Nope....there is no way you can construe "act with the fewest votes" to mean the act that loses the sing off.
Unfortunately it'll come down to what is printed in black and white. Syco can claim that the public got the wrong impression and promise to word things clearer next time but it'll be too late for Mary.
Aleksis, I therefore must question why they would have gone through the whole rigmarole otherwise.
This is, quite transparently, tantamount to fraud. OFCOM came down like a ton of bricks on this sort of thing about 3 years ago, mainly with the late-night gaming channels but everyone in the media - TV and Radio - was told to clean it's act up. One knock-on effect is you hardly, if ever, see text/SMS voting on reality shows in the UK anymore. We're also the only country in the Eurovision Song Contest who doesn't use SMS voting for the same reason. It was a huge incident at the time.
Quite why ITV, Freemantle or Syco TV thought 9that they could get away with this again after OFCOM cleaned the game up in 2007 escapes me.
Nope....there is no way you can construe "act with the fewest votes" to mean the act that loses the sing off.
Of course you can, the act with the fewest Judges votes!
Where is the definition of VOTES!! That is what is missing here!!
Everyone is citing a web page, but without that definition, all the hysteria is meaningless!
I honestly do not get what the complaint is? Ofcom will throw this out and class it as a campaign (they often ignore campaigns like this with no real substance).
I mean, it's up to the show how they do it. There's no set rules for what should happen. In this series they decided to have a sing off instead of a straight elimination. They also had a wildcard this series. They are not restricted to one set of directions.
I do think it was so Cher could be put through, but it's an entertainment show and as long as they never skewed the voting figures (like put Matt through when he got less than Mary or something), then there's nothing Ofcom will do.
No rules have been broken. You haven't been mislead (no, really, they never said they were or weren't going to do the sing off so there's no way you could be mislead unless you thought it was going to be the same as previously, but that's not misleading because they never said that).
You should direct complaints to ITV and Syco, and tell them you're disappointed with the change.
To be fair, that's what they all said about the BB7 phone voting 'scandal' with Nikki returning, and the complaints were upheld.
They can change the rules for contestants at any time, but the public voting has to be beyond reproach.
Endemol tried the same excuse in BB with Nikki when she was voted back in after being evicted. They were fined £30,000.
This. I'll repeat it again - they've wrecked local television and radio in the UK but if I'll give 'em this: if there's one thing that OFCOM do take very, VERY seriously it is transparency with premium-rate voting.
Somebody is going to get seriously raped for this.
Has somebody got a clip of Simon saying that it was going back to the public this week? That might help the case.
I never vote on these things but can't help but be a bit suspicious when all the signals were that there wasn't going to be a sing off. They could easily have filled the last 15 minutes with padding about the four finalists/competition to date etc.
I know it's an entertainment show an everything, but when people are speanding money voting, there has to be some transparency surely?
And just to add to the confusion they ask them to name who they are sending through instead of sending home. A small detail, but seems like they were chaning all the rules tonight. (Maybe they phrased it that way so it was the person with the fewest votes who went).
Never usually get involved in these conspiracy theories - just can't help but think something wasn't right with how the voting went tonight.
Exactly, so nobody can complain. All this rubbish about the tv guide, the terms and conditions are what Ofcom will look at, and they cover this scenario.
it may say that they can change the rules at any time but they have to inform the public what these rule changes are beforehand otherwise there is no point in having any rules whatsoever.
The terms and conditions state that they can change the rules at any time
Yes but the rules were STILL stating that the act with the fewest votes will go home, even AFTER they had apparently changed the rules at the last minute.
If the public are spending to vote, they need to strict to clear and transparent rules. Nothing ambiguous.
TBH I really couldn't give two hoots who wins... after what they did to Wagner last week!
That would be when they mention the word PUBLIC vote!!
>>> "semi-finalists find out the result of the public vote. The act with the fewest votes will leave the competition"
Again, easy to get out of.
The acts find out the public vote, then the bottom two from the public vote go to the Judges Vote, and the one with the fewest votes from the judges leave!
As someone said above, deliberately vague to be open to interpret!
It's the terms and conditions Ofcom will care about - TV guides are always wrong about something or another.
Sorry be realistic, are the voters going to be looking deep into terms and conditions.
X Factor has clearly changed what was precedent so you would have thought they would make clear they were changing. Also it is in black and white on the X Factor site. Also Louis has evidently said it was fewest votes and gone..
And this ahh could have meant fewest judges votes is just a red herring, that wouldn't work as an escape when it is absolutely clear that folk would have assumed that to mean public votes.
I very much doubt OFFCOM would let them away with a technicality like that when there has been such a clear mislead.
Go for it folk - to OFFCOM. And I never thought I'd be saying that.
The format changed in the sixth week: each act performed twice in the first show (with the judges offering their opinions after the second songs), and reprised one of their songs in the results show. The act with the fewest public votes was eliminated at the end of the second show, with the judges no longer having a say in who left.
