Archive through September 17, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archive: Archive FOUR: Game. Not a Game... Game? Not a Game.: Archive through September 17, 2002

Oregonfire

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 12:18 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Another comment I have to make regarding the Dani/Jason alliance. Jason is often held up as a parragon of an ethical man within game parameters. But he has paired up with a woman who many have decried as deceitful. Why would Jason pair up with such a character if her deceitful nature did not also benefit himself? Seems like an awfully good way to keep your karma clean by having someone else do your dirty work. (I like Jason, and am not attacking his character. He saw a good thing and ran with the ball, which is exactly what he should have done.)

Oregonfire

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 12:30 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Thank YOU, Mr. Nice Guy, for living up to your name. :) I needed a kind word in this most devilish of threads.

Wendo

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 12:48 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Niceguy, imo, that was part of the game. Roddy was her competitor and she wanted him gone. So she prayed, it's what she does. No difference than one saying to themsleves, I hope to heck he gets the boot, luck has to be on my side, type of thing.

Sanfranjoshfan

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 12:53 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Groucho - "To say that we can extrapolate from someone's deceptions and lies in the context of playing the game seems as wrong to me as saying that someone who cheats at solitaire has revealed their true character."

I don't know if you are referring to my posts or not, but let me clarify *my* position, just in case :):

Yes, Jason is a kind man. Yes, he lied in the BB game. No, I do not believe that one could honestly refer to Jason's base *character* as that of a "liar", even if he did technically lie within the boundaries of the game.

Yes, Dani has lied in the game. Yes, that is within the confines of the game and I would not refer to Dani's base *character* as that of a "liar" either...but Dani has also been making numerous judgemental and hateful statements about ex-HGs (that are no longer in the way of her reaching the final 2)...so I do not see how those remarks can be construed as part of her "game playing". Yes, I DO believe that I could honestly refer to Dani's base *character* as a "judgemental person" and a "gossip", because she has exhibited that behavior consistenly for weeks and it had nothing whatsover to do with playing the game.

I am not saying that each HG (once back outside the house) will behave *exactly* like they have been behaving inside the house from now on. I am just saying that the character traits that they exhibit *that have nothing to do with game strategy* will, IMHO, still be part of who they are as indviduals.

Marcellas will likely still be an egotistical neat freak.

Dani will likley still be a judgemental gossip.

Roddy will still be cute :) and will likely first assess others on an intellectual scale rather than an emotional one.

Tonya will still probably react more positively to a guy who responds positively to her breasts than to one who doesn't notice them.

Jason will likely still treat his fellow human beings with tolerance, compassion, and kindness.

That's what *I* am talking about. Game play is game play....but certain character traits that have nothing to do with the game are readily visible to others, especially when they have been under a microscope for 24/7 for a couple of months.

JMO

Wcv63

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 01:10 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
SanFran I'd like to refute your points with logical well thought out responses but I believe that you are probably correct in your assessments. About Jason anyway. :O

HOWEVER, I still maintain that the negative aspects of Dani's character have been magnified by the isolation and that in real life she doesn't give in to judgmental gossip any more than some of us gossipy posters.

Sbw

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 01:13 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
*Sbw -- but how could someone who had high ethics be on this game? It's basic premise is greed and what you are willing to do for money. The moment one places a price on their ethics, by definition they have said their ethics are up for sale*

What, we work for money, are your ethics for sale in your workplace for a higher paying job? ;) I know in my heart ethics will never win in this game but I can still hope that ethics would be rewarded in how any game is played and especially when the stakes are higher and it matters. Call me naive and an idiot and they probably fit :) -but you can't take away my hope for a better value system.

Wcv63

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 01:20 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Sbw: You're naive and an idiot. :O

I aim to please!!

Sbw

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 01:25 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
WCV... I told What they could do that, not YOU! :) But I guess it is the truth both ways and in this case, I'm proud of it. And thanks for "being there" to please!

