|
Post by King Boo on Sept 19, 2019 11:53:52 GMT -5
A real pet peeve of mine is when people talk about who “deserves” to win a reality show where the contestants vote on the winner. The people that decide who “deserves” win, are the people on that jury. There’s no set checklist or criteria that you have to meet to win Big Brother, other than making it to the final 2. If Holly gets into one of those final chairs and they decide she was the winner of the season, then she “deserved” to win. I liked Dan better than Ian in season 14. Dan didn’t win. Dan shouldn’t have won, because Dan didn’t win. Tyler shouldn’t have won, because Tyler didn’t win. The only way the wrong player wins is if we get a Topaz situation and someone accidentally votes for the wrong person, which I would say is highly likely with both Jessica and Sis in the jury. Eh, I don't know. Just by way of being a jury member doesn't mean you're automatically being fair with your basis for voting. What were they mad at Tyler for last season? Playing the game? If you have a problem with playing the game, then maybe you shouldn't be a contestant. Playing it fairly and without any personal or otherwise over the line attacks doesn't make you unworthy just because the game is shady by nature.. Someone like Paul? Made his own bed. He was a terror and an asshole, no matter how great his strategy may have been (and it was admittedly good). It's not an all or nothing equation across the board with every season and contestant. Also, both Dan and Tyler had jurors say after the fact that their votes would/may have changed. So sometimes even they realize they're voting emotionally when it's not totally fair to. But generally speaking, I hate the word deserve too. I prefer to use earn. So I'm with you on that one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 12:00:41 GMT -5
A real pet peeve of mine is when people talk about who “deserves” to win a reality show where the contestants vote on the winner. The people that decide who “deserves” win, are the people on that jury. There’s no set checklist or criteria that you have to meet to win Big Brother, other than making it to the final 2. If Holly gets into one of those final chairs and they decide she was the winner of the season, then she “deserved” to win. I liked Dan better than Ian in season 14. Dan didn’t win. Dan shouldn’t have won, because Dan didn’t win. Tyler shouldn’t have won, because Tyler didn’t win. The only way the wrong player wins is if we get a Topaz situation and someone accidentally votes for the wrong person, which I would say is highly likely with both Jessica and Sis in the jury. Eh, I don't know. Just by way of being a jury member doesn't mean you're automatically being fair with your basis for voting. What were they mad at Tyler for last season? Playing the game? if you have a problem with playing the game, then maybe you shouldn't be a contestant. Playing it fairly and without any personal or otherwise over the line attacks doesn't make you unworthy. Someone like Paul? Made his own bed. He was a terror and an asshole, no matter how great his strategy may have been (and it was admittedly good). It's not an all or nothing equation. Also, both Dan and Tyler had jurors say after the fact that their votes would/may have changed. So sometimes even they realize they're voting emotionally when it's not totally fair to. But how did we decide emotions aren’t fair game? That’s what I’m saying. You and I may not like it, but there’s nothing that says you shouldn’t vote for the person you like more. We have this idea that you’re supposed to vote for the player that you think played better, but you can vote for whoever you like. You could pull a Kelly Goldsmith from Survivor Africa and ask them to pick a number if you want. However each person decides to vote, is a valid way to vote. I know I’m not taking the popular opinion here, but a bitter jury is an absolutely valid thing as well. It sucks and I personally would prefer if the “best player” won most of these seasons, but that’s part of the game. A lot of times you can’t account for every player’s personal feelings for you, but it’s fair game. I just don’t know where it stops when we start talking about deserving a win. If Tommy or Christie had gotten to the end, would they have deserved the win even though they came in with that huge advantage? Katherine and Holly knew each other too, and that paired them in the game where they otherwise may not have if they didn’t have that connection. Jackson benefitted from that. Does he not deserve it because that outside circumstance helped his game? It’s a slippery slope. At the end of the day, I want Nicole to win because I like her the best. If she doesn’t win, I’ll be sad, but it doesn’t mean the person that won it is invalidated.
