S19.E39: Finale, Winner Revealed

[illini1959]

6 hours ago, Pondlass1 said:

He was playing with showmances and sheep, tho.  The smartest thing Paul did was to isolate sets of partners so they talked Game with no one but each other and HIM. (Sometimes the isolation was deliberately cruel and Xmas was only too keen to go along which makes her not very nice IMO)

Yes he was. Agree :)

4 hours ago, ghoulina said:

I never hated Cody. I thought he made some dumbass game moves in the beginning. But at least he TRIED. If he played a season with different players, I might have lambasted him harder for his game play. But compared to these morons who were happy to lay down and die for their master, Cody did alright, to me. 

Game play aside, I didn't mind him as a person. I actually appreciated that he couldn't be fake and wouldn't hold court the way some HOHs did. He has a temper, but he's also a Marine who's served overseas and I think he's likely doing his best. 

Yes, there were those who didn't hate him, so I didn't mean to paint with a broad brush. Just seemed like all around, not just here, there was a lot more dislike for him and I would've never thought he'd win America's favorite. 

I agree with you though, I did like that he didn't fall for Paul for one second. 

[slasherboy]

Reading all these comments about the finale were 100% better than the entire season, with the exception of the finale, of course.  I won't re-hash the highlights, but just know I'm in agreement with most of what was said and there's really nothing to add.

I will say that I look forward to watching and posting/reading along with all you guys for Celebrity BB and anticipate an utter fiasco ... albeit a fun fiasco.  Thanks to those of you were had the live feeds and posted about things us non-feed-watchers would never have known about with you.  Thanks for all the snark and truth-telling.  Thanks for making me laugh out loud many times (I refuse to type LOL ... yes, I'm old ... and you, get off my lawn).

Finally, I don't know where you guys go to find updates about the hamsters (such as if Cody & Jessica stay together, what happens to Josh, etc.) but I hope you'll post those tidbits so I can keep up with them for a while until I forget what they look like and don't care anymore and the next season starts.

See you in the house!

[ProfCrash]

8 minutes ago, icemiser69 said:

At the end of the day, isn't everyone in the house responsible for their own actions?  Paul can tell any house guest to do whatever he wants them to do.  Isn't it up to each house guest whether they choose to do what Paul says or not?  Each house guest has free will.  Paul can only lead people that are willing to be led.  I think it is more on them than Paul.  At some point, personal responsibility needs to be factored in.

I will take your word for it that Paul isn't all sunshine and rainbows.  I just think that piling on Paul is more than a little over the top, because it lets the other house guests off the hook for their bad behavior.

Yes, each person is responsible for their own behavior. That means Paul is responsible for his actions. I won't go into the long list of awful behavior because it happened on the feeds and I don't want to violate the feeds rule but Paul is flat out responsible for the vast majority of the awful behavior in the house. There is a reason why pretty much all of the past players don't like Paul and were thrilled to see him lose. Paul choose to exploit the weakness of other players to bully players he targetted. Josh and comp went along with it, which is why no one is really happy with the outcome, but it is highly likely that they would not have behaved the way they did without Paul giving them specific instructions.

Jessica and Cody were asked why they did not try to socialize with the house. Jessica's answer was that anyone who spoke to Jessica and Cody were the next people targetted. Witness Mark and Elena. They were not in an alliance with Jessica and Cody but were targetted by Paul because they dared speak to Jessica and Cody. Kevin became the target because he spoke to Mark and Elena. This is all from interviews. Paul controlled everyone, who the spoke with, who they bullied and who won comps. 

You can't give him credit for controlling everything that happened and then say that the bad behavior that Paul directed is not his fault. 

Paul is a bullying asshole. He deserved to lose. Josh didn't deserve to win, his behavior was awful, but better then him then Paul. 

[MarquisDeCarabas]

I have to say Rob interview of Raven is the best thing ever. He's asking her about all her health issues and she's like I know there are a lot of things wrong with me, and then rob stops her and says wait I don't want you using that word. There's nothing wrong with you. Then he turns to the camera and says "there's nothing wrong with her" and it goes right over her head. It's hilarious. And he ends it with when you go online and see what kind of support you have  you're going to be blown away, there were even parties I think. It's great

[ghoulina]

34 minutes ago, watch2much said:

I think what's most amazing to me is that Paul still doesn't get it.  He didn't watch last's season and he said he won't watch this.  So he's never going to understand why he loses.  He is Russell Hantz all the way.  nothing endearing about him.  I was not a fan of Josh, but he did have an endearing quality.  but he was exploited by Paul to do things.  I wish Josh had acted differently and maybe someone in his family can explain the season to him and he'll feel some remorse.

Josh made me so angry sometimes, but he seemed like a real person. He was sad at times, and empathetic, and remorseful. He was human. Any time Paul cried or acted upset it was so fake. I think Josh made genuine friendships in there and Paul ruined that by using people more than he actually should have. 

[Callaphera]

29 minutes ago, icemiser69 said:

At the end of the day, isn't everyone in the house responsible for their own actions?  Paul can tell any house guest to do whatever he wants them to do.  Isn't it up to each house guest whether they choose to do what Paul says or not?  Each house guest has free will.  Paul can only lead people that are willing to be led.  I think it is more on them than Paul.  At some point, personal responsibility needs to be factored in.

I will take your word for it that Paul isn't all sunshine and rainbows.  I just think that piling on Paul is more than a little over the top, because it lets the other house guests off the hook for their bad behavior.

They are. And I hold Alex responsible for the reprehensible things she said during the game, like when she wouldn't get out of Cody's face over a bowl of cereal and began questioning whether he even had a kid and told him "If you want us to hate you, we're going to make you hate us even more". I hold Christmas responsible for the vile tone and words that she used towards other HGs. I hold Josh responsible for his behaviour and pots and pans addiction. I hold Jason responsible for his rape comments.

But I hold Paul responsible above all others. Why? Because he came into the game with a very clear narrative for the other HGs: Trust me, I'm a Vet. I've Been There. I've Done This. I know how to play This Game. And he hammered at it so much that most of them just accepted it as truth. And from there on, it wasn't hard for him to weaponize Josh and Alex and Christmas to be utter and complete assholes. Because he did do that. He turned the other HGs into weapons and he created an atmosphere of needing to personally disparage a person and bring them to their lowest fucking point possible in order to vote them out even when he had a unanimous vote count from before the initial nominations. He taught the others that it's all right to make it personal so long as they claim it isn't personal, just game, brah. And when he could get someone alone, he bullied them himself (oh, the time he pulled Mark aside to bully him for not standing up for Josh - who had just been bullied by Cody but Josh had bullied Mark the entire time. That time was disgusting). He set the tone for the game. Because he's The Vet. He's Been There Before. 

