Legitimate reason for Ofcom: Cannot change what people have been voting for mid-vote

[Yaki da]

Not without getting themselves in trouble. If they want to do a bottom 2 of the vote then they needed to announce that before lines opened, so people picking up the phone knew exactly what they were voting for. Viewers have been led to believe that whoever gets the fewest votes this eviction would be out. If that isn't so, then they can be reported to trading standards.

As I understand it this hasn't actually been confirmed by BBUK yet, as such I'm sceptical of this story,

[chuff me dizzy]

Totally agree......... Other tv shows have been fined for vote rigging and this is whats happening here

[Yaki da]

BB Spy are reporting this now as well as Big Blagger. So I'm inclined to believe it.

The fact is you cannot lead people to think whoever the person with the fewest votes is will be evicted, take their money as they vote, and then change what they have been led to believe they are voting for mid-vote.

I wish some of you would stop worrying about whether it means James or whoever will go or not and understand what the production and the Channel are doing here. They are taking money from people they have deliberately misled. That is a serious issue.

[Yaki da]

If this was covered by Ofcom, then this late notice change of rules on what we are voting for is as well...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33957710

Whether Channel 5/Production have deliberately misled or not, they have misled those who voted.

[chris.g]

From the Broadcasting Code - look at 2.15...

"Broadcast competitions and voting
2.13 Broadcast competitions and voting must be conducted fairly.

2.14 Broadcasters must ensure that viewers and listeners are not materially misled about any broadcast competition or voting.

2.15 Broadcasters must draw up rules for a broadcast competition or vote. These
rules must be clear and appropriately made known. In particular, significant
conditions that may affect a viewer’s or listener’s decision to participate must be stated at the time an invitation to participate is broadcast."

Surely this is what Channel 5 are guilty of not doing?

[Yaki da]

From the Broadcasting Code - look at 2.15...

"Broadcast competitions and voting
2.13 Broadcast competitions and voting must be conducted fairly.

2.14 Broadcasters must ensure that viewers and listeners are not materially misled about any broadcast competition or voting.

2.15 Broadcasters must draw up rules for a broadcast competition or vote. These
rules must be clear and appropriately made known. In particular, significant
conditions that may affect a viewer’s or listener’s decision to participate must be stated at the time an invitation to participate is broadcast."

Surely this is what Channel 5 are guilty of not doing?


Absolutely that is what they are doing. the phone lines opened and not once were we informed that it would be the bottom 2 facing some challenge. We were led to believe it would be an eviction like any other eviction and that the person with the fewest votes would be evicted. That is what people have been voting for and now with 5 hours to go they decide the bottom 2 will face a challenge?

They have blatantly misled the voters. Some of whom still won't know this is the case because only Big Blagger and BB Spy are reporting it. Channel 5 need to clarify what is going on here.

[Headie]

Calm down, it might be good if Marnie gets the Geordie Shore vote and James gets the anti-Bear vote, imagine a Bear and Chloe bottom 2 with Bear going home after a game of chance :joker:

[Jamie89]

I wonder if they'd get round it by saying it's a vote to save, and the housemate with the most votes has been saved so it was fair? I mean personally I think it should be totally open and people should understand the consequences of what will happen to the housemate(s) who receive the least votes, but in a VTS scenario where the housemate(s) with the most votes are saved regardless... are they technically breaking any rules?

[Yaki da]

Calm down, it might be good if Marnie gets the Geordie Shore vote and James gets the anti-Bear vote, imagine a Bear and Chloe bottom 2 with Bear going home after a game of chance :joker:

This has nothing to do with worrying about who goes. It doesn't matter what the result is. I don't care at this point. Get over that. A channel and a company are deliberately taking people's money having misled them on what they are voting for. That is a serious issue.

You seem to be willing to justify that so long as you get the result you want, without any thought of the ethics of that. People have spent money voting for something that they have, mid-way through the vote, changed the rules on.

[chuff me dizzy]

This has nothing to do with worrying about who goes. It doesn't matter what the result is. I don't care at this point. Get over that. A channel and a company are deliberately taking people's money having misled them on what they are voting for. That is a serious issue.

You seem to be willing to justify that so long as you get the result you want, without any thought of the ethics of that. People have spent money voting for something that they have no, mid-way through the vote, changed the rules on.

