|
|
Location: Holland | my fave is still rex and i like stu aswell now |
|
| |
|
Senate Member
Posts: 794
| I cant believe some people on the forums DONT think its fixed unless its a vote to save. That makes it too obvious. What they will do is after tonights h/ls (it is too late to change them), Luke will just disappear from the h/ls for a few days, and I think Rex will be shown badly, deservedly so, but the point is he and all the others shouldnt be up. |
|
| |
|
Executive Member
Posts: 1644
Location: Edgware, Middlesex | bradley27 - 29/7/2008 21:35
I cant believe some people on the forums DONT think its fixed unless its a vote to save. That makes it too obvious. What they will do is after tonights h/ls (it is too late to change them), Luke will just disappear from the h/ls for a few days, and I think Rex will be shown badly, deservedly so, but the point is he and all the others shouldnt be up.
I completely disagree. Luke is more popular than Dale in the betting odds and has been for weeks. In a straight head to head Luke could very easily win but, if anything, what they've done now makes Luke more likely to go.
Predicting the final five is, as far as I'm aware, not a rule-break. Nor is it a rule break to say who you're favourite or least favourite people are in the house. Until today everything has been border line or within the rules. Today it was absolutely blatantly against the rules from almost the entire house and there's no way BB could have, or should have, let it go, in my opinion.
They couldn't throw people in jail because there were too many and it would have disrupted the task. I think putting them all up was an excellent move that solves a lot of problems (as I mentioned earlier) and I don't think for a single second that it had anything to do with some kind of attempt to save Luke. People have had these conspiracy theories for as long as I can remember but, as far as I'm concerned, all they ever do is try to make an exciting and entertaining show and I don't see this as being any different.
Regards
Julian |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5071
Location: Scottish Borders | Nah.
It's definitely been done now to try give Luke and Dale better chances of staying in. 
Edited by emptybox 29/7/2008 22:55
|
|
| |
|
Senate Member
Posts: 794
| Julian - 29/7/2008 22:06
bradley27 - 29/7/2008 21:35
I cant believe some people on the forums DONT think its fixed unless its a vote to save. That makes it too obvious. What they will do is after tonights h/ls (it is too late to change them), Luke will just disappear from the h/ls for a few days, and I think Rex will be shown badly, deservedly so, but the point is he and all the others shouldnt be up.
I completely disagree. Luke is more popular than Dale in the betting odds and has been for weeks. In a straight head to head Luke could very easily win but, if anything, what they've done now makes Luke more likely to go.
Predicting the final five is, as far as I'm aware, not a rule-break. Nor is it a rule break to say who you're favourite or least favourite people are in the house. Until today everything has been border line or within the rules. Today it was absolutely blatantly against the rules from almost the entire house and there's no way BB could have, or should have, let it go, in my opinion.
They couldn't throw people in jail because there were too many and it would have disrupted the task. I think putting them all up was an excellent move that solves a lot of problems (as I mentioned earlier ) and I don't think for a single second that it had anything to do with some kind of attempt to save Luke. People have had these conspiracy theories for as long as I can remember but, as far as I'm concerned, all they ever do is try to make an exciting and entertaining show and I don't see this as being any different.
Regards
Julian
Sorry its got nothing to do with who is more popular Luke or Dale. The idea is to try to stop Luke from going. The vote was going to be very close. Now they have just abused the system again and once again shown their contempt for the viewers and thats why the figures go down and down. Its as simple as that. People watching, whoever they want to go or not each week, want to be able to enjoy it as a fair competition. Personally although I never thought I'd say it, I would have preferred Dale to go over Luke, but he would have most likely stayed due to the tennie vote, but they didnt want to take the risk. There is no point in nominations or votes if the producers are just going to say that they dont like it so they are going to do things to suit themselves. The stupidity of it is they think they improve the ratings tht way, in fact as we continually see, the decline. The vote was set up to be close and exciting this week but its been ruined AGAIN after the producers promised they wouldnt this year.
