Sequestering did not solve the jury problem
TV ClubHouse: Archive: Sequestering did not solve the jury problem
R151996 | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 03:40 am     Lisa won BB3 over Dani since the evicted HGs got to hear everything including DRs. The fault lies completely with Dani--the rules stated evicted HGs would have access to everything. The margin of Jun's BB4 win over Ali if not the entire win itself was the result of the jury being sequestered--especially being sequestered together. Had this jury been exposed to everything as BB3's jury was, I can't believe that Robert would have voted for Jun. The b***h/butterfly combination comment by Jun about Elena (IMO easily the worst single statement by any HG in BB history) would likely have changed Robert's vote. In doing so, other votes--possibly Jack and Erika if not others--might also have been swayed. The impact of accurate information--or lack thereof--available to the jury affected this year's result. Sequestering the jury together was clearly a bad move as it allowed lies and half-truths to become the only truth that mattered. In trying to solve one obvious problem, AS&Co. created others. Going back to audience voting for at least the final vote is IMO the only fair solution. Once a HG gets evicted they should play no further part in the game except to be present for the finale. |
Squidward | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 05:14 am     Well, I'm sure Nate would have voted for Jun if he had seen the tapes as well. I also don't see a different outcome if the jury had seen the show before they voted, especially Ericka and Jack. Ericka had Ali lie repeatedly to her face the she was not going to vote her out, only to turn around and vote her out. And Ali knew she had no intention of keeping her word to Ericka. Not to mention, Ali lied to people every single week, riding the fence the whole game. The jury knew Ali for what she was without seeing the show, and realized Jun for being the better player. It all boils down to your own opinion I suppose. If Ali had won, I imagine we'd have people on here complaining about the jury being sequestered as well. Arnold Shapiro is darned if he does and darned if he doesn't. |
Lucymac | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 05:43 am     Had the audience voted I don't know that the outcome would have been any different. What Jun said about Robert's daughter was never shown on TV and many of the viewers don't get live feeds or read the updates on the internet so never would have known about it. I don't think it would be fair to have the audience vote since what we see on TV is very skewed by what the producers want us to see and they could easily manipulate the outcome. I think sequestering the jury was a good move. Sure Jun lied and said some horrible things, as did Ali. I think Alison was just more blatant about it and that's what cost her in the end. While I didn't like either of them I think Jun played the better game and deserved to win, but at the same time know many others think Alison played the better game. No matter the outcome there are always going to be differing opinions. |
Csnog | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 05:53 am     Sequestering is the ONLY way to have a fair vote. The voters who go home and get to see the DR and the internet would have an advantge. DR would turn into a love fest if all of them knew that. I don't want to go back to BB1 though I would like for one vote to come from the internet people. Maybe they could allow a single vote from all the people who pay for the LF's. |
Jpgramma | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 06:16 am     ditto what Csnog has said. Agree that the DR sessions would be soooooo boring if the HGs thought the others got to see them before the vote. We would have been denied some of the best moments of BB4 if those DR sessions had been self-edited. I also liked the way the sequestering allowed some participation from the bootees (challenge questions etc) as well as the viewer getting to see how they were getting along together. Next year I'd like to see some livefeeds of the sequester house as well! |
Lucymac | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 06:33 am     Csnog I wouldn't mind one vote from the audience somewhere from the beginning to the middle of the game and think it actually could be interesting. I would just hate to see it later on. I also think it would be great to have live feeds next year from the sequester house. If not all the time then at least for a while to see how the evictees are getting along and what they are saying about the houseguests. |
Gina8642 | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 08:00 am     It all depends on your definition of 'fair'. If you want an uninfluenced vote you would need to sequester each one of them in private. I think the vote might have been slightly different if that had happened, but Jun still probably would have won. However - this vote was 'fair' because it occured within the rules they all signed up for. Last year's was the same. I have to agree that sequestration this year didn't seem to 'help' any. I saw the exact same mob anger mentality directed at Jun & Ali that I saw last year directed at Danielle. I think this year's set up may have aided Dani because her 'stuff' (everything the evicted HGs didn't like) was fairly well hidden, whereas Alison played hers out pretty much in the open - at least in comparison. So, this year's method didn't help Ali get any more votes. What the jury house did add to the show was some fun footage of the HGs reuniting and some fun footage of them watching the videos. I'm not sure if CBS considers it worth the expense, since it didn't change the outcome any. If they want to change the outcome they will need to isolate each HG seperately. Every one will have to kept away from family and other influence. That seems pretty harsh for $750/wk. Guess we'll find out next year. |
