The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

The Official "Big Brother 12" Discussion Thread!

joesman said:
I didn't see any dirty work that Matt did. His HoH's were wasted because he didn't go after the people the Bra-gade wanted. He used his DPoV to oust Kathy who was a couch.

Enzo, Lane and Hayden talked trash about Brenchel, and Ragan chose to tell them about Hayden and Enzo?

Game over, deeds are done and on to the hot men of Survivor.
Click to expand...

Maybe not dirty work, but by Matt becoming HOH, it prevented his alliance from going up.
 
Sgt Pepper said:
In the Entertainment Weekly backyard interviews, Brendan and Rachel said they voted for Lane because Ragan told them that Enzo & Hayden had talked trash about Brenchel behind their backs. They basically admitted they weren't voting for Hayden or Enzo (wow) and Rachel outright said she liked Lane better as a result.

I actually give Rachel credit for being more honest about this than a lot of jurors who cloak personal preferences in pretentious claims about "gameplay." For those of you who remember the NPR article I posted earlier in season -- about how fundamentally people on these shows vote for who they like more -- that thesis played out again on the BB12 finale as Brendan and Rachel's seemingly puzzling vote for Lane was (by their own admission) a direct result of them liking Lane more at the end. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Most people vote like that, they're just not always as honest as Rachel was about it.
Click to expand...

Or you could admit that you aren't always right about your NPR thesis.

joesman said:
Enzo, Lane and Hayden talked trash about Brenchel, and Ragan chose to tell them about Hayden and Enzo?
Click to expand...

Doesn't this sort of invalidate what you just said Sgt. Pepper?
 
No altlover that was exactly my point. Brenchel found out that Hayden called Brendan "needle dick" and thus they didn't like Hayden anymore. Rachel even said in the interview, "Let's just be honest, I like Lane more."

So yeah...they voted for who they liked more. Which is what almost everyone does.
 
Did anyone else enjoy the finale a lot more than most episodes this season? There were a lot of genuinely funny moments: Enzo, Britney, Ragan and Annie were all at the top of their game. My absolute favorite though was Kristin throwing herself at a clearly uninterested Hayden, and Monet calling Rachel a skank.
 
Sgt Pepper said:
No altlover that was exactly my point. Brenchel found out that Hayden called Brendan "needle dick" and thus they didn't like Hayden anymore. Rachel even said in the interview, "Let's just be honest, I like Lane more."

So yeah...they voted for who they liked more. Which is what almost everyone does.
Click to expand...

Prove to me that Ragan, Kathy, Enzo, and Matt liked Hayden more than Lane and that it wasn't about gameplay.

I thought the finale was a good episode. My favorite episode was when Andrew called out Hayden and Kristin though.
 
altlover, we're just going to have to disagree on this one I guess. Kathy, Ragan and Enzo were much closer to Hayden if you watched the live feeds. This isn't an exact science, but after years of watching Survivor and BB, my opinion is that people vote for who they like. The NPR article I posted was from a pop-culture critic who spent 10 years recapping Survivor and BB for TWOP, so she's not pulling this out of her ass either. And in the article, she quotes people she interviewed from past Survivor juries who outright said that indeed, jurors vote for who they like, and it's the most natural thing in the world.

I think the fact that two people (Brendan and Rachel) who spent all season saying they were going to vote for the best competitor, then turning around and voting for one of the worst competitors, and admitting, "I liked Lane so I voted for him" pretty much says it all.

Just to clarify, I don't think this is a bad thing at all. These are games of social strategy and you are under no obligation to "vote for the best player" or anything of the sort. It is perfectly legitimate to vote for who you like more or hate less. That's what makes predicting the final vote so mysterious and so much fun. And anyway, there's no requirement that says the best player is the one who won the most competitions or lied the best or whatever. These games simply require you to get to the end, and get people to vote for you. That's all. However you do that is up to you.
 
My point is that competitions also play a part in deciding on who to vote for. I don't think it's just a popularity contest.
 
You're voting and the person with the most votes wins. That is the definition of a popularity contest i.e. the person with more votes is the more popular person. You seem to see that as a bad thing, but I don't. Not in a game of social strategy.

