ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/index.php)
-   CBB18 (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=698)
-   -   Legitimate reason for Ofcom: Cannot change what people have been voting for mid-vote (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307699)

Yaki da 12-08-2016 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg! (Post 8908848)
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! 12-08-2016 05:20 PM
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 12-08-2016 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaki da (Post 8908837)
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 12-08-2016 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaki da (Post 8908806)
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 12-08-2016 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfie (Post 8908883)
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 12-08-2016 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaki da (Post 8908806)
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 12-08-2016 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie89 (Post 8908562)
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 12-08-2016 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg! (Post 8908852)
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

Quote:
C5 aren't that stupid
They have consistently proven themselves to be the stupidest people working in television.

Quote:
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 12-08-2016 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 8908890)
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 12-08-2016 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 8908900)
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 12-08-2016 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayden (Post 8908552)
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 12-08-2016 06:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaki da (Post 8908722)
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 12-08-2016 06:15 PM
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 12-08-2016 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thisisdanny (Post 8909002)
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.

Quote:
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 12-08-2016 08:10 PM
Yawn

Beso 12-08-2016 08:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thisisdanny (Post 8909529)
Yawn
baiting.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:02 PM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.