And to you WCV, congrats on having your post to Dani shown to her while in the house! <see I am nice, even while ducking the rotten tomatoes>

Sanfranjoshfan

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 01:35 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Wcv63 - "SanFran I'd like to refute your points with logical well thought out responses but I believe that you are probably correct in your assessments. About Jason anyway."

LOL Thanks! :)

Ya know....that brings up an interesting observation that I've made in these "character studies" of the HGs....when folks defend the various HGs' character and behavior by saying that it's "the house" and/or "the game" that is the reason for what we see....I never see them using that argument for Jason. When it comes to that cute, little sweetie-pie, it seems that most folks believe, "what you see is what you get". For most of the rest of the HGs it's "what you see is NOT what you get...what you see is just a BB game distortion."

JMO

Wcv63

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 01:41 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I know SanFran. Damn him. His integrity is the fly in my ointment. :O Completely skews my whole argument. But I refuse to let go of what I believe is a basically sound premise.

Wendo

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 01:50 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Actually, I think a lot of Jason's behavior in the house has a lot to do with the game. Being that he's an avid BB fan as well as an internet guy, AND he surfed sites about BB knowing full well what people had to say about the more extreme characters in the house. (He refers quite often to how Nicole's behavior in the house last year likely kept her from winning.)

IMO, he has taken this knowledge and has carefully kept his behavior restrained, avoided gossiping heavily (though he has participated on occassion), and made efforts to remain "solid" with all the HG's.

Jason is not stupid. And, of all the HG's, he has the most knowledge of past BB's, therefore, he knows what works and what doesn't.

Am I saying that Jason is really nothing but a bad guy? Not at all. I do think he's a decent fella. However, I don't believe we've seen the "real" Jason in the house. Not at all.

Sanfranjoshfan

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 01:51 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I just looked in the now closed "Danielle Looking Nervous" thread and read this:

"looks like Danielle looks real nervous about the internet chat.. When the true colors question was made she quickly piped up with "what you see is what you get" when Amy said we will see Danielle's true colors.. Haha.. watch her squirm"

I SWEAR...I had NOT read that (nor had I heard Dani use that phrase) when I made my last post here (12:35 pm) :)

Wendo

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 02:15 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I listened to that conversation about "true colors" and what I heard Amy say was that "we've seen everyone's true colors"; that there were no surprises left. Amy said there were no more true colors to see.

That's how I heard it any way. Perhaps someone else listening to the live feeds too can post what they heard as well.

Tobor7

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 05:48 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Wendo--

It is clear to me that you are all about defending Dani. That's not what this is about.

You said:
"No, it was not a personal attack. Please don't take it that way, it was not meant to be insulting; it's merely a phrase. I'm merely saying that your answer was simplistic and an insufficient answer to the question posed. (Nor have you yet answered it.) An example would be when a child breaks a vase and their parent asks the child, How did this vase break? The child says, I don't know. That is a child's answer, it doesn't address the question fully and, in a sense, deflects the question so one doesn't have to answer it."

Sorry, but "merely a phrase" is just an excuse for the personal insult. I was trying to make it as simple as possible to focus the discussion to the issue, not to the people having the discussion.

In your example, the child's answer is a LIE because the child actually DOES know how the vase broke. The rest of your point is lost.

About Roddy "...was nothing more than an illustration of how people's positions and opinions change with respect to certain HG's. That, were seeing Dani's true character, but not Roddy's." and later "...I apologize to you personally for recalling inaccurately..."
So this statement was based on false information.

Your answer to the 1st question basically ends the discussion. No point in going on. Your answers to all the other questions are already answered in the first.
(Basic logic-- "A" = "B" and "B" = "C" then "A" = "C")
If you do not agree that "A" = "B" then the rest is a moot point. If you think that the HG's are able to hide their true character and they are different in the house vs. outside the house... well it is impossible to continue. The discussion ends right there. And clearly your only recourse is to attack me for saying such things because you think I am attacking Dani. If I want to attack Dani, I'll do it in the proper thread with like-minded people.

