-
Welcome to the discussion forums. To get posting, register an account.
beardymac
john might've been the walrus, but paul was a cat
I think its concerning that this hasn't been addressed by Ten. As a "competition reality show" there's no legal recourse against producer manipulation, but there used to be a level of integrity with the voting. I wonder whether the "Voting is for entertainment purposes only" disclaimer exists on other shows with viewer voting (ie. X Factor/The Voice/whatever version of these is still running). It concerns me that the "entertainment purposes" could mean "haha isn't it entertaining that you get to tap a little button? now eat what we're serving you."
Can't you ask the same thing for all shows these days? I'm A Celeb, Dancing With the Stars, The Voice, Australian Idol, etc.
Yeah, it's something that was raised last night.
I think there's a couple issues regarding the voting process so far. Since the voting doesn't involve any cost, the result is susceptible to manipulation. When money is involved, there are independent auditors that check results. As @beardymac said, the disclaimer that mentions voting is for "entertainment purposes only" is also a telling sign that producers can essentially evict whoever they want. It's likely why they won't reveal the results of the Most To Least task, too. If anything, our votes probably just give them a gage on who’s popular or not so they can edit/contrive the show how they see fit, and if they want to alter something they can.
The other thing is the inability to vote multiple times. I don't see why they need to limit it.
There could be an argument for one single vote in a Vote To Evict circumstance. But what usually makes a Vote To Save work is the ability to vote for everyone except the person you want evicted. So theoretically, if you want Holly to go then you’d be sending votes towards both Michael and Jane in order to ensure you can contribute to that outcome effectively. This especially becomes more important when/if you have more than three people nominated.
According to the show, we - the audience - are supposed to have “more control than ever before”. But in regards to voting for evictions, I can't help but feel we actually now have far less (excluding Seven's era, obviously).
I think there's a couple issues regarding the voting process so far. Since the voting doesn't involve any cost, the result is susceptible to manipulation. When money is involved, there are independent auditors that check results. As @beardymac said, the disclaimer that mentions voting is for "entertainment purposes only" is also a telling sign that producers can essentially evict whoever they want. It's likely why they won't reveal the results of the Most To Least task, too. If anything, our votes probably just give them a gage on who’s popular or not so they can edit/contrive the show how they see fit, and if they want to alter something they can.
The other thing is the inability to vote multiple times. I don't see why they need to limit it.
There could be an argument for one single vote in a Vote To Evict circumstance. But what usually makes a Vote To Save work is the ability to vote for everyone except the person you want evicted. So theoretically, if you want Holly to go then you’d be sending votes towards both Michael and Jane in order to ensure you can contribute to that outcome effectively. This especially becomes more important when/if you have more than three people nominated.
According to the show, we - the audience - are supposed to have “more control than ever before”. But in regards to voting for evictions, I can't help but feel we actually now have far less (excluding Seven's era, obviously).
Interestingly, the exact same conversation came up in the house last night. Michael was caught on the live stream bringing up the same point. Then, the feed cut away from him.
Funnily enough, his comment even got picked up by the media:
Funnily enough, his comment even got picked up by the media:
I cant vote for more than 1 person though I've only voted to save Holly. I cant give her another vote or choose to save another.
Which is kind of interesting as with I'm a Celeb which allowed free online voting to save on 10 website as well in recent series (instead of phone voting previously which was meant to help their charities as well) you could vote multiple people, multiple times though there was a limit (maybe 10 votes? Cant remember). Here for new BB it's just 1 vote for a housemate, 1 time.
That’s exactly my point. It doesn’t make sense that you can’t vote more than once.
I was explaining how a Vote To Save has been most effective in the past, when you could send multiple votes. (In addition to the extra money they usually get out of it too, of-course.) One vote now makes the Vote To Save intention a little redundant.
Last edited:
Maybe I'm naive but I don't buy any of this. The "entertainment purposes only" disclaimer doesn't mean that votes don't count.
I do agree they should have given each Channel 10 account 5 or 10 votes with vote to save, though. Need to be able to save two HMs (or more) if you want to.
I do agree they should have given each Channel 10 account 5 or 10 votes with vote to save, though. Need to be able to save two HMs (or more) if you want to.
You’re right, it also implies that viewers can’t win prizes or are getting anything else out of voting, other than the “entertainment” of seeing how their vote affects the show.
But the fact it’s free certainly leaves a big question mark over the validity of votes. There’s no obligation to follow through.
Just have to have faith. If they want the vote to go a certain way they could just edit in their favour. Oh wait, they're already on it.
beardymac
john might've been the walrus, but paul was a cat
yes - but in past they have official adjudication of votes by outside parties given the costs associated with voting. Not sure they'd have to honour it the same way if votes were free.
Given there's (currently) $125k at stake, surely 10 or Endemol's legal would verify the results?
Lightning McQueen
Well-Known Member
No, that's not true. It's actually in the contracts of all reality television that the winner is solely at the discretion of the producers. EXCEPT in cases where the public PAYS to vote, as by consumer law, consumers must get what they pay for.
Do you have evidence of this?
Lightning McQueen
Well-Known Member
It's well known, just google it.
Mate you're the one making supposed statements of fact. Back them up.
DigitalCorp
Always Watching
If voting is "for entertainment purposes only," there is no point in voting at all. Ten and Banijay are shooting themselves in the foot.
beardymac
john might've been the walrus, but paul was a cat
I think there's some sort of legal loophole which allows for production manipulation. Survivor in the US learned from season 1 to refer to the show as a "competition reality show" rather than a "game show" because there's a difference between the two.
Obviously different laws (and Aus is a much less litigious society) but worth noting that in a lot of these cases, the prizes are awarded at the discretion of producers as per Lightning's post.
beardymac
john might've been the walrus, but paul was a cat
My other concern is that there are no voting T&Cs posted anywhere, whereas you get that with SMS voting. And if you google "Voting is for entertainment purposes only" - it gives you a whole bunch of T&Cs for other competitions where it's suggested that phrase is part of a larger clause that basically says it may play a part in the result of the competition but doesn't have to.
Correct. Red flags.