Danielle wants to talk now about the way Mike played the game. She asks Will to explain how Mike played. Will starts talking a mile a minute, hoping that maybe you're not really listening: "He did exactly what he needed to do to be in the final two." (Check. Exactly what Erika did.) "He rode coattails when he needed to." (Check. Exactly what Erika did.) "He dodged bullets when he needed to." (Check. Exactly what Erika did, especially since she was repeatedly on the block.) "And when he needed to win competitions, he did exactly that." (Check. Exactly what Erika did. Actually...which person are we talking about?) So even called upon to give a speech explaining Mike's game play, his own best friend and ally can't think of one thing to say that distinguishes him from Erika. You'd think the rest of these people might have noticed. James goes on to say that Mike might have ridden the coattails of Will, but Erika rode the coattails of everyone. "She didn't orchestrate anything," he says contemptuously. Of course, this is patent bullshit, because she orchestrated the departure of Will and the breaking of the lock that he and Mike had on the game up to that point, which not one single other person had managed to "orchestrate." So "anything" is obviously dumb. I'd also be interested in what Mike is seen to have "orchestrated" that wasn't, in fact, orchestrated by Will.
Marcellas takes an interesting approach by arguing that Erika was presented with a game in which it was being run by Will and Mike because of everyone else's failure to do anything about it, so she played within that framework. Janelle goes back to waving that lecturing finger. "Chill Town ran this game," she says. "And for us to deny them a winner? It's not really fair, because they played a better game." Ha! Oh, my. Oh, Janelle. I mean, if they (and she means "Will") "ran the game" and Erika was the one who finally toppled Will, then how is it "not really fair" to vote for her? It's like saying if one runner is ahead for the first twenty-five miles of the marathon and then somebody else passes him, it's "not really fair" to give the trophy to the person who finished ahead, because the other person was in the lead the entire time. The game isn't about who looks like they're in charge in the middle; it's about getting to the very end. Will's entire game is for nothing, because he didn't handle F4 the right way. Why does he have some residual entitlement to something?
You can sort of tell Marcellas doesn't appreciate the lecture on what are the fair and unfair ways to vote, so he says that "everybody gets to decide how they want to vote and how they want the game to be played." He adds, just in case I was tempted to like him, "Boogie played a dirty game." Marcellas, of course, is doing what he always does, presenting the game as some sort of enormous moral test of what kind of a person you are -- the nasty versus the nice. I certainly would not want to be put in the position of endorsing Erika on a personal level, either -- I found her return to Mike after the ousting of Janelle horrifying, and the fact that she chose Mike to be her boyfriend doesn't speak at all well of her. None of my discomfort with this is about liking Erika -- I don't like Erika at all. But I like all this grotesque, sexist pile-on even less.