Thread:TDWTisAWESOME/@comment-1734566-20151210220222/@comment-1734566-20151215063701

Exactly my point! None of those winners CHANGED the game. The one who came the closest was probably Fabio, but his strategy is SO hard to pull off that we really haven't seen it repeated except by Keith Nale. But that's exactly my point: Anybody can win, but few people can change the game the way Russell has, or the way people like Rob Cesternino, Jonny FairPlay, and Rupert have. As the old saying goes, in relation to the Roman empire: "Any number of mere emperors can be forgotten, while some senators are carved into stone."

And no, Natalie didn't build social connections; she was just automatically more "likable" because she's a bubbly young hot blonde girl.

I'm just so tired of this idea that "EVERY WINNER IS WORTHY, DON'T QUESTION IT. NO ONE DESERVES TO WIN BUT THE WINNER. ACCEPT THE RESULT AND MOVE ON." Like, sorry, no. That's like saying you should just blindly accept all propaganda that the government throws at you and not actually, you know, use critical thinking and come to your own decisions? That's exactly what I don't subscribe to this "Every winner is worthy" sentiment. There IS such a thing as a bad winner, there IS such a thing as a bitter jury, there IS such a thing as a robbed player, and that's that.