Are the others responsible for falling into that trap? Sure, they were gullible and trusted the wrong person. But at the same time, those people always had those personalities in them. Christmas and Alex came into the house with the bully attitude. They may have hid it well in the "real world" but the amplified, magnified aspect of the house brought it out in them. It was nurtured, however, by Paul. 

As for Josh? I thought of him as the new kid at school that saw the table in the cafeteria that all the cool kids sat at and wanted to earn a seat there. I don't think it's who he is. I think it's who he made himself to be in that moment. He at least has had moments of clarity. Paul still maintains that he was never a bully and it was Jessica and Cody and Mark who were the true bullies of the season. 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Callaphera

[Pondlass1]

Paul may not watch the episodes, but Cody winning AFP surely must give him some inkling of how events were perceived by audiences.  

We expect lying, back stabbing, even nastiness. But this year's strategy seemed to be to designate the next victim and  then en masse isolate and disengage from that person giving the victim no opportunity to socialize or negotiate. Any HG found talking to said victim (usually sniffed out by Xmas) would be loudly reprimanded and probably next on the block.

Maybe this is clever strategy? .. I don't know? . It certainly wasn't much fun to watch as a viewer. 

[butterbody]

I woke up this morning and realized that somewhere, Cody and Jessica were waking up in some hotel room laughing their asses off.

[Callaphera]

5 minutes ago, icemiser69 said:

Thank you for the information.

Now that the season is over, do feed rules still apply?  There is nothing to spoil.  Just asking.

Kinda sorta maybe? We're all kind of breaking it (I did in my last post, big time). There is the Episode Discussion for Feed Watchers thread where we answered specific questions or ranted on the difference between what was shown on the show versus what actually happened, but I think that thread died along with our souls at about the halfway mark. There were some great posts in it in the beginning. I guess that would be the best place for it but yeah, it's over and done with at this point and there's nothing left to "spoil". We can, however, possibly ruin your opinion and break your heart about certain HGs, so there's still some tiptoeing about. 

If you have specific questions, I'm sure us feed watchers can try our best to answer them. I'm already trying to block this season out of my memory but if it involves Raven, her millions of fake diseases, or her shitty makeup and cooking skills, I'm your expert. 

[Nashville]

8 hours ago, eurekagirl mOo said:

Party of One----So sad Paul lost. He played the best game and that should have been the deciding factor. Josh was a big baby (who cries that much!) who was obnoxious and a way worse bully than Paul ever was.

Obviously not. :)   Ok, I'll admit, that's being that's being oversimplistic for the sake of snark (even if it's good snark).  Paul did play one of the best strategic games in the House, no argument there.  Paul's social game was weakened by unnecessary lying, however, and Paul absolutely overlooked the key social AND strategic significance of the goodbye message (GBM) - a HG's best and only method of communication with the Jury other than the please-vote-for-me speech at Finale.  Josh the stealth super fan decided the GBMs were his time to come clean with his gameplay, to explain his motivations and loyalties to the Jurors; Paul, on the other hand, used his GBMs to try to keep his in-House lies alive.  

Seriously, you have to wonder where Paul's head was on the subject of GBMs.  Did Paul seriously not wonder what the other HGs were saying in their GBMs, and whether inconsistencies might arise?  Or consider the Jurors might compare notes?  Paul's GBM to Kevin was a perfect example.  If the Kevin-Christmas evictions had been at 6 & 5 instead of 4 & 3, Paul's cute little "If you're seeing this, Kevin, then Xmas went rogue" would've blown up in his face when Kevin and Take Your Kid To Work Day started talking in the JH, and Josh might've won by a 7-2 margin instead of 5-4.

Strategic play, social game, and physical comp performance are the three legs of the game, and nobody - Paul included - is going to build a stable game on a one-legged table.

 

4 hours ago, Artsda said:

[Cody] said it was a jury house promise in the RHAP interview.

Purely personal impression, but I got the vibe Cody and Alex might've had a chat in the JH....  ;)

 

3 hours ago, icemiser69 said:

I But what I can't understand, is why anyone would support some members of the jury acting like petulant children.  They shouldn't be mad at Paul for their failures in playing the game.  They had a choice.  They made the wrong choice.  Now, because they sucked at the game, and couldn't get over it, they took it out on Paul?  Bullshit.  Poor sportsmanship across the board.

I don't think there is anything that Paul could have said that would have swayed more votes his way.   I just think it would have pissed off the jury more.  He could have owned up to everything, and it wouldn't have mattered.

Sure they should! :)  If Paul's Jury (mis-)management was so poor as to create a pool of pissed-off Jurors, then Paul got the shit sandwich he asked for - built to his order.

[escape]

3 hours ago, icemiser69 said:

I don't understand all of the joy that people are getting from Paul losing this thing.  It isn't as though Josh (as the winner) is any great human being.

But what I can't understand, is why anyone would support some members of the jury acting like petulant children.  They shouldn't be mad at Paul for their failures in playing the game.  They had a choice.  They made the wrong choice.  Now, because they sucked at the game, and couldn't get over it, they took it out on Paul?  Bullshit.  Poor sportsmanship across the board.

I don't think there is anything that Paul could have said that would have swayed more votes his way.   I just think it would have pissed off the jury more.  He could have owned up to everything, and it wouldn't have mattered.

BTW, Paul should have won last year instead of Whiny Cindy Brady.

I think this is the second bitter jury in a row.  That is not a good sign for future seasons of BB.  That just gives house guests more incentive to lie around and not make waves.

Jury management is part of the game - not just winning competitions.  Yet Paul still doesn't seem to get that.  He's actually the real sore loser with his whining and complaining of how he deserved to win, but was treated unfairly.  If Grodner is paying attention to viewer reactions, this should be the last time he is in the BB house.  No to Paul with any BB All-Stars.

Edited September 21, 2017 by escape

[Diana Berry]

Question.  Would josh have won against Christmas?  What would have been the vote count?

[sasha206]

18 minutes ago, escape said:

Jury management is part of the game - not just winning competitions.  Yet Paul still doesn't seem to get that.  He's actually the real sore loser with his whining and complaining of how he deserved to win, but was treated unfairly.  If Grodner is paying attention to viewer action, this should be the last time Paul is in the BB house.

