[Mystic Mock]

In Ch5"s terms and conditions they say that they can amend votes so does that mean that they can fix the show and get away with it off Ofcom? if thats the case then im worried that they could do this to Aaron on friday.

[Niamh.]

I wouldn't think so JF, they couldn't take money off people and then change the votes. I'd imagine that's fraud

[Vicky.]

Despite what they say in the terms and conditions, pretty sure all premium rate lines are bound by the same rules when it comes to fixing the vote.

I could be wrong though.

[Saph]

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

In Ch5"s terms and conditions they say that they can amend votes so does that mean that they can fix the show and get away with it off Ofcom? if thats the case then im worried that they could do this to Aaron on friday.

I would hope to be able to doubt they could amend voting,(whatever that term means as to the votes on channel 5), however jf, nothing would surprise me.

[MTVN]

37. All votes are monitored by Electoral Reform Services.

So I doubt it tbh

[Foebane100]

I think it would finish the show and would be a breach in the Ofcom rules, taking money from the voters under false pretenses " Its your vote, you decide".

[RichardG]

No. They can't ask people to pay them money and then completely ignore those votes and evict whoever they wanted to. If that was possible then, if the producers actually did hate Aaron, they would have done it weeks ago.

[Vicky.]

The amending votes clause is probably more to do with (I doubt this happens) betting scams and that.

Say someone got a HM on 50/1 to leave (like aaron and jay were in the eviction where there was 5 up). Say a group of 10 people put 2k on between them. And then every one of them spent the next few days creating fake FB accounts to beat the 500 votes limit, and spent a few grand on phonecalls just to get their winnings from the bet. It would be worth it, as they would be getting 10k each. But I think if BB discovered this was going on they may discount the votes as whilst multiple votes are allowed, multiple voting on that level is clearly wrong and might even be illegal(if in conjunction with the bookies or something)

This is just an example of why I think they might have that clause...

[Samuel.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

The amending votes clause is probably more to do with (I doubt this happens) betting scams and that.

Say someone got a HM on 50/1 to leave (like aaron and jay were in the eviction where there was 5 up). Say a group of 10 people put 2k on between them. And then every one of them spent the next few days creating fake FB accounts to beat the 500 votes limit, and spent a few grand on phonecalls just to get their winnings from the bet. It would be worth it, as they would be getting 10k each. But I think if BB discovered this was going on they may discount the votes as whilst multiple votes are allowed, multiple voting on that level is clearly wrong and might even be illegal(if in conjunction with the bookies or something)

This is just an example of why I think they might have that clause...

I was just thinking about that scenario the other day. You could make some serious money doing that. As you say, that's probably why they have that clause in place, to prevent that from happening.

I'd be surprised if someone hadn't already tried.

[Marmalite]

Perhaps it means voting inside the house by HMs and not outside by the public?

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

The amending votes clause is probably more to do with (I doubt this happens) betting scams and that.

Say someone got a HM on 50/1 to leave (like aaron and jay were in the eviction where there was 5 up). Say a group of 10 people put 2k on between them. And then every one of them spent the next few days creating fake FB accounts to beat the 500 votes limit, and spent a few grand on phonecalls just to get their winnings from the bet. It would be worth it, as they would be getting 10k each. But I think if BB discovered this was going on they may discount the votes as whilst multiple votes are allowed, multiple voting on that level is clearly wrong and might even be illegal(if in conjunction with the bookies or something)

This is just an example of why I think they might have that clause...

Thats actually not a bad reason,but I would imagine that they would find it hard on which votes are genuine and which ones are scams.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by jedward fever

Thats actually not a bad reason,but I would imagine that they would find it hard on which votes are genuine and which ones are scams.

Well I would imagine they would know because the facebook accounts would all have the same IP, or be through a proxy(which would look odd in the first place, if 20k votes suddenly appeared on a housemate that everyone thought wasnt popular via proxy accounts)

The phonevoting...well they could also find out how many calls came from each number I guess. But that would be harder to prove if they had used a bunch of PAYG mobiles of something.

I would think that loads and loads of votes coming in for someone they did not expect votes in for would raise a red flag somewhere and investigations may be started.

My example is just hypothetical though, I have no idea how anyone could pull it off tbh...nor how BB could be sure this doesnt happen, but there must be ways of them finding out.