Word given under duress, should one be bound to it?
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archives: Archive Three: Word given under duress, should one be bound to it?

Vonne

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 02:24 am EditMoveDeleteIP
[ newbie here, please don't hurt me ]

After hearing that Chiara actually threatened the HG's that if they didn't give their word that they wouldn't vote to evict Roddy she would nominate them in his stead, I wondered if they should be bound to keep that word?

IMO None should be held to it, it wasn't given freely. I can understand ASKING for their word, but to threaten a person, "do this or else," just isn't right.

And I'm really surprised that nobody called her on it. Sure Josh can be a pain in the behind and they all really do want him to leave but, to be treated this way to achieve that goal? No way.

I really hope one of them finds their spine and tells Chiara what she can do with her li'l power trip....

Before I go may I just say, this is the best BB3 board going! Thanks a million to the LFP'ers, BB3 wouldn't be half as much fun without y'all.

Wendo

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 02:40 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Actually, I posted in another thread Vonne that really Chiara (and Roddy's) threat was nothing more than an empty threat. All they had to do was agree, and then go back on their word because, really, what power does/would Chiara have? Think about it, the four (or five) vote out Roddy and Chiara can't get HOH. Who would be there to give the threat? Josh? He's so pissed at Chiara right now that I don't see him going to her even if he stayed. So, really, the five of them have fallen for a non-existent threat. But, they are in a fish bowl, it's a lot easier for us to see things than them.

And, to answer your question, I don't think you have to honor any type of promise when it's given in duress.

Welcome to the board!

Bernie

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 02:54 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Welcome, Vonne, and excellent point! I quite agree with you that a promise given under duress isn't valid. If I were any one of them, I'd tell Chiara to take her threats and place them delicately where the sun don't shine
Wendo, you're right too-with Roddy gone, Josh antagonised, and Lisa disillusioned, what power would Chiara have to retaliate against any one who went against her wishes-zilch! She can't get HOH next week, so she could be next up anyway. I'm annoyed that the others seem to be so taken up with their anti-Josh emotions that they might allow their chance to decimate their rivals to slip away this week.
Don't they recall, ya don't count your chickens...?

Guiltyviewer

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 03:11 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Welcome aboard Vonne!

What Wendo and Bernie said...ditto!

Ruditoo

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 03:40 am EditMoveDeleteIP
A 'promise' given to another human while under threat or duress doesn't count in my book. In a game which is all about strategy,though emotions certainly can hamstring the best game plan,know one sould count on any 'promise' IMO and KIki so good at keeping promises herself,well,no surprize she' useing threats. I just wish they all would wake-up to the fact that she has no power to back them up. I as of yet don't dislike any of the HG and I see Roddy as a verrrry good player.Having said that so is Lisa,Dani,Mari,Josh and maybe just maybe Kiki is too. Gerry' still there too and playing his heart out.

Ruditoo

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 03:44 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Vonne,Welcome to the best of the best little ole BB clubhouses bar none! :)

Toolhound

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 03:50 am EditMoveDeleteIP
The only person I saw her threaten with nomination was Gerry. The rest were eager to say they would guarantee there vote to evict Josh if she put him up. Gerry is the only one in my opinion that could go back on his word the others should stand by their word.

Trulyscrumtious

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 04:39 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I may be way off about this (and i'm pretty sure there's a lawyer here who can correct me if I'm wrong...Hiya Goddessatlaw - pleased ta meetcha... wink77 ) ...but anything forced upon someone under duress (even if in writing) is worth about as much as a three dollar bill. Legally that is. As for morally (in my opinion), same difference. No one is bound to a single solitary thing, promise or not.

I've not heard of Chia doing this, 'til now that is, but can't say I'm surprised. She's behaving like some spoiled little brat who tells everyone on the block that either they play what SHE wants to play, and how SHE wants to play it, or she's packing up her toys, going home, and "never ever speaking to them again!!!!"

