Post by Martha on Oct 31, 2007 14:02:45 GMT -5
OK, so here's the thing. Last night I blatantly disregarded my own motto in ORGs, which is "don't get personal", and wrote a piece in the thread "Rooting for my girl Bev" which pretty much slammed her both personally and in game play terms. Now it's clear that Bev provokes some pretty strong emotions from people, both positive and negative, and a lot of those have come out in various posts here. I'm going to try and disregard that in this post, and tell it as I see it, without bringing emotion into play.
First of all, though, let me start off with a note about the character of Martha. Bev called her a "bitch", and she was 100% right. Martha was an evil twisted psychopath who cut off her husband's head with an axe and intended to steal everyone's rabbits and get people to sacrifice them to Satan. Martha's character, especially early on - the encouraging of people to do "evil" stuff, the rabbit thing, the dripping contempt of all her fellow players - all of that was planned. In many ways Bev and Martha's characters had a lot in common.
But that's where the similarity ends. Martha was accused of trying to "cause conflict". I can't stress enough how much bullcrap this is. Martha was gloriously over-the-top evil. I've said it before, but look at several previous Spies players. In particular Jenna was a HUGE backstabber and disliked by a lot of people, but nobody seriously thought that she was a spy. And Martha caused a helluva lot less conflict than Jenna. In fact she didn't personally cause any - it was the spies who did, by twisting her actions and words against her. The citizens should have spotted this (all credit to the few who did) and picked a new target.
Two examples: Martha told Lloyd to be machiavellian against Ralph and Abrams: "Seek out their weaknesses, cut off their friends, then crush them". That kind of thing. Now with all due respect to the citizens who took that seriously, COME OFF IT! She told Leon that a lot of people were "pathetic", which is probably the bitchiest thing she ever did. But her telling Leon this would hardly cause conflict by itself. Nor would it upset anybody.
I honestly thought that Martha would be received as the kind of character you can laugh at but go "wow" at in her presence simply because she's so extreme. I mean, the rabbit sacrifice thing? Martha's backstory about a husband who was killed in a gardening accident, "decapitated by a trowel"? It's ridiculous! And people were taking this seriously? Once again, COME OFF IT!
I also thought it was entirely possible that one or two people would take the whole thing too seriously and end up hating her. What I DIDN'T anticipate, what maybe I should have anticipated, was the spies twisting all of this and "demonizing" Martha. Emma, Angelica and Beverly were prime movers in this, but especially Beverly. Which brings me back to her.
In my post in "Rooting for my girl Bev", I criticised her playing style - which was unfair - and her personality in the game - which wasn't. Later on I compared her to Eric and Danielle of "The Amazing Race" and Dick Donato of "Big Brother". The thing that I've heard a lot of commentators say about these last two examples is that even though they won, they didn't need to be as rude or bitchy as they were in order to do so. In order words, E+D could easily have won without referring to their competition as "dirty hookers". There was nothing strategic about it, it was purely personal.
Bev was a spy. I didn't anticipate it or even particularly suspect it, so she had me fooled. Last night I didn't give her credit for that. Reading her recent efforts in the burg to survive - and seeing how close the final vote was - I'm going to do so. Clearly she had a lot going for her to almost pull off the upset that she did. She was good enough that I actually defended her to Naomi, Masaki and Leon before the first exile, saying that I didn't believe a spy would act as Bev had done.
In Spies 3, I wondered if there could ever be a truly "divisive" spy who would deliberately isolate themselves from players. Beverly did this, and I think her fate proves that the tactic can't work. By refusing to talk to me, by insulting certain people in the burg, by doing all of the horrible things that she did, she cut off a lot of suspicion that would have attached itself to people like Angelica - but she also made herself a natural target for imprisonment.
She also made herself a target for exile. History proves that divisive citizens often get exiled, imprisoned or investigated, no matter how "un-spy-like" they might appear. Look at Arthur - number one on the suspect list in Spies 3, exiled in the final round; Jennipher in the same game; Rodney came close to being exiled (and probably would have been if Antonio hadn't been "accused", since it's safe to assume that at least two of his votes in that exile would have gone to Rodney rather than the spy Allison); Derek and Tanner were imprisoned; Frank from Spies 1 was a huge suspect until an investigation cleared him. The list goes on and on and on.