Its not the fact that they are all up its the timing of it. They could put them in jail, two by two and if it makes the task near impossible then thats their problem (they locked up Dennis just before the task dance, dont forget.
You may think it hasnt been designed for that fact but you are considerably in the massive minority. They have done it too often now. These "rule breaks" happened AFTER the nominations, and therefore nothing to do with this weeks eviction. If they wanted to punish them they could have done so next week. Besides the amount of nomination talk, with some of the most obvious ones like "which two h/ms would you push off a cliff" went un-punished, yet this bit did, just after the producers failed to get what they wanted from the showings of the VTs (another attempt to influence nominations which they promised not to).
You have missed the point I'm afraid. It doesnt matter who they are trying to protect or not, they promised they wouldnt do this and have once again gone back on their word. BB is dying each year and these stunts keep knifing it in the back |
|
| |
|
Executive Member
Posts: 1644
Location: Edgware, Middlesex | bradley27 - 29/7/2008 23:02
You have missed the point I'm afraid. It doesnt matter who they are trying to protect or not, they promised they wouldnt do this and have once again gone back on their word. BB is dying each year and these stunts keep knifing it in the back
What stunt? It's a simple case of having to put a stop to the rule breaking in the most effective way. It's a perfectly standard way to punish nomination talk. Allowing the housemates to talk about nominations is what turns BB into an unfair competition. In fact, I'm much more annoyed at the nomination booth idea than about them coming down hard on the nomination talk outside of it.
Jail would have been completely impractical and not sufficient for the severity of the breech and, in any case, I fail to see what's so unfair about letting the public have their say. However many people are up it is still the most disliked housemate who will get evicted. The more people are up the more chance the public get to get rid of who they want to get rid of.
I really don't see the problem?
As for being in the minority, that may or may not be the case but if you've such faith in the opinion of the majority then you shouldn't have any problem in who the majority want evicted this week 
Regards
Julian |
|
| |
|
Senate Member
Posts: 794
| Julian - 29/7/2008 23:40
bradley27 - 29/7/2008 23:02
You have missed the point I'm afraid. It doesnt matter who they are trying to protect or not, they promised they wouldnt do this and have once again gone back on their word. BB is dying each year and these stunts keep knifing it in the back
What stunt? It's a simple case of having to put a stop to the rule breaking in the most effective way. It's a perfectly standard way to punish nomination talk. Allowing the housemates to talk about nominations is what turns BB into an unfair competition. In fact, I'm much more annoyed at the nomination booth idea than about them coming down hard on the nomination talk outside of it.
Jail would have been completely impractical and not sufficient for the severity of the breech and, in any case, I fail to see what's so unfair about letting the public have their say. However many people are up it is still the most disliked housemate who will get evicted. The more people are up the more chance the public get to get rid of who they want to get rid of.
I really don't see the problem?
As for being in the minority, that may or may not be the case but if you've such faith in the opinion of the majority then you shouldn't have any problem in who the majority want evicted this week
Regards
Julian
I know you dont see the problem, but its the timing of this. Jail wasnt impractical, nor was there a problem with this sort of punishment. Its purely down to the timing of it. It doesnt take a genuis to work out why.
As for you being in the minority, i was referring to being in a minority that dont think its a fix. TBH I want Dale out this week as I put money on him to be out, but thats not the point.
This is completely inconstitant and has gone against what they promised. It might not work and Luke might still go, but its not the point. They are treated us as idiots and they are losing viewers all the time. Why do you think thats the case? |
|
| |
|
Senate Member
Posts: 794
| and another thing, whats worse. Talking in code about WHO YOU HAD nominated after the nominations or talking in code about WHO YOU SHOULD nominate just before them? Which is worse? Because I think the influencing others to nominate before is worse, yet that went unpunished all the time (STARS AND STRIPES remeber, along with many other times) |
|
| |
|
Executive Member
Posts: 1644
Location: Edgware, Middlesex | bradley27 - 30/7/2008 00:02
I know you dont see the problem, but its the timing of this. Jail wasnt impractical, nor was there a problem with this sort of punishment. Its purely down to the timing of it. It doesnt take a genuis to work out why.
