Anonymous ilovefontainesdc 16w

Exactly!! I get the argument that Charlie played a better game (at least strategically) but it's not a big difference and he would've been a boring winner imo. Kenzie winning was so much more satisfying. Also I feel like the Kenzie hate comes from casuals who usually don't care who had a better voting record or whatever so I really don't get it. Is it just because they hate Maria?

4

Anonymous OP 16w

Charlie supporter here. I don’t hate Kenzie or Maria. I just think Charlie lost for reasons outside the game, not because the jury thought Kenzie played better. Q: voted based his vote on who needed the money more Maria: can’t convince me she wasn’t just bitter that Charlie outplayed her. She targeted him first & even told him he had her vote. It literally made sense for him to vote her out & wasn’t a bad move base on the info he had. Venus: this could be a stretch, but I feel like Venus

3

Anonymous #2 16w

gave off that she wanted a woman to win the season🤷‍♂️. I feel like based off of how she played the game, she would have respected the game of someone who played more strategically. These are all just my opinions and the way I see it. Again, NOT knocking Kenzie. I just think Charlie couldn’t have done anything better to change the outcome, because they were for reasons he genuinely couldn’t control

3

Anonymous #2 16w

But are they really outside the game? Survivor is ultimately a social experiment. Whatever criteria someone bases their vote on is valid, and FTC is all about reading the jury and persuading them to vote for you by any means necessary.

-1

Anonymous #2 16w

Charlie not being able to do anything better doesn't mean Kenzie didn't deserve her win. And besides, he shouldn't have let Kenzie get to the end and he should've managed his perception better before FTC. He should've known those were massive mistakes. Despite most people changing their votes he wasn't winning before either, and it's a pretty big knock that he had no real locked votes. He's not perfect and I think it's very understandable that a well liked social player beat him.

-1

Anonymous #3 16w

Istg someone said she gave mean girl vibes in episode 2 and yall just ran with it. Like get over it damn. She was a bit snappy around crazy people on a reality show. She seems like a sweetheart otherwise

0

Anonymous OP 16w

No she seems like a bitch. That sweet act was so fake and it was so obvious. I always had a bad feeling about her and could never shake it. She’s so fucking fake.

0

Anonymous #3 16w

Charlie had a weak answer to Q's question and Kenzie had a moving one. There's more to it than just their financial situation outside the game. And if the jury really thought Charlie played a much better game then it never would've came down to that.

0

Anonymous #3 16w

Well you seem like a ray of sunshine so I'm sure you have a great read on who's a good person

0

Anonymous OP 16w

What someone’s doing with the money should never be allowed to be a factor to why someone wins at all. Kenzie was able to give a “better” answer to that because of her life story. That’s an unfair advantage (in relation to the game not irl obv) and is an uncontrollable factor. That says nothing about hers or Charlie’s game

0

Anonymous OP 16w

Maybe when the majority of this fan base doesn’t like someone that’s a sign that they’re not likeable/a good person.

0

Anonymous #3 16w

Every factor is valid! There are no rules pertaining to what criteria you have to base your speech or vote on. Someone voted based on the alphabet in season 1, and multiple winners won partially due to their life story. Charlie could've sold his story so much better or just lied lmao. And if you think Kenzie is actually a bad person who doesn't deserve the money, then is it not good gameplay that she tricked the jury into thinking she did? The way the game works is just not on your side here.

0