I disagree with you.
I find it insulting to one's intelligence to actually BUY into the BS that Danny is trying to sell by the character he's trying to portray until his real self surfaces when he's put in his place in an argument. That clown is a fraud in my opinion.

Have you read the tweets he wrote?

lol if you say so

I don't think anyone's buying into it per se, especially not over the last few days, but what is actually the problem with people being fake and putting on a persona on a game show? Like, what's the issue? The main issue is whether or not that person is interesting, entertaining and provides us with stuff to talk about as viewers. Whether or not it's genuine is pretty irrelevant to be honest.

Yes, but what housemates tweet, say and do either in their private life or professional life is of no relevance as to what they do inside the Big Brother house, which is the platform on which we as viewers are supposed to judge them on. What Danny or Marc or Nick has tweeted before the show, outside of the show, is completely irrelevant. Just as whether Harry or Helen was or is a prostitute is irrelevant, just as whether or not Chloe shat in someone's shoe is irrelevant, the list goes on. We're supposed to judge them on their time in the house on a blank slate, digging up dirt on housemates personal lives outside of the television show that they're appearing on is obsessive, unnecessary, irrelevant and really quite petty.

What if their tweets totally contradict the persona they take on in the big brother house?

What if danny acts like a white knight in the house, protecting the women and saying he won't allow bullying, but tweets that he hopes chloe goodman is bullied in the street and fat women in clubs should stick to their own kind and not try it on with him?

I answered that in the other quoted post I replied to. It's a gameshow, housemates are perfectly entitled to fake a persona if they so wish and I don't see what the problem is with it. The real issue of debate here is whether the personas housemates create are interesting, entertaining and/or contribute anything to the show. If they don't, then they're pointless, but if they do...then there's nothing wrong with it.

I can tell you the connection, Danny wants to be famous and he happens to be friends with Ricci and thus gets invited to events or BB meet ups. If he's friends with an ex hm there is a good chance he could have been a guest at a wrap party even so why is it unfathomable he's had a chat with people?

If it was this massive conspiracy as you imply they'd have hidden it better and given him a shining edit which they haven't.

I think you're grasping at straws

Where are these rules stated that we must only judge them on what we see in the house?

Does it apply to the celebrity series, where we may have known the contestant for 30 years before they went in? Are we meant to disregard that 30 years?

Why shouldn't we consider all information before voting to give someone £100,000?

If twitter had existed during BB4, and we found tweets where cameron said he loved satan and visited prossies, would that have been irrelevant?

Personallyme, it's like, if I'm going to spend 60 hours (at least!) watching you and it turns out that everything I thought was true about you isn't, thanks for wasting my time?

But it's not wasted time, if they've entertained you then you've spent that time watching BB regardless.

If they faded into the background then the edits didn't focus on them and didn't waste your time anyway.

When you put BB into the number of viewing hours it's ALL a waste of time. :joker:

It's the unwritten rule of the show, I mean it's pretty much common sense. What's the point in watching the highlights or even in the show existing if we're going to decide who our favourites are and who should win based on the housemates personal lives? We don't have cameras following them for years before they enter the house, it's completely irrelevant. The premise of the show is to watch a bunch of strangers inside a glorified television studio for a couple of months and to see how they interact and judge each of them based upon that. Their jobs, friends, families, private lives are all totally separate from their actions on the show itself and none of it is relevant when it comes to judging who is or who isn't a good housemate (note, the clue is in the name, housemate inside the house, not person outside the show).

Celebrity Big Brother is an entirely different ballgame, but even then I would hope that most people judge each of the housemates on a blank slate based upon what they do inside the house, I certainly do. That is, again, the entire point of the show and putting them in there. The civilian run is different, we don't know them and there's no reason to not judge them all on an equal pedestal. Fishing for outside information on contestants on a reality show is quite frankly just obsessive and pathetic and proves that some people take television way too seriously.

The £100,000 should go to the housemate who has contributed the most to each individual series. It's not (or at least it shouldn't be) a Mr Nice Person contest.

As for the Cameron question, yes, yes it would have been irrelevant. I haven't seen BB4 but heard he was boring, so that's more grounds on which to not deserve to win than anything he believes in or did/does outside of the show.

On one final separate note, what on earth is the problem with visiting prostitutes? :umm2:

I believe he used that example as IIRC Cameron was some sort of bible preaching priest. :hee:

Indeed. Who cares whether it's fake or not? If you enjoy watching them in the minuscule bubble that is a Big Brother series compared to your/their entire life, then so be it. Whether they faked it all on a gameshow or not is pretty irrelevant. Either they brought a lot to the show or they didn't, that's more important than whether it was genuine or not. I couldn't care less how they act outside of the show, the cameras aren't there before or after so it isn't relevant in the slightest.

That is up to you.

But why can't I, and others, choose to include other information when we decide who to vote for.

Who made you the boss?

No one. :umm2: He's giving his opinion on a public forum.

eh I don't think it's this clear cut and the circumstances for deciding who wins are dependent on what happens throughout each series. Like, say what you want about Sam Evans (I know I have) but I was thrilled when he beat Dexter, who served the same function as series-ruiners Ziggy, Darnell, Siavash, John James, and Aaron. Rachel Rice is my favorite winner ever because it's the most satisfying narrative: a bunch of freaks treated her like a monster because she was normal and kinda and likable and didn't have a raging personality disorder, she could not possibly give a ****, and then she overcomes all her haters and wins. On a season like BB12, where I ****ing hate the narrative of the series and almost everyone involved, I was rooting hardcore for Alex and Tom because they were the ones least connected to it. Some years I simply root for my favorite like Deana and Gina. This year has been a complete trainwreck so I think Sam would be a very fitting winner. The circumstances of each series change my thought process for it all.

