simplyme

I am not a lawyer. This is absolute, pure speculation on my part. It could be posting clips of BB feeds. Many media companies try to enforce a draconian copyright on their products. Ever read what the NFL posts and reads aloud as their copyright statement at the beginning of every broadcast game? It's patently untrue. (For example, you can make descriptions or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, and usually you can show short clips for educational purposes.) That said, what does fall under fair use according to law is not necessarily clear cut. If it did go to court, Tooms could lose. And... on to something more on topic. Sorry.

Jeff is surprised that both generations appear to have the instinct to want to survive? If you find a generation where the majority don't, we're getting close to the end of the line.

Excellent. CBS could conceivably try to take him to court to prove it is copyright infringement vs fair use, but I'm not sure there's enough time left in the season that they'll bother (or to matter). Though with next season being online only, who knows?

The problem with fan interference is that one of the main conceits of BB is that it is a closed house. Yes, we all know Production screws around with them, but if you start adding in fans telling them whatever the hell they want, that completely goes away. You may as well let them watch tv, read fan sites, and twitter and read tweets to their hearts content. There would be no or little intrigue left. So I have to say that although I may sometimes want players to know certain information, it still is not the place of fans to provide it. It's the principle rather than selecting which information is okay on a case by case basis. James and Nicole and any monetary collusion should be policed by TPTB, not fans.

Still? I guess the remodel has only felt like it's taken eight months. *eye tic* You forgot the clinging. James also did a lot of clinging to Natalie in there. I wanted to yell, "For God's sake, go watch a movie and let me take my relaxing bath in peace!" in there. (I, uh, may also have been projecting a bit.)

You realize there's also the possibility that he is both a scumbag AND he was held up in Rio? Scumbag is admittedly harsh. My opinion of Lochte prior to Rio was "arrogant, entitled dick with fewer active brain cells than a turkey." It's pretty much the same after. I can't be shocked that there were shenanigans with the investigation, but that doesn't mean I suddenly think Lochte's a saint. To me the truth of what happened is not really tied to someone's moral character. That said, the question for DWTS is "Can he dance?" followed immediately by "Can he dance without annoying the bejesus out of me?" People I've been predisposed to dislike have won my votes before, so we shall see.

I want to shoot myself for saying this, but playing dead for the first half to three quarters of the season can be a really strong strategy. Of the six players left, that's what three of them did. People who draw attention tend to go home. It's infuriating as hell from the viewing perspective, especially when you hear the stupid stuff that comes out of their mouths as they lounge about, but it appears to work pretty well since there's usually someone who is a bigger threat and thus higher priority to get out. (Read as "upright more than three hours a day" if you want.) I tried to post this yesterday, but my wifi was so revolted by it that it dropped out. (Technically, that was probably related to the kitchen remodel. If I disappear and never return, we all killed each other in The Great Kitchen Remodel Brawl of '17.)

My thought process is that essentially the main problem each HG faces is, "How does one navigate through the season without putting a target on oneself by appearing too great a threat while simultaneously attempting to reach F2 with a competitor whose jury relationship is worse, thus giving one the win?" Victor failed at the "putting too big a target on himself" bit. Imo he's still failing at it. That's why he was evicted in the past and very well may be evicted again. Whether or not that makes him an unworthy winner is up to the jury, unless he gets evicted again. (If he gets evicted again, then yes, it made him an unworthy winner.) That's going by strict definition. Then there is the loose definition of worthy winner: what the viewer personally values and likes and how well a HG did according to them. By that metric, people will have varying opinions. (I can live with a Vic win.)

If Paul was truly "your boy," I'm pissed you didn't spank him more.

Ohhh. You're still holding out hope that some of the HGs will learn self-awareness and tact. I gave that up a while ago. ;)

In her defense, I've dated guys who were good-looking and guys who weren't. It's about the personality for me. Guys who aren't good-looking become attractive to me even in looks because of their personality. (Conversely, there are good-looking guys that cease to attract the moment they open their mouths.) But it can be difficult to phrase that well so that it doesn't sound like you're just trying to make someone feel good if people are sensitive, so she may have tried to simply go with what she thought he'd believe. Also, they haven't known each other that long, and none of these people seems to have mastered diplomacy. Hell, I'm not sure a few of the HGs have ever MET diplomacy. That said, I think James looks fine, so I've never understood people harping on his looks. It's his personality and stupid crap he says that would do me in.

I'm assuming you mean other than his variations on "We can totally trust Nicole!" and "I know what I'm doing." ;)

This is what living in a house with the same people and no intellectual stimulation will do. If BB went on much longer than it does, I'm pretty sure they'd develop a cult.

That did occur to me as I typed it. I don't know how much to attribute to them being women, though, and how much to attribute to BB casting women who make me want to scream. I half believe casting has a checklist that includes things like chirpy voices, volatile personalities, searching for a soulmate, inability to trust other women, etc., and every item checked is worth a point. High scorers get the screen tests.

I hit that level when I only knew of Russell. Also, I'll note that to me there is a difference between what I call a "bitter jury" and the juries that voted against Russell. To me, bitter juries can't get past normal gameplay issues that result in grudges to vote for someone. Russell, on the other hand, went above and beyond to purposely antagonize people for little or no reason. It may have helped get him to the end, but even a saint would be like, "Hell, no. I'm not voting for that a-hole." It may not be a huge difference, but to me there is a difference. (Sorry for using Survivor instead of BB as my example, but Russell's burning other people's items and being a jerk is really the best example IMO.) I can see the BB jury this year being calm and deliberate if it's an F2 of, say, Paul/Victor (or Corey in there somewhere). If it's Nicole/Natalie (or James in there), I can see people getting personal.