You said things like:

"...I think your dislike of her is coloring your opinions..." (what do you charge per hour for this analysis?)
"...I don't believe that you can say you see these people's true characters..." (deal with what YOU believe, not if you believe I CAN SAY something)
"...I don't think you're being fair to them..." (I am unfair? You are making it about me again.)
"...I think it's rather arrogant..." (oh?)
"...your expressed moral authority..." (never expressed)
"...it sounds to me that the excuses you so decry are ones YOU just don't like..." (about me again-- why not try to explain why they are not excuses and leave me out of it)
"...Why are you the moral arbitrator. Your last line sets you up as the only judge. How do you know?..." (about me again, leave me out of it)

...etc.

I think it is safe to assume that all opinions here are just that, and dozens of lines of disclaimers, "IMHO's", etc. are simply a waste of time and space. We all know what an opinion is. I made a statement. Deal with the statement, not me.

Wendo, I will no longer comment to you. You have decided to attack me, characterize my opinion as something else and question my "authority" to express my comments rather than deal with the comments. The "authority" I have is no less than or greater than yours.

Tobor7

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 05:55 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Groucho--

I said what I said.

You said:
"...So you're saying that because I cheat at solitaire, sooner or later I'm going to be lying and cheating left and right, in pursuit of my own ends, without regard to morality?"

No YOU said that.

Don't re-phrase my statements in order to comment on them.

Groucho

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 08:09 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Tobor, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. That's why I phrased it as a question. It seemed to me that my statement was a logical conclusion to draw from what you've said. If I have misunderstood your argument, feel free to explain how.

Groucho

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 08:37 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
SanFran -- I wasn't specifically referring to your posts in my comments. In fact, I agree with pretty much everything you said in that post.

Specifically, you said, "I am just saying that the character traits that they exhibit *that have nothing to do with game strategy* will, IMHO, still be part of who they are as indviduals." And I agree. I think certain aspects of the HGs personality may be magnified or distorted by the environment of the house. But aside from that, I think we have a reasonable picture of these people's personalities and behaviors.

What I was addressing was the contention by some in this thread that lying and backstabbing *for game reasons* reflects that these people would likely lie and backstab in "real life" situations. I just don't agree with that argument. It's a game, and deception is part of it, just like bluffing is part of poker.

To put it in concrete terms: I have no problem with Dani lying to Roddy's face, because it's part of the game. I do have a problem with her bashing some of the HGs behind their backs, because that's not. I think the latter reflects much more negatively on who she truly is than the former.

Sanfranjoshfan

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 09:20 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Groucho - "To put it in concrete terms: I have no problem with Dani lying to Roddy's face, because it's part of the game. I do have a problem with her bashing some of the HGs behind their backs, because that's not. I think the latter reflects much more negatively on who she truly is than the former."

Looks like we're on the same page, then....maybe even the same line in the same paragraph of the same page! :)

I just wasn't sure if the debate in this thread was being differentiated between game playing tactics and observed personality characteristics. I know *I* was looking at different aspects of the HG's behavior, just wasn't sure of everybody else! :)

Wendo

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 09:26 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Tobor7 said, "Wendo-- It is clear to me that you are all about defending Dani. That's not what this is about."

Actually, no, not in this thread. It's about defending ALL 12 HG's.

"You said: "snip quote"

Sorry, but "merely a phrase" is just an excuse for the personal insult. I was trying to make it as simple as possible to focus the discussion to the issue, not to the people having the discussion."

It wasn't an insult. However, I apologize that you were insulted, it was not meant that way, as I explained.

"In your example, the child's answer is a LIE because the child actually DOES know how the vase broke. The rest of your point is lost."

The rest of my point was that the answer was not satisfactory and incomplete.

"About Roddy "snip quote"
So this statement was based on false information."

It was based on recollection that wasn't accurate as to who the poster was. However, there were other posters who did post that assuming Roddy was the same in the game as in real life was not a fair assumption.

