Talk:Big Brother 8 (American season)/Archive 1

message: In desperate need of a rewrite. It's talking about what the author plans to do with the article; that's just way off. I suppose you could just get rid of that section, however, that leaves the article with nothing but an empty table. Also, this could fail WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Mrmoocow 05:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Will this be the exact logo that will be shown on the opening night. ScottAHudson 03:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo

message: Alright, if anybody has noticed, Dick and Daniele have the same last name in the houseguest section. Should we put a spoiler tag there as to not give anything away? FireSpike 01:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler tag to be used? 

message: Couldn't Dick be Daniele's uncle, or even cousin?  There are many possibilities in which they aren't father/daughter.  If they are, could someone find a source? Jordan 23:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I cant find anything about a father/daughter relationship. DemonWeb 21:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RealityBBQ confirmed they are father/daughter. There is also a picture on Dick's Myspace of a picture of them and Dick's son/Daniele's brother has also confirmed on a few message boards the relationship. Villacinna 18:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added two references. One from the RealityBBQ site, and the other from the OC Register (more legit) OOps, it's on now. - Jeeny Talk 00:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dick and Daniele 

message: Where did you all get the info about Janelle returning? How do you all think she was given a third chance? User:ScottAHudson
:Don't believe everything you read
As anyone can edit any article, it is of course possible for biased, out of date, or incorrect information to be posted to Wikipedia. However, because there are so many other people reading the articles and monitoring contributions using the Recent Changes page, incorrect information is usually corrected quickly. Thus, the overall accuracy of the encyclopedia is improving all the time as it attracts more and more contributors. You are encouraged to help by correcting articles, validating content, and providing useful references. FireSpike 04:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the news about Janelle returning true? ScottAHudson 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. :) FireSpike 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Janelle Returning

message: OK, I'm going to be frank, the continued vandalism on this page is p****** me off. 75.46.81.83 should be blocked. Do not add names without sources! Geoking66talk 04:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, it's been semi-protected. FireSpike 05:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Why are Carol and Amber in the color of being nominated? How can other editors edit this template when it's not clear and only to a select few? That should be changed too, as this is a collaborative where ANYone can edit. - Jeeny Talk 04:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Live feed watchers have figured out by discussion that they're nominated since they blantantly talk about who Kail nominated as HoH. Geoking66talk 04:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay. Thanks. Please reconsider the Exempt though. Please? Thanks for fixing the name links. - Jeeny Talk 05:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could somebody please remove the nomination spoliers? ScottAHudson 11:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think this sort of thing should wait until the nomination episode is actually broadcast.  People here reporting what they see via After Dark or the internet feed are likely running afoul of the wiki's "no original research" restrictions. Tarc 13:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK version updates it live doesn't it? If one Big Brother uses a certain method they all should. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 18:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because another version does it, does not mean all should. Also this is about the broadcast, not the live feeds, or live updates. No information should be allowed in before it has aired. Period. See Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Consensus. - Jeeny Talk 18:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the Original Research thing, the nominations are easily citable. Also, the article is supposed to be about the season itself. NOT just the television program. Saying that Person X and Person Y aren't nominated is incorrect information, since that is what's going on in the season right now. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, to bring up another point, if we were to update by broadcast as to not spoil anything, think about this: Say so and so is evicted at 8:50 pm EST, and we then update the arcticle. Someone getting home from work in Denver, forgetting who was nominated comes to this article to see who is on the block at 7:00 pm MST. To their surprise, they see that Housemate X was evicted. So really, no matter which way you slice it, it's always going to be spoiled for someone in some time zone unless we don't update it until AFTER it airs in the Pacific Time Zone. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 20:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. But what do you think about adding little tidbits from the live feeds such as Nick is gay, and Joe has VD, etc.? - Jeeny Talk 20:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Joe's VD should be included since it seems kind of random and irrelevant. Nick's sexuality is fairly important, but unless it can be confirmed via a diary room segment that he is indeed homosexual, it should be left out. For all we know, he could have been joking around. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you colored the nominations in the infobox. I don't really mind, but it is not accurate because it states "Day 1" clearly next to it. They were not nominated on Day 1, correct? For that reason, I think it should be reverted. Also, how is the infobox going to work on Day 2, 3, etc.? Thanks for your insight into my questions above about the "tidbits". I agree. :) 23:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... the "Day 1" thing means what day the entered the house. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 00:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I want to start a new project debate. LOL. I'm joining. This is confusing, and I'm not blonde. - Jeeny Talk 00:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG! D'oh!. Now I get it! LMAO. It's the the day everyone entered the house. Not like some, who just may enter at a later time, someone like Janelle, perhaps? LOL. Okay, I was blonde just for ONE moment. But that's all. %} I still hate the "standard" colors. Yuk. It's more classy, (as if Big Brother has any class), for the more muted tones, than those garish-blinding-hard-to-read colors.- Jeeny Talk 01:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we need to add a spoiler tag at the top of this page. Some viewers would rather see the show to find out information, while this page will be updated with information from the live feeds. Since it would be difficult to stop editors from updating based on the live feeds, I think a spoiler tag will help prevent viewers from reading the information posted that has not beed released on the show. Z1720 04:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, not everyone likes to be spoiled. I know this is an encyclopedia, but it's not a live feed, or message board. People looking up information here, rather than other places that know spoil the show, would be very upset to know before hand on this site. I think this is a common courtesy. Although, people in different time zones will have a problem too. But, should be aware, hopefully, that it is EST zone. At least, it saves the outcome for those on the East Coast, other time zones are aware, I feel, that they can be spoiled because of time zones, not live feeds, etc. - Jeeny Talk 04:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also fits Wikipedia guidelines on spoilers. See here. I'm going to add the tag, as it is better than the banner that was up before  about the upcoming series (which I removed), as it is more obtrusive than the spoiler tag. - Jeeny Talk 04:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding the spoiler tag. :) Z1720 06:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it would be good not to have the nominees, or the veto winner in the article until that respective episode airs, its common courtesy for the people who watch the show from episode to episode and don't have live feeds or who simply don't watch BB After Dark on Showtime Too. I think it is better all around, and spoiler tags are good. Alucard 16 03:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominated?