The recent burg posts as well as the close exile vote prove, I think, that Beverly had a lot of skills that a spy would need; but I think her strategy was all wrong, and it cost her in the end. That said, I'd say exactly the same thing about Gigi from Spies 1, and you won't hear any personal criticism of her from me! So why, personal reasons aside, am I so much more harsh on Beverly?
Let me repeat part of the other post that I refer to:
Now whether you agree with my opinions or not, you can't dispute any of the things I list there as things that Bev has actually done. The question is, was it necessary for her to do those things from a strategic standpoint? Did they increase her chances of winning the game? And to those questions I think the unequivocal answers are "no" and "Hell, no!" Bev didn't need to do all the nasty things that she did. She chose to do them. And in the end I think it cost her.
Dick Donato didn't need to pour coffee over Jen's head (something I've heard about from a lot of American ORGers recently!) Eric and Danielle didn't need to refer to Dustin and Kandice as "dirty hookers" on camera. None of this really served any strategic purpose, but they did it anyway. They might have won in the end, but they won't get any respect from me for what they did. Neither does Bev. Because unlike them, she didn't win, and I think that at least part of the reason Candy investigated her is down to her actions within the game itself. So as much as I hated what she did from a personal standpoint, it was just as bad in strategy terms.
So that's my final word on Beverly (unless someone replies to this thread and I respond to that, of course!) I have to give her some credit for the way she acted after Candy revealed her investigation. But in the end, I think everything she'd done before had just caused far too much damage to her own cause. Last night I didn't believe that her "class act" in the exile was anything more than hypocrisy. Now, frankly, given some of the citizens' reactions I'm not so sure. But in the end, I don't think it matters. I don't particularly want to speak to her after this is over and I doubt she'd want to speak to me. I don't judge people by their friends, which is why I don't give her very much credit for the positive response at exile. I judge them by their actions. And that's what I've done.
That's all.
First of all, though, let me start off with a note about the character of Martha. Bev called her a "bitch", and she was 100% right. Martha was an evil twisted psychopath who cut off her husband's head with an axe and intended to steal everyone's rabbits and get people to sacrifice them to Satan. Martha's character, especially early on - the encouraging of people to do "evil" stuff, the rabbit thing, the dripping contempt of all her fellow players - all of that was planned. In many ways Bev and Martha's characters had a lot in common.
But that's where the similarity ends. Martha was accused of trying to "cause conflict". I can't stress enough how much bullcrap this is. Martha was gloriously over-the-top evil. I've said it before, but look at several previous Spies players. In particular Jenna was a HUGE backstabber and disliked by a lot of people, but nobody seriously thought that she was a spy. And Martha caused a helluva lot less conflict than Jenna. In fact she didn't personally cause any - it was the spies who did, by twisting her actions and words against her. The citizens should have spotted this (all credit to the few who did) and picked a new target.
Two examples: Martha told Lloyd to be machiavellian against Ralph and Abrams: "Seek out their weaknesses, cut off their friends, then crush them". That kind of thing. Now with all due respect to the citizens who took that seriously, COME OFF IT! She told Leon that a lot of people were "pathetic", which is probably the bitchiest thing she ever did. But her telling Leon this would hardly cause conflict by itself. Nor would it upset anybody.
I honestly thought that Martha would be received as the kind of character you can laugh at but go "wow" at in her presence simply because she's so extreme. I mean, the rabbit sacrifice thing? Martha's backstory about a husband who was killed in a gardening accident, "decapitated by a trowel"? It's ridiculous! And people were taking this seriously? Once again, COME OFF IT!
I also thought it was entirely possible that one or two people would take the whole thing too seriously and end up hating her. What I DIDN'T anticipate, what maybe I should have anticipated, was the spies twisting all of this and "demonizing" Martha. Emma, Angelica and Beverly were prime movers in this, but especially Beverly. Which brings me back to her.
