Archive through August 25, 2003
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: ARCHIVES: Big Brother USA 2003 General Discussions Part 1: Allison is playing the worst game: Archive through August 25, 2003

Kmjm

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 12:32 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Will did have a plan- it might not have been masterful, but it got him to the end. He deliberately set up the whole negative chilltown dynamic- he and his brother later talked about how they had planned it all in advance. He threw every competition except the one he wanted for the helicopter ride. This strategy was a novel one at the time. He was a master manipulator- he did the 'mirroring' thing too- and he played Nicole like a fiddle. He made her want to carry him to the end. He looked lucky and weak because that's how he wanted to look. And he was so funny and entertaining!

Onlyhuman, I agree with you about why Dani lost. Not because of her DR entries but because of the totally pointless trashing of other HGs, especially after they had left the house. Why go on about Tonya's alleged coke use in pregnancy when she was already evicted?

Tobor7

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 12:36 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Remember the old saying? It is not if you win or lose, it is how you played the game.
And when they vote, they are not saying you are a winner, you are a loser. They are saying, "I liked how you played the game."

I would say; "You played a better game than I, since you are sitting there and I am not. But I do not like HOW you played the game, and I do not want to encourage others to play that way either. I do not want to give you the larger amount of money for fear that it may give you the wealth and comfort in life and make it easier for you to spawn children who may grow up to be like you. If you were my daughter, I would have been ashamed of you. Ashamed of your words and your deeds. You may have made the game more interesting to the viewers, but you will never make the world a better place. And this is a vote AGAINST your methods in this game."

Tobor7

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 12:39 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Thanks for the good info km.

C1mag

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 12:40 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
still nothing that was masterful in wills game has been mentioned. They all knew he wasn't trying in the games. So that went down real fast. Chilltown was totally mikes boogies idea not his. The hellicopter ride was a crapshoot. I think they tied balloons to something and then let them float. Wow he really did break it out for that LOL. Will did not mirror any of them. He made a promise. They used him as a pawn to vote the other person out. He could bounce off the walls all they wanted. He had no structured plan to get to the finals. Perhaps win that last hoh but that was about it. He was definitley lucky. There was no control over that at all. He never planned it. Right now with his myth bigger than what he really was he'd tell ya he wote the whole show LOL He simply got lucky and the show loved all his DR crap so they created Will the myth.

Kmjm

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 12:42 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Well, C1mag, I remember it very differently from you. Guess we'll just have to leave it at that.

C1mag

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 12:45 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
And tobor I would challenge you if you suggested that a certain method was not worthy simply because it didn't fit a certain structure of ethics. If you admit the game created that persons entrance into the finals and you are sitting in loser lounge they beat you. Now the big question is are ya gonna play holier than thou or suck it up and give it to the one that took the rules and played it out for thier benefit? In other words... suck it up or get real ethical. Who gives a crap about what you think if that person is your daughter. That isn't why you were there. It's a smoke cloud to vote based on those thoughts. Simple question.. Who played it the hardest? Which one personally defeated you? and more important why are you really angry at that person? The real answer is that they beat you. If it was the tough player that walked you to the door then be a sport and show real character since that word becomes a theme all of a sudden once a person loses in this game. Aknowledge the one that defeated you. Not some slacker that sat back and did nothing but as long as they didn't "hurt your feelings" they get the money. LOL I still think a holier than thou jury can be challenged.

C1mag

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 12:53 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Km I think it's cool that we all have different Ideas and can share them. For me I laugh at the thought that Will was very good at the game just because he ended up getting the money. I consider him to be the luckiest player thus far that has won the top money amount. I never bought nor saw any masterful manipulation on his part at all. No lie that got him to the end. No move that wasn't noticed by the others that so duped them that he won as well. He made an honest deal with Hardy and Nicole who had complete control of the game. They would take him to final 3 with no problem as long as he played the court jesture (sp?) and thats what he did for them. When Monica got that Key hoh he saw a door way of opportunity. Nothing grand in that move. His myth comes from all those crazy diary room entries. He played it up bigtime. They loved it. Thus Will the mythical manipulator was created.