Chippy | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 08:21 am     Mob anger mentality? Guess I missed that. I think they were cordial and congratulated the F2 while revealing their votes. The fact that they didn't fall all over each other, IMO, was a plus and made it very real and satisfying to those who feel there are lines that are crossed above and beyond the "game" and they may get rewarded monetarily, but not with respect. The vote was what it was for good reason. The lesser of two evils. |
Csnog | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 08:38 am     They can't let them go home anymore because then we will have a love fest. BB learned from last year that the jury needs to be isolated. The jury was not happy with each other after watching the tapes either. I think they had a handle on both Jun and Ali. Ali was out in the open, loud and seemed to think she should win just on how many challenges she won. As a player Jun was better. Not necessarily a better person but a better player within the house. |
Spunky | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 08:43 am     The "lesser of two evils" comment by Dana was edited to stick in the minds of tv viewers and Jun has that title now with the money. I'm satisfied. |
Miggles | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 09:19 am     I don't see any problem with the BB4 jury. What's wrong with sequestering them together and letting them share information and view points? The worst thing would be to force them to vote in some contrived information vaccuum, isolated from one another. That is the same thing that leads to bad jury decisions in real court trials. |
Pantageas | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 09:33 am     The sequestering worked fine. The point of sequestering isn't so the HGs won't be influenced by EACH OTHER. The point is to make sure that the HGs don't get info from the LFs or DR conversations. If Danielle from BB3 had this year's set-up, she might have won. She was "punished" by the Jury after they found out how she acted when they weren't around in the LFs and her DR interviews. If that were to continue, you would have HGs being completely fake in their DR interviews(anybody remember all of Nicole's crocodile-tearful goodbyes?) - then what would be the fun of watching the show? Alison's problem, actually, wasn't LF or DR convos. She had to deal with a Jury full of former HGs that she had lied to or betrayed when she didn't have to. It boiled down to a choice between two deceptive "floaters", and Jun was a sliiiightly better choice than Alison. Her biggest problem was that she did far too much to ensure she was in the "Final Two", and far too little to ensure that she was the "Final One". |
Bastable | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 09:37 am     I agree that the sequestering worked. This is not the American legal system. The jury on Big Brother does not have to approach things from an objective, fact-based standpoint. A major part of being able to win this game is having the ability to evict people while still keeping them on your good side. That's the catch--the fundamental twist--of Big Brother: Evicting people but keeping them your friend. If you can't manage that, you won't win. So I don't see why we should be striving for an unbiased jury. On Big Brother, if you live by the sword, you die by it. |
Tasia | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 10:19 am     I've been toying around with an idea in my head. While the sequestering this year was not perfect, it was still better than last years fiasco. I would like to know the pros and cons of next years jury staying in the house with the other guests, maybe in a split house of sorts where they can see everything but not be allowed to talk to the remaining houseguests or vice versa. The evicted houseguests would have good meals while the others are on PB&J, be allowed to sit in on Diary room visits, follow other guests around when it looks like they may be scheming etc etc. Like I said, this is just a thought, but it would really keep the remaining houseguests under the microscope and therefore their strategies would change and the stress would be higher because their judge and jury is watching them 24-7. Let me know how stupid this is or if this idea may have merit, give me both barrels. I watched BB4 this year. I can take almost anything now |
Spunky | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 10:23 am     Usually BB producers want to come up with "new solutions", meaning they don't want houseguests to know where and how they'll be sequestered, IF they stay with this system again next season. So, I don't think they can repeat this year's type of sequestration because the hgs will know what will happen. It's going to be a bit different next time, at least I think it should. |
