Big Brother 19

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by savardandjokinen

Josh is the worst winner of all time. Bitter jurors suck. Paul should've won BB18, however Nicole winning was justified. Paul should've won BB19, and josh winning is f'ed up

Yeah. Kind of ruins the entire game for me as I hate seeing undeserving winners win. The pan smashing and the pool table incidents were all-time cringe worthy BB incidents and he's the winner? Awful.

[OutOfTheCube]

Nah this season became "anybody but Paul" a long time ago. Awesome final night, with Cody being the knife in that twerp and getting AFP. Saved this season from being a total loss.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

But the jury was bitter because Paul was an #######.

No matter how bad of players many were, no matter how much Paul dominated, he had without question the worst jury management I've ever seen on the show.

All votes for Josh were really just votes against Paul. I don't think he beats anyone, not a single person on that jury head to head. Ok maybe Maven.

There's no respecting your game if you're an obnoxious ahole. To double down on finale night and refuse to own up to it just sealed his fate.

What Josh did or didn't do is irrelevant. It's all about Paul, just like the rest of the season.

It's a frequent pattern in BB. We've seen lots of "underserving" winners who made no real power moves and weren't comp beasts. They survive to the end and win because their opponent was even more useless or unlikeable than they were or they had a better social game.

Also have to remember BB has a whole ton of luck involved. Many comps are a crapshoot, including the final HOH. This isn't an objective based sport where most comps or points or goals wins the prize.

Josh was an "underserving" winner in that he rode Paul's coat tails to the end. But so did every person save Cody and his social game might be the worst ever. I don't see Paul as any more deserving though. He gets full marks for eviction and control strategy but gets an F for social game because he made everyone hate him. That's not the jury's fault. That's Paul's fault.

He gives honest goodbye messages to the evictees and answers the questions honestly and owns his ruthless play and I think he wins about 7-2. I see only Alex and Cody being stubborn enough not to respect Paul's game moves. But to lie to them on finale night after they know the truth? He deserved to lose.

[Erick Estrada]

I don't buy that. Being an ##### was the genius for winners like Evil Dick and Will Kerby and thankfully those juries were smart enough to separate their emotional feelings when determining who was the best game player. This season's jury was an embarrassment right down to the constant bickering all the way to the end.

I don't understand why people are angry at Paul especially when he didn't play a mean spirited game suck as Dick and Will. IMO he played one of the best games ever when you consider he essentially ran nearly every HOH and never went on the block. It wasn't as stealth as Derrick but I don't think Derrick could play that same game a 2nd time in the house and Paul was returning and had to change up his game. It's obvious by comments here that some of don't like him and it's clouded your minds as saying Paul wasn't deserving is simply ignorant. Outside of his jury management I haven't heard a single argument that can back that he wasn't the best player by a long shot. I don't always like the people but I respect the best players and that's why I feel the finale was a sham.

[Machiavelli]

LOL, Paul played one of the most mean-spirited games I've ever seen

[d_phaneuf]

Will wasn't mean spirited

Also jury management is massive, so was his horrible finale performance

Pretending he wasn't part of any bullying and he even said he tried to mediate

these People compared notes, they knew he was even lying then

If he owned his game at the questions like he did after the votes when videos were shown I bet he wins

[Jason14h]

It was obvious 4 weeks ago Josh was going to win this game.

Paul deserves to win for his gameplay BUT he strategy actually had zero chance to win. If everyone thinks you are taking them to final 2, of course they will be bitter when you screw them over.

People can respect getting voted out by a good player. People will be bitter getting lied to. And Paul never even had to guts to tell them or vote them out himself/win HoH.

[mrkajz44]

Overall, that season was a bit of a dud. There were very few weeks that had surprises in it - pretty much the only real blindside was Jason going home. Almost every other week just played out with the end result basically being known as soon as the nominations were made. There was also way too much yelling and fighting - I hope this is not the direction the show is heading because I did not enjoy watching 20 minutes of yelling per episode.

