Personally, given that I have a massive strategic game much like Paul he is an absolute idol of mine and it pained me in the gut to watch him lose twice.
Communities like tengaged, however, are all happy that he lost twice because of his poor jury management.
What do you guys think?
Should Paul have won his Big Brother seasons?
26
No, Paul deserved to lose both his seasons.
5
Paul deserved BB19 but not BB18.
2
Yes, Paul should've won both his seasons.
2
Paul deserved BB18 but not BB19.
deletedabout 7 years
The one who wins, always deserves to win. Since Paul lost, he did not deserve to win.
Literally if Paul didn't bs his goodbye messages/jury answers he probably would've won. Instead he said things like "I tried to save you" or whatever which the jurors saw through. Paul played the best strategical game obviously, but no way in he!l the best social game (although no one's social game was that good this season lmao)
deletedabout 7 years
this as well jesus christ he was a babbling idiot during those jury answers it was embarrassing for someone who's made f2 twice
deletedabout 7 years
i'm not going to vote in the poll because i don't feel as if any of those answers are accurate to what i think
basically i believe paul played the best game out of the f2 in both of his seasons but that doesn't necessarily mean he deserved to win
his jury management was abysmal, and he was a gamebot that didn't give two f*cks about the emotions of those he was playing with, and you can't play like that and then expect those people to put aside all their feelings and vote for you in the end
Also while paul may have "played the best game" from the point of view of the viewer because we saw everything that happened, paul f-cked up his answers to his questions to the jury and didn't really explain his game well. You have to understand that the jury only sees a snippet of everything, and if he doesn't accurately convey that to the people that are voting him or read them correctly then he isn't and shouldn't get their votes imo.
to your first point, what i interpret the definition of bitter to be, at least from a BB/survivor standpoint, is if someone outplayed or out maneuvered you. i think people definitely use this definiton wrong. my concern comes from the people who i have seen, say they specifically vote bitter because they don't like to see the person who outplayed them win. i wouldn't consider it bitter voting if you don't want to vote a bully to win, that's ridiculous.
to your second, confines of the game? fine. "Voting for someone who was initially your friend outside the game just because they're your friend I'm a lot less cool with, because that's just an unfair advantage to the other finalists." is what i feel is lame, so we're on the same page with that.
Point A: Depends why you are bitter - If you were being bullied by the person who "played a better game" or just in general treated like crap, then vote for the other person. You don't have to reward someone you don't respect as a person.
Point B: I'm okay with people voting for their friends if it's friends they made within the confines of the game. Part of the game is social and if you get enough jurors who want to be your best friend to the point where they vote you to win, you did something right. Voting for someone who was initially your friend outside the game just because they're your friend I'm a lot less cool with, because that's just an unfair advantage to the other finalists.
In my opinion, the winner of a game is always the deserved winner and the loser of a game is always a deserved loser due to Survivor/BB's extremely subjective way of determining the winner.
*i've seen people say this. it's really f*cking lame for you to "bitter" vote to get some sort of odd sense of revenge and satisfaction. i understand if someone didn't manage you well, then by all means, vote the person who did. but being bitter to be bitter is a bad look.
-voting your friend who is in final 2 instead of being unbiased and voting who deserved to win
*i've seen people say they will vote their friends in final 2, regardless of the game. BB online is not like IRL. you are not deciding if this person who is winning is going to get $500k over your friend. just vote for who deserves it, and if your friend gets pissed, they're a lame.
I honestly dislike having vets against newbies in Big Brother Seasons. It make them very unexciting. I would rather either have all returnees or all newbies.
This is just like when Ian deserved to win over Dan in Season 14. Josh deserved to win over Paul.
Whether you like it or not. Paul lost. Dan lost S14. Get over it.
I think if you took emotions out of the whole thing yes Paul should've won but you can't do that Paul was a gamebot that didn't care about anyone's emotions in that game and it cost him "bitter jury" is a very lame excuse would you vote for someone that outright bullied you to win 1 mill? Yeah didn't think so and if that's how everyone felt so be it You could ALWAYS tell how Josh felt and he was very honest kudos to him for that (Although if you told me Josh was winning this game after week 2 I would've laughed in your face)
deletedabout 7 years
Imo, Paul deserved to lose. He treated people like crap and bullied people the entire game. The game is about lying and deceiving, I get that. But he took it to an all new level. Also, he was foolish to think that the jurors WOULD NOT compare notes. I'm happy Josh won, he might not have been the best player or the nicest, but at least he was genuine and didn't lie for no reason in his goodbye messages or final speeches/questioning.
the beauty of BB and survivor is that there is no criteria for how to win this game. it varies every season because of the nature of the jury. the reality is that what you do in the game doesn't mean diddly poo if you can't convince the majority of the jury to vote for you. bitter juries exist and the onus is on the finalists to combat this if necessary.
so really, when you say "x was robbed, x deserved to win!" you're just saying you would vote for them if you were on the jury. that's it. they may have won your vote as a viewer but that doesn't mean crap.
