, or because of others helping you?

2. Why do you think you made the right alliances in this game?

3. What differentiated your strategy from mine?

4. I often felt that you were flying under the radar. Give examples of times when you were a dominant power player in this game.


WARREN

Warren, I have to agree with Sheree about the reactiveness of your strategy. But for me, I would say that, while you did control things in this game, your general execution was very clumsy. You seemed to have all the allies you needed, but you definitely dispatched of your foes in the wrong order. Obviously, Sheree is the main example of someone who should have left earlier than she did if you were playing smarter. Instead, you wasted time on others (Donna, Liz and Eric), rather than focusing on the real problems at hand. That's my concern - you did get here, but it seems to have been on some level of luck, since you and Nathan almost continually won HOHs. Had someone else won more than once, e.g. Sheree, I think you would have been far more compromised. It begs the question - why did you keep her in for so long? I strongly believe that your eliminations of other players were at the wrong times, in some cases, allowing the real threats to potentially continue on.

So, my questions to you:

1. Why did you want to keep Sheree in longer than some of the others?

2. How did you manage to manipulate Scott so easily? (I am asking that particularly as you tried to manipulate me to vote out Kathleen, and failed miserably. So I'm curious about how you managed to work your charm so well on him.)

3. What do you think of me? Do you truly believe me to be a basket-case and an irrational player? Did you trust me as much after I voted out Liz?


NATHAN:

I understand your frustration at the Anthony-love fest. However, I just don't see any way that you were anything other than Warren's right hand man. So, here are my questions for you!

1. What moves did you make independently of Warren?

2. Why did you nominate Donna and I in the final 7 over Sheree and Anthony? That nomination makes absolutely no sense to me.

3. Do you believe that you played the best game, or that Warren did?



QUESTIONS TO ALL:

1. What was your greatest strategic move in this game?

2. What was your worst strategic move in this game?

3. Time to share the love - explain why your opponents deserve to win.

4. For each member of the jury and the finalists (including yourself), compare them to a contestant of Big Brother USA and explain why you have given this comparison.

[Warren]

Mar 22, 2009 7:12:19 GMT -5 tom said:

Warren, I have to agree with Sheree about the reactiveness of your strategy. But for me, I would say that, while you did control things in this game, your general execution was very clumsy. You seemed to have all the allies you needed, but you definitely dispatched of your foes in the wrong order. Obviously, Sheree is the main example of someone who should have left earlier than she did if you were playing smarter. Instead, you wasted time on others (Donna, Liz and Eric), rather than focusing on the real problems at hand. That's my concern - you did get here, but it seems to have been on some level of luck, since you and Nathan almost continually won HOHs. Had someone else won more than once, e.g. Sheree, I think you would have been far more compromised. It begs the question - why did you keep her in for so long? I strongly believe that your eliminations of other players were at the wrong times, in some cases, allowing the real threats to potentially continue on.

So, my questions to you:

1. Why did you want to keep Sheree in longer than some of the others?

2. How did you manage to manipulate Scott so easily? (I am asking that particularly as you tried to manipulate me to vote out Kathleen, and failed miserably. So I'm curious about how you managed to work your charm so well on him.)

3. What do you think of me? Do you truly believe me to be a basket-case and an irrational player? Did you trust me as much after I voted out Liz?

QUESTIONS TO ALL:

1. What was your greatest strategic move in this game?

2. What was your worst strategic move in this game?

3. Time to share the love - explain why your opponents deserve to win.

4. For each member of the jury and the finalists (including yourself), compare them to a contestant of Big Brother USA and explain why you have given this comparison.

Thank you for the comments Tom. Although I don’t agree with your statements you are entitled to your own opinions. You seem to want to attribute a lot of luck that got me to this point, which I think is a flawed statement. Nathan and I winning challenges wasn’t luck. I would appreciate it if you didn’t attribute our hard work and determination to something as simple as luck. We had a clear goal and if you look back at the challenges we won none of them were based on luck. The only thing I would consider to be lucky was that Nathan and I both realized we were strong players and aligned together to make the strongest force in the game.