The only way vets should be allowed to play in this game if it is a BB with only veterans playing against each other.  It's an unfair advantage for a vet to come in and while they may be targets for some houseguests, there is a lot of worshipping in every case.

[Callaphera]

6 minutes ago, Diana Berry said:

Question.  Would josh have won against Christmas?  What would have been the vote count?

That's hard to answer. Personally, I think Josh would have won by more than one vote against Christmas. Mainly because of their social games. Josh, whether you loved him or hated him, connected with almost everyone in the house. Sure, he argued the most with Mark but he also had real conversations with him. Christmas had a social game in the beginning but from the middle to the end (arguably the most important part of the social game, when you begin stacking the jury in your favour), she tended to stick within the Paul/Josh/Christmas group and didn't socialize much with the other side. When she did, she came off as smug and argumentative. Josh also won comps - although always with Paul's blessing - while Christmas had them obviously handed to her like the Ready, Set, Whoa comp. 

Then again, I could be wrong. Mark and Elena might have voted for Christmas over Josh. Cody might have voted Christmas over Josh. Kevin most likely would have voted for Christmas for reasons. Jason and Alex may have voted Josh. Matt and Raven are wild cards. After all, they were the puppet masters but always with the thought that Paul would be in F2. They would have voted how Paul told them to vote. Paul? No idea. God, the whole thing could have hinged on Matt/Raven/Paul rather than Cody. That's an even more frightening thought.

But then, if we're playing the What If game, consider this: If Megan hadn't been a DOR this season and instead stuck around to be first boot, Christmas probably would have been taken out of the game during her initial foot injury. I truly believe that they only kept her in the game because the numbers would have been down too low and they couldn't bring two people back in the Battle Back comp. Megan leaving, I believe, had a huge impact on how this game ended up being played and the composition of people in the house.

[green]

1 hour ago, icemiser69 said:

Thank you for the information.

Now that the season is over, do feed rules still apply?  There is nothing to spoil.  Just asking.

If the mods shut down the 400 plus page live feeds discussion maybe they will allow a Season 19 Post-Game Discussion thread with Spoilers where no spoiler in game viewers and spoiled viewers can all meet and discuss this and that thing.  Because no one would want to sort through 400 plus pages from beginning to end I'd think at this point.

For the record I actually liked Paul the first few weeks.  I didn't think 3 weeks of safety was fair but 1 week or at most 2 was okay by me.  And he seems to be playing well.  But then stuff seemed to happen I didn't like and didn't really understand.

So I went over to the live feed pages and started to see just how sadistic a certain party was in his game style going out of the way to torment and tear apart other players he already had successfully set up for eviction.  There was no game reason for that behavior.  It was pure sadism and cruelty for those ends alone.  A dictator revealing in his power. 

Were the other hamsters weak?  Yes but Paul used his "star" status plus he has some trailer trash level version of mesmerizing in him like a punk reality show Rasputin.  Someone like Josh who was a superfan was blown away with him at first.  With Christmas, Alex and Raven, all of whom had terrible mean streaks just under the surface, it didn't take much to build up a loyal posse.

When Mark walked away from a brutal attack on Cody, Paul immediately let it be known that Mark was next out.  It sent a strong message to people like Kevin and Jason who weren't too into this behavior and only half-heartedly if at that took part in this stuff.  It told them and everyone to keep their mouths shut or they would be next because Paul had enough bullies at his disposal at this point to let loose all hell on them.

Despite that threat, as time went on Josh refused to be part of this more and more and was taunted by Paul as being a wuss and at one point, one of the endless "round up the posse and demean Kevin for no real reason" attacks, Christmas screamed full volume into his face that he was being too kind when he refused to do it.

To me the season is about Josh growing.  Maybe not growing up totally but growing enough -- just enough, but that is all we needed -- to be able to take Paul down by figuring out Paul was totally blowing his jury management game at the same time Josh was regretting his past actions more and more.  Josh saw the opening and started leaving the necessary jury exit video breadcrumbs for them.

Paul did a great game keeping the couples separated and not comparing notes.  I give him that.  But his idea of winning the jury came down to one mantra he repeated endlessly on every single freaking episode of the show.  That he had "no blood on his hands" because he arranged Person A to take out Person B for him. 

And oh how "clever" he was to throw evictees pity votes and lie saying he was just as blindsided as they were at what happened while yelling as they exited to tell the rest of the jury how good he was.

He lied and people wouldn't have held that against him in the end if in the end he told the truth about his game.  But he didn't.  He lied in the end when everyone was finally on to him too.  Paul didn't own his game because he was obsessed beyond belief that if he didn't have any "blood on his hands" in a technical sense with each eviction that and that alone would win him the game.  That that was somehow the gold standard that all jury members would view and be in awe of his game play.  That as long as he didn't do the dirty work he would remain the golden boy and they would all love him for it and give him the loot in the end.

That pov was the most stupid, illogical reasoning I saw all season.  What does having blood on your hands (taking responsibility for your actions) vs hiding behind others mean you are a bad player.  That blood-free hands wins you brownie points?  Alex was right about one thing. Most people respect seeing their opponent come straight at them with the knife then hiding behind them with so-called "clean" hands that are anything but that.

Edited September 21, 2017 by green

[MisterBluxom]

41 minutes ago, butterbody said:

I woke up this morning and realized that somewhere, Cody and Jessica were waking up in some hotel room laughing their asses off.

I hope they found a hotel where the manager was a fan and offered them a free week's stay. That would give them the right kind of message.

[Callaphera]

2 minutes ago, MissBluxom said:

I hope they found a hotel where the manager was a fan and offered them a free week's stay. That would give them the right kind of message.

Jessica lived like a five minute drive away from the Big Brother house. Pretty sure they're just shacked up at her place, but still laughing their asses off. 

[green]

46 minutes ago, icemiser69 said:

That is basically what I was looking for, some shared responsibility for what went on in the house.  I don't care how it gets divvied up, percentage wise.

I understand that many people hold Paul primarily responsible for the toxic environment.  I just wished TPTB would have shown more of Paul's behavior on the televised episodes, so I would get a truer sense of what was really going on.  They had more than enough TV time to do so.

BTW, pretty tuxedo cat.

I would rather know the truth about game play and the interaction between house guests.  I just think people need to own their own games, and if they let other house guests lead them around by the nose, than they are the ones allowing it to happen.

Thank you for feedback.