Spare me, this girl seriously needs to get a grip. rolleyes

Off2cthwizrd

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 05:18 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Toolhound, I heard her threaten Dani with being put up if she did not agree to vote for Josh. They were in the room with Lisa, and Chiara asked for her promise. Dani gave it - THEN, Chiara said well if you didn't agree to that, then I would put YOU up. Lisa and Dani didn't say much but you could sure see a lot on their faces!

Alaginger

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 05:28 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Welcome Vonne

Anyone who quotes Mark Wills is a-okay in my book. Hope to see you around the boards!!!

Marksman

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 06:49 am EditMoveDeleteIP
The trust factor is important in this game so it takes a fine balancing act.

At one point or another everyone is going to lie. It is most important to control how this affects other people and not necessarily the one you lied to.

The key is making the right connections with the right people at the wrong time. Just because someone gives their word does not mean they are going to keep it. And I think very few people believe that everyone always will.

Chiara is pushing the fact that people this year have been very vocal about keeping their word. And a lot of them have actually been doing it. It does one no good to break your word for no gain to yourself or too early in the game.

Since she is threatening people with being nominated if they do not do what she wants, it is a no brainer. You tell her what she wants to here. She can't nominate you after she finds out you lied to her. And nobody else in the house is going to consider that a serious transgression of trust.

So it is not very dangerous to do it anyways. Take Gerry for instance. I don't think he would have vetoed Josh anyways. So it makes no difference to him to appease Chiara. In fact it is too his benefit.

Goddessatlaw

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 06:59 am EditMoveDeleteIP
'Morning, Vonne, welcome the the board!! Truly and Ruditoo are correct about duress pretty much s/canning the enforceability of a verbal (or any other) contract. I caught myself mentally responding to Chia for the HG's last night when she was handing out her threats, to the effect of "I'm pretty sure you're not talking to me, Chia. I KNOW you're not threatening me right now, are you Chia? Don't ever think you can tell me what to do, Chia and while you're here go take a scrub brush and some Clorox to that hantavirus-having mouth of yours."

Mellbell416

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 08:31 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I agree with Marksman that people have been pretty good about keeping their word so far (I imagine that will change once people start to get closer to that $500 000...) and because of that, I have a lot more respect for the players this year than last (Nicole just made your head spin with all of her deceptions). And it does seem to put you closer to the chopping block when you're not true. I kinda think that even though it wasn't fair of Chiara to blackmail the HGs, that they might still stick to their word because that is what they have done so far. BUT it would be much better strategy to completely jetison that and keep Josh - man, Chiara's ass would be grass!

What555456

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 08:41 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I see no reason why anyone needs to keep their word in this game. However, I do see a reason to be very discrete when you do not.

Earthmother

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 08:56 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Now really, what kind of an idiot would keep their word to anyone who they knew didn't keep their word when not keeping thier word is a step closer to getting $500,000 which is what the hell they are there for? Here's the equation:

Not keeping your word = lying
lying = $500,000

keeping your word = out played
out played = eviction
If I was playing this game I wonder which one I would choose?

For me as a viewer:

Everyone keeps their word = lovefest

no one keeps their word = I can't wait until the next show comes on so I can see their lying usless butts get kicked out of the house.

Draheid

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 10:34 am EditMoveDeleteIP
As was said by the 'Judge' on the TV show "Texas Justice", just the other night (pp cuz I don't remember the exact wording)

"A verbal agreement is worth the paper it's written on."

Thought that was appropriate to this conversation! :)

JMO - FWIW

Sanfranjoshfan

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 11:12 am EditMoveDeleteIP
A promise made under duress is no promise at all...I think that's called "extortion".

The funny thing is....if NOBODY kept their word, then the final 2 would be even. Like in Survivor 1, the jury did not want EITHER of the final 2 to win, because, as Susan put it, they were "rats and snakes"....but they still had to vote for one.