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Sept 19, 2019 12:15:23 GMT -5
Eh, I don't know. Just by way of being a jury member doesn't mean you're automatically being fair with your basis for voting. What were they mad at Tyler for last season? Playing the game? if you have a problem with playing the game, then maybe you shouldn't be a contestant. Playing it fairly and without any personal or otherwise over the line attacks doesn't make you unworthy. Someone like Paul? Made his own bed. He was a terror and an asshole, no matter how great his strategy may have been (and it was admittedly good). It's not an all or nothing equation. Also, both Dan and Tyler had jurors say after the fact that their votes would/may have changed. So sometimes even they realize they're voting emotionally when it's not totally fair to. But how did we decide emotions aren’t fair game? That’s what I’m saying. You and I may not like it, but there’s nothing that says you shouldn’t vote for the person you like more. We have this idea that you’re supposed to vote for the player that you think played better, but you can vote for whoever you like. You could pull a Kelly Goldsmith from Survivor Africa and ask them to pick a number if you want. However each person decides to vote, is a valid way to vote. I know I’m not taking the popular opinion here, but a bitter jury is an absolutely valid thing as well. It sucks and I personally would prefer if the “best player” won most of these seasons, but that’s part of the game. A lot of times you can’t account for every player’s personal feelings for you, but it’s fair game. It's not the emotions themselves, it's what those emotions are based on. I keep using the example because it's so gosh darn easy, but the jurors in S19 had every right to be upset at Paul. Their emotions were valid and them outweighing his strategy was also valid. Like, f*** that guy, seriously. But Tyler? What were they mad at? I get that they were mad, but what were they mad at? And was it really significant enough to outweigh his excellent game play? I don't think that it was. I think he got hosed, even though I like Kaycee and am totally cool with her winning. Technically, they're not breaking rules, but that also doesn't mean they're just right or exempt from criticism, either. If they base their vote on something I think is stupid and unfair, I'm gonna say they based their vote on something stupid and unfair. It's not absolutes, is my point. Juries aren't automatically always being fair just because they're the jury. They can be unfair just as much as they can be fair.
|
|
Mecca
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 25,003
|
Post by Mecca on Sept 19, 2019 12:36:43 GMT -5
Does Josh ring a bell? This whole season has just been stupid, like Cliff lost his god damn mind the last 2 weeks and f***ed everything up. There is a serious part of me that wonders if the old man from Texas couldn't handle siding with the flamboyant gay dude. Josh was bad, but Holly would be worse. Cliff and Nicole were complete idiots for believing, even for a second, that Jackson would take them to final 3 over Holly. For that alone, Nicole doesn't deserve to win, no matter how sweet and likable she is. Nicole wanted Holly gone but she had no choice because she needed Cliffs vote and he basically waited her out. He never had an intention of voting out Holly, it's why he made sure to throw Nicole under the bus to Mickie. He's on feeds now saying it's Nicoles fault he's leaving because she considered getting rid of Holly and pissed off Michie and ruined his game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 13:02:30 GMT -5
But how did we decide emotions aren’t fair game? That’s what I’m saying. You and I may not like it, but there’s nothing that says you shouldn’t vote for the person you like more. We have this idea that you’re supposed to vote for the player that you think played better, but you can vote for whoever you like. You could pull a Kelly Goldsmith from Survivor Africa and ask them to pick a number if you want. However each person decides to vote, is a valid way to vote. I know I’m not taking the popular opinion here, but a bitter jury is an absolutely valid thing as well. It sucks and I personally would prefer if the “best player” won most of these seasons, but that’s part of the game. A lot of times you can’t account for every player’s personal feelings for you, but it’s fair game. It's not the emotions themselves, it's what those emotions are based on. I keep using the example because it's so gosh darn easy, but the jurors in S19 had every right to be upset at Paul. Their emotions were valid and them outweighing his strategy was also valid. Like, f*** that guy, seriously. But Tyler? What were they mad at? I get that they were mad, but what were they mad at? And was it really significant enough to outweigh his excellent game play? I don't think that it was. I think he got hosed, even though I like Kaycee and am totally cool with her winning. Technically, they're not breaking rules, but that also doesn't mean they're just right or exempt from criticism, either. If they base their vote on something I think is stupid and unfair, I'm gonna say they based their vote on something stupid and unfair. It's not absolutes, is my point. Juries aren't automatically always being fair just because they're the jury. They can be unfair just as much as they can be fair. So at this point are you arguing for or against a Jackson win? Because I say it’s completely fair if he loses, and you said it’s okay to not vote for someone if they’re a bad enough person... an area in which I think Jackson definitely qualifies. He’s been racist, sexist, and emotionally abusive to his girlfriend. Are those, in your opinion, valid excuses to not vote for someone who has been the superior game player? Is he morally reprehensible enough that it makes him undeserving? I think he’s had a few moments of great gameplay, but I still want Nicole to win. However if he does win, as shitty as he is, I’m fine with it. I don’t really think there would have been a satisfying winner this season strategically, as there really hasn’t been someone that’s head and shoulders above everyone else. Nicole winning would bring me the most joy, so that’s what I’m hoping for.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,417
