Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack_
Easily and effectively. No it's not like that 
There's a competition each week to determine a Head of Household (HoH), this can either be mental/physical or endurance. That person then nominates two other people for potential eviction.
The two nominees, the HoH and three other people selected by a random draw then compete in the Power of Veto (PoV) competition. Whoever wins earns the right to veto one of the HoH's nominations, or to leave them in tact. So if a nominee wins, they can remove themselves from the block, if the HoH wins, they can change one of their nominations or leave them the same. If a nominee is saved, the HoH has to name a replacement nominee.
Then on eviction night, every person other than the two nominees and the HoH goes into the DR and casts a vote to evict one of the two. In the event of a tie, the HoH breaks it.
When two people are left, the last 7 or 9 people evicted (whom have moved into a 'jury house' which is located somewhere in the country and isolated from the outside world) return, question the two finalists on why they believe they should win, and then each cast a vote for the winner. And that's it.
Winning over a jury is far more difficult than winning over the public, and also more fairer. They've lived with them, not the viewers. |
Thanks for all that, ive got to be honest though, it doesnt appeal to me. I cant imagine how infuriating it must be when a person the majority of the public dislike ends up winning? Or how awful it must be when the fan favourite leaves just because the house voted them out. The public vote wont always go your way but it will go to the voting publics way and that sounds like a better way to determine an evictee and a winner to me tbh
And in reply to the op
i think more tasks with strategy will be pretty fun to watch, but i dont think the public would take well to an openly strategic game player so i cant imagine it ever happening for too long without producer manipulation and we get too much of that already