I just saw LCS for the first time this week, and loved it!!

However- I do have one suggestion that could completely alter the show's outcome:

When the comics are doing their video confessions ("I know I'm funnier than......") which determine who will be the "weakest link" (for a lack of better terms)- the person with the most votes gets to then choose who he/she will challenge- even AFTER that person's video confession is displayed.

My thought is to still make the person with the most votes challenge, but I think they should have to challenge the person they already said they know they are funnier than. With the current rules, often votes are based on personalities, or who they don't want to win, regardless of the comedic talent.

Take, for instance, this past week's episode (7/15). The entire house voted for Dat Phan. Dat Phan voted for Rich Voss. But when Jay asks Dat who he wants to challenge, Dat chose Dave. Obviously he made the right choice, since Dave lost, but why not make Dat go up against Rich? He already said he is funnier than him...

All the house mates voted for Dat, simply because they didn't want him to win. They didn't think he had the talen. That's fine. makes sense, right? But Dat, IMHO, went on a limb voting for Rich. Hopeing others would vote for him as well. Again, IMHO, I don't think Dat thinks he can beat Rich, but yet he voted for him, then didn't have to go against him.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

No, because what if Rich didnt choose Dat. Then you'll need to make another rule.

I don't see your point, Catch- I'm saying whoever the person with the most votes said they were funnier than should have to challenge.... Dat had the most votes; Dat said he was funnier than Rich.... there's the challenge. Why would Dat be able to choose- what's the point of the video confession?

The phrase 'I know I'm funnier than xxx'
actually means
'I will accept the challenge of xxx if he's chosen' .

D

Under the current rules, Dat had to challenge someone who voted him out. Kramden is suggesting that, regardless of who voted for him, Dat should be forced to challenge the person he voted for himself.

I think it's 6 of one/half a dozen of the other. Kramden, your idea has some merit, but it would force the contestants to think about who they are really funnier than when they vote (because you might wind up challenging them), which might cut down on the amount of scheming and voting alliances that go on. But of course scheming and voting alliances are bread-and-butter for these Reality shows.

True- but it would be a different kind of scheming- people would be taking a risk to vote someone out for personality, then may have to face them.... it might be a different kind of risk for everyone

I like the current system better, sorry. One reason is because it lets people strategize better.

For instance, let's say that Geoff thought he couldn't take Dat. Geoff could vote for a person he KNEW wasn't going to be challenege and thereby guarantee himself safety (which is exactly what he did the episode before last -- and the others got pissed at him).

Under your system, Geoff would have no strategy like that -- because no matter who he voted for he would be in danger of having to go against someone he might not want to go against.