User blog comment:YoungEezy27/3rd Alternate Ending?/@comment-3573655-20141006220931/@comment-25126603-20141015071921

@TDPIScarlett, I agree. That would imply that she isn't an antagonist, since of the fact she didn't have that same level of punnishment. Sugar's elimination isn't relevant to the fact she got karma as an "antagonist", because even the ordinary characters receive ''basic irony. ''Should she even be called a villian? That's my question. Tbh, I see Dave as more villianous. That's because as he derailed into insanity, his mortality plummeted into that boundary (maybe even beyond that), which further explains his level of punnishment. As for Sugar..."It's not personal, it's pageant!". She was so consumed into the assumption of this being a pageant!!! As many Sugar fans like to say, she was just raised that way. So if she was just raised to be competitive this way, then why would this be classifyed as antagonistic behavior?!?! Since for Sugar this would just her regular behavior, just like any other ordinary character. There really wasn't anything extraordinary  about Sugars actions for that kind of thing. I mean are you going to really say she's an antagonist for her behavior against Ella, and causing Jasmine's elimination? Leshawna caused an elimination, she's not a villian. Duncan and Harold have a similar conflict, Duncans is not an antagonist for that!