But here is the thing.  The producers want a good show people will not hate and tune out of and they lose ratings and sponsors over.  Seeing what was really going on could well have caused these things to happen.

Also it seemed pretty clear Paul was running the house.  They could see like a lot of us here that it was extremely likely Paul would win.  So they had to spin Paul to be more likeable so as not to damage their brand.

They pretty much do that any season but especially this season where if was pretty clear the producers were having serious buyer's remorse by August over Paul's behavior in the game and the dumb and lazy hamsters who let him get away with it.  So they did what they could to save their show. 

Granted they were the ones that stuck their show into Paul's minefield to start with but none the less they now needed to save it from their own mistake.  They were Frankenstein and they had created a monster and no way to kill it if you will.  So they had to spin it instead like politicians do all the time.  Truth has never gotten in the way of their edits and this season they just had to really make sure it didn't big time because the monster was on the loose.

Believe me no one was happier in America last night then the Big Brother producers when Josh and the jury pulled the finale off they were hoping and praying for this last month.  But they didn't know that would happen so they had to edit Paul the way they did to save their own behinds because they too thought he would win no doubt.

Edited September 21, 2017 by green

[LGGirl]

Paul underestimated the jury.   They were sheep.  He treated them like sheep.  He did not treat them with respect. That was the downfall of his social game.  

Be coming clean, Josh showed them respect.  It was a brilliant move on his part to use the good bye messages in that way.  He couldn't do it in person while in the house or he would have been the next person out. 

I've been watching BB since season 2.   In most seasons, the social game normally wins over the strategic game.  

[RandomWatcher]

31 minutes ago, Callaphera said:

Jessica lived like a five minute drive away from the Big Brother house. Pretty sure they're just shacked up at her place, but still laughing their asses off. 

I'm betting they were going at each other the moment they got out of the car. They were practically all over each other during the interviews.

[Rachel RSL]

12 hours ago, TaraS1 said:

What he said was spot on, it was insanely frustrating to watch these morons all do Paul's bidding instead of playing the game for themselves.  So I don't know what the laughter was about, but it annoyed me.

 

I think the laughter came after Cameron said something about doing all he could to stay in the house that first night and someone else mentioned him getting naked.

10 hours ago, illini1959 said:

Aside from all that, did anyone notice at the end when all the hugging/mugging was going on, Kevin's arm was stuck between 2 people?? He literally had to yank his arm out! And he didn't look too thrilled about it, either ;) 

I totally noticed that and thought: Poor Kevin, all he wants in life is to get his arm back.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Is it possible Paul assumed the people in the jury house wouldn't be allowed to compare notes? At one time weren't the jurors kept under strict watch so they wouldn't discuss the game? Seems to me like the only exceptions were after a new evicted HG arrived and they all got to see the video of the HOH and veto competitions. Then there was the moderated round table at the end. To an extent some of them were able to feed each other's bitterness and Paul likely wasn't planning for that. Whatever, I think he clearly overestimated the lasting ability of his mind control over most of them.

[slasherboy]

What are feed rules?

[ProfCrash]

Feed rules are no discussion of the feeds outside of the live feed discussion thread. You get a warning if you break the rule and then can be suspended.

[backformore]

3 hours ago, icemiser69 said:

Isn't it possible that the jury would be upset no matter what? 

Most of them felt like they had a deal with Paul.  Most of them most likely felt betrayed.   Most of those jurors were completely embarrassed on national television.

I don't know how Paul could have recovered from that.

Yes, it's the embarrassment factor that did it.  When they heard a good-bye message from Josh about Paul's "real alliance", but a message from Paul re-affirmed his alliance with them,  then they went to the jury house and found that yeah, EVERYONE had a "secret"  alliance with paul, the sense of betrayal, humiliation, and embarrassment set it.  

But, as others have said, Paul COULD have recovered. Just by owning it, saying, yeah, I set up alliances with everyone, then as the game went on, figured out which alliance was most likely to get me to the finale, I had to get you guys to evict each other.  You all cooperated, threw comps when I told you to, voted how I told you to, because you knew I was the better player. 

That MIGHT have won him the vote he needed to win.  Denying it was what helped him lose. 

[jumper sage]

1 hour ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Is it possible Paul assumed the people in the jury house wouldn't be allowed to compare notes? At one time weren't the jurors kept under strict watch so they wouldn't discuss the game? Seems to me like the only exceptions were after a new evicted HG arrived and they all got to see the video of the HOH and veto competitions. Then there was the moderated round table at the end. To an extent some of them were able to feed each other's bitterness and Paul likely wasn't planning for that. Whatever, I think he clearly overestimated the lasting ability of his mind control over most of them.

Just a thought:  If Paul really did not watch the show last year could it be he has no idea what happens in the jury house?  How can he not know?  You would think just from interviews he would catch on.

[Halting Hex]

13 hours ago, BlackMamba said:

Paul did better had he aligned with Matt and Raven but those assholes coasted and could never win shit.

Matt won a Veto (which Paul dictated him to use on Jason, so they could backdoor Cody), and both of "Maven" were left standing with Paul at the end of the "Inked and Evicted" questions HoH, before they threw the last question to Paul.  (Raven did it without a second thought; Matt clearly hesitates before deciding to follow suit.)  With proper motivation, they could have been as useful to Paul as Rosh HaShanah, who only won when people threw shit to her, and Josh, whom Paul controlled through their "mutual goat" pact.

If Paul had used Jason's second (and final) HoH to get Christmas out (on the theory she'd be too sympathetic if she got too far), saying that Matt's using the Veto on Jason had proved they could trust him for a while longer, and then set up the next HoH to bamboozle Jason (as actually happened), I think he would have been fine.  But I think he knew he couldn't get Maven to turn on each other at the F3, the way he could with Joshmas, so he took the easier route to F2, not understanding that his "I would vote for me, why didn't you?" jury-management non-skills say more about him than the 10 Jurors he's misread over the past two seasons.

There was at least one time when Paul actually took ownership of the abuse; the Pots'n'Pans/Raven cawing/backyard screamathon he unleashed on Cody and Jessica the week of my namesake.  He'd been all "what do you mean, I treat them like dogs?  I don't control anything!" to Cody and Jessica in the HoH just hours before.  (The same convo where he tried to "shhh!" Jessica and when Cody objected, Paul was "I can tell her to be quiet!"  No, dipshit, you can ask her.  You don't own Jessica, asshat.)  And then he was downstairs, with the "All my dogs are barking now!", although he made sure to tell Josh to "turn it up to a '30'" when Cody and Jessica couldn't hear him.

