Jump to content
linda60639

Taking out the Backdoor Option

Recommended Posts

Kudos to BB15. The MVP was a great twist! It allowed an overall fairer contest .But think about it, the MVP could finally facilitate the survival of the fittest! Initially contestants were supposed to play the game as individuals, now they must have an "alliance" to win. This may give viewers more fun and drama as contestants backstab their so called friends and alliance members, but why can't someone ever win honorably on their own? Contestants win because either they cloak themselves in alliances or ride someone's coattail to the end. The winner is rarely deserving of the win because they themselves won multiple challenges, HOH's or Veto competitions.The winner usually wins mainly because of their ability to lie well, deceive and abuse other contestants trust. Most winners have only a few paltry wins of their own under their belt. And they were only able to get those few wins after their alliance have voted out all of the superior intellectual and athletic contestants.

What BB need to do is keep the MVP as a regular part of BB. This would stop the cowardly and despicable "backdoor" option. The "backdoor" option diminishes any kind of legitimate sportsmanship. I feel that "backdooring" people is so lowdown and unfair because they are evicted without ever having an opportunity to play for the Veto. This could all change. With the MVP there would be three nominees. What could happen is that only the nominees would play for the Veto. And after the Veto competition the winner would remove himself or one of the other nominees from the block and then the houseguests would vote to evict one of the remaining two contestants. No more replacements! No one could be evicted without an opportunity to save himself. It would be so wonderful to see a season of BB where someone like James of BB6 or Janell of BB6/BB All Stars fame (who won mutliple competitons because of their intellectual and athletic abilities) win BB. What a novel idea: a true BB champ! But isn't this really how the game was intended to be won?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but I don't agree with you.

Why is it that "winning contests" is better than "out smarting people"?

To me, they are both equal.

If only people who are athletic/smart "deserve" to win Big Brother, than they should cast nothing but jocks.

Since it's not a cast of nothing but jocks, people have to use what they have.

I've said this 1,000 times and I'll keep saying it....

Every single person who goes into the GAME of Big Brother or Survivor has their own "Rule Book" in their head of how the game should be played. And when the rest of the group doesn't play by those "rules", they are "wrong".

Well, what if my rule book and your rule book aren't the same? Why does your rule book take precedent over mine? The reason? You are trying to win. Well, so am I (speaking as a contestant). But I'm not here to help YOUR game, I'm here to help my own game and get to the end. (once again, speaking as a contestant).

IMO, any person who makes it to the final two, no matter how they got there, deserves to be there.

In Hayden's season, that final three definitely didn't ride coat tails. And even though I didn't like how they played the game, they still did better than everyone else using the strategy they had and he won.

The one thing I can't stand on Big Brother (or any other reality competition show), is the finger pointing, meaning accusing people of doing things that they have done themselves. It's that whole, "it's okay if I cheat and lie, but don't you dare lie and cheat to me!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely see your point and can appreciate your position. And, I have no problem with someone winning BB by "outsmarting" the competition, if they do it on their own instead of in a group. However, I personally do not consider lying and deceiving alliance members to be "smart", to me it is merely devious and dishonest.

Of course, there are exceptions and not all BB winners won by relying too heavily on an alliance or rode a coattail to the end, but I wish someone could name me one BB winner who could match James' or Janell's record.

Is it possible to win BB with an honorable strategy? I think so!

I just think that it would be nice to see that happen.

And getting rid of the sleazy, underhanded, backdoor option would be a great start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree - getting shown the backdoor way out really sucks. You are helpless to fight. There should be SOME kind of defense against it, but I can't imagine what that would be.There needs to be some changes next year (if BB is still around) "MVP" added a few good moments but I don't like America getting involved that way. IDK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way to avoid the backdoor option is to devise vetoes where everyone plays. It could be a 2 round competition with everyone playing in the first round (nothing physical and could be played indoors) and the top 5 or six playing in the second round. Everybody would have a chance to move on to the final veto game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a great idea - like on Survivor where they do three rounds - but in the last round only 2 or 3 people play - the only problem is it takes up a lot of space and the BY is only so big - still a good idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't play in veto you can't be nom'ed. Maybe add a couple more to veto to make 8 if you want to keep MVP. At least it would make everyone play for veto and no backdoors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In season 3 they actually did have everyone play veto I believe and I think they realized their mistake and changed it. So many people playing meant that the chances of nominees winning were quite small and it was pretty rare that a non-nominee would want to make a lot of waves by pulling someone off so use of the veto was rare, making for boring veto episodes. Having fewer people is more exciting I think.

I'm kind of confused as to why you thought the MVP twist had anything to do with removing the backdoor option? If anything it made a backdoor more likely because there were more nominees playing in veto, meaning a higher chance that a replacement would be needed. Another thing I don't agree with is that the game should be about the best competitors. Why don't you just watch sports then? This game is about somehow lasting through over a dozen evictions and getting those that didn't last vote to give you the money and doing it by any means necessary whether through deceit, lying, intimidation, charm, charisma, kindness, loyalty, feigning weakness, being a comp beast, etc. There are so many styles and methods for getting through this game that can all be effective and that's one of the reasons I find the game fascinating.