1. The reason Sheree stayed longer then other players in the game because she gave up the right to compete in veto competitions up until the final four. While she was one of the stronger threats in the game she was handicapped. There were multiple players who were able to compete in all competitions and had the potential to win. Kathleen is one example, had everything going for her. She was social and could participate in all the challenges. So while you say I picked the wrong people to go when I did I don’t agree because I took out threats to MY game.

Eric was inactive, gone. Liz, was with me and I didn’t want her to leave, gone. Kathleen, was one of the strongest people left due to Sheree being handicapped, gone. Donna was also a huge threat, she gave Nathan and I a run for our money numerous times, gone. Scott left and I didn’t want him to go, gone. Sheree, left because she was finally over all of her penalties and would regain her status as a threat, gone. Tom you left depending on how HoH and veto worked out. It was either you or Anthony and when Anthony won HoH it was clear you were going.

2. I think you are mistaking friendship with manipulation. Scott and I, up to the veto challenge he won, were just friends. I had no clue that he threw his game away for Nathan and I until the results were revealed. Then after he won Nathan and I discussed who it was better for him to save and we chose me because we thought Nathan had a better shot at staying than I did. At that point that is when I formed an alliance with Scott. To me alliances grow out of friendship and I align myself with the people I connect with. Scott and I were friends and I think he realized I was looking out for his best interest in this game. You can call that manipulation if you want, it doesn’t matter to me. We were in an alliance and I happened to be the more vocal and dominant one of the group. I respected his loyalty and he respected my willingness to keep him safe.

3. Tom I enjoy your friendship and really enjoy talking to you. Like I said you were my number two to Nathan. As a player, however, I didn’t really enjoy you that much. You were rarely around and hardly ever participated in challenges. I think you realized you could use me as a vehicle to the end and tried to ride it all the way. You were playing the middle man of two alliances. I heard all the gossip about you being with Sheree and Anthony. Nathan told me about you in previous games. I was well aware of your antics and that you were a smart player.

The reason I called you irrational and a basket-case was because at that point in the game when you decided to keep Kathleen and go against our alliance. It was a slap in the face because you kept saying “I won’t get her vote in the end if I vote her off now.” To me you had no shot in hell in winning if you got to the end because you hardly did anything that was why I was frustrated with you. And I know you are a smart guy so that was when I realized you might be playing the middle man. Your downfall was not being able to fully commit to either side leaving both sides doubting your real loyalty.

After you booted Liz I trusted you in some ways and in others I didn’t. I didn’t view you as a threat to me so I kept you around. As long as you were going to keep the charade of not playing in competitions and not threatening my end game I was willing to keep up the charade of taking you all the way.

Questions for All:

1. My greatest strategic move in this game would either have to be aligning with Nathan or was winning the HoH right after I gave up 11 days of speaking in the game. Nathan and I learned early on in this game we had to be a powerful force in challenges. The odds were against us because no one would bring strategy talk or formal alliance proposals to us. Instead of waiting for people to strike we decided to strike first. Our plan was just to alternate winning HoH and win the final veto to make sure we made the final two. And here we are, we didn’t win every HoH, but we came damn close.

The other best move was winning the pivotal HoH competition. I knew if I didn’t win HoH I would be toast because I wouldn’t be able to defend myself in any aspect. I knew I was a big target and I had to protect myself. By winning HoH I got to do what I truly wanted to do because no one could try to influence my choices because we weren’t allowed to speak.

2. I honestly don’t think I have a ‘worst strategic’ moment in this game. I thought early on winning the first HoH and the first POV was a huge mistake, but it didn't effect me getting to the end. I gave this game my all whether it was in challenges or socially. I think some situations could have been handled better, but none of them stand out to me as the worst. I am happy and confident in the game I have played.

3. I think Nathan deserves to win because he worked just as hard as me. He won more competitions than Anthony and I. He was here and he was active. He was social. He was a great person to be in an alliance with and has a great personality. He stood up for what he thought was right and let people know what he thought. I can’t speak a bad word on Nathan’s behalf.

