Here is the one thing that upset me about the final round and the ballots.
A number of people made comments about my relationship with Dan in the game that were quite strong. I don’t want to let them go by.
First, a quick note about how Dan and I worked together in the game. Dan and I were allies, but not very strong ones- our spheres of influence didn’t overlap very much. We made no reciprocal voting deals with our allies that included each other. We did not suggest how to vote in our clubs to each other. We helped each other with case ideas, which many allies did (I’m sure Stanford and Patrick can attest to that.) I say with no exaggeration whatsoever that my temporary alliances with Brendo, Patrick, and Ian were much more strategic and time-intensive than the one I had with Dan. We had no long-term strategy to get both of us into finals, to let one person win, whatever.
I have no problem with people thinking something else about our alliance, if that opinion is supported. But what I saw when I read/listened to the speeches and ballots was this:
Stanford?s first speech:
First, there?s Dre who came coasting into finals on the back of her boyfriend.
[Dan]?s puppet, Dre
when your boyfriend helped keep you afloat
rode in on the back of pdano…making her even weaker
I have no respect for players that can?t play by themselves…but, you played with your boyfriend.
(this is relevant in that this comment was not leveled at Dan, or at any of the other finalists who all had allies and did not play “by themselves.”)
Being able to essentially control two votes/debaters simultaneously gives him a huge advantage.
I do not think I am being unreasonable in seeing a pattern here. At no point is Dan accused of riding in on my back, or am I credited with keeping him alive or controlling his votes. The lack of any support in ANY of the above posts for these claims makes me extremely nervous about the gender implications that might be lurking beneath them.
I now teach LSAT Arguments for the Princeton Review, so several hours a week I do nothing but label conclusions and premises. I see, for the above conclusions, the following premises: 1) Dan and Andrea are dating. 2) Dan and Andrea both played this game. Nothing else. Can you see why I’m a little disturbed?
I note with some interest that when Marie made her awesome run to victory last summer, Ian openly admitted to essentially doing her “dirty work” in the game. This seemed to affect no one’s ballot.
Look, I don’t think you are all dirty sexists. But I think it was irresponsible to make those kind of accusations (the last one especially stings) without ANY, without a SINGLE example of game events that would lead you to believe that. Given that lack of support, I don’t think it’s hard to see how I took offense.
Please comment if you would like. Give the reasons you didn’t give the first time, tell me it was a joke in poor taste, take it back, whatever. I’m more than happy to patch up my slightly hurt feelings and give internet hugs and beers all around.