Jump to content

Backdooring And Veto


Catniptoy
 Share

What do you think of backdooring?  

81 members have voted

  1. 1. Should backdooring be abolished? What do you think?

    • Backdooring is great--Leave it alone.
      35
    • Only people who play in POV should be replacement subs
      5
    • Let everyone play in the POV, and then it's fair.
      45
    • What does my back door have to do with Big Brother??
      3


Recommended Posts

This year, the houseguests are really into "backdooring" contestants, whether on purpose or accidentally.

A back door plan is when you put two pawns up on the block. Usually, they are people you wouldn't mind voting out, but you'd rather they stayed. Then, you play the POV (power of veto) contest, and the POV winner is supposed to take someone off the nomination block. The POV winner would be safe, as would the person they took off the block. To do this, you have to have the cooperation of all POV players, and sometimes the pawns (so they won't hold a grudge). Then, the HOH will nominate a replacement nominee, and this person will be the person voted out. (This takes a lot of trust, as the HOH could betray the POV winner and put one of their friends up as a surprise move, so it seems as though it would be difficult to get people to do it).

The reason for backdooring is that you have assured yourself that the person you want gone is gone. Often, houseguests feel this strategy is fine, although they detest things like Jen telling POV contestants up front who she would nominate if they threw the POV contest. To me, backdooring is much worse. I, for one, don't like backdooring, as the person being backdoored is often horribly surprised, and they often never had a chance to play for POV. To me, it isn't fair play, but to others, it's a great strategic move in the game.

I think that the backdoor was more of a fair option back when every contestant played for the POV. Now, however, only six people play, and that means that the person being backdoored might not ever have a chance to save themselves at all, other than campaigning for votes.

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole house should particpate and help or hinder the people on the block. If one of the persons on the block wins it than they can use it. If anyone else wins it then the Veto is dead and can't be used.

Backdooring shoud be an option if only the persons on the block can win it and they remove themselves. That wouldn't even be backdooring since the whole house participated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed when all played for POV, and as StevenV said, if the nominee wins they're able to remove themselves. The only persons entirely safe to use the POV are noms and HOH. It takes a strong numbers alliance to backdoor.

Don't think too many want to be a Marcellus. :dunce2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish all the hg played in POV even more now that they use it as a combo luxury challenge. Like others have said, the backdoor is only acceptable to me if the replacement nominee has had the chance to win POV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jordansmom

I hate it either let them all play or limit replacement noms to those that got to play. It would stop all that throwing of the comp crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this season hg arent not worthy of using the backdoor imho :flags_unitedstates::flags_unitedstates::flags_unitedstates:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seriously if hg use the concept of backdooring like it should then the person who qualify to get backdoor is daniele or jen cause they have the most comp wins :flags_unitedstates::flags_unitedstates::flags_unitedstates:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the first time backdooring ever happened on BB it was awsome.. but now its just rude. lmao j/k.

the thing is, everyone playing for veto has to be in on it for it to work... if its planned from the very start of nominating 2 people and expecting 1 to come down from the veto so you can put that one person you wanted to backdoor up. it has to be foolproof. and this year its not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only people who play in POV should be replacement subs

thats a horrible idea.

sorry. but it is.

ok HOH, NOM1, NOM2 all play, AND

pick1, pick2, pick 3.

lets say pick 3 wins POV and saves NOM2, that means they ONLY have 2 people they can choose from. horrible idea.

i like were EVERYBODY plays, and when there is only 6 too. they should switch back and forth for diffrent types of challenges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they talk of backdooring people this season, but the reality is they can't guarantee it, since they don't get to choose who plays for POV...

if they wanted to backdoor Zach... then his ball gets pulled to play for POV and he won and didn't use it, now your two 'pawns' are left on the block to get voted out... who wants to vollunter to be a pawn with the rules set up like that? not me!

Backdoor worked in BB6 because they allowed the HG and 2 noms to choose. BB saw the flaw and decided to change to drawing balls on BB7. Backdoor was discussed but never used. The more BB tweeks the game, the less it is like the original...

