[Jamie89]

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?

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

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?

They might. But I seriously doubt it. Even in the Britain's Got Talent link I posted, Ofcom reported that ITV did not deliberately mislead viewers but what they did had the effect of doing so. That is what Channel 5 have done here. Most people voting were led to believe it would be an eviction like any other and the person with the fewest votes would go. If they said they were doing this before lines opened, then fair enough, but they can't change what you've been voting on and are still voting on mid-way through a vote.

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?

If they have misled viewers, which many of us feel they have, then they can at least be investigated on this.

And the fact that they have not confirmed or denied this makes it worse. Are Big Blagger and BB Spy right? Usually they are. But as of yet Channel 5 haven't announced anything, so voters are left not knowing what they're voting for now.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Yaki da

They might. But I seriously doubt it. Even in the Britain's Got Talent link I posted, Ofcom reported that ITV did not deliberately mislead viewers but what they did had the effect of doing so. That is what Channel 5 have done here. Most people voting were led to believe it would be an eviction like any other and the person with the fewest votes would go. If they said they were doing this before lines opened, then fair enough, but they can't change what you've been voting on and are still voting on mid-way through a vote.

Did they specifically state that the person with the fewest votes would go? Because unless they did, as much as I'm not comfortable either with them hiding things, I'd still say that technically no rules have been broken.

And I think the difference with the Makosi/Vanessa example you gave, is that it was 'Vote to Evict' so they had to make it clear that the person with the most votes might not be evicted. In this scenario it's 'Vote to Save', and the person with the most votes will be saved.

Originally Posted by Hayden

Honestly they change the rules all the time and get away with it

Farrah's eviction, Evander's eviction, Ryan's eviction etc. They've got away with it plenty of times with VTS and will do it again this time.

This is also true, there's no real norm anymore, not enough for people to assume there won't be any twists involved anyway. It seems with some series there's a twist every week virtually. And that's the thing, did BB state definitively that the HM with the fewest votes would be evicted... or is that just what people would assume would happen?

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Did they specifically state that the person with the fewest votes would go?

Every eviction so far, the person with the fewest votes has gone. If they are to change that procedure then they need to make it very clear and do so when the lines open. They have not done that at all. As I pointed out in that Ofcom ruling on ITV, ITV may not have intended to mislead but they had the effect of doing that. That is what Channel 5/BB Production would have done here imo.

Because unless they did, as much as I'm not comfortable either with them hiding things, I'd still say that technically no rules have been broken.

I believe, whether they intended it or not, they have misled viewers and it is a legitimate complaint. If they had announced what was going on before lines opened then fair enough, but they did not do that. You have to make clear what people are voting on. If what you're saying is correct then they could if they wanted, save whoever has the most votes, and do this eviction with the bottom 3 out of 4! It's ridiculous.

And I think the difference with the Makosi/Vanessa example you gave, is that it was 'Vote to Evict' so they had to make it clear that the person with the most votes might not be evicted.

No, I've pointed out the difference already. The difference was that the voters were told very clearly what the rules were BEFORE lines opened.

They have, if this story is true, changed what we are voting for in the MIDDLE of a vote.

In this scenario it's 'Vote to Save', and the person with the most votes will be saved.

Then they should have made clear that we were voting for one or two people to be safe out of the four. You can't just say the top 2 will be safe when there's only 5 hours left to vote, with the lines having been open 18 hours already.

This is also true, there's no real norm anymore, not enough for people to assume there won't be any twists involved anyway. It seems with some series there's a twist every week virtually. And that's the thing, did BB state definitively that the HM with the fewest votes would be evicted... or is that just what people would assume would happen?

They have not, not in my memory at least, ever changed what the rules of a vote were as the vote is going on. They can change the rules of noms if they want because that is to do with inside the house and no money is being spent, but they have taken money from voters and are now revealing there's more to the vote than they had originally told us. That is blatantly misleading.

[Headie]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

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?

Honestly they change the rules all the time and get away with it

Farrah's eviction, Evander's eviction, Ryan's eviction etc. They've got away with it plenty of times with VTS and will do it again this time.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.