[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

This whole thread is an embarrassment and quite frankly I'm perplexed by this witch-hunt of Danny of all people. Like, he's one of the most vanilla and bland housemates to ever enter the house...how can he stir up this much hatred in people?

I get the points people are making but still...it's Danny. He's just...there. Even though I've grown to like him now he still just...exists there's not really much to him. Of all the housemates that could provoke someone to create a website dedicated to tearing them apart it's one of the most middle of the road characters on a series that barely anyone is watching. I don't know whether it's more hilarious, disturbing or embarrassing. Or all three.

Have you read the tweets he wrote?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by vafunghoul

I disagree with you.
I find it insulting to one's intelligence to actually BUY into the BS that Danny is trying to sell by the character he's trying to portray until his real self surfaces when he's put in his place in an argument. That clown is a fraud in my opinion.

I don't think anyone's buying into it per se, especially not over the last few days, but what is actually the problem with people being fake and putting on a persona on a game show? Like, what's the issue? The main issue is whether or not that person is interesting, entertaining and provides us with stuff to talk about as viewers. Whether or not it's genuine is pretty irrelevant to be honest.

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

Have you read the tweets he wrote?

Yes, but what housemates tweet, say and do either in their private life or professional life is of no relevance as to what they do inside the Big Brother house, which is the platform on which we as viewers are supposed to judge them on. What Danny or Marc or Nick has tweeted before the show, outside of the show, is completely irrelevant. Just as whether Harry or Helen was or is a prostitute is irrelevant, just as whether or not Chloe shat in someone's shoe is irrelevant, the list goes on. We're supposed to judge them on their time in the house on a blank slate, digging up dirt on housemates personal lives outside of the television show that they're appearing on is obsessive, unnecessary, irrelevant and really quite petty.

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I don't think anyone's buying into it per se, especially not over the last few days, but what is actually the problem with people being fake and putting on a persona on a game show? Like, what's the issue? The main issue is whether or not that person is interesting, entertaining and provides us with stuff to talk about as viewers. Whether or not it's genuine is pretty irrelevant to be honest.



Yes, but what housemates tweet, say and do either in their private life or professional life is of no relevance as to what they do inside the Big Brother house, which is the platform on which we as viewers are supposed to judge them on. What Danny or Marc or Nick has tweeted before the show, outside of the show, is completely irrelevant. Just as whether Harry or Helen was or is a prostitute is irrelevant, just as whether or not Chloe shat in someone's shoe is irrelevant, the list goes on. We're supposed to judge them on their time in the house on a blank slate, digging up dirt on housemates personal lives outside of the television show that they're appearing on is obsessive, unnecessary, irrelevant and really quite petty.

What if their tweets totally contradict the persona they take on in the big brother house?

What if danny acts like a white knight in the house, protecting the women and saying he won't allow bullying, but tweets that he hopes chloe goodman is bullied in the street and fat women in clubs should stick to their own kind and not try it on with him?

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by ThriceShy

What if their tweets totally contradict the persona they take on in the big brother house?

What if danny acts like a white knight in the house, protecting the women and saying he won't allow bullying, but tweets that he hopes chloe goodman is bullied in the street and fat women in clubs should stick to their own kind and not try it on with him?

I answered that in the other quoted post I replied to. It's a gameshow, housemates are perfectly entitled to fake a persona if they so wish and I don't see what the problem is with it. The real issue of debate here is whether the personas housemates create are interesting, entertaining and/or contribute anything to the show. If they don't, then they're pointless, but if they do...then there's nothing wrong with it.

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I answered that in the other quoted post I replied to. It's a gameshow, housemates are perfectly entitled to fake a persona if they so wish and I don't see what the problem is with it. The real issue of debate here is whether the personas housemates create are interesting, entertaining and/or contribute anything to the show. If they don't, then they're pointless, but if they do...then there's nothing wrong with it.

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 Ł100,000?

If twitter had existed during BB4, and we found tweets where cameron said he loved satan and visited prossies, would that have been irrelevant?

[Jack_]

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 Ł100,000?

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 Ł100,000 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?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

On one final separate note, what on earth is the problem with visiting prostitutes?

I believe he used that example as IIRC Cameron was some sort of bible preaching priest.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by Jack_

The Ł100,000 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.

eh I don't think it's this clear cut and the circumstances for deciding who wins are dependent on what happens throughout each series. Like, say what you want about Sam Evans (I know I have) but I was thrilled when he beat Dexter, who served the same function as series-ruiners Ziggy, Darnell, Siavash, John James, and Aaron. Rachel Rice is my favorite winner ever because it's the most satisfying narrative: a bunch of freaks treated her like a monster because she was normal and kinda and likable and didn't have a raging personality disorder, she could not possibly give a ****, and then she overcomes all her haters and wins. On a season like BB12, where I ****ing hate the narrative of the series and almost everyone involved, I was rooting hardcore for Alex and Tom because they were the ones least connected to it. Some years I simply root for my favorite like Deana and Gina. This year has been a complete trainwreck so I think Sam would be a very fitting winner. The circumstances of each series change my thought process for it all.

[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 Ł100,000 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.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by Jack_

housemates are perfectly entitled to fake a persona if they so wish and I don't see what the problem is with it.

Personallyme, it's like, if I'm going to spend 60 hours (at least!) watching you and it turns out that everything I thought was true about you isn't, thanks for wasting my time?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Macie Lightfoot

Personallyme, it's like, if I'm going to spend 60 hours (at least!) watching you and it turns out that everything I thought was true about you isn't, thanks for wasting my time?

But it's not wasted time, if they've entertained you then you've spent that time watching BB regardless.

If they faded into the background then the edits didn't focus on them and didn't waste your time anyway.

When you put BB into the number of viewing hours it's ALL a waste of time.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

But it's not wasted time, if they've entertained you then you've spent that time watching BB regardless.

If they faded into the background then the edits didn't focus on them and didn't waste your time anyway.

When you put BB into the number of viewing hours it's ALL a waste of time.

Indeed. Who cares whether it's fake or not? If you enjoy watching them in the minuscule bubble that is a Big Brother series compared to your/their entire life, then so be it. Whether they faked it all on a gameshow or not is pretty irrelevant. Either they brought a lot to the show or they didn't, that's more important than whether it was genuine or not. I couldn't care less how they act outside of the show, the cameras aren't there before or after so it isn't relevant in the slightest.

[ThriceShy]

Originally Posted by Macie Lightfoot

Personallyme, it's like, if I'm going to spend 60 hours (at least!) watching you and it turns out that everything I thought was true about you isn't, thanks for wasting my time?

This has pretty much happened when Rachel Rice won.

She managed to keep her persona going for the entire series.