As for you being in the minority, i was referring to being in a minority that dont think its a fix. TBH I want Dale out this week as I put money on him to be out, but thats not the point.
I know what you meant by being in a minority. I was trying to make the point (albeit subtly) that I don't believe you are any more likely to allow majority opinion to sway you from what you believe to be true any more than I am. In fact, most fans of Aisleyne wouldn't be fans if they'd let themselves be swayed by what the majority opinion appeared to be!
I was watching the live stream on my mobile phone from about 1.30pm to 6pm yesterday so I'm guessing I saw a lot more of the rule-breaking than the majority. The decision to come down hard on the housemates was inevitable based on what I saw. BB had already tried jail as punishment and yet they were still doing it. They needed something stronger and the only thing that would really help at this point was the threat of eviction.
Even if they decided to go with such a weak punishment, Jail terms would have conflicted with the task as many housemates would need to be available for long-term tasks that they wouldn't have been able to do in jail. For that matter, several heavenly housemates wouldn't even have been able to go to jail because the heavenly jail didn't even exist at that point!
Meanwhilst, even if there were alternatives I don't see the need for them. I see no downside to the show or unfairness to the public or the housemates through the idea of putting so many people to the public vote. There are positive voting shows which have everybody vulnerable for 'eviction' every week and I don't see anybody complaining about that!
Regards
Julian
Edited by Julian 30/7/2008 07:52
|
|
| |
|
Executive Member
Posts: 1644
Location: Edgware, Middlesex | bradley27 - 30/7/2008 00:10
and another thing, whats worse. Talking in code about WHO YOU HAD nominated after the nominations or talking in code about WHO YOU SHOULD nominate just before them? Which is worse? Because I think the influencing others to nominate before is worse, yet that went unpunished all the time (STARS AND STRIPES remeber, along with many other times)
Except that I personally haven't seen any talking in code about who housemates should nominate prior to the nominations this week. All instances that I have seen were punished by jail in previous weeks.
In any case it's a matter of degree. Isolated instances are one thing but this was a mass epidemic yesterday!
Regards
Julian |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3045
Location: Stoke-on-Trent | Julian - 30/7/2008 07:47 bradley27 - 30/7/2008 00:02 I know you dont see the problem, but its the timing of this. Jail wasnt impractical, nor was there a problem with this sort of punishment. Its purely down to the timing of it. It doesnt take a genuis to work out why. As for you being in the minority, i was referring to being in a minority that dont think its a fix. TBH I want Dale out this week as I put money on him to be out, but thats not the point. I know what you meant by being in a minority. I was trying to make the point (albeit subtly ) that I don't believe you are any more likely to allow majority opinion to sway you from what you believe to be true any more than I am. In fact, most fans of Aisleyne wouldn't be fans if they'd let themselves be swayed by what the majority opinion appeared to be! I was watching the live stream on my mobile phone from about 1.30pm to 6pm yesterday so I'm guessing I saw a lot more of the rule-breaking than the majority. The decision to come down hard on the housemates was inevitable based on what I saw. BB had already tried jail as punishment and yet they were still doing it. They needed something stronger and the only thing that would really help at this point was the threat of eviction. Even if they decided to go with such a weak punishment, Jail terms would have conflicted with the task as many housemates would need to be available for long-term tasks that they wouldn't have been able to do in jail. For that matter, several heavenly housemates wouldn't even have been able to go to jail because the heavenly jail didn't even exist at that point! Meanwhilst, even if there were alternatives I don't see the need for them. I see no downside to the show or unfairness to the public or the housemates through the idea of putting so many people to the public vote. There are positive voting shows which have everybody vulnerable for 'eviction' every week and I don't see anybody complaining about that! Regards Julian Do they change the voting procedures on a weekly basis? We have had a vote to evict every week so they should leave things alone and have a vote to evict this week. It already stinks that they decide to put people up for eviction for nominations talk the week Luke was up and changing the way the vote is done just adds more credence to the accusations of fix. If they decided they needed to clampdown on nomination chat why not take the right to nominate away from the offenders like they have done in previous series. I think Imogen was banned from nominating for 3 weeks for nomination talk and she was not automatically put up for eviction. Call me a cynic but I think that if Luke was not up for eviction the punishment for nomination chat would have been different. |
|
| |
|
Executive Member
Posts: 1644
Location: Edgware, Middlesex | If BB were to switch to a positive vote this week then, I agree, it would definitely be a suspiciously arbitrary move very probably designed to manipulate the vote. My argument doesn't address that scenario as I've not heard anything to suggest that BB intend to do that!
In principle I much prefer positive voting to negative voting as I think it's fairer and far more likely to weed out the ones that make no impact on the show than a negative vote. Having said that, they can't just change the voting pattern just because of a rule breach and I'd be very surprised if they did so now.
I also think if they were prepared to manipulate things to keep people in then they would have done it last week to keep Rebecca. There is no point keeping a morose and subdued Luke in the house now that Rebecca has gone so I really don't see what they would have to gain by such a move?
Regards
Julian
|
|
| |
|
Executive Member
Posts: 1644
Location: Edgware, Middlesex | It looks like Rachel just returned to the house after having her tooth fixed and she's been told she's now an Auntie 
Regards
Julian |
|
| |
|
Location: Holland | i hope dale goes this week..i hope its vote 2 save |
|
| |
|
Executive Member
Posts: 1644
Location: Edgware, Middlesex | This is so frustrating! I'm watching them working out the equation for the safe-cracking task but when they first tried to work out 945/5 they came up with 211 instead of 189 and they've been repeating the mistake ever since. They keep going back over the sums again and again but they never try recalculating 945/5 so they keep getting it wrong  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3045
Location: Stoke-on-Trent | sophie - 30/7/2008 13:24 i hope dale goes this week..i hope its vote 2 save If it's a vote to save then Dale is safe. |
|
| |
|
Executive Member
Posts: 1644
Location: Edgware, Middlesex | Julian - 30/7/2008 14:06
This is so frustrating! I'm watching them working out the equation for the safe-cracking task but when they first tried to work out 945/5 they came up with 211 instead of 189 and they've been repeating the mistake ever since. They keep going back over the sums again and again but they never try recalculating 945/5 so they keep getting it wrong
I found the sums on the C4 website if anyone wants to have a go:
Sum 1
3 x 17 - 24 + 78 x 9 ÷ 5 - (13²) + (65 - 29) ÷ 4 + (4²) - (7 x 3) + (3²) + 99 - (7²) - 49 =
Sum2
1396 x 2 ÷ 4 - (12²) + 46 x 2 ÷ 40 x (5²) - (7 x 99) x 3 - (11²) x 5 - 219 =
Sum3
100 - 33 X 5 + 665 ÷ (5²) X 17 - 248 X 3 ÷ (4²) + 52 ÷ 7 + (273 - 217)=
I wasn't timing it but I think it took me about 10 minutes. Assuming I got it right, of course
Regards
Julian |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2530
| Apparently Maysoon is preparing to leave. Not got live feed so no idea if she's definitely walking out or not.
|
|
| |
|
Senate Member
Posts: 794
| she has left and they didnt put her number up at the end of the show. Shame, as usual the decent ones are made to feel like cr*p and decide to leave. At least she didnt go on and go and go nowhere like others in the house. Apparently Rex is in the DR at the mo and some are saying he looked guilty. If he does, good I say, he should feel bad. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2530
| sophie - 30/7/2008 13:24
i hope dale goes this week..i hope its vote 2 save
Somebody's love for Dale didn't last the distance
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3045
Location: Stoke-on-Trent | secrethousemate - 30/7/2008 22:42 sophie - 30/7/2008 13:24 i hope dale goes this week..i hope its vote 2 save Somebody's love for Dale didn't last the distance I think the word you're looking for is fickle. |
|
| |
|
Senate Member
Posts: 794
| People who for some reason want to vote this week should make sure they realise that voting CLOSES AT 23.59 TOMORROW...... THERE IS NO VOTING ON FRIDAY.
Endemol are claiming this is due to "administrative reasons"???? Yeah I believe that. Amazing that all these things are happening this week. Strangely this was very badly advertised at the end of tonights show (in small print). So for some reason they are only having voting for about 24 hours.
They must all thing we are stupid when they also claim, "but I am told that this will not affect the outcome of the vote in any way - it will just be a shorter voting period than usual." Everyone knows that the main lot of voting is done on a Friday, especially when there hasnt been any voting allowed till tonight.
What with Grace proving again this week that shes moved to the dark side (no mention of the "nomination twist"...... previous years she would have done her nut about it, and no mention at all of Luke...... part of an attempt, too late in my opinion, to let him fly under the radar for a couple of days) and this continued farce, they really are treating us as idiot who they can lie to |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3045
Location: Stoke-on-Trent | I tend to believe the reasons for the lines closing early. I will be amazed if the result of the vote is not leaked beforehand and basically spoil the eviction show. I don't think they would be prepared to sacrifice the suspense of the eviction show just to support a housemate. The whole week has been unsatisfactory but apart from there own incompetence they have had to deal with other situations as well. Maysoon leaving is almost certainly the reason the voting lines were late opening so I don't think they delayed the vote just to cut down on voting time. None of this changes my opinion that the change of heart regarding the punishment for nomination chat was just a cynical ploy to affect the outcome of the eviction vote though.
|
|
| |
|
Executive Member
Posts: 1644
Location: Edgware, Middlesex | The website stated that the delay in the start of voting was because they needed to find extra people to monitor all the lines.
I think it's pretty understandable why they would need to end the vote early this week. They have suddenly been faced with an unexpected 8-way vote which would normally require them to prepare eight Best Bit compilations and associated clips and eight exit interviews and then Davina would have to come in and rehearse eight different interviews prior to the live show. Even BBBM would probably be affected with 8 possible themes. That's a huge headache that can all be avoided by the simple expedient of ending the voting early.
If anything, the votes cast during the week will be from more informed, regular devoted viewers whereas the last minute voters are more likely to be casual viewers who, IMO, would probably be far more predisposed to like Luke than the ones who have been following the show daily. Having said that, given the millions of votes involved I don't think the ratios ever shift to any great degree during the week's voting unless something major happens to affect people's opinions.
The last I heard Luke was favourite to go with Rex as second favourite. If people want Luke to go all they need to do is vote for him.
Regards
Julian
|
|
| |
|
Senate Member
Posts: 794
| Julian - 31/7/2008 09:43
The website stated that the delay in the start of voting was because they needed to find extra people to monitor all the lines.
I think it's pretty understandable why they would need to end the vote early this week. They have suddenly been faced with an unexpected 8-way vote which would normally require them to prepare eight Best Bit compilations and associated clips and eight exit interviews and then Davina would have to come in and rehearse eight different interviews prior to the live show. Even BBBM would probably be affected with 8 possible themes. That's a huge headache that can all be avoided by the simple expedient of ending the voting early.
If anything, the votes cast during the week will be from more informed, regular devoted viewers whereas the last minute voters are more likely to be casual viewers who, IMO, would probably be far more predisposed to like Luke than the ones who have been following the show daily. Having said that, given the millions of votes involved I don't think the ratios ever shift to any great degree during the week's voting unless something major happens to affect people's opinions.
The last I heard Luke was favourite to go with Rex as second favourite. If people want Luke to go all they need to do is vote for him.
Regards
Julian
you mean Davina actually does rehearsals 
How bad would she be if she didnt |
|
| |
Big Brother 9
