Thanks to Rachel the term floater has been completely misconceived. Just because someone isn't winning competitions and isn't orchestrating big moves doesn't mean they are a floater. To date the best floater in Big Brother history is Andy he alligned himself with whoever was in power and as soon as that power player was seemingly losing their power he'd move on to the next and voted them out he went from Helen to Amanda voted them both out and had McCrae, Spencer, GinaMarie, and Judd left in the game and we're all more than content to take him to the end. Now was his gameplay fun to watch **** NO but it was effective and it showed the proper way to Float.
Jun was better than Andy but the rest of what you said is true.
**** winning on a returnee season doesn't make you a weak winner. If your a threat, that doesn't mean you are playing poorly. Your points are so invalid it's laughable. What a joke, I'm done even talking about it with you.
lol so you can't come up with any counter points, like really how is being a threat something that makes you a GOOD player? That's baffling...
**** winning on a returnee season doesn't make you a weak winner. If your a threat, that doesn't mean you are playing poorly. Your points are so invalid it's laughable. What a joke, I'm done even talking about it with you.
lol so you can't come up with any counter points, like really how is being a threat something that makes you a GOOD player? That's baffling...
Because you are playing a good enough game to have people want to get rid of you. Victoria and Jocasta weren't threats last year, are you saying they are good players? What about Jackie and Meg? Cody, Frankie, Caleb were all threats, Derrick was even a threat (they just never picked up on it and did anything about it which is why he played a great game). Shelly, Clay, Austin and Vanessa are threats right now yet they are the power players so far. You NEED a great social game to win. If you have a great social game and people see that you are automatically a threat. So what you are saying makes no sense.
Why are you assuming that being Victoria and Jacosta means you're playing well? Lol, you are literally just making assumptions, yes of course those were all threats, but not to the point that people want you out and you need competitions to stick around. If that is the case, you are doing something very wrong that people want you gone that badly. Ian as much as I love him was leaving a lot to be desired socially and thus had to win comps to make it to the end, same for someone like Frank who had a shitty social game and was targeted as such. Not really, Andy had agreat social game and he wasn't a threat ina lot of people's eyes lol. Kvm has already said it perfectly, but you seem to just be a very casual fan with how you throw the word floater on anyone who isn't playing a proactive game and think that someone who needs to win comps to stay is better than someone who doesn't because they aren't playing a shitty social game to be in that position.
Janelle >>>>>>>>>> Rachel and it isn't close. Janelle is one of the greatest competitors on the show to date and is extremely genuine, Rachel is very contrived and puts on an act for the cameras and her compete prowess in BB13 is helped with the rigging. Will and Dan are both awesome so you can't wrong with either tbh. I think for the females, Danielle Reyes vs. Janelle would be better.
Why are you assuming that being Victoria and Jacosta means you're playing well? Lol, you are literally just making assumptions, yes of course those were all threats, but not to the point that people want you out and you need competitions to stick around. If that is the case, you are doing something very wrong that people want you gone that badly. Ian as much as I love him was leaving a lot to be desired socially and thus had to win comps to make it to the end, same for someone like Frank who had a shitty social game and was targeted as such. Not really, Andy had agreat social game and he wasn't a threat ina lot of people's eyes lol. Kvm has already said it perfectly, but you seem to just be a very casual fan with how you throw the word floater on anyone who isn't playing a proactive game and think that someone who needs to win comps to stay is better than someone who doesn't because they aren't playing a shitty social game to be in that position.
I'm not a casual fan just because my opinion is different than yours ****. I've been watching since the show started and have even seen several seasons twice. I know about what happens before it even airs on the show (I don't always watch the feeds but I keep up with what is going on). You are talking about people who are threats being terrible game players. Jocasta and Victoria were people who weren't threats last season, yet they were terrible game players. Just because you lay low and make friends doesn't mean you are playing a good game or should win. You have to also play the game and make moves. You can be a threat the first week just because your athletic. That doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong and are a bad game player just because people are targeting you. Your points literally make no sense. There are very few people who make it throughout the game without being a target. Godfrey on BBCAN3 is a good example. I don't know if you watch BBCAN or not but in my opinion he didn't play a good game. A lot of people thought he deserved to win just because he laid low the whole time and was never a threat. He did cover his bases very well a few times, but to me he didn't do anything to deserve to win. This is a game and just making it to the end (even though it may be tough) doesn't mean you deserve a win. I NEVER said someone who needs to win comps is better. You said if someone needs to win comps they aren't playing a good game and I said that isn't necessarily true. Some people need to win comps because they are a huge threat. That doesn't make them less deserving than anyone else. If you are a threat and have to win competitions to survive and you make it to the end, you deserve it just as much as someone who sat around all summer and didn't do anything.
