Nick's "punishment" of weekly F2F noms
 

Do you think if he was more confident (he nearly always looked like a bag of nerves when delivering his F2F noms), and gave more amusing or dramatic reasons for nominating, and didn't keep apologising, do you think it would have been implemented more often?

What I mean by that is, if Helen was in his shoes, she'd probably deliver crushing noms each time, full of confidence and scathe. We all know BB like to change things to suit themselves, so do you think they might have decided it was pointless to keep Nick's punishment up, as it didn't really have much impact?

The "twist" was quite pointless when 90% of the series was F2F nominations. BB16 was all about the production trying to fix the plot because it wasn't delivering like they thought it will. Too-nice Nick got the nominations twist? let's make everyone nominate face to face. The housemates don't explode in the first 2 weeks? let's replace 4 of them with loud and feisty ones. Marc won't survive long? let's give him immunity week after week. The housemates still don't start a war? ummm take Helen and Nikki and Aisleyne and Brian to do the dirty job! They all nice and happy 2 weeks before the final? let's bring the money twist.
They tried very hard to make it explosive but the housemates just didn't play along.

In the last series of our local version they had a mix of BB15&16 launch twist with eternal nominee, pass to the final, eternal F2F nominations 2 hms as one eternally etc. After each housemate got his/her own "verdict", their first task was to get everyone exchange it among themselves. The F2F nominations moved from one of the boring housemates to the most explosive housemate and the villain of the series. He destroyed each and everyone of them with his public nominations, very personal, very vile, more than Helen could be. It brought a lot of action and a big divide to the house, but it wasn't a nice view and quite hard to watch. Was it worth it? without a doubt - no.