Some peoples logic on here is utterly bizarre isn't it ?
I'm pretty sure those who prefer evict voting are the ones who ruined BB year after year. The entertainment suckers.
The whole negative voting system is flawed in every way.
Hence why no other reality show uses it !

I never campaigned for VTS! I always preferred VTE, I just think it fits with the "evil" theme of BB.

I personally think that both methods of voting should be included. Some weeks when lots of HMS are up, VTS should be used, and when a few are up VTE can be used. That makes everyone happy!

The simple answer to this thread is NO! Vote to save is the only good format change channel 5 have implemented. Think with the last two series had we had vote to evict both Aaron and Deana would have likely gone before the final (Aaron when up against Harry, Jay and Faye) and Deana in the double eviction against Adam, Ashleigh and Scott. This would have been terrible for both series and would have caused a huge upset on here.

I'm definitely in favour of this, voting to save made all the wrong people stay last year! Voting to evict is much easier and direct.

In your opinion !!!!!!!

I used to think that was true, because it made logical sense. But now that we've had vote-to-save for a while, I no longer think so. A lot of people find it hard to vote "to save" a HM they dislike even if that's the way to get rid of a HM they dislike more; and quite a few people seem to think votes are just battles of "fan bases" now and that only fans of the HMs involved vote. So it looks like there could well be a substantial difference; but how far off "the same" to-save and to-evict are in 1-on-1 cases is something no one knows,


People vote to evict the HM they want to evict. How is that ganging up?

Deana going might have been good. Aaron wouldn't have gone. (Remember that Aaron's fans made good use of the cheap facebook votes.)

Conor and Deana would not have been the most important characters if they'd gone by week 5, and the series might have been a better one.

(Not that it's clear evictions would actually have gone the way you suggest. If it had been vote to evict, we don't even know that BB would have risked the same week-1 twist.)

But that's what vote-to-save gave us.

Besides, if vote-to-evict means all the interesting people go out at the start, how do you square that with the most popular and most watched series (BBs 3, 5, 7) all using vote-to-evict? It certainly doesn't look like all the interesting people went out at the start in those BBs -- or indeed in most of the others back when it was to-evict.


Like BBs 3, 5 and 7 were killed by vote-to-evict?


That he came top in to-save votes does not mean he'd have survived if votes had been to-evict, especially since we can't assume he'd have been up against the same HMs in the same combinations.

Also, "he was top of the polls in the first week and came top of every eviction vote he was in" is misleading, because it makes it sound like he was top in week 1 and nothing ever put that in doubt. However, can you even find a week 1 poll here (I haven't been able to)? In the polls I can find in this forum, Luke doesn't do so well, as I've pointed out before:


Also, his 2nd place in the "gut reaction" poll isn't all that high a 2nd. He's barely ahead of Benedict and Caroline.

"People who are hated STILL get their comeuppance with a vote to save"? Do you mean like Conor getting only 50k rather than 100k? He wasn't removed by any eviction votes.

In week 5, when you think Conor's fanbase might have evicted Deana, here are the percentages: Arron 12.80%, Conor 20.44%, Becky 21.30%, Deana 45.46%. If we take that as indicating how much support each had, it looks like Deana's supporters could take out Conor even if they also sent some votes Arron's way.

Re your bb12 examples, imo they were not because "people got together" but because Aaron had a lot of supporters (he was overwhelmingly popular in polls here, for example), and his supporters made good used of cheap Facebook votes (something not available in subsequent years). They were so determined to get Anton out that they 'over-saved' Jem, putting her 2nd(!). She was far from popular. (Faye lost later, vs Louise, because they weren't so keen to support her that week.)

The main problems with the 4-way eviction in bb11 imo were (1) that Josie was immune, and (2) that 4 HMs were being evicted, something that had never happened before or since. If only 1 HM had been evicted, it would have been John James. If it had been 1 evictee and Josie had faced the vote too, then I think it would have been a valid test of who deserved to get to the final. I don't think vote-to-save would have made it any more valid.

But then we get to the fundamental difference of opinion that's behind a lot of the debate about to-evict vs to-save: it's about which HMs are interesting and entertaining. Note how people keep saying that to-save keeps in the interesting, entertaining HMs and to-evict throws them out. Well, I don't think those are the most interesting or entertaining HMs -- and neither did the people who voted to evict them. Otherwise, we have to believe the old myth that vote-to-save somehow made the voters irrational, so that they voted out the very HMs who were keeping them interested in the show.

You say "three of the best HMs left in one night" that time in bb11. I don't think so. I was glad to be rid of Corin, Sam, and Steve. I'm guessing your 3 were Corin, Sam, and John James, so maybe we both thought John James was good. Plenty of people didn't, though, or he wouldn't have received so many votes; and he was still there for almost the whole series.

Tbf I was all for VTS on ch4, because I saw there would be a huge difference in 1v1 and little difference in multiple people being up.

Maybe it's bias on my part, my mind will say stuff like "Oh Lydia was the type of person that we thought would be saved if we swapped to VTS". Or maybe it's down to amount of votes now, making it much tighter anyway. Looking back if twitter voting was on ch4 VTE would've been even worse. I'll agree to keeping VTS if everyone else agrees to no eviccy week 1 and no noms tampering.

There is a misconception that all the interesting chracters are lost by a vote to evict and the show becomes boring.

1. We only lose one interesting character per week.There are plenty of weeks and charcters in the series.

2. The less "interesting" can start to blossom as they get a better chance of being heard. The dynamics are more interesting.

3. Too many "interesting" characters can be as off-putting as not having enough.

4. Hated characters don't find out how much we hate them quickly enough.

And sometimes we too often blame the voting system when it's kind of the producers' fault for casting so-called "boring" housemates in the first place. BB3, BB5, and BB7 were all VTE series, but it was because of the excellent casting (especially BB5, IMO) that they had such stellar ratings, and even if someone was evicted, there always guaranteed there'd be another housemate ready to entertain the viewers with their brand of craziness, lol.

Vote to save never works when there are only 2 HM's up. That happened last year most of the time. I agree with what you're saying.
I've never been an advocate of vote to save anyway.

Failing to save Shivonne against Conor is one example.

Shievonne was unbearable that week. Vote to save/evict wasn't going to gain her enough support to stay. Voters tend to look short term (e.g. voting out Victor and Michelle, who had bad weeks, and leaving Jason in the final which seemed very unlikely mid-series).

No! Keep vote to save but with at least 3 people up for eviction each week.

Vote to save is the best change C5 have had IMO although I would like it to be three or more up every week as well.

Yes, I couldn't bring myself to save Shiv even to get rid of Conor as she had been so awful that week. That said, I'm not sure that vote to evict would have given us a different result that week, as a lot of Outsider supporters saw Shiv as the bigger threat that week! Any other week, then yes I think that it would have made a difference!

Exactly, vote to evict caused too many good housemates to leave in the past, let's not bring that back.

This is how I think it should be done....

During launch night there should be a tombola and they should draw out HOW the voting will be for the first six weeks.

Example:

save - save - evict -save - evict - evict

But they should NEVER tell the housemates what kind of voting went on. The people in the house would NEVER be able to fathom what is going on; thus, they wouldn't be able to "predict" how to act.

cheers

Keep a vote to save, but have the housemates nominate three people each time.