Also, there are two types of floaters. One who has many alliances but no real allegiance to anyone and floats back and forth to whoever has power such as Andy. Then there are people who don't have many or any alliances or allegiances and just stays in the middle and out of everything the whole game and makes there way by each week. Floaters are typically people who are seen as non-threats. Victoria isn't someone like Andy who floated back and forth to whoever was in power, but she certainly stayed out of everything, wasn't competitive, and stayed in the middle and didn't nothing as long as she could. If anyone disagrees with the fact that people like Andy, Jun, Adam, Jenn are floaters and even people like Kathy and Victoria to some extent, then I know I am not talking to true fans.
Again, to say I am only a casual viewer, when I have been watching this show since the beginning, and keep up with what is going on literally everyday, only because you disagree with my opinion is laughable. You don't even know me. You can disagree with me all you want, but don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about.
Janelle >>>>>>>>>> Rachel and it isn't close. Janelle is one of the greatest competitors on the show to date and is extremely genuine, Rachel is very contrived and puts on an act for the cameras and her compete prowess in BB13 is helped with the rigging. Will and Dan are both awesome so you can't wrong with either tbh. I think for the females, Danielle Reyes vs. Janelle would be better.
Why are you assuming that being Victoria and Jacosta means you're playing well? Lol, you are literally just making assumptions, yes of course those were all threats, but not to the point that people want you out and you need competitions to stick around. If that is the case, you are doing something very wrong that people want you gone that badly. Ian as much as I love him was leaving a lot to be desired socially and thus had to win comps to make it to the end, same for someone like Frank who had a shitty social game and was targeted as such. Not really, Andy had agreat social game and he wasn't a threat ina lot of people's eyes lol. Kvm has already said it perfectly, but you seem to just be a very casual fan with how you throw the word floater on anyone who isn't playing a proactive game and think that someone who needs to win comps to stay is better than someone who doesn't because they aren't playing a shitty social game to be in that position.
I'm not a casual fan just because my opinion is different than yours ****. I've been watching since the show started and have even seen several seasons twice. I know about what happens before it even airs on the show (I don't always watch the feeds but I keep up with what is going on). You are talking about people who are threats being terrible game players. Jocasta and Victoria were people who weren't threats last season, yet they were terrible game players. Just because you lay low and make friends doesn't mean you are playing a good game or should win. You have to also play the game and make moves. You can be a threat the first week just because your athletic. That doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong and are a bad game player just because people are targeting you. Your points literally make no sense. There are very few people who make it throughout the game without being a target. Godfrey on BBCAN3 is a good example. I don't know if you watch BBCAN or not but in my opinion he didn't play a good game. A lot of people thought he deserved to win just because he laid low the whole time and was never a threat. He did cover his bases very well a few times, but to me he didn't do anything to deserve to win. This is a game and just making it to the end (even though it may be tough) doesn't mean you deserve a win. I NEVER said someone who needs to win comps is better. You said if someone needs to win comps they aren't playing a good game and I said that isn't necessarily true. Some people need to win comps because they are a huge threat. That doesn't make them less deserving than anyone else. If you are a threat and have to win competitions to survive and you make it to the end, you deserve it just as much as someone who sat around all summer and didn't do anything. Also, there are two types of floaters. One who has many alliances but no real allegiance to anyone and floats back and forth to whoever has power such as Andy. Then there are people who don't have many or any alliances or allegiances and just stays in the middle and out of everything the whole game and makes there way by each week. Floaters are typically people who are seen as non-threats. Victoria isn't someone like Andy who floated back and forth to whoever was in power, but she certainly stayed out of everything, wasn't competitive, and stayed in the middle and didn't nothing as long as she could. If anyone disagrees with the fact that people like Andy, Jun, Adam, Jenn are floaters and even people like Kathy and Victoria to some extent, then I know I am not talking to true fans. Again, to say I am only a casual viewer, when I have been watching this show since the beginning, and keep up with what is going on literally everyday, only because you disagree with my opinion is laughable. You don't even know me. You can disagree with me all you want, but don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about.