Vealprince | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 10:31 am     The audience vote is the kiss of death for this show. No matter what you do, there will be an effect on how the jury votes. That is by definition. They way they did it this year was by far the best of any year as far as 'fairness' and 'entertainment value' go. WHat wasn't fair last year was HG's having more time than others to watch their tapes before the jury vote. The only thing I'd like to see different is to let the final two see the tapes after the voting is done, but before they are reunited with the others...so there will be less atmosphere for hypocracy by the jury. |
Nancypj | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 02:17 pm     When I originally heard that they were going to sequester the final seven HGs voted out, I automatically assumed they would be separated. I figured, what would be the point otherwise? As each new person came into the jury house, I knew that they would divulge the information about the remaining players, and that seemed to me to be what the sequestration was meant to avoid. It became especially evident that new jury members would have a ton of undue influence on the others when Robert used his threats of turning the jury any way he saw fit. I also wonder if that is why he was not reunited with the others until Saturday when they all met for the Q&A. What is to keep someone with a vendeta and agenda from flat out lying to the others about what went on in the house? Granted, it would be harder for the earlier jury members to get away with it since others could eventually refute bad info, but there are still many ways to get misinformation into the mix. Now, obviously, separate sequestration would probably be dreadful for weeks and weeks. So I can see where that may not be such a great option, but I can also see future BB contestants who KNOW they are not going to be around for very long to TRY to get evicted so that they can go to the nice villa in Mexico for an all-expenses paid vacation. I do have a suggestion for a solution, though. Have each evicted houseguest in essence cast their votes as they leave the house. Give them a day to decompress and relax alone, then present them with a list of those still in the house. Ask them to rate them in order of who they would like to see win. If there are seven people left, the one they would like to see win gets a seven, the one they would least like to see win gets a one. Then send them home to their family and bring them back for the finale and to confront the others as usual. The winner would be determined by who out of the final two has the highest score. That would take DR and other evictee influence out of the mix. Just a thought. I'm sure there are plenty of flaws, but just thought I'd throw it out there. |
Chippy | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 02:34 pm     Even when evicted hg's take their stories to the jury already sequestered, what says anyone has to or should believe them? That's their choice. They can either weigh it with their decision or discount it completely. I didn't see a problem having them sequestered together and in fact see it as a continuation of the game outside the house towards the final vote. The thing with BB is that it is really two games played simultaneously. Sure, you have to stay in the house, but at the same time, you have to have the votes at the end. Ali didn't get that part and Jun really didn't either- she was just the only other choice. |
Nancypj | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 02:42 pm     I guess it all depends on what the true reason for the sequestering is. If they are just trying to keep those evicted from seeing DR entries so they continue to be good TV snipets, mission accomplished. If they are trying to keep all outside influence from the final vote, it doesn't work. Now, if it were meant to be a true continuation of the game, I say throw a camera or two up there and make it Cam 4 on the Live Feeds. Sure would be more interesting to watch than a whole week of just 2 or 3 left in the "real" house |
Chippy | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 02:45 pm     I agree, Nancypj! I'd love to watch those feeds. Especially when the other house is down to two. |
Azriel | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 07:55 pm     Nancypj, the idea to make them vote as soon as they leave the house is a brilliant idea! I think it would work! |
Puzzled | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 08:29 pm     Juries, in trials, get together and discuss the evidence and their opinions, so why shouldn't the BB jury? |
Lurknomore | Friday, September 26, 2003 - 09:06 pm     Here's an idea I really like (somewhere a few months back I posted ways I think they could really improve the next BB). I'll spare repeating them, even though I think they all would make the game more interesting but this would really be a doozy. Next year sequester them. And when it gets down to the final two let America vote to either keep the two as stands or vote back in one sequestered HG as a substitution finalist. Of course they couldn't be told about this till the end...maybe something vague like "this year's final twist will rock how the game is played." Maybe one vote per every person who has payed for the feeds. If they got smart they could plan a whole promotion around this and maybe have one episode where calls chosen at random question the finalists and sequestered HG's to determine who is worthy of being in the finals. Regardless they really need to find a way to bring the public back into the voting. I still like random public votes (again a suprise to the HG's). I don't think America having one vote each week will have much impact given how the house tends to vote as a unified block. |
|