Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-4012369-20160827032918/@comment-30006393-20160919005544

Aspiring wrote:

I do not think Nicole or James should win just because they were secure. I don't understand this logic. If they were able to keep themselves secure for a longer period of time, then shouldn't that mean they DO deserve it?

Dan Gheesling even said it himself. If you're in a position where you have to constantly win competitions to keep yourself safe, you weren't playing that great of a game.

And Paul himself was never really in that much danger either, mind you. The only time he was ever in danger was the week he won POV during Natalie's HOH. Every other time he was nominated, he was just a pawn. I'm not saying that being in a secure position is not a factor, I'm just saying that they should win since they were in a secure position + other reasons.