[OnlyFoolsVote]

Originally posted by ElProximo

It would be such a fundamental change in the game/social experiment that you would end up with something else but 'Big Brother' as we know it.

This doesn't work for me and not just because I am a purist but for a few other reasons:

- A huge part of the drama, intrigue, excitement and suspense is most definitely in the eviction.
For both the viewers and the HMs themselves.
It is exactly what creates stress, tragedy, tears and busts up stasis among HMs.
It is the huge thrill of each week.

- Rather than continue social dynamics it might put them in the aforementioned 'stasis'. A great example would be a block of wannabe models who lock up at poolside and insulate themselves. Another group locks up their smoke area. After a few weeks you get a set social dynamic established when everyone supposes they have found their place.
versus,
by removing parts you see the machines forced to morph, abandon, realign and win/lose social advantages. There is nothing like a lost HM to reshuffle the decks.

- Why less and less HMs 'ought' to be what interests the curious, the deeper thinkers, the social analyzers and engages the mind?
Well, the idea is that at first we have so many we just get more brief superficial personalities and characters exposed.
As we get down to less HMs there is less 'brief' social interactions and more sophisticated, meaningful and intimate exchanges. We the viewer also get more time for each remaining HM.
The less and less the more and more 'in depth' we go into each remaining character. Same for them with only a few remaining HM to deal with.
The final 5 week becomes far less of a HL show of so many outrageous 'superficial dramas' and more like a documentary really just focusing on individuals we know and examine and see in close relationships.
Now this 'ought' to be what happens. To a large extent that is what happens.
The danger is, sometimes you do end up with just a few who remain 'face value' and introverted, or course that can happen too,
but, the very idea of dropping HMs is to give greater and 'deeper thoughts' into remaining ones.
Which you should appreciate more than anyone I suppose?

This week is (for me) a time where I am ready to see about half of the least interesting and most 'superficial' and/or dull HMs cleared out.
Again - for the purpose of then focusing closer and deeper on the more interesting ones left.

Another reason for liking the reductions:
- In fact the less people around is another intriguing psychological aspect of the social experiment.
Examples:
A HM who is very flamboyant and confident in a large group with a lot of action might face a real psychological challenge in a group of just 4 or 5 in a large house.
or
A HM who easily avoids conflict by 'vanishing into the crowd' or instigates power by working 'behind the crowd' might find themselves in intriguing and strange territory when forced to experience a small intimate social situation of just several people.

So basically I think your idea would lead to a very superficial program that might be big on 'eye-candy' and action scenes but lacks any depth into the hearts and minds and removes the ability to focus more on individuals complex experiences and psychological challenges.

Long winded psycho-babble And seriously, the ''thrill'' of evictions is mindless. 2 minutes of boos and a quick interview with Davina is pitiful next to my proposal. If you punish (not evict) the losing housemate, then that would open up a whole can of worms and potential entertainment dwarfed by the ''thrill'' of any eviction.