"Your answer to the 1st question basically ends the discussion. No point in going on. Your answers to all the other questions are already answered in the first. (Basic logic-- "A" = "B" and "B" = "C" then "A" = "C") If you do not agree that "A" = "B" then the rest is a moot point. If you think that the HG's are able to hide their true character and they are different in the house vs. outside the house... well it is impossible to continue. The discussion ends right there. And clearly your only recourse is to attack me for saying such things because you think I am attacking Dani. If I want to attack Dani, I'll do it in the proper thread with like-minded people."

I'm did not say you were attacking Dani only that because of the use of Dani quotes in your first post, it appears as though you're talking about Dani. If that's inaccurate, ok. In addition, I'm not attacking you, I'm debating your opinion. As the moderators remind us, don't take the debate personally.

As to your questions, you posed them in the public thread, I responded to them. *shrug*

"You said things like:

"...I think your dislike of her is coloring your opinions..." (what do you charge per hour for this analysis?)"

Actually, someone else posted this earlier, I was repeating it.

"...I don't believe that you can say you see these people's true characters..." (deal with what YOU believe, not if you believe I CAN SAY something)"

Semantics. Ok, to answer the question to your satisfaction, I don't think it's possible to know the HG's true characters while they're in the construct of the game.

"...I don't think you're being fair to them..." (I am unfair? You are making it about me again.)"

But, Tobor, you posted the opinion. I'm debating and disagreeing with it. However, to satisfy it not being about you, I don't think it's fair to the HG's for someone to say that their true characters are being shown. (Ok?)

"...I think it's rather arrogant..." (oh?)"

Yes, I do think it's arrogant. As I wrote, who are we to judge and assume with what little we know of them.

"...your expressed moral authority..." (never expressed)"

Well, I suppose we disagree then. The first post in this thread sounds like moral authority to me.

"...it sounds to me that the excuses you so decry are ones YOU just don't like..." (about me again-- why not try to explain why they are not excuses and leave me out of it)"

As I said before, you posed the questions and the opinions of this thread. As far as explaining why they're not excuses, see my earlier posts regarding the fact they are playing a game. The game is the excuse.

"...Why are you the moral arbitrator. Your last line sets you up as the only judge. How do you know?..." (about me again, leave me out of it) ...etc. "

Again, if you're going to pose the questions and state what you believe as fact, then be prepared for someone to debate your opinions. If you didn't want to be debated, then the questions should've been asked with out your opinion.

"I think it is safe to assume that all opinions here are just that, and dozens of lines of disclaimers, "IMHO's", etc. are simply a waste of time and space. We all know what an opinion is. I made a statement. Deal with the statement, not me."

I have dealt with the statement. You just don't like my response. Nothing I can do about that.

"Wendo, I will no longer comment to you. You have decided to attack me, characterize my opinion as something else and question my "authority" to express my comments rather than deal with the comments. The "authority" I have is no less than or greater than yours."

I see, because I'm debating and discussing the points made in this thread, and you're not satisfied with my responses, I'm no longer allowed to debate. Hmm. Ok then. So, basically you're saying that since I don't agree with the points and statements you made in your first post, you won't continue the debate. Whatever, your choice.

As far as attacking *you*, I'm not. I'm debating the comments and statements you made and put out there. If you don't like it, there's nothing I can do.

Apparently, you and I cannot have a mature debate because I don't agree with you. Crystal clear.

Lancecrossfire

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 11:30 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I’d like to post to the original post Tobor made—and I’d also like to take a moment to say that this thread was a great idea. We spend most of the time talking about the HG or each other—maybe a little bit of the game in terms of the HG. I happen to believe this game is bigger than the HGs or the people who post on this or any other board. It’s like Survivor, or a game of football. HG come and go—posters come and go; but the game is still there later. And it affects people in so many different ways for a life time. A game of checkers doesn’t do that—being in Survivor or BB has done that to a lot of the competitors.

I think BB is a game—a very unique game. Because players get paid, and the pot is quite substantial, it’s also a business. So, I think it’s possible to say “it’s just a game” when you are playing and have it be true. And also have it be reasonable as to why you did what you did—as long as you did whatever it was in the context of the game. Bashing people and calling them names and insulting their family has nothing to do with what BB is all about. It’s like John McEnroe trashing the chair umpire—it’s not part of serving, volleying, etc. It’s outside of what the scope of the game is supposed to be about.

