[PiggiePaul]

Perhaps I'm being dim here but..............

In the house they have all been saying since day 1.

Oh I think Charlie is a hot favorite to win Big Brother.

So why don't the retards vote for Charlie to get rid of him? rather than voting off the ones that they feel have no chance.

Would it not be the obvious thing to do?

Why see a potential winner and then vote to effectivly keen them in each week?

Are they retarded?

[blacpanfa]

Originally Posted by PiggiePaul

Perhaps I'm being dim here but..............

In the house they have all been saying since day 1.

Oh I think Charlie is a hot favorite to win Big Brother.

So why don't the retards vote for Charlie to get rid of him? rather than voting off the ones that they feel have no chance.

Would it not be the obvious thing to do?

Why see a potential winner and then vote to effectivly keen them in each week?

Are they retarded?

yeah but is it not the fact that they probably think he's popular with the gpb, which is why they wouldn't bother nominating him?

[psy7ch]

They have basically given up nominating freddie because they realise he is popular and there is no point in putting him up.

[PiggiePaul]

Originally Posted by blacpanfa

yeah but is it not the fact that they probably think he's popular with the gpb, which is why they wouldn't bother nominating him?

Probably, but logically you would want to focus your votes on the two people most lighty to win Big Brother every week.

You would never want to keep popular contestants in the game with you.

Ideally Charlie and Kris would have been put up 1st.

then Dogface and whichever one of the previous 2 were left and get rid of the strong players week by week.

Would make more sence if they want to win

[Kyle123]

It makes sense, but could mean sabotaging yourself. If your putting up the two most popular housemates every week, your gonna become hated. Its sort of like when Noirin nominated Angel and Freddie instead of Sree in the live nominations week. She went from being quite well liked to disliked just for that alone.

[sayanora60]

Originally Posted by psy7ch

They have basically given up nominating freddie because they realise he is popular and there is no point in putting him up.

The only reason they will nom Freddie this week is because the five new HMs have convinced the old HMs he is NOT popular. Then when he stays over Noirin next week, the old HMs will realise they've been played and nom out the new ones. Come on BB you're going to have to try harder

[wonkeydonkey]

Originally Posted by Kyle123

It makes sense, but could mean sabotaging yourself. If your putting up the two most popular housemates every week, your gonna become hated. Its sort of like when Noirin nominated Angel and Freddie instead of Sree in the live nominations week. She went from being quite well liked to disliked just for that alone.

An interesting question though, which goes beyond BB10. When you think about it, there is almost no strategic play on UK BB. If there was no public vote, and the person with the greatest number of nominations was just evicted, we might see a lot more strategic play along the lines of 'I'm going to nominate Pete every week until the others catch on and he is out." But the public vote does throw a spanner in the works - keep voting for the one you believe is invincible and the public might soon be baying for YOUR blood instead of his.

Even more interestingly, when in BB10 they were allowed to discuss and co-ordinate voting, it just didn't happen. The only person to seem interested, indeed obsessed, with strategy was Freddie, and his embryonic campaign curled up and died from lack of support. The others seemed almost bizarrely uninterested in the 'playing' side of the game. Possibly the 'Never say you want to win' taboo has become so overwhelmingly strong in this country that people just daren't show any interest in the hundwed gwand at ALL.

[lovinit44]

Originally Posted by wonkeydonkey

An interesting question though, which goes beyond BB10. When you think about it, there is almost no strategic play on UK BB. If there was no public vote, and the person with the greatest number of nominations was just evicted, we might see a lot more strategic play along the lines of 'I'm going to nominate Pete every week until the others catch on and he is out." But the public vote does throw a spanner in the works - keep voting for the one you believe is invincible and the public might soon be baying for YOUR blood instead of his.

Even more interestingly, when in BB10 they were allowed to discuss and co-ordinate voting, it just didn't happen. The only person to seem interested, indeed obsessed, with strategy was Freddie, and his embryonic campaign curled up and died from lack of support. The others seemed almost bizarrely uninterested in the 'playing' side of the game. Possibly the 'Never say you want to win' taboo has become so overwhelmingly strong in this country that people just daren't show any interest in the hundwed gwand at ALL.

Stratergy very rarely comes into big brother imo

I think it's to do with genuine friendship and loyalty,the last week when people voted for David and Lisa was because they felt betrayed and even that wasn't a game plan no one thought either of them would win the show, they would rather all go up than vote out their friends.

It's a good characteristic, something as a nation we should be proud of.

[wonkeydonkey]

Originally Posted by lovinit44

Stratergy very rarely comes into big brother imo

I think it's to do with genuine friendship and loyalty,the last week when people voted for David and Lisa was because they felt betrayed and even that wasn't a game plan no one thought either of them would win the show, they would rather all go up than vote out their friends.
It's a good characteristic, something as a nation we should be proud of.

