[starry]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

but the storyline is written by the cast.

I never knew the cast did the editing.

And seeing people suck up to other competitors before they leave can be kind of pathetic. I liked the winner of Cook Islands but seeing him having to suck up to some arrogant idiot (called Adam I think) before he left because this tosser said he wouldn't get his vote unless he did what he said was one of the worst moments of that season. Some of those on the jury on these US shows are just the stereotypical stupid arrogants.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Yeah but I mean that has to be done in, well, any social game. Nobody's ever going to give half a million or a million dollars to someone they hate. At the end of it all, your fate isn't in your own hands so you have to try to appeal to the jurors since they control everything. Like it or not, that's how it works in pretty much any show. That's just life.

[starry]

The social game is primarily building an alliance to get you to the end, not depending on the losers (often pretty incompetant people within the game) judging who should win. Juries decide who wins Survivor and the American BB, but they don't most other reality shows. And as you say people often judge just based on who they think needs the money, American shows are often obsessed with the money aspect. I really wish that was less and it was more about simply winning for the gameplay and the title.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by starry

The social game is primarily building an alliance to get you to the end, not depending on the losers (often pretty incompetant people within the game) judging who should win. Juries decide who wins Survivor and the American BB, but they don't most other reality shows. And as you say people often judge just based on who they think needs the money, American shows are often obsessed with the money aspect. I really wish that was less and it was more about simply winning for the gameplay and the title.

Building an alliance and getting to the end is strategy, not social. And just because other shows don't have a jury decide the winner doesn't mean that Survivor and BB are wrong, they're just a different breed. A brilliant one at that. That's what makes everything with the Jury so fascinating, there's a bit of a "you screwed me, now I screw you" element that's the ultimate revenge. If you can't factor that into your gameplan and you're not weary of that, then you deserve to lose. I never said that who needs the money more plays a role, and it really doesn't. It's just an excuse for voting who you like more, which is how the Jury works every single time. Whoever the Jury likes better among the two finalists wins.

[starry]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

Building an alliance and getting to the end is strategy, not social.

I disagree. To build an alliance you have to get on with people, they have to trust you. That is part of the social game.

And something like Survivor is such a brutal game that sucking up to people really doesn't fit in with the gameplay at all. The truth is that jury members will never be objective enough anyway, and to have the worst gamplayers judging the best is rather stupid.

[DrunkerThanMoses]

Dan lost because he back stabbed most of the jury after promising them he would take them to the end/near the end. He made too many alliance, at least with Ian he stuck to his alliance and did not back stab them and said multiple times he would rather be evicted then to back stab his alliance.

Ian was a great winner, fan of the show, won competitions and was a loyal and honest person to the people he was allied with (minus Frank of course)

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by DrunkerThanMoses

Dan lost because he back stabbed most of the jury after promising them he would take them to the end/near the end. He made too many alliance, at least with Ian he stuck to his alliance and did not back stab them and said multiple times he would rather be evicted then to back stab his alliance.

Ian was a great winner, fan of the show, won competitions and was a loyal and honest person to the people he was allied with (minus Frank of course)

Dan didn't make too many alliances. If he played any other way he would have been out the door week 8 or soon after that. Majority of the house was against Dan, because of he was.

Dan wasn't going to win regardless. There was only one vet in the jury. 6 vs 1 and majority of the jury was anti-coach. They didn't want a coach to win no matter how well they played. Joe, Shane, Ashley and Jenn said that numerous times. If Boogie and Janelle were in the jury no doubt in my mind Dan would have won.

Dan controlled the entire house. Ian had no clue what was going on 90% of the time.

This is a great recap.
http://tvrecaps.ew.com/recap/big-bro...recap-ian-dan/

[SoBig]

Ian did not even control his HOH's. Dan and Britney controlled the first one and Dan controlled the others.

[Munchkins]

Dan really shouldn't have let Janelle go out before jury

[SoBig]

Another great read.

http://robhasawebsite.com/ian-terry-...rother-14.html

Even Joe said he regretted voting for Ian after watching the season a few days ago.

Dan was clearly the best player in the BB house. When you have past players congratulating Ian(Janelle, Rachel, Danielle Reyes etc.), but still saying that Dan played a much better game. You know who should have won.