Onlyhuman

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 12:57 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
C1, you keep talking about deserving the victory and playing the game but you are making assumptions on what actions are considered "deserving". You say the "Hardcore player" is the one who should win, but I don't happen to agree. Does that make you right and me wrong? No, it just means that we would vote differently on a jury. It also means that I would probably be voting with the majority and you would not.

There is no point system in this game. You don't get 5 points for every lie you tell, or 20 points for totally betraying an alliance. You don't get 50 points for winning HOH or 100 points for convincing someone to save you with the POV. You don't get 1000 points because you developed a plan at the beginning and stuck to it until the end.

The winner of this game gets the half million by surviving and then convincing others that he/she should be given the money. That's it. There is no requirement that the jury decide HOW they reach their conclusion. The finalist's job is to build relationships with these people so that, even when you evict them, they still want to reward you at the end.

Can people trash other people? Certainly. But you must be prepared for the consequences.

Can you say one thing to people and do the other? Certainly. But you must face the consequences.

Can you have great bonding relationships with everyone? Sure, but you have to face the consequences. (people will target you because you are hard to beat)

This is a game of choices and it's up to each person to find the path they will follow throughout the game. No path is more right or more wrong it just is.

Tobor7

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:00 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
You can't play the part unless you have the tools. He has more personality than everyone in this BB house put together.

C1mag

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:08 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Exactly Onlyhuman it doesn't make your thoughts as to who is deserving the earmark as well. :)

You may start out in the majority voting based on Ethics but if I were on that jury with you I bet I could turn it around for many. I do think the most deserving is the one who took it to the mat and not the one who sat back.

Apparently the show is trying hard not to make what they say about the others a issue and that is why they are sequestering them so hopefully that so called "consequence" for that behavior will be destroyed and if it is then you can bet that the person who played it to the mat will have a much better chance.

I do think that in a persons mind that there should be a scale of points when considering the larger money winner. Who played the game and who didnt'? Who earned their place in the finals and who did not?

and do you really think one path is no more right than the other? Of coarse you don't. Thus the many responses to drive home your belief that for you the so called "honest" player should prevail and you mask it by suggesting others would vote your way. You and I have not met so you have no idea what may happen if you and I were sitting on that jury together. I'd sing it loud and clear that "nice nice" was not going to get this reward that easy this time around and I'd be going person by person in the jury challenging them if they dared to try it with me there. Then I'd say... "ok now that we've covered that now ask which one of the two personally beat you out of the larger money?" if it was the Scary player then have the balls to aknowledge them otherwise hush about this so called character issue cause you're really just looking to villify them so that you won't vote for them when you know they defeated your game. No matter how they did it.

Kmjm

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:11 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
OK, I'll bite C1. I personally have never thought that Will was a master manipulator of mythical proportions. I think he was very good at using his personal charm and good looks to get people to like him and do what he wanted. I don't think that the others were on to his game in the way you suggest, at least that's not how I recall it. And I do think that he had a game plan. He gave that HOH key to Monica as soon as he realized that she wouldn't put him up- remember the peanut butter jar reward that he threw it for?

My main thing about Will is how much I enjoyed watching him in the house. He was a riot. That's why I miss him and wish that someone like him was in the house this year. Dave was just goofy, IMHO, without the wit that Will had.

C1, perhaps you're right that people should respect the person who gets to the end no matter what they did to get there, and perhaps it's possible to win them over with a great final speech. I'm not so sure that logic rules in these situations. Remember, Will won even with a totally sucky speech!

C1mag

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:13 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Actually I think the combo of Marcellus and Amy made for the best personality every to hit BB. Will was a character for sure and without him the show would have been boring but far from the myth they call the master.