message: The article said in the America's choice section that, "The first task will be to punish two other houseguests by deciding two people to be locked in the "Mad Hatter" HoH room." However, CBS's website has stated that the first poll for America's choice will be released after the Sunday show, and the viewers will decide what he will do. Therefore, this statement is unlikely to be true. If I made a mistake, please revert my edit with a source Z1720 06:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Statement

message: Did anyone notice that on the show when Julie said that it was time to reveal the 3 other houseguests, it showed a shot of Joe with a pink shirt on, then just a couple of seconds after that when Jessica started to walk down the stairs it showed another shot of the houseguests and Joe had a different shirt on and a hat. How could he have changed so fast in just 5 seconds?
:It's TV. It could have been longer than that, and I think by then he knew who was coming down the stairs and knew about the shirt being Dustin's so he changed. It really doesn't take that long to change to another shirt. I can do it in a couple of seconds. Good eye though, as I didn't notice! They just didn't show it on TV. - Jeeny Talk 16:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, just because Julie had shown us that doesn't mean it was that quick in the house.  You have to remember, they've been in the house for like 5 days now.  They didn't show up yesterday just because the show premiered then...StrandedKSig 19:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joe's shirt

message: Wasn't it fairly obvious that Nick was kidding about the blow job?  Do we really need to include something from the feeds as canon in the article?  I feel like the article should stick strictly to what the broadcast show uses - Sunday/Tuesday/Thursday episodes.  Same for putting up the nominations before they've been shown to the nation.  Just because we can see it in the feeds doesn't mean it should be put up on the website.  If that were true, we could be writing right now about how Dick didn't really sleep last night and just got drunk, smoked a ton of cigarettes, and wrote on the kitchen table in mustard.StrandedKSig 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly! This is not Joker's, etc. If every little bit is written down this article would be huge! - Jeeny Talk 19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: He could have been joking. Or some strategy. It shouldn't be in the bio section, unless his sexuality is known for sure. - Jeeny Talk 20:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry if you misinterpreted my tone. I don't not think his lifestyle, nor his behavior is shameful. This is an encyclopedia, and adding little gossipy tidbits, seems like this is the Enquirer, or worse. That's all. He gave someone a blowjob, so what? Why is this important, when we don't know for sure why he said it? Oh, it is shameful that you don't sign you posts. :p - Jeeny Talk 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nick's Sexuality

