There seems to be some confusion here about what we are allowed to discuss when it comes to the personalities and appeal of the Big Brother contestants. First, let's consider this:

1) Big Brother is 100% about personalities - the one the viewers like the best wins.
2) The contestants are there with one aim: to win £70,000.
3) All the contestants willingly put themselves forward to be watched 24 hours a day *and judged* 24 hours a day for their actions in the house.
4) Based on the experience of previous years, they can be 100% sure that by taking part they risk dragging their families and skeletons into the spotlight as well as what they choose to display to us in the house.
5) They can leave at any time if they don't like what's going on as some have.

Given all this, comments about their personalities complete with colourful similies are entirely in keeping with the spirit of the programme which obviously aims to attract viewers by showing the most entertaining clips however one sided they may be. (Consider this: the Australian version goes out on a main channel at 7pm and they can't show drinking, swearing, nudity, bad behaviour etc - little wonder why it's done bad in the ratings this year - a mate of mine produces it).

Comments on the way contestants present themselves, their command of language, their behaviour, their actions, their clothes and certain aspects of their appearance are clearly all fair game and form part of the decision-making process as to whether we the viewers are going to let the contestant win.

Clearly, some features can be commented on because they have a choice and their choices help us determine what kind of person they are:

Size: medical conditions aside, a person's size is well within their control should they choose to exercise it.
Hair colour: this is something that people can also do something about and clearly have done judging by this year's contestants.

Other features that they cannot help are not fair game such as their facial features (unless affected by size), their skin colour or their sexuality and comments about such topics are in any case against the T&Cs of this forum.

Why some people in this forum are getting so personally upset by harsh comments made about unpopular contestants (er... that probably covers all of them) is beyond me since that kind of controversy is exactly what the show is intended to whip up.

They wanted to be part of this, they wanted to be watched and dissected. Please people, don't get upset when people here do just that.

Richard.

BANG ON RICHARD!!!

MGOM

What a brilliant, common sense posting
Mavis

Fair points.

worthy post... well said

I agree - and there is nothing wrong with saying that :-

Alex is a slimebag
Tim is a racist
PJ is homophobic
Jonny is immensely irritating
Sandy was a fascist
Alison was slim

valid points. However, I'd hope people would judge the contestants on more than their physical appearance, and shallow judgements which focus wholly on such irrelevant points as someones choice of clothes I find disapointing and fair to challenge to try and get people to think a little more deeply about their own prejudices and preconceptions.

...it's what I find most interesting about BB - questioning my own reactions to the housemates and not just accepting my initial feelings without reason.

And don't forget,

Lynne was a psycho
Sunita was above all this
Lee was vain
Spencer was a tramp

I just gotta be joinin in on this thread....

My first thoughts are:

Adele: Clever Two faced game player
Alex: Big girls blouse but does make me laugh sometimes
Allison: Loud and fun who went too soon
Jade: Very loud and bitchy
Kate: Lovely fit bird who is fun to watch
Lynne: Drunk with attitude
Lee: Boring poser who had nothing to offer
Spencer: Smartly quiet who does his own thing
Sandy: Another bitter jock with attitude who wasted a space
Johnny: Keeps the party going
PJ: Lazy and boring
Tim: I refuse to comment on this git
Sophie: Lovely body who never got a chance
Sunita: Wasted a space

How fair are these comments then? I wrote the names then wacked down a speedy first response to what I thought of them. Am I right????

Fallyhag

The only one I'd disagree with is the Sunita summary. Whilst agreeing she effectively wasted a space, I don't think anyone being in the house could really know how they'd react until they walk in that door...and that first week was mayhem remember...I know I sympathised with her wanting to get the hell out of there!

Amazing! Very close to my own views, except:-

Spencer - dull, dull, dull
Adele - not so clever bitch

How fair are these comments then? I wrote the names then wacked down a speedy first response to what I thought of them. Am I right????

Fallyhag


I'd say you are spot on

Richard
The contest as I see it is about POPULARITY. Now, it seems to me that some people don't like the HMs becuase of things like race, sexual orientation etc. Now, whilst I disagree with such shallowness, why is it NOT fair game to find someone unlikeble because of such qualities?