In that respect, I agree that saying “it’s just the game” is an excuse.

Let me say now that I am not making this post just because I dislike the way a certain player has played the game—I am providing this post because I dislike the way most of the players have played this game.

As noted in the first post, the example of work is one I will use. I work in a department where 2 people specifically use the tactic of trying to make themselves look good by trying t make as many people around them look as bad as possible (including stretching facts and creating out and out lies). They have a choice to use that approach or others that are more ethical. There is nothing in the rules here at work that you can’t trash someone to make yourself look better—but it’s still slimy.

In athletics, you will find people who are different people on the field of play than they are in real life—you will also find those who are basically the same person. But if you look closer at the former (those that appear different), you actually find that as a person they are inside—their core-they are the same. Mike Singletary played for the Chicago Bears as a linebacker for many years. He was ferocious—he was intense, and he wiped people out. But off the field he was a family man—had kids and was a close knit family. On the outside it seems he was two different people. Yet, in everyday life he worked hard ant anything he took on. He was intense and passionate about life and his family. He was a fair person, and respected by all around him. Note that when he played football, he was all of those things. He just happened to play a game where it was his job to knock the snot out of the other team. He did it with respect though—no taunting the other players, no making bashing/name calling statements in the press about opposition. He didn’t bash anyone behind their backs—or to their faces. He proved how good he was by playing the game within the rules and by showing respect for all who played in the game. He also never whined when someone knocked the crap out of him.

Brian Cox is a linebacker that has been traded from one team to another—he plays the game well as far as the skills—he hits people hard, runs the ball down, covers passes well. But he gets traded because of the way he plays the other part of the game. He trash talks (not against the rules in most cases), berates other players, makes outlandish statements to the press and whines if someone sticks him as good as he does it to others.

That is what so many of the HGs have done—they have not respected their fellow HGs in all cases. They have certainly not been willing to “take it” as good as they have “dished it out”.

It is those cases that I agree with Tobor that saying “it’s just a game” is a crock from them to fall back on. Every one of them is responsible for how they play the game. They can be very slimy and still be within the rules.

Now for the issue of BB and if people are their real selves. BB is a very unique game. First it lasts for 3 months. Next, it’s a game about human interaction—and pretty much nothing else. It’s not like Survivor where you get distracted by having others in your tribe where you have to work with them. You don’t get distracted by being so hungry it hurts just about everyday of the game. You don’t have water that tastes like…well, you get the idea. All you really have to focus on in BB is those other HGs. The other thing that makes it so different is the 24/7 feeds. Can you imagine how crazy we would get with Survivor if there where those same feeds?? We’d be at each other’s throats rooting and making posts about every little thing they do. MB takes 72 hours and shows us 40 minutes—he has total control of what we see. He can make any person a hero or a villain with no trouble at all.

But BB has 24/7 feeds, and LFPs on our board. So just about anyone can be aware of what they are doing at any time, and it goes for 3 months. I challenge anyone to be someone different for over 3 months—to play a game face that is not you—and do it in everyday life. I am not saying that BB is the way we all live, although I’m saying that BB is basically about going about a daily routine of eating, cooking, cleaning, and such things for 3 months. If they made BB last 2 weeks, we would see people with a game face that didn’t match anything like they really are. But they aren’t stressed or distracted with something like painful hunger or the possibility of getting so sick from a challenge they can’t get up and have to be helped back to camp. They don’t have to worry about the basics of life. They just fall into a routine. So they will find it very easy to let in who they really are. On tope of that BB throws in just enough stress so that people fall into their “default” mode, unless they are VERY good. Roddy and Jamie paid the most attention to the fact their were cameras and everyone could see what was said. Yet both of them showed us something other than just a game face. They couldn’t hold it up even as much as they tried. Others care much less.

