Archive through August 17, 2003
TV ClubHouse: ARCHIVES: Big Brother USA 2003 General Discussions Part 1:
Do you think you could compete effectively without lies?:
Archive through August 17, 2003
Buggles | Friday, August 15, 2003 - 10:50 am     I really didn't think Justin was sacrimonious about it... think he prefaced his comments by saying he realized it was a game & not reflective of people outside the house. To me it wasn't anything akin to Gerry's infamous speech last year... THAT was sacramonious lol. In fairness to Justin, remember he was a victim of one of the biggest disses/lies in BB history (the Michelle eviction) and I think he was simply saying fine, I'm choosing YOU guys to go on the block, and lest you wonder, here's why. I can't trust you. Is this a good enough reason nominate someone lol??? Vs. 'you are someone's ex' Justin's comments to Julie also made me do a double take... I think he just meant that some of his promises might be open to interpretation (i.e, 'I won't put you up on the block'... this week? ever?) This is the most innocent kind of 'lying'... something that everyone here would clearly not be above doing Smart players on the receiving end will clarify the terms of any deals or promises. The reality is that a lot of HGs are in 'conditional alliances' especially with their ex's... the terms are unspoken & unclear... I think this is what Justin was referring to with Julie. Both people in the alliance are aware it's not solid, but are hoping that the loyalty & trust between them will grow (as Justin articulated re his alliance with Ali). |
Foliage | Friday, August 15, 2003 - 10:51 am     I do think that misdirection and prevarication and "changing one's mind" al la Justin are probably inevitable in this game. Has there ever been a player that avoided lying by "taking the 5th"? Instead of lying say: "I'm not sure yet", "I'm not comfortable telling you my decision", or even "maybe" |
Philamom | Friday, August 15, 2003 - 11:09 am     Buggles, I understand in part what you're saying. If Justin had left out the part about himself in his nomination speech, that he was playing with "honesty and integrity" -- or words to that effect, I forget exactly what he said -- then I'd be okay with him. That, for me, is where the sacramonious part comes in. It's the holier-than-thou attitude that gets me, especially when Justin has not been completely honest, either. (Remember Dana, LOL?) |
Sasman | Friday, August 15, 2003 - 11:15 am     I gotta agree with philamom. there is a lot of hypocricy in bb4. i personally would do anything short of a crime to win. but i wouldn't keep complaining about the others lying. |
Buggles | Friday, August 15, 2003 - 11:29 am     Whoa Philamom , I'm not willing to compare Justin to Dana in any way, shape or form LOL! Though they sure got on scary enough I think Justin REALLY is trying to play as honestly as possible... I HATE hypocrites too, believe me... but I just don't think it's fair to call Justin one (yet ) BTW Philamom, I think we both meant 'sanctimonious' or something like that. |
Pantageas | Friday, August 15, 2003 - 11:32 am     It would be EASY to play without lying. Just seems like it would be nigh IMPOSSIBLE to win w/o lying. No one likes having their trust betrayed, especially when that betrayal cost them a chance at a 6-figure payout! And people in these games get so paranoid about their own status, that they want conformation and reassurances from all other players at all times... Look at Chistie from the last Survivor...she told two different factions the truth - that she wasn't sure how her vote would play out. Both factions decided it would be easier just to get rid of HER. If she had only LIED to either faction, she would have remained in the game. The biggest hurdle is that to get to the endgame, sooner or later you will HAVE to pick a side, make a decision, or make a deal - effectively turning your back on some party. Now do you tell that party that you INTEND on turning your back on them, or do you just lie.... |
Vealprince | Friday, August 15, 2003 - 11:39 am     It just depends on who's lies you are maddest at. lol. I think the best strategy was Will's when he came right out and said, "I am going to lie". |
Buggles | Friday, August 15, 2003 - 11:50 am     Frankly, I would LOVE to see an honest person win. I would love all the HGs to collectively decide that it's better to compete with people you can trust & evict the worst liars one by one. Judging from this board however, I don't think that will ever happen  |
Philamom | Friday, August 15, 2003 - 12:59 pm     Buggles -- LOL, thanks for the correction on sanctamonious (or however it's spelled). I kept looking at what I was typing, knew it was wrong, but couldn't figure out why. I'm brain dead today. As for Justin, other than the comment at nominations and a few minor things, I think he has tried to play above-board. He's not as bad as some of the others in there, that's for sure. |
