Change to vote to SAVE - Evict the bores! Read before vote!
 

Steph going is such a let down! Why the hell didn't Lisa go?

Oh yeah... it's because it's vote out the biggest character, not the one who deserves to go the most...

Big Brother should seriously start making it vote to save; that way we woud keep all the entertaining housemates and not let all the bores stay (Lisa, Tracey BB8, Carol etc. etc. the list goes on for pages and I can't actually be bothered).

All the bigger personalities are naturally going to have more "haters" simply because they're bigger characters. I would have bet my entire life that Steph wouldn't have been evicted if it was vote to save, rather than to evict. Lisa would be the one out, which she deserves to be. She adds nothing, where as Steph actually did.

Get my theory? If it was vote to save the bores would automatically be dropped because they have little/no fans (which means they deserve to go more in my opinion anyway).

So... should it be changed to vote to save to KEEP the bigger and more interesting characters? To KEEP the entertainment and to KEEP the people with the bigger fan base? They deserve to stay over someone that adds nothing!

Example: Shabnam got voted out over Tracey BB8. WHY?!
Shabnam, even though was annoying to some, added more than Tracey did despite the fact that Shabnam was evicted first and Tracey stayed until the end. Shabnam did not deserve to go.

It's like Big Brother are shooting themselves in the foot. They want newspaper antics and general pulicity. Why not just change it to vote to save and keep in the more interesting characters? I mean Charley last series had a lot of people hating her, but also a lot liking her. She probably would have stayed over someone like Carol for more votes to keep in anyway, so Big Brother wouldn't have had to bother doing all the lying to keep her in for another week and stuff. You get my point!

ETC.

You are so right !

BB is committing suicide the way it. :sad:

Let face it, the viewers have never had the upper-hand where it comes to evicting housemates. If the truth be known BB9 has already got a winner:spin:

Yeah it should change.

If you're voting to evict - especially on a 4-way vote and someone dislikes 2 of the people up, it seems that people don't know who to go for so it all gets messed up

i agree then we could get rid of people like rachael and mohammed who are gonna do nothing for the show,even though rachaels nice,shes not cut out for this.
________
Upskirt Candid

^ Exactly. Mohammed however will most likely stay on for AGES.

He first of all probably won't be up for eviction (which isn't Big Brother's fault in my opinion). If he does however, no one will have strong enough opinions on him because he's done nothing, therefore the public wouldn't vote to get rid of him because they aren't intelligent enough to do so.

Example: Nikki got evicted in BB7, but got cheers like she had won :conf2:

No it shouldnt change. It will give boring evictions.
Imagine interviewing Mohamed, Rachel etc week after week.
The evictions wouldnt be exciting

Won't happen... if anything, they'd start it at the beginning of the series, rather one week into the show.

I hope this does happen.

Who cares if an hour and a half a week is boring? I'd rather an hour every other day be entertaining, thanks.

Vote to save was proven this year in Big Brother Australia. We got rid of all the boring idiots straight away.

And we know how successfull this years BBOZ is :)
Thing is, evictions are a vital part of the show, people wont tune in to see crap evictions will tehy?

It has nothing to do with how "successful" it is. (what IS successful, anyway?) It's about that we weeded out all the boring people at the start which should be done on every BB, every year.

The Daily Shows are twice as vital, though. In the long run, it's the Daily Shows that count, not an hour and a half a week.

Well the boring ones have to get out sooner or later, and I'd prefer sooner. Voting to save only makes sense...the public still gets its say, but so many times the boring ones stay because no one will waste their money on a vote to evict them.

I can tell you neither Mario or Steph would be in any danger this week if there was a vote to save, and it got rid of so much dead weight in BBAU, I think it's definitely worth a try.

yeah Kat :bored::bored::bored::bored:

it would never happen!!

if its a twist for just a week then thas fine, but for the duration of the show! they will never do that!
a lot of people would want 2 evict the HMs who are vile!
& if the evil ones stay in the house, they will loose viewers.....
yes...its entertainment, but its also about their personality..and the ones who are a good HMs deserves 2 stay!

+ if you think about it, its kinda the same...because even if its vote 2 save, the people who doesnt lyk a HM would vote 2 save the other one who she/he is up against! so there wont be that much different!
and voting to evict is one of the things that makes BBuk good! changing it would kinda make it the same to other countries BB!

i say change it
as i think that could be way steph left us

I agree it should be changed it would make it harder for the gamblers to screw up things in their favour...

However voting to save did not stop the twins from being robbed of the winning post in spite of the fact most indications were that it would be at least a close vote between the twins and Brian. In the finish the mass vote Brian got did not make any sense....Reason....Gambling multiple vote manipulations by punters and bookies......

sh*t idea.

This is the way
it is on every one.

Who Goes you decide.


You can Never Stop Betting.

Get rid of save cos then yyou know who the public like and not hate (For a change)

i agree

You talk more sense than anybody...ever!

No I think they should keep it as vote to evict.

I want vote to save.
If there is 4 housemates up including Alex next week she could easily stay
The producers are really killing each series by keeping the vote to evict, I don't understand why they keep on doing this.
Surely vote to save works in their favour.

Changing it to "save" would probably also get them more money. Everyone would want their character to stay. When two people are hated, most feel it's a waste to call to evict, when their housemate isn't going to be evicted anyway, like Luke. Everyone knew that it was between Mario and Steph. Lisa would have been gone already. She's a bore.

If the entire house were nominated, who do you think would be saved? Remember, people are paying money just to save their fav housemate, not paying money to save someone they don't care about. It weeds everyone out.

I think the following would be saved:

Luke, Katherya, Rebecca, Dale, Rex, Jennifer, and Michael, would be saved.


Perhaps BB is afraid that the hated housemate wouldn't drive up votes to be saved, thus, their "stars" would leave the house early. Hated housemates get more action from the public when it's vote to evict. The very statement: "Vote To Evict", reinforces getting the person you most hate, to be banished from the house. It gets the public fired up.

I still like the "saved" idea though. It WOULD get all the tragic bores wasting screentime doing nothing, out of the house.

People like, Lisa, end up staying in to the end, because they fly under the radar, for they do nothing. People are not going to pay money to call and evict her. People just don't give a toss about her, even though she should be thrown out. Why waste the money?