I think Anthony deserves to win because he never lied whether it was mostly in part because he was never around or not. He was quiet and polite and he didn’t step on anyone’s toes. He never put himself out there which meant he never had much to lose. His game was safe. I think this question would be better directed to Sheree because she seems to have taken it upon herself to become his personal campaign manager. However, I will warn her opinion will clearly be biased, as she only counters points Nathan and I make. I think she is fighting for Anthony to win more than Anthony himself. hahahaha

4.
Eric- I would say he was like Mike from season 8 because no one really knew who he was. He had potential to be a great player, but just kinda didn’t care and left because of that. Even his alliance booted him.

Liz- I would say Liz was like Nakomis in season 7 because her reputation got the best of her and that was her downfall in this game. People perceived her to be a huge threat even though she wasn’t winning challenges like Nakomis in BB7.

Kathleen- I think Kathleen is a lot like Amber from BB8 because she is very open and loves to talk to different people. They are both strong women who were loved for their personalities. They were also strong in competitions.

Donna- I would describe Donna as Kail from season 8. She won a couple of challenges, but didn’t leave an impression on the season as a whole. No one really knew who Kail was and her downfall was because she was unable to make strong relationships with the other houseguests.

Scott- I would describe Scott to be Howie from BB6 because he was fun. He was loyal and energetic. Scott, like Howie, wasn’t known for his brains, but for his lovable personality.

Sheree- I would describe Sheree as Maggie from BB6 because she has this great ability to befriend people and get them to think how she thinks. Like Maggie she was the leader of a group of players who believed they were better players because they didn’t “lie and deceive” when in fact some of them did. It is her way or the highway.

Tom- Tom is very much like Jerry from season 10. He was taken under the wing of strong players because they didn’t view him as a huge threat. He played that up to his advantage and used it for as long as he could. It didn't get Jerry to the finals and didn't get Tom to the finals.

Anthony- I think Anthony best represents Sharon from BB9 because she won a couple of challenges, but kept her nose out of anything and everything. Anthony, like Sharon, avoided a lot of situations and was basically invisible. In the end they both claimed that that their lack of strategy was just playing honestly.

Nathan- Nathan was my partner in this game. We created an unbelievable bond in a quick amount of time. He would be Boogie. We were a pair and a dynamic duo. I think people misunderstand his sense of humor and that is why he isn’t viewed as the Dr. Will.

I would consider myself to be Dr. Will. Nathan was my right hand man and we worked together throughout the whole game. I just happened to be the one people decided to hate less out of the two. We are both guilty of everything equally. I found him and started the relationship so we could become the Chilltown of BB5.

There you go Tom.
:]

[Anthony]

Im not going to pick at everything I have to much going on in real life at the moment, i will answer questions later.

Warren, Shut the Hell up on trying to pick everything out of my gameplay when it was clearly better than yours. I was around and was here all the time, probably more than you. Just because you and Nathan became little lovers in this game and cannot be seperated doesnt mean you have to shoot my game down.

[Anthony]

And are you two Jealous I have friends in this game that will stand up for me.

[nathan]

1. What moves did you make independently of Warren?
Warren and I talked about everything, but ultimately, every time one of us won a competition like HOH or veto, the decision on how to use it was always up to the person who won the competition. Warren never told me who to nominate, and I never told him who to nominate. We both made moves equally in this game. I don’t think you can say that the person who was in control more than anyone when it came to challenge wins, could possibly have been anybody’s pawn. If anything, I did way more dirty work.

Why did you nominate Donna and I in the final 7 over Sheree and Anthony? That nomination makes absolutely no sense to me.
This is another example of a move I made on my own. My goal that week was to target Donna and Anthony since I knew they were a tight pair. Warren didn’t want me to nominate you, but I did anyway, and I did it for one reason only - I hoped that you would feel nervous enough to use your power to nullify a vote. My plan obviously didn’t work, because you must have felt safe enough to save your vote. But if it had, we would have been done with that, and Scott (who I liked and trusted) wouldn’t have gone home when he did.

3. Do you believe that you played the best game, or that Warren did?
Warren and I really did make a lot of decisions together, and it's hard to say that one of us did better than the other. At one point it seemed like our only chance to get to the end would be to win every challenge. Warren was a great competitor, but in the last 8 weeks, I won every single HOH competition that I competed in. It's hard to argue that someone who did that doesn't deserve to win the game.