Your opinion being different isn't why I made that comment, lol I disgaree with kvm freuqnetly and I didn't call him that. That is simply the impression you give. Right but you're still asuming that anyone who isn't a htreat means they're playing well or anyone who's ever been a threat isn't? Laying low and making friends is definitely a good strategy, especially early on when you let people overplay and be their own worst enemy. There are still options to throw comps, form stronger bonds/relationships to prevent being targeted, etc, btw never said that being a threat makes you a terrible player lol. But yes someone needing to win competitions means there is something wrong there. Plenty of people who were threats to didn't need to win comps because they were good enough socially like Will, Danielle Reyes, etc.
yeah no there are no two definitions of a floater lol, and so ironic how you get high and mighty when you have abeen acting prentinous this entire discussion when you could have kept things civil and agree to disagree. what a **** joke
I just wanted to know who everyone's favorites were from this season?
Mine are...
Jackei, Da'Vonne, Jeff, Vanessa, Jason, Meg & James
(in that order)
John, Da'Vonne and Liz/Julia
Da'Vonne, Vanessa, Jason, Julia\Liz - - lol just realized I don't like any of the guys except Jason - I thought I was going to like Austin but he has proved very disappointing
Yes! It seems like James, Jason & Meg already had an alliance with Jeff. But just last week I was all for Sixth Sense (with the exception of Clay & Shelli) but Austin and Liz just got way too annoying and big headed. But if those 4 added Vanessa I would love that alliance.
Why are you assuming that being Victoria and Jacosta means you're playing well? Lol, you are literally just making assumptions, yes of course those were all threats, but not to the point that people want you out and you need competitions to stick around. If that is the case, you are doing something very wrong that people want you gone that badly. Ian as much as I love him was leaving a lot to be desired socially and thus had to win comps to make it to the end, same for someone like Frank who had a shitty social game and was targeted as such. Not really, Andy had agreat social game and he wasn't a threat ina lot of people's eyes lol. Kvm has already said it perfectly, but you seem to just be a very casual fan with how you throw the word floater on anyone who isn't playing a proactive game and think that someone who needs to win comps to stay is better than someone who doesn't because they aren't playing a shitty social game to be in that position.
I'm not a casual fan just because my opinion is different than yours ****. I've been watching since the show started and have even seen several seasons twice. I know about what happens before it even airs on the show (I don't always watch the feeds but I keep up with what is going on). You are talking about people who are threats being terrible game players. Jocasta and Victoria were people who weren't threats last season, yet they were terrible game players. Just because you lay low and make friends doesn't mean you are playing a good game or should win. You have to also play the game and make moves. You can be a threat the first week just because your athletic. That doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong and are a bad game player just because people are targeting you. Your points literally make no sense. There are very few people who make it throughout the game without being a target. Godfrey on BBCAN3 is a good example. I don't know if you watch BBCAN or not but in my opinion he didn't play a good game. A lot of people thought he deserved to win just because he laid low the whole time and was never a threat. He did cover his bases very well a few times, but to me he didn't do anything to deserve to win. This is a game and just making it to the end (even though it may be tough) doesn't mean you deserve a win. I NEVER said someone who needs to win comps is better. You said if someone needs to win comps they aren't playing a good game and I said that isn't necessarily true. Some people need to win comps because they are a huge threat. That doesn't make them less deserving than anyone else. If you are a threat and have to win competitions to survive and you make it to the end, you deserve it just as much as someone who sat around all summer and didn't do anything. Also, there are two types of floaters. One who has many alliances but no real allegiance to anyone and floats back and forth to whoever has power such as Andy. Then there are people who don't have many or any alliances or allegiances and just stays in the middle and out of everything the whole game and makes there way by each week. Floaters are typically people who are seen as non-threats. Victoria isn't someone like Andy who floated back and forth to whoever was in power, but she certainly stayed out of everything, wasn't competitive, and stayed in the middle and didn't nothing as long as she could. If anyone disagrees with the fact that people like Andy, Jun, Adam, Jenn are floaters and even people like Kathy and Victoria to some extent, then I know I am not talking to true fans. Again, to say I am only a casual viewer, when I have been watching this show since the beginning, and keep up with what is going on literally everyday, only because you disagree with my opinion is laughable. You don't even know me. You can disagree with me all you want, but don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about.