Member is Online
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Sept 19, 2019 13:07:40 GMT -5
But how did we decide emotions aren’t fair game? That’s what I’m saying. You and I may not like it, but there’s nothing that says you shouldn’t vote for the person you like more. We have this idea that you’re supposed to vote for the player that you think played better, but you can vote for whoever you like. You could pull a Kelly Goldsmith from Survivor Africa and ask them to pick a number if you want. However each person decides to vote, is a valid way to vote. I know I’m not taking the popular opinion here, but a bitter jury is an absolutely valid thing as well. It sucks and I personally would prefer if the “best player” won most of these seasons, but that’s part of the game. A lot of times you can’t account for every player’s personal feelings for you, but it’s fair game. It's not the emotions themselves, it's what those emotions are based on. I keep using the example because it's so gosh darn easy, but the jurors in S19 had every right to be upset at Paul. Their emotions were valid and them outweighing his strategy was also valid. Like, f*** that guy, seriously. But Tyler? What were they mad at? I get that they were mad, but what were they mad at? And was it really significant enough to outweigh his excellent game play? I don't think that it was. I think he got hosed, even though I like Kaycee and am totally cool with her winning. Technically, they're not breaking rules, but that also doesn't mean they're just right or exempt from criticism, either. If they base their vote on something I think is stupid and unfair, I'm gonna say they based their vote on something stupid and unfair. It's not absolutes, is my point. Juries aren't automatically always being fair just because they're the jury. They can be unfair just as much as they can be fair. Tyler not winning was pretty damn egregious. Kaycee was cool, and played a really good game, but Tyler outplayed everyone from wire to wire and although feelings were hurt because of *gameplay*, nobody was bullied/insulted etc in any manner that should have taken the win away from him. He lost by a vote, which is notable because 2 jurors said they didn't vote for him because "his family had money". Even if that was true (it isn't IIRC), it has f*** all to do with the game and the person who earned the win.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,417
Member is Online
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Sept 19, 2019 13:10:01 GMT -5
It's not the emotions themselves, it's what those emotions are based on. I keep using the example because it's so gosh darn easy, but the jurors in S19 had every right to be upset at Paul. Their emotions were valid and them outweighing his strategy was also valid. Like, f*** that guy, seriously. But Tyler? What were they mad at? I get that they were mad, but what were they mad at? And was it really significant enough to outweigh his excellent game play? I don't think that it was. I think he got hosed, even though I like Kaycee and am totally cool with her winning. Technically, they're not breaking rules, but that also doesn't mean they're just right or exempt from criticism, either. If they base their vote on something I think is stupid and unfair, I'm gonna say they based their vote on something stupid and unfair. It's not absolutes, is my point. Juries aren't automatically always being fair just because they're the jury. They can be unfair just as much as they can be fair. Nicole winning would bring me the most joy, so that’s what I’m hoping for. That's where I'm at too, but to be 100% honest, outside of a really good 2 weeks she's had, Nicole has kinda just....been there. Jackson sucks and is a pretty lousy person, but of the 4 (3 after tonight, bye bye Cliff), he's head and shoulders above the rest
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Sept 19, 2019 13:13:33 GMT -5
It's not the emotions themselves, it's what those emotions are based on. I keep using the example because it's so gosh darn easy, but the jurors in S19 had every right to be upset at Paul. Their emotions were valid and them outweighing his strategy was also valid. Like, f*** that guy, seriously. But Tyler? What were they mad at? I get that they were mad, but what were they mad at? And was it really significant enough to outweigh his excellent game play? I don't think that it was. I think he got hosed, even though I like Kaycee and am totally cool with her winning. Technically, they're not breaking rules, but that also doesn't mean they're just right or exempt from criticism, either. If they base their vote on something I think is stupid and unfair, I'm gonna say they based their vote on something stupid and unfair. It's not absolutes, is my point. Juries aren't automatically always being fair just because they're the jury. They can be unfair just as much as they can be fair. So at this point are you arguing for or against a Jackson win? Because I say it’s completely fair if he loses, and you said it’s okay to not vote for someone if they’re a bad enough person... an area in which I think Jackson definitely qualifies. He’s been racist, sexist, and emotionally abusive to his girlfriend. Are those, in your opinion, valid excuses to not vote for someone who has been the superior game player? Is he morally reprehensible enough that it makes him undeserving? I think he’s had a few moments of great gameplay, but I still want Nicole to win. However if he does win, as shitty as he is, I’m fine with it. I don’t really think there would have been a satisfying winner this season strategically, as there