Tobor7

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:16 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
C1--
If I was on the jury, then there would be TWO people who played better than I. Not one. I would have a choice between them. At that point they are both equal. They both played good enough to get there. They both must have played by the rules or one of them wouldn't even be there by definition. They both defeated me. You can't weigh playing the "hardest" -- what is "hard" in BB.
I would reward the player who played with (the most) class. With (the most) self-respect and (the most) honor. If I knew what Ali said about Jack and why she said it, I would call her out on it specifically-- and for me that would be enough NOT to vote for her-- against anyone of them. For me, she is done. She didn't break a BB rule, but broke a more important one.

You bring into the game your life experience and use it in the game for better or worse. When you are out-- and on the jury, you use that life experience to judge how the final 2 acted within the context of the game-- and judge accordingly.

And that's just me.

C1mag

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:20 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Km Nicole should have thought her speech out and challenged them. She never pointed out that in the game she controled their destinys. There were key voters she could have challenged knowing that if they didn't vote for her ( kent) that he wasn't being honest about who beat him in the game. Bunky clearly realized that and that is why he gave Nicole his vote.

C1mag

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:24 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Tobor like you said thats just you. However, you better not have said one negative thing in the game about anyone cause if I know it and I see you using that as an excuse not to vote for Ali I'm gonna call you so fast on it and flush your "nice approach" down the toliet real fast. It could also be debated that Jacks comment about Dana sexuality being the equivilant of a buzzards crotch pretty much sets the guy up for some backstabbing gossip. You make the nice apporach in your decision too top of the call. If Ali was the one who specifically beat you then have the guts to give her the money. Thats real character. Not some last ditch "poor me I'm nicer than her so I'll nail her" It's hypocritical.

Tobor7

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:26 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think people know full well how they are going to vote well before the speeches. The speeches mean nothing to the vote. They are just for the TV. Richard Hatch had a great speech. None better. But if the jury had the choice of giving the money to charity then that is where it would have gone.
I think they should add that. The jury can give the $$ to charity and give the final 2 nothing more than their stipend.

Onlyhuman

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:28 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
My point is that the path they took...riding coattails, as you put it, or lying and manipulating got the finalists to the same place. That means they both "earned" it.

At that point, it becomes a matter of who I want to win the money. They both played well enough to reach the finals. Who do I like well enough to give the money to?

And yes, it would be a question of honor and ethics for me. And if you were in the jury room, you could argue with me all day, but it wouldn't get me to change my mind.

If the game was won based on points, well, then there would be no need for a jury. Or, they could bring in some supposedly "impartial" jury to decide who gets the money.

But that's not the game. If lying and name calling and betrayal part of the game within the house, why does the jury suddenly have to become impartial observers, setting aside their feelings and experiences within the house to render an impartial decision? They are still playing the game and should play it whole heartedly.

C1mag

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:31 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Through all of this debate what I'm driving at is that right now for me Ali is playing the best came. Some don't like her cruel approach and I agree it is cruel but if she played me out the door with all the lying and backstabbing and even talked bad about me I'd still give her the money. She worked like a crazy dog to get there. If talking about someone behind their backs were the earmark to victory then ... DAMN none of them would get the top dollar amount.

Tobor7

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:32 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
C1--
If you had any insight, after spending the time in the house with me, you would know that the more you tried to influence me, the more I would dig my heels in. I make up my own mind, and not many people can change that.
Ali slandering Jack with the sexual thing is all I would need to NOT vote for her. Everything else would be moot. C1- that's character. Sooner or later it is not a game anymore.

Kmjm

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:33 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
C1, Nicole was the one without a well thought out game plan, that's why Will was able to control her so effectively. She reacted emotionally to everything and was self-deluded about how others saw her. Her need for control of everything alienated the others from her as she and Hardy made themselves the King and Queen of the house. (Remember the bully and the b*tch? I think Bunky called them that.) Bunky didn't give Nicole his vote, he voted against Will for being an arrogant a**h*le and mocking him by saying that he would give no money to charity. Will should have resisted that one, but you've got to hand it to him, he didn't give the hypocritical answer that would have made Bunky happy. And in the end, Will eliminated Bunky's vote so it amounted to nothing.