I don't think they felt 'betrayed'; they just felt vaguely cross that Lisa and David were not playing their game. But deep down they were a law-abiding lot, and would not blame someone for honestly, openly playing by the rules. David (mildly) and Lisa WERE their friends; they had just decided by then that they were mumsy-and-dadsy, rather dull friends. There was no ill-feeling towards them. Rodrigo said he was going to nominate them 'to balance things up', not because he was angry with them.

[lovinit44]

Originally Posted by wonkeydonkey

I don't think they felt 'betrayed'; they just felt vaguely cross that Lisa and David were not playing their game. But deep down they were a law-abiding lot, and would not blame someone for honestly, openly playing by the rules. David (mildly) and Lisa WERE their friends; they had just decided by then that they were mumsy-and-dadsy, rather dull friends. There was no ill-feeling towards them. Rodrigo said he was going to nominate them 'to balance things up', not because he was angry with them.

I know it was one of those arguments were you could see everyone's point of view and understand the feelings of everyone involved, at least I could.

[wonkeydonkey]

Originally Posted by lovinit44

I know it was one of those arguments were you could see everyone's point of view and understand the feelings of everyone involved, at least I could.

I thought it was a shame. BB were obviously horrified that they were going into the final week all happy and friendly, so they stuck in a totally gratuitous set of extra nominations to try and cause some distress and anger. Other series have had calm last weeks, with everyone friendly, but this time they decided they couldn't allow it to happen. With no extra nominations, Lisa would have gone out first. With the extra nominations, Lisa went out first (though only because BB manipulated the result to put her up - there was a reasonable case for her not being up for eviction at all); the only difference was that we had some not-very-entertaining, morose, depressed sparring over the nominations to make us split our sides. They would have done much better to have left the game to play itself out.

[lovinit44]

Originally Posted by wonkeydonkey

I thought it was a shame. BB were obviously horrified that they were going into the final week all happy and friendly, so they stuck in a totally gratuitous set of extra nominations to try and cause some distress and anger. Other series have had calm last weeks, with everyone friendly, but this time they decided they couldn't allow it to happen. With no extra nominations, Lisa would have gone out first. With the extra nominations, Lisa went out first (though only because BB manipulated the result to put her up - there was a reasonable case for her not being up for eviction at all); the only difference was that we had some not-very-entertaining, morose, depressed sparring over the nominations to make us split our sides. They would have done much better to have left the game to play itself out.

yeah I agree, but bb knows people love watching arguments and not watching people get on

[bluegroper]

And thats the best reason to keep BB pure and not talk about nominations, if they cant discuss it the majority wont nominate popular HM's. But in BB10 you had halfwit up against Marcus it wasn't what the public wanted but came about because HM's could discuss nominations so put up who is popular. Thats the best reason not to discuss nominations and come down hard on who ever does by not allowing them to nominate.

Then again don't have stupid twists on nominations and have consistant rules throughout the series.

[Lurksalot]

Originally Posted by wonkeydonkey

An interesting question though, which goes beyond BB10. When you think about it, there is almost no strategic play on UK BB. If there was no public vote, and the person with the greatest number of nominations was just evicted, we might see a lot more strategic play along the lines of 'I'm going to nominate Pete every week until the others catch on and he is out." But the public vote does throw a spanner in the works - keep voting for the one you believe is invincible and the public might soon be baying for YOUR blood instead of his.

Even more interestingly, when in BB10 they were allowed to discuss and co-ordinate voting, it just didn't happen. The only person to seem interested, indeed obsessed, with strategy was Freddie, and his embryonic campaign curled up and died from lack of support. The others seemed almost bizarrely uninterested in the 'playing' side of the game. Possibly the 'Never say you want to win' taboo has become so overwhelmingly strong in this country that people just daren't show any interest in the hundwed gwand at ALL.

Voting strategically would be BB suicide, it would count as 'wanting to win' and 'having a gameplan' which are the worst crimes in BBland. As you say, if you keep voting x and y cos you think they are your main competition and you'll be out on your arse.

[Lurksalot]

Originally Posted by bluegroper

And thats the best reason to keep BB pure and not talk about nominations, if they cant discuss it the majority wont nominate popular HM's. But in BB10 you had halfwit up against Marcus it wasn't what the public wanted but came about because HM's could discuss nominations so put up who is popular. Thats the best reason not to discuss nominations and come down hard on who ever does by not allowing them to nominate.

Then again don't have stupid twists on nominations and have consistant rules throughout the series.