:clap1: Can you imagine of Frankie,Ricky,Sam and James were up ? it would be totally different ........ maybe Hayden hasn't voted,but lots of people have

[Yaki da]

I wonder if they'd get round it by saying it's a vote to save, and the housemate with the most votes has been saved so it was fair?

They might. But I seriously doubt it. Even in the Britain's Got Talent link I posted, Ofcom reported that ITV did not deliberately mislead viewers but what they did had the effect of doing so. That is what Channel 5 have done here. Most people voting were led to believe it would be an eviction like any other and the person with the fewest votes would go. If they said they were doing this before lines opened, then fair enough, but they can't change what you've been voting on and are still voting on mid-way through a vote.

I mean personally I think it should be totally open and people should understand the consequences of what will happen to the housemate(s) who receive the least votes, but in a VTS scenario where the housemate(s) with the most votes are saved regardless... are they technically breaking any rules?

If they have misled viewers, which many of us feel they have, then they can at least be investigated on this.

And the fact that they have not confirmed or denied this makes it worse. Are Big Blagger and BB Spy right? Usually they are. But as of yet Channel 5 haven't announced anything, so voters are left not knowing what they're voting for now.

[Headie]

I wonder if they'd get round it by saying it's a vote to save, and the housemate with the most votes has been saved so it was fair? I mean personally I think it should be totally open and people should understand the consequences of what will happen to the housemate(s) who receive the least votes, but in a VTS scenario where the housemate(s) with the most votes are saved regardless... are they technically breaking any rules?

Honestly they change the rules all the time and get away with it

Farrah's eviction, Evander's eviction, Ryan's eviction etc. They've got away with it plenty of times with VTS and will do it again this time.

[Headie]

This has nothing to do with worrying about who goes. It doesn't matter what the result is. I don't care at this point. Get over that. A channel and a company are deliberately taking people's money having misled them on what they are voting for. That is a serious issue.

You seem to be willing to justify that so long as you get the result you want, without any thought of the ethics of that. People have spent money voting for something that they have no, mid-way through the vote, changed the rules on.

Where was this outcry when Evander was evicted despite not having the fewest votes? Or Farrah? Or Ryan?

It has everything to do with who's p imo thats why people are kicking up a fuss on both sides - the ones who think James is in danger or the ones who think Bear/Marnie is in danger.

[bots]

Emma did say that they would be given choices etc and that it would climax on friday, so they haven't actually misled

[Yaki da]

Where was this outcry when Evander was evicted despite not having the fewest votes? Or Farrah? Or Ryan?

I can't remember these situations exactly (or Ryan at all actually). But I suspect the rules were actually made clear there, and the voters were not at all misled. If you can correct me on that, then please do so.

You really must understand this.

Here's an example... When Vanessa was evicted over Makosi, Makosi had more votes to be evicted than Vanessa did. But the production made it very clear BEFORE lines opened that the two with the most votes would then face a housemate vote, and the HMs would decide which of the two would go. The voters were not misled in this situation.

It has everything to do with who's p imo thats why people are kicking up a fuss on both sides - the ones who think James is in danger or the ones who think Bear/Marnie is in danger.

No, it has do with the fact that they are in violation of trading standards. You need to show that voters were misled in the examples you gave. I can't recall those situations. My understanding is that the producers made it very clear before lines opened what would happen in all those situations, they have NOT done that here.

[Yaki da]

Emma did say that they would be given choices etc and that it would climax on friday, so they haven't actually misled

She did not say anything about the specific rules of this vote. Nor did they when the lines opened.

If you can show me where she did, then do so.

Otherwise they are in violation of trading standards by misleading people on what they were actually voting for, which most of us felt was a normal eviction in which the person with the fewest votes would be evicted.

[Jamie89]

They might. But I seriously doubt it. Even in the Britain's Got Talent link I posted, Ofcom reported that ITV did not deliberately mislead viewers but what they did had the effect of doing so. That is what Channel 5 have done here. Most people voting were led to believe it would be an eviction like any other and the person with the fewest votes would go. If they said they were doing this before lines opened, then fair enough, but they can't change what you've been voting on and are still voting on mid-way through a vote.

Did they specifically state that the person with the fewest votes would go? Because unless they did, as much as I'm not comfortable either with them hiding things, I'd still say that technically no rules have been broken.

And I think the difference with the Makosi/Vanessa example you gave, is that it was 'Vote to Evict' so they had to make it clear that the person with the most votes might not be evicted. In this scenario it's 'Vote to Save', and the person with the most votes will be saved.

