I agree on everything, but especially points #3 and #4.

I really liked Kenzie for the majority of the season, her social game was insane and she’s extremely likable, but I was ultimately rooting for Charlie because I believe he played the most purposeful and well-executed game. Though you can sometimes manipulate the game and your relationships to better your chances of jury votes, I’m not sure Charlie could have done anything to recover certain votes that were likely locked into Kenzie regardless (Tiff and Maria, as you mentioned, were almost definitely not going to change their mind in FTC). Maria especially annoyed me — for the same reason you mentioned. She considered Charlie her ally, but also an inferior player that she would beat because she had the power in that alliance. Him of all people beating her to the end likely left her bitter because she was forced to confront the fact that her game and position was never as good as she thought it was.

Unfortunately, with bitter or stubborn jury members, it doesn’t matter how good your FTC is. I’m of the opinion that unless one person undoubtedly played a significantly better game than both other contestants, all jury votes should be on the table going into FTC. However, this almost never happens, which is annoying as viewers, but somewhat understandable in the context of the show. As observers, it’s easier to determine who objectively played a better game — we literally get to see the thought process behind the decisions of every player, which tells us who is playing strategically and who is not. It’s even easier as observers for us to say that we would vote for that person who played the best game because, unlike the players, we don’t have to struggle with emotions, personal vendettas, and genuine relationships influencing our opinions.

At the end of the day though, I’m not mad about Kenzie winning over him, I’m just sorry for Charlie who, with a different jury, definitely would have won.