Playing a Great "Social" Game

I am increasingly amused at how Lane and Enzo have brainwashed themselves into believing that they played a great social game. Did you play a great social game or were you simply likable and not considered an immediate threat? It's so easy to revise history once you are on the other side of it. I am betting that neither one of them knew what a social game was until Ragan and Brit began using the terms in their discussions about who was a threat and why.

It seems that "playing a good social game" has become the "description du jour" to describe those that have not really done anything and have (magically) managed to evade eviction. They are likable personalities and not perceived threats, so why eliminate them "now"? I would like to suggest that this is not "playing a social game." Instead, that is being graced with a personality that resonates with the others in the house. This, often combined with not showing any reason for others to be threatened in competitions, inspires the HGs to first look elsewhere for targets.

A Social Game implies a strategy, not a way to describe how you SOMEHOW managed to dodge the bullets. A true social game is a strategy of FORETHOUGHT, where one decides IN ADVANCE that they are going to use their charms/wiles to move forward (ala Dr. Will).

It would be interesting to see how long the BRAGADE would last in a house full of true competitors that were all playing the game. They deserve credit for keeping it a secret (HUGE) and for making it to the end. I, however, would not give them an award for the brilliance of their social game. Let's not forget the others in the house. It is relative.

This has been an editorial moment. We now return you to your life, already in progress.

Total agreement there, Mark. It goes along with the watering down of all sorts of BB terms over the years. A floater used to be someone who deliberately played unaligned and tried to float to whichever faction of the house had power in any given week as a strategy to deal with week-to-week changes, now it just seems to mean someone who just sits there and is used as an insult rather than an actual strategy. Backdooring used to be a strategy involving actual forethought rather than becoming to mean any eviction of a replacement nominee.

There is something to be said about Britney's idea that a social game does entail ensuring you have a relationship with each HG in there, though to be honest, I don't really think anyone really did that this season. Enzo trying to be the "funny" guy isn't that. As evil as Will was, he actually did this. It's about making personal connections, not merely personality itself.

A social game does involve actual strategy. It's about actively using those relationships to your advantage in the house. The closest BB12 came to that was when Hayden/Lane manipulated Britney's HoH to evict Matt and the way Britney tried to sublimate her true feelings about Rachel to try to ensure her safety.

Having a good social game doesn't necessarily mean playing nice either. Dick actively used his abrasiveness to shield himself and Daniele. They both won competitions, but he also made himself viewed as someone whose eviction you might want to put off just to have a convenient target remain in the house, even to the point that people would want to sit next to someone who came off as so vile so often in the F2.

You both make excellent points as always and I completely agree. It's funny how you know this to be true but the way certain words are thrown around so loosely you then also to begin to see it as that but I completely agree.

I do believe playing a social game to be much more deeper and conniving than being likeable on the surface. The game to me is played much differently than how it used to be played. Not much strategy and a lot of luck. I guess you could say it's what we come to know as gameplay.

Great thoughts guys!!! I agree!

I am loving this thread!!! Thanks for starting it Mark. While reading it, funny enough, Big Brother did not come into mind but Survivor was screaming in my head the whole time. I think the jury on Survivor needs to be schooled on "playing a good social game". For the past two years, they have not only gotten it wrong.....they have butchered it to the point of having no cred whatsoever. Two seasons ago, they awarded Natalie the million because of her good "social game". Last season they gave Sandra the money for...um....hmmm....wtf?....oh yeah no good reason at all except for she wasnt Russell or Parvarti. I think it was 3 seasons ago when Sugar was one of the 3 remaining Survivors and did not receive ONE vote and they came within one vote of giving the million to Susie who in my eyes was "The Kathy" of Survivor that year. Fortunately the prize was awarded to Bob which saved what would have been one of the worst votes in Survivor history. The lame excuses of playing a good social game just do not cut it with me. Overall, I think the Big Brother jury gets it right moreso than the Survivor jury which is very surprising to me. This year though, we came within one vote of the BB jury getting it wrong. Giving Lane the money over Hayden would have simply been the icing on the cake of this trainwreck of a season.

Quote :

It seems that "playing a good social game" has become the "description du jour" to describe those that have not really done anything and have (magically) managed to evade eviction.

I think that says it best can I couldnt agree more!