This. I'll repeat it again - they've wrecked local television and radio in the UK but if I'll give 'em this: if there's one thing that OFCOM do take very, VERY seriously it is transparency with premium-rate voting.
Somebody is going to get seriously raped for this.
I agree with you, and I think Ofcom should seriously look into this, but I don't think it's okay to say that somebody will get 'raped' for it. I don't think an Ofcom investigation is comparable to sexual assault.
This. I'll repeat it again - they've wrecked local television and radio in the UK but if I'll give 'em this: if there's one thing that OFCOM do take very, VERY seriously it is transparency with premium-rate voting.
Somebody is going to get seriously raped for this.
Do people not realised that tv guides get sypnosises wrong all the time. I can imagine people of OFCOM laughing at these complaints.
Reality is, Cher probably got more votes than Mary in the final, she is memoriable wheres Mary wasn't I'm afraid.
I'm getting tired of people wanting to complain when something doesn't go their way.
They will laugh in your face, well behind your back at least. What a waste of time and money. Like somebody else said, people need to grow up who keep moaning about complaining all the time! It really comes over as quite pathetic!
says someone swearing behind their keyboard on an internet forum lol.
hear hear bobby davro - if somebody wants to complain about their feeling misled then let them. What nasty people there are out there. Good luck to all of you who are taking action.
Comments
Unfortunately it'll come down to what is printed in black and white. Syco can claim that the public got the wrong impression and promise to word things clearer next time but it'll be too late for Mary.
*waves to Simon*
Of course you can, the act with the fewest Judges votes!
Where is the definition of VOTES!! That is what is missing here!!
Everyone is citing a web page, but without that definition, all the hysteria is meaningless!
They were obviously all prepared for a sing off.
To be fair, that's what they all said about the BB7 phone voting 'scandal' with Nikki returning, and the complaints were upheld.
This. I'll repeat it again - they've wrecked local television and radio in the UK but if I'll give 'em this: if there's one thing that OFCOM do take very, VERY seriously it is transparency with premium-rate voting.
Somebody is going to get seriously raped for this.
I never vote on these things but can't help but be a bit suspicious when all the signals were that there wasn't going to be a sing off. They could easily have filled the last 15 minutes with padding about the four finalists/competition to date etc.
I know it's an entertainment show an everything, but when people are speanding money voting, there has to be some transparency surely?
And just to add to the confusion they ask them to name who they are sending through instead of sending home. A small detail, but seems like they were chaning all the rules tonight. (Maybe they phrased it that way so it was the person with the fewest votes who went).
Never usually get involved in these conspiracy theories - just can't help but think something wasn't right with how the voting went tonight.
it may say that they can change the rules at any time but they have to inform the public what these rule changes are beforehand otherwise there is no point in having any rules whatsoever.
Yes but the rules were STILL stating that the act with the fewest votes will go home, even AFTER they had apparently changed the rules at the last minute.
If the public are spending to vote, they need to strict to clear and transparent rules. Nothing ambiguous.
TBH I really couldn't give two hoots who wins... after what they did to Wagner last week!
That could just be proof that the website got it wrong.
Surprised at Dannii's decision, but she's entitled to her opinion.
Again, easy to get out of.
The acts find out the public vote, then the bottom two from the public vote go to the Judges Vote, and the one with the fewest votes from the judges leave!
As someone said above, deliberately vague to be open to interpret!
either that or I cant find them. Still reeks of a cover up.
Sorry be realistic, are the voters going to be looking deep into terms and conditions.
X Factor has clearly changed what was precedent so you would have thought they would make clear they were changing. Also it is in black and white on the X Factor site. Also Louis has evidently said it was fewest votes and gone..
And this ahh could have meant fewest judges votes is just a red herring, that wouldn't work as an escape when it is absolutely clear that folk would have assumed that to mean public votes.
I very much doubt OFFCOM would let them away with a technicality like that when there has been such a clear mislead.
Go for it folk - to OFFCOM. And I never thought I'd be saying that.
I bet most who are complaining didn't even vote and yet they love to scream "fix" :rolleyes:
I agree with you, and I think Ofcom should seriously look into this, but I don't think it's okay to say that somebody will get 'raped' for it. I don't think an Ofcom investigation is comparable to sexual assault.
:eek: thats a bit of an extreme punishment :eek:
Me too.
Reality is, Cher probably got more votes than Mary in the final, she is memoriable wheres Mary wasn't I'm afraid.
I'm getting tired of people wanting to complain when something doesn't go their way.
Cher got to the final, get over it!
They will laugh in your face, well behind your back at least. What a waste of time and money. Like somebody else said, people need to grow up who keep moaning about complaining all the time! It really comes over as quite pathetic!
hear hear bobby davro - if somebody wants to complain about their feeling misled then let them. What nasty people there are out there. Good luck to all of you who are taking action.