Rison
Well-Known Member
Only if Mavroidakis is stupid enough to tell the HM's that it's how the Monday-saved pair is decided.
Which means... they'll be told and they'll know.
-
Welcome to the discussion forums. To get posting, register an account.
Which means... they'll be told and they'll know.
I hate how everything with the smallest amount of potential always goes to waste
They probably knew before we did.
Where was that quoted from?
Here's a better cap of the fineprint (from TV):
@Consuela Also interested in the source - is it on the jump-in BB "site" (if you can call it that)?
T&C of course. Do you not read them!?
Tut, tut.
http://prod.static9.net.au/~/media/7C6CC8AE001B4747BE95BD8D5AF466C3.ashx
That's the FAQ not the T&Cs though.
Was this in the first 30 minutes of yesterdays show? (That's the part I missed!)
No, it was on Sunday or Monday's live episode.
chriskicks
Well-Known Member
i can kind of understand the approach of saving one pair on monday. if you spent a few bucks voting to save one pair and on monday they are safe, then you can spend MORE money to save another pair you like and think is at risk. alternatively it can backfire and once that pair is saved, votes decrease because that was the only pair worth saving.
but from everyone has already said days ago, there is not much incentive to vote if the housemates ultimately decide so there will be a decrease in voters regardless...
but from everyone has already said days ago, there is not much incentive to vote if the housemates ultimately decide so there will be a decrease in voters regardless...
That's the FAQ not the T&Cs though.
Well the information is in both it's just a little clearer in the FAQ.
Well the information is in both it's just a little clearer in the FAQ.
THB I could not see it in the T&Cs. But it seems they have changed their minds since those were written and the HMs will ultimately decide on evicting one of the pair?
So can I. It gives Monday's show an "angle".
Not sure I like that sort of info being revealed - it's basically telling the HMs to nominate that person as they're a threat.
All the FAQs and T&Cs:
http://prod.static9.net.au/~/media/7C6CC8AE001B4747BE95BD8D5AF466C3.ashx
http://prod.static9.net.au/~/media/2DD2C7EA28F34AC59D1E30B85266555A.ashx
Really hope once it becomes individuals they go for no more than 4 nominees as the minimum number - or ideally three. I think having half the house nominated like this week or last year just lessens the importance of the whole process. It's good to see how different HMs react to being nominated and it's better there is a 1 in 3 rather than 1 in 6 chance they'll go. With so many up being nominated comes to mean very little in the game.
Butterfly_Wings
Well-Known Member
It's in the producers' interest to have as many up for noms as possible to generate more money from voting.