What I really don't understand, though, is what was the point of all the abuse? Jessica and Cody were already isolated; if they didn't win the comps, they were doomed.  Was it really worth pissing away not one, not two, but three Jury votes just to possibly discourage Mark/Elena from taking a shot at your seven allies, if they had won HoH, which they didn't, anyway?  (Neither of Marlena would have put Paul himself up.)  Paul put himself in position to lose if he didn't handle any two of the necessary six ally-trims he had to negotiate down the road properly; that's just foolish.

Instead he relied on theatrical productions to keep the evictees "in the dark", as if they wouldn't be able to compare notes in jury, anyway.  When there's a certain amount of betrayal that you know you're going to have to do, it might make sense to be able to cultivate your enemies' potential votes on a "no hard feelings, it was just game, right?" basis.  But he threw away Cody/Elena/Mark's votes right off the top, and then was buried because he could only toss the fairy dust in four of his six sheep's eyes.  Baaaaa-d jury management, TinyDick!  Baaaa-d!

Edited September 22, 2017 by Halting Hex

[mertensia]

6 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Is it possible Paul assumed the people in the jury house wouldn't be allowed to compare notes? At one time weren't the jurors kept under strict watch so they wouldn't discuss the game? Seems to me like the only exceptions were after a new evicted HG arrived and they all got to see the video of the HOH and veto competitions. Then there was the moderated round table at the end. To an extent some of them were able to feed each other's bitterness and Paul likely wasn't planning for that. Whatever, I think he clearly overestimated the lasting ability of his mind control over most of them.

Yeah, I wondered, too. If Paul had been shunted to jury house last year he might have won this year. He seemed to think that they sat in isolation pods in jury house.

[Nashville]

9 hours ago, icemiser69 said:

Isn't it possible that the jury would be upset no matter what? 

Most of them felt like they had a deal with Paul.  Most of them most likely felt betrayed.   Most of those jurors were completely embarrassed on national television.

I don't know how Paul could have recovered from that.

Sure Paul could've; only problem is that to do so would require some truth-telling at the end of the game, which by Paul's perception of BB is a totally foreign concept.

See, here's the thing: at its heart and soul, the entire game of BB is nothing more than a really really extended game of Screw Your Neighbor.  This is a given.  Everybody who signs up for the game knows this (or should).  And on Finale Night every mother-lovin' son and daughter on that Jury is looking at the occupants of the F2 chairs, and they KNOW one or both of the finalists got there by personally screwing over each and every Juror.  This is also a given, and the Jurors accept it as part of the deal - but only if you can explain your screw job in a plausible game context. 

This is where Paul failed.  Paul's strategy of maintaining plausible deniability and keeping blood off his hands was elemental in getting to F2 - but Paul let it be his only strategy, when he needed more.  The GBMs and Finale are the times to finally own his game, admit he'd made moves which screwed over the entire Jury, and - most critically - explain the game logic which required those moves.  Something - anything - to impress upon Jurors the perception their eviction was a rational, well-reasoned consequence of an all-encompassing game plan which is deserving of the ultimate reward.  Paul failed to do this in his GBMs, instead choosing to continue his in-House lies which (unbeknownst to Paul) had already been exposed by Josh's more calculatedly honest GBMs.  Paul's Finale speech was his last chance to come clean about the nature of his game - but Paul again chose not to do so, to his own liability.

Jason  and others spoke of Paul "overlying" and "crossing a line"?  That line is the threshold of the House's Front Door.

 

7 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Is it possible Paul assumed the people in the jury house wouldn't be allowed to compare notes? At one time weren't the jurors kept under strict watch so they wouldn't discuss the game? Seems to me like the only exceptions were after a new evicted HG arrived and they all got to see the video of the HOH and veto competitions. Then there was the moderated round table at the end. To an extent some of them were able to feed each other's bitterness and Paul likely wasn't planning for that. Whatever, I think he clearly overestimated the lasting ability of his mind control over most of them.

Anything Paul thought about the JH was an assumption; he's never watched the show, and he's never been in Jury.

[Halting Hex]

2 minutes ago, Nashville said:

Anything Paul thought about the JH was an assumption; he's never watched the show, and he's never been in Jury.

Presumably, though, he got an extended report on what life was like in JH last season, when his buddy, El Fit Vic, eventually got there, even if it took three evictions to make it happen.  Unless Paul was too egocentric to ever ask Victor what the experience was like, he should have at least heard about it, post-season.

Flash-forward 365 days, and Victor is dating Nicole…and spending "Paul's" money.   To think, Mama Abrahamian could have paid off her Bentley with that $$$.  Oh, Karma.  Or is it "car-ma"?

[ProfCrash]

8 hours ago, jumper sage said:

Just a thought:  If Paul really did not watch the show last year could it be he has no idea what happens in the jury house?  How can he not know?  You would think just from interviews he would catch on.

 

3 hours ago, mertensia said:

Yeah, I wondered, too. If Paul had been shunted to jury house last year he might have won this year. He seemed to think that they sat in isolation pods in jury house.

 

2 hours ago, Nashville said:

Sure Paul could've; only problem is that to do so would require some truth-telling at the end of the game, which by Paul's perception of BB is a totally foreign concept.

See, here's the thing: at its heart and soul, the entire game of BB is nothing more than a really really extended game of Screw Your Neighbor.  This is a given.  Everybody who signs up for the game knows this (or should).  And on Finale Night every mother-lovin' son and daughter on that Jury is looking at the occupants of the F2 chairs, and they KNOW one or both of the finalists got there by personally screwing over each and every Juror.  This is also a given, and the Jurors accept it as part of the deal - but only if you can explain your screw job in a plausible game context. 

This is where Paul failed.  Paul's strategy of maintaining plausible deniability and keeping blood off his hands was elemental in getting to F2 - but Paul let it be his only strategy, when he needed more.  The GBMs and Finale are the times to finally own his game, admit he'd made moves which screwed over the entire Jury, and - most critically - explain the game logic which required those moves.  Something - anything - to impress upon Jurors the perception their eviction was a rational, well-reasoned consequence of an all-encompassing game plan which is deserving of the ultimate reward.  Paul failed to do this in his GBMs, instead choosing to continue his in-House lies which (unbeknownst to Paul) had already been exposed by Josh's more calculatedly honest GBMs.  Paul's Finale speech was his last chance to come clean about the nature of his game - but Paul again chose not to do so, to his own liability.