[SoBig]

Getting rid of Shane was a great move on Dan's part. Danielle said she probably would have taken Shane and that she was going to throw part 1 or part 2 of the final hoh, so that she wouldn't have had to evict either Dan or Shane. Dan read it perfectly. Neither Danielle or Shane were planning to take him to the final 2.

Dan got both Danielle and Ian to throw the first part of the HOH to him. That alone should have gotten him the win.

[Roy Mars III]

Originally Posted by Munchkins

Dan really shouldn't have let Janelle go out before jury

one of his best moves, she is terrible

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by starry

I disagree. To build an alliance you have to get on with people, they have to trust you. That is part of the social game.

And something like Survivor is such a brutal game that sucking up to people really doesn't fit in with the gameplay at all. The truth is that jury members will never be objective enough anyway, and to have the worst gamplayers judging the best is rather stupid.

The only fundamental difference between Survivor and BB is the environment. The social standards will apply in both games and sucking up to the Jury happens in Survivor a lot. You have to do it to get a Jury to vote for you. You said it yourself, jurors will never be objective because as people you can't be objective. Everyone has a favorite and a least favorite and of course when half or one million dollars is involved, it will play a factor. It's not stupid to have the jurors decide the winner (I'm not going to refer to them as the worst players because you have to beat some people out to make the jury) because that's a fundamental part of Survivor and BB. It's how the game has been played for more than a decade and just because someone who played one half of the game really well and the other half really poorly didn't end up winning, doesn't mean that the game is broken. It's just Russell Hantz all over again and that was exhausting enough both times.

[DrunkerThanMoses]

Originally Posted by SoBig

Dan didn't make too many alliances. If he played any other way he would have been out the door week 8 or soon after that. Majority of the house was against Dan, because of he was.

Dan wasn't going to win regardless. There was only one vet in the jury. 6 vs 1 and majority of the jury was anti-coach. They didn't want a coach to win no matter how well they played. Joe, Shane, Ashley and Jenn said that numerous times. If Boogie and Janelle were in the jury no doubt in my mind Dan would have won.

Dan controlled the entire house. Ian had no clue what was going on 90% of the time.

This is a great recap.
http://tvrecaps.ew.com/recap/big-bro...recap-ian-dan/

Dan made a final 2 with Dani, Ian and Frank
a final 3 with Jenn and Dani
and a final 3 with Dani and Shane

he also was in a alliance with Britney

Way too many alliances with 5 of the people he had alliances with being in the jury

Yes he played a good game to get the end, but he burnt too many bridges and screwed too many people over in the jury.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by DrunkerThanMoses

Dan made a final 2 with Dani, Ian and Frank
a final 3 with Jenn and Dani
and a final 3 with Dani and Shane

he also was in a alliance with Britney

Way too many alliances with 5 of the people he had alliances with being in the jury

Yes he played a good game to get the end, but he burnt too many bridges and screwed too many people over in the jury.

He wouldn't have made it to the final 2 if he played any other way. He would have been evicted in week 8. He had to change his entire game plan after Frank nominated him.

Frank had a final 2 deal with everyone in the house and he got caught. Same with Britney. Dan made sure that everyone he had a deal with stayed quiet. Ian had multiple final 2 deals himself. Dan deserves a lot of credit. No one would have predicted that he would have made it to the final 2 especially after Frank won HOH in week 8.

Frank does not get Jenn to use the veto on Dan if he didn't have a final 2 with him.

Jenn does not use the veto on Dan if he didn't have a final 3 with her.

And so on and so on.

Dan had complete control over the BB house. When was the last time a player had that much control? You have to go all the way back to Will in BB7, but he got caught towards the end. Dan never got caught.

[starry]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

The only fundamental difference between Survivor and BB is the environment. The social standards will apply in both games and sucking up to the Jury happens in Survivor a lot. You have to do it to get a Jury to vote for you. You said it yourself, jurors will never be objective because as people you can't be objective. Everyone has a favorite and a least favorite and of course when half or one million dollars is involved, it will play a factor. It's not stupid to have the jurors decide the winner (I'm not going to refer to them as the worst players because you have to beat some people out to make the jury) because that's a fundamental part of Survivor and BB. It's how the game has been played for more than a decade and just because someone who played one half of the game really well and the other half really poorly didn't end up winning, doesn't mean that the game is broken. It's just Russell Hantz all over again and that was exhausting enough both times.

