[Roy Mars III]

Looks like BB3 has been matched for the worst jury decision ever.

a disgrace really

[Roy Mars III]

if anyone can tell me why Ian deserved to win over Dan, please do

[Marc]

I think Dan played a ruthless but very successful and intelligent game. It's just a shame Ian was sat beside him because he played a clever game too and didn't backstab as many people, he won a lot of times and without knowing he saved his ass on two occassions.

Ian won because he was the only person to evade Dan targetting him.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ian played it right, Dan played it the best.

[Roy Mars III]

Originally Posted by Marc

I think Dan played a ruthless but very successful and intelligent game. It's just a shame Ian was sat beside him because he played a clever game too and didn't backstab as many people, he won a lot of times and without knowing he saved his ass on two occassions.

Ian won because he was the only person to evade Dan targetting him.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ian played it right, Dan played it the best.

Ian's game was boring and bland and should not have been rewarded

[LemonJam]

and so it begins...

[Marc]

Dan needed to win that final HoH to win, if he had evicted Ian then he would have won.

What was he going to do if he won?... I didn't catch it properly.

[Marc]

I understand your disappointment.. I am too a fan of the ruthless player but this was no where near his BB10 performance which was more sneaky IMO.

[Roy Mars III]

Originally Posted by Marc

I understand your disappointment.. I am too a fan of the ruthless player but this was no where near his BB10 performance which was more sneaky IMO.

oh, yea, I agree with that. Besides the Funeral veto, Dan played much, much better in 10

[Marc]

It's a shame so many jurors get so pi**y about being played.

[LemonJam]

I'll just say that Ian considered that he was playing with human beings and was ruthless only when he really needed to be. Dan NEVER seemed to consider "hmm, this jury may be pissed off at me"

I don't agree that flashy moves = good moves. I kindof called that he'd lose once he hosted his own funeral (just saying ) because from that point on he was playing a Russell Hantz of a game.

When someone plays ruthlessly like that, they should realise that in past seasons it doesn't always work out once you're sat with the people you pissed off holding your fate (See Alison, Nicole, Danielle [although I don't technically think the bitter votes came from her gameplay, but she still pissed them off with her confessionals], Natalie)

I still say the BB3 jury is the worst because most of them were butthurt about Danielle in the DR rather than the way she played the game. Not saying that Dan didn't play an at least interesting game, just Ian played a lot better.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by LemonJam

just Ian played a lot better.

Ian did not know what was happening half of the time. He was completely clueless. Ian even believed that he created the Quack Pack an alliance that was created in week 3 before the reset.

[starry]

I don't like the comparison to Russell Hantz. Russell won both final competitions in his main two seasons. He was a threat in the physical game as well as the mental. There was plenty of humour to him, the ego stuff was part of his whole act. Survivor is more ruthless than Big Brother. Ian deserved to win way more than someone like Natalie ever did And of course Sandra is famously crap at competitions. Russell did the hard work and went out and found those idols for himself to help his own destiny as well as building alliances that would take him to the end.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by starry

I don't like the comparison to Russell Hantz. Russell won both final competitions in his main two seasons. He was a threat in the physical game as well as the mental. There was plenty of humour to him, the ego stuff was part of his whole act. Survivor is more ruthless than Big Brother. Ian deserved to win way more than someone like Natalie ever did And of course Sandra is famously crap at competitions. Russell did the hard work and went out and found those idols for himself to help his own destiny as well as building alliances that would take him to the end.

It's a social game. Bitter juries are completely fair.
Russell was never a threat. He was never going to win.
There's nothing humorous about being "such a fan" but saying the game is wrong and need to change.
Natalie was a very deserving winner. So was Sandra.
And as deserving as someone can be in this **** season, Ian was more than Dan.

These are all facts.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

It's a social game. Bitter juries are completely fair.
Russell was never a threat. He was never going to win.
There's nothing humorous about being "such a fan" but saying the game is wrong and need to change.
Natalie was a very deserving winner. So was Sandra.
And as deserving as someone can be in this **** season, Ian was more than Dan.

These are all facts.

You would have agreed with Joe winning over Dan? Because that's what would have happened.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by SoBig

You would have agreed with Joe winning over Dan? Because that's what would have happened.

Yup. Dan was playing a classic runner up game. I know most people here get blinded by "big" moves but a lot of the time, less is more.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

Yup. Dan was playing a classic runner up game. I know most people here get blinded by "big" moves but a lot of the time, less is more.

So you think not voting for someone to win because they won before is right?

[Donovan.]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

Yup. Dan was playing a classic runner up game. I know most people here get blinded by "big" moves but a lot of the time, less is more.

He overplayed when he got Danielle to use the veto on him so that he could evict Shane. It was just unnecessary. Sure Shane wouldn't take him, but you're pissing off an already bitter jury. Having Shane cut Ian at the f4 and cutting Shane before the f2 was his only hope. Even then the "no-2-time winner" brigade would have stopped him.

[LemonJam]

If you're trying to say Russell was a great player then lolnope but dear God let's not make it into another of those threads because there's already about 54854398 of them floating around.

I think the comparison's very obvious - both made flashy and sometimes unnecessary moves to get to the end without considering how the jury would feel about them afterwards.

[starry]

Again, Survivor is way more brutal. And I think Russell made necessary moves in that context and established some strong alliances.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by starry

Again, Survivor is way more brutal. And I think Russell made necessary moves in that context and established some strong alliances.

There's nothing necessary about making alliances and then backstabbing them in the same around (which is all Russell does)

[Roy Mars III]

Dr. Will would have made the same moves as Dan and won

[LemonJam]

I think Dr Will would've found someone to do the dirty work for him. (Nicole/Janelle)

[Roy Mars III]

Yea

[Marc]

Poor Russell..

[SoBig]

Dan was going to lose no matter how he played. Since the reset button was hit the house guest were saying that they would NEVER vote for a coach to win especially one that won before. Shane, Jenn and Joe said that constantly. I knew Dan was screwed from then if he didn't sit next to someone like Boogie if he wanted to win again. In the backyard interviews Jenn and Joe basically said that Dan played the best, but he won before and they wanted someone new to win.