Wasn't sure where else to put this discussion so hopefully I wont get tomatoes chucked at me for starting a new thread.
(If you dont feel like engaging in discussion just post whether you think the jury should be sequestered or not)
Anyway I've been thinking about season 2 and how people say Dr. Will is the greatest BB player ever. I'm a Dr. Will fan myself, having watched BB2 and the live feeds that summer and recall initially despising him and then eventually thinking he was the best thing to ever happen to BB-US. So I have no issues with him winning. But looking at the current season, I am starting to question whether facing a non-sequestered jury was an advantage and whether or not it would make a huge difference to the final two this season if they were facing a non-sequestered jury (especially considering who is on the jury this season).
There's already been a lot of speculation about how the jury will be this season, regardless of who is in the final 2. I'm not looking to start a specific discussion on what we can expect from each juror. But I am curious to know what you guys think about how being "on the outside" as opposed to being sequestered and only shown the competitions and ceremonies would affect the jurors votes.
For example, Memphis has played most of his game pretty quietly, not winning competitions and securing quiet deals with people. His game had less to do with being a good manipulator than it did making some really good choices. How do you prove that to a jury? When it comes to the end if he makes it to the final two, he'll have to convince the jury that a lot of what he did to get to the end was intentional. If the jury had been seeing the episodes they'd have seen that and might be inclined to give him more credit. Also, Dan won $20k for being AP. One could argue that the prize puts him about even with memphis in terms of winnings but would being AP for a week kill his chances at winning if the houseguests knew about it or would factoring that plus whatever else the jury saw of Dan's game since the AP week impress them enough to get their vote if he went to the end. The same of Keesha and Jerry - would the houseguests feel differently about either of them if they saw them from our perspective?
On one hand, I think keeping the HG's sequestered allows the final 2 to omit certain parts of their strategy if they want and continue to manipulate the jury but on the other hand, it puts the houseguests who didn't get to the end through talking/manipulation at a disadvantage because they may have worked just as hard to get to the end but have no way of proving it.
Ok, done rambling. Discuss.
ETA instructions to post a preference for those who dont feel like reading or responding to the actual discussion.
(If you dont feel like engaging in discussion just post whether you think the jury should be sequestered or not)
Anyway I've been thinking about season 2 and how people say Dr. Will is the greatest BB player ever. I'm a Dr. Will fan myself, having watched BB2 and the live feeds that summer and recall initially despising him and then eventually thinking he was the best thing to ever happen to BB-US. So I have no issues with him winning. But looking at the current season, I am starting to question whether facing a non-sequestered jury was an advantage and whether or not it would make a huge difference to the final two this season if they were facing a non-sequestered jury (especially considering who is on the jury this season).
There's already been a lot of speculation about how the jury will be this season, regardless of who is in the final 2. I'm not looking to start a specific discussion on what we can expect from each juror. But I am curious to know what you guys think about how being "on the outside" as opposed to being sequestered and only shown the competitions and ceremonies would affect the jurors votes.
For example, Memphis has played most of his game pretty quietly, not winning competitions and securing quiet deals with people. His game had less to do with being a good manipulator than it did making some really good choices. How do you prove that to a jury? When it comes to the end if he makes it to the final two, he'll have to convince the jury that a lot of what he did to get to the end was intentional. If the jury had been seeing the episodes they'd have seen that and might be inclined to give him more credit. Also, Dan won $20k for being AP. One could argue that the prize puts him about even with memphis in terms of winnings but would being AP for a week kill his chances at winning if the houseguests knew about it or would factoring that plus whatever else the jury saw of Dan's game since the AP week impress them enough to get their vote if he went to the end. The same of Keesha and Jerry - would the houseguests feel differently about either of them if they saw them from our perspective?
On one hand, I think keeping the HG's sequestered allows the final 2 to omit certain parts of their strategy if they want and continue to manipulate the jury but on the other hand, it puts the houseguests who didn't get to the end through talking/manipulation at a disadvantage because they may have worked just as hard to get to the end but have no way of proving it.
Ok, done rambling. Discuss.
ETA instructions to post a preference for those who dont feel like reading or responding to the actual discussion.
