[cfromhx02]

Vote To Save protects the Nasties because there is always or usually enough to keep them in.All they need that way is a large enough Minority of the vote to keep them in.Also putting everyone up who has been nominated also helps protect the nasties. And what's the point in keeping score of how many nominations people get anyway if they are all going to be put up ?

Sometimes that can be the right thing to do to keep on people who cause trouble,which some view as more entertaining.

BUT NOT WHEN SOMEONE HAS CROSSED THE LINE LIKE FARRAH DID LAST NIGHT WITH HER CLEAR USING OF THE TASK TO SPOUT HER ANTI-GAY AND HOMOPHOBIC ABUSE AT THOSE SHE SPEWED HER BILE TOWARD.

SO DO THE RIGHT THING BB, STOP GIVING THE MINORITY WHAT THEY WANT TO PROTECT FARRAH WITH VOTE TO SAVE AND PUTTING EVERYO9NE NOMINATED UP.

CHANGE IT TO VOTE TO EVICT AND GIVE THE MAJ WHO HATE THE BIGOTED BITCH THAT FARRAH IS AND GIVE US THE RIGHT TO KICK HER OUT WITH VOTE TO EVICT AND JUST PUT UP THE TOP THREE WHO GET THE MOST NOMINATIONS ?

[Oaker]

no

[AProducer'sWetDream]

No thanks- we can't change the voting system just to get the result we want. The whole point of VTS is to keep our favourites in, rather than get rid of the ones we don't like. So Farrah should and will only go when there are not enough people who want to keep her in.

[keith133]

no chance

[Jarvio]

VTS is way more interesting. It is far less predictable who goes.

[Lostie!]

Originally Posted by AProducer'sWetDream

No thanks- we can't change the voting system just to get the result we want.

Well, they did that in Week 9 of BB10 so I'm under no illusion that the show is morally above stuff like that.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Originally Posted by Lostie!

Well, they did that in Week 9 of BB10 so I'm under no illusion that the show is morally above stuff like that.

Wasn't that a punishment or something though? For talking about nominations? Or am I getting confused with something else?

[Lostie!]

Originally Posted by AProducer'sWetDream

Wasn't that a punishment or something though? For talking about nominations? Or am I getting confused with something else?

They put everyone up as punishment for Siavash refusing to nominate, but I don't see why switching the vote to VTS for one week was necessary (other than to keep the "louder" housemates in).

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by Lostie!

They put everyone up as punishment for Siavash refusing to nominate, but I don't see why switching the vote to VTS for one week was necessary (other than to keep the "louder" housemates in).

I think that was just to avoid the Nikki effect tbh

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Originally Posted by Lostie!

They put everyone up as punishment for Siavash refusing to nominate, but I don't see why switching the vote to VTS for one week was necessary (other than to keep the "louder" housemates in).

Oh yeah I remember that now. That's a bit of an odd punishment- I'd have thought that they'd have just put Siavash up or something.

[Ashley.]

Originally Posted by AProducer'sWetDream

Oh yeah I remember that now. That's a bit of an odd punishment- I'd have thought that they'd have just put Siavash up or something.

I think Charlie and Lisa were originally nominated... then they took them off and replaced them with the rulebreakers... idk

[Lostie!]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

I think that was just to avoid the Nikki effect tbh

Well yeah probably, but it just proves that they're certainly not above something like randomly changing the voting format to get / prevent a certain result.

Originally Posted by AProducer'sWetDream

Oh yeah I remember that now. That's a bit of an odd punishment- I'd have thought that they'd have just put Siavash up or something.

I always thought it was a shame that someone like Hira, who never broke rules and actually embraced the BB experience, lost out because of someone else's refusal to play by the rules.

[Headie]

Originally Posted by Jarvio

VTS is way more interesting. It is far less predictable who goes.

Agreed, even though some of the results haven't always been good (Frenchy, Leslie, Alicia etc going) although you could say those results were all surprises, which supports the idea that VTS is less predictable

[arista]

Originally Posted by cfromhx02

Vote To Save protects the Nasties because there is always or usually enough to keep them in.All they need that way is a large enough Minority of the vote to keep them in.Also putting everyone up who has been nominated also helps protect the nasties. And what's the point in keeping score of how many nominations people get anyway if they are all going to be put up ?

Sometimes that can be the right thing to do to keep on people who cause trouble,which some view as more entertaining.

BUT NOT WHEN SOMEONE HAS CROSSED THE LINE LIKE FARRAH DID LAST NIGHT WITH HER CLEAR USING OF THE TASK TO SPOUT HER ANTI-GAY AND HOMOPHOBIC ABUSE AT THOSE SHE SPEWED HER BILE TOWARD.

SO DO THE RIGHT THING BB, STOP GIVING THE MINORITY WHAT THEY WANT TO PROTECT FARRAH WITH VOTE TO SAVE AND PUTTING EVERYO9NE NOMINATED UP.

CHANGE IT TO VOTE TO EVICT AND GIVE THE MAJ WHO HATE THE BIGOTED BITCH THAT FARRAH IS AND GIVE US THE RIGHT TO KICK HER OUT WITH VOTE TO EVICT AND JUST PUT UP THE TOP THREE WHO GET THE MOST NOMINATIONS ?

That Many Capitals is Illegal On Here


Note: I am Not TIBB staff

[minny03]

You've gotta be kidding me. VTS is way better

[Jarvio]

They should have VTS for civilian BB. Might even finally break the curse.