I suggest you check the percentages for each eviction he was up. He was miles ahead and no way would he have been evicted

The vote to save experiment was a disaster, and the people who supported vote to save have been proven wrong.

That is why they changed it back.

what a load of poppcock !
it worked brilliant for the channel.
hence the scratching of heads.

It made the show a complete farce where a woman-hating thug can make it to the end with no consequences for his actions.

Hence them changing it back.

^^^ THIS

Did you watch the C4 years? If so, why? From the sounds of it, you all hated those days.

he would have made it anyway.com



first eviction against lydia/victoria one of the girls still would have gone

then against shivonne, shivonne still would have gone!

then against most of the house, caroline STILL would have gone.

I didn't. Maybe you're imagining.

As for Conner he didn't win and wouldn't have and the only reason he won the money he did was because the producer's gave him the opportunity. Indeed they could even have thrown him out earlier, but didn't. So to use that as an excuse for the change is totally and completely irrelevant.

No he wouldn't. I think I gave very good reasons why he would have won just the same. It is Jay who might have lost his place in the final, not Aaron. Aaron's only danger was in a multiple vote to evict against several other popular housemates: say Aaron, Faye, Alex, Harry; it might have been difficult in those circumstances for Aaron's fans to coordinate a vote. But there was no such vote.

That was a one to one, and the result would have been exactly the same.


No she wouldn't. Deana/ Lydia was one to one, so the result would have been the same. She would never have lost against Arron, who was massively irritating that week, and Conor, who was already being seen to bully her. And I'm sure no one in the world would suggest she would have been out against Becky and Ashleigh in that later vote: Becky in particular was massively disliked by then.


People were saving Conor to protect the outsiders, since Conor was misleadingly friendly with them at that time and Sheivonne had turned against them. No change.


None of the results in BB13 would have changed except that Conor might have gone instead of Caroline. In BB12 it might have got Jay out earlier. That is all.

What a lot of rolling eyes for something we can't possibly know. Would Conor have gone instead of Caroline? I think he would, yes. Imagine Caroline in the white room.

I hate vote to evict. All the entertