If the HG were sequestered since eviction would Dani win?
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archive: Archive ONE: If the HG were sequestered since eviction would Dani win?

Kminfinity

Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 11:40 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Part of the difference in BB3 fans is what we think constitutes a "best" game player. Most people seem to acknowledge that Dani played the game better than anyone else, except for the fact that she trash talked too much in front of the internet and in the DR.

What if BB redid the game so that it played similar to Survivor, where the Jury really doesn't get to see the show until after they vote in the jury. What if the evicted HG's never saw any tapes or live feeds or summaries...If they were carted off to "Loser Lodge" and never given the opportunity to see anything but what they would have seem while in the House.

1--Would Dani win?

2--Would this be a "better" game?


I think the answer to 1 & 2 is Yes.

Wrat1010

Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 11:47 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Good question:

If they were sequestered in a Loser Lodge a la Survivor, then they would have time to compare notes. I think this would just increase the chances of Danielle losing. It's not so much what Danielle said in the diary room as her
"pee-peeing down people's backs and telling them it was raining" that would be a factor.

Muse

Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 11:49 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
If they had all been sequestered, Danielle would have definitely won. She would have had votes from Jason, Amy, Gerry, Lori, Josh, and Chiara.

Would it have been a "better" game? Well, depends on who you ask. :) I'd say yes, simply because I'd rather see Danielle (instead of Lisa) win at this point. But who knows...next season I might feel differently. I might really like the person in the final two who wins votes because of their DR commentary and stuff other HGs only see on tape or on the feeds. So then I wouldn't like the idea of sequestering. And plus I like how the jury of BB is able to see what happened and discuss it with others...that's one of the things that make BB so different than Survivor.

(Besides, while I do want her to win, there's the whole fact that Danielle *really* should have avoided bashing because the jury was watching - it's not like she didn't know they would beforehand!)

Ericka1012

Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 11:51 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Question 1 - yes

Question 2 - NO...the idea of Big Brother is that "Big Brother is watching"

I posted in another feed that I thought a good idea would be for next year would be:

What I think would be even more interesting is that next year as the HG are evicted that they would each vote in all evictions from that point on...so for example if: Kiki and Roddy were up the first week for eviction and Kiki was voted out from that point on she would have an eviction vote with all the information listed above...(YES, CBS could afford to keep them on stipen and room and board...this is a tv show that make alot of money with viewers and live feeders and AC voters)...THEN BIG BROTHER REALLY WOULD BE WATCHING THEM :)

I still think that would be a great idea for next year...

Bohica

Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:08 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Question 1- maybe

Question 2- NO! For $500K it should be hard to win! Finding the correct balance in both deceiving your fellow houseguests while they're in the house and then holding onto their vote after they leave makes the game harder to win! This game is still so much easier to compete in than Survivor. A person should not be able to become an "Eddie Haskell" and coast to victory.

Heck, I think last year was a better game because the banners affected the game and cause tensions to grow!

Kminfinity

Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:12 am EditMoveDeleteIP
My concern about the lack of sequestering is that, now that the've seen how Dani's game went, the HG's will return to the kumbaya attitude of BB1. If so, they'll be more circumspect, more UTR, more cautious, less informative to us the viewers in their DRs, and in general the game will become more boring.....

Battlestar

Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:43 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Part of the game is that everything you do and say is watched, talked about, taped, and transcribed. If you are not aware of that aspect of the game and play to that plus play to the still in the game HG, then you are not aware of what the Big Brother Game really is.

Big Brother is anyone who is NOT inside the house including ex-HGs

Wcv63

Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:45 am EditMoveDeleteIP
1. Yes
2. Don't know.

I still think Dani should win. <Said defiantly as I stomp my way out of this thread> :)

Ministryoftruth

Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 12:46 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Would Dani have won? Probably. Especially if the evictees were separated from one another as well.

Would the game be better? I don't know, but it sure would be easier.

Crossfire

Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 01:32 am EditMoveDeleteIP
1.
Sequestered together, or seperate? Able to compare notes etc.?

Together-maybe
Seperate-probably yes.

2.
No, that would make the game a cakewalk.

Sia

Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 04:27 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Since sequestering the evicted HGs would be cost-prohibitive, perhaps a fairer way of getting the jury votes would be to ask each hamster upon eviction to cast a vote between each possible pair of remaining houseguests & then BB applying those votes at the very end. Example: when Amy was evicted the 2nd time, she would've been asked to vote between Jason & Lisa; Jason & Danielle; Danielle & Lisa.

The hamsters' perceptions are certainly changed after they're able to get free of the house, review taped episodes, talk with their family & friends & watch some of the live-feed coverage. I guess it's an entertainment series more so than a game show with strict fair-play guidelines.

Phillymom

Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 05:37 am EditMoveDeleteIP
1.
The answer is: "MAYBE" IF SEQUESTERED SEPARATELY, BUT "NO" IF SEQUESTERED TOGETHER

Dani would have at least tied, but not necessarily won, if the jury were sequestered separately (she would get the votes of Amy, Jason, Gerry, Josh, and Chiara; Lisa would have Tonya, Eric, Roddy, and Marcellas. Lori is the unknown -- she disliked Dani because of the fight they had; but it was Lisa who nominated her, so Lori could go either way). If the jury was sequestered together, as in Survivor, the outcome wouldn't be any different than it's going to be on Wednesday. BUT ... the true meaning of a jury is that they discuss TOGETHER the facts, so they would have to be sequestered together, and in that case the outcome wouldn't be affected, whether they saw the tapes or not.

2.
The answer is: NO

From my answer to question number 1, the outcome wouldn't be changed if they are sequestered together. So it couldn't make the game any "better" -- it would be the same. And I think it adds a little spice to the show to hear the HGs reactions after they watch the tapes.

Gina8642

Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 05:48 am EditMoveDeleteIP
1 - maybe

2 - no

The game of Big Brother has to do with getting to the end and getting all the former HGs to vote for you even AFTER they see everthing you did.

I find it very facinating to know how people react to this information. In real life we never have this opportunity. We go oblivously along our ways, never knowing what was going on on the sidelines of our lives and why certain decisions were made. Why those people in the corner were staring at you, etc. This game is FACINATING because we all get to see that, and we get to see how the former HGs react to the truth (or at least way more truth then you ever get in real life).

I don't think this game would be nearly as interesting without this aspect of the game.

Llkoolaid

Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 06:18 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Yes to Number one.

Yes to Number 2 , I wonder why they took away the banners because they didn't want outside influences and yet when it comes to the most crucial decision, they are allowed to have all the information plus the opinion of the friends and families to base their decision on.

Keiffer

Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 06:52 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Well to question 1 I think that Danny would have a better chance of winning had there been no information given to the evicted HG's, and they were cut off from the world. Cut off from their friends, family, internet, and TV. You have to know that Survivor is only 30 something days long and keeping people away from their lives for that period of time is not a hardship. Could you imagine Lori having no chance at winning the money and having to stay out of her life for 3 months?

As for the banners being brought back becuase evicted HG are allowed to watch tapes and talk to friend or family that is crazy. First of all Danny would not be in the final 2 had the banners been flown. Jason and Danny's alliance would have been exposed. Better for a Danny fan to have her in the final two than kicked out of the game. Second, banners may or may not tell the truth of the way things are... but the tapes dont lie. When the evicted watch the tapes they can see how Danny played the Lisa Eric week, how she lied to Gerry, Marcy, Roddy, Chiara, Amy and even Lisa at different points in the game. Now they can decide if they reward that game playing or the game playing of Lisa.