Jason  and others spoke of Paul "overlying" and "crossing a line"?  That line is the threshold of the House's Front Door.

 

Anything Paul thought about the JH was an assumption; he's never watched the show, and he's never been in Jury.

 

1 hour ago, Halting Hex said:

Presumably, though, he got an extended report on what life was like in JH last season, when his buddy, El Fit Vic, eventually got there, even if it took three evictions to make it happen.  Unless Paul was too egocentric to ever ask Victor what the experience was like, he should have at least heard about it, post-season.

Flash-forward 365 days, and Victor is dating Nicole…and spending "Paul's" money.   To think, Mama Abrahamian could have paid off her Bentley with that $$$.  Oh, Karma.  Or is it "car-ma"?

Paul said in many interviews that he did not watch last season and will not watch his season. One interviewer, Dana, asked him if it would help his game if he went to the Jury House and Paul said it might help him because he has no clue what happens there. He has no clue because he has not been there and because he has never actually watched a season of, it appears, any reality show. Anyone who has watched Survivor or Big Brother knows that the Jury talks in sequester. They don't show any of it in Survivor, Ponderosa shows what they are doing but pretty much avoids most of the game discussion except to say that they are over it/worked it out/or hate each other. Big Brother always shows the Jury House so anyone who has actually watched the show knows that the Jury talks and is influenced by each other. Paul, being an arrogant asshole, has not bothered to watch the show or talk to the past house mates to learn what happens at the Jury House so he has no idea.

[tessat]

21 hours ago, ProfCrash said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/09/21/big-brother-finale-how-did-this-contestant-implode-after-playing-a-near-perfect-game/?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-in-the-news%3Apage%2Fin-the-news&utm_term=.1b1f443168a6

 

Love the title "‘Big Brother’ finale: How did this contestant implode after playing a near-perfect game?"

Love those videos!!!

People on the other forums had said - 2 people in the house knew Paul outside of the house and were questioning who besides Raven it may have been - but after watching this video of those not in the jury house - they say Alex and Christmas were requited 3 weeks before the show aired. This may have been extra protection by production to keep Paul in the house. Paul was right to get these 5 evicted first - or he wouldn't have lasted. 

[North of Eden]

Did a rewatch of the last 20 minutes last night a saw I missed some great stuff.

*Josh's microphone catching him saying HE WON,  HE WON< HE WON when it was revealed Cody held the final vote. Surprise!

*Paul's agonized face when the vote was tying up as well as the PRE-JURORS going wild when it was happening too.

*Cody sitting in profile from behind just before his key was pulled...he KNEW who the winner was but his body didn't move or react. Perfect Cody.

* The camera man missing the MONEY SHOT when Cody and Jess went to kiss for the first time after being reunited.

*Matt standing like a lump while his girl  is clutching Paul's arm at the end.

*Christmas all over Josh as s he plans to share in the half million dollars anyway possible.

*Jason and Alex going for a hug at the final second before cut to black (no doubt with Mrs. Jason looking on)

* Josh having really HOT sisters.

Great stuff and a great ending to the season!

[llewis823]

On 9/20/2017 at 9:00 PM, Lamb18 said:

"A bridesmaid again."

Very best moment of the night! Go Julie!

[llewis823]

On 9/20/2017 at 10:19 PM, galaxychaser said:

I am wondering will Paul come back next year?

Yes, he and AG probably consider him a "celebrity"...blech...

[The Companion]

20 hours ago, Gummo said:

Best possible end to a horrible season. 

 

The lesson?

 

Jurors can accept being lied to for game purposes. They won't accept being publicly humiliated for no good reason except to feed the ego of a little hairy homunculus. 

This. Paul made fools of them and they knew it as soon as he started reiterating his in house lies. They knew he had played at least some of them, and he needed to own it to win. 

16 hours ago, Callaphera said:

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. But seriously, just because it wasn't the choice that you would like them to make doesn't make it the wrong choice. It was the right choice to them for whatever reasons. As was stated above by @Michichick, it may be a difference of feed watchers versus broadcast only watchers. As a feed watcher, I didn't think the jury could have made a better choice or a better vote count. I don't consider it poor sportsmanship. Jury management is one of the more important parts of the game and Paul proved that he didn't learn from his mistakes last season. You need to make sure that you cover your ass with the jury. Paul didn't do that very well and I think Josh's goodbye messages towards the end really helped torpedo that last bit of Paul's management. Did he play the best game? Well, he was the only one who played, really. But that doesn't mean that he deserves the win. Sometimes it's about respect more than gameplay. 

I'd disagree but only because Paul was in both seasons, in F2, with bitter juries. There's a common denominator there. 

Well said. It feels like we have this argument many years (does someone who made the most game moves deserve the win), but at this point I think it is clear that jury management is part of the game. There are some arguments that it is the whole game. You don't get points for winning competitions. Your entire job is to convince those people to vote for you. You can't do it without screwing at least some of them, so you have to find a way to soften the blow or to make yourself look brilliant enough that they grudgingly vote for you.

 

18 minutes ago, North of Eden said:

 

*Paul's agonized face when the vote was tying up as well as the PRE-JURORS going wild when it was happening too.

 

Jess looked like she might grab some popcorn. It was amazing.

 

I could not stand Paul before and found him even more intolerable this year. For the first time in my recollection, we skipped a good chunk of this season. I just couldn't watch Paul mug to the camera while everyone else acted like they had never seen an episode of big brother. I checked in to see if anything good was happening but it was the Paul show, so I kept deleting episodes. Life is too short to watch his smug bullying. 

I checked in fully expecting Paul to win so I could delete the show and low and behold he lost. I had to see it for myself. It was glorious. 

[eurekagirl mOo]

I refuse to believe that anyone beside THEMSELVES is responsible for anything they said or did. If you're weak enough to be a follower that's on you. No one can ORDER you do anything unless you're in the military! And even then war crimes are not excused for "following orders". If you bang pots and pans that's on YOU not the person who's idea it was. If you vote for someone because someone else tells you too that's your fault. NOT the person who told you. Take some responsibility!! 

[ProfCrash]

32 minutes ago, eurekagirl mOo said:

I refuse to believe that anyone beside THEMSELVES is responsible for anything they said or did. If you're weak enough to be a follower that's on you. No one can ORDER you do anything unless you're in the military! And even then war crimes are not excused for "following orders". If you bang pots and pans that's on YOU not the person who's idea it was. If you vote for someone because someone else tells you too that's your fault. NOT the person who told you. Take some responsibility!! 

