Why do the producers continue to change the nom rules?
 

How are the viewers supposed to keep up with this crap? They decide what the rules are after noms come in so they can make sure certain people are more likely to go than others.

And no one complains anymore! Why don't fan sites like this and BB Spy make a bit more of a stink about it?

They know Grant will go on a head to head and it's no loss to them

Tbf the viewers don't have to keep up with anything, they just vote when they're given the numbers.
Anyway nobody but Grant would have gone if he was up so meh

If they want to keep their viewers they need to show them a little more respect and not act like they won't notice these blatant attempts to make sure certain people stay in longer.

Casuals are too dumb to pick up on this ... I just want consistency tbh

Only two up really....

I swear that producers change every year because they are all sacked so inconsistency is expected

It suits their agenda

The point is it's like James has to take the full blame for the argument in the kitchen, and that's wrong.

Also it's just a more boring eviction vote anyway.

Seems to me that the producers are doing their darndest to ruin what had the makings of a good CBB . Not happy at all.

So dum

And if the viewers want to keep their show they should stop evicting big characters first chance they get....until stupid viewers understand the concept of the show then BB should continue doing exactly what theyre doing.

People just need to be GRATEFUL that we've got a head to head, I don't care about any rules about how many are up, cos if it was 2 up like people want, there'd be too many up. Does it actually matter anyway cos in any situation Grant is getting the least anount of votes. But there was such a difference between James and Grant who had 8/10 and Bear who had 3

You're essentially saying to the producers "Go ahead, change the rules when you want and rig the show to keep certain people in over others"

It is so stupid. You give them carte blanche to do anything they want, including things like giving Helen immunity for an entire series.

It's a head to head (which is great btw) because James & Grant got so much votes compared to Bear and with it being VTS Bear would have been safe anyway so I doubt it's cuz they were trying to save him.

And yes in BB14 there was Dexter & Gina with Jemima at just 3 but that was 3 years ago and they wanted to try mid week savings remember?? That's why more than 2 noms were introduced in the first place you know! And also who would have wanted a week 2 vote which would have gotten rid of Dexter or Gina anyway?

The previous rules have been anyone with 2 up. Most likely Ricky, Grant or the Mob Wives woman would have been in most danger.

It's got nothing to do with how many votes Grant and James got. It's do with them being ready to lose certain housemates but not others.

Stop making excuses for what is a blatant attempt to get certain people out over others.

But Bear wouldn't have even gone if he was up?? He's about 4th favourite to win while James & Grant have the two lowest odds. The only benefit of having Bear up would be c5 would have made more money so I respect them for not doing that.

Who said he would have? The point is they are changing the rules to get rid of certain people rather risk losing others. Maybe they wanted Renee or Ricky to stay in and Grant to definitely go. or just they just don't care if it's Grant or James.

The rules were anyone with 2 noms. Renee, Ricky and Marnie would have been up as well based on that.

No one is saying they did it to save Bear. But they did do it to make sure it was most likely to be Grant or James.

I like head to head evictions they're better hopefully they keep this all series long and into civilian next year.

That isn't the "rules", it was one of MANY nomination rules used. The fact is since Power Trip only 3 seasons have had a consistent nomination rule, and only one of those used the anyone with 2 Noms rule. The fact people on facebook are saying "the rule was 4 or more with most Noms go up" or "the rule is anyone with a nomination going up" shows the mess this whole show is in. The fact is there is NO rule and there hasn't been one since 2013.

If they do, then fine. But if they change it next week because they want certain people to stay or go, then it's a blatant attempt to rig the show.

One of many. LOL at you. They have a whole set of rules (in other words no rules) and then wait to see what the results are and then go with the one that allows them the best chance to get rid of who they want. In other words, they are rigging their own show.


The most frequently used over the last 3 years has been anyone with 2 is up.

We all know the show is a ****ing mess. All I am asking for is for them to have a set nominations procedure that doesn't allow them to rig the show the way they do. Unfortunately a lot of people seem to cheer the producers on when they blatantly rig the show year after year. Is it any wonder the show is in such a mess?

I agree with you, Yaki da, anyone with 2+ votes should be up.

The only thing we can do to protest is by NOT voting to save either Grant or James. If enough people were to do that, C5 might change its mind and play fair.

Hardly anyone votes anyway. What needs to be done is for a guest on BOTS to point this out and ask them why they keep doing this.

But as long as people either ignore it, or worse than that, actually support the production team doing it, then the show will just become an even bigger mess.

It's a shame that a show that had such a clear format back when it was watched by 4 - 5 million has now ended up in such a state and that there are people on forums like these cheering it on.

Yes, I'm afraid you're probably right about that, too. :(

I never said they're not rigging their own show, I completely believe they are and think it's rubbish... But once again you're saying that you want the rule to be one way because it's the most common one used. The fact is unless it's consistent it's hardly a rule... You're saying because it's the most frequently used it should be expected, so perhaps this is one of the anomaly weeks where that rule isn't used, just like what has been going on for the last three years.

So if like most others (like myself) you want a consistent nomination rule why don't you just wait and see if this is a new change rather than to berate it before you have any proof. If next week things change (which they probably will) then you have ground to criticise what is being done, rather than to rely on an inconsistent "rule" as the expectation.

And I have complained about it for 3 years.

Because they have done this year after year. Every time the most frequently used rule of anyone with 2 noms up might produce the "wrong" result, they abandon it.


I have ground to criticize because they've been doing this for years now and people seem to just give them a free pass. I would like for them to clarify what the rules are. But they don't do that, because no one asks them to do it. I shouldn't have to wait until the next rounds of noms to find out (and even then, we won't be sure because they make it up as they go). It should be on their website and they should inform us, especially when a different rule was used throughout most of the normal BB.

I understand your frustration as its the main thing that's caused me to switch off last series. I tried contacting a member of production about it and they responded to all my queries but danced around the nomination rule. If they stuck to the 2 Noms and you're up rule Id be fine and agree today's result was a farce, but just because it's not wholly consistent im willing to see if they've finally gone back to the original rule. Although im totally prepared for a dissapointment next week.

:clap2::clap2::clap2:

It's a bit stupid to put less up in a VTS tbh like if they did make it 2 noms and you're up a lot of people would pay to save Marnie and probs Bear (ew)