if he had played a better game he would have received more than 3 jury votes

He played one of th best games he was just faced with a bitter jury that were blind to that. And his Jury management was ****e too.

'BuT SHANNON iS tHE BeSt BiG BrOtHeR pLAyER EVER' https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/...20180203030207

Hardly

Jury management is important and part of the game play so he didn't really play a good game.

The jury were not bitter.

His actual game was good, winning comps when he needed and removing threats. It was just that portion of Jury that he failed in.

And the Jury were bitter. Even Shannon, one of the biggest BB Superfans there is, said that no matter who he was sat next to she wouldn't vote Ross because of how he played.

Despite me not even wanting Ross to win, remember, I do think that she is a bitter juror as she is letting her experience influence her vote.

what the hell else is she supposed to let influence her vote?????

She is supposed to look at the game and the bigger picture, and look how people played it, then vote for who played it best. I loved Marissa and wanted her to win but she did not have a better game than Ross.

There's much more to the game than winning comps and removing threats, it's the way you do it and manage the jury. The jury got to watch so it may have been different if they couldn't. No one was bitter, he failed with his jury management and that's his fault. His game has already been done before and they won but he was against trash so ofc he would win.

I think most of the Jury said they didn't watch, like, any or the prior episodes or the latter episodes :joker:

But Shannon still thought Ross played the 'game' in question too dirty sometimes, which he did.

You can argue that previous winners under this format, for example BBCAN5 Kevin, played the game very dirty and still won.

Idk I'm tired and probably not making any sense in anything rn

then the last impression of Ross was not good?

This is how Paul lost twice!

:joker:

Kevin had a better social game than Karen. Anyone would have won against Karen in that top 4.

Honestly, I don't even think this jury were that bitter? It's not like any of these houseguests were that dislikable, or awful people...in the end I think it just came down to the fact that Marissa had more social connections with people and was more humble and emotive in her speech (about not expecting to be there)...whereas Ross was just proclaiming he knew he'd be in the final two :shrug: oh, and she had a massive advantage in the fact that most of the women wanted a woman to win

I wanted Ross to win but I don't really think there was much else he could've done tbh? This is less a reflection on what he did wrong and more on what she did right.

Yeah Big Brother is a social experiment even with a different format you need a social game and not focus on making big moves and winning comps. If you weren't that social with the jury like have connections with them etc or you treated them badly then you won't win.

I haven't watched Finale yet except from clips and interviews but there was no Jury roundtable prevote right? I think Ross could've stood a chance with that in place imo

To be fair, I think Ross had a pretty good social game - it's just that in the end Marissa ended up having a better one. Hardly winning any comps and not having to nominate and target people in the way he did all season (and his big DR presence on the episodes) probably played a part too

No, and that would definitely need to be rectified if they do another season

Shannon made a good point in her Ika interview actually that that was part of the reason why all the jurors were conferring with each other because they hadn't had a chance to talk beforehand. An oversight on Grodner's part tbh

She's supposed to vote however the hell she wants to, not based off of some arbitrary criteria that a Big Brother winner MUST execute two separate blindsides and be nominated no more than three times and win a minimum of three Competitions or whatever else. Whoever played the "best" game is completely subjective because each Juror has a different set of criteria and they value different qualities. That's the entire essence of shows like Big Brother and Survivor -- the only rules are that you can't be voted out and you need your peers to vote for you to win in the end. If the juries were all to vote "objectively," (literally what does that even mean, this isn't maths class where there is one right answer) then the whole point of a jury vote and a roundtable and live interrogation would be meaningless and there would be no suspense in watching the finale.

k so I'm late to the party but I finally finished my edgic

https://i.imgur.com/XWswF79.png