I think Dan is the greatest player of all time and he deserved to win Big Brother 14. It’s unfortunate that jealousy and egos got in the way of the final decision.
And Janelle knows all about jealousy and egos huh. lol
Just because she's friends with Dan.
And the 'bitter jury' argument rears its ugly head again.
It's just an excuse when someone thinks blatantly stabbing someone in the back and sending them to the jury pissed at you is a great move. Anyone could do that.
If Dan wanted to win he should have won the final hoh and taken Danielle, allowing Ian to take him and then own him in the jury questions was the worst thing he could do.
I mean the only jurors you could say were bitter at Dan were Shane and Frank.
The others were either an ally of Ian (Britney) or screwed over by Ian so if they were that ego-bruised shouldn't have voted for him (Boogie, Ashley) and I doubt that people like Jenn and Joe have that much of an ego based on their fairly crap gameplay. Jenn seemed more bitter at Ian than anyone else.
yeah, i never like the bitter jury excuse... that's part of the game, a big part.. to get the jury votes.
alot of fans want to blame the jury for voting a certain way but that's up to the game player to get the votes.
if you make a big move in really betraying someone hard then there will be some karma from that, if you're a really good player you will find a way to make it work.
that's actually one of the elements i've enjoyed! as i think that makes the game alot harder when you have to deal with that stuff, trying to get someone out but at the same time getting their vote to win.. that fascinates me.
i never minded if someone was emotional or took it personal, i felt like each person gets their unique vote as a member of the game and can use it how they see best.
if dan played the best game he would've won since the object of the game is to win, coming in second place isn't the best game, people can cast blame all they want until the end of time but it's not going to change the result.
dan should've actually tried at securing jury votes instead of getting an ocean of blood on his hands. (he played like a psychopath on a killing spree)
i thought dan played a good/exciting game but i thought ian deserved the win.
he did what he had to do in getting to the end and also was able to get the votes he needed which is the object of the game.
dan should've actually tried at securing jury votes instead of getting an ocean of blood on his hands. (he played like a psychopath on a killing spree)
i thought dan played a good/exciting game but i thought ian deserved the win.
he did what he had to do in getting to the end and also was able to get the votes he needed which is the object of the game.
Dan played like an All star but sadly there were no All stars on the Jury to respect this gameplay. If it had been an All star series the way he played the game would have been totally acceptable. It was just the newbies some of whom knew nothing about the game took offence to his gameplaying. Another reason why mixing vets with newbies doesnt work.
Dan played like an All star but sadly there were no All stars on the Jury to respect this gameplay. If it had been an All star series the way he played the game would have been totally acceptable. It was just the newbies some of whom knew nothing about the game took offence to his gameplaying. Another reason why mixing vets with newbies doesnt work.
But if you don't play the game with the jury members way of thinking in mind then you don't deserve to win. Dan knew for a long time who would likely be on the jury but he didn't play to this.
Every jury has had a different mood and criteria for choosing a winner, look at the fact that contestants like Dick and Jordan have both won, in spite of the huge differences in game play.
Dan played like an All star but sadly there were no All stars on the Jury to respect this gameplay. If it had been an All star series the way he played the game would have been totally acceptable. It was just the newbies some of whom knew nothing about the game took offence to his gameplaying. Another reason why mixing vets with newbies doesnt work.
that's the game, it's not "what ifs" it was dan's job to get the jury votes, to get to know how each person was and how they might vote and then work their way in... also to try and position certain people in the jury that might be a vote for him.
people can go on and on about how dan played such an amazing game because it was exciting but the fact is he played a horrid second half of the game, ie, the jury vote aspect and final speech.. it was filled with desperation and high risk.
dan's to blame, not the jury... not anyone else.
poor jury management is not great game play.
Comments
That game he's playing looks crap
Congrats to them both!
Congrats to both of them!
big fan of goddess britney. cool!!
http://forums.jokersupdates.com/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php?Board=bbnewsandrumors&Number=19183886#ixzz2Oi21lxnU
Just because she's friends with Dan.
And the 'bitter jury' argument rears its ugly head again.
It's just an excuse when someone thinks blatantly stabbing someone in the back and sending them to the jury pissed at you is a great move. Anyone could do that.
If Dan wanted to win he should have won the final hoh and taken Danielle, allowing Ian to take him and then own him in the jury questions was the worst thing he could do.
I mean the only jurors you could say were bitter at Dan were Shane and Frank.
The others were either an ally of Ian (Britney) or screwed over by Ian so if they were that ego-bruised shouldn't have voted for him (Boogie, Ashley) and I doubt that people like Jenn and Joe have that much of an ego based on their fairly crap gameplay. Jenn seemed more bitter at Ian than anyone else.
alot of fans want to blame the jury for voting a certain way but that's up to the game player to get the votes.
if you make a big move in really betraying someone hard then there will be some karma from that, if you're a really good player you will find a way to make it work.
that's actually one of the elements i've enjoyed! as i think that makes the game alot harder when you have to deal with that stuff, trying to get someone out but at the same time getting their vote to win.. that fascinates me.
i never minded if someone was emotional or took it personal, i felt like each person gets their unique vote as a member of the game and can use it how they see best.
if dan played the best game he would've won since the object of the game is to win, coming in second place isn't the best game, people can cast blame all they want until the end of time but it's not going to change the result.
dan should've actually tried at securing jury votes instead of getting an ocean of blood on his hands. (he played like a psychopath on a killing spree)
i thought dan played a good/exciting game but i thought ian deserved the win.
he did what he had to do in getting to the end and also was able to get the votes he needed which is the object of the game.
Dan played like an All star but sadly there were no All stars on the Jury to respect this gameplay. If it had been an All star series the way he played the game would have been totally acceptable. It was just the newbies some of whom knew nothing about the game took offence to his gameplaying. Another reason why mixing vets with newbies doesnt work.
But if you don't play the game with the jury members way of thinking in mind then you don't deserve to win. Dan knew for a long time who would likely be on the jury but he didn't play to this.
Every jury has had a different mood and criteria for choosing a winner, look at the fact that contestants like Dick and Jordan have both won, in spite of the huge differences in game play.
that's the game, it's not "what ifs" it was dan's job to get the jury votes, to get to know how each person was and how they might vote and then work their way in... also to try and position certain people in the jury that might be a vote for him.
people can go on and on about how dan played such an amazing game because it was exciting but the fact is he played a horrid second half of the game, ie, the jury vote aspect and final speech.. it was filled with desperation and high risk.
dan's to blame, not the jury... not anyone else.
poor jury management is not great game play.