[DrunkerThanMoses]

I would say 3, 4 and 8 were pretty bitter

3 - Daniele of course played a better game then Lisa but the D/E of her bitching about the other housemates screwed her chances of winning

4 and 8 were also bad because the jury basically hated the two finalists and probably did not want either person to win

[LemonJam]

Technically I think it could be argued that the Big Brother 2 jury was bitter - a lot of them didn't vote for Nicole because although they hated Will, the fact she didn't live up to her word on numerous occasions pissed them off so much they voted for Will instead.

But really, it has to be BB3. It's not that Lisa played badly whatsoever because her game was pretty solid too, but Danielle deserved it.

[swinearefine]

Every winner deserved to win. I loved Danielle and she played a decent game, but she knew that all of her Diary Room entries would be seen by the jury but decided to be a "ghetto fabulous" bitch instead. I'm very happy she did because she was hilarious, but she has no one to blame but herself for losing.

That being said, the BB3 jury was very bitter, but the rules don't say that they can't be. Danielle made them bitter so they voted against her almost unanimously. The BB4 jury was also extremely bitter, which made the finale hilarious and Jun's win that much more amazing.

[rk3388]

BB3 jury was bitter, BB4 was, BB8 was, BB9 was bitter, Im pretty sure BB10 was bitter but more towards other jury memebers, BB11 was bitter towards natalie

[Liberty4eva]

BB3 is widely considered to be the most bitter jury. The fact that the next season introduced a jury house was the producers way of admitting that BB3 had a bitter jury.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned BB11. They were so pissed at Natalie for playing them that they were grimacing when she was answering their questions. The jury ended up giving Jordan the crown because she was the nicest and needed the money. It's worth it to search for Russel's backyard rant at Jordan winning.

BB8 really was a toss-up. Danielle won more stuff but Dick had a better social game. America's vote in the form of Eric was probably the thing that swung it for Dick. He wasn't bitter just following orders.

The others I don't know. I didn't watch BB9 but I would venture to say that may have been a bitter jury.

[SoBig]

BB3 hands down. Danielle is arguably the greatest BB player ever and was robbed.

BB11 like Liberty said. Natalie was a better player than Jordan and should have won.

BB8. Everyone hated the two finalist.

[rk3388]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned BB11.

I did ;(

[swinearefine]

Originally Posted by SoBig

BB3 hands down. Danielle is arguably the greatest BB player ever and was robbed.

If she was so great, why didn't she win? She knew her Diary Room entries would be seen by the voters.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by swinearefine

If she was so great, why didn't she win? She knew her Diary Room entries would be seen by the voters.

Are you really going to argue that Danielle wasn't a great great player? She lost because there wasn't a jury house back then. Just that simple. No one knew the extent of how she was playing them. No one. Even after they were voted out, they still had no clue. After she played Marcellas a lot of people turned on her even more so. They all were like how can a wife and mother be so nice in the house, but be so ruthless when it came to the game? Truth is half of the people that won BB wouldn't have won if there weren't a jury house.

Everyone knows Danielle should have won that season.

[DrunkerThanMoses]

Just a quick input here, if her and Jason's plan had worked and they made the final 2, she would have still lost, but would you have been angry if Jason won over her. Both played good games.

[swinearefine]

Originally Posted by SoBig

Are you really going to argue that Danielle wasn't a great great player? She lost because there wasn't a jury house back then. Just that simple. No one knew the extent of how she was playing them. No one. Even after they were voted out, they still had no clue. After she played Marcellas a lot of people turned on her even more so. They all were like how can a wife and mother be so nice in the house, but be so ruthless when it came to the game? Truth is half of the people that won BB wouldn't have won if there weren't a jury house.

Everyone knows Danielle should have won that season.

Danielle was good, but she had some major flaws in her game, which is why she didn't win. The winner isn't who you personally want to win; it's who the jury wants to win, and Danielle alienated the jury with her Diary Room entries. It was a horrible mistake to not sequester the jury, but Danielle knew that they would see every one of her Diary Room entries, and she could be quite bitchy and mean in them. And she never would have beaten Jason in the final two, so I don't know what she was thinking there.

Good player? Yes. Legendary houseguest? Yes. Deserved to win? I think the jury has already answered that.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by DrunkerThanMoses

Just a quick input here, if her and Jason's plan had worked and they made the final 2, she would have still lost, but would you have been angry if Jason won over her. Both played good games.

Danielle would have beaten him if there was a jury house.

It didn't matter who she would have been up against in the final 2 she still would have lost. The jury was that bitter. Jason was hardly a great player. He just had Danielle guiding him. Danielle was also a great player in BB7. She lasted until the final week. Will was just a bit better and he had his best friend in the house playing with him. That's a huge advantage that Danielle didn't have. Take away Mike Boogie and Will doesn't have as much power.

[Marc]

BB3 yeah, Dani should have won

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by swinearefine

Danielle was good, but she had some major flaws in her game, which is why she didn't win. The winner isn't who you personally want to win; it's who the jury wants to win, and Danielle alienated the jury with her Diary Room entries. It was a horrible mistake to not sequester the jury, but Danielle knew that they would see every one of her Diary Room entries, and she could be quite bitchy and mean in them. And she never would have beaten Jason in the final two, so I don't know what she was thinking there.

Good player? Yes. Legendary houseguest? Yes. Deserved to win? I think the jury has already answered that.

Personally want to win? I want the person that played the best game to win every single time. The jury has gotten it right more times than not. Her Diary Room entries aren't the only thing that stopped her from winning. The fact that she LIED to all of them and they were able to re-watch it. She was very cut throat when it came to the game. Plus the other girl had the underdog story going for her. Everyone loves an underdog story. If the jury was sequestered. Danielle wins handily. They all loved her inside the house. Its CBS's fault for not coming up with a jury house sooner.