1. What was your greatest strategic move in this game?
My greatest strategic move in the game was definitely teaming up with Warren. He and I became an unstoppable force. Also, when Sheree nominated Warren and myself for eviction, Scott won veto, and I asked him to use it on Warren, since I knew that I could get Sheree (who at that point in the game was the Maggie-type leader of the nerd herd) to secure the votes to keep me in the house. I put myself at risk in order to keep my closest ally in the house. Also, my pretend alliance with Sheree helped me a lot because she helped me win the HOH that actually sent her home.

2. What was your worst strategic move in this game?
The biggest mistake I made was assuming that the game would come down to a final 2. I had a very set game plan in mind that would get Warren and myself to the final 2. If I had known it was going to be a final three, I would have pushed Warren to try harder to win the final 4 HOH. That way we could have taken Anthony (the last remaining member of the nerd herd) out of the house, and the final three would have been you, me and Warren.

3. Time to share the love - explain why your opponents deserve to win.
Anthony deserves to win because he did pull out a very important final 4 HOH win. If he hadn’t won that, he would be toast.

Warren deserves to win because he played an amazing game on all levels. He was social, strategic, competitive, and smart. A lot of people have talked about loyalty in reference to Anthony, but I can’t think of anyone in the house who was more loyal to his alliance than Warren. He and I told each other everything. He’s a friend and an ally, and I just think the world of him.

4. For each member of the jury and the finalists (including yourself), compare them to a contestant of Big Brother USA and explain why you have given this comparison.

Eric- Eric is like Jee. Who is Jee? Who is Eric? I have no idea.
Donna- Donna is like Jerry from BB10 because she’s 1000 years old and boring as shit. Also, while I’ve never heard Donna’s speaking voice, I imagine it to be exactly the same as Jerrys.
Elizabeth- Elizabeth is like Diane Henry in All Stars. She came in with a reputation for being a bad ass, but once the game got started, she just kind of fizzled out. She was never quite the player that anyone expected her to be.
Kathleen- Kathleen is like Nakomis. At first she seems like kind of a weirdo, but she actually has a lot going on for her. She is competitive, smart, endearing, and she wanted to win.
Scott- Scott is like Cowboy from BB5. I think people underestimated him and thought he was just a fun loving goofy guy, but I think there’s a lot more to him. He was very loyal and did well in the game.
Sheree- Sheree is totally Maggie. She herded a group of sheep together with the values of honesty and integrity and good people going to the end. I actually think Sheree expected people to let her get far in the game just because she was the shepherd. Maggie did the same thing, only Maggie did it successfully.
Tom- Tom is like Sharon from BB9. I think she was pretty quiet and non-threatening in the house, but in her diary rooms, she was very interesting. She always had a good read on the game, and she was well spoken. But since she didn’t make any major plays or get herself into any house drama, she was largely forgettable.
Anthony- Anthony is like Drew Daniels from BB5. He was a nice quiet guy who got to the end by being aligned with the right people and being non-threatening. People will vote for him because he is nice, and not because he actually did anything.
Nathan- I’d say I was like Dan Gheesling. I came into the game and felt like a huge target. A majority alliance had formed that didn’t include me. So I stepped up my strategy, won challenges and got to the end with my closest ally.
Warren- Warren was Memphis Garrett. He and I combined were an unstoppable force in this house, and we fought our way to the end together. People knew we were the biggest threats and they knew we were together, but no one was able to do anything about it.

[Anthony]

1. Why were you in a good spot in this game? Was it because of your own doing, or because of others helping you?

I was in a good spot because of the competitions I won, Because of the people I allinged with and because I wasnt targetted first. I think that it was a combination of both, and you need both to get to the end of the game and win.

2. Why do you think you made the right alliances in this game?

I think I made the right alliances because I made it here to the end, They helped me when I needed it and we worked well together.

3. What differentiated your strategy from mine?

I won competitions and I think I had more people to depend on.

4. I often felt that you were flying under the radar. Give examples of times when you were a dominant power player in this game.