Pengoh | Friday, August 15, 2003 - 01:11 pm     I would hate for every houseguest to be honest and play with integrity. How boring would that be! |
Jhezzie | Friday, August 15, 2003 - 01:27 pm     Didn't Al Franken write a book about this? |
Seanflynn2003 | Friday, August 15, 2003 - 01:34 pm     My take is that the trick is to mislead and convey things without telling specific lies (unless everyone accepts that you lie all the time, like Will in BB2). Hypocricy and playing people for fools hurts one's chances more than most strategies. |
Tobor7 | Friday, August 15, 2003 - 02:22 pm     yes |
Mystery | Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 12:35 pm     I believe the word being looked for is sanctimonious. (oops, that was found out already!) I think it's possible to compete effectively without lies but you'd have to be smarter than most of these HGs to do it. People should expect that there will be alliances and things going on behind the scenes and if you can't answer a direct question with the truth, you should be able to say "I can't answer that without breaking someone's confidence." If I were the one who received that response, at least I could assume that the person speaking wouldn't break MY confidence either. |
Lancecrossfire | Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 12:42 pm     Yes, I think it can be played affectively without lies--and I agree with Mystery that it would be a tougher game to play. The lies make it easier--and people are alla bout making things easy for themselves. Alsi, they work. This is the part where reality TV shows are really reality. Lies work--kissing butt works. Sucking up and backstabbing work in everyday life, especially in the work place. But the secret to that is having someone in power who allows it to work. Same with the games. Noticed Justin kept Jack over Nate for that very reason--Jack was upfront with him, even to the point of saying he would try and get out Justin. So, playing an honest game could work very well if the alliance in power was more receptive to it. But as with the real world, too many times the folks who use others and also use dishonesty tend to get further than if they don't. Go figure. |
Spunky | Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 01:49 pm     But the irony of all this came out when Justin admitted that Ali, although he told everyone she's a pathological liar, stayed true to her promise to him that she wouldn't nominate him. So, he saw how a pathological liar did not really lie to him and yet Jack and Nate, who wanted to play an honest game, did so blatantly. Maybe this is what Julie was trying to get at with her question to Justin. Oh, playing the game without lying, yes, it's possible, just avoid a direct reply, say "I'm not sure. I can't make up my mind. I'm trying to figure this out still. I will make up my mind at the very last minute, no use asking me one way or the other, I don't know it myself. Did you try asking so and so... Anyway, I'm waiting to see who wins next and I'll go from there. I'm not sure I want to go that way but I hope you're right".. and so and so forth... They wouldn't know what the heck to make of me but that's fine with me... I don't want to show my cards with a stupid lie. |
Woofy | Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 02:07 pm     "I'm not sure. I can't make up my mind. I'm trying to figure this out still. I will make up my mind at the very last minute, no use asking me one way or the other, I don't know it myself. Did you try asking so and so... Anyway, I'm waiting to see who wins next and I'll go from there. I'm not sure I want to go that way but I hope you're right" But then, that would be lying. |
Spunky | Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 06:04 pm     Woofy, if I don't say anything definite I could not be lying. You cannot prove that I was indeed uncertain or certain. If you ask me a direct question, "Spunky, are you going to put me up if you're HOH?" And then I say, "NO" (although I really want to), it's still not a lie. It becomes a lie when I do put you up when I told you I wouldn't. So, if I tell you, "I'm not sure who I'm going to nominate", that's not a lie because I didn't tell you one way or the other. |
Kimsue | Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 10:34 pm     Spunky, are you a lawyer or do you watch alot of court TV? If you intend to mislead someone it is still wrong or untruthful. If you were to say "I might nominate you but I havn't made up my mind" then you are being up front only if you realy havn't made up your mind. But if you know you are going to nominate them then it is still a lie. Thinking that it is only a lie if do put them up is just trying to fix your lie. We all know what happens when you try to cover for yourself when you have lied. Remember......"IT" rolls down hill. |