Still can't believe Paul didn't win (again). I think he's deserved to win both of the last two seasons. I'm trying to figure out why he didn't win and I have 3 loose theories:

1) He did so much "behind the scenes" work that he never got credit for how much he actually controlled the game. The fact that Paul never really admitted to being as manipulative as he actual was could have hurt him

2) The jury was just a bunch of sore losers. Paul outplayed them, and their votes for Josh was simply a vote against Paul.

3) Paul is actually a huge dick bag in real life and the edited shows didn't show his true colours. Even if the jury respected his gameplay, they were so turned off on a personal level, they couldn't vote for him.

The fact that he lost twice in final two when he was clearly the better player makes me believe that number 3 is the most likely factor. It doesn't make a lot of sense that this jury specifically was a bunch of sore losers; there had to be some personal aspect around Paul and just how he was as a human.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

There's no doubt Paul was the best player by a long shot and I feel this was the most bitter and petty jury in the history of BB. I do feel Paul should have owned up to some of the stuff he was part of as he did signal Josh to smash the pans so defiantly involved in the bullying and he did flat out lie to Jason and dodged that question. However even him not coming clean doesn't erase the fact that he was the puppet master that never went on the block despite being a return contestant where everyone knew his game. The entire game played out exactly as he calculated except he couldn't control the jury once they left the house and this was not a very intelligent jury. Five people voted for a 23 year old who's biggest move was to bully other houseguests with kitchenware so IMO not a very impressive finale.

Good to see Cody win America's favourite player. I don't think he's a very likeable person but his mannerisms were funny and by the end of the game he stood out as being smarter than everyone except Paul.

Does Alex have anger management issues? Boy was she ever salty. You get the feeling she would do physical harm to Paul if she could.

If Paul would have said in his good bye messages the same things that Josh said, he wins the game.

When you are a total ####### all game to everyone and then don't own it, you create a bitter jury.

Paul may have played the best "game" but he had the worst social game. Zero jury management.

[Hitman88]

[savardandjokinen]

He had a great social game, but terrible jury management. There's a big difference. I cant believe he lost though, I don't get how a person like Mark should be bitter

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by savardandjokinen

He had a great social game, but terrible jury management. There's a big difference. I cant believe he lost though, I don't get how a person like Mark should be bitter

I think Mark actually likes Josh. They seem to have a bit of a funny relationship.

I believe editing made Josh look worst then he was. I think he was a 23 year old that was manipulated by Paul the whole season. Even the bullying was really Paul's doing.

Every person with a brain realized immediately, or after being voted out, who/what Paul was.

Now the question is : If you are dumb enough to fall for it, is that reason enough not to vote for him.

Paul manipulated the house, but there is something to be said for Josh, who actually won some HoH's and was critical in getting Jess and Cody out.

Those were the only 2 with any chance of stopping Paul, and Josh took care of them.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

I think Mark actually likes Josh. They seem to have a bit of a funny relationship.

I believe editing made Josh look worst then he was. I think he was a 23 year old that was manipulated by Paul the whole season. Even the bullying was really Paul's doing.

Every person with a brain realized immediately, or after being voted out, who/what Paul was.

Now the question is : If you are dumb enough to fall for it, is that reason enough not to vote for him.

Paul manipulated the house, but there is something to be said for Josh, who actually won some HoH's and was critical in getting Jess and Cody out.

Those were the only 2 with any chance of stopping Paul, and Josh took care of them.

How can you give him any credit when you believe Paul manipulated him all season? Paul did of course and he manipulated everyone which is the genius of his game. I don't believe Paul is a bad guy. Paul is simply a guy that wanted to win badly. Some of you are making it out to sound like Paul is the only winner that ever lied or backstabbed anyone. As was said in the jury arguments that's Big Brother.

I'm fairly sure some of the jury voters that voted Josh probably felt silly after they showed the clip of all of them being conned by Paul. That video was pretty well all the evidence you need to know who played the best game. There are two ways you can vote; 1) within the spirit of the game which is for the best player that outsmarted everyone else 2) be spiteful and try to ensure the best player doesn't win. There is no rule against option 2) however IMO that cheapens the game.

