[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Braden

I'm sure follower-mentality is easily assessed. It's quite simple from a viewer's perspective to notice who has follower-mentality and who doesn't. I'd say all of Paul's allies fulfil the criteria of follower-mentality (Josh is slowly coming out of his shell and making his own game for himself). I mean, he told Raven to bark (for example) to which she did, but that says more about Raven than it does about Paul.

Well, you've jumped the gun there because I definitely give Paul credit for being the best candidate to win, but in the realms of the game, especially in comparison to when this show displayed far better gameplay and quality of cast—his social game ain't ****. Fair enough if you want to classify that as a good social game, but I think the testament lies with the people he's playing with as oppose to Paul himself. Similar to Derrick, I won't take away that he deserves to win, but I just don't think they deserve credit or to be heralded as such.

Just my opinion, didn't mean to spark anything.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that they've not all followed his orders for most of the summer, I'm just questioning the idea that something like that could be foreseen and be even deliberately (if you were alluding to that) casted. I don't think it would be a perceivable quality in the casting process? I'd imagine most people say they'd love to win and will do anything it takes and stab anyone in the back etc, if they literally said 'nah I'll throw my game away for my showmance partner' I'd be surprised if they made it on. Are this cast the smartest they've ever assembled? Of course not, but I do think there's an argument to be made that their perceived stupidity is thanks to Paul. He has managed to convince over half of the house that he has their back and doesn't need to be targeted, naive as they may be I think there's something to be said for that.

Well that's fair enough, I just feel like a large majority of the fandom let their hate for certain houseguests cloud their objective judgement. I still don't agree that his social game outside the context of this season is bad though, because you only have to rewind a year to find a season where he was nominated five times and faced eviction on three of those occasions, and still made it to the final two. He would have won had his jury management been better (which is where I think his game still lacks finesse), or even simpler than that - taken James to final two instead! And I don't think anyone could say that last season's cast were dumb or not there to play. So if in back-to-back seasons (one with four vets in, and one with him as the only vet), he's made it to (at least) the endgame, I really don't think it's fair to say his social game sucks...the stats speak for themselves.