| |
|
If HMs were allowed to discuss nominations, it wouldn't be inconceivable for them (or at least some of them) to come to an agreement and split the prize money.
How? And couldn’t they do that anyway? There’s nothing in the rules to prevent them saying “If I win, I’ll split the money with you”.
I think nominations are forbidden because, if it were possible to talk about them openly, they could be used as explicit bargaining tools or threats, either individually or en masse. It can be argued that this sort of manipulation happens anyway, but being able to say, "we've agreed all to nominate you, Richard, unless blah" would probably give the manipulation a particular edge.
Absolutely this sort of manipulation happens anyway, and I don’t see why it would be a bad thing to make it explicit. It might take some of the tension and uncertainty away if coordinated nominations were allowed, and nominations were cast publicly, but if the actual ballot is secret, let them hatch schemes if they like. Someone might promise to vote one way, but do something quite different from the privacy of the Diary Room. It could actually increase the jeopardy, uncertainty and political machinations.
Maybe it depends on what you watch BB for, but I *like* the way they form pacts and allegiances, navigate and negotiate consensus. Nominating is always going to be partly tactical, and normal social behaviour (making allies, doing favours, forming pairs or groups, managing information) is going to manipulate nominations. Talking about the nominations themselves is, relatively speaking, a pretty weak way of influencing people’s vote – so I just wonder why they make a particular prohibition out of it. |
|
|