Honestly they change the rules all the time and get away with it

Farrah's eviction, Evander's eviction, Ryan's eviction etc. They've got away with it plenty of times with VTS and will do it again this time.

This is also true, there's no real norm anymore, not enough for people to assume there won't be any twists involved anyway. It seems with some series there's a twist every week virtually. And that's the thing, did BB state definitively that the HM with the fewest votes would be evicted... or is that just what people would assume would happen?

[chuff me dizzy]

She did not say anything about the specific rules of this vote. Nor did they when the lines opened.

If you can show me where she did, then do so.

Otherwise they are in violation of trading standards by misleading people on what they were actually voting for, which most of us felt was a normal eviction in which the person with the fewest votes would be evicted.

Nothing on BB vote page either

[Headie]

I can't remember these situations exactly (or Ryan at all actually). But I suspect the rules were actually made clear there, and the voters were not at all misled. If you can correct me on that, then please do so.

You really must understand this.

Here's an example... When Vanessa was evicted over Makosi, Makosi had more votes to be evicted than Vanessa did. But the production made it very clear BEFORE lines opened that the two with the most votes would then face a housemate vote, and the HMs would decide which of the two would go. The voters were not misled in this situation.

Ryan happened in BB17, the series just gone. He most likely got more votes than Sam (and maybe Laura) to save yet he was evicted over them both.

I totally agree with you that C5 should announce what's happening before the vote, but the fact they've got away with it on numerous occasions before just shows they can get away with it again and there's nothing we can do about it now.

[Yaki da]

Did they specifically state that the person with the fewest votes would go?

Every eviction so far, the person with the fewest votes has gone. If they are to change that procedure then they need to make it very clear and do so when the lines open. They have not done that at all. As I pointed out in that Ofcom ruling on ITV, ITV may not have intended to mislead but they had the effect of doing that. That is what Channel 5/BB Production would have done here imo.

Because unless they did, as much as I'm not comfortable either with them hiding things, I'd still say that technically no rules have been broken.

I believe, whether they intended it or not, they have misled viewers and it is a legitimate complaint. If they had announced what was going on before lines opened then fair enough, but they did not do that. You have to make clear what people are voting on. If what you're saying is correct then they could if they wanted, save whoever has the most votes, and do this eviction with the bottom 3 out of 4! It's ridiculous.

And I think the difference with the Makosi/Vanessa example you gave, is that it was 'Vote to Evict' so they had to make it clear that the person with the most votes might not be evicted.


No, I've pointed out the difference already. The difference was that the voters were told very clearly what the rules were BEFORE lines opened.

They have, if this story is true, changed what we are voting for in the MIDDLE of a vote.

In this scenario it's 'Vote to Save', and the person with the most votes will be saved.

Then they should have made clear that we were voting for one or two people to be safe out of the four. You can't just say the top 2 will be safe when there's only 5 hours left to vote, with the lines having been open 18 hours already.


This is also true, there's no real norm anymore, not enough for people to assume there won't be any twists involved anyway. It seems with some series there's a twist every week virtually. And that's the thing, did BB state definitively that the HM with the fewest votes would be evicted... or is that just what people would assume would happen?

They have not, not in my memory at least, ever changed what the rules of a vote were as the vote is going on. They can change the rules of noms if they want because that is to do with inside the house and no money is being spent, but they have taken money from voters and are now revealing there's more to the vote than they had originally told us. That is blatantly misleading.

[Yaki da]

Ryan happened in BB17, the series just gone. He most likely got more votes than Sam (and maybe Laura) to save yet he was evicted over them both.

I had switched off at that point. Did Channel 5/Production make it clear there would be a bottom 3 and that one of those 3 would be evicted BEFORE the lines opened?

[T*]

I just reported the Wankers to ofcom

[Nick.]

There's probably something in the terms and conditions which allows them to **** **** up.

[Yaki da]

What I know is going to infuriate me about this is that Chloe and one of Marnie or Bear may end up in the bottom 2 and everyone will just rejoice and act like nothing dodgy has gone on here.

