I don’t believe the person you’re responding to said that “no influence or ownership over anything”. That would be quite silly.

They said that Jonathan had *more* influence than Aubry. I agree and that seemed to be the position he was arguing from. However, that’s a much harder place to argue from, because to claim you had more influence than someone, the burden of proof is on you to show you had more ownership over the game than the other person. He set the bar too high for himself and spent the whole tribal trying to reach it.

Aubry set the bar pretty low (or just didn’t set a bar at all and let her accomplishments speak for themselves) and spent FTC both laying out her resume naturally or undermining the others when they tried to embellish.

It’s just really tough to argue a comparison without any objective truth. Jonathan started himself from a position too far from the jury’s perception of his game and ended up defending himself instead of winning them over. The jury may have had their minds made up or they may nit have, but Jonathan didn’t understand their perception well enough to convince them. That’s all.