Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaki da
Nope, read the rules. They have to make it CLEAR to the voters what the rules are. If they leave you believing that the person with the fewest votes will be evicted for the majority of the voting time and then tell you that the 2 with the most votes are the only ones definitely safe and the 3rd placed housemate could go then they are in violation. Whether or not enough people will complain is doubtful however. If Ofcom were alerted by enough people to this I am sure they would be in trouble.
But Ofcom's time is spent dealing with people complaining about homosexuals blaming bisexuals for AIDS, instead of things like this which is what Ofcom should really be for.
Again, the rules are there to be read and they clearly state the following...
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.
The rules of this vote were not made absolutely clear until Emma Willis announced it at 9 pm, 23 hours AFTER lines were opened and most people assumed that the person with the fewest votes would be evicted. i asumed that. others assumed that. Gamblers assumed that (Hence the reason Chloe was a massive odds on favourite to go until the news came out there would be a bottom 2)
They may not have done this intentionally but it is quite clear to see that if you do not make CLEAR what the rules of a vote you've asked people to participate in are then you can be found in breach of that code.
|
It would be a tough one to push through in my opinion. It's a simple vote. Vote to save the person you want to stay... Most votes stays. You don't get to rank them in order or have a 2nd / 3rd choice. They have never, for example, announced at the start of the vote if there will be a "votes freeze" where the one / two with most votes is safe, and they've been doing that for years. It amounts to the same thing.
I can see your point but I genuinely don't think anything at all is implied by "vote to save", other than that "most votes is saved", and they haven't broken that. Anything else would purely be the assumption of the voter.