[Yaki da]

Nothing on BB vote page either

BB Spy say Channel 5 have confirmed it

http://www.bbspy.co.uk/cbb18/news/0812/celebrity-big-brother-summer-2016-third-eviction-twist-confirmed-bottom-two-to-face-game-of-chance/

[zakman440]

To be fair Emma did announce that a "game of chance" with a "hefty price" being paid at the end on Tuesday night:

763116905108344832

Between that and them not announcing "Who stays? You decide" at the end of last night's show, technically they've done nothing wrong. I agree that it's not a very good twist and it looks very convenient though.

[Yaki da]

To be fair Emma did announce that a "game of chance" with a "hefty price" being paid at the end on Tuesday night:

763116905108344832

Plus, they didn't state "Who stays? You decide" at the end of last night's show. I agree that it's not a very good twist and it looks very convenient but technically they've done nothing wrong.

What's to be fair about here? when you ask people to vote and they are spending money you make it 100% clear what they are spending their money on. Now no one could have possibly known what they were spending their money on until 18 hours after the lines opened because they've only just come up with the rule now.

That is blatantly misleading to people spending their money. Emma saying what she said didn't tell us anything about what we were voting for.

[Yaki da]

Delete.

[T*]

To be fair Emma did announce that a "game of chance" with a "hefty price" being paid at the end on Tuesday night:

763116905108344832

Between that and them not announcing "Who stays? You decide" at the end of last night's show, technically they've done nothing wrong. I agree that it's not a very good twist and it looks very convenient though.



Surely that's not enough like info is it??

[Cherie]

I don't see the issue to be honest, vote to save the one with the most votes is safe :laugh:

[Nancy.]

I just reported the Wankers to ofcom

So have I. Who else has reported them?

[Yaki da]

I don't see the issue to be honest, vote to save the one with the most votes is safe :laugh:

They never said the one with the most votes would be the only one safe or the two with the most votes would be the only ones safe.

The 2 previous evictions the person with the fewest votes has been evicted. Unless they specifically stated otherwise why should voters think it is any different this time?

If you are going to do what they are doing then you need to inform voters BEFORE the lines open. That is what they do on I'm A Celebrity. If you're voting for a challenge you are told BEFORE the lines open that the top 2 will do it.

Or if you're voting for people to stay in and there will a challenge between the bottom 2, they tell you BEFORE the lines open.

If they did not do this, they would get themselves in trouble. As the code states...

2.14 Broadcasters must ensure that viewers and listeners are not materially misled about any broadcast competition or voting.

It is legitimate for voters to feel they have been misled here. How could they be anything other than misled when they don't tell us what we're actually voting for until hours after the lines have opened?

[Jannigran]

Just reported to ofcom .fed up with getting mugged off

[Cherie]

They never said the one with the most votes would be the only one safe or the two with the most votes would be the only ones safe.

The 2 previous evictions the person with the fewest votes has been evicted. Unless they specifically stated otherwise why should voters think it is any different this time?

If you are going to do what they are doing then you need to inform voters BEFORE the lines open. That is what they do on I'm A Celebrity. If you're voting for a challenge you are told BEFORE the lines open that the top 2 will do it.

Or if you're voting for people to stay in and there will a challenge between the bottom 2, they tell you BEFORE the lines open.

If they did not do this, they would get themselves in trouble. As the code states...

2.14 Broadcasters must ensure that viewers and listeners are not materially misled about any broadcast competition or voting.

It is legitimate for voters to feel they have been misled here. How could they be anything other than misled when they don't tell us what we're actually voting for until hours after the lines have opened?


It's no different to freezing the vote and saving the top 2, the person who was bottom could get a rush of votes from fans of the top 2 who want the other one out thereby changing the result, I don't vote anyway so I couldn't care either way

[Yaki da]

It's no different to freezing the vote and saving the top 2 the person who was bottom could get a rush of votes from fans of the top 2 who want the other one out thereby changing the result, I don't vote anyway so I couldn't care either way

It clearly is different. Because they can stop and start a vote when they want. They cannot mislead viewers on what it is they are voting for which is what they have done here. And there is no denying that that is what they have done. How could viewers be anything but misled when they opened lines last night but have only now at 5 pm confirmed that the bottom 2 will be in danger, rather than the person with the fewest votes evicted (as has been the case for the previous 2 evictions)

Until then almost everyone voting believed that the person with the fewest votes was going. You can freeze votes and save two, but if you have led people to believe whoever has the fewest at the time of the announcement will be the evictee then you have misled voters.