Yep - I agree, back to basics. 2 noms each whoever gets the least from the public vote goes home. Anyone who discusses nominations has their noms removed. Talk about it more than 3 times and you're out. Anyone who doesn't nominate is removed.

[Flan Flinger]

Originally Posted by PiggiePaul

Perhaps I'm being dim here but..............

In the house they have all been saying since day 1.

Oh I think Charlie is a hot favorite to win Big Brother.

So why don't the retards vote for Charlie to get rid of him? rather than voting off the ones that they feel have no chance.

Would it not be the obvious thing to do?

Why see a potential winner and then vote to effectivly keen them in each week?

Are they retarded?

Seems to me they cant be that popular if they get voted of early Simples

[wonkeydonkey]

Originally Posted by bluegroper

But in BB10 you had halfwit up against Marcus it wasn't what the public wanted but came about because HM's could discuss nominations so put up who is popular. )

Although in theory that could have happened, I don't actually think it did. Marcus and Freddie were up against each other because at that stage they were the least popular inside the house, not because they were the most popular outside it. (That was debatable anyway - they had no reason to believe that Marcus was more popular than, say, Charlie or Siavash or Sophie).

Lisa, Rodrigo, Charlie, David and Sophie never got on especially well with Freddie, so were obviously likely to nominate him.

Lisa, Rodrigo, David and Sophie also had little time for Marcus; Charlie did later, but at that stage didn't spend any time with him. Bea was the wildest of wild cards, and Freddie might have done better not to have voted for marcus (though Marcus had so many nominations that it made no difference), but really those two were destined to be up. Neither of them had shown any interest in bringing, say, David or Charlie on board; they made no secret of their indifference or contempt for them.

So I stand by my assertion that the permission to discuss nominations made no difference at all; in spite of it, no one except Freddie showed any interest, ever, in discussing strategy and tactics. I agree with Lurksalot, that in the end the horror of being perceived as having a 'gameplan' outweighed any interest in actually having one.

[JUPITERDATALEGE]

freddie v marcus was my most disappointing head to head in bb history,of freddie/angel,alex/spencer,jon/fed/cameron proportions!

[Dixon]

If i were a hm i would nominate the hm's i'd least like to spend time with. Simple as that really.

[CLL Dodge]

If there is no contact with the outside world (and BB10 was a disaster in that respect) the HMs won't know who is popular or not. It took them ages to cotton onto Freddie's popularity whne we all knew the likes of Kris had no chance against him. That's what makes BBUK great - the looks on the faces of HMs when they realise that we disagree completely with what they assume (e.g Bex getting whipped by Mo & Darnell).

[phil solo]

Originally Posted by CLL Dodge

If there is no contact with the outside world (and BB10 was a disaster in that respect) the HMs won't know who is popular or not. It took them ages to cotton onto Freddie's popularity whne we all knew the likes of Kris had no chance against him. That's what makes BBUK great - the looks on the faces of HMs when they realise that we disagree completely with what they assume (e.g Bex getting whipped by Mo & Darnell).

Thanks for that image, I'm going to have to bleach out my brain now

[Electra]

Originally Posted by Lurksalot

Voting strategically would be BB suicide, it would count as 'wanting to win' and 'having a gameplan' which are the worst crimes in BBland. As you say, if you keep voting x and y cos you think they are your main competition and you'll be out on your arse.

A good example of that is Victor BB5. He spent weeks trying to get Dan & Nadia out as he saw them as threats. Then in week 8 he found himself up against both of them (and Jason). That went well, didn't it?

[CLL Dodge]

Originally Posted by Electra

A good example of that is Victor BB5. He spent weeks trying to get Dan & Nadia out as he saw them as threats. Then in week 8 he found himself up against both of them (and Jason). That went well, didn't it?

When Victor started nominating Nadia she was one of the outsiders, not that he would have been aware of the rise in her popularity. I think Dan was one of the early favourites and Nadia nommed him the 1st 2 times she could before warming to him after Marco left.

Did the BB5 HMs think Stu would win? None of them ever nommed him.

[lovinit44]

Originally Posted by CLL Dodge

When Victor started nominating Nadia she was one of the outsiders, not that he would have been aware of the rise in her popularity. I think Dan was one of the early favourites and Nadia nommed him the 1st 2 times she could before warming to him after Marco left.

Did the BB5 HMs think Stu would win? None of them ever nommed him.

I never understood nadias popularity I loved Victor for his game playing and letting the public in on his plan I thought it was a refreshing change.

[Barracute]

Am i the only person who thinks they vote for who they don't like? Obviously if they like someone who is also (allegedly) popular then they arent going to nom them are they?

Seeing as they are shut in and dont really know who is or isnt popular (even someone coming in and dropping hints could be lying) i fail to see any reason for nominating other than personal taste.