I say let everyone play for POV

(at least BB's POV is better than Suvivor's Immunity! POV is like winning immunity for yourself, but if you weren't a nominee already, then you can save a friend as well. The immunity necklace on Survivor can be used on yourself OR given to someone else, which I believe has NEVER been done. The logic of giving it away means 1. you fear someone else will be voted off and want to save them, so 2. enough others want the person gone, so 3. you'd be making yourself a target if you give away immunity. And yet, Jeff P continues, usually with a laugh because even he realizes how silly it is, to ask if they want to give immunity to someone else. Survivor has changed the game by introducing hidden immunities, why not fix their current immunity to allow saving someone else and not putting yourself at risk? ok, I'm done with my Survivor rant now, back to BB! lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just think if Nick had been the replacement nom in the first week.... he didn't get to play for the first HOH, he wouldn't have played for POV... he could have gotten voted out of the house without ever playing a game :animated_scratchchin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree about rigged POVs... they are only great if the player you want out is the one being teamed up on... if the game doesn't give each player an equal chance of winning(not taking into account studying in advance/skill levels/attempted strategy), they might as well not even play the game...

POV comps where HGs overthink it are the best... can't remember which one it was, but when they had to put the coins in the piggy banks and get close to but not over 21 or something like that... everyone wanted to work together, but they couldn't discuss strategy... and it backfired on them...

I'm all for anything that keeps the HGs guessing, so it doesn't become cut/dry each week as to what is going to happen

(btw, anyone thinking tonight may be an endurance HOH comp? Is it time for that?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution of the Power of Veto...

Initially the POV was alot like Survivor immunity. If you kept it you were safe, if you used it you set yourself up to be sent home.

Golden Power of Veto allowed you to pull someone off the nomination block without endangering yourself.

Next BB needs to add Platinum Power of Veto (Kaysars idea on Housecalls) where not only are you safe and able to take someone off the block but you also get to name the replacement nominee. (Like Coup d'etat but for only one replacement nominee, only for that week and it has to be used at veto ceremony as opposed to being able to do it right before the vote.) I love this idea but not as a week to week thing.

They should mix it up every week with all three levels of veto a possibility but the type of veto isnt revealed until its been won. That way HGs cant really plan for anything until after Veto comp!

Also I think everyone should play, that way if they know they might possibly be in danger they get just as much of a chance to protect themselves as everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer everyone played for the veto. As for backdooring, it was cool at first, but then it seemed like they were always trying to backdoor everyone.I like that idea of using the three different levels. It would make it pretty interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats a horrible idea.

sorry. but it is.

ok HOH, NOM1, NOM2 all play, AND

pick1, pick2, pick 3.

lets say pick 3 wins POV and saves NOM2, that means they ONLY have 2 people they can choose from. horrible idea.

i like were EVERYBODY plays, and when there is only 6 too. they should switch back and forth for diffrent types of challenges.

King, if the only replacement noms are the people who played in veto, that brings a whole new strategy to the game. This would be better if they take away the random draw and let the competitors pick their players. For example, let's say Kail is on the block and she has to choose someone for veto. Would she choose Mike to save her or would she choose someone she wants to go home? It brings a different look at the veto that we haven't seen yet that might create so much more drama. People wouldn't be choosing people in veto to play for them, they would choose people they want to see on the block. I think the idea of only the peopel playing in veto are the replacement nominees is a great idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, it would be ideal if everyone got to play in the POV. As someone mentioned earlier, it's not fair to mix up the luxury prizes with the POV comp, as some people don't have a chance to play, and it's luck of the draw.

I think it would change up the game also if only the POV participants were allowed as replacement nominations. That would mean that a lot of people would be hesitant to even play POV, and yet they wouldn't dare throw a POV comp, because that would mean they have a good chance of going on the block. Lots of drama would ensue if the nominees were allowed to pick their players, as people would be angry that they were picked in the first place. People would find out fast who is really in their alliance that way.

I would just like it better if everyone had a chance of controlling their destiny in the game at least a tiny bit, and had a chance to play for veto. Because as it stands at this moment, Dustin's alliance is planning out the backdooring of every guest not in their alliance, in order of preference of first to go. It's getting ridiculous, and it makes it boring. I don't like to see a houseguest on the block when they haven't had a chance to do diddly squat in the game, and everyone gangs up on them and takes them out. I know it is part of the game as it stands at this time, but it's a part I don't like very much.

If BB really controlled comps as much as people think they do, BB would suddenly not allow veto to be played one week if a favorite was going to be backdoored. So to me, that's one nugget of proof that BB doesn't fix POV comps. They might gear a type of comp toward one contestant to help them out, but I don't thing they rig them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course everyone should get to play again, then backdooring is fair. And for those who seem to think BB started with Jannelle and Kaysar...backdooring was actually invented before S6. Remember the 6 finger plan? When Nik came up with that it was awesome...but then in S6 they overused it, thats why they switched to the random player thing. What BB should have done was open POV back up to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share








Living Room

Living Room

Please enter your display name

×
×
  • Create New...