Dan, Dick, Mike Boogie, Adam and maybe Drew and Hayden don't win if there wasn't a jury house. Especially Mike Boogie. No way in hell he wins.

[Macie Lightfoot]

at all of this

[MeMyselfAndI]

Season 8 had a terrible jury. They were all hoping for the clapping girl and the big guy just because they didn't like the Donatos. Amber especially was pathetic.

Also Season 6, as gameplay made no difference they would only vote for the Nerd Herd/ Soverign 6 which ever made it to the final.

[Macie Lightfoot]

Well yeah, the Donatos sucked then, especially Dick.

[swinearefine]

Originally Posted by SoBig

Danielle would have beaten him if there was a jury house.

It didn't matter who she would have been up against in the final 2 she still would have lost. The jury was that bitter. Jason was hardly a great player. He just had Danielle guiding him. Danielle was also a great player in BB7. She lasted until the final week. Will was just a bit better and he had his best friend in the house playing with him. That's a huge advantage that Danielle didn't have. Take away Mike Boogie and Will doesn't have as much power.

There wasn't a jury house. This was not a surprise to Danielle.

[swinearefine]

Originally Posted by SoBig

Personally want to win? I want the person that played the best game to win every single time. The jury has gotten it right more times than not. Her Diary Room entries aren't the only thing that stopped her from winning. The fact that she LIED to all of them and they were able to re-watch it. She was very cut throat when it came to the game. Plus the other girl had the underdog story going for her. Everyone loves an underdog story. If the jury was sequestered. Danielle wins handily. They all loved her inside the house. Its CBS's fault for not coming up with a jury house sooner.

Dan, Dick, Mike Boogie, Adam and maybe Drew and Hayden don't win if there wasn't a jury house. Especially Mike Boogie. No way in hell he wins.

The person who plays the best game does win, every time. It's impossible for them not to. There is no one right person to vote for - the winner is who makes it to the final 2 and gets the most votes from the jury. I don't understand why it's so hard for most people to accept this.

[Donovan.]

That's what's I always thought. The best player wins, it wouldn't make sense if the worst player won, because the worst player is the first evictee. There isn't really a difference in quality between a player who had to make moves and one who didn't, just that one is more likable.

[SoBig]

Originally Posted by swinearefine

The person who plays the best game does win, every time. It's impossible for them not to. There is no one right person to vote for - the winner is who makes it to the final 2 and gets the most votes from the jury. I don't understand why it's so hard for most people to accept this.

Man makes mistakes. So its impossible for the right person to win every time. There are several factors that are involved. Biases, prejudices, circumstances etc. Look at sports. Boxing, gymnastics etc. There are always controversial decisions that are made by the refs and judges. The right person doesn't always win. Look at how many innocent people that are in prison today, because a jury sent them there.

Man isn't perfect. Its just that simple. So of course they won't always get the winner right.

[swinearefine]

Originally Posted by SoBig

Man makes mistakes. So its impossible for the right person to win every time. There are several factors that are involved. Biases, prejudices, circumstances etc. Look at sports. Boxing, gymnastics etc. There are always controversial decisions that are made by the refs and judges. The right person doesn't always win. Look at how many innocent people that are in prison today, because a jury sent them there.

Man isn't perfect. Its just that simple. So of course they won't always get the winner right.

By man I assume you mean people

I don't think you understood Big Brother. The point of the game is to get to the finals whilst securing the votes of the jury, not just to make it to the finals. Just like you said, each juror has their own prejudices and biases that will affect their vote. They all have their own criteria for what constitutes a winner. It's up to the finalists to find a way to get these people with differing ideas to vote for them.

All the examples you provided represent objective decisions. Either someone committed a crime or they didn't. Someone scored a goal or they didn't. There is one right and one wrong decision. The Big Brother f2 vote is a subjective decision - there is no predetermined right or wrong answer - the jury votes based on their own personal criteria.

That's the whole point of Big Brother...

[smartalec2718]

Originally Posted by SoBig

Man makes mistakes. So its impossible for the right person to win every time. There are several factors that are involved. Biases, prejudices, circumstances etc. Look at sports. Boxing, gymnastics etc. There are always controversial decisions that are made by the refs and judges. The right person doesn't always win. Look at how many innocent people that are in prison today, because a jury sent them there.

Man isn't perfect. Its just that simple. So of course they won't always get the winner right.

I can't take you seriously as long as you have a picture of Ozzy as your avatar.

In all seriousness, I'm with swinearefine on this one. I thought Danielle was fun to watch as her gameplay was great, but she knew that everyone in the house would see her DRs and be able to rewatch their time in the house and see how she played them. Her game's fatal flaw was poor jury management, and it cost her the votes. The majority of the jury voted for Lisa, which means she was a deserving winner, because she fulfilled the requirements of winning: getting a majority of the votes at the F2.

Also, saying "the right person doesn't always win" is not a very convincing argument. Who's the arbiter of the "right person" to win? You? (Let me just say that neither Russell Hantz nor Ozzy were the right people to win Survivor on any of the 3 seasons either of them played ) No, the arbiter of who the "right person" is is the jury, which is made up of people that played the game with the finalists in question.

Having people that you want to win come up short is not the same as the "right person" not always winning. The right person always wins, because they won. It's just a truism.

[Munchkins]

Big Brother 3, actually makes me die a little bit inside ><
Danielle toes should have won, but then again you could say Danielle knew there wasn't sequester and so should not have bitched in the DR so badly hm