It's a sad probability, however unpleasant, that there are people who voted Alison out becuase she was fat/black. Do you say their votes shouldn't count? And if not why not? Why is NOT liking someone for their race any WORSE than not liking someone because of their hair style (which you have said IS fair game)?

Just interested in the psychology of choice.

Jack

Hello FJ(IMM)
Perhaps because race or sexual orientation cannot be changed, whereas hair colour, weight etc. can be, if only sometimes with difficulty. I do think tho' that you have raised a good point. Sadly I am too shallow to be able to debate it properly.
Love
Mave
ps 135 f2 L, best ever!

Hello darling
Good taste in lenses. Thats the one I really miss: even my mom looked okay in S/F (er, that IS the soft focus one, yes? It's certainly same focal length and f-number, if i recall correctly) !!!

Sorry, perhaps my question wasn't clear, I wasn't asking: "why is it unfair to talk about... as a reason for not liking someone?", I was asking why a comment along the lines of "I don't like Alison because she is fat", is an INVALID reason (albeit a pretty spazzy one) for evicting her. And by "invalid" I assume Richard meant "not allowed to be counted".

And how would you know: as far as I can tell ANY reason is VALID (just some are rather pointless). As the comp is actually about POPULARITY not PERSONALITY as richard said. He was stating the ideal, i was stating what I think is the unfortunate actual, truth.

Jack
xxx

Sorry, I think I understand what you mean now, you are probably
right and any way it is obviously impossible to police people's choices. Wouldn't it be lovely if everyone chose after buckets of rational thought and were not swayed by anything to do with colour etc. Ain't going to happen tho' .
I think the S/F lens is a 2.8, tho' might be wrong, mine isn't S/F but is LUVERLY. Incidentally you can pick up a good EOS 5 for not too much now (2nd hand). The EOS 30 is a bit of a stinker, so I'm getting rid of mine and keeping the 5. The D30 (digital) is pretty bloomin' good too, have stolen Mr. Sausage's D30 and am not giving it back... (runs off cackling madly).
Sorry, am rambling
Love
Mave the raving

Yes, I was racked with self doubt after that posting: the F2 is MEGA expensive innit: certainly when I was "using" it was.
I need to get a digital camera.

Love
JAck
xx
off to bed

Yes, but a bargain 2nd hand! The Canon S40 is a v.good digital.
Sleep well,
Mave
xxx

Hey Jack

"Popularity" = "the one the viewers like best wins" (or whatever I put). Same thing. This thread, though, is about what we can discuss on these forums and what response we can expect from other posters. It is not about how we decide who to vote for. (I created it because I received an abusive private message from somebody about a humourous post I made about a certain unpopular HM - which I thought was a bit off.) It's against the T&C of this forum to be homophobic, racist etc. It's not against the T&C of the forum to comment on somebody's size or hair colour or to draw conclusions about the life choices the contestants made when deciding they were going to go blonde or eat so much they became obese. They put themselves up to be judged for this. That's all. Obviously, some people will choose other criteria when deciding who to vote out but we just can't discuss these in the forum that's all.

And thanks for the support for this thread everyone. You've restored my faith.

Richard.

fallyhag - another whinging sassenach.............


watch out - theres a caber with your name on it and an ex-army
man in a kilt wielding it !!

This is a very good thread. I wanted to say pretty much the same thing when i started to get pissed off at moderators closing threads. I wanted to say: Big Brother is a pantomime (Ginger Whinger got that right) so we should be allowed to boo and mock and say bad things about people. They willingly went into the house after seeing two previous series and after having the "talk of doom". They know it is a popularity contest. Everyone knows BB is tabloid trash, and the housemates are pantomime characters to give tabloid newspapers something to write about. I think nearly anything is fair game.

