You're right about my feelings in regard to Paul, but I liked Victor, he was entertaining and had a sunny nature and friendly attitude. An OK guy and he would be a worthy friend.

But you keep missing the point. The reason I think what I do about Victor is because of his strategy to nominate and vote based on revenge, not his choice of alliances. I think I've repeated this ad nauseam.

He is, I've previously stated, the WOAT because of his not changing strategies to adapt to one that was different from the one that got him booted. He never wavered from nominating or voting for someone that nominated or voted for him. He even used revenge as his motivation on multiple occasions in his speeches.

It wasn't his refusal to change alliances (although he never waivered from his alliance with Paul, not because of any beneficial strategy but because of blind loyalty. And this could have also resulted in his loss it if weren't for the revenge angle), or search for new friends when old ones were eliminated, but his refusal to change his basic approach to winning. With the special circumstance in his case that it was actually proven to him twice to be a losing approach, yet he still clung to what failed him before, and even a third time.

If he had gone an end game winning streak he might have overcome the self imposed obstacle and ended up at F2 and won. But it was big obstacle, and more importantly, glaringly self imposed.

Not sure how to interpret the Chameleon remark, but if it means that even people who do everything right sometimes get beaten anyway, I'd agree. There is a luck factor, and if Victor had tried a strategy where he nominated and voted for people on a different basis, he might still have lost.

To offer another cliché, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

.