For the audience there are absolutely huge differences, for the reasons I gave. And it is a program made for the audience, you can't ignore them. If you don't have an audience you don't have a show. And Big Brother is decided elsewhere by other means anyway. And those in the final are by definition better than those who got eliminated earlier. People basically watch Survivor for the cut-throat gameplay, that is what the shows are all about.

[DrunkerThanMoses]

Originally Posted by SoBig

He wouldn't have made it to the final 2 if he played any other way. He would have been evicted in week 8. He had to change his entire game plan after Frank nominated him.

Frank had a final 2 deal with everyone in the house and he got caught. Same with Britney. Dan made sure that everyone he had a deal with stayed quiet. Ian had multiple final 2 deals himself. Dan deserves a lot of credit. No one would have predicted that he would have made it to the final 2 especially after Frank won HOH in week 8.

Frank does not get Jenn to use the veto on Dan if he didn't have a final 2 with him.

Jenn does not use the veto on Dan if he didn't have a final 3 with her.

And so on and so on.

Dan had complete control over the BB house. When was the last time a player had that much control? You have to go all the way back to Will in BB7, but he got caught towards the end. Dan never got caught.

But a major part of the game is to get jury votes and Dan failed to get them because he double crossed people. Regardless if you played a good game you have to take into account the Jury, in this case Dan failed, yes he had to change his game to get to the end but by doing so he screwed over the jury. He basically played Russell H from Survivors game and we all know how that turned out.

Again Ian never double crossed the jury bar maybe Frank and Jenn and that is why the jury handed him the win.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by DrunkerThanMoses

But a major part of the game is to get jury votes and Dan failed to get them because he double crossed people. Regardless if you played a good game you have to take into account the Jury, in this case Dan failed, yes he had to change his game to get to the end but by doing so he screwed over the jury. He basically played Russell H from Survivors game and we all know how that turned out.

Again Ian never double crossed the jury bar maybe Frank and Jenn and that is why the jury handed him the win.

Ashley and Joe.

Drew, Mike Boogie, Dan(bb10) and Evel Dick all double crossed people and they still won. BB juries are usually good at rewarding the best player with the win.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by starry

For the audience there are absolutely huge differences, for the reasons I gave. And it is a program made for the audience, you can't ignore them. If you don't have an audience you don't have a show. And Big Brother is decided elsewhere by other means anyway. And those in the final are by definition better than those who got eliminated earlier. People basically watch Survivor for the cut-throat gameplay, that is what the shows are all about.

There aren't big differences and you didn't list any big differences. You just keep saying "well Survivor's more cutthroat" but they're the same. Big Brother is just Survivor in a house. At the end of the day you have to remember that these shows started off as social experiments. The whole premise of Survivor was "k let's put these 16 strangers on an island and have them vote each other off and let's see what happens" and same with Big Brother, just in a house. Of course with how American TV is, these shows have evolved into being all about the game, but the same rules still apply. People still act the same. The more likable finalist being the winner isn't something new, it's happened season after season, year after year, for more than a decade. The game isn't broken because someone was "robbed" when they lost fair and square.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by SoBig

Ashley and Joe.

Drew, Mike Boogie, Dan(bb10) and Evel Dick all double crossed people and they still won. BB juries are usually good at rewarding the best player with the win.

Drew was more liked/respected than Cowboy, Boogie was more liked/respected than Erika, Dick was more liked/respected/favored by Grodner than Daniele. Same holds true, Ian was more liked/respected than Dan. Happens every time.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by troynuncdicit

Drew was more liked/respected than Cowboy, Boogie was more liked/respected than Erika, Dick was more liked/respected/favored by Grodner than Daniele. Same holds true, Ian was more liked/respected than Dan. Happens every time.

Porsche was more liked than Rachel.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Except for the fact that the Jury consisted of three self-loving veterans (not counting Daniele in this group obviously) and two newbies who sucked up to the veterans nonstop.