I'm going out on semi final night too.
I have different feelings about this year's series too - when considering how I felt about previous series.
However, I don't think that any of that signals the death of my affections for SCD, or that it indicates that SCD is on its last legs (pardon the pun

).
I'm going out on Saturday because I have to. OH has arranged something in good faith, believing that it would appeal to me - and it would be churlish of me to say 'no' because I want to stay in and watch SCD

I've never recaptured the feeling of engagement I got from watching the series when Mark and Karen won. I haven't even managed to recapture the feeling of engagement I had with each of them!
That doesn't mean that that I haven't enjoyed SCD since then. I have. It doesn't mean that I'm not enjoying this series. I am.
I don't feel that the levels of apathy and discontent on this board this year are any worse than they have been in the years I've been reading and posting on here. I do think that it has been emphathised by the fact that the appreciations threads now have a separate home.
In previous years, you could look at the list of threads on the front page and see a mixture of 'appreciation' threads, 'discontented' threads, 'BBC bias/conspiracy' threads, and 'genuine discussions' threads (plus other categories).
However, the 'appreciation' threads tended to dominate - giving a more positive air to the forum. At first glance....
The discussions about the so-called 'BBC bias towards Chris' remind me strongly of the same debates about Emma Bunton in the first year I posted here. Right down to seeing some of the same names, making the same arguments

.
Seriously, though, I am sure that it would be possible to pick out some of the old posts about Emma/BBC bias an, by changing the names of the couple in question, make it look as if they'd been taken from a discussion about Chris/BBC bias. (Others saw 'bias' towards Mark R and Matt Dawson - resulting in a drunken washboard contribution to the 'Strictly Bridget Jones' thread

)
In the intervening years too there have been discussions about bias towards dancer 'x' -
and dancer 'y'
and dancer 'z'. So, for me, very much a case of same ld, same old'.
The discussions about there being 'no dance off/BBC motives' also remind me of the discussions about last year's 'voting fiasco'.
Last year, Tom Chambers received the highest number of votes from the public on the night. However, because of certain scoring issues (ie a draw between the other two couples) he would have inevitably been in the dance off. So, the dance off, and the elimination, were cancelled at the last minute.
The BBC were criticised for not having foreseen this problem, and having the whole thing turn into 'a fiasco'.
I don't know enough about statistics and scoring to be able to state categorically that there is no way that the highest scoring dancer (on the public vote) could end up in the dance off.
I can understand the BBC wanting to avoid the risk of that happening. I can also see that the simplest way to do that is to scrap the dance off - leaving the onus/blame on the public for not 'supporting' whoever goes out.
I'm just no good at this 'conspiracy theory' malarkey, am I?