There are people gambling on these events. Chloe had become an odds on favourite to go. Now all of a sudden she could be a bottom 2 and survive despite having the fewest votes by a huge margin. They've misled voters, they've misled gamblers. They're taking people's money here.

As I pointed out, you would not ever see anything like this on I'm A Celebrity. If the two with the fewest votes have to compete to stay in then that channel will make sure they have informed the voters of that before the lines opened, which is what Channel 5/BB should have done. But because they're amateurs they have misled voters and cost people money.

[smudgie]

As its vote to save then I think it is fair enough.
No more unfair than allowing the three saved housemates to have killer noms.
I am voting James, I expect it's a good chance he will end up bottom two, as they all have the same chance of being saved in the top two or not then it is all fair, no bias against any of the 4 .

[Yaki da]

As its vote to save then I think it is fair enough.

No it is not, unless they tell us that only 2 of the 4 are going to be safe. They did not do that. They led people to believe that the person with the fewest votes would be the one evicted.

That is misleading the voters.

People clearly believed that. Chloe had been a huge favourite to go today. It is now very close in the odds. There could well have been insider trading.

No more unfair than allowing the three saved housemates to have killer noms.

What goes on inside the show is up to the producers. They CANNOT mislead viewers on a phone vote. That puts them in breach of broadcasting standards.

[Greg!]

Nobody seemed to care when they did something similar for the first cbb17 eviction

[Yaki da]

Nobody seemed to care when they did something similar for the first cbb17 eviction

Did the producers make clear before lines opened that there would be a HM vote? The entire complaint hinges on the fact that they led people to believe something and then changed the rules after lines opened.

[Greg!]

Did the producers make clear before lines opened that there would be a HM vote?

I don't think they did until eviction night

[Yaki da]

I don't think they did until eviction night

I didn't watch that series. But if that was the case then people should have complained then and I certainly would have.

[Greg!]

I don't like this twist but people complaining to ofcom are wasting their time. C5 aren't that stupid, they wouldn't have done the twist if they thought there was a possibility they'd get in trouble for it

[smudgie]

No it is not, unless they tell us that only 2 of the 4 are going to be safe. They did not do that. They led people to believe that the person with the fewest votes would be the one evicted.

That is misleading the voters.

People clearly believed that. Chloe had been a huge favourite to go today. It is now very close in the odds. There could well have been insider trading.



What goes on inside the show is up to the producers. They CANNOT mislead viewers on a phone vote. That puts them in breach of broadcasting standards.
E

Well, as Emma is going inside the house after the person with the most votes is saved I see no problem.
Viewers are not being misled...vote to save, if your votes have saved your favourite then brilliant.after that it is all about playing a game.
If it was a double eviction then fair enough, we get told as it matters

[Garfie]

It clearly is different. Because they can stop and start a vote when they want. They cannot mislead viewers on what it is they are voting for which is what they have done here. And there is no denying that that is what they have done. How could viewers be anything but misled when they opened lines last night but have only now at 5 pm confirmed that the bottom 2 will be in danger, rather than the person with the fewest votes evicted (as has been the case for the previous 2 evictions)

Until then almost everyone voting believed that the person with the fewest votes was going. You can freeze votes and save two, but if you have led people to believe whoever has the fewest at the time of the announcement will be the evictee then you have misled voters.

There are people gambling on these events. Chloe had become an odds on favourite to go. Now all of a sudden she could be a bottom 2 and survive despite having the fewest votes by a huge margin. They've misled voters, they've misled gamblers. They're taking people's money here.

As I pointed out, you would not ever see anything like this on I'm A Celebrity. If the two with the fewest votes have to compete to stay in then that channel will make sure they have informed the voters of that before the lines opened, which is what Channel 5/BB should have done. But because they're amateurs they have misled voters and cost people money.

Actually, your point about the way this could affect people who have had a bet on this result, is an important one. People could have put large amounts of money on who will be evicted, and lose their cash when they shouldn't have. That does make it an even bigger issue.

[Cherie]

Actually, your point about the way this could affect people who have had a bet on this result, is an important one. People could have put large amounts of money on who will be evicted, and lose their cash when they shouldn't have. That does make it an even bigger issue.