If the final 2 has a promise-keeping sweetie-pie up against a hateful, lying, backstabber, then it's obvious.....sweetie-pie wins. But... 2 players that each lied to win would stand an equal chance at winning a vote from a jury made up of the ones they both lied to.

Oregonfire

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 12:58 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think "keeping your word" and "breaking your word" are subject to "in the right place at the right time" conditions. At this time, it may be more advantageous for them to keep their word, especially Jason, who most definitely drew attention to himself be voting Eric out of the game. Keeping his word is vital at this juncture if he doesn't want to blow his cover. Plus most of them *do* want Josh out of the game, so he is not "breaking your word" worthy.

The "right place at the right time" condition also applies to voting against people you supposedly have an alliance with. Danielle votes to evict Tonya, no backlash because she went anyway. Chiara votes to evict Lisa, and major backlash because she stayed, plus other nuances having to do with surface friendship and whatnot.

Earthmother

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 01:25 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
lol Oregonfire "he is not breaking your word worthy"

Wcv63

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 01:43 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I'm an advocate of lying and word breaking in the context of this game. Doesn't matter why, when, where, or how. If it is done to as part of game strategy I fully endorse it.

Wcv63

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 02:03 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Chiara said that people's true natures come out when they are nominated. Lori;whacko, Josh;uglier, etc. I'd love to see her get nominated so we can see HER true nature. And then I'd like to remind her of her words. She's just a little too judgemental and a little too comfortable right now. It makes her seem very smug.

Earthmother

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 02:05 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Liars and Word Breakers Unite

"I was on a game show which required strategy skills. I didn't win the money but I kept my word."

Put that on your resume!

Oregonfire

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 02:11 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think they need to make a list of things never to promise or ask after this week, statements like:

"I got your back"

"I'll never put you up"

and Jason's version, "Umm, well, you know, it's like, you know, wow..."

and

"Do I have your word?"

Vonne

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 02:42 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Thanks for the kind welcome and all the great opinions.


Oregonfire said "Plus most of them *do* want Josh out of the game, so he is not "breaking your word" worthy."

I don't see it so much as saving Josh not being worthy as it is the chance of Roddy, a formidable foe, being evicted being worthy of a word breaker, especially when that word was given under duress. (gosh I hope that made sense, lol)

The other HOH's asked for people to give their word to evict/not to evict for a return favor. Chiara said flat out, if you don't give me your word right now you're being nominated. I don't believe any of them should be held to that word. If they want to stick by it, fine and dandy, but to have your vote held "hostage" in that way just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

They're playing a game and Chiara's given everyone the golden, and perhaps only, opportunity to evict Roddy and I think they should take it and RUN! Josh may be a pain in the rear but to give in to this extortion (thanks for the word Sanfranjoshfan couldn't think of it at the time) could cost them the game.

Or maybe I'm just too into the game this is my first time of watching "reality TV" and sometimes I just wanna throttle some people for the way they go about things.

Curlyq

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 02:52 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Chiara's behavior as HOH an exact imitation of Roddy's? He did the same thing at the nomination ceremony, reprimanding one nominee for their behavior while saying that the other is nominated just to keep them from voting to keep the target.

The unanimous vote against Amy was secured by letting people know that this was a test of their loyalty or whatever. We see the same thing now with Chiara.

Amy was expected to just accept her fate and "be cool" about it so everyone else could have a comfortable week. Now Josh is expected to shut up and just enjoy his last week.

When Roddy was HOH I couldn't believe all the HGs were willing to let him dictate their votes like that, and it astounds me that these people are willing to let Chiara get away with that too. Talk about an abuse of power!

Earthmother

Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 03:41 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
but what Chiara fails to realize is the unanimous vote against Amy was then and now there aren't enough players in the game to make this kind of choice. Then they had 5 people in their allience still in the house..Now they have 2 (Roddy and Chiara)..She is banking on having Lisa, Dani and Jason for certain. She doesn't trust Marc and Gerry. She is totally clueless..