Why does the winner have to be nicey wicey

[alex_front2]

Love the fact that Aaron refused to conform to the nicey wicey ideal of a winner. Something which blatantly annoyed host and previous winner Brian as well as BBOTs Emma who kept saying 'but I don't think we got to know the real Aaron'.

So the question is, why does the winner have to be a goody goody nicey wicey type. I actually find these types dull. There are always more interesting folk who create all the drama, carry the show but don't get rewarded with a win (BB6 Makosi).

I was rooting for Nasty Nick in series 1 and I jeered with fury when Craig took him on. Aaron wasn't the villain (that's wannabe Anton) but he is an anti-hero type winner.

[angbobs]

Hear Hear

[karezza]

I hope Alex is the last of the morons.

[alex_front2]

I hope Alex is the last of the morons.

It's not so much just being a moron, it's that the morons now are soo dull and have nothing else to offer other than playing the lovable moron card. Jade had more to her than just being thick, she was entertaining and had drama. Now the morons just use being a moron as a ticket to sit back and win without having to do anything else eg Brian B, Antony Hutton, Sophie Reade, Josie Gibson and nearly Alex. :devil::sleep:

[Jack_]

It's refreshing to see some people with a bit of common sense at last. Rewarding housemates who fly under the radar and add absolutely **** all to the series every year [see Rachel Rice] is laughable and ultimately damaging to the show. The housemate who adds the most to each series each year should win, as they after all have carried the series and given us the most to talk about [Aaron, John James/Sam, Rex, Marcus/Freddie, Charley/Chanelle, Nikki, Makosi].

I really hope the tide is turning now, the large majority of BB voters haven't a ****ing clue when it comes to making logical decisions as to who to evict and choose as the winner, and as such that's why the best housemates were being evicted early, even with a vote to save which should have stopped that. So at least the housemate that made the series [Aaron] won. Finally, justice for the rightful winner.

[alex_front2]

It's refreshing to see some people with a bit of common sense at last. Rewarding housemates who fly under the radar and add absolutely **** all to the series every year [see Rachel Rice] is laughable and ultimately damaging to the show. The housemate who adds the most to each series each year should win, as they after all have carried the series and given us the most to talk about [Aaron, John James/Sam, Rex, Marcus/Freddie, Charley/Chanelle, Nikki, Makosi].

I really hope the tide is turning now, the large majority of BB voters haven't a ****ing clue when it comes to making logical decisions as to who to evict and choose as the winner, and as such that's why the best housemates were being evicted early, even with a vote to save which should have stopped that. So at least the housemate that made the series [Aaron] won. Finally, justice for the rightful winner.

Agree with every word. Too often in the past it was the Makosi/John James/ Sam, Rex, Marcus/Freddie who would create all the drama only for a dullard to clean up with the win. I didn't like Jay but I acknowledged ALWAYS that he deserved to win more than Alex, who I ALWAYS rated below Louise. Alex should have been out on Thursday.