21 replies to this topic

[jkygogo]

Maybe they should change the voting process so to include all the Houseguests to vote. Half of the Houseguests would be in sequestor with their point of view with the other half being on the outside with their perspective. If there is a tie, then they would go to a tie break with the Public vote.
I think Ian played a good game, but Dan probably should have won but the Houseguests were so angry at him. To avoid this again, they should change the voting again like they did after BB 3. RF

[DerangedBanana]

I don't think so. Big Brother is a social game. Having to go back and face all the people you back stabbed is part of it.

[BeeeBeee]

I don't think so. Big Brother is a social game. Having to go back and face all the people you back stabbed is part of it.

Exactly. Why should they change the whole voting system just to cater to Dan's fanbase?

[Catwishes]

Exactly. Why should they change the whole voting system just to cater to Dan's fanbase?

Let's make this perfectly clear. Dan is not the only BB player to have backstabbed people in the house. Dan didn't win - let it go and move on.

On subject, I don't think it should be changed. HGs that aren't sequestered are able to see and watch the whole game plus tune in to the live feeds. Good or bad it messes with the players in the house who are scheming.

[BeeeBeee]

Let's make this perfectly clear. Dan is not the only BB player to have backstabbed people in the house. Dan didn't win - let it go and move on.

On subject, I don't think it should be changed. HGs that aren't sequestered are able to see and watch the whole game plus tune in to the live feeds. Good or bad it messes with the players in the house who are scheming.

I believe the OP mainly suggested that new system in regards to Dan's defeat this season.

[Team Jolie]

historically the sequesterd hg's voted on gameplay...not so much this season..they were bitter///for gameplay Dan should have taken it...I don't know if involving all of past hg vote would have changed this outcome...the issue with the ousted hg's before jury can see the broadcast and feeds which gives them an unfair advntage

[sisu power]

It is an interesting idea. The ousted houseguests that don't make jury have access to diary rooms, etc. that could make them more bitter, but at the same time, have more time to decompress, so may be less emotional. I don't know that it would have changed this season's outcome, and I don't think jkygogo necessarily was thinking only of that, but it does bring some wider perspective to the voting.

[bigguy117]

What they should do is go back to only having the final 2 in the house come finale night. This would give the final jury member a chance to decompress for a couple of days and would also allow them to come up with their own jury question. Also Shane mentioned that he didn't even go to the jury house. He was sequestered in a hotel and was only allowed to see the other jury members for the jury round table. Previous HG's have said that this also happened on their season.

So you have a jury of 7 but only 5 of them really get to deliberate on what has happened in the house. I would much rather have that last eviction happen on the Thursday before the finale. Sure this would leave only 2 people in the house for about a week but the live feeds aren't really that exciting with 3 people in the house either. They could do the jury questions on the Saturday to air on the Sunday show. This would allow the jury members to ask as many questions as they want and give the final 2 more time to go over why they did what they did. I think this would be a better Sunday show then the "memory lane" one.

They could also do like Survivor and have the jury vote after the deliberations and you would see that on the Sunday show. They would reveal the votes live on finale night. The finale would only be an hour but then they would have time to talk to more of the non jury members and I would also like to see them show the final 2 and jury members some clips of stuff that happened. Ex. They could've showed a clip of when the coaches had the chance to press the reset button and then talk to them about Jani and Brit pushing it and telling everyone they didn't.

[GreatSaltLuke]

I don't like the idea of anyone with a vote being able to watch the episodes. The DR sessions are where HGs can entertain us with their private thoughts and trash talking and no one with a future vote has any business being influenced by that. We learned this lesson in BB3.

You can't really stop people from being bitter but I do think that jury members should be sequestered seperately. I don't like that jury members can influence each other and even lie or exaggerate about the HGs still in the game to get the jury to vote a certain way. Having person after person come to the jury house and rant and rave about what a horrible person Dan is did not help his case. If these people were left alone to make up their own minds and not allowed to hear how everyone else is voting, they wouldn't be able to jump aboard the hate train and their vote wouldn't be the result of peer pressure.

[NYROSE]

I agree no episode watchers voting. I do not agree that they should be kept from one another. This is a social game and influence in that milieu seems a fair part of it. How Dan left each person, was part of his legacy toward the result. He lost because of that. He was the master manipulator in the moment and it made for great TV as he put on the funeral ( I could not believe the tears HGs shed LOL) and voting out Shane (we all loved the jaw drop (did she have to see a dentist?) ) But in the aggregate, he did not win. Had he won the last HoH he would have taken Danl and won. So in the clinch, he lost; he lost. Whatever the jury felt, was his making. He lost. As much as I admired his ingenuity with story telling, I know tht Ian won fair and square. No tampering with the jury by BB in terms of manipulating the vote by how they structure the game would have been better.