message: If Danielle is 20 as it clearly states she is why was she drinking on the opening show. She did clearly state in her frist diary room she turns 21 in 2 months. Now thats understandable. If she is in the hosue after those 2 months are up I can see it but she shouldnt be drinking until then. If so I would go on saying that we are to the point where CBS or teh producers are promoting underage drinking.
:I thought the same thing. It's illegal to serve minors alcohol. Hmmmm. Enteresting. Although she said she would be 21 in a few months, it's still under-age. Interesting for sure. - Jeeny Talk 20:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this was a special case because of the father. But still, you have a point. The drinking is bad as far as I'm concerned. I wonder how they are going to handle that one. - Jeeny Talk 23:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: God, thats bullshit. Just that, if she were in Australia she wouldn't be under age. It's ridiculous that they aren't classified as "of age" until 21, here it's 18. -- 3bay sam 18:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The legal age was 18 until a law was enacted to raise it to 21 in 1984, because of so many alcohol related accidents resulting in death. Supposedly the highway death toll of alcohol related deaths has dramatically reduced since the law was enacted. Yet, 18-year-olds can enlist and be drafted in the Armed Forces, go to war, and can kill and be killed. Eighteen is the legal age for everything else, but not for drinking -- and smoking, I think. <shrug> - Jeeny Talk 19:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The legal age for smoking is 18.  The major post-18 restrictions are drinking (21 years old) and renting a vehicle (25 years old).  As for Michelle's drinking, some states (such as Texas) have laws which allow minors to consume alcohol if the parent is present, gives permission, and has proof of parental or guardian rights (like a birth certificate).  I'm unsure if CA's laws are like this.  If so, it's possible (but speculation) that Dick gave permission.  -207.114.205.130 19:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this online: "The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all of the states to change their legal drinking age, if the states refused to comply with the law, they would lose money under the Federal Aid Highway Act." I do know that a parent got in trouble with the law for allowing her son to drink underage in her home, but later, he was stopped by the police driving a motor vehicle. So that may be the difference -- driving, or going outside after drinking and getting caught by police. The laws have become stricter with MADD, and other groups. Again, I don't know in this case. Also, I think certian religions can be exempt for this rule, but not the driving part. I also know that stores can be heavily fined for selling to anyone under 21, no matter if they are driving or not. Also I've heard of parents getting in major trouble for hosting parties, and allowing underaged drinking, even though it was in the home. Perhaps they'll address this in upcoming shows, or online somewhere. - Jeeny Talk 20:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found this, which is helpful:  Alcohol laws of the United States by state.  The third map down shows exceptions by state for under 21 drinking.  For example, alcohol laws in Texas permit a minor to drink (but not order) alcohol at a restaurant if the parent is present (and can provide proof of being the parent).  Note that apparently California allows drinking for underage folks.  Driving makes a difference though:  Texas also has a zero tolerance law for minors behind the wheel - the BAC cannot be higher than 0% if under 21. - 207.114.205.130 21:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 1. Some States' provisions do not apply reciprocal exceptions to both the provider of alcohol and the minor (e.g., California permits minors to possess alcohol in private locations, but it is illegal for anyone to provide alcohol to minors in any setting).    
It was from this link by clicking on the "Explanatory Notes and Limitations" next to "Underage Consumption of Alcohol". Even though under that it says "Consumption is not explicitly prohibited".   
So, how is it that it permits minors to possess alcohol, but illegal for anyone to provide it, if they cannot purchase it themselves? I guess it's OK, if it is just there, and no-one actually "provides" it to them? Did Daniele provide the alcohol? So how does the alcohol get there, if it's illegal to provide it in any setting? LOL, laws are so confusing. I guess being available is different from providing it, but I don't know the difference. It has to come from somewhere, right? - Jeeny Talk 22:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danielle 20? Why is she drinking 

