2 noms means your up for eviction

mrblankmrblank Posts: 5,687
Forum Member
who likes this rule? i do ,it ment jackie was evicted without it ,her stay would have been much longer.

Comments

  • CLL DodgeCLL Dodge Posts: 115,622
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    I like 3 or more housemates up each week.

    I do not like 2 nominations and you are up.

    They went too far.
  • SillyBillyGoatSillyBillyGoat Posts: 22,266
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't like it, seems far too extreme. I liked the very simple thing they had before: 2 or more housemates with the most nominations up for eviction, though I wouldn't object to that being changed to 3 or more.

    Also, this "2 or more noms" thing seems to have been quite selective. I don't like them changing their own rules depending on who's up, and no amount of "BB reserves the right to change the rules at any time" excuses that level of tampering.
  • Sirocco758Sirocco758 Posts: 518
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Hate that rule. One of the worst Channel 5 team behind BB have made. If it was 4, 3, 2 with those 3 up then ok I can let that go but in NO way if the noms were 8, 6, 6, 3, 2 that the HM with 3 let alone 2 noms be up for eviction.

    All money grabbing by Endemol or Channel 5 imo!
  • Fried KickinFried Kickin Posts: 60,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    CLL Dodge wrote: »
    I like 3 or more housemates up each week.

    I do not like 2 nominations and you are up.

    They went too far.
    Two nominations and you're up gives any couples way too much power.
  • SegaGamerSegaGamer Posts: 29,068
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CLL Dodge wrote: »
    I like 3 or more housemates up each week.

    I do not like 2 nominations and you are up.

    They went too far.

    I agree. The way they have it now is really stupid. It makes watching nominations less fun.
  • ABCZYXABCZYX Posts: 12,099
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Being automatically up if you have two nominations means that there is more chance of bloc voting, which I really dislike.

    It should always be the two or more people with the most votes.
  • HickyHicky Posts: 50,488
    Forum Member
    mrblank wrote: »
    who likes this rule? i do ,it ment jackie was evicted without it ,her stay would have been much longer.
    I would put them all up every week, or let them choose a straw to decide who of the 5 should be up.

    I don't think letting the HM's choose is a good idea anyway, it takes the control away from the public, they are the ones watching after all.
    The HM's don't even know whats going on, they can't see what we see, even the little we do see is more than they see.
  • Dorkus_Dorkus_ Posts: 3,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    With the introduction of vote to save having three or more with the most nominations makes sense. A part of me does miss a good old head to head though.

    The '2 noms and you're up' they use really bothers me. Don't see the point of it at all. Jackie's eviction annoyed me particularly as they didn't state the change of rules or anything like that.
  • SG-1SG-1 Posts: 16,709
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think the 2 nominations rule has to be in force if it gets more than 2 up every week.

    If 2 hms get 5 noms and several others only get 2 noms then its important to put those with 2 noms up so at least 3 are up in a vote to save.
    If 2 hms get 4 noms,1 gets 3 noms and a few others get 2 noms then theres no point in putting those up with 2 noms as you have your 3 for eviction process to work.
    Its that simple.

    I think 5 have already said they are continuing to experiment to get the best show and sometimes that means something that they do will not be liked but other things do make the show better like the much needed make sure at least 3 are up in a vote to save.
  • rfonzorfonzo Posts: 11,771
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think the idea does not make sense. It should just remain, 'the housemates with the most nominations.'
  • Aura101Aura101 Posts: 8,327
    Forum Member
    I thought they just made it up as they went along these days ..
  • richie4evarichie4eva Posts: 217,838
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Aura101 wrote: »
    I thought they just made it up as they went along these days ..

    Got that right and they have that convenient 'BB can change the rules at any time' clause to hide behind :(
  • VeriVeri Posts: 96,996
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SG-1 wrote: »
    I think the 2 nominations rule has to be in force if it gets more than 2 up every week.

    If 2 hms get 5 noms and several others only get 2 noms then its important to put those with 2 noms up so at least 3 are up in a vote to save.

    Reasoning like that is one of the reasons why I detest vote-to-save.

    The switch to voting to save should have been enough for those who want to have the voting system favour the so-called "big characters". But no, they had to keep pushing and pushing for more, and now people who get only 2 nominations go up. Never mind that it's now much easier for people to conspire successfully to get someone up. Nothing matters except protecting those "big characters" from the viewers. :(
    If 2 hms get 4 noms,1 gets 3 noms and a few others get 2 noms then theres no point in putting those up with 2 noms as you have your 3 for eviction process to work.
    Its that simple.

    No, because there should be a simple rule that's the same every week, not a complicated rule that twists and turns to ensure that the sacred "3 up" is accomplished. :(
    I think 5 have already said they are continuing to experiment to get the best show and sometimes that means something that they do will not be liked but other things do make the show better like the much needed make sure at least 3 are up in a vote to save.

    It's so far from being "much needed", that it would be much better if BB went back to the old rules that were used for all the years when BB was a real success: vote to evict; two or more with the most nominations go up.
  • Aura101Aura101 Posts: 8,327
    Forum Member
    Veri wrote: »
    Reasoning like that is one of the reasons why I detest vote-to-save.

    The switch to voting to save should have been enough for those who want to have the voting system favour the so-called "big characters". But no, they had to keep pushing and pushing for more, and now people who get only 2 nominations go up. Never mind that it's now much easier for people to conspire successfully to get someone up. Nothing matters except protecting those "big characters" from the viewers. :(



    No, because there should be a simple rule that's the same every week, not a complicated rule that twists and turns to ensure that the sacred "3 up" is accomplished. :(



    It's so far from being "much needed", that it would be much better if BB went back to the old rules that were used for all the years when BB was a real success: vote to evict; two or more with the most nominations go up.

    What are you talking about??
    The 2 or more noms rule seemed to appear during the last civilian series which they also changed back to vote to EVICT, which I thought was an absolutely disastrous idea, if they insist on having multiple housemates up each week then positive voting should be instilled from the off. Christ knows who thought up these bizarre new rules.
  • VeriVeri Posts: 96,996
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Aura101 wrote: »
    What are you talking about??

    I was talking about what was said in the post I was answering.
    The 2 or more noms rule seemed to appear during the last civilian series which they also changed back to vote to EVICT, which I thought was an absolutely disastrous idea, if they insist on having multiple housemates up each week then positive voting should be instilled from the off. Christ knows who thought up these bizarre new rules.

    I'm glad they changed it back to voting to evict, but the "two noms and you're up" rule could be used with voting to save as well, and SG-1 said "its important to put those with 2 noms up so at least 3 are up in a vote to save".

    I detest both "two noms and you're up" and voting to save. I BB should have stayed with the system that was used in all the most successful series -- ones with many more viewers than they can manage now.
  • Aura101Aura101 Posts: 8,327
    Forum Member
    Veri wrote: »
    I was talking about what was said in the post I was answering.



    I'm glad they changed it back to voting to evict, but the "two noms and you're up" rule could be used with voting to save as well, and SG-1 said "its important to put those with 2 noms up so at least 3 are up in a vote to save".

    I detest both "two noms and you're up" and voting to save. I BB should have stayed with the system that was used in all the most successful series -- ones with many more viewers than they can manage now.

    Agree to disagree there.
    I think fans will forever argue over 'voting systems' , though im pretty sure in hindsight endemol/channel 4 would never have used vote to evict if they could start again all the way from series 1.
    And the later series of channel 4 era were disastrous.
    Each series would tail off by around week 8 from bb7 onwards.
    Its far more beneficial for the public to simply vote for who they WANT to watch. No more arguments over public voting 'out' characters etc etc. The decision would be final because the public are voting for who they want to see. And hated characters would still get evicted (as we have seen on channel 5) because the public would not vote for them. This is how it works on pretty much all versions of big brother around the world now, i really dont see the problem?
    People desperatly clinging onto the channel 4 days really need to move on because it will never be the same.
    Besides i have found the celebrity versions on channel 5 far better than the later celebrity versions on channel 4.
  • VeriVeri Posts: 96,996
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Aura101 wrote: »
    Agree to disagree there.
    I think fans will forever argue over 'voting systems' , though im pretty sure in hindsight endemol/channel 4 would never have used vote to evict if they could start again all the way from series 1.

    It could have been changed at any time while on C4, if hindsight had made it seem the right choice. BB's performance since the move to C5 doesn't do anything to say voting to save is better. Even on C5, BB hasn't stuck with it consistently.
    And the later series of channel 4 era were disastrous.
    Each series would tail off by around week 8 from bb7 onwards.

    If so, there's no reason to think it was because of vote to evict.
    Its far more beneficial for the public to simply vote for who they WANT to watch. No more arguments over public voting 'out' characters etc etc. The decision would be final because the public are voting for who they want to see. And hated characters would still get evicted (as we have seen on channel 5) because the public would not vote for them. This is how it works on pretty much all versions of big brother around the world now, i really dont see the problem?

    How is it any more "beneficial" for the public to vote one way rather than the other? How's it an improvement if arguments about the public voting out characters are replaced by arguments about who the public keeps in? (There are plenty of such arguments about what happens in other UK shows that have people voting to keep in.) How on earth would the decision be any more "final" with voting to save than with voting to evict?

    Re "And hated characters would still get evicted (as we have seen on channel 5) because the public would not vote for them" -- you mean like Conor was evicted? Yes, he went right out the door, clutching £50k too, but not because of any vote. Instead, he'd repeatedly been kept in.

    Besides, by the same reasoning, the HMs people want to keep in would be in no danger from voting to evict, because the public would not vote for them.
    People desperatly clinging onto the channel 4 days really need to move on because it will never be the same.

    People making such digs at forum members ought to put a sock in it. :p
    Besides i have found the celebrity versions on channel 5 far better than the later celebrity versions on channel 4.

    I think the ones on C5 have been nauseating.
  • VeriVeri Posts: 96,996
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SG-1 wrote: »
    I think the 2 nominations rule has to be in force if it gets more than 2 up every week.

    If 2 hms get 5 noms and several others only get 2 noms then its important to put those with 2 noms up so at least 3 are up in a vote to save.

    Just to be clear, that does not need the "2 noms" rule, because the "three or more with the most noms" rule would do it just fine.
    If 2 hms get 4 noms,1 gets 3 noms and a few others get 2 noms then theres no point in putting those up with 2 noms as you have your 3 for eviction process to work.
    Its that simple.

    Which would mean there's no point in having a rule that puts everyone with at least 2 noms up -- if the goal is just to ensure at least 3 are up.

    So the goal must be something else, such as to get even more HMs up or to make it easy for a gang of two to put up their target every week.

    Rule recap:

    1. Traditional: The two or more HMs with the most nominations face the vote.

    (Start with the highest number of nominations anyone received. Put all the HMs with that many noms up -- it can be more than one because of ties. If at least 2 are up, it's done; otherwise continue with the next highest number of nominations.)

    2. Revised: Change it to "the three or more", and "If at least 3 are up, it's done", and keep the rest the same.

    3. Everyone with 2 or more than one nominations goes up The "two noms means you're up" of the thread title.
Sign In or Register to comment.