[sassyfox]

-

[Jack_]

It's a gameshow, so pretty much anything goes as long as it doesn't involve physical violence

[Mystic Mock]

I think for me it has to be ones that emotionally blackmail their Housemates in a very self-righteous way, even though they've started the feud (see Jale on Chris in BB15 as my prime example of this very behaviour) that's my worst kind of game playing.

[Mystic Mock]

I don't even know what my one even covers out of those options.

[Jack_]

Okay I'll reassess slightly, the first option on the poll is certainly the worst from a viewer's perspective because it's so counterproductive, especially considering it renders BBUK one of the easiest gameshows on television - but I wouldn't call it 'vile'.

Like, it's certainly a problem, but the only way it can be rectified is via the producers. You can't really blame someone for playing like that if they're trying to win Ł100k. But it does make them a terrible housemate

All of the other options are fine

[hot2go]

I like good game players, always have....I think they're all game players anyway and it's the ones who are crap at it that should get evicted...
The first one on the list is the poorest form of game playing and the biggest example of that was Rachel Rice....I think that was the year I really start to realise how easily a lot of voters can be fooled. She wasn't even nice.

[jaxie]

I like the game, when it's played well. I think backstabbing friends is off putting though.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by hot2go

I like good game players, always have....I think they're all game players anyway and it's the ones who are crap at it that should get evicted...
The first one on the list is the poorest form of game playing and the biggest example of that was Rachel Rice....I think that was the year I really start to realise how easily a lot of voters can be fooled. She wasn't even nice.

Rachel Rice never gave away anything to show that she was nice, it's nice to see that I'm not the only one to notice this.

She wasn't particularly nasty either tbf, she was just there really.

[Shaun]

If your motive actually is trying to "break people down" then that makes you borderline sociopathic and a really ****ty person so I picked that.

[hot2go]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Rachel Rice never gave away anything to show that she was nice, it's nice to see that I'm not the only one to notice this.

She wasn't particularly nasty either tbf, she was just there really.

A smiling assassin ☠

[reece(:]

The Marc type

[Vicky.]

None of tho9se particularly bother me, its the ones who purposely create romances for a storyline...

[_Tom_]

Flying UTR

[Maru]

Great thread and poll choices!

I picked backstabbing friends. I actually hate flying under the radar more (*cough* Alex */cough*) on average but, flying under the radar isn't necessarily the most intentional way to gameplay in my opinion. For example, I don't think Alex tries to be so boring. Chelsea was flying under the radar for a while (I think), but he bungled it up by trying to be a kiss ass.

It's sound strategy to let everyone else duke it out first fighting for the bottom of the barrel for the pettier **** and then as the game gets more serious and you have a strong place in the group, step out a little bit more to define yourself in the game.

Now flying under the radar for the win? That sucks, but is it really the fault of the person flying under the radar or the other HM's who force the vote away from themselves?

[Macie Lightfoot]

Originally Posted by hot2go

I like good game players, always have....I think they're all game players anyway and it's the ones who are crap at it that should get evicted...
The first one on the list is the poorest form of game playing and the biggest example of that was Rachel Rice....I think that was the year I really start to realise how easily a lot of voters can be fooled. She wasn't even nice.

[chuff me dizzy]

Backstabbing

[Ellen]

I put backstabbing a friend but creating arguments/drama is on a par for me.

[kirklancaster]

'Flying under the radar to avoid nominations' is tedious, but an HM staying in the background and/or 'fence-sitting' is benign and generally does not harm other HM's, so I am surprised that over a third of those participating in the poll deemed it the worst type of 'Game Playing'.

'Trying to Influence Nominations' 'and 'Pretending to be someone you're not' are more interesting tactics for the viewer, but again, neither generally causes harm to other HM's - except that latter may well cause a little chagrin in the HM's being deceived, if they find out about the deception.

'Stabbing 'friends' in the back' is reprehensible, and I deplore such treachery (having been on the receiving end many times in my life) and there is no way that any Judas should ever be rewarded - 30 pieces of silver or TV Game Show triumph - fot their betrayals.

But, without a doubt, 'Creating arguments/drama to break people down' is THE worst type of strategy, because it demonstrates wilful, malicious willingness on the part of one HM, to inflict hurt, pain, emotional and psychological suffering and humiliation on another HM - PURELY through a lust for personal 'Fame and Fortune'.

We have already witnessed the type of personal trauma suffered by some HM's who have been subject to this tactic, and also seen that its effects rage on far after the relevant BB series has finished, and I do not enjoy it.

If BB has to rely on this type of 'Game Playing' strategy because audience demographics demand it, then we, as viewers are responsible, and if this is so, then future 'TV Game Shows' will more resemble 'Gladiator', 'The Running Man', and the disturbing 'Trueman Show' than any 'Game Shows' now, and THAT will speak volumes about what sick, sadistic, and cruel voyeurs TV Game Show viewers have become.

Watching unscrupulous contestants cynically destroying and hurting other people to greater satisfy a 'voting' audience in order to win a 'Game Show', is frankly not my 'cup of tea'. and I would rather change channels.