When I was HOH.
When I won POV.
When I could influence people to vote how I wanted.
When I stayed out of targets.
When I talked to people and got them to trust me.



1. What was your greatest strategic move in this game?

Getting into the right alliances.

2. What was your worst strategic move in this game?

Probably not being social with everyone

3. Time to share the love - explain why your opponents deserve to win.

I will do this tonight.
4. For each member of the jury and the finalists (including yourself), compare them to a contestant of Big Brother USA and explain why you have given this comparison.

Im going to do this tonight

[tom]

Not sure if you can respond to this now, but whatever:

Mar 22, 2009 15:03:24 GMT -5 Warren said:

Thank you for the comments Tom. Although I don’t agree with your statements you are entitled to your own opinions. You seem to want to attribute a lot of luck that got me to this point, which I think is a flawed statement. Nathan and I winning challenges wasn’t luck. I would appreciate it if you didn’t attribute our hard work and determination to something as simple as luck. We had a clear goal and if you look back at the challenges we won none of them were based on luck. The only thing I would consider to be lucky was that Nathan and I both realized we were strong players and aligned together to make the strongest force in the game.

That's true enough, but that's not the point that I was trying to make. What I meant was, basing your entire strategy around the chances of winning challenges is luck-based - you have no idea whether you will actually win them, it is far too variable, especially when challenges themselves involve luck. Having a strategy that is too-challenge heavy was what I was being critical of.

This is what I am critical of:

Mar 22, 2009 15:03:24 GMT -5 Warren said:

Our plan was just to alternate winning HoH and win the final veto to make sure we made the final two. And here we are, we didn’t win every HoH, but we came damn close.

I just see that as a hugely faulty strategy.

Mar 22, 2009 15:03:24 GMT -5 Warren said:

1. The reason Sheree stayed longer then other players in the game because she gave up the right to compete in veto competitions up until the final four. While she was one of the stronger threats in the game she was handicapped. There were multiple players who were able to compete in all competitions and had the potential to win. Kathleen is one example, had everything going for her. She was social and could participate in all the challenges. So while you say I picked the wrong people to go when I did I don’t agree because I took out threats to MY game.

True, but why was Eric a threat to your game? Kathleen might be an example, but getting rid of Eric was in my view a mistake.

Mar 22, 2009 15:03:24 GMT -5 Warren said:

2. I think you are mistaking friendship with manipulation. Scott and I, up to the veto challenge he won, were just friends. I had no clue that he threw his game away for Nathan and I until the results were revealed. Then after he won Nathan and I discussed who it was better for him to save and we chose me because we thought Nathan had a better shot at staying than I did. At that point that is when I formed an alliance with Scott. To me alliances grow out of friendship and I align myself with the people I connect with. Scott and I were friends and I think he realized I was looking out for his best interest in this game. You can call that manipulation if you want, it doesn’t matter to me. We were in an alliance and I happened to be the more vocal and dominant one of the group. I respected his loyalty and he respected my willingness to keep him safe.

This surprises me - I was expecting this to show what a great strategist you were, but instead it doesn't really show that at all. I thought, in other words, that it would be a point in your favour, but it can't be. Though thanks for your honesty.

Thank you for your answer about me. I'm glad (and hope) you seem to realise that there was strategy behind my votes, and I wasn't just doing it based on friendship, even though that's what I was trying to make you believe. I'm glad you saw through me as it shows you are a smart player.

I don't think getting rid of Eric when you did was a good move.

Cool comparisons, but I am really trying to see how you played more than Nate or vice versa. So obviously you think you did more if you compare yourself to Dr. Will and him to Boogie...

[tom]

Mar 23, 2009 12:32:05 GMT -5 nathan said:

1. What moves did you make independently of Warren?
Warren and I talked about everything, but ultimately, every time one of us won a competition like HOH or veto, the decision on how to use it was always up to the person who won the competition. Warren never told me who to nominate, and I never told him who to nominate. We both made moves equally in this game. I don’t think you can say that the person who was in control more than anyone when it came to challenge wins, could possibly have been anybody’s pawn. If anything, I did way more dirty work.

