I've been thinking about this.

Before in previous BB's, they could have been chucked out or seriously warned about dicussing nominations etc.

However, now they have an excuse to do this TWICE and still stay in the house. It could be seen as giving them 2 chances to do something daring and against BB rules, which may be fueling rebellion.

They know they can get away with it twice (or even mroe than twice if they just get a warning).

So do you think the 3 strikes actually give more freedom, instead of the producers wanting the place to be stricter?

I definitely agree with you that they have not been as strict as what was promised/suggested at the start of the show.

They seem very reluctant to give any strikes out - instead giving out a "warning" before the first strike. This is ludicruous - as surely the first strike acts as the first warning....?

What really frustrates me is that they give a warning *on each individual issue* before doing anything...

so...when they cross the divide, they will get a warning. when they discuss nominations, they first get a warning. when they try to communicate with the outside world, they get a warning. THis means that a housemate could get three or four warnings before any strikes are dished out.

The HMs should be in no doubt as to what the rules are as they were explained to them before they went into the house and they also have a written copy in the house as well. Rather than treat each issue separately, it should be "break the rules once - get one strike. break the rules twice, get two strikes. Break the rules three times, get evicted".

From the way they were talking about the three strikes rule prior to BB, that is what I thought would happen.

I think you're right Ex - ISTR Jonny saying that he'd take a strike to get some food from the rich side last night. Essentially, they know they have three chances, and from what was said last night, they seem fairly willing to trade the first two for the things that they feel they need.

I don't think you'll see anyone getting 3 strikes in this series. Channel 4 may look tough with the 3 strikes scenario, but the reality is they won't want more people out of the house. It's stupid to expect hungry people on the poor side of the house not to break the rules. I really felt for Kate and Johnny when they looked so hungry. It's actually pretty cruel. Spencer says he's looking forward to either Saturday's task or getting kicked out.

Well, they may not have fillet steak or Pringles, but they've got veg, pasta and a herb garden, iirc. There's a bunch of quick & pretty filling stuff they could rustle up, if they could be bothered.

I think this is the key difference between the poor side & rich sides this week and last week - last week the poor side *worked* - I think because they had at least some people in there focussed on making the best of it. This week everyone is focussed on

a) getting on to the rich side at the end of the week,
b) what a crappy deal they have on their side compared to the rich side

or so it seems to me.

The idea that the poor side is "cruel" is ridiculous, imo - basic, yes, but not cruel. Now, if BB were to want to make the poor side *actually* cruel, rather than just uncomfortable, I do have several ideas ...

Agree with the basis of this thread - at the end of the day I don't think we'd have seen Nasty Nick expelled from the house under the current three-strikes rules. nd

They did. They were up for several more hours while they baked a loaf and made egg and chips. There is however, nothing quick and easy they can rustle up, because most of their food is dried and to cook anything means building a fire in the BBQ, it takes an hour or so just to get a cup of tea.

...mm. Supposing they all misbehave - a lot. 3 strikes each - mass eviction by BB security, loadsa new HMs, not too interesting viewing, is it.

The point is, in unison they can get away with a whole lot more.

BB would just decide the winner to be the person with least strikes, or no-one wins at all.

Jack
As far as I'm aware there's no legal obligation for c4 to pay anyone the 70K if they really didn't want to.
That wouldn't happen though as c4 would lose all credibility should they plan another series.