|
|
Post by Daniele Donato on May 8, 2009 20:48:41 GMT -5
Hey guys. Wow, congratulations to both Nathan and Sheila for making it to the finals. I don't have too much to say, or even to ask really...but I do have something.
To both of you:
Obviously, a winner should possess certain qualities. A real winner. The qualities that one should possess are different from person to person, based on individual opinions. So I ask you, what is your definition of a winner in this game? What qualities are essential, overlooked, bonuses? And finally, after that - which of the qualities in your definition do you personally have? Don't have or could improve on?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chi Chi Song on May 8, 2009 20:58:45 GMT -5
Can my fatness be a quality a winner would possess?
FAT N' FAB!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sheila Kennedy on May 8, 2009 21:33:56 GMT -5
Obviously, a winner should possess certain qualities. A real winner. The qualities that one should possess are different from person to person, based on individual opinions. So I ask you, what is your definition of a winner in this game? What qualities are essential, overlooked, bonuses? And finally, after that - which of the qualities in your definition do you personally have? Don't have or could improve on? Well basically when I think of a good winner, I don't focus on personal qualities one may possess such as likability, honesty, etc. (although I sometimes do base a vote on that, I admit I don't always vote for the best winner). I think the quality of ones game should be the only factor. And for this I usually look at 3 areas that are each essential: Socially, Strategically, and Physically (If you can call it physical online...). Socially I obviously look at their social game. Did they talk to people, and how did they come off? Pissing people off all the time or alienating people are what I consider poor social play. This is usually my weakness, and in this game I think it was again. While I did communicate to most of the cast, I did alienate others which in the end could have bit me in the ass. I also was not the nicest towards some people. Strategically I look at their overall game. Was it one sided, or did they have something to fall back on? Did they play for themselves for others? Were they visible, or UTR or a floater? For me in this game, it probably appears that my challenge wins were the only thing going for me, but I did make connections with others that I think would have had my back had I ever lost. I definitely played for myself and was an "out there" player, which is what I look for in a winner. Physically I just look at how they did in challenges. Since I win at least a couple of competitions, I look for others that can do the same. If someone makes no attempt at challenges or are consistently at the bottom of the barrel, I can't vote for them. In this game I think I obviously played well physically. |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan Marlow on May 8, 2009 22:03:09 GMT -5
Hey guys. Wow, congratulations to both Nathan and Sheila for making it to the finals. I don't have too much to say, or even to ask really...but I do have something. To both of you: Obviously, a winner should possess certain qualities. A real winner. The qualities that one should possess are different from person to person, based on individual opinions. So I ask you, what is your definition of a winner in this game? What qualities are essential, overlooked, bonuses? And finally, after that - which of the qualities in your definition do you personally have? Don't have or could improve on? When voting for someone to win the game, I am looking for someone who played the game to their full potential. It must be someone who played the game hard and put a lot of effort into the game. This includes participating in challenges, socializing, writing confessionals, etc. And I also like to see that they were not afraid to stand up for what they wanted to do, and to take risks and make moves... to really make an impact on the game. Also important to me is their connection to me. If I feel disrespected or ignored by someone, then I would definitely be less likely to vote for them. Overall though, it is straight-up based on game play. Like Sheila said, there are three basic components to the game in my eyes, and I like to see someone who excels in all three and doesn't just rely on one thing. Sometimes strategy is definitely overlooked I think, because some people think you can't have strategy if you aren't winning challenges, but you can. It can understandably just be really hard to tell. A bonus would be friendship for me. Friendship does have an impact on how you view others, so it can be hard to separate that, but I think it is important to vote for the best winner in your eyes as a juror. And another bonus is honesty. If someone can rule the game while still being honest, and not have to go around lying to everyone in the game, that is impressive to me. I feel like I am someone who had a big impact on the game. I was very visible through out and was not afraid to make a move. I do think I do pretty well in all of the categories of strategy, socializing, and challenges. I do think I could improve in them though. There were people in this game that I really did not talk to as much as I could have or should have. I do feel like I lied a little bit excessively and I could have been more upfront with a few people. I think sometimes I get caught up in the game and feel like I have to when sometimes I don't. And I definitely would have loved to improve my challenge record and knock Sheila down a few pegs a few times, but that just wasn't happenin'. |
|
