What's the Fantasia rule?

During American Idol, some posters crossed the bashing line over into the forest fire line by not keeping their comments limited to the show and its participants. General comments, like your final statement, are over the line.

It's OK to discuss whether it's appropriate to use family as a reason to get votes. It's not appropriate to incite controversy through general, non-show-related comments. After all, this is the forum for discussing Big Brother. That's more of an Off-Topic discussion.

While watching Big Brother, Sheila kept repeating that she deserved the money because she was a single mother. The more Sheila repeated her statement, the angrier I got. Was it Chelsia that accused Sheila of playing the single mother card?

The other houseguests might need the money to keep from losing a house, or they might need money to give to relatives for medical care.

And, even if another houseguest might want money to spend on something "frivolous," it's no one else's responsibility, other than Sheila, to take care of Sheila's son.

Nuh-uh! If anyone's going to invoke the Fantasia rule, it's TJ! It's his near-fatal accident rule!

If she wants more money for her son, she needs to play a pedal-to-the-metal game and not go playing the "Boo hoo, I'm a single mother" card anywhere outside the diary room. It's fine to play the "financially downtrodden" card so long as you are aware that it can backfire.

Chelsia's words to Sheila were a form of cautioning her, not of admonishing her. If Sheila were smart, she would have taken them that way and told Chelsia about any offense she took privately.

Financial need is not the deciding factor for who wins. It's a strategy game, not a scholarship contest. The Survivor: Cook Islands jury didn't vote Ozzy a million bucks over Yul just because he was a waiter/wannabe student rather than a financial consultant. The Survivor: Fiji jury didn't bat an eyelash at shutting downtrodden Dreamz out of a million bucks despite his homeless past. Yul and Earl played the game better, made more alliances, and were, shall we say, more palatable than their less well-off counterparts.

So who gets the half-mil in a jury vote? Sheila, the downtrodden single mom? Or, say, Matt, the childless roofer who played a hell of a game? Jurors vote on gameplay. Otherwise, Evel Dick wouldn't have won a half-mil last season. If Sheila doesn't figure that out, she can go lounge around in the jury house.

Hey, it's a strategy she's free to use. If her strategy now is to use her single status to convince the others that she should win, and induce them to dive under the bus, I guess that would be legal. It would be a game strategy of idiotic proportions.

It's ludicrous to think that anyone could fall for it, but these are some pretty ludicrous hamsters. In fact, I bet that Natalie could be convinced of it if Sheila were her crush.

The lesbian lie strategy didn't work, so, now it's the poor single mother (with celebrity friends) strategy.

Who are Sheila's celebrity friends?

Scott Baio is one of them. I'd guess most of the others would have had their peak popularity around the same time period -- basically, anyone who might have attended Penthouse parties during Sheila's active years with them is a candidate.

Big Brother supposedly is fixed. I read the details on this message board about what goes on behind the scenes.

I always thought that there was a psychologist in the diary room that helped houseguests. The person in the diary room really is a producer who fixes, or tries to fix, things that will get the producers's favorite to win the game.

On another board, I read that the producers want James to win the current Big Brother.

And of course, we all now that those who contribute to those message boards don't ever lie.

(turning off the sarcasm).

I think it's silly to think that the BB's are or have been fixed. Unless it's been fixed to favor the most unpopular hamsters, for some reason. If it were fixed, the hamsters that the viewers liked would win, and look at the last two seasons, with the Evil Evel Donatos, and Mike Boogie.

I'm sure they try to egg on people with their dairy room questions, and that they try to precipitate confrontations. But to say they fix the show is patently and demonstrably wrong, IMO.

To be fair, Evel Dick was popular last season, but yes, I'm sure Boogie was an unpopular winner, at least compared to Will and Janelle, and the Nerd Herd wouldn't have won squat in season 6 if it were rigged...unless even rigging couldn't overcome Howie's half-cocked stupidity.

It's unlikely that it's rigged. Probably a little too manipulated, sure, but to change the outcome? Doubtful. Most of the time, the hamsters have the memory span of a goldfish anyway, so rigging the entire season is more challenging.

Because the FCC agrees with you. This letter surfaced last year: an official response from the government regarding a complaint about the show. Pasting it from last season's thread-in-question:

'Thanks for contacting the FCC via the online inquiry form, with your inquiry (designated IC Number: 07-x1327xxxx), regarding the 'reality' show 'Big Brother.' We will close your inquiry IC Number: 07-x1327xxxx with this response:

A "game show" in which selected contestants (vs. members of the public) participate is governed by Section 509 of Title 47 of the United States Code (USC), and regulated by the Department of justice. However 'Big Brother' does not appear to meet the definition of a "game show." Rather, it is a 'for entertainment only' program, somewhat similar to professional wrestling in that it is a pseudo-contest in which the outcome is fully, or in some measure, predetermined.'

