Raven was inspired by Dr. Will
 

https://www.globaltv.com/bigbrother/...ed-by-dr-will/

This bit caught my attention:

:skull:

omg I love ha

I dislike her very much.

I don't have the 'stop, get help' gif but if I did Here is where I would put it.

Lmaooo :love:

I don't need help you cheeky bitch :nono:

Who's the squirrel?

One of the very definite no´s for All Stars in this season. I never want to see her again.

#Raven4AllStars

Kevin, Jessica or Ramses, i think?

Yuck! Please no.

Has to be Ramses as they all mentioned him going from room to room to get information. Although idk if she worked with Kevin at all either and maybe he fits that description too. (edit: nah not really)

This makes no sense!

I mean I get where she's coming from but the problem is about 2-3 weeks ago the majority of the house were done with her and didn't like her at all?

The last paragraph is testament to Paul's great social game btw

Well it wouldn't if you don't know who Dr Will is :laugh:

Or it's just a testament to how bad casting has got that they include people with the worst cases of follower-mentality.

Raven was always going to be the type of person to throw her game for someone else. Like many, she's one of the people who cares more about America's perception and what opportunities come after the show.

Let's be honest here: Jess, Cody and Dommie were the only ones playing their own game. The rest are easily gonna let Paul win.

Or it's testament to Paul's social manipulation skills that he convinced over half of the house that he is loyal to them and their partner only, that he isn't betraying them, and that they need to do his dirty work (including arguing with a particular week's target while he befriends them) because it's to the benefit of them all and not just him? I mean how would you even qualify 'follower mentality' in the casting process? How do you look for that? It's hardly a perceivable or foreseeable trait.

The dumb cast thing is just a excuse to not give him any credit, Paul's social game this year has thus far been impeccable and some of the things he's managed to achieve are absurd. If people were objective about it they would admit that

I'm sure follower-mentality is easily assessed. It's quite simple from a viewer's perspective to notice who has follower-mentality and who doesn't. I'd say all of Paul's allies fulfil the criteria of follower-mentality (Josh is slowly coming out of his shell and making his own game for himself). I mean, he told Raven to bark (for example) to which she did, but that says more about Raven than it does about Paul.

Well, you've jumped the gun there because I definitely give Paul credit for being the best candidate to win, but in the realms of the game, especially in comparison to when this show displayed far better gameplay and quality of cast—his social game ain't ****. Fair enough if you want to classify that as a good social game, but I think the testament lies with the people he's playing with as oppose to Paul himself. Similar to Derrick, I won't take away that he deserves to win, but I just don't think they deserve credit or to be heralded as such.

Just my opinion, didn't mean to spark anything.

Also, Paul hate and Paul love is overblown from both sides (especially on this forum), and has kinda ruined the season from the start—for me, personally.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that they've not all followed his orders for most of the summer, I'm just questioning the idea that something like that could be foreseen and be even deliberately (if you were alluding to that) casted. I don't think it would be a perceivable quality in the casting process? I'd imagine most people say they'd love to win and will do anything it takes and stab anyone in the back etc, if they literally said 'nah I'll throw my game away for my showmance partner' I'd be surprised if they made it on. Are this cast the smartest they've ever assembled? Of course not, but I do think there's an argument to be made that their perceived stupidity is thanks to Paul. He has managed to convince over half of the house that he has their back and doesn't need to be targeted, naive as they may be I think there's something to be said for that.

Well that's fair enough, I just feel like a large majority of the fandom let their hate for certain houseguests cloud their objective judgement. I still don't agree that his social game outside the context of this season is bad though, because you only have to rewind a year to find a season where he was nominated five times and faced eviction on three of those occasions, and still made it to the final two. He would have won had his jury management been better (which is where I think his game still lacks finesse), or even simpler than that - taken James to final two instead! And I don't think anyone could say that last season's cast were dumb or not there to play. So if in back-to-back seasons (one with four vets in, and one with him as the only vet), he's made it to (at least) the endgame, I really don't think it's fair to say his social game sucks...the stats speak for themselves.

See, I think the reason why I make the suggestion so confidently (and I'm totally aware I am referring to a post-casting scenario here) is because in pre-show interviews when Jeff asks 'would you rather win and be hated, or lose and be loved by America?' over half the cast still say they'd rather lose and be loved. If I were casting I would totally chuck that person to the side if they said that, but that's just me. Sometimes it does result in hilarious outcomes, such as Alex saying she wants to lose and be loved and then come back and win ala Nicole Franzel. I definitely think that mentality has been produced by the importance of America's Favourite Player and how people would rather win that and potentially make something of themselves post-show.

I agree with you, I know I hated the fact that Derrick obviously deserved to win but it was the truth. I definitely think he played an okay game last season, and I did go back and forth as to whether he deserved to win over Nicole but jury management is the key aspect of social game (though, I wouldn't necessarily knock Paul's social game as much for the reason you mentioned) but people like Natalie straight up said that there's no way she was gonna vote for him because of the bad things he said about her. I think it's better for him in terms of this season because everyone is all for him, but it's so hard to see gratification in his win based on how awful everyone else is. Though, I do genuinely still think he deserves if no-one else takes the shot at him at the last minute.

She needs to go to a real doctor

Oh see I don't bother with those so I didn't know that :joker: I do see what you're saying though and I do agree in a general sense that there's a huge problem with BBUS casting (even if I am in the minority who has enjoyed this season). The show has changed a lot since BB15 and not really for the better, I feel like this season aside they very much watered down the content to appeal to a younger audience and casted people who's main interest is acquiring a Twitter following after the show. But you're always going to get people who slip through the net too, the same happens in BBUK where someone's VT may be amazing but then they don't actually turn up in the house. So I concede that Paul's definitely had it easier this season than last but I do think his ability in manipulating them all to bow to his every word is a lot of his doing too. Getting four people to throw a track comp to a girl with a broken foot is as hilarious as it is amazing.

Paul's loss was absolutely his fault and the most annoying part about it is his poor jury management could've been salvaged had he taken the right person to final two. Nicole's win was as much his doing as it was hers but you take what you can get, that's the game, she secured the votes and therefore deserved it. I totally get why people don't like him (less so last season, but moreso this), and even I don't like him as much because he was much funnier last time around, and I also understand why people object morally to some of his gameplay (and that's a different debate altogether) - but I still believe he's easily in the top ten players of all time. I don't think he's better than them, but only Will and Dan have ever come this close to doing the same thing twice.

:laugh2: