Big Brother 3: Chess vs. Camelot

I've been reading the endless articles where folks are either pledging their support for Lisa or Danielle as the best game player of Big Brother 3. I think there is a fundamental principle at work here that people are overlooking, or are unwilling to admit to, that is preventing the two sides from seeing eye to eye.

On one hand, you have the folks who feel that Big Brother is a microcosm of society and that people should behave as if they normally would in society. They want to reward fairness, honesty, and the things we all like to see in a civilized world.

On the other hand, you have those who feel that Big Brother is nothing more than a game. Strategy and cunning rule in this camp, and the best player is the one who carefully crafted their way to the end. As long as you stay within the parameters of gameplay, and don't break any rules, anything goes.

I would compare it to the difference between Camelot and Chess. If you are playing a game of chess (for the gamer folks) and you kill the queen, obliterate the knights, and wipe out the pawns... no big deal, it's just a game. In Camelot (for the 'real-life' folks) if you kill the queen, then you are a bad person and in very big trouble.

Neither scenario is wrong, however. In this case, perception is reality. For the people who look at BB as nothing more than a game, the most cunning player (like Will) will always win. For the people who see BB as more of a true-to-life experiment, then the most morally ethical person will always win (like Lisa). They will never see eye to eye. It just depends on how you choose to judge the game.

The cast of Big Brother 2 consisted of a majority of chess players, who decided that Will played the best game. The cast of Big Brother 3 consisted primarily of Camelot residents who decided that Lisa played most nobly.

The flaw for both Lisa and Danielle is that neither of them fully understood how their peers would score the game. Lisa was very afraid when Danielle finally came clean about her strategy - she figured Danielle would win based on her expert game play. Danielle didn't take the time to realize that being the snake that she set out to be would ultimately be her demise. They both played according to their own paradigm, and they can't be faulted for that. If the cast of Big Brother 2 had voted, I imagine that Danielle would likely have won.

What I am trying to say is that it's really pointless for both sides to argue who was the best player. One side will never convince the other that "their player" was the best. Danielle DID play the most strategically sound game. Lisa DID play the most moral game. Each of them was the BEST at playing the game the way they did. (Danielle was not moral in the game, and Lisa didn't really manipulate any kind of strategy.) In the end, the evicted houseguests of BB3 decided to vote on morals instead of gameplay - in which case Lisa is the clear winner.

Was Lisa the best player? Under her modus operandi, yes... she was.

Was Danielle the best player? Under her modus operandi, yes... she was, too.

Nobody knew how they were going to score it in the end. Danielle took a chance and played full-out for the "gamers." Unfortunately for her, the "gamers" were not voting at the end.

Be sure to sign up for our e-mail update so you can stay informed about new articles on the site! And take a look at the rest of the site. You can find all of our BB3 articles at the Big Brother 3 page and take a look at our sections on Mole 2 and The Osbournes. You can even buy reality show stuff at our Reality TV Store!

For more news about reality TV, be sure to check out RealityTVFans.com and SirLinksALot!