I do have to give you credit for the 3 nomination with one being vetoed and no replacement idea as that could be kind of interesting. However, instead of only having the 3 nominees play for it I think it would be much more interesting to have EVERYONE play for it and whoever wins it MUST use it to pull off one of the three. That would make it so the veto ceremony is still interesting and unpredictable and would make for some pretty great drama as the nominees have to campaign to get pulled off. That should be the next twist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Removing the Back Door Option would only result in making the game more boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BDing is part of Big Brother. If you don't want to be backdoored, be obnoxious or volunteer to be put up as a pawn. Players who get backdoored are usually the ones who feel too 'comfortable.'


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the backdoor.


Didn't want to Judd walk out of it though. That is BB for ya though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In season 3 they actually did have everyone play veto I believe and I think they realized their mistake and changed it. So many people playing meant that the chances of nominees winning were quite small and it was pretty rare that a non-nominee would want to make a lot of waves by pulling someone off so use of the veto was rare, making for boring veto episodes. Having fewer people is more exciting I think.

I'm kind of confused as to why you thought the MVP twist had anything to do with removing the backdoor option? If anything it made a backdoor more likely because there were more nominees playing in veto, meaning a higher chance that a replacement would be needed. Another thing I don't agree with is that the game should be about the best competitors. Why don't you just watch sports then? This game is about somehow lasting through over a dozen evictions and getting those that didn't last vote to give you the money and doing it by any means necessary whether through deceit, lying, intimidation, charm, charisma, kindness, loyalty, feigning weakness, being a comp beast, etc. There are so many styles and methods for getting through this game that can all be effective and that's one of the reasons I find the game fascinating.

I do have to give you credit for the 3 nomination with one being vetoed and no replacement idea as that could be kind of interesting. However, instead of only having the 3 nominees play for it I think it would be much more interesting to have EVERYONE play for it and whoever wins it MUST use it to pull off one of the three. That would make it so the veto ceremony is still interesting and unpredictable and would make for some pretty great drama as the nominees have to campaign to get pulled off. That should be the next twist!

I did not think that the introduction of the MPV had anything to do with the backdoor option. I just thought that making the MPV a permanent part of BB could be an interesting way to defend against the backdoor option.

This assumes, of course, that BB agrees that backdooring people is not a good thing.

But I think that if they did have an MPV nominee, your suggestion of everyone playing for the Veto and that it MUST be used is an even better idea. I really believe that this would raise the level of integrity in the game.

But who am I kidding? This game is more about who is the best at deceit and dishonesty, not about honor and integrity.

We so love the drama!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three ways to limit the backdoor possibilities:

Firstly - a spin on the MVP idea in the original post but essentially the HoH nominates two as normal and then the Veto is played. The twist is if the Veto is used it's America that uses it - control of the replacement nominee is taken out of the house, and the new nominee is only revealed just before the vote.

Secondly keep it as the HoH nominating two people and six play the Veto - but the twist is rather than random draw we go back to the HoH and nominees choosing who plays in the Veto. However there is a catch - only those who play in the Veto are eligible to be nominated. That actually could be a good anti-floater measure - nominees are not going to want to pick people who won't save them but won't want to pick their allies as potential replacements either (though rather them than me), so floaters could end up forced to play the Veto.

Thirdly and one I've been talking about for years - double the jackpot to $1m, but everytime the Veto is used $100,000 is wiped off. Cue nominees being told they're safe in order to save $100k - and people really having to think whether a potential saved HM can really help them to the end before saving them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three ways to limit the backdoor possibilities:

Firstly - a spin on the MVP idea in the original post but essentially the HoH nominates two as normal and then the Veto is played. The twist is if the Veto is used it's America that uses it - control of the replacement nominee is taken out of the house, and the new nominee is only revealed just before the vote.

Secondly keep it as the HoH nominating two people and six play the Veto - but the twist is rather than random draw we go back to the HoH and nominees choosing who plays in the Veto. However there is a catch - only those who play in the Veto are eligible to be nominated. That actually could be a good anti-floater measure - nominees are not going to want to pick people who won't save them but won't want to pick their allies as potential replacements either (though rather them than me), so floaters could end up forced to play the Veto.

Thirdly and one I've been talking about for years - double the jackpot to $1m, but everytime the Veto is used $100,000 is wiped off. Cue nominees being told they're safe in order to save $100k - and people really having to think whether a potential saved HM can really help them to the end before saving them.

Interesting ideas! If you don't mind some critiquing though, I have mixed feelings about the first idea because I hated America deciding nominees and this would be like a permanent MVP twist that wouldn't happen all the time but would happen pretty frequently since it's very common for nominees to win POV. I'd still prefer 3 nominees with one pulled off and no replacement.