Tobor7

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:44 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
C1-
Based on your theory, Dani should have won. But she only got one vote. Learn something from that, so if you do ever get on the show, you'll know how to win.
Listen to Onlyhuman.
If Ali gets in the final 2-- you'll see. She can't win the big money because of her choices in the game. Learn from that.

The definition of stupidity is doing something that does not work... over and over and over again.

Onlyhuman

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:47 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
C1- for me, Ali has overplayed her game.

She has sworn loyalty to two different sides this week, knowing full well that she cannot keep both promises.

That's just not smart at this point, when it will be so close to the end game.

I know you think that it's good play, but I see no purpose to it. What's the point of getting two people mad at you?

The problem goes back to Ali's big weakness in this game, which is her inate inability to convince people to do what she wants, with the exception of Nate. Instead, she ends up agreeing to do what they want, in order to protect herself. She promises way more than she can deliver. That's what is going to hurt her in the end.

Ali hasn't actually done a whole lot in this game, other than agree with other people's plans. She did evict Dana, but really, that was a no brainer. She thought she could save Nate, she thought she could save Justin, she even thought she could save Dave (back in the day) but she had no influence over the others.

Ali has basically been a cockroach, not a game player. She scurries from one side of the kitchen to the other, spreading disease and pestilence wherever she goes.

How, exactly, is this "hard core"?

C1mag

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:47 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Onlyhuman you would vote for who you would want to have the money? Well the only person you probably feel should get the money is you. So since you didn't get it you'd play it "safe" and go for the slacker nice guy and swear that there nothing game was cool as long as they had been nice.

Sorta makes sense if you're looking for an out. I say suck it up and just pick the person that played you out of the house. If it was the tough talking "bad person" then so be it. Otherwise the whole idea that character would be the reason you would hand it to someone dies because real character would be aknowledging the one that booted you and duped you and if it was the hard player then use some character and hand them the money. I also think you get my point system. It's not literal but helps in deciding who was the better palyer. There should be consideration given to the one that got an hoh when they needed it. There should be a slant towards the one that suckered a whole group into believing they were gonna vote their way and then duped them. Those are brilliant moves.

Never say never about changing your mind after hearing everyone speak. When you suggested that the majority would vote your way that would be my open door to get you to change your vote. It appeared in words as if majority seems to be how you would feel comfortable. If I changed the tide and blew out this whole.. "the nice one must win" and the majority turned I'd see you getting real reluctant to aknowledge voting against that majority. I'd ask of you to cast the first stone if being nice was really an issue. If I nailed your behavior in the game down and it wasn't so golden then my question would be... "so then if you were sitting there in the finals since you weren't so golden in your approach you are telling us that we weren't suppose to give you the money?" You wouldn't be able to respond to that becasue going back to the beginning of this post it would be clear that the only one you ever thought should win the bigger money is yourself. :)

BTW I'm not saying that this house will do anything different this time around. I'm sure that hurt feelings and jealousy over the fact that someone like Alison literally duped them all will in the end not get the bigger reward but there is that open door to challenge it and make that idea just a bit more harder. The show has even helped in that area. The sequestered house is a clue that the show isn't saying... "ok guys now who do you like from the final 2?" The real question is who defeated you personally no matter what they did. This was a game. Leave the ethics at home because unless you were Jesus Christ in this game it would be useless approach.

Kalekona

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:51 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think jun has played a much better game than Ali.
And if she is still alligned with Jee and setting Ali up for a fall that will just seal the deal.
She can keep Erika on her side and still have Jee and robert even if Robert won HOH Jun wouldn't be the one voted out.

C1mag

Monday, August 25, 2003 - 01:51 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Tobor both nicole and Dani didn't step up to the jury. Until you see my idea played out where someone challenges this idea that the nice guy should win then you don't know if it will work or not. My game play in that house would not include all the garbage that Ali has talked but I would so betray and lie that they wouldn't know what hit them and in the end if I made it knowing that there would be hurt feelings I would be all prepared to challenge those hurt feelings. No one in this game has yet to do that.