Your opinion being different isn't why I made that comment, lol I disgaree with kvm freuqnetly and I didn't call him that. That is simply the impression you give. Right but you're still asuming that anyone who isn't a htreat means they're playing well or anyone who's ever been a threat isn't? Laying low and making friends is definitely a good strategy, especially early on when you let people overplay and be their own worst enemy. There are still options to throw comps, form stronger bonds/relationships to prevent being targeted, etc, btw never said that being a threat makes you a terrible player lol. But yes someone needing to win competitions means there is something wrong there. Plenty of people who were threats to didn't need to win comps because they were good enough socially like Will, Danielle Reyes, etc.
yeah no there are no two definitions of a floater lol, and so ironic how you get high and mighty when you have abeen acting prentinous this entire discussion when you could have kept things civil and agree to disagree. what a **** joke
Me? This all started because I stated that despite what deal they made in the BB16 house, the houseguests wouldn't have voted for Victoria to win over Cody. Yet I was attacked on that. You're the one who jumps down my ******* throat everytime you disagree with me. Let me tell you something bud, your opinion is your opinion, it doesn't mean you are correct. Needing to win comps doesn't necessarily mean you aren't playing well, you are completely generalizing everything. People don't need to win comps to win the game, but just because you win doesn't mean you are awful. In a lot of cases it helps you get to the end.
Victoria wasn't a floater--you just proved you know nothing about the game
Jun was better than Andy but the rest of what you said is true.
lol so you can't come up with any counter points, like really how is being a threat something that makes you a GOOD player? That's baffling...
What everyone is thinking reading this shit.
You clearly didn't read the rest of the conversation ****. #Irrelevant
Because you are playing a good enough game to have people want to get rid of you. Victoria and Jocasta weren't threats last year, are you saying they are good players? What about Jackie and Meg? Cody, Frankie, Caleb were all threats, Derrick was even a threat (they just never picked up on it and did anything about it which is why he played a great game). Shelly, Clay, Austin and Vanessa are threats right now yet they are the power players so far. You NEED a great social game to win. If you have a great social game and people see that you are automatically a threat. So what you are saying makes no sense.
I read everything--anyone that knows the first thing about Big Brother knows that you're ******* clueless
Why are you assuming that being Victoria and Jacosta means you're playing well? Lol, you are literally just making assumptions, yes of course those were all threats, but not to the point that people want you out and you need competitions to stick around. If that is the case, you are doing something very wrong that people want you gone that badly. Ian as much as I love him was leaving a lot to be desired socially and thus had to win comps to make it to the end, same for someone like Frank who had a shitty social game and was targeted as such. Not really, Andy had agreat social game and he wasn't a threat ina lot of people's eyes lol. Kvm has already said it perfectly, but you seem to just be a very casual fan with how you throw the word floater on anyone who isn't playing a proactive game and think that someone who needs to win comps to stay is better than someone who doesn't because they aren't playing a shitty social game to be in that position.
Hardest BB Questions:
Will vs Dan
Rachel vs Janelle
Really not hard at all
Will
Janelle
Both hands down!
Definitely Will and Janelle. Dan is close to being one of the greats, Rachel isn't that close to Janelle imo.
You clearly haven't though and I'm not clueless at all. I know a lot more than you ever will.
Janelle >>>>>>>>>> Rachel and it isn't close. Janelle is one of the greatest competitors on the show to date and is extremely genuine, Rachel is very contrived and puts on an act for the cameras and her compete prowess in BB13 is helped with the rigging. Will and Dan are both awesome so you can't wrong with either tbh. I think for the females, Danielle Reyes vs. Janelle would be better.