[DerangedBanana]

I agree no episode watchers voting. I do not agree that they should be kept from one another. This is a social game and influence in that milieu seems a fair part of it. How Dan left each person, was part of his legacy toward the result. He lost because of that. He was the master manipulator in the moment and it made for great TV as he put on the funeral ( I could not believe the tears HGs shed LOL) and voting out Shane (we all loved the jaw drop (did she have to see a dentist?) ) But in the aggregate, he did not win. Had he won the last HoH he would have taken Danl and won. So in the clinch, he lost; he lost. Whatever the jury felt, was his making. He lost. As much as I admired his ingenuity with story telling, I know tht Ian won fair and square. No tampering with the jury by BB in terms of manipulating the vote by how they structure the game would have been better.

Agreed. It's just plain sad how bitter some people are that Dan lost fair and square (not talking about the people in this thread).

[NYROSE]

Agreed. It's just plain sad how bitter some people are that Dan lost fair and square (not talking about the people in this thread).

Seems to me a number of folks in this thread are bitter or some other adj meaning chagrinned. LOL

[jkygogo]

To be honest, the Houseguests , I feel, made their vote based on emotional feelings and not pure gameplay. For that reason, they voted emotionally instead of purely on strategic gameplay, which in my view is not a very good way to judge. I'm not taking away the emotional side of the voting since the sequestored houseguests could vote this way if they want to. But by adding the other half of the evicted houseguests on the outside, this would allow them to decompress and see the true strategy and gameplay and allow them to also be part of the voting process instead of just being viewers. They would comprise the voting for the strategic part of the game.

And if there's a tie, the the tie break vote would go to the viewing audience to vote on CBS.com.

I honestly think this needs to be changed.

They changed the voting after Big Brother 3 with Danielle, now I think they should change it again because this is a weakness in the voting process. This change in the voting would allow a more complete voting.

Thanks

I'm not supporting everyting Dan did this season if he did do something wrong, but I feel they should modify Big Brother. And of course, I do think they should increase the prize to $1 million.

[DerangedBanana]

Part of Big Brother is getting your fellow houseguests to want to vote for you. Dan failed miserably at this, so he lost. Making the entire jury house hate and resent you is not good strategic game play.

[NYROSE]

It is surely not as difficult on the contestants as Survivor. I think that is the rationale for $500K and the fact that they seem really cheap. Did I miss it, or was there just no luxury clothes this season?

[DerangedBanana]

Personally, I think the Survivor Prize should be higher

And yes, BB is cheap. They never had any intention of giving out a 100k coaches prize, and didn't they try to get the players to give up a portion of their grand prize winnings in one of the Season 12 veto competitions? That's really not right if you ask me.

[Brekkie Boy]

Dan didn't lose because he backstabbed the diary - Dan's biggest crime was already having won a season and Ian being fairly popular amongst the jury, and having made some key moves himself without having to resort to the sort of tactics Dan used.

Had it been Dan v Danielle I'm sure Dan would have won (and probably Dan v Shane too), but Dan v Ian wasn't the jury judging two players as equals. Had Dan done what he did this year as a newbie then he'd have had a better chance with the jury IMO.

[kitty]

I think they should go back to Final 2. It can make the feed interesting when they come back from jury questions.
If they keep Final 3 the Final 2 should have more time to talk to the jury. Each person should be allow to go into the DR and tape a private jury speech. Talk about gameplay and what they did to get to the Final 2. The jury would listen to it when the Final 4 person arrives.

[NYROSE]

I think they should go back to Final 2. It can make the feed interesting when they come back from jury questions.
If they keep Final 3 the Final 2 should have more time to talk to the jury. Each person should be allow to go into the DR and tape a private jury speech. Talk about gameplay and what they did to get to the Final 2. The jury would listen to it when the Final 4 person arrives.

that seems like a workable and good and fair idea.

[joystiick]

I am definitely against the idea of allowing people to watch the show and then vote. Part of the game is the idea that the jury can vote based on any method they choose. They can vote on game play, emotion, alliance or flip a coin. The players know that it's part of the process and they have to govern their play accordingly. I wanted Dan to win this season but due to the different dynamics of the game, he became the player that had to get the blood on his hands. There are one or two folks who vote emotionally in every season, in this season there were four or five. That's the chance players take. That's the hand Dan was dealt and he did his best to deal with it. His strategy did get him to the final two, after deing pretty much out the door at number 8. I think Dan was by far the best player but the majority of the jury was bitter. That's no reason to make radical changes to the voting process though. That's just the dynamics of the game. Change one or two things, and the whole game would have been different.

If you change the voting process and allow people to watch the show before voting, it would only be a matter of time before the best player gets screwed because of something they said in secret to one player or during a DR session. That's why they change the voting after BB3.