message: On the main info box the color of nominations is a blue/greenish color, but in the voting history it is red. This is confusing, unless one or the other is changed and maybe adding a legend under the voting history table may be helpful Something like this (colors and more boxes can be added/changed):
:     Head of Household, and Exempt from nomination and voting.
:     Not Eligible
:     Evicted HouseGuest
:     Nominated HouseGuests.
:     Exempt from nomination, but still allowed to vote.
- Jeeny Talk 20:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, Evicted is Pink, Nominated is Blue, and HoH is Yellow in both. I really don't see what the confusion is about. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 21:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look down at the table of the voting history, the blue is a different color from the "legend" in the infobox. - Jeeny Talk 21:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see you removed them from the box. Good point about the PoV. We don't know yet if they will stay the nominees. But, when they are known, then the color should match the legend info box, with this color hex code #D1E8EF to match the legend of the lighter blue for nominations, and the pink #FFC0CB for evictions, rather than the red. K? :) - Jeeny Talk 21:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... although it would seem to be logical to do that, the colors used in the voting history table are pre-approved colors that are supposed to be used by directions in WP:BIGBRO. I do commend you for your dedication to this article though. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the compliment. :) I do realize about the pre-approved colors for the project, but why is it different in the info box? They should both match, IMO. It hurts my aesthetic sense to see the inconsistency. I'm anal like that. :/ I do like the colors in the info box better though, I wish I was in on the project debate. lol But I feel strongly that they match in color in the voting history AND the info box, even if I don't like the approved colors. :)- Jeeny Talk 23:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a simple question, but why are Dick, Dustin, and Jessica's boxes green in the voting history table? Is it because they were "exempt" or "not eligible" the first week (being the enemies)? I'm probably missing the explanation on the page or in the discussion, I dunno, I just found it confusing. Thanks :) - zachinthebox 03:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike the HoH, who cannot vote or be nominated (Yellow), Dick, Dustin and Jessica were "Exempt" from nominations, but were still allowed to vote. This is a new thing, so I guess the color change was to reflect this difference from the HoH. - Jeeny Talk 03:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much clearer now :) thanks a lot! - zachinthebox 19:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Color legend

message: Is this really necessary??? That thing is going to be HUGE by the time the series is over, and the challenges are already covered in the chronology table. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 21:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, plus it's redundant. - Jeeny Talk 21:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. - Jeeny Talk 21:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competitions Table 

message: Does big brother even cast? Does Big Brother give false hope? I think they do for the fact of the way they are casting their shows for the past few years. It isnt reality when your cast all have ties to Hollywood. It isnt reality when people wait in line for hours just to get a 2 minute video to say why they should be on the show. Because the way Big Brother has been cast since season 3 is a joke. The cast is not diverse. The cast is a bunch of wannabe actors who all have agents getting them a spot on teh show. People who go to casting calls are give flase hope of making it because CBS only hold casting calls for show. I know you want these people for ratings but they arent "real" Also the knowing someone in the hosue gimmick has gotten old. For the past few seasons that means you arent even casting 10 people. This year you cast 11 oh wow. You want a diverse cast in tehre not 6 people and then 6 people they know. Learn to cast and starting going to towns and pick the everyday person. Dont Typecast like you have done since Season 3
:This is not a discussion forum. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 23:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, go to Erika's MySpace page and yell at her. It's her fault. She picks them. - Jeeny Talk 23:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It means to discuss changes to the article, not to the show itself. :) - Jeeny Talk 23:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not discussing article changes, you're discussing the way bb casts its shows. I don't see the connection to the article. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 00:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CASTING??? 