Why are you not responding to the post I made to you?

You can do what you want. But I can think it is petty, obsessive, irrelevant and goes against the entire point of the show. And I do. Because it does.

If the underlined bit is true then why does rylan put the nominees friends and family in a boxing ring each week and get them to persuade us to not evict them? Hmm?

Why are we shown VTs in which they tell us about their lives and jobs?

By the way, the prostitute thing refers to the fact that cameron claimed to be a virgin.

I just have. Patience is a virtue.

.....by talking about how much more the housemates have to offer THE HOUSE and any aspects of the housemates we have yet to see on screen.

But it's all about the house.

Because they are there to support them and try and justify why they should be kept in based on what they have done in the show and can contribute to the show in the future. The inclusion of friends and families in that point was mainly regarding the people who like to also pass judgement on them as if it's at all necessary.

So that we can get a bit of background info on them before they enter the house? It's pretty self explanatory :umm2: it's either that or just let them walk in which I wouldn't be opposed to either, in fact maybe it'd stop the endless discussion and insults about what they do and don't do.

Fair enough. But still, irrelevant to what he contributed (or didn't contribute) to the series itself.

Their friends aren't in the house. Why involve them at all?

BOTS often ask the friends and family what they are like outside of the house and if they are being themselves. Why show us this if it is irrelevant?

In previous series, the sister show cameras used to go to the contestants houses and go in detail about their lives.

Because they're watching and following it like the rest of us and are putting their views across, which is pretty much what BOTS is for, the opinions of different people from random audience members, family members to the "panellists".

We're not in the house either, yet here we are on a forum dedicated to the show and discussing it.

We are never going to agree on this because as far as I see it without the housemates who become the stars of their individual series and contribute the most, we wouldn't really have a show. I know some people prefer to decide upon a winner based on who they like/can relate to and it's something I'll never agree with or support, but my point in that post really was that the prize should be awarded to a housemate based upon what they've done in the house (whether that's brought the most or been the nicest, whatever), not what they do or don't do outside of it. That is, after all, the point of the show.

It is totally relevant. Cameron won on the strength of being a gentle, moral, religious virgin. If he was really a satanist and prossie lover then he wouldn't have won.

Why weren't you complaining when all of Marc's tweets were being exposed?

You missed a bit:

Jack did a pretty good job of addressing that section. I won't waste time repeating the same answer.

Yes he would, because from what I gather he didn't choose to show this ~satanist prossie lover~ side inside the house, so again, it is totally irrelevant. Had he shown it, yes, you're right, he probably wouldn't have won. But he didn't, so he did...based on what he did inside the house. That again brings us to our point of housemates being perfectly entitled to fake a persona on the show, it is a gameshow and all that matters is whether or not that persona is interesting to watch and/or contributes anything to the show.

And before you start trying to paint me as a Danny lover and a Marc hater as you have done with everyone else, please check my profile favourites list.

I made a post the other night condemning all of these endless Twitter exposing threads for all of the reasons I have listed in this thread. It's rather disturbing.

I don't think he addressed it at all.

The issue of whether a housemate is being their real self is absolutely fundamental and is largely what they are judged on. Friends and family and panelists are asked to judge this.

BB sets all kinds of challenges and tasks, such as the cashbomb stuff, to try and draw housemates' real personalities out.

But if a newspaper had exposed cameron as that then he would not have won, regardless of what he did in the house.

People take all information in when they make such a choice. They can't help it. That is how human beings behave.

If a newspaper reported on the day of the final that Danny, for example, was a wife beater then he wouldn't win, providing enough people read the paper.

Robots might be able to vote according to these strict rules that you have plucked from thin air, but human beings vote based on an overall assessment of the person.

Well, yes he did address it, whether you agree with it or not is separate.

I didn't see him address it. Which post was it in?

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...&postcount=181

He posts about the relevance of VTs of their personal lives and people they know being spoken to/interviewed.

Nowhere in that post does he specifically address this:

Besides, I asked you.

I understand if the questions are too difficult for you.

:joker: I think this farce of a thread has reached its limit.

If you can't see how the two relate then clearly you're the one finding it too difficult.

You give up easy.

I think this thread has been very informative for a lot of people and I am grateful for your contribution to it.

I wouldn't call 8 pages at all "easy". :hee:

I would.

I've had 100 pages out of people before now.

But, whatever the amount, I would just like to thank you for bumping this important thread and getting this info to people.

...do you not think though, Jack...that by the same reasoning, you equally can't have the more controversial and divided housemates like Helen..?..unless you have other housemates who also play a big part in why they're controversial..?../so most talked about, I guess...I mean, you couldn't have had a Marc this year without there being a Sam, Chloe, Harry etc....they all equally play parts in why Marc was discussed so much surely...so then it's down to possibly being things/personalities etc that people can relate to..?...

The fact that a housemate like Helen won last year completely ruins any idea of how the public should vote.

Helen was a disgusting bully inside the house and a vile publicity seeking prostitute outside the house. Voters were aware of both and yet she still won.

So I think Jack and I's argument is probably moot, since the show now seems to be decided by betting syndicates and tactical votes from groups of fans like ashleigh's.