HOW has David been strategic?

davidftw

Team LaPags!
He's been labelled it because he likes to talk about it. It's probably stemming from being driven by intellectual pursuits and the challenge of the game. The proof though, was shown in his desire to save Ryan from eviction, probably one of the most unstrategic moves you could make. He is not StrategyDave, he's LikesToTalkAboutStrategy Dave.
 

Insomniac

Well-Known Member
Awesome site donor
He's said before that his strategy is to be real, himself. And I guess expose those he feels aren't being themselves.
Strategy isn't always about spreading stories, manipulation and playing people against each other.
Whether people like him for that or not is a matter of personal opinion, but it's still a valid strategy.
 

Mavis Beacon

Well-Known Member
Yeah I've wondered this myself, he's a bit of a bunny in my book. He thinks Ryan's his bestie never mind Ryan didn't have the time of day for him at the beginning and that 'rysa' (ugh, stupid bogans) will throw him under the big brother golf cart at the first available opportunity.

And when he went to nominate the other night he was like 'well duh uhhh derp, i think i'll spend most of these points on seeing where everyone else is and trying to save ryan who would stab me in my sleep" when he should've been like - when big brother was all like speaking in his ridiculous broken remedial speech pattern "David, big brother, is using too many commas, you have, twelve points, you, can, use these poi.." and david should've been like "yeah stfu big dickhead, 6 points skye, 6 points priya. They know I'm up here in the diary room with points up the YING yang so let's just stop fucking around and try getting them out of the house and maybe some newbs out of the red zone. Derp."

So yeah he's not very smart.
 

Oleander

Member
Big Brother Australia is very different from Big Brother USA. In BB USA, the public has absolutely no vote in who is Head of Household, in who is nominated and who is voted out. You have to rely on your ability to make alliances, win competitions and actually use strategic game moves to make it to the end. While I do enjoy watching Big Brother Australia, I don't see how this version of it is strategic at all, really? Yes, they have to do competitions to win food but that is it. For the most part, everything else (with the exception of nominations) is up to Australia and even if you nominate someone you want out extremely bad, they probably won't go home if they are an Australian fan favorite. To me, this version is simply a popularity contest and I don't see what is strategic in any of that? I don't think any of them are actually 'strategic' game players and the key to winning this game seems to be likability with the public.
 

yabbitboy

Active Member
The only thing David is closet to being strategic is that he is this years housemate Nostradamus. He is the most accurate out of this years housemate to predict someone going home by nominating that person.

Week 2 - Nominated Gemma. Gemma evicted that week.
Week 3 - Nominated Dion. Dion evicted that week.
Week 4 - Nominated Jake. Jake evicted that week.
Week 5 - Nominated Jason.......... The only week his prediction didnt come true, but Jason was evicted the followinng week.
Week 6 - Nominated Jason. Jason evicted that week.
Week 7 - Nominated Marina. Marina evicted that week.
 

Yumq

Well-Known Member
In BB USA, you have to rely on your ability to make alliances, win competitions and actually use strategic game moves to make it to the end. While I do enjoy watching Big Brother Australia, I don't see how this version of it is strategic at all, really? Yes, they have to do competitions to win food but that is it. ... I don't think any of them are actually 'strategic' game players and the key to winning this game seems to be likability with the public.

It sounds like winning BB USA is more about who is the best competitor. Would that be accurate?

BBAU is more of a popularity contest. The strategy comes into how the each housemate allows themselves to be portrayed to the viewing public, who ultimately have power over whether they stay or go. Last year's BBAU winner Tim had a clear strategy of taking the sort of calculated risks that made him really stand out against the other HMs, and while some of his ploys were extremely risky, such as putting himself up for eviction, it worked very well for him. It got him noticed and the public appreciated his audacity. Of course, it helped that he was naturally cheeky and good natured, too.

HMs who haven't prepared how to handle themselves while in the house invariably get picked off fairly quick. Tom, who was evicted last night, is a perfect example. He generally acted like a bell-end, only hung out with the boys, started fights with a house favourite and had no discernible strategy for how to make the public take notice of and like him.
 