I'm not a casual fan just because my opinion is different than yours ****. I've been watching since the show started and have even seen several seasons twice. I know about what happens before it even airs on the show (I don't always watch the feeds but I keep up with what is going on). You are talking about people who are threats being terrible game players. Jocasta and Victoria were people who weren't threats last season, yet they were terrible game players. Just because you lay low and make friends doesn't mean you are playing a good game or should win. You have to also play the game and make moves. You can be a threat the first week just because your athletic. That doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong and are a bad game player just because people are targeting you. Your points literally make no sense. There are very few people who make it throughout the game without being a target. Godfrey on BBCAN3 is a good example. I don't know if you watch BBCAN or not but in my opinion he didn't play a good game. A lot of people thought he deserved to win just because he laid low the whole time and was never a threat. He did cover his bases very well a few times, but to me he didn't do anything to deserve to win. This is a game and just making it to the end (even though it may be tough) doesn't mean you deserve a win. I NEVER said someone who needs to win comps is better. You said if someone needs to win comps they aren't playing a good game and I said that isn't necessarily true. Some people need to win comps because they are a huge threat. That doesn't make them less deserving than anyone else. If you are a threat and have to win competitions to survive and you make it to the end, you deserve it just as much as someone who sat around all summer and didn't do anything.
Also, there are two types of floaters. One who has many alliances but no real allegiance to anyone and floats back and forth to whoever has power such as Andy. Then there are people who don't have many or any alliances or allegiances and just stays in the middle and out of everything the whole game and makes there way by each week. Floaters are typically people who are seen as non-threats. Victoria isn't someone like Andy who floated back and forth to whoever was in power, but she certainly stayed out of everything, wasn't competitive, and stayed in the middle and didn't nothing as long as she could. If anyone disagrees with the fact that people like Andy, Jun, Adam, Jenn are floaters and even people like Kathy and Victoria to some extent, then I know I am not talking to true fans.
Again, to say I am only a casual viewer, when I have been watching this show since the beginning, and keep up with what is going on literally everyday, only because you disagree with my opinion is laughable. You don't even know me. You can disagree with me all you want, but don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about.
I would even but Daniele Donato before Rachel.
Very easy
Dan > Will
I love Janelle and Rachel equally but I have to go with Janelle on this one
Your opinion being different isn't why I made that comment, lol I disgaree with kvm freuqnetly and I didn't call him that. That is simply the impression you give. Right but you're still asuming that anyone who isn't a htreat means they're playing well or anyone who's ever been a threat isn't? Laying low and making friends is definitely a good strategy, especially early on when you let people overplay and be their own worst enemy. There are still options to throw comps, form stronger bonds/relationships to prevent being targeted, etc, btw never said that being a threat makes you a terrible player lol. But yes someone needing to win competitions means there is something wrong there. Plenty of people who were threats to didn't need to win comps because they were good enough socially like Will, Danielle Reyes, etc.
yeah no there are no two definitions of a floater lol, and so ironic how you get high and mighty when you have abeen acting prentinous this entire discussion when you could have kept things civil and agree to disagree. what a **** joke
CKYfbQIVEAAVtVd.jpg
FR!!!
I just wanted to know who everyone's favorites were from this season?
Mine are...
Jackei, Da'Vonne, Jeff, Vanessa, Jason, Meg & James
(in that order)
John, Da'Vonne and Liz/Julia
Da'Vonne, Vanessa, Jason, Julia\Liz - - lol just realized I don't like any of the guys except Jason - I thought I was going to like Austin but he has proved very disappointing
Day, Jason, Liz/Julia, Vanessa, Jackie, James. In that order.
I liked Austin and Liz/Julia all up until the past few episodes but now I find them very annoying.
Agreed.
I am rooting for Jackie, Jason (didn't like him at first but he cut down his act and is actually likable), Meg, and James. Form an alliance! Let's go!
Clay, Shelli, Liz.
Yes! It seems like James, Jason & Meg already had an alliance with Jeff. But just last week I was all for Sixth Sense (with the exception of Clay & Shelli) but Austin and Liz just got way too annoying and big headed. But if those 4 added Vanessa I would love that alliance.
Me? This all started because I stated that despite what deal they made in the BB16 house, the houseguests wouldn't have voted for Victoria to win over Cody. Yet I was attacked on that. You're the one who jumps down my ******* throat everytime you disagree with me. Let me tell you something bud, your opinion is your opinion, it doesn't mean you are correct. Needing to win comps doesn't necessarily mean you aren't playing well, you are completely generalizing everything. People don't need to win comps to win the game, but just because you win doesn't mean you are awful. In a lot of cases it helps you get to the end.
I found the definition of floater for you: http://bigbrother.wikia.com/wiki/Floater_%28social_strategy%29
there ya go
Pages