Will didn't win a single competition and won BB2, the jurors on BB3 all said Lisa had no "game" but they liked her more and she won, Jun won less comps than Alison and won BB4, Maggie won less comps than Ivette and won BB6, Dick won less comps than Daniele and won BB8, Adam won less comps than Ryan and won BB9, and Cowboy and Lane each came within 1 vote of winning despite being lousy competitors.

Of course some strong competitors end up winning, but I believe that's incidental to their victory because if they hadn't spent all summer doing something in a social context to net themselves jury votes, they wouldn't have won. The preponderance of non-competitors I just listed who nevertheless won Big Brother proves that there's something more to it than just competition wins.

Otherwise, we could just count them off and let the person with the most comps be the winner. By leaving it to an unspecified and uncontrolled jury vote, the show allows for a more intriguing ending where things like likability come into play. I won't deny that competition wins matter for some people, but for the most part, any voting system is a popularity contest (the Presidential Election, the Oscars etc).
 
All I'm saying is comps matter too. I don't think they are just discounted. It's not comps vs. likability, but rather comps, likability, and strategy.
 
altlover, we don't completely disagree. :D I think comps and strategy can affect likability, but ultimately the latter is the deciding factor. For example, Ivette's comp wins helped Janelle to identify with her more, dislike her less than Maggie, and therefore Janelle voted for her. However, had it been Ivette vs Howie, it wouldn't matter if Ivette won a dozen HOHs and Howie won zip, Janelle would vote for Howie because she likes him more.

You said the NPR article was wrong and I'm respectfully saying it wasn't. The conceit of that article is that comps may come into play if you're deciding between two people you like equally, or two people you hate equally. But generally speaking, no amount of comp wins or strategy or "game moves" is going to make a juror vote for someone they absolutely dislike over someone they like.
 
Sgt Pepper said:
altlover, we don't completely disagree. :D I think comps and strategy can affect likability, but ultimately the latter is the deciding factor. For example, Ivette's comp wins helped Janelle to identify with her more, dislike her less than Maggie, and therefore Janelle voted for her. However, had it been Ivette vs Howie, it wouldn't matter if Ivette won a dozen HOHs and Howie won zip, Janelle would vote for Howie because she likes him more.

You said the NPR article was wrong and I'm respectfully saying it wasn't. The conceit of that article is that comps may come into play if you're deciding between two people you like equally, or two people you hate equally. But generally speaking, no amount of comp wins or strategy or "game moves" is going to make a juror vote for someone they absolutely dislike over someone they like.
Click to expand...

Obviously true i.e Natalie vs Jordan.
 
I suppose the boundary between strategy and likability is blurred.
 
Thanks joesman, that's a good example. I just didn't use it because we were initally talking about comps and Jordan did win more comps than Natalie. But you are correct: Jessie voted against Natalie because he found out about her engagement and started to dislike her (just as Brenchel did with Hayden). No one on that jury actually believed that dingbat Jordan played well -- and they even said as much -- but the people who voted for her liked her more than Natalie at that moment.

altlover yes, or to put it another way, likability should be part of your strategy if you're trying to win. ;)
 
No humans are impartial. We're just not and that's why in the end I think people are ultimately influenced more by who they like. Perhaps we rationalize it or perhaps but the effect is always going to be there. We might say person X played a better game and therefore deserves the money but really it's just as possible and more probable that we perceive person X's game as better BECAUSE we like him or her or likewise we like him or her because his/her game is better and these pretenses we create are rationalizations to make things more than a personal contest. How else can we justify the fact that we have a concept of "better" and "worse" gameplay in a game where there are essentially NO rules. Yet routinely we and jury members will say two people who have gotten to an identical spot have played of varying degrees of quality. It's because we're weighing play by certain standards and the players we like by certain standards. Wheterh you like who you like BECAUSE of the extraneous reasons (better player, more honorable, more deserving) or you like them BECAUSE of that reason is a chicken or the egg deal but ultimately no one will sign over a check to a million dollars to someone they don't like.
 
Not really... I probably should've proofed it before hitting reply but I think it gets the point across anyway.
 
Falconfan; "because his/her game is better and these pretenses we create are rationalizations to make things more than a personal contest. How else can we justify the fact that we have a concept of "better" and "worse" gameplay in a game where there are essentially NO rule"

I think, in essence, this is then, a fantasy game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top