[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

I'm interested to know who really got the least votes between Marnie and Chloe considering it was only supposed to be 2% between them.

2% was between 2nd and 3rd obviously. Chloe was bottom. James top. Marnie and Bear were the two with 2% between them. So bear could have ended up in the bottom 2. Every poll, the facebook likes and twitter retweets which collectively can prove to be very reliable of how voting is going showed this to be the case.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Yaki da

2% was between 2nd and 3rd obviously. Chloe was bottom. James top. Marnie and Bear were the two with 2% between them. So bear could have ended up in the bottom 2. Every poll, the facebook likes and twitter retweets which collectively can prove to be very reliable of how voting is going showed this to be the case.

That's poor from Bear considering his suppose to be the "big character" of the series.

[Toy Soldier]

I would imagine that when they are simply saying "vote to save", then all they have to do to be within the rules is ensure that the person with the most votes stays. All bets are off beyond that. They could for example have 5 people up, and at the last minute say "everyone except the one with the most is leaving". That would be perfectly legitimate.

What they could NOT do, for example would be have a VTE and then at the last minute say "it's a head to head between the two people who got most votes to evict". They would HAVE to evict the person who got most.

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

That's poor from Bear considering his suppose to be the "big character" of the series.

He's like Perez Hilton I think. Someone you think might be doing well in the vote because of his presence on the HL show but someone who isn't as popular as people think.

[Miranda123]

Originally Posted by Yaki da

Broadcast competitions and voting

2.13 Broadcast competitions and voting must be conducted fairly.

2.14 Broadcasters must ensure that viewers and listeners are not materially misled about any broadcast competition or voting.

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.


http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bro...0/harmoffence/

They are clearly in breach of 2.15 as they did not make the rules of the vote clear at "the time an invitation to participate is broadcast". On the contrary, it is now 19: 45 pm and we still do not know what we are voting for exactly. Channel 5 have supposedly confirmed to fan sites that the bottom 2 will face a challenge but there is no mention on their website and there was no mention of this at the end of last night's show when lines opened.

You are completely right of course. I dont know whether they can get round it because they say "anything can happen" but it is very bad form to allow the public to vote on some evictions but not others, just cause the producers want certain people to stay in. I think they came unstuck with James tonight, but they couldnt do anything once he had the most votes

I think we all know that BB do what they want, not what we want, its up to us to decide whether we pay for that or not!

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Yaki da

He's like Perez Hilton I think. Someone you think might be doing well in the vote because of his presence on the HL show but someone who isn't as popular as people think.

I'm still disgusted that Michelle Visage beat Perez.

And I would've been disgusted if Bear had've lost to one of the two girls who have done zero.

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I would imagine that when they are simply saying "vote to save", then all they have to do to be within the rules is ensure that the person with the most votes stays.

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.

What they could NOT do, for example would be have a VTE and then at the last minute say "it's a head to head between the two people who got most votes to evict". They would HAVE to evict the person who got most.

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.

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by Miranda123

You are completely right of course. I dont know whether they can get round it because they say "anything can happen" but it is very bad form to allow the public to vote on some evictions but not others, just cause the producers want certain people to stay in. I think they came unstuck with James tonight, but they couldnt do anything once he had the most votes

I don't think they are trying to rig anything (at least not this time - I don't believe James was ever in danger). I just think they're utterly inept and don't know the broadcasting rules or have any ethical standards at all.

I think we all know that BB do what they want, not what we want, its up to us to decide whether we pay for that or not!

It's up to people to inform Ofcom of what is going on here. I'm sorry to say that some people are just too stupid to understand how they are misleading people with this sort of thing. But Ofcom should be there to protect those people from this sort of thing. It could easily get worse than this.

[Toy Soldier]

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.

[Yaki da]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

The code states clearly that the rules of what you are voting on must be made clear. Now for 23 hours it was not at any point made clear that there would be a bottom 2. That can affect whether or not people will bother voting in something and voters must be informed of that before voting lines open.

This would put them in violation of both of these...

2.14 Broadcasters must ensure that viewers and listeners are not materially misled about any broadcast competition or voting.

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.

Voters were clearly led to believe that this would be an eviction like any other (at no point was it suggested otherwise until Friday afternoon) and that the person with the fewest votes would go.

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.

It doesn't at all. They say voting will close in Friday's eviction show. That's all they need to tell people. It is the rules of the vote itself they have to make clear. This is there to be read in the code. If they only inform you 23 hours after a vote has opened what the actual rules are then they are clearly in breach of 2.15 where it says 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. They invited people to vote on Thursday night at about 10 pm when the HL show finished, but they did not tell people that only the top 2 would be safe. I could have been voting for Marnie, believing James and Bear were definitely going to be in the top 2, but I had to make sure Marnie wasn't bottom and therefore Chloe would be evicted. If I had known that there would be a bottom 2, and it would be decided by chance between them, I wouldn't have bothered as I would have already known she was very likely to be in it. So they took my money having made me believe that as long as I voted Marnie into third Chloe would go. In actual fact Marnie was still at risk of being evicted despite possibly being 3rd in the vote and Chloe bottom. For the majority of the voting time I had no idea this was the case and was well within my reason for thinking the person who came 4th in the vote would be evicted as the person with the fewest votes had been evicted in the previous evictions.

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.

The Ofcom broadcasting code says "Broadcasters must draw up rules for a broadcast competition or vote. These rules must be clear and appropriately made known". If you have had lines open for 23 hours and only in the last 45 minutes told voters that there will be a bottom 2 then you have only fully informed them of what the rules were at the very end of the vote. Therefore the rules were not made clear at all and it was misleading to voters.

The fact is the majority of people probably thought the person with the fewest votes would be evicted. If only the person who tops the vote is safe, or the top 2 then they MUST make that clear before lines open. This is especially true when the standard procedure has been that whoever does have the fewest votes is evicted. How are voters to know the person with the fewest votes may not be evicted if you do not tell them that this may not be the case.

[Clootie Dumpling]

I agree with you, Yaki Da.

By pulling this stunt, BB created the possibility that the person who was the third most popular might be evicted, rather than the person who received the fewest votes.

If Chloe didn't receive the fewest votes, those who spent money voting for her have been cheated.

I'd like to know who actually came third and fourth according to the vote, so that those who were duped into voting could claim their money back.

[Toy Soldier]

Do they make it clear on the X factor before every vote, that there will be a bottom two and a sing off, with the decision on who will leave ultimately lying with the judges? I know it's been the format for years and so could possibly be considered as "known"... But, they don't explicitly state this every time the voting lines open, and surely you could argue that some at home might be first time viewers and not aware of the format?