DS Forums

 
 

why do the losing team always turn on each other?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-12-2016, 22:26
Peter_Gazzard
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 634

survival of the fittest I suppose
Peter_Gazzard is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 01-12-2016, 22:46
Dix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LFLF Research Div
Posts: 49,337
survival of the fittest I suppose
Nature of the beasts perhaps, or they like being nasty towards others.
Dix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2016, 22:50
melodymalone
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 133
They know (at least) one will be fired and they don't want it to be them, so they embark on frenzied buck-passing,
melodymalone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 02:14
SwanGirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Swansea
Posts: 1,972
I guess you only have a few options if you are on the losing team going into the boardroom. You either hold your hands up and admit to any mistakes you've made but try and point out others mistakes and how they were worse than what you did, you go in and try to pin the blame on everyone else and refuse to own up to anything you might have done which hindered the task or you sit back and be quiet whilst letting others thrash it out in the hopes that your team leader will not pick you to go back into the boardroom.

The last tactic might work early on when there are so many candidates but as the weeks go by and there's only a handful of people left it's harder to blend into the background and try to scrape through. The first tactic is dodgy as whilst admitting to your mistakes and not passing the buck onto someone else may seem like the noble thing to do, you are then putting yourself in a position where all your other team mates turn on you and use you as a scapegoat as to why the task went so wrong. From then on you may also be seen as the weak candidate who, if you're on the failing team again, the others will sniff blood and cut your throat.

I guess most people see the last option as the best one because perhaps they believe giving strong opinions in the board room and shouting others down is a sign of strength and the fact they can handle themselves.

In my opinion, Sofianne's role assignments were very deliberate and perhaps pre emptive in case they did lose the task. He could pin the blame for how poor the game was on Dillon and Alana and blame Brianne for not being that great at the marketing side or offering much in terms of creativity. As PM he should have been overseeing the creation of the game as that was the most important thing, even if the marketing was terrible if they'd had a decent game that could have carried them through.
SwanGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 09:00
Paul_DNAP
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,881
Sometimes it looks like the winning team are about to turn on each other too, but they suddenly forget all the things that they think everyone else did wrong when they find out they won and they are all friends again.
Paul_DNAP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 11:10
Rutakateki
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stockport
Posts: 2,072
a) they are encouraged to

b) the boardroom lasts for hours, and they only show the most interesting snippets- ie. when they are sniping at each other.
Rutakateki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 11:48
lammtarra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 900
a) they are encouraged to

b) the boardroom lasts for hours, and they only show the most interesting snippets- ie. when they are sniping at each other.
Trouble is, the production team thinks that candidates shouting is the most interesting part, so that is what they show. Some of us would prefer to see more serious analysis of what went right as well as where the task was lost.

The producers give us Big Brother. What I want is more like Bake Off or Masterchef -- yes, show the mistakes but also the triumphs. And the producers should imo reflect on the viewing figures of these other shows.
lammtarra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 16:34
drakhen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,188
The problem is if you admit you messed up, Lord Sugar can turn it around from you being honest to you are not defending yourself and putting up a fight. Alternatively, if you say you are blameless and its your team mate(s)' fault, it can be spun that you are making excuses and not a team player. The middle ground seems to be the safest option on the show.
drakhen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2016, 17:03
Dragonlady 25
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,038
Complete lack of self knowledge.
Dragonlady 25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2016, 11:53
Steve9214
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,547
The purchasing task was an interesting one which showed up the differences.

One team drive all the way out Thamesmead to get black soap.
They had clearly checked that the shop had the item, so despite the long drive they got it.

The other team also went on a long drive for black soap - but it turned out to be "soup".

The error was not deciding to drive a long way to get the item, the real error was one team did not clearly check what was on offer.

If the first team had lost - the long drive to Thamesmead would have been raised - but as it yielded results would not be able to be used against one of the team.

LS wants to find out WHY the errors happened, candidates have to make snap decisions based on the information they have. If they don't interpret that information logically or thoroughly - then that is when their jackal team mates will pounce.

If the second team had driven to Slough and the guy in the shop had just said "I was bored so I lied to you about having soap", then it would be impossible to blame anyone on the team for that failure.
Steve9214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2016, 20:01
jude_le
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 85
Trouble is, the production team thinks that candidates shouting is the most interesting part, so that is what they show. Some of us would prefer to see more serious analysis of what went right as well as where the task was lost.

The producers give us Big Brother. What I want is more like Bake Off or Masterchef -- yes, show the mistakes but also the triumphs. And the producers should imo reflect on the viewing figures of these other shows.
agreed. the show focuses too much on negativity and the mistakes made, and there isn't enough time spent on the positive aspects and the clever decisions the the candidates do make. that's why people are calling these candidates the worst ever, and why it's so hard to pick a potential winner of the remaining six; it's because we've barely seen any of them truly stand out. it's arguable that these candidates must not be that great, true, but it's unlikely that they've all only done one or two things of note in the entire series (bar Courtney).
jude_le is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 19:25
JohnStannard
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 5,859
because they wanna remain in the process and defend themselves by throwing others under the bus and try to show LS why they shouldn't be fired from the process, they don't wanna take responsibility unless it jepodises their chances and puts them further in the firing line (no pun intended)
JohnStannard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 19:43
francie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,671
Rats on a slowly sinking ship ...
francie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 21:07
Cats_Eyes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 2,546
Rats on a slowly sinking ship ...
Yes it's all very unsavoury and I don't like to see it.
Cats_Eyes is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:04.