Originally Posted by wonkeydonkey:
“I can't see why it is such a difficult point for people to grasp. No one is complaining about the idea that anyone may be nominated: they are all grumbling, not just Sam, because they had an honest belief that a 'fair' nomination was based on something that had annoyed someone about the person they are nominating. Since both Jim and Liz have told Sam that they nominated her because they believe her to be invincibly popular, she feels, and everyone else agrees, that BB should not have accepted that nomination.”
Actually, they gave perfectly valid reasons for nominating her in the diary room, just as she gave perfectly valid reasons for nominating them.
Afterwards, Liz admitted she wanted to go up against someone strong, but was still puzzled as to why Sam (and certain others) were making a big deal of it, when nominating is part of the CBB experience and she herself had been nominated by everyone!
Quote:
“They may be wrong - there is not enough precedent to show whether BB has accepted that kind of nomination in the past. Certainly Dave was allowed to nominate Rachael on just those grounds, but that was in a save and replace. ”
If I recall correctly, Victor Ebuwa was very open about tactical nominations.
Saying that, i think it's a moot point, because when voting in the diary room, they both gave valid reasons for voting for her; indeed Liz used the very same reason as Sam used for nominating her.