That's why it called gambling, no certainty

[Cherie]

It clearly is different. Because they can stop and start a vote when they want. They cannot mislead viewers on what it is they are voting for which is what they have done here. And there is no denying that that is what they have done. How could viewers be anything but misled when they opened lines last night but have only now at 5 pm confirmed that the bottom 2 will be in danger, rather than the person with the fewest votes evicted (as has been the case for the previous 2 evictions)

Until then almost everyone voting believed that the person with the fewest votes was going. You can freeze votes and save two, but if you have led people to believe whoever has the fewest at the time of the announcement will be the evictee then you have misled voters.

There are people gambling on these events. Chloe had become an odds on favourite to go. Now all of a sudden she could be a bottom 2 and survive despite having the fewest votes by a huge margin. They've misled voters, they've misled gamblers. They're taking people's money here.

As I pointed out, you would not ever see anything like this on I'm A Celebrity. If the two with the fewest votes have to compete to stay in then that channel will make sure they have informed the voters of that before the lines opened, which is what Channel 5/BB should have done. But because they're amateurs they have misled voters and cost people money.


Sorry Yaki, I can't get worked up for this

[joeysteele]

I wonder if they'd get round it by saying it's a vote to save, and the housemate with the most votes has been saved so it was fair? I mean personally I think it should be totally open and people should understand the consequences of what will happen to the housemate(s) who receive the least votes, but in a VTS scenario where the housemate(s) with the most votes are saved regardless... are they technically breaking any rules?

They cannot really say that credibly when they announce 2 that are saved often.
I get your point though Jamie.

I guess unfortunately BB can do what they like but when its people spending time and money to avoid their favourite being the last place in an eviction battle,it stinks for me, if they then bring in a scenario where someone voted for, who was not in last place, goes out.

Little point in having the public vote at all.

[Yaki da]

I don't like this twist but people complaining to ofcom are wasting their time.

They are no more wasting their time than people who complained about being misled by BGT were. They were refunded their voting money

C5 aren't that stupid

They have consistently proven themselves to be the stupidest people working in television.

they wouldn't have done the twist if they thought there was a possibility they'd get in trouble for it

Yes they would. They have had to do things like refund viewers before. Even the BBC had to do this in a series of SCD because their voting system made it impossible to save a certain dancer in the semi final (when it was Tom, Rachel and Lisa Snowden). Even the most professional channels make these mistakes.

[Yaki da]

That's why it called gambling, no certainty

Most likely thing that will happen with some bookies is that the bets cast will be made null and void. If the rules of a market change, this often happens.

[Yaki da]

I guess unfortunately BB can do what they like

No, they can't. Not in regards to phone votes which there are very clear broadcasting standards on. You cannot mislead voters. And that is clearly what they have done here.

[hijaxers]

Calm down, it might be good if Marnie gets the Geordie Shore vote and James gets the anti-Bear vote, imagine a Bear and Chloe bottom 2 with Bear going home after a game of chance :joker:

Don't care - no cheating - full stop. Aww will they be pissed off cos they couldn't fiddle it.

[chuff me dizzy]

What's to be fair about here? when you ask people to vote and they are spending money you make it 100% clear what they are spending their money on. Now no one could have possibly known what they were spending their money on until 18 hours after the lines opened because they've only just come up with the rule now.

That is blatantly misleading to people spending their money. Emma saying what she said didn't tell us anything about what we were voting for.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[thisisdanny]

That's ridiculous.

Just watched the end of last night's show and they didn't say once that the person with the least votes will go. It didn't even say "Who stays? You decide", it just says you're voting to save.

Stop looking for reasons to complain.

[Yaki da]

That's ridiculous.

Just watched the end of last night's show and they didn't say once that the person with the least votes will go. It didn't even say "Who stays? You decide", it just says you're voting to save.


Yes and the assumption is that it will be same as previous evictions with the person with the fewest getting evicted.

If they are to break from standard procedure they must make it clear what people are voting for. If it is only the top 2 who can be saved, they MUST inform voters that it is only the top 2. To not do so until 18 hours after the lines have opened is to misinform them.

Stop looking for reasons to complain.

You are talking out of your arsehole. The majority of people who were voting and who were gambling were doing so based on the assumption the person with the fewest votes would be evicted, at no point did they inform the voters that this was not the case as it had been in the previous two eviction. Indeed, they have only at 4-5 pm this afternoon told people what is happening. So for most of the voting window people were voting for something they never informed them the rules of and allowed them to just think it was like any other eviction. That is misleading.

[thisisdanny]

Yawn

[Beso]

Yawn

baiting.