Skip to main content

A (temporary) nominations overhaul?

F

Febeheh

Member
Provided there IS a next season... who would support at least one week of a TOTAL overhaul to nominations?

I'm not talking point changes, superpowers, votes to keep a housemate - that's not a total overhaul. Today in a Psychology tutorial (yes, I'm one of those students - don't hate I'm not being a know all) - we were taught about The Prisoner's Dilemma game. Not to be confused with the Stanford Prison horrors... this is a simple game based on a fundamental economic concept and it could easily be applied to Big Brother nominations of for at least one week. I'll take it out of the prisoner subtext and explain the rules below:

Face to face, housemates play off against each other in 'rounds'. They can choose to either 'defect' or be 'quiet'. End of each round, housemates rotate randomly. Sometimes they will play against the same person three times in a row, sometimes they play a person once, or some they may not play at all.

both defect = 3 points each
one defects and the other is quiet = 0 points for the former and 1 for the latter
both are quiet = 1 point each

I know - you'd think everyone would instinctively defect out of competitiveness and all would end up on the same points - but we tried this game in class and there was only one person who defected every single round.

I think it would be an awesome switch up for first week nominations to get people's game playing skills and honest intent to win right out from the get go. (Ben wouldn't be able to maintain his 'I'm so innocent' image unless he quieted every round and subsequently got pounded by defects). I think for a week it's a fair way to nominate because it judges their rational thinking and strategic ability right on the spot.
 
Interesting idea. Seen the Prisoners Dilemma done on many shows for cash, including Big Brother here in the UK - but for noms it works quite well with the points system. Can be simplified further so they have two options - to be nominated or to be immune. If they both opt to nominate themselves both are immune, if only one opts to nominate themselves they are nominated and the other is immune, but if they both opt for immunity they are both nominated.

Of course though there is the danger that you end up with either nobody or just one nominated - but that could work. If nobody is up they do something else with the eviction show (intruders?), if one is up the public vote whether they stay or go.
 
Brekkie said:
Interesting idea. Seen the Prisoners Dilemma done on many shows for cash, including Big Brother here in the UK - but for noms it works quite well with the points system. Can be simplified further so they have two options - to be nominated or to be immune. If they both opt to nominate themselves both are immune, if only one opts to nominate themselves they are nominated and the other is immune, but if they both opt for immunity they are both nominated.

Of course though there is the danger that you end up with either nobody or just one nominated - but that could work. If nobody is up they do something else with the eviction show (intruders?), if one is up the public vote whether they stay or go.
Click to expand...

Perhaps then it could work better for a reward than for nominations - which is what I was thinking vis a vis Survivor reward tasks. It would work very well in one of those post-merge tasks where the new tribe get to see where their tribemates really stand (like in the memorable one in Marqueses.) For nominations, it is a big risk - could be great, could fall utterly flat, and then be opened to criticism.
 
Could work for the Intruders - give them two cards with their names on and they must choose the evictee. If both people select the same name, that person is evicted. If they both select each others names, both are evicted. If they both select their own name, both get to stay.
 
Just on the intruders: can Justynn or Nathan (whichever one stays) be nominated next time they do so?
 
Oh god no.

Is this a real prison game? or some made up crap for a Psychology class?

If it's a real prison game then I could see the use of it as it'd show how they (prisoner) react against different people within the prison and you can decide right there if they get in a group or kept out or even killed.

in the public world it seems extremely boring and people can rig it so they win every time, and the HMs would have a hard time actually JUST doing it.

We just seen Tahan probably spend 15+ mins trying to decide on who to take with her into another room, and even then it still went to a rock/paper/scissors game because she still couldn't decide on who to take.

How many of the other would spend as much or even more, imagine Ben trying to do this it'd be a weekly task in it's own right for him.

And you want the HMs to do this live and within about 1/2 hour?
 
[MENTION=30361]zagan[/MENTION] apparently you've heard of it before, so here's a wiki link

the idea is that you have two people collared for a crime. both are going to do (a small amount of) jail time, but each one is given the option of ratting out the other. if you rat, you get off free, but the other person does even more jail time. however, if you both rat out, you both do more jail time.

I think the nominations point system can replace the jail time in the grid at the wiki, quite easily. eg you each get 1 point automatically. you can reduce this to 0 by giving the other person 3, but if you both give each other 3, then you're going to both get 2.

that said, I'm not sure it makes good television as the basis for nomination for two reasons. First, explaining the game won't be riveting and most of the audience won't care to engage long enough to grasp it (let's face it, most people watch for the angst and drama, not a lesson in game theory). And second, working through all pairs of HMs (or some seeding system) would be time intensive and/or further confusing. so i just don't see it happening.

i can't even see it working as a weekly dilemma or a one-off. it's just too hard to explain to tv viewers who, let's face it, think ben the simpleton is great television.
 
Here is a temp noms change:

The HMs live from noms to noms or eviction to eviction. Every week, like a biological clock. They know exactly how many days to noms, the mentally prepare and they speculate whom they will nominate. The closer noms day is, the tenser the all over atmosphere.

So, come next Tuesday, don't have nominations. The HMs are bound to file into the DR one by one and query BB. BB should say, BB will get back to you... again and again. It's his prerogative. Let the HMs stew. One day, two days, three days... until the HMs become convinced that noms are being skipped for one week. Now they wait for the next Tuesday, but lo and behold, no noms again. Let them stew.
There can be variations on this theme. Hold noms at random. Then, don't have noms for three and a half weeks, then have noms again two days later. It's obvious how that would screw with their heads.
The beauty about not having noms for a prolonged time is that it would be like trench warfare - only the toughest survive, cleverness and winning by being devious and bitchy will be a thing of the past.

Sadly this will never happen because Ch 9 is so poor, they need the voting money every week just to stay on air. :p
 
What do you mean by play off each other? If you're versing somebody in a round, what do you do? What does defect and stay quiet mean?

I've looked it up. I get it now.
 
Dystopia said:
Here is a temp noms change:

The HMs live from noms to noms or eviction to eviction. Every week, like a biological clock. They know exactly how many days to noms, the mentally prepare and they speculate whom they will nominate. The closer noms day is, the tenser the all over atmosphere.

So, come next Tuesday, don't have nominations. The HMs are bound to file into the DR one by one and query BB. BB should say, BB will get back to you... again and again. It's his prerogative. Let the HMs stew. One day, two days, three days... until the HMs become convinced that noms are being skipped for one week. Now they wait for the next Tuesday, but lo and behold, no noms again. Let them stew.
There can be variations on this theme. Hold noms at random. Then, don't have noms for three and a half weeks, then have noms again two days later. It's obvious how that would screw with their heads.
The beauty about not having noms for a prolonged time is that it would be like trench warfare - only the toughest survive, cleverness and winning by being devious and bitchy will be a thing of the past.

Sadly this will never happen because Ch 9 is so poor, they need the voting money every week just to stay on air. :p
Click to expand...

I remember in the second series, when the first 'all-up double-eviction' happened...the housemates went into the diary room to nominate, were told what would happen and that they under no circumstances could discuss it with their housemates.
 
kbomb247 said:
I remember in the second series, when the first 'all-up double-eviction' happened...the housemates went into the diary room to nominate, were told what would happen and that they under no circumstances could discuss it with their housemates.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that'll do, anything to depart from the predictable norm. Anything!! :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top