I believe it depends on the state. DWTS films in CA, right? One pamphlet on child labor laws for CA that I found online said: "Emancipated minors are subject to all California’s child labor laws, except that they may apply for a work permit without their parents’ permission. [FC 7050] (See Chapter 3 of this digest)." Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/childlaborlawpamphlet.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj23IbT9PPOAhVJOSYKHZVUBWUQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNFrQ-wcS3KV61-warj39tx9CKKnsg&sig2=X7zzHVbDM0wWPjOFRS34kA I wouldn't consider this a definitive answer though.

I had a number of knee-jerk responses to this, and they were all rude.

Me too, even if every time he runs they keep saying how OLD he is and I find myself staring into an open grave. Thanks, guys.

I enjoyed reading that list. I suppose he could have posted it in BB in the Media, but the community here does tend to get such delight out of the occasional harmless slightly OT post. Another round of "Fuck you, Nicole!" just for @AbsoluteShower and Nicole's inability to read a cereal box at a reasonable speed. (Also, boredom during a yard sale. Anyone want two elderly parents? *eye tic*)

This sounds like a James excuse. Instead of "Let's both try to win veto, and whoever wins it, we use it to remove Natalie from the block," James has another excuse to play dead and pretend it's noble. *eyeroll* Two people trying for veto is usually twice the chance of winning. Well, unless one is James. I don't hate the guy, but Jesus. The opossum should not be anyone's spirit animal.

In Natalie's defense, as others have said, you can't always tell if a person is comfortable or not just because they don't react. Women especially tend to grit their teeth and just suffer through something so they don't get called something like a hysterical, overreacting bitch. Especially when you're young (and, I imagine, playing a game where other people's perception of you matters a lot), it can be difficult to figure out how to handle a situation without tanking your life and social relationships. In Paul's defense (and I admit I can't recall exactly what was going on when the uncomfortable touching occurred), he may have thought he was goofing around with his friend and not thought it was sexual at all. I don't live in a black and white world, I'm afraid. As Roxane Gay said, there can be multiple truths from multiple points of view.

Jeez. Feeds must be really boring. At least I got to see a Blazing Saddles clip! As far as calling someone a c***, it's wrong. Same with making false allegations of sexual harassment. (I'll get into whether that occurred or not in a minute.) As to which is worse, it depends on the circumstances and how people were truly affected. As outsiders, we don't really have good information on either, so I don't see the point in ranking them. Both suck. As to whether Natalie truly felt uncomfortable at the time or if saying that was gameplay, we don't know. If she did feel uncomfortable, we don't know if she indicated this in any way. We don't know how Paul would have changed or apologized (or not) had he been been made aware she was uncomfortable. There are too many possibilities in this to take a side, imo. Before people flame the hell out of me, yes, I've been sexually harassed. I've learned from those experiences that some people are just assholes, but others are just really damn clueless and thought they were flirting and are embarrassed as hell and apologetic when they are told you were offended or uncomfortable. This is why sexual harassment is so tricky. Someone may feel harrassed and not feel safe speaking up, while the harasser is, on occasion, truly clueless. (Oftentimes not, and sometimes they shouldn't be, but what is or is not sexual harassment is sometimes defined more by the relationship between the people than what is said/done. When two people have different understandings of exactly how warm/cold that relationship is, bad things can happen.) As to why you're always explaining yourself, @J.D., it's cuz we're like Paul. We like to argue. ;) (Or maybe it's just that you're like Lucy and you've got some 'splainin' to do.) That said, I love Previously because for the most part people try to argue and discuss constructively and thoughtfully, with some snark tossed in. I know I don't mean to hurt feelings, so if I do, please tell me.

He hung out with her while she was asleep, even if she didn't know it! (Er, that sounded creepier than intended. I was thinking of the BB Nature Watch segment Vic did.)

Paulie? Is that you? I think there are three camps of thought here. 1. Victor was evicted twice and that's two times too many for a "real" winner. 2. Victor was evicted twice, fought back twice, and deserves a win for his dominance. 3. Victor plays a strong comp game, used twists he had no control over to come back from two evictions, and appears to be well-liked by most jurors. On the other hand, he screwed up his social game enough to get evicted twice and appears wedded to the one person he may not be able to beat. He's neither The Horrible Usurper of Power nor The Amazing Dominator Who Walks on Water. Er, yeah. I think you can tell I'm in camp 3. Obviously, peeps may disagree. The guy has played a great game in some ways and has screwed up in some. He's benefited from twists. That's part of the show, and I'm not blaming him for it. On the other hand, I think pointing out that the cards dealt to him have been pretty good, maybe making his run a bit easier than some others, is also fair. I'm not going to praise him for needing to fight his way back in twice, though being able to do it obviously works in his favor. :) Would I cheer for him at the end? Quite possibly. We'll see how things go.

Technically, it's not just game shows. It is any broadcast contest of chance, intellectual knowledge, or intellectual skill. Here is the definition of "contest" from the applicable law: (1)The term “contest” means any contest broadcast by a radio station in connection with which any money or any other thing of value is offered as a prize or prizes to be paid or presented by the program sponsor or by any other person or persons, as announced in the course of the broadcast. Here is a link to the law itself (47 U.S. Code § 509): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/509 It's not very long. I believe the idea that BB is not subject to the law comes from the argument that reality shows like BB and Survivor are not contests of intellectual knowledge or skill, but I could be wrong. @Nashville at one point covered that Survivor had a court case that might have settled the issue, but it was settled out of court. So it's undecided. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if BB did a sort of shuffle-dance CYA partial adherence where the competitions were generally planned out ahead of time and the trivia/intellectual ones were clean, but the physical ones involved factors deliberately favoring (or hindering) certain players (like Paulie and the hose monster, which 10-year-old me just wanted to say). But really, unless it goes to trial over something and we get details, we may never know.