I know that Mark, Elena, Alex and Jason have taken ownership of their games, or lack there of. Jason has apologized to Kevin for his awful comment about raping his wife and daughters. Alex seems to get that she was owned and wanted Paul to own up to his game play, which he failed to do.

I am guessing that Matt went into this season looking forward to a relaxing summer, making some cash doing nothing. I don't think he planned on playing hard at any time. He wanted to make jury and the earn the stipend. He stayed out of the nasty stuff and quietly spoke out against it but then stopped when Christmas and Raven told him to shut up.

Raven is most likely someone who has been brainwashed by her mother into believing that she has all these different ridiculous "diseases." Inverted spine? Really? A mystery illness that one Doctor in Sweden knows about and treats over the internet? And she really believes this crap. She was preconditioned to be a mindless follower and Paul 100% used that.

Josh behaved like an asshole and then apologized. It drove me crazy but he seemed to get that he crossed lines and walked back his bad behavior. The fact that this was a pattern was maddening but Josh owned it in his exit interviews. He says he is loud and passionate and speaks his mind. I can believe that, he has not developed filters and he needs to develop filters. He explained most of what he did and why he did it. Paul took advantage of Josh's lack of filters and encouraged him to bang pots and pans and to try and get people to throw punches. Josh got the positive feedback he needed from Paul and Christmas.

In the end, Paul refused to take responsibility for anything that happened. He claims that he didn't tell people to attack folks personally but he would lead entire bitch sessions questioning if Cody had a kid and his military service and told others they should get into it with Cody so he throws a punch. He was stroking peoples egos after they would attack someone. He stood in the back yard and bragged about the harassment of Cody and Jess in a tutu. He told them to bark and most of them did. Do the individuals have to own their behavior? Yes. But Paul has to own that he spent hours getting people riled up and giving them their talking points.

The reality is that the members of the mob are responsible for their actions but the leaders of the mob are responsible for creating and unleashing the mob. The followers need to be stronger but the leaders are more reprehensible because they created the conditions and encouraged the awful behavior and actions.

[Christina]

This is making the rounds on social media, and it is about Paul telling the others how to behave. Paul told them that he had won AFP last year, but since he was in final 2 he couldn't receive it. I think he is lying about that because every poll I saw had Victor in first place for a long time. So, when he is telling them this behavior is what America likes, and America gave him three weeks safety upon entering the house, they were a bit conditioned to think that he knew what he was talking about. On top of that many of them were there talking about their "brands" and social media followers and were going to do what they thought would get them on the episodes. That's also on them, along with the crappy behavior and actions, but it is part of the reason he had such an easy time convincing them to do what he said, they were more interested in air time than winning.

[MrHufflepuff]

55 minutes ago, eurekagirl mOo said:

I refuse to believe that anyone beside THEMSELVES is responsible for anything they said or did. If you're weak enough to be a follower that's on you. No one can ORDER you do anything unless you're in the military! And even then war crimes are not excused for "following orders". If you bang pots and pans that's on YOU not the person who's idea it was. If you vote for someone because someone else tells you too that's your fault. NOT the person who told you. Take some responsibility!! 

Sure.  But egging someone on to do bad things is also a bad thing.  Maybe not as bad, but it's still a bad thing.  Josh is responsible for his banging pots and pans.  Paul is responsible for encouraging Josh to bang pots and pans (plus Paul did his own stuff outright anyway).  In the grand scheme of things, banging pots and pans isn't that big a deal, but a lot of the HGs engaged in unnecessary, vicious behavior and Paul encouraged that behavior.  Basically, everyone sucks.

[Michichick]

1 hour ago, eurekagirl mOo said:

I refuse to believe that anyone beside THEMSELVES is responsible for anything they said or did. If you're weak enough to be a follower that's on you. No one can ORDER you do anything unless you're in the military! And even then war crimes are not excused for "following orders". If you bang pots and pans that's on YOU not the person who's idea it was. If you vote for someone because someone else tells you too that's your fault. NOT the person who told you. Take some responsibility!! 

Josh did take responsibility. And it got him the win.

[jumper sage]

9 hours ago, Halting Hex said:

 (The same convo where he tried to "shhh!" Jessica and when Cody objected, Paul was "I can tell her to be quiet!"  No, dipshit, you can ask her.  You don't own Jessica, asshat.)  And then he was downstairs, with the "All my dogs are barking now!", although he made sure to tell Josh to "turn it up to a '30'" when Cody and Jessica couldn't hear him.

What I really don't understand, though, is what was the point of all the abuse? Jessica and Cody were already isolated; if they didn't win the comps, they were doomed.  Was it really worth pissing away not one, not two, but three Jury votes just to possibly discourage Mark/Elena from taking a shot at your seven allies, if they had won HoH, which they didn't, anyway?  (Neither of Marlena would have put Paul himself up.)  Paul put himself in position to lose if he didn't handle any two of the necessary six ally-trims he had to negotiate down the road properly; that's just foolish.

Instead he relied on theatrical productions to keep the evictees "in the dark", as if they wouldn't be able to compare notes in jury, anyway.  When there's a certain amount of betrayal that you know you're going to have to do, it might make sense to be able to cultivate your enemies' potential votes on a "no hard feelings, it was just game, right?" basis.  But he threw away Cody/Elena/Mark's votes right off the top, and then was buried because he could only toss the fairy dust in four of his six sheep's eyes.  Baaaaa-d jury management, TinyDick!  Baaaa-d!

@Halting Hex  I loved your entire post but this portion was particularly relevent.

5 hours ago, Nashville said:

Sure Paul could've; only problem is that to do so would require some truth-telling at the end of the game, which by Paul's perception of BB is a totally foreign concept.

See, here's the thing: at its heart and soul, the entire game of BB is nothing more than a really really extended game of Screw Your Neighbor.  This is a given.  Everybody who signs up for the game knows this (or should).  And on Finale Night every mother-lovin' son and daughter on that Jury is looking at the occupants of the F2 chairs, and they KNOW one or both of the finalists got there by personally screwing over each and every Juror.  This is also a given, and the Jurors accept it as part of the deal - but only if you can explain your screw job in a plausible game context. 