really hasn’t been someone that’s head and shoulders above everyone else. Nicole winning would bring me the most joy, so that’s what I’m hoping for. My own boundary, and one I'd assume would be the same for most people, would be personal attacks on other people. So yeah, if someone wanted to hold those things against Jackson, I can completely understand that. There are things that go beyond game play badness, you know? Lying about a strategy, double dealing, breaking your word... those are (or at least, can be) part of the game. Things that go outside of that, that slander who a person is at their core or is just generally gross behavior, are not only a valid reason to not vote for someone, but are actions that shouldn't be rewarded. There's playing the game and then there's being a shitty person. It's this weird situation this season, where I can see arguments for why someone should or shouldn't win. It's kind of a hard one to discuss. Like, Jackson's behavior has been terrible on more than one occasion, but he's also strategically played a decent game. Nicole hasn't played as strong a game as him, but she's also way more likable and hasn't done or said gross things. Holly is floating somewhere in the middle there - not as strategically sound as Jackson but not as gross, not as likable as Nicole, but maybe arguably a little more strategic. Personally, I'm Team Nicole. It's been a strange season all around.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,417
Member is Online
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Sept 19, 2019 13:22:42 GMT -5
So at this point are you arguing for or against a Jackson win? Because I say it’s completely fair if he loses, and you said it’s okay to not vote for someone if they’re a bad enough person... an area in which I think Jackson definitely qualifies. He’s been racist, sexist, and emotionally abusive to his girlfriend. Are those, in your opinion, valid excuses to not vote for someone who has been the superior game player? Is he morally reprehensible enough that it makes him undeserving? I think he’s had a few moments of great gameplay, but I still want Nicole to win. However if he does win, as shitty as he is, I’m fine with it. I don’t really think there would have been a satisfying winner this season strategically, as there really hasn’t been someone that’s head and shoulders above everyone else. Nicole winning would bring me the most joy, so that’s what I’m hoping for. It's been a strange season all around. That it has. The 2nd half of it was better, probably had a lot to do with Jack being evicted. But man, again this year with people who have no idea how to correctly play the game. Jessica, Bella and a few others seemed to have no idea how to have anything close to a good social game
|
|
Mecca
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 25,003
|
Post by Mecca on Sept 19, 2019 14:16:48 GMT -5
This show is not for this generation, some of the people regarded as top players would be thought of really poorly today.
|
|
fw91
Patti Mayonnaise
FAN Idol All-Star: FAN Idol Season X and *Gavel* 2x Judges' Throwdown winner
Posts: 38,560
|
Post by fw91 on Sept 19, 2019 14:21:24 GMT -5
Does Josh ring a bell? This whole season has just been stupid, like Cliff lost his god damn mind the last 2 weeks and f***ed everything up. There is a serious part of me that wonders if the old man from Texas couldn't handle siding with the flamboyant gay dude. Josh was bad, but Holly would be worse. Cliff and Nicole were complete idiots for believing, even for a second, that Jackson would take them to final 3 over Holly. For that alone, Nicole doesn't deserve to win, no matter how sweet and likable she is. I mean I DO get the Tommy has a guaranteed Jury vote argument. But tbh we really don’t know how much production is interfering with what they say. They need to make compelling tv. I’d like to think Cliff/Nicole knew damn well Jackson wasn’t taking them. They just need to say things to create episodes.
|
|
Mecca
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 25,003
|
Post by Mecca on Sept 19, 2019 14:44:06 GMT -5
Oh I also read that production helped Jackson win the last veto. Basically he read the instructions wrong so he was shooting the people instead of leaving them up...and they literally yelled over the loud speaker he was doing it wrong and told him how to play the game.
Grodner loves meatheads.
|
|
Spider2024
Patti Mayonnaise
Dedicated 6,666th post to Irontyger
I believe in Joe Hendry.
Posts: 39,076
Member is Online
|
Post by Spider2024 on Sept 19, 2019 17:03:26 GMT -5
|
|
fw91
Patti Mayonnaise
FAN Idol All-Star: FAN Idol Season X and *Gavel* 2x Judges' Throwdown winner
Posts: 38,560
|
Post by fw91 on Sept 19, 2019 18:01:48 GMT -5
did he land a real job since BB?
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Sept 19, 2019 18:47:23 GMT -5
I'm more looking at how they're at Versailles longingly than anything.
|
|
|
Post by Jumpin' Jesse Walsh on Sept 19, 2019 19:11:34 GMT -5
Marriage officiant: Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife? Frank: I don't-NO WAIT CAN WE DO THIS AGAIN?!? Marriage officiant: We're live, pal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 19:34:13 GMT -5
I f***ing hated Frank. Just needed to say that. I'm really here for the Cliff boot party.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,417
Member is Online
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Sept 19, 2019 20:57:45 GMT -5
Cliff is coming off like a complete blithering idiot in his exit interview
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Sept 20, 2019 0:10:25 GMT -5
I f***ing hated Frank. Just needed to say that. I'm really here for the Cliff boot party. Oh, Frank was the worst.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 1:48:27 GMT -5
Jackson’s goodbye message to Cliff though... that’s how you 100% lose a vote.
“What you did is wrong and you wronged not only me, but also my family... so vote for me.”
Good luck, man.
|
|