The definition is from the OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY!

You don't know what the others would have done cos they didn't get to the button as fast as Jason did. But it's neither here nor there Veri. Either way they would have had 20 grand and would have had to evict someone, for whatever reasons, valid and fair to themselves.

The game is played how any individual chooses to play it.
Long gone are the days anyone entered for the simple 'experience'. They are all in it for their own gain, be it fame or money or for their ego driven glory to win.

TellyMix ‏@tellymix · 19m19 minutes ago

Early #BBUK poll results (to save)

Jason is at the top with Hughie 2nd!!

I understand what you mean, Veri. That none of the HMs should have pressed the button, and let the winner of the show have the 100k, which is very noble, but it's been a long time anything like that has happened.

HMs of today use tactics to get to the end, and if money is a carrot, they'll use it.

Someone had to press the button at some point in the task

Are you sure it's not from this page instead? The usual meaning is more like deserving to be despised, or regarded with distaste, disgust, or disdain; contemptible.




Nothing I've said requires knowing what the others would have done, although in at least one case it's clear enough that they wouldn't have pressed the button. And so what if they'd "have to" evict someone. That wouldn't make it right to press the button. It wouldn't even make it right to pick someone to evict. Finally, so what if they thought their reasons were valid and fair (if they even did). That might, if anything, make it worse.


Yes, and they can be judged based on their choices. That's why we (rightly!) say that HMs who cheat should be punished, to pick just one example.


So? That still doesn't make pressing the button unobjectionable.

Or else what? Are they going to be thrown into a pit and left to perish? No. At most BB would invent some punishment. So no, they did not have to press the button.

The only other HM I can think of who pressed a button to get part of the prize is Conor.

Anyway, didn't Sam get the full prize in bb14? And Helen in bb15?

The point of a task / twist like tonight's is to set the HMs a moral / ethical problem and see which ones go for the greedy or otherwise selfish option. If BB viewers now think it's perfectly ok for a HM to be greedy or selfish, the whole thing ceases to make sense.

But what seems to have happened is that because he picked an unpopular HM to evict, he's cheered for it; and the different view on BOTS is because they side with Laytesha, not because they think there was anything else wrong with it. Earlier in this same series, HMs were being criticised for being selfish; now it's somehow perfectly ok. It looks like the earlier accusations weren't really because people thought there was anything wrong with selfishness; it was just because they didn't like those HMs.

It's not just something HM's of today have been doing this, it's been going on since BB1. Remember Nick ?

Victor in BB5 was someone who was very open about playing the game too.

Then there are your silent game players who like to pretend they aren't really playing a game and using tactics to win, but we know that they are really.

I don't for a second think that anybody who enters this show doesn't go in thinking about the money. They are all playing the game in some way.

It's interesting that what you pick to show Helen is worse is something she didn't do in her own series or indeed before she won.

Anyway, I agree that Helen was far worse. But the ways in which Jason is being defended, even praised, make it seem less exceptional that Helen won. As I said, something has happened to the BB audience over the years, and it's not something good.

Another example is that, in the past, up to some time before bb15, HMs being evicted without a public vote at any state would have been seen as outrageous. Now few seem to care.


I didn't especially like Laura, just as I didn't especially like Jason. I didn't have any strong feelings about either of them. But yes, I do think her pressing the button was also despicable; and the same goes for whoever else pressed it. I think I even said that earlier in this thread.

I don't remember if or how Laura tried to justify it, though.

Nick was thrown out for it, though. It wasn't considered ok for Nick to do as he did because it was "playing the game". And how did "playing the game" come to excuse even things that are against the game's own rules?

I think one reason for things getting in a mess is that there's an idiomatic expression in English, "playing games" or "game-playing", for behaviour that's evasive, deceitful, manipulative, etc; and since that expression contains the word "game", and since BB is "a game show", the idea has caught on that game-playing must be ok in BB because BB is a "game" show. If a HM is criticised for "game-playing", meaning they're evasive, deceitful, manipulative, etc, there's bound to be someone saying what's wrong with game-playing, it's a game show, they're all playing the game, and so on.

But no, being evasive, deceitful, manipulative, etc is not ok, and nothing about BB being a game show makes it ok. Nor does greed or selfishness become ok just because BB provides an opportunity for it in a task.

Anyway, Victor was open, but only up to a point. Did he say he and Marco colluded over nominations for Dan and Vanessa, for example? I don't think so.

The dominant view used to be that game-playing against other HMs was ok if the game-player let viewers in on it. That didn't really work, though, because Sezer was open and was still detested for it.

FWIW, I personally don't think that what Jason did is that bad. I don't like it when HMs "play the game" by trying to deceive the public or their fellow HMs. I don't feel Jason did that. It was clear that he and Lateysha didn't really get on and he wanted to stay in the house so pressed the buzzer as quick as he could so he could stay, and one of his reasons for picking her was because they didn't get on.

If I was in there, I personally wouldn't have pressed the buzzer as I wouldn't have wanted to be solely responsible for someone being evicted, but I can understand why Jason did it, for the reasons I mentioned above. I also don't think any the worse for him doing so.


I agree with you that it should always be left to the public to evict people. I think it should be a case of every HM nominating two people each week, and the two or more HMs with the most votes to evict is out.


Thanks for replying back to me.

Atta girl!


Hope everything's fine now! It's gone midday so you should - I hope - be over the worst and full of captured Pokemons!!!

Hey Annie hope you're ok

Popping in with my well wishes to .... imagining her still running amok round the hospital, arse hanging out chasing them yellow things

Almost wish I could be a fly on the wall....

Love the reactions here! What a night! Go Jason.

I bet it was a sight to behold

Hello all.


Everyone was talking about the Pokemon game last night. I saw something about the it on GMTV this morning!

And hope all is well, Annie.