Quote:
Originally Posted by ThriceShy
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?
|
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?
