TVCH FORUMS HOME . JOIN . FAN CLUBS . ABOUT US . CONTACT . CHAT  
Bomis   Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Forced Veto Useage

The TVClubHouse: Big Brother 7 All-Stars ARCHIVES: Big Brother 7 All-Stars Part 1: Forced Veto Useage users admin

Author Message
Kswheels
Member

06-30-2005

Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 11:17 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Kswheels a private message Print Post    
This was brought up in another thread. The idea being that BB should force the HGs to use the veto every week.

My queston is....Is it even possible or logical? It kind of defeats the purpose of the veto. Eliminates the "will they or won't they" aspect. Also...If the Veto has to be used every week, why bother making the HoH nominate at all before the Veto?

I dunno. The idea just never made much sense to me. Can someone try to explain how it's a good idea?

Cliotheleo
Member

03-13-2002

Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 11:22 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Cliotheleo a private message Print Post    
how would they force them? Tie them down and hold their mouths and noses shut?

And I agree, don't like the idea at all. There is something similar on BB Australia where the winner of a weekly competition MUST take three points off of someone who has been nominated for eviction. I think it causes more problems than it helps.

Meagain
Member

07-20-2005

Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 11:24 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Meagain a private message Print Post    
Bad idea. Makes zero sense to me.

Kswheels
Member

06-30-2005

Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 11:25 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Kswheels a private message Print Post    
As in...Make a rule that the veto winner must take someone off. Just...no. It wouldn't work. It neuters the HoH, that's for sure.

Willsfan
Member

09-04-2000

Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 12:37 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Willsfan a private message Print Post    
I like the option to Use or Not Use.
Later in the game the only people they would be able to put up would be one of their allies or a friendly. The less enemies the better.

R151996
Member

07-04-2003

Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 1:05 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send R151996 a private message Print Post    
It wouldn't neuter the HOH if there were THREE nominees, and with two HOHs it wouldn't be hard. Give each HOH one nomination and force them to agree on the third...otherwise the HOHs are the nominees.

Of course it will never happen....

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 2:05 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
What about HOH gets to choose who goes OFF, and the Veto holder nominates the next person up. That way the HOH still has SOME control of who stays up there, and the Veto winner COULD STILL be one of the HOHs, so nominations could still stand, or the HOH could still have all the power....

Puzzled
Member

08-27-2001

Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 2:09 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Puzzled a private message Print Post    
I think it should be left the way it is. If the veto holder has to use it, then it's just more back-door stuff, with not half as much suspense.

Stopjustwatchin
Member

08-19-2005

Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 2:56 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Stopjustwatchin a private message Print Post    
The only thing about this that would make sense if to say it must be used if the HOH is not the winner of the POV. If the HOH wins POV, then the noms would obviously stay. Obviously if a nominee wins, the POV is being used. Basically, it only comes down to those who are selected to play. That would force that person to use it. Could be interesting and force the HOH to compete even harder in the POV comp.

However, with James in the house...no one else is winning POV if he's competiting.

Jcoplan
Member

08-04-2005

Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 3:21 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jcoplan a private message Print Post    
What I do think would make sense is to have a "golden veto" that allows the winner to decide who to nominate instead of it going back to the HOH. That would lead to much more power shifting...

Stopjustwatchin
Member

08-19-2005

Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 3:23 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Stopjustwatchin a private message Print Post    
Isn't it already technically the "golden veto" now, so wouldn't we have to make it the "platinum veto" or something. Didn't we have a "diamond veto" one year?

R151996
Member

07-04-2003

Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 7:01 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send R151996 a private message Print Post    
"Diamond" veto has been around for the last three BBs even though I think it was called that only in BB4. That is the veto at F4 where the HOH has no choice on the HG left to nominate if a nominee wins the veto as happened in BB4. Ali vetoed herself off and then voted Erika out when she became the automatic nominee....Robert was HOH and Ali and Jun were his nominees.

Sunshyne4u
Member

06-17-2003

Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 7:10 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Sunshyne4u a private message Print Post    
I dont know. I can see an advantage for the VETO being used.

The only reason it isnt used is if the WINNER of the VEto is the HOH whom made the original nominatisn.

I like that if an ordinary joe HG won it, they'd HAVE to use it, but the HOH doesnt have to.

Trouble is, I want a more exciting house. Changing a few rules for a comp that takes place ONCE a week doesnt affect the day to day game at all.

Iheartkaysar
Member

08-16-2005

Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 7:33 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Iheartkaysar a private message Print Post    
Perhaps, instead of making it mandatory, there could be some incentive to use it. For example, money or a luxury or a guarantee of immunity for the next week. That would make players think carefully about whether using it is in their best interest.