[Sticks]

In a typical three way, if someone wants to get rid of someone under vote to evict, you needed to vote on only one line.

On vote to save they have to vote on two lines, thus doubling the money that Channel Five makes

Does anyone else see this change as just a grubby way of making money off of the punters?

C4 played fast and loose with the contestants. Is Channel five now also playing fast and lose with the viewers?

[The Human Santapede]

In fairness though more people vote when it's an evict I would have thought as we love to hate people. When it comes to saving, unless it's my fave I won't vote.

[Samuel.]

Wut. You're looking at it all wrong.

I'd much rather vote to save a HM I like than vote to evict a HM I don't; like most people, I care more about my favourite housemates staying in the house. Which is why vote to save is better. And it means when there are 3+ up for eviction, dull housemates stand much less chance of staying.

In no way is it exploitative. It's something that should have been done a long time ago.

[Livia]

Whichever way they play it some people will think it's a dastardly money-making ploy.

[In the Drunk Tank]

But what if it was a typical three way and you only really cared about saving one of the them, that would mean that under a vote to evict you'd have to vote on two lines thus doubling the amount of money C5 makes

[Samuel.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

But what if it was a typical three way and you only really cared about saving one of the them, that would mean that under a vote to evict you'd have to vote on two lines thus doubling the amount of money C5 makes

Lol, also this.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Originally Posted by MTVN

But what if it was a typical three way and you only really cared about saving one of the them, that would mean that under a vote to evict you'd have to vote on two lines thus doubling the amount of money C5 makes

Exactly.

[Jordan.]

I'd say pretty much 70% of the viewers wanted it changing to vote to save by the end of the C4 series because of dull finalists.

I'm more concerned about them not revealing the voting figures.

[MeMyselfAndI]

I prefure vote to save as i know the final will have atleast 3 interesting characters (More than BB10 & BB11)

But i agree Jordan, we should atleast get the percentages at the end, if we get completely no percentages thats pretty worrying.

[Santa's NaughtiNess]

Thank god we have a vote to save!This way Lord Aaron has a better chance of staying!

[fredmeneedle]

Originally Posted by Vanessa

Thank god we have a vote to save!This way Lord Aaron has a better chance of staying!

He would stay anyway due to the overwhelming support during maisygate and everyone's almost universal hatred for either Aaaaah-den or Hellcat.... erm... 'Heaven'

[manxcat]

Always wanted voted to save, its far better!

[joeysteele]

Vote to save is the one for me, far better than vote to evict.

I agree with Jordan, the not releasing the voting figures is a bad move.They have said though they have no plans to at all.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

But what if it was a typical three way and you only really cared about saving one of the them, that would mean that under a vote to evict you'd have to vote on two lines thus doubling the amount of money C5 makes

This.

I prefer vote to save anyway, more likely to get rid of the wallflowers. But only works properly if there are 3 or more up. With 2 up, the outcome is no different to what it would have been with vote to evict :/

[Santa's NaughtiNess]

Originally Posted by fredmeneedle

He would stay anyway due to the overwhelming support during maisygate and everyone's almost universal hatred for either Aaaaah-den or Hellcat.... erm... 'Heaven'

I know,but it makes me worry less.I'm going on holiday tomorrow and i want Aaron to stay!