message: Right now there is this little dot under the symbol that is driving me crazy. Is it just on my computer or what? T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 20:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fiddled with it. I made it 3D, perhaps that's the problem. I'll revert it back to the original. :) - Jeeny Talk 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it back. I didn't have a problem on my monitor, and didn't see any dot. But, if my change was driving you crazy, because you saw a dot, then that's more than a good enough reason to revert to the original. :) Is it better now? - Jeeny Talk 20:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you. :) T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 20:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veto symbol in table 

message: Would it be acceptable to provide a link to individual houseguests' MySpace profiles or other websites, etc, as part of their listings/descriptions here?  Tommy 20:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't. It is hard to be 100% sure that it is their MySpace profile, unless they themselves state that it is. Z1720 01:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the Houseguests have said themselves on the live feeds and on the Showtime special what their MySpace profile names are.  Last night, someone asked Mike what his was, and he said "It's the same as my name...it's just first name last name." Tommy 02:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Houseguest MySpace Profiles? 

message: There was a link to the Finnish national football team saying Nick played for it. Well for those of us in America that would actually be a soccer team, and he was a former (American) football player. I removed the link and hope no one objects since it was wrong. Just wanted to explain here. Phydend 01:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nick

message: To eliviate the debate about stuff not in the show I have created Big Brother 8 (US/CBS) that will only contain materials that were reveiled during the standard CBS broadcast so that this page can remain as is, and After Dark will be related to the After Dark show only. Thee17 01:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is going to be deleted. This IS the CBS version. You can't have two articles of the same show at the same time. - Jeeny Talk 02:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hoping that more people will find it useful as this artical will be deal with the happinings in the Big Brother 8 House, where the new artical will deal specifically with the happings on the CBS airings of the show. If noone likes or uses it, or when the show ends then it may be deleted but just to have it deleted without trying the concept is just foolish. Thee17 02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CBS Version

message: Do those exempts for Dick, Dustin and Jessica mean they cannot vote in the live eviction show? User:ScottAHudson 10:50PM 8 July 2007
:So far we think they can't vote, but "exempt" means they are safe from nominations, therefore eviction. Hope that helps. - Jeeny Talk 02:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Julie said that they are exempt from eviction this week. I am taking a wild leap in saying that they may not be eligible in voting for someone to evict but since they did get to chose Kail for HOH, they could still be eligible. If they are allowed to vote I guess the box can stay grey for this week and have the name of the person they vote to evict if eligible. Alucard 16 03:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exempt?

message: I would appreciate if somebody could tell me who the teams were on the July 8 episode's food competition. Another suggestion would be to revert the change that was made to get rid of the competitions table. That would help or telling would be fine also. User:ScottAHudson
*The first food competition involved using their bodies to cover up in butter and then put it in a tub of popcorn. The team who got the most won food for the week, while the losers were put on slop. The red team (Amber, Carol, Dick, Dustin, Jen, Kail and Mike) got 77 pounds and the blue team (Daniele, Eric, Jameka, Jessica, Joe, Nick and Zach) got 37 pounds.Butter me up Here's your answer. You can also view it on the CBS website, from this link. - Jeeny Talk 03:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Teams from the Episode's Food Competition

message: Is this really necessary? We could easily cover this in the chronology table. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 03:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to be bold and eliminate it to see what will happen. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 03:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry I added it back. It's a big part of the show, and some mention of it should be in the article, whether it's a table, or some other way to chronicle it. I think the Ratings table is unnecessary though, or at least should not be so close to the top of the article. - Jeeny Talk 20:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ratings table, although not completely necessary, is very useful and I think that it should be kept. I'll move it lower (and I'm thinking of merging the Global interactive and America's player as the Global interactive was born out of America's Player). Should official viewer numbers or household numbers be used (ie the launch's household number was 5.356m but the total viewer number was 7.401m)? Geoking66talk 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think that the "America's Player" table is uncecessary. It's becoming extremely redundant now, as it's events are in the chronology table, the "America's Player" table, AND now in the voting history. It's going out of control and should be put in the Chronology with everything else where it can be converted to a small amount of prose. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 01:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed Alucard 16 02:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  America's Player Table 

