[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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?

If the underlined bit is true then why does rylan put the nominees friends and family in a boxing ring each week and get them to persuade us to not evict them? Hmm?

Why are we shown VTs in which they tell us about their lives and jobs?

By the way, the prostitute thing refers to the fact that cameron claimed to be a virgin.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

If the underlined bit is true then why does rylan put the nominees friends and family in a boxing ring each week and get them to persuade us to not evict them? Hmm?

.....by talking about how much more the housemates have to offer THE HOUSE and any aspects of the housemates we have yet to see on screen.

But it's all about the house.

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

.....by talking about how much more the housemates have to offer THE HOUSE and any aspects of the housemates we have yet to see on screen.

But it's all about the house.

Their friends aren't in the house. Why involve them at all?

BOTS often ask the friends and family what they are like outside of the house and if they are being themselves. Why show us this if it is irrelevant?

In previous series, the sister show cameras used to go to the contestants houses and go in detail about their lives.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

Their friends aren't in the house. Why involve them at all?

Because they're watching and following it like the rest of us and are putting their views across, which is pretty much what BOTS is for, the opinions of different people from random audience members, family members to the "panellists".

We're not in the house either, yet here we are on a forum dedicated to the show and discussing it.

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Because they're watching and following it like the rest of us and are putting their views across, which is pretty much what BOTS is for, the opinions of different people from random audience members, family members to the "panellists".

We're not in the house either, yet here we are on a forum dedicated to the show and discussing it.

You missed a bit:

BOTS often ask the friends and family what they are like outside of the house and if they are being themselves. Why show us this if it is irrelevant?

In previous series, the sister show cameras used to go to the contestants houses and go in detail about their lives.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

You missed a bit:

Jack did a pretty good job of addressing that section. I won't waste time repeating the same answer.

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Jack did a pretty good job of addressing that section. I won't waste time repeating the same answer.

I don't think he addressed it at all.

The issue of whether a housemate is being their real self is absolutely fundamental and is largely what they are judged on. Friends and family and panelists are asked to judge this.

BB sets all kinds of challenges and tasks, such as the cashbomb stuff, to try and draw housemates' real personalities out.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

If the underlined bit is true then why does rylan put the nominees friends and family in a boxing ring each week and get them to persuade us to not evict them? Hmm?

Why are we shown VTs in which they tell us about their lives and jobs?

By the way, the prostitute thing refers to the fact that cameron claimed to be a virgin.

Because they are there to support them and try and justify why they should be kept in based on what they have done in the show and can contribute to the show in the future. The inclusion of friends and families in that point was mainly regarding the people who like to also pass judgement on them as if it's at all necessary.

So that we can get a bit of background info on them before they enter the house? It's pretty self explanatory it's either that or just let them walk in which I wouldn't be opposed to either, in fact maybe it'd stop the endless discussion and insults about what they do and don't do.

Fair enough. But still, irrelevant to what he contributed (or didn't contribute) to the series itself.

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Because they are there to support them and try and justify why they should be kept in based on what they have done in the show and can contribute to the show in the future. The inclusion of friends and families in that point was mainly regarding the people who like to also pass judgement on them as if it's at all necessary.

So that we can get a bit of background info on them before they enter the house? It's pretty self explanatory it's either that or just let them walk in which I wouldn't be opposed to either, in fact maybe it'd stop the endless discussion and insults about what they do and don't do.

Fair enough. But still, irrelevant to what he contributed (or didn't contribute) to the series itself.

It is totally relevant. Cameron won on the strength of being a gentle, moral, religious virgin. If he was really a satanist and prossie lover then he wouldn't have won.

Why weren't you complaining when all of Marc's tweets were being exposed?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

It is totally relevant. Cameron won on the strength of being a gentle, moral, religious virgin. If he was really a satanist and prossie lover then he wouldn't have won.

Why weren't you complaining when all of Marc's tweets were being exposed?

Yes he would, because from what I gather he didn't choose to show this ~satanist prossie lover~ side inside the house, so again, it is totally irrelevant. Had he shown it, yes, you're right, he probably wouldn't have won. But he didn't, so he did...based on what he did inside the house. That again brings us to our point of housemates being perfectly entitled to fake a persona on the show, it is a gameshow and all that matters is whether or not that persona is interesting to watch and/or contributes anything to the show.

And before you start trying to paint me as a Danny lover and a Marc hater as you have done with everyone else, please check my profile favourites list.

I made a post the other night condemning all of these endless Twitter exposing threads for all of the reasons I have listed in this thread. It's rather disturbing.

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Yes he would, because from what I gather he didn't choose to show this ~satanist prossie lover~ side inside the house, so again, it is totally irrelevant. Had he shown it, yes, you're right, he probably wouldn't have won. But he didn't, so he did...based on what he did inside the house. That again brings us to our point of housemates being perfectly entitled to fake a persona on the show, it is a gameshow and all that matters is whether or not that persona is interesting to watch and/or contributes anything to the show.

And before you start trying to paint me as a Danny lover and a Marc hater as you have done with everyone else, please check my profile favourites list.

I made a post the other night condemning all of these endless Twitter exposing threads for all of the reasons I have listed in this thread. It's rather disturbing.

But if a newspaper had exposed cameron as that then he would not have won, regardless of what he did in the house.

People take all information in when they make such a choice. They can't help it. That is how human beings behave.

If a newspaper reported on the day of the final that Danny, for example, was a wife beater then he wouldn't win, providing enough people read the paper.

Robots might be able to vote according to these strict rules that you have plucked from thin air, but human beings vote based on an overall assessment of the person.