In my post in "Rooting for my girl Bev", I criticised her playing style - which was unfair - and her personality in the game - which wasn't. Later on I compared her to Eric and Danielle of "The Amazing Race" and Dick Donato of "Big Brother". The thing that I've heard a lot of commentators say about these last two examples is that even though they won, they didn't need to be as rude or bitchy as they were in order to do so. In order words, E+D could easily have won without referring to their competition as "dirty hookers". There was nothing strategic about it, it was purely personal.
Bev was a spy. I didn't anticipate it or even particularly suspect it, so she had me fooled. Last night I didn't give her credit for that. Reading her recent efforts in the burg to survive - and seeing how close the final vote was - I'm going to do so. Clearly she had a lot going for her to almost pull off the upset that she did. She was good enough that I actually defended her to Naomi, Masaki and Leon before the first exile, saying that I didn't believe a spy would act as Bev had done.
In Spies 3, I wondered if there could ever be a truly "divisive" spy who would deliberately isolate themselves from players. Beverly did this, and I think her fate proves that the tactic can't work. By refusing to talk to me, by insulting certain people in the burg, by doing all of the horrible things that she did, she cut off a lot of suspicion that would have attached itself to people like Angelica - but she also made herself a natural target for imprisonment.
She also made herself a target for exile. History proves that divisive citizens often get exiled, imprisoned or investigated, no matter how "un-spy-like" they might appear. Look at Arthur - number one on the suspect list in Spies 3, exiled in the final round; Jennipher in the same game; Rodney came close to being exiled (and probably would have been if Antonio hadn't been "accused", since it's safe to assume that at least two of his votes in that exile would have gone to Rodney rather than the spy Allison); Derek and Tanner were imprisoned; Frank from Spies 1 was a huge suspect until an investigation cleared him. The list goes on and on and on.
The recent burg posts as well as the close exile vote prove, I think, that Beverly had a lot of skills that a spy would need; but I think her strategy was all wrong, and it cost her in the end. That said, I'd say exactly the same thing about Gigi from Spies 1, and you won't hear any personal criticism of her from me! So why, personal reasons aside, am I so much more harsh on Beverly?
Let me repeat part of the other post that I refer to:
Bev bitched. She whined. She insulted people. She screamed at people. She gave me more abuse in the space of about fifteen minutes than anybody else has ever given me in an ORG since someone mistook my AIM identity for someone else's and starting calling me a slut and a whore.
Now whether you agree with my opinions or not, you can't dispute any of the things I list there as things that Bev has actually done. The question is, was it necessary for her to do those things from a strategic standpoint? Did they increase her chances of winning the game? And to those questions I think the unequivocal answers are "no" and "Hell, no!" Bev didn't need to do all the nasty things that she did. She chose to do them. And in the end I think it cost her.
Dick Donato didn't need to pour coffee over Jen's head (something I've heard about from a lot of American ORGers recently!) Eric and Danielle didn't need to refer to Dustin and Kandice as "dirty hookers" on camera. None of this really served any strategic purpose, but they did it anyway. They might have won in the end, but they won't get any respect from me for what they did. Neither does Bev. Because unlike them, she didn't win, and I think that at least part of the reason Candy investigated her is down to her actions within the game itself. So as much as I hated what she did from a personal standpoint, it was just as bad in strategy terms.
So that's my final word on Beverly (unless someone replies to this thread and I respond to that, of course!) I have to give her some credit for the way she acted after Candy revealed her investigation. But in the end, I think everything she'd done before had just caused far too much damage to her own cause. Last night I didn't believe that her "class act" in the exile was anything more than hypocrisy. Now, frankly, given some of the citizens' reactions I'm not so sure. But in the end, I don't think it matters. I don't particularly want to speak to her after this is over and I doubt she'd want to speak to me. I don't judge people by their friends, which is why I don't give her very much credit for the positive response at exile. I judge them by their actions. And that's what I've done.
That's all.
<3 Spies 2