(that being said i think i would've voted paul both seasons. but that doesn't mean he deserved to win either of the seasons. he was too combative, lied unnecessarily, and didn't own his game. that can justify losing any season)
I always like to think if I were a juror member on Survivor/BB that I would vote for the best game, however, at the end of the day, I'm not gonna vote for someone to win 1 million dollars/500k if I thought they weren't a nice person and that they did a poor job interacting socially with me.
I always like to think if I were a juror member on Survivor/BB that I would vote for the best game, however, at the end of the day, I'm not gonna vote for someone to win 1 million dollars/500k if I thought they were an and they did a poor job interacting socially with me.
deletedabout 7 years
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and my opinion has actually changed very recently on this. Big Brother/Survivor games are social games first and foremost and if you can't get a jury to like you or respect your game then its your fault you lose not a 'bitter jury'.
BB18: I feel that if Victor hadn't come back, there's a possibility Paul wouldn't have even made it to the Final 2. Also, a lot of people are mixed when it comes to Day and Nat who voted for Nicole to win. Some feel its just for girl power but really, Paul just did a bad job at questions. Instead of apologizing to Natalie and such for how he acted to her, he simply said "that's who I am, I'm not gonna change!". In regards to Day, I could also be wrong on this, but he didn't really own up to his move against her. Cue in a few factors and other people and there we go! I actually thought Nicole learned from her mistakes in BB16 it got her the win, but I'm willing to be a minority on that opinion.
BB19: I'll start off by saying that Paul winning would have been deserving. He played a lot harder and more than a great deal of this cast- combined. That said, he made a few mistakes. For one, his ringleader behavior, mostly in regards to how he treated other HGs outside of his alliance wasn't all that good. Josh was arguably worse, but yeah.
This said, I think a lot of people forget that its not set in the rule book that you HAVE to vote for the person who played the better game. There are a million reasons you can and should be able to vote for someone so it shouldn't be exclusive. I think there was some bitterness, but we have to realize that Dan never made the same mistakes Paul did. On top of that- Josh excelled in was owning up his game and being honest. If Paul had remotely tried to do this, I think he could have swayed people over. His poor attempt at still coming off pro-friendship, indecisive, and irresponsible cost himself the win.
Mark, Elena, Cody had more reason to be bitter at Josh than Paul himself with what they went through, yet voted him. So yeah. I don't think Josh was spectacular by any means, but I can't say Paul's unnecessary lying and poor jury management and lack of ownership didnt play a role in this outcome, alongside some bitterness.
1. bored, probably leaving soonish again. 2. that's debatable. people vote on emotion, but you signed up for a game to have your emotions f*cked with. 3. nah i respect him hella. he knows all the right moves to do at the right time and i wish i was half as good of a player he was.
BB18: He was automatically a target fairly early and was on the block several times. There were four returning veterans that joined the game to play with him so he had it really rough. He lost Victor early, yes he did come back twice but him losing Victor didn't completely tear him apart, he still kept fighting and fighting to the bitter end. Nicole did nothing bu bang Corey as far as I'm concerned.
BB19: Me being a seasoned payer in the lobby, it's easy for people to take potshots at me and succeed, so I have to work extra hard to play the game to make sure I'm not targeted so easily because the moment I join a game I join with a giant target on my back just like he did when Kevin took the temptation. He was the catalyst of all HOH's, all evictions and strategically dominated the game, had everyone doing his bidding, all while having that enormous target on him from the get-go. If people didn't respect his game, they shouldn't have played it. Mark, Elena, Jason, and Alex all played Paul's game and they all got f*cked but they could've made their own moves. They didn't. Matt, Raven, Kevin, and Christmas also all got played by Paul but they respected his play and I felt like the rest of them should have as well. He was unnominated as well, except for that one time Cody blindsided the entire house like a moron and nommed him but he had the Pendant of Prortection.
In short, Paul is one of the greatest players that BB has seen and it's a shame that both he and Dan Gheesling didn't win $1,000,000 from both their seasons because of sh*tty jurors that don't respect the game.
