Especially the last couple of noms when Veto essentialy dictates who goes home.
I've never understood the thinking behind this.
I've never understood the thinking behind this.
0 Points
- Survivor Sucks
- Lions, Tigers, Survivors - Oh My!
- Survivor Spoilers
- MESS Hall Tribal Council
- MESS Hall Archive
- Survivor Speculation
- Survivor: The Future
- The Amazing Race
- Big Brother
- Big Brother - PAST SEASONS
- The Apprentice
- American Idol
- American Idol PAST SEASONS
- The Mole
- Lost
- Other Shows that Suck
- Off Topic
- Clubs that Suck. No, Really.
- The Dump
- Monster Island
- Purgatory
- FAQ
- In Memory, 9/11/01
Why the rule that HOH can't vote?
| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 StarRider |
Why the rule that HOH can't vote? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 18589 (09/04/08 07:05 PM) |
|
||
|
The SovereignOne |
|||
|
Posts: 943 (09/04/08 07:07 PM) Registered user |
Why the rule HOH can't play for it in consecutive weeks?
The HOH system is as flawed as the BCS |
||
|
Surfing Hippo in Trouble |
|||
|
Posts: 273 (09/04/08 07:28 PM) |
Tiebreakers suck
See: Survivor I think that it works a lot better with the HoH voting only for a tie, Yes it is flawed but hey. |
||
|
catspasms |
|||
|
Posts: 8137 (09/04/08 08:15 PM) I need a life |
The no consecutive HOH rule and the HOH can't vote rule add some vulnerability to being HOH, which keeps the game interesting.
|
||
|
Quiddity |
|||
|
Posts: 3493 (09/04/08 08:38 PM) Registered User |
catspasms wrote:X. HOH is both a risk and a reward. You play it right, you can go very far. You play it wrong, you're toast the next week or soon after (see Alex & Amanda, BB6 Jen, Kail, and many others who handled their HOH completely wrong). Letting them play each week would really screw things up and lead to more boring Survivor-like seasons where you have challenge whores. And the fact that there will never be a tiebreaker on this show unlike Survivor is certainly nice. |
||
|
kmill |
|||
|
Posts: 1648 (09/04/08 08:49 PM) Registered user |
I find it very interesting that as the game goes on, HoH essentially loses power while PoV gains power, in the form of a vote as well as being the most
important factor in who leaves the house (See Memphis at F5 for the best example).
|
||
|
star jumper |
|||
|
Posts: 36103 (09/04/08 10:41 PM) I'm an ugly Yeti King |
I find it nice that once F4 hits, the person who isn't on the block or HOH can't use the POV if they win it.
|
||
|
Licorice |
|||
|
Posts: 90 (09/04/08 10:48 PM) |
kmill wrote: Yes. Essentially HOH becomes little more than immunity from eviction. POV bestows executioner status. |
||
|
IReallyHaveNoIdea |
|||
|
Posts: 4126 (09/04/08 10:58 PM) Registered user |
star jumper wrote:The HoH can use it. If Dan goes through with nominating Memphis and Jerry, but then wins PoV, I could see him using it on Memphis, as he trusts him the most to vote the way he wants. |
||
|
Polgara |
|||
|
Posts: 2 (09/04/08 11:00 PM) |
Good question. I wondered that too.
|
||
|
star jumper |
|||
|
Posts: 36104 (09/05/08 12:22 AM) I'm an ugly Yeti King |
IReallyHaveNoIdea wrote: Shit, you're dumb. |
||
|
Riff |
|||
|
Posts: 1912 (09/05/08 12:54 AM) |
star jumper wrote: What's the difference then, though? Either way, they're the one who decides who's leaving. If Cowchips hadn't been able to use his veto, Nakommie still would have gotten evicted. I mean, unless the houseguest who finishes 4th place has the general intelligence level of Cowboy, I think it's patently obvious to anybody that a vote to veto the other nominee is a vote to evict them. (Yes, I'm aware they changed things after BB5.) |
||
|
star jumper |
|||
|
Posts: 36106 (09/05/08 01:00 AM) I'm an ugly Yeti King |
The difference is that you're a douchebag and you should get out of my sight.
|
||
|
Riff |
|||
|
Posts: 1914 (09/05/08 01:19 AM) |
star jumper wrote: Go jejune yourself. |
||
|
highwind44029 |
|||
|
Posts: 24138 (09/05/08 05:13 AM) |
Everyone's jejuning everything.
|
||
|
mrnoluvstill |
|||
|
Posts: 465 (09/06/08 09:47 PM) Registered User |
I don't understand the power of veto either, why isn't it like Survivor, if you take someone of the block (give up immunity), than you can be put up?
|
||
|
oh ehm gee |
|||
|
Posts: 1452 (09/06/08 10:10 PM) |
mrnoluvstill wrote: Because then no one would use it on anyone else, for fear of getting nominated in place of the person they saved. |
||
|
Mypoody2 |
|||
|
Posts: 7819 (09/06/08 10:16 PM) Registered User |
I think that the POV balanced the game so it is fair that you can't be HOH back to back. The not voting rule is perfect.
|
||
|
kmill |
|||
|
Posts: 1656 (09/06/08 10:58 PM) Registered user |
I've often pondered how a rule allowing for back-to-back HoHs would change the game. Let's face it--MANY (not ALL) HoH competitions are crapshoot trivia games. But overall, I think the current HoH system is fine. It's the veto that is flawed. |
||
|
finishthemoff |
|||
|
Posts: 10041 (09/07/08 12:05 AM) Registered user |
star jumper wrote: Yes! |
||
|
iluvbbsofun |
|||
|
Posts: 349 (09/07/08 12:14 AM) |
I think immunity in Survivor is like POV, they just don't know it.
|
||
- Survivor Sucks
- Lions, Tigers, Survivors - Oh My!
- Survivor Spoilers
- MESS Hall Tribal Council
- MESS Hall Archive
- Survivor Speculation
- Survivor: The Future
- The Amazing Race
- Big Brother
- Big Brother - PAST SEASONS
- The Apprentice
- American Idol
- American Idol PAST SEASONS
- The Mole
- Lost
- Other Shows that Suck
- Off Topic
- Clubs that Suck. No, Really.
- The Dump
- Monster Island
- Purgatory
- FAQ
- In Memory, 9/11/01
Message board courtesy of Survivor Sucks member support.
Benevolent dictatorship courtesy of Survivor Sucks Admin Idoits.
