Zcsund1234
Well-Known Member
Even though it does make me sad to admit, you are 100% right. If any one of us were playing the game of Big Brother I'd bet my last dollar that we'd all vote out the people we don't think we can beat. Reggie is that person to Aleisha and Johnson.This kind of perception really needs to stop. There is no chance that, in Seven’s ball of confusion of a series combined with the types of people “voting”*, that anyone is going to be held accountable for evicting a “favourite” by the time the finale comes around. Not for Reggie, not for anybody.
It is a lot smarter to rid the favourite at any point (the earlier the better, if anything) than having to stand beside them at the finale. Either way, you still have a 1 in 3 chance of winning, as opposed to virtually zero if you let Reggie get there too. And as for the public “holding it against you”… what codswalllop, seriously. If the HMs make a combined effort to evict their biggest threat, all putting a vote on them, then there’s no one really to “blame” in the end. Somebody still has to win.
*We don’t actually get the final say with non-paid voting anyway, as much as they want you to to believe it. The winner has always been chosen since day one in all three Seven seasons.
I also would argue it's better to get out the favourite early on. If all of them had banded together to get rid of Reggie with no one person at fault then a newbie could have likely won. But they didn't. Do we entirely fault the newbies for that? Or is there some form of social credit that needs to be given to Reggie as well? I would argue that whilst she isn't the most strategically active player she has done well socially. It's one thing to generate sympathy but as the game is primarily social you do need to also possess the ability in making people respect you.
Someone with a story just as sad as Reggie's could appear in any given season, however, they may not come across as endearing or likeable as Reggie. If a person doesn't earn RESPECT with their fellow players then not even a story can help you last. I do argue that Reggie was able to allow others to offer her respect which allowed her to avoid nominations. It's not a massively notable reason for anyone to argue that she is the better player (I painfully suggest that Johnson may actually be the best player who has demonstrated the most dominance that isn't Tim) but she is by no means terrible.
I try my best to not fall into the trap of rooting for the OGs just because they're an OG. I hate that I felt that way in all Survivor seasons with returnees. I acknowledge wholeheartedly that Aleisha and Johnson needed to vote out Reggie, but there is something about hearing "it's time to go Reggie" that makes me feel sad to the pit of my stomach. Reggie is no more or less deserving than any other housemate to win the game on a human level. But just like the jury on survivor and BBUS, the voting audience has the right to vote how they please for this final vote. And if that means voting against the newbies as an act of support for Reggie, then the audience does have the right to vote that way if they please. Tim nailed it when he said very early on that voting out Drew over Mel would be dangerous as the audience would not be happy.
The newbies have definitely killed any chance of winning now. Should that be the case? No, it is beyond silly that the case is just that. But the reality is that the audience is going to be voting based on what they see. And voting Reggie out will definitely leave a bad taste in voter's mouths. So in actuality is voting Reggie out just like they did the optimal move? I'd argue not. If you aren't going to vote out Reggie as a collective early on then there's no point in doing it later on in the game unless you can convince someone else to do it and let them take the heat.