This is where Paul failed.  Paul's strategy of maintaining plausible deniability and keeping blood off his hands was elemental in getting to F2 - but Paul let it be his only strategy, when he needed more.  The GBMs and Finale are the times to finally own his game, admit he'd made moves which screwed over the entire Jury, and - most critically - explain the game logic which required those moves.  Something - anything - to impress upon Jurors the perception their eviction was a rational, well-reasoned consequence of an all-encompassing game plan which is deserving of the ultimate reward.  Paul failed to do this in his GBMs, instead choosing to continue his in-House lies which (unbeknownst to Paul) had already been exposed by Josh's more calculatedly honest GBMs.  Paul's Finale speech was his last chance to come clean about the nature of his game - but Paul again chose not to do so, to his own liability.

Jason  and others spoke of Paul "overlying" and "crossing a line"?  That line is the threshold of the House's Front Door.

Awesome summation!

[TresGatos]

Quote

Paul didn't own his game because he was obsessed beyond belief that if he didn't have any "blood on his hands" in a technical sense with each eviction that and that alone would win him the game. 

It was almost like Paul was continuing to play last season where there was this absolute obsession with who was "getting blood on their hands." With all of Paul's BS messages to ousted house guests about how he was as blindsided as they were and the throwing comps to him and him orchestrating it so that Josh and Arbor Day had to be tie-breaking votes for eviction and he seriously thought the rest of the cast were such stupid sheep and would never compare notes and he could just yell FRIENDSHIP and they would take him to the win. Two days later and I am still so happy Paul lost.

[LoneHaranguer]

19 hours ago, icemiser69 said:

BTW, Paul should have won last year instead of Whiny Cindy Brady.

Nicole had an advantage in being a returnee with experience as a juror. Paul could have used his experience on finale night to do the same this season if he hadn't been too wrapped up in getting to F2 to think about endgame.

[backformore]

3 hours ago, llewis823 said:

Yes, he and AG probably consider him a "celebrity"...blech...

"celebrity" versions of reality competition shows (Chopped, Worst cooks, Celeb Apprentice) where there is prize money, always have "Celebrities"  who play for their favorite charity, not to win the money themselves.  So no, I doubt if Paul will play a Celeb BB. 

[backformore]

50 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

Nicole had an advantage in being a returnee with experience as a juror. Paul could have used his experience on finale night to do the same this season if he hadn't been too wrapped up in getting to F2 to think about endgame.

EXACTLY!  lying and manipulating got him to F2.  

To WIN, he'd have to switch gears - stop lying and expose his gameplay - own up to the lies, even brag about how he fooled everyone.  

[backformore]

2 hours ago, Christina said:

This is making the rounds on social media, and it is about Paul telling the others how to behave. Paul told them that he had won AFP last year, but since he was in final 2 he couldn't receive it. I think he is lying about that because every poll I saw had Victor in first place for a long time. So, when he is telling them this behavior is what America likes, and America gave him three weeks safety upon entering the house, they were a bit conditioned to think that he knew what he was talking about. On top of that many of them were there talking about their "brands" and social media followers and were going to do what they thought would get them on the episodes. That's also on them, along with the crappy behavior and actions, but it is part of the reason he had such an easy time convincing them to do what he said, they were more interested in air time than winning.

wow - Christmas was IRATE that anyone would present an opposing view - "why are you arguing with me?"   It really captured that ONLY paul's view was acceptable, and anyone disagreeing was seen as disloyal.  

Did they KNOW, or just assume that Cody "killed people already?"  Yes, he is a Marine.   But was there a basis for that assumption?  Or are they all just so frightened? 

[Nashville]

26 minutes ago, backformore said:

wow - Christmas was IRATE that anyone would present an opposing view - "why are you arguing with me?"   It really captured that ONLY paul's view was acceptable, and anyone disagreeing was seen as disloyal.  

Just Tannenbaum being a good little Nazi - because nobody should criticize Der Führer, donchaknow.

 

26 minutes ago, backformore said:

Did they KNOW, or just assume that Cody "killed people already?"  Yes, he is a Marine.   But was there a basis for that assumption?  Or are they all just so frightened? 

Frightened?  No.  Scrambling for any rationalization to disassociate Cody from the pack?  Oh, yeah.

[lasu]

Y'all can't be really telling me Paul went into the Big Brother house not once but TWICE without doing his homework?  Nah.  No one is that stupid.  He's in there telling people I'M A VET, I KNOW THIS GAME, and a motherfucker doesn't even know the damn jury can talk to each other?  Nah.  Listen, I've watched this show since the jump, and if I got accidentally cast on this show with no way out, I would be OBSESSING over every minute detail of every episode.  I would be reading every board to make sure I knew how to act correct to make you all love me the most.  I would be studying juries like a man person, and reading follow up interviews. I would be taking videos of myself to learn voice control in the diary room.  I would be getting my eyebrows microplaned because I wake up looking like Pink Floyd. I would be outside running eggs up a chain link fence and putting crisco on taped together garbage bags.  I would be practicing how to say I HAD TO GET YOU OUT BECAUSE YOU ARE SO STRONG I WAS A SCARED LITTLE GIRL WITH YOU IN THE HOUSE without laughing.  I would learn how to change clothes and pick my nose under the blankets. I would not be playing around, I would be writing my doctoral thesis on how to win Big Brother.  

So if you are telling me this fool spent SIX MONTHS of his stupid life on a game and never learned how to play, then I am telling you that fool DESERVED TO LOSE.

[RedheadZombie]

2 minutes ago, lasu said:

Y'all can't be really telling me Paul went into the Big Brother house not once but TWICE without doing his homework?  Nah.  No one is that stupid.  He's in there telling people I'M A VET, I KNOW THIS GAME, and a motherfucker doesn't even know the damn jury can talk to each other?  Nah.  Listen, I've watched this show since the jump, and if I got accidentally cast on this show with no way out, I would be OBSESSING over every minute detail of every episode.  I would be reading every board to make sure I knew how to act correct to make you all love me the most.  I would be studying juries like a man person, and reading follow up interviews. I would be taking videos of myself to learn voice control in the diary room.  I would be getting my eyebrows microplaned because I wake up looking like Pink Floyd. I would be outside running eggs up a chain link fence and putting crisco on taped together garbage bags.  I would be practicing how to say I HAD TO GET YOU OUT BECAUSE YOU ARE SO STRONG I WAS A SCARED LITTLE GIRL WITH YOU IN THE HOUSE without laughing.  I would learn how to change clothes and pick my nose under the blankets. I would not be playing around, I would be writing my doctoral thesis on how to win Big Brother.  

So if you are telling me this fool spent SIX MONTHS of his stupid life on a game and never learned how to play, then I am telling you that fool DESERVED TO LOSE.

I've got one word for you:  Hubris.