It's not like I'm even a Paul fans as I was hoping Josh would have picked Christmas if only because it was getting depressing seeing how easily Paul duped everyone (just after the final competition when Josh won you could see Paul on the left point at him and give him the indication to take him) and it would have been nice to see the look on his face being sent to the jury for the first time. I also feel that was the big move that would have made Josh more palpable as a winner (first player in two years to evict Paul) as it sounded like the jury wasn't going to give Christmas many votes as they feel her injury helped her get to the end. The fact that he still let Paul suck him into that argument where the jury all loved Christmas (they clearly didn't) was just more icing on the cake of how he didn't deserve to win over Paul head to head.

We will never see a player participate in two seasons to never once get evicted as it's quite a feat and a shame that he wasn't rewarded at least once for being the best player in the game.

[Flash Walken]

Paul lost because no one on the jury thought he was genuine, everyone felt like he had been personally dishonest with them. That's HORRIBLE game play.

For those survivor fans, Paul was playing the BB equivalent of the Russell Hantz game. Was not shocked at all. I think people seeing this as a 'bitter jury' vote are missing the point. No one wants to vote for someone they feel personally slighted by, and being seen as a dishonest person is one of the biggest strikes you can have against you in an interpersonal conflict or relationship. I think Josh telling every person voted out WHY he did was a huge gameplay move on his part and ultimately may have been the tipping point in him winning.

People voted for Josh because even if they felt he played a worse game than Paul, they thought he was honest about it. That was Cody's beef with Paul from the start and ended up being the deciding factor.

Cody thought Paul was phoney and by the end the rest of the house saw that too. Cody won the AFP because again, people thought that even though he may have been an #######, he was forthright.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm fairly sure some of the jury voters that voted Josh probably felt silly after they showed the clip of all of them being conned by Paul. That video was pretty well all the evidence you need to know who played the best game. There are two ways you can vote; 1) within the spirit of the game which is for the best player that outsmarted everyone else 2) be spiteful and try to ensure the best player doesn't win. There is no rule against option 2) however IMO that cheapens the game.

I don't think we share the same definition of what this game is and by extension the best game. You're focusing too much on power and control.

I would argue the purpose of the game is to a) get to the end and b) get people to vote for you.

Paul gets an A+ on a). I think everyone in the house wanted him as their ride or die F2 choice. But he gets an F on b). And being great at the former is totally worthless if you don't do well on the latter too.

I think it is really tough to try and talk about the purpose of the game or what a "best" game is without incorporating both. Staying alive and sticking around isn't enough, winning comps isn't enough, social game isn't enough. Even saying the point is to convince other people it is in their best interests to keep you around doesn't really do the purpose of the game justice because it ignores the importance of being liked by the evictees.

That is part of the trick of BB is that you need to betray people and yet get them to respect you for it.

In most other seasons where a weak player or a total dbag won it, I might agree that the best player didn't win. In some cases both of the final 2 were floaters who didn't do much except be non-offensive and stick around because people thought they would be easy to win against in F2.

But what happens sometimes is those floaters get lucky and win final HOH and evict the sole remaining strong player. It often happens earlier than final HOH too.

Let's not forget that one of the "greatest ever" Derrick shouldn't have even made the finale if Cody wasn't such an idiot. Dude gave away $500k. Cody takes Victoria and he wins in a landslide.

[albertGQ]

Is there a website we can read with house guests' reactions after the show? Would love to find out what Alex's reaction was after finding out she was hated. And everyone's reaction when they found out America loved Jessica and Cody and hated them?

I also want to see how Paul and Josh defended their bullying tactics.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't buy that. Being an ##### was the genius for winners like Evil Dick and Will Kerby and thankfully those juries were smart enough to separate their emotional feelings when determining who was the best game player. This season's jury was an embarrassment right down to the constant bickering all the way to the end.

Lol. Evil Dick beats exactly one person in that game, his daughter, because the jury did not like her either. Heck, the jury pretty much voted on who they liked better, exactly what a "bitter jury" does." And he only made it as far as he did because America was playing for him through the best player in the game. He won because he was entertaining, not because of his gameplay or the fact that the jury wasn't bitter.