I like photoshopped Jade pics. Some of them have become classic, used for t-shirts. Yet when someone posts a link to a pic, the moderator closes the thread. Why? It is classic lampooning of a character. The "Dumb and Dumber" pic is a comment on jade's lack of intelligence. The "pig" pictures admittedly make fun of something she has little control over, but the reason for making the picture is to express negativity about Jade -- something we are allowed (and expected) to do.


The main thing I hate about this forum is that some people think there is something "noble" in Big Brother. There isn't. It is tabloid trash. That's okay, I love watching it. But don't enjoy this tabloid trash when it suits you, then come over all prim-and-proper when it suits you. You're watching a trashy pantomime of popularity, so don't feel awkward when you realise how trashy it really is.

Either embrace the trash, or go away. But don't watch the trash when you feel like it, then criticise people for insulting the housemates like they are expected and allowed to do.

a very well written post, however, I think it is wrong on a number of levels.
1) If its ok to emphasise Jades 'bad' personality by insulting her appearance, then do you think it would have been fine to emphasise Adeles 'bad' behaviour by insulting her about the colour of her skin?.

2) One day after Jade appeared in the house, she was getting insults about her looks. do you think that was valid when,at that point, she hadnt actually done anything bad at all.

3) Jade is in great danger of physical harm when she gets out (christ even people who LOOK like jade are getting attacked!), do you think this is suitable 'punishment' for her?, or ever evr so slightly OTT?.

yes...BB contestants put themselves up for piss taking etc etc, but This is just something lese and very sinsiter.

I watch BB for the laughs and the human interactions, I dont like the witchunts and I never had. To say 'dont watch it if you dont like the insult is a cop out imo. BB is not just for people who want the equivalent of the Ancient Roamn coliseum, its for all walks of life with different views and opinions.
There may not be much 'noble' about BB, but if some of us want to empathise with the contestants and be Noble about it then we have as much right to be as people who just like to jeer.

good point, well thought out... i have a thought though:

there have been times in this forum where (some) posters were making increasingly hysterical comments about certain HMs. I do not have any problem with such people until those comments could have real life implications for those concerned. for example, stating that an HM is a prostitute or that thier family has a history of drug abuse is both slanderous and potentially damaging to people outside of the BB experience. morevoer, in some cases, these posts have been attracting contributions that might suggest some contributors enjoy attacking someone who has no means of reply and in a manner that if such attacks were voiced in a more public domain the poster could find themselves in trouble. the vast majority of posters and posts pass by without any problem in what is a generally enjoyable forum, but, i for one, will always stand up for anyone who is being attacked where i think that that attack is unjustified, or if the person being attacked does not have the strength or ability to stand up to their assailant.

for example, imagine someone standing 10 yards from you and shouting out some of the posts about jade but levelled at yourself and in front of the 1000 or so members of this forum... 'fat bitch who needs good slap', 'whore', etc. etc. (would that be so different to 'coon', '****', 'queer'?)... in our society we would regard these comments is inappropriate if they were stated in a public arena - why is this forum so different? why are the values of respectability devalued here? why do people get off on being abusive here when they probably would not have the gaul to stand up and make such comments in the real world?

Well, I would view this forum as being no different to any other medium - TV, newspapers etc and I think it is a very public medium. Do we think that Graham Norton believes everything he says on his show? Of course he doesn't. He couldn't care less. He's playing to his audience. Do we think that newspaper columnists really believe everything they write? Of course they don't. They're writing for their audience. Such is the nature of the media. And this forum is part of it. People post messages here to be read by others and do so to provoke a reaction. Obviously, the link between the poster and the reader here is very close so there is the chance to get immediate feedback that TV and newspapers do not allow. This should surely give us evern more latitude than Graham Norton and The Sun because there is less for us to hide behind.

If, on the other hand, you mean that a lot of what is written here would not be said directly to the HM's faces you are spot on. Dead right. Absolutely. You wouldn't want to end up in A&E after all. But it comes back to the fact that these people put themselves in this position and are absolutely fair game.

But imagine this: after the show is over and the contestants resume their previous lives, they are searching around on the internet and discover this forum. Slowly, they begin to search through the archived posts for references to themselves.

Who's grateful we hide behind user names now?