Why did you do more of the dirty work than Warren? I'm not sure I like your answer - definitely suggests that neither of you were in charge.

Mar 23, 2009 12:32:05 GMT -5 nathan said:

Why did you nominate Donna and I in the final 7 over Sheree and Anthony? That nomination makes absolutely no sense to me.
This is another example of a move I made on my own. My goal that week was to target Donna and Anthony since I knew they were a tight pair. Warren didn’t want me to nominate you, but I did anyway, and I did it for one reason only - I hoped that you would feel nervous enough to use your power to nullify a vote. My plan obviously didn’t work, because you must have felt safe enough to save your vote. But if it had, we would have been done with that, and Scott (who I liked and trusted) wouldn’t have gone home when he did.

Fair enough, but I don't see why you consider Anthony and I to be bigger threats than Sheree. If you did, that was a fundamental error in judgment, I feel.

Mar 23, 2009 12:32:05 GMT -5 nathan said:

3. Do you believe that you played the best game, or that Warren did?
Warren and I really did make a lot of decisions together, and it's hard to say that one of us did better than the other. At one point it seemed like our only chance to get to the end would be to win every challenge. Warren was a great competitor, but in the last 8 weeks, I won every single HOH competition that I competed in. It's hard to argue that someone who did that doesn't deserve to win the game.

Yes it is. In SURVIVOR, you don't vote for the person who wins immunity the most. Could you really suggest that Kelly (S1), Colby (S2), Terry (S12) and some others really deserved to win because they won more competitions? No, really. I would award you the vote because you made the right decisions when in power. And I'm still undecided as to whether or not you did.

I like how candid your answers are, though.

You also compared you and Warren to the recent duo who got to the finals. Although, like Warren, you pick yourself to be the superior one of the duo. That's not a criticism - I'd say it's a good thing - but I don't really know why you see yourself as separate things, when before in my answers you seem to suggest something different.

[tom]

Anthony, I still haven't seen anything demonstrating a high level of strategy from you. Honestly, I find your answers unconvincing and too brief for my liking.

[tom]

I do realise that I'm being critical, but these are just the issues that I had while reading.

[Anthony]

I will do them over tonight if you like. Im busy and going through a hard time right now.

[nathan]

Why did you do more of the dirty work than Warren? I'm not sure I like your answer - definitely suggests that neither of you were in charge.
I think it's highly inaccurate to suggest that I was neither “in charge” or that I didn’t do my share of dirty work. As HOH I was directly responsible for the evictions of Jason, Liz, Donna, and Sheree. As the final veto holder, I was responsible for your eviction as well. You could also argue that I was responsible for the eviction of Donnann because I was the one who convinced Billy to make the nominations he did, and I won the veto that week to secure that those nominations stayed the same. That’s six people that I had a major part in getting out of this game. I don't think anyone else can argue that they did as much as I did.

Fair enough, but I don't see why you consider Anthony and I to be bigger threats than Sheree. If you did, that was a fundamental error in judgment, I feel.
At that time, I wanted Sheree to stick around because I felt she was more valuable to me as a player than someone like Anthony or Donna, who had never expressed any interest in working with me. You were never my target for eviction that week. My goal at that point was to split up the twosome of Donna/Anthony. Keeping Sheree around was important to me, and proved to be the right choice, since she eventually helped me win the HOH competition that ended up being her demise.


Yes it is. In SURVIVOR, you don't vote for the person who wins immunity the most. Could you really suggest that Kelly (S1), Colby (S2), Terry (S12) and some others really deserved to win because they won more competitions? No, really. I would award you the vote because you made the right decisions when in power. And I'm still undecided as to whether or not you did.

I agree with that statement, but Survivor and Big Brother are fundamentally different games. In Survivor you win challenges just to keep yourself safe. In Big Brother, you win the right to make major gaming decisions, therefore keeping yourself safe. In Big Brother, it's perfectly logical to say that the person who won the most competitions, made the most strategic decisions. You may be undecided about whether my decisions were the right ones to make, but you can't argue with the results. I got me and my main ally to the end, and every decision I made in this game was for that ultimate goal. So I'd say my choices were pretty spot on.