Why is she trying to throw Steve under the bus to Austin and James and Co.? Steve sees you as his main ally so will do everything to protect you and you want to make a desperate attempt to throw him under the bus for no reason to try and save Shelli and Clay who have tried to throw you under the bus? Stupid game decision as james wants to execute his plan and you're showing defiance instead of allowing what he wants. Also it would mean she would be closer to Shelli or Clay after their lover leaves. And you are the only person Steve listens to and nobody knows you're working with him (except freaks and geeks but they don't know you have a final 2 with him and that tight. Or at least supposed to be that tight) which is very nice. And it's not cool to do to Steve on a personal level as well as he wouldn't do that to you.

^^^

it's called distancing, and it's a thing

Not sure what the arrows mean but i understand distancing to the other side of the house. But when she says it to Austin too it looks more like hanging Steve out to dry. Hoping to get into Austin's head and the other side of the house's head that maybe Steve a better option to evict than Clelli with a backdoor. Or for the future that they should look to take him out as Austin said he might target him next week after he heard Vanessa speak negatively about Steve/giving Austin a semi green light. It's one thing to distance and protect and another to distance and throw under the bus. She could plant subtle positive seeds to the house without looking like she's working with him as opposed to basically saying "who needs Steve let's take him out." And support theories of why he should go. She has done this before but then reversed field. She needs Steve more than ever now that she's losing clelli so she better be careful speaking subversive about him to the house. People can get into Steve's head to if they decide to target Vanessa and say "she's been throwing your name around for someone the house doesn't need." Hopefully she's just distancing but plan on protecting but it's harder to protect him when you give people your ok to go after him saying you want or don't mind if he goes. Makes him a easier target for people to go after if they think no blood will come of it.

It's a valid strategy imo. I played in an online survivor game over in POG where I was betrayed by an alliance. The next week I should have gone but threatened to poison the jury well were I to not have a chance to stay through the week and it worked. Jury management is part of the game. If you screw somebody over and they threaten to blow your game in jury, it may be best to not send them there right away

POV players: James, Clay, Shelli, Becky, Jackie, Vanessa.

Steve told her to bad mouth him at every opportunity.

James won't use it
Becky I'm guessing throws it
Jackie won't use it

vanessa winning would be the best tv

I think he was more referring for her to say he's annoying so people don't think you like him/not working together. Not to convince the house he needs to go lol.

The whole house last week was starting to think Steve is Vanessa's minion. She has to say things.

But the important question is:

Was the threat legit? Would you actually have poisoned the jury well?

Vanessa working really hard to keep 6s together.

Working really hard to be at the bottom.

Vanessa debating whether to use the POV or not if she wins. Hope she figures out she should do everything she can to throw it

Worst case scenario Shelli wins, takes herself off and Vanessa gets put up as a replacement.. She still stays over Clay.

Vanessa super paranoid and for some reason she thinks she can save everyone. I feel she should stay quiet until POV is used or not used. If not used then put work in to save Shelli but no reason to over think everything now.

It's a dirty strategy. When you're in jury, that's separate from the game. You should be making your vote independently and objectively. It's bull**** to blackmail people with your vote; I would not stand for that if I was in the house. That's like one of the few things (along with "I only want to make it to jury") that I'd call out as BS and rant about

the arrows just meant I was referring to the above post and was too lazy to quote it

If she's saying it to Austin, that's someone who has zero control over who actually goes up. So it's harmless. And it's good since her own 6S allies are the ones she needs to hide her allegiance with steve to

Vanessa's go-to line is always, "Do you see how I'm in the worst position of anyone?" Meanwhile I don't think she's ever even been nominated.

The best TV would be Shelli or Clay winning and Vanessa getting put up as a replacement. Has almost zero chance of happening though.

Vanessa might of finally realized one of them is going home.

I can't wait for the first time Vanessa gets put up. Going to be a massive explosion.

Of course not, but the people I was playing with didnt know that.

Would that be a smart move on your part? How likely are you to get the votes of people in the jury house if there are others who agree its an acceptable strategy? It would seem to me you would come off as whiny and unable to work around the problem of somebody threatening sabotage.

I watched the live feed last night and depending on who the HG's are talking with, they seem to say what the listening HG wants to hear. I'm sure it is game strategy, even though they sound whack at times.

I guess we will find out where people truly stand with this week's POV and backdoor.

i think its actually a good idea to publicly burn 1-2 jury votes early on, since that gives people incentive to take you to the final 2. thats what dan did in his first season. so i wouldn't mind that

and also id do it as a justification for my nom's - like something id do while I'm in power. obviously not something id do when I'm on the block or anything, unless I'm campaigning against the person