Your second idea is the best I think and could cause some entertaining chaos but I'm concerned that it forces people to show their cards too much and makes the HOH get even more blood on their hands every week because not only are they nominating and choosing replacements but they make another enemy out of whoever they pick for veto. Still I wouldn't mind seeing a practice run of this one to see how it works out because it also seems like a decent anti-floater device since nominees aren't going to want to pick proven competitors to play.

Your third idea I personally don't like because I'm just not a fan of penalizing players for making certain moves and restricting their gameplay. I especially don't like that the whole house is being penalized for one player doing what they have to do to keep themselves safe. I also think that in most cases the veto being used makes the game more exciting and wouldn't want to discourage anyone from ever using it. Lastly, there is the problem that one of the nominees could win veto almost every week, bringing the prize money to $0 by the end of the game which would be so very silly. I'm assuming you'd want it so that the prize money couldn't be reduced below the 500k?

I'd love to see the prize money increased to $1 million anyways so the show can stop being known as the poor man's Survivor. Surely, CBS has the money when reality programming is already so cheap to produce compared to other types of shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 6Borders

I hate the backdoor, even when a player I detest goes out of the game on it.

The only ways I could really see this being fair are:

HOH nominates two players as usual. Everyone plays a comp which allows the winner to select the 3rd nominee...basically the MVP, but selected by a comp and not America.

POV is played and someone either comes off and the HG's vote on 2 players, or the noms stay the same and the HG's vote on 3 nominees.

This would also give an extra comp and another day with something for them to do besides lie around and complain how bored they are, and make it less likely for them to be "throwing comps"

The other options I could see if either everyone plays for POV after the noms are made or only the noms and the HOH play for POV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best backdoor EVER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best backdoor EVER

Classic backdoor jawdrop. Thanks, marty. Good to see that again. Dustin was one cocky dude. Wonder what he is up to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the backdoor is classic gameplay. I love it.

Me too Slim,lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to win BB with an honorable strategy? I think so!

See that's my point exactly. In your "How To Play Big Brother Rule Book", you think someone should play with honor and integrity.

In my "Rule Book", I say use any means necessary to get to the end and win the money.

We are not talking about $20 bucks here, but $500,000.

IMO, any person who doesn't do what is necessary to win (within reason, of course, I wouldn't kill anyone), shouldn't complain when they end up on the jury and not in the final two.

Have you ever played poker? Well, I play poker with MY FRIENDS, we all put money into a pot and at the end of night someone takes the pot. And they take the pot sometimes by being a better bluffer than the other players. No one is upset that their money was taken away from them by someone who bluffed instead of having the better hand.

I see Big Brother as a combination of a job and a bigger, more complex, poker game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I LOVE LOVE LOVE theidea of having it so the HOH must choose the replacement nominee from the players who played for veto.

Maybe the HOH would decide who the veto players are? Then if one of the nominees is pulled, the HOH picks from the others they chose to play for veto??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If winning competitions was the criteria to win the game of BB, there would be no reason to lock them all in a house together. If would be a game show instead of a social reality show.

My problem with the show is how it has become "whatever the house wants". When they figure out how to end that stupid mentality I'll be back on board fully like I used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What BB need to do is keep the MVP as a regular part of BB.

No F'ing way.... Sorry, but it totally SUCKS. If they do it next season, the HGs will stop playing BB the best way they can, and attempt to kiss the ass of the TV auduence. It would be nothing but a popularity contest.

I suspect those who do like the MVP twist would love to have America decide everything. Decide who is gets to be HoH, Who gets nominated, who is evicted. Those would love the MVP twist want BB to become a popularity contest where the HGs beg for america's vote every week. The show would come down who is the best HUNK or best Babe, in other words, aspiring actors using reality TV to get their big break into TV.... If the show became just another talent show, it would SUCK!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hell no, the backdoor option is classic gameplay.. at this point its not a secret that anyone can be backdoored, we dont want to make it easier for them, they need to make it harder..

the MVP twist was a complete failure, it was meant to weed out the floaters and that didn't happen. the "no-floater" summer failed.

I'd like them to change the POV and have the winner choose the replacement, season after season competitions are thrown, enough is enough with that crap. Who cares if the HOH looses power in that instance, if they want to keep total power then HOH has to win POV too... a POV change is needed, ASAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hell no, the backdoor option is classic gameplay.. at this point its not a secret that anyone can be backdoored, we dont want to make it easier for them, they need to make it harder..

the MVP twist was a complete failure, it was meant to weed out the floaters and that didn't happen. the "no-floater" summer failed.

I'd like them to change the POV and have the winner choose the replacement, season after season competitions are thrown, enough is enough with that crap. Who cares if the HOH looses power in that instance, if they want to keep total power then HOH has to win POV too... a POV change is needed, ASAP.

that is a good idea would definitely put pressure on the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now




×