Or in other words: they. don't. care. Watch at your own risk.

...similar to professional wrestling ....

Wait, you're not saying the WWE is fake, are you?

I'll sue!

I read that the producer in the diary room called Jen the "c" word. I think that if the producers didn't want D.ick to win, they would have taken him out of the house after he dumped the iced tea on Jen's head. I guess they thought D.ick was popular... and they wanted to take millions of advertising dollars into consideration.

I think that with so much money involved, the producers will do what they can to manipulate what goes on in the house... and get actively involved in strategizing with the houseguests.

At the same time, though, they didn't expel Jen for destroying Evel's cigs, so maybe the rules on physical contact with hands or liquids are just a lot looser on BB than Survivor. On Survivor, if someone poured a drink over another person's head, they're getting at least a warning, and destroying someone's property is almost certain to get someone tossed.

I think they just didn't want to have to expel anyone that far into the game. The expulsions that have happened were early and easy to sweep under the rug. Tossing Evel and Jen when jury selection may be on the way? Not so much. They could be reviled or, worse, not even noticed, and the producers would still not want to toss them.

As for tossing obscene words at Jen...well, let's just say that producer wouldn't be the first who desired to do so. Doesn't make it right. Also doesn't make it easy to resist.

LAST EDITED ON 03-18-08 AT 02:18 PM (EST)

"I read that the producer in the diary room called Jen the "c" word."

This season? or last? Both seasons had Jen's who might have been called C's by various others.

"I think that with so much money involved, the producers will do what they can to manipulate what goes on in the house... and get actively involved in strategizing with the houseguests."

Cheating (illegal manipulation) is not something they can do unless they are well covered legally.

The money thing...there are prospects of large law suits against the show if the fraud (i.e. illegal manipulation) gets to be provable, and/or prevalent. That would work against the temptation to manipulate the outcome. With all the production personnel involved, hiding illegal manipulation would be nearly impossible, so any real attempt at illegal manipulation would leak.

Then the question becomes, what is ILLEGAL manipulation, and one would have to read the contracts involved to decide that. If the players contracts promised each one a fair chance at the prize, then the producers are pretty well constrained to be even handed, I would think. Or be prepared for lawsuits by each of the non-favored players.

The show has contracts with advertisers, who might seek legal redress if their reputation were to be besmirched by association with a controversial 'cheating' program. Again, a maze of lawsuits looms.

The Feds could actually get involved, although the Doc. in Estee's post would seem to make that less likely.

The Jen I wrote about was from last season.

Maybe the contract is worded in such a way that doesn't give the players a fair chance of winning the prize.

Also, when houseguests start to talk about what was discussed in the diary room, someone on the loudspeaker tells them to stop. Maybe it's because the producer doesn't want the behind-the-scenes attempt at manipulation to get on the internet.

And, if a producer goes into the diary room to try to get houseguests to vote a certain way... maybe no one except the producer and houseguest hear the conversation.

I wonder about the house trivia competitions. Those involved in the prodction would know exactly which trivia facts each houseguest knows. But that would involve many from the production staff to make lists about which questions to ask to get the "favored" houseguest to win the competition. That sounds complicated. Maybe they just stick to trying to influence houseguests while talking to them in the diary room.

If a cameraman or someone else behind the scenes revealed what goes on behind the scenes, they likely could be fired, and have a hard time getting rehired in the industry.

I read that the contract for the competitors on American Idol states that the competitors can be released at any time, for no reason... (or something like that).

Whenever Sheila talks, I hit the "mute" button on my remote.

you can't blame her for trying...I mean, it's all she's got! She's the oldest, a bit annoying and has both legs...what do you want her to do? ~

I didn't want to start another thread for this, so I'm bumping this one. But, Sheila has said may times, "Why don't you defend me?" to the men, like she expects the men to actually defend her. Excuse me, but aren't you a 45-year-old single mother who should have been defending yourself all this time? And haven't you been defending yourself in the real world since you became a single mother? Hell, even before that?

Now, I can understand if the threats were more of a physical nature, but verbal assualts and insults should be well within her realm of capability to defend herself. I cringe every time she whines about the men not standing up for her. STAND UP FOR YOURSELF, WOMAN!

Sheila is my least favorite person in several seasons of BB, precisely because of this attitude. I'm not much older than she is, but find it appalling that she seems to believe she's entitled to being defended, just because she's a woman. I don't know if it's gameplay or not, but i have a sad feeling that this is how Sheila thinks. If it IS gameplay, then she's fooled me and I'll have to rethink my position.

Gloria Steinem would kick her a** for saying such things!