Heidi von Bismarck

Secret Squirrel
Awesome site donor
Any HM who identifies a goal and then attempts to find a way to achieve it is 'strategic'. I get irritated with HMs who say they are 'there for the experience' because a) I think they're being disingenuous and b) they could, by definition, be satisfied with being the first person evicted, because that is a BB experience. And no one ever seems to be happy about being the first person out. In this season, I think we've seen a lot of calculating behaviour (a good thing IMO) from various HMs and I find it interesting and entertaining. I'd rank Priya and David up there as being the HMs who have most successfully articulated their tactics. They tend to focus on making it through another week, rather than the whole series. But I have to say that not one of them has had a ruthlessly strategic drive. Every one of them - except maybe Ryan? - has made a move based on an emotional reaction that has potentially threatened their popularity within or outside the house. The rest of the HMs are 'strategic' too, but almost pretend they're not. Some try to hide it, some talk about it openly, and they're all using tactics that have varying degrees of success. I love having intelligent HMs who are willing to admit they are thoughtful and calculating and are willing to discuss their observations. You can be 'strategic' in behaviour, regardless of how successful your strategies are.
 

natalia

Well-Known Member
The only thing David is closet to being strategic is that he is this years housemate Nostradamus. He is the most accurate out of this years housemate to predict someone going home by nominating that person.

Week 2 - Nominated Gemma. Gemma evicted that week.
Week 3 - Nominated Dion. Dion evicted that week.
Week 4 - Nominated Jake. Jake evicted that week.
Week 5 - Nominated Jason.......... The only week his prediction didnt come true, but Jason was evicted the followinng week.
Week 6 - Nominated Jason. Jason evicted that week.
Week 7 - Nominated Marina. Marina evicted that week.
What about out of Lawson, Cat and Aisha?
also, could this mean...skye could be evicted?!??


Wouldn't that be the best!?
 

Raphael

Well-Known Member
He did use a good piece of strategy when he chose to have Cat bought back into the house from the sanctuary so, as he told aisha, he could get the whole Cat/Lawson thing back into the faces of the voting public, therefore give himself a better chance of staying. Logical - valid. Didn't fckg work though. They got evicted but through no contribution of Davids. We didn't get to see what he did or the strategic value until five minutes before the eviction. Thanks BB.
 

Evan44

Well-Known Member
How about on the night when Lawson went into the sanctuary with Cat, and then David & Lisa had that huge argument in the spa about it? Lisa was evicted soon after that, and David's popularity soared(because he was voicing the general opinion of Lawson cheating on Candice).
I thought all that was strategic.
 

Connoisseur

Well-Known Member
It sounds like winning BB USA is more about who is the best competitor. Would that be accurate?

BBAU is more of a popularity contest. The strategy comes into how the each housemate allows themselves to be portrayed to the viewing public, who ultimately have power over whether they stay or go. Last year's BBAU winner Tim had a clear strategy of taking the sort of calculated risks that made him really stand out against the other HMs, and while some of his ploys were extremely risky, such as putting himself up for eviction, it worked very well for him. It got him noticed and the public appreciated his audacity. Of course, it helped that he was naturally cheeky and good natured, too.

HMs who haven't prepared how to handle themselves while in the house invariably get picked off fairly quick. Tom, who was evicted last night, is a perfect example. He generally acted like a bell-end, only hung out with the boys, started fights with a house favourite and had no discernible strategy for how to make the public take notice of and like him.

The moral of the story is that for a housemate to triumph she/he has to be likable and entertaining as those are the qualities that the vast majority of voters (mostly female teens) look for in a housemate. Being 'interesting/intelligent' doesn't quite cut it since the over 20 fanbase doesn't vote nearly as much as the younger brigade.

If you start being a Negative Nancy, grumpy, mean-spirited or worse a callous bullying bitch you risk alienating voters and subsequently find yourself last in the voting count.

Although there are exceptions, to this day I have no idea how Ben had a single fan let alone win.
For all intents and purposes he was just a nasty bitch who found extreme pleasure in mocking those who didn't belong to his clique and sometimes even those who were close to him. Ben was a despicable human being and IMO the lowest point of BB AU was him winning.
 

Evan44

Well-Known Member
David I don't find entertaining, in the same way that I found Tim entertaining last year.
Actually nobody left on the show really floats my boat in that respect.
 
Top