Dr. Will was different. First, the jury got to see the feeds where Will was owning up to everything, but Nicole wasn't a lousy pick. It could be argued that she suffered from a bitter jury in fact, because she played a great game as well for the early iteration of Big Brother but the people who didn't vote for her, didn't like her. Instead they voted for the charming Dr. Will. So not really sure how that at all is a favour for your argument.

The problem with Paul is that he didn't own his game, ever, not even after the votes were cast. He was still trying to pretend that Josh was lying in his good-bye messages. He kept up the facade of his "friendship" that everyone in the jury knew was bull####. He didn't bring a goat to the end like Dick did and he wasn't charming like Will, you can't compare them. If Paul isn't a ###### to everyone in the house, and isn't treating them like idiots as they leave the door, and/or brings someone like Raven or Matt to the end, he wins. But he didn't, so that's on him, that's not genius.

I mean, this was the guy who wanted people to attack Cody's years of services just for ####s and giggles. You can't get much lower than that, and I don't know how you can't say he didn't play a mean-spirited game. While it worked for his game inside the house, his constant plan of isolating, attacking and harassing houseguests was going to make people mad. He didn't reconcile like Josh did with Mark after they fought, he just pretended like he wasn't involved when everyone knew he was.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm fairly sure some of the jury voters that voted Josh probably felt silly after they showed the clip of all of them being conned by Paul. That video was pretty well all the evidence you need to know who played the best game.

Well, that's the problem. Paul didn't convey that to them, he never said he manipulated everyone, he never said he was the mastermind, he said that he was trying to "keep the friendship alive" as though it was some after school special, he wasn't genuine, he wasn't honest, he wasn't owning his game, he was trying to play the jury and they saw through it. Looked at how shocked he was that Josh was honest in his good-bye messages and realized how he ####ed up so badly. He was the one trying to blame everyone else, you can't blame the jury for not voting for the most manipulative guy when that guy is saying he wasn't being manipulative....

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

We will never see a player participate in two seasons to never once get evicted as it's quite a feat and a shame that he wasn't rewarded at least once for being the best player in the game.

We already did see it, Dan, and he's the person who should be complaining about a bitter jury.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Lol. Evil Dick beats exactly one person in that game, his daughter, because the jury did not like her either. Heck, the jury pretty much voted on who they liked better, exactly what a "bitter jury" does." And he only made it as far as he did because America was playing for him through the best player in the game. He won because he was entertaining, not because of his gameplay or the fact that the jury wasn't bitter.

Dr. Will was different. First, the jury got to see the feeds where Will was owning up to everything, but Nicole wasn't a lousy pick. It could be argued that she suffered from a bitter jury in fact, because she played a great game as well for the early iteration of Big Brother but the people who didn't vote for her, didn't like her. Instead they voted for the charming Dr. Will. So not really sure how that at all is a favour for your argument.

The problem with Paul is that he didn't own his game, ever, not even after the votes were cast. He was still trying to pretend that Josh was lying in his good-bye messages. He kept up the facade of his "friendship" that everyone in the jury knew was bull####. He didn't bring a goat to the end like Dick did and he wasn't charming like Will, you can't compare them. If Paul isn't a ###### to everyone in the house, and isn't treating them like idiots as they leave the door, and/or brings someone like Raven or Matt to the end, he wins. But he didn't, so that's on him, that's not genius.

I mean, this was the guy who wanted people to attack Cody's years of services just for ####s and giggles. You can't get much lower than that, and I don't know how you can't say he didn't play a mean-spirited game. While it worked for his game inside the house, his constant plan of isolating, attacking and harassing houseguests was going to make people mad. He didn't reconcile like Josh did with Mark after they fought, he just pretended like he wasn't involved when everyone knew he was.

this post nails it.

[mrkajz44]

It'd be fun to have "re-do" vote at the end once everyone got to watch the entire thing, including everyone's DR clips. I'd have a hard time believing that Josh still wins if everyone saw the "open book" that the public saw.