message: I really see no point that there is the "America's Player" part under "Nominations (Post-Veto)" Since Eric is the one and only "America's Player" this season and there is a section in the article about "America's Player" so there is no need for it in the Voting History table. Alucard 16 01:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no point in PoV winner either. I'm sick of people deleting already consensus-agreed decisions, so I think that I'm going to request more protection. Geoking66talk 02:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PoV winner is quite important actually. You'd see "Post-Veto Nominations", but you'd not know who vetoed a nomination if it ocurred. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant colouring a square with "Power of Veto" is pointless since it's mentioned in the table already. Geoking66talk 02:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, okay then. I agree with you there. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 02:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  America's Player in the Voting History table 

message: I just want to make sure that everyone is aware that there is no public vote with Big Brother 8 USA. The only vote America is controlling is Eric's vote. America decides who Eric should vote for and it is up to him to do as America wishes. After that, the rest of the house choses to evict. Not America. None of the houseguests are up against the public vote, the only American season where houseguests were up against the public vote was Season 1. Reason I am adding this is because of one edit made on 02:34, 11 July 2007 and the note that followed. Alucard 16 02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A housemate is being evict by public voting. Eric is only a medium since we are voting for the housemate that he must evict. Since he has no say in the matter, it is America's choice as to who will leave the house. Geoking66talk 02:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eric's vote is one out of a minimum of seven. America only gets to chose who Eric votes for. Then it is up to the rest of the house. For the vote to be truly "against the public vote" America must vote for who they want to leave not the houseguests. Alucard 16 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was never specified as to how this would work. We don't know if Eric's vote decides who is evicted or if his vote counts as a regular one. I watched it and they did not say. Geoking66talk 03:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I watched the ending again and it states "Which of the two nominees do you want Eric to vote out of the house." 9 times out of 10, America is only controlling Eric's vote, and the rest of the houseguest votes count also. We will have to wait and see Thursday and see how this will go down. But until we know how the America's Player twist works there shouldn't be a mention that the nominees are against the public vote at this time. Alucard 16 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand we only control Eric's vote. Also, on another note, if we are given the percentage of votes for eviction, I think we should include it. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 03:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think most of them know that now, by reading the posts above. Except for maybe one. :) - Jeeny Talk 21:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting Procedure  

message: Do you think the shows rigged. It has been on the news before and everything. It mostly came up last season, because they said that Janelle got a little too lucky. I just want to know what you guys think.Seth71 22:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a forum for discussion on the article, not on Big Brother. Please go to sites such as Joker's Updates to talk about that. Geoking66talk 02:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: rigged?

message: Why is everything about the housemates duing their time in the house being deleted? That's the point of the subsections, to give information about what the housemate did while in the house, not just background information. For example, why is the topic of viewers' ambiguity over Nick's sexuality, despite being a big topic in the Big Brother viewing community, being deleted? It's important to write about these things because that's the purpose of the housemate sections. Other noteworthy topics such as Joe's accusations of gonorrhoea (please spell it that correctly, I've noticed that many people can't spell it) should be included rather than excluded. Remember, only include sourced comments and statements. Geoking66talk 02:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why it keeps being re-written, nor deleted. But, the last contribution said that was the REASON they spilt up, which may not be true. I'm tired of all the changes, really, so I just deleted it, rather than go back to see how it was written before, and which had a source. If you can find that one, please feel free to included it, but not that it was the reason they broke up. It was one of many, or two.  - Jeeny Talk 02:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I wrote it, I explicity said that he claimed it was because of an STD. Geoking66talk 02:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK. did you provide the source, if so put it back in. Thanks. - Jeeny Talk 02:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housemates' time in the house 

message: Can we put the competitions information back into the chronology table? Why were they removed? User:ScottAHudson
:Yeah put them back in. I'd do it but I dont watch BB USA -- 3bay sam
SA Santa 13:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Competitions for Week 1