What do you matter more: competition wins and social manipulation?

For your question of "what matters more, competition wins or social manipulation?" you're going to get a lot of conflicting responses because, and I've said this before, different fans will gravitate towards different types of players/strategies. No matter what anyone says, whether it's "comps matter more!" or "social game matters the most!", there is no right or wrong way to play Big Brother, which is why this question gets brought up all the time. There are some fans who only respect a player who can get by just on social game alone, and there are other fans who respect a competitive, in your face type of player who goes through the game winning their way to the end. To some, Kevin is a fantastic winner, but to others, he's subpar. Same goes for Paras. It's all just a matter of opinion.

I really, really hate when people say "this game is a social game first and foremost, so if a player has to win a comp to stay in the game, they're not playing the game correctly" because that's simply not true. Different players have different strengths and weaknesses. Not everyone can tell a believable lie, and not everyone can win an endurance competition. That's why the game of Big Brother is so complex and interesting. At the end of the day, Big Brother is a mix of both a social game and a competitive game. If comps didn't matter, like some fans seem to think, then they would not be such a big part of the game. Personally, I've always been someone who has gravitated more towards players who are in your face or extremely competitive with some recent examples being Erica, Kaela, Lolo, Kaycee and now Adam. But, I also loved Tyler who, while he won 7 or 8 comps through out the season, played a much more low key game that mostly relied on his social game. Do I think Paras played a good game? Sure, but I don't like the game she played, while I like the game Kaela played, which is the difference. I don't typically like floater games, nor do I enjoy watching players who use the floater strategy, but I'm aware it's a solid strategy that is respected by a big chunk of the community.

As for the Erica vs Shannon question, to put it simply, it literally just depends on the individual player, the season their on and the circumstances of their evictions.

Erica got taken out by a twist that occurred after the nominations for that week we're already locked in and did not have a chance to campaign for votes. Without the twist, she survives that week, makes it to jury and based off what we know of her comp abilities, her social connections and the BBCAN6 house dynamics at that time, probably could have made it to at least the triple eviction because Johnny was the main target going into that next week, not Erica. No matter what anyone tries to say, Erica was not in a bad position moving forward after her 2nd HOH. She was not drawing dead and her comp wins, while they put a target on her back, had absolutely nothing to do with her eviction. Kaela, Olivia and Ali still wanted to work with Erica, they just didn't want to work with Johnny, but unfortunately, Johnny was safe at the time of the twist, and she was his closest ally. The only people targeting Erica, and not just to spite Johnny, we're Paras and Maddy who at that point in the game had no power. Shannon, however, got sent out by a regular nomination and a regular eviction. Erica's game had potential longevity and was unexpectedly cut short, while Shannon's game was clearly not successful. There is no "what if's" for Shannon's game, she got nominated, couldn't get the votes to stay, and got evicted. Erica was simply a better player on the season she was cast on, than Shannon was in the season she was on. Who knows, maybe on a different season Erica is sent out week 3 and isn't nearly as loved or respected as she currently is... but her game worked / would have worked for the season she was on, while Shannon's obviously didn't, and there's no evidence to say otherwise.

/r/BigBrother Thread