Will was someone who I thought acted narcissistic and as a sociopath while he was in BB. I never accused him of being like that as a person, but was always concerned it was that way. When he got out, he said he was himself, only up a couple notches. In the show he was totally into himself, trashed and disrespected just about everyone (except for Mike and Shannon). He stayed completely loyal to them, even though he manipulated them big time. Dani, Marc, Amy are no match for the cruelty he said towards others. The only difference was that the current group never let up even after everyone was out. Will did.

Time seems to bring on amnesia. Amy trashed people with Marc with every bit as much crass and vulgarity as he used. She has stopped that, and it seems to have faded for some. Josh was horrible to Gerry specifically, although he is no longer in the house, so he’s not brought up.

Lisa held his nominating Eric and her against Gerry big time—and made comments about it. Yet she had to do the same thing when she was HOH—she didn’t handle it well having someone “just play the game” the way she did. And in both cases, it was just playing the game—no disrespect, no bashing, just strategy at the moment.

So Tobor, in many respects, I agree with you, and in a few I don’t---but there is one point where I both agree and disagree. It is indeed actually a crude psychological experiment disguised as a game which is disguised as TV entertainment that is really just a money making business. It is an experiment that is set up in such a way that if the HGs choose to play it as “just a game” they can do so. They don’t have to make it personal and include the bashing/trashing//demonizing—whatever others like to call it. Lying though—yes, it seems that can be done with out making it personal. Trying to talk someone else to vote like you want—yes, that can be done without making it personal.

When you do things like that, it’s never “just a game”. A game is not personal. A game is only a game.

Again Tobor, thanks for starting this thread.

Wendo

Monday, September 16, 2002 - 11:58 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Lance, good post...really good post.

And, Tobor, Lance's post clarified things and explained things much better than I ever could as well as the intent of this thread.

I comprehend more clearly what you (Tobor) were discussing here. And, I think my posts in response missed that. It's apparent that I did not "get" the intent clearly.

As Lance stated, Tobor, thank you for starting the thread as I do understand, now, what you were posing here. I misinterpreted, I admit that fully. (Sheesh, so much for my English degree.) :/

So, hope all is well with me posting.

Tobor7

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 12:42 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Wendo--

All is fine with us, and thank you for your last post.

I hope this discussion continues for a few more days as we come into the final stretch of the show. Who knows what we will see?

Tobor7

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 01:18 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Lance--

This has been a most interesting discussion. I am amazed at how long and well-thought-out some of these posts have been. Expecially yours.

It is nice to see people advance interesting observations and frame them within their own life experience.

I read your post twice. It was worth the time!
Very insightful.

(As an aside--- LOOKING BACK, I miss Johnny McEnroe. When he and Connors left the game it just wasn't as much fun. As bad as he was at times, he did a lot for the sport. I watched him play many times and it was always fun. I think he is a great announcer now.)

(As another aside, I notice that Pretender is your favorite TV show. I really liked it and followed it. My best friend directed a few of those episodes and we had dinner with the head writer and executive producer a few months back. If you have any comments or questions about that show -- ask away. Do it in the Members Room message board.)

Thanks for the intelligent post.

Bernie

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 03:05 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Lancecrossfire, I said what I wanted to say right near the beginning of this thread, so I haven't been back much, but I need to post again just to congratulate you for an excellent analysis, complete with valid and apropos examples.
I agree with you, and I wish I had the skill to say it in the way you have.
Congratulations, sincerely!

Blinky

Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 06:22 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I am certain my honesty would be at the top of my family and friends list if they had to describe my charactor. But if on BB you can be assured I would lie, scheme, and do whatever was needed to win the the game. This would make me a appear to be a person with low morals to alot of you, but I would just be playing a game. I guess I see things different than most. I am not proud to admit it but I watch BB because of all the backstabbing,lies, and charactor flaws that are shown. The conflict and drama make the show for me. Reading and posting gossip about the HGs on the boards to me is also part of the game. If it was a "love fest" with all honest players, I would be bored out of my mind and probably end up switching the channel.