Scribe | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 05:02 am     Could compete without lies/fibs only if (a) laid completely low or (b) was comatose. |
Beruthiel | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 05:30 am     Is it a sin if you only avoid telling someone the truth, and in effect give them the wrong impression by prevaricating? If you are misleading someone, then it sounds very much like lying to me. I thought Justin's speech to Julie was a classic case of obfuscation, and I'm still not sure if Justin actually understood what he was saying himself. He should have won the prize for best gobbledegook ever spoken by a BB contestant - and that includes Will and Roddy! As to winning without lying? Very good question, and as difficult to answer, because of all the variables. If every HG in any particular season was as straightforward as Jack, then it would be a whole new ballgame. Because most people aren't clever enough to keep their balls in the air all of the time - i.e. they want to win by hook or by crook, and will do anything to further their chances - then I'd say it would be pretty difficult to win without at least doing just a little fudging of the truth at crucial moments. |
Tdicaprio | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 07:25 am     I see BB as one giant game of Liar's Poker. In that game, you are expected to lie. The trick is knowing when to call someone's bluff. Same with BB. IMHO, if you went in determined not to lie, you'd be dead meat within three weeks. Now, it is possible to lie and not be a crappy person. For instance, I think Robert is just a crappy person. Whether or not he lies about the game doesn't change his basic personality. I think the better question for this game would be... Could you win without trashing other people? I think it would be naive to go into the game thinking you can't lie, but it would be a much better test of character if you could lie without bad-mouthing other players. And personally, I think there should be a penalty nomination for the next person who says "I'm playing this game honestly and with integrity". The only player left that could possibly say that with a straight face is Jack, and only if the definition of integrity is changed to mean "kissing ass when it is most opportune". What I find most interesting about this game is how each person changes once they get nominated. Real personalities and flaws are revealed once the nomination ceremony is concluded. In the BB house, all it takes to lose your moral compass and turn into the biggest liar in the house is to be nominated. I think the prize becomes secondary to a lot of players after a few weeks. The game becomes more ego-driven and there is a lot of "I don't care if I lose as long as I stay longer than so and so". It becomes a game of one-up-manship and backstabbing and grabbing power, even if it proves fleeting. Witness the Jee3, heady with their power for one week, already spending their riches, certain they were untouchable, only to be crushed the next week when none of them could manage to win the HOH. Once you get down to the final three, or maybe four players, the money comes back to the forefront and there is less of the passionate declarations of honesty and integrity. The weeks prior to that? Just a longggggg game of high school gossip and popularity contests played out with adults who should know better by now. |
Spunky | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 08:32 am     Kimsue....we could take all day to settle that one... But did you notice how in court they don't want any "but" or "I don't think so".. they only want "YES" or "NO", anythinge else cannot be proved as misleading or truthful or wrongful. You cannot be in my mind and you cannot have any proofs of my real intentions. You can call me a liar but without any proof that I am, you'll lose in court and I win. |
Kimsue | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 09:51 am     Tdicaprio, It sorta' does remind me of high school (so many years ago) But I thought that this game was designed to be a game of manipulation, popularitly and personality. I didn't think it was supposed to be played honestly. If everyone played honestly we would all watching nothing because the ratings would kill the show. Spunky....how do you know I can't be in your mind..... |
Needmylifeback | Sunday, August 17, 2003 - 12:58 pm     There is a large article in this months Good Housekeeping on Lying... |
|