destroy_robots
Member
I apologise if this has already been discussed...
I have never been a fan of the system "Vote to Save". I can understand why they do it (more money to be made from somebody saving their faves instead of voting for ONE person they dislike), but I've always felt that it changes the outcome of the game.
Look at the past few series where entertaining HM's get voted off early. Eg, 2013 series, everyone thought Ben was going to win, but he got evicted midway through - my theory is voters probably figured he'd be safe, and wanted to spend the money ensuring another HM was safe.
I think if it was Vote to Evict, the 2014 some HM's would have been voted out immediately.
Some of the one's I found annoying were voted out early, but I think Skye would have gone due to being annoying at the start, and Ryan for flying under the radar at the start.
Thoughts?
I have never been a fan of the system "Vote to Save". I can understand why they do it (more money to be made from somebody saving their faves instead of voting for ONE person they dislike), but I've always felt that it changes the outcome of the game.
Look at the past few series where entertaining HM's get voted off early. Eg, 2013 series, everyone thought Ben was going to win, but he got evicted midway through - my theory is voters probably figured he'd be safe, and wanted to spend the money ensuring another HM was safe.
I think if it was Vote to Evict, the 2014 some HM's would have been voted out immediately.
Some of the one's I found annoying were voted out early, but I think Skye would have gone due to being annoying at the start, and Ryan for flying under the radar at the start.
Thoughts?