[Z]

It's commonplace for the housemates to quickly split into groups; last year's Big Brother was so bad that it ended up in a clique getting its members to the final. Do you think Big Brother should make more of an effort to interfere with nominations in a way that prevents one group from dominating the nominations? Quite often the public really want a housemate to be evicted, but the housemates are (obviously) unaware of this and these housemates can get all the way to the latter stages of the show without ever being up for eviction.

[ILoveTRW]

It depends if the group i like are controlling the house :P

lip gloss bitches 4 Eva

[Jack_]

I've always thought that it would be a good idea every series for one week Big Brother to put all housemates up for a double eviction, then that way the public could get rid of the housemates they don't like.

[30stone]

Yes last years was stupid.

Darnell
Kat
Mo
Rex

at a push rachel all voted the same people.

Darnell made Kat cry 3 times in 2 days and the same day he made her cry she still didnt vote him..

Pathetic.

[Z]

Originally posted by 30stone
Yes last years was stupid.

Darnell
Kat
Mo
Rex

at a push rachel all voted the same people.

Darnell made Kat cry 3 times in 2 days and the same day he made her cry she still didnt vote him..

Pathetic.

Exactly; they were all clearly aware that none of them were nominating each other after several weeks, and so kept voting for the same people. It was getting silly when Dale, Stuart, Sara and Lisa were up for eviction and the likes of Mo, Kat and Darnell were getting away relatively unscathed. Thing is with all of the housemates up for a double eviction; Jack_; the public vote is way more spread out. I like the idea though. One way I think they could counter it would be to take two housemates from different groups, give them two votes each and whoever they nominate would be up for eviction for a double. That way either one of the groups loses two people; or they lose one each; and then the following week, if one group had lost two people, they could give someone in that group the only nominations etc. I just hated last year towards the end, knowing that even though Nicole was definitely going to be out when against Lisa and Sara; one of them would be gone the following week.

[ILoveTRW]

Originally posted by 30stone
Yes last years was stupid.

Darnell
Kat
Mo
Rex

at a push rachel all voted the same people.

Darnell made Kat cry 3 times in 2 days and the same day he made her cry she still didnt vote him..

Pathetic.

the only good thing about that group is that they pushed there way into the final and it was so satisfying seeing them cry as they left first realising that everyone hated them

[Jack_]

Originally posted by Zee

Exactly; they were all clearly aware that none of them were nominating each other after several weeks, and so kept voting for the same people. It was getting silly when Dale, Stuart, Sara and Lisa were up for eviction and the likes of Mo, Kat and Darnell were getting away relatively unscathed. Thing is with all of the housemates up for a double eviction; Jack_; the public vote is way more spread out. I like the idea though. One way I think they could counter it would be to take two housemates from different groups, give them two votes each and whoever they nominate would be up for eviction for a double. That way either one of the groups loses two people; or they lose one each; and then the following week, if one group had lost two people, they could give someone in that group the only nominations etc. I just hated last year towards the end, knowing that even though Nicole was definitely going to be out when against Lisa and Sara; one of them would be gone the following week.

I think I get what you mean, but really, Big Brother would be interfering with the housemates bonds then if you get what I mean. It's difficult, and unfortunately I don't think it'll ever be solved, I just hope that the likes of Rachel will never ever win again, she was so incredibly boring.

Would a vote to save on a week where everyone is up make any difference do you think?

[halions]

Originally posted by ILoveMoney
It depends if the group i like are controlling the house :P

lip gloss bitches 4 Eva

what I would give to see a group live up to the standards of the LGB without coming across as wannabe's... THAT would make it for me!

[Captain.Remy]

Strategically wise, the B-Block are the smartest ones but not entertaining wise. The whole 'Lip Gloss bitches and the Jungle cats' divide was amazing to watch. The 'Black against White' divide in BB6 was pretty intense...too bad they couldn't get along very well.

[ILoveTRW]

Originally posted by Captain.Remy
The 'Black against White' divide in BB6 was pretty intense...too bad they couldn't get along very well.

I don't think it was at all, it only lasted a week.

[Patrick]

Originally posted by Zee

Exactly; they were all clearly aware that none of them were nominating each other after several weeks, and so kept voting for the same people. It was getting silly when Dale, Stuart, Sara and Lisa were up for eviction and the likes of Mo, Kat and Darnell were getting away relatively unscathed. Thing is with all of the housemates up for a double eviction; Jack_; the public vote is way more spread out. I like the idea though. One way I think they could counter it would be to take two housemates from different groups, give them two votes each and whoever they nominate would be up for eviction for a double. That way either one of the groups loses two people; or they lose one each; and then the following week, if one group had lost two people, they could give someone in that group the only nominations etc. I just hated last year towards the end, knowing that even though Nicole was definitely going to be out when against Lisa and Sara; one of them would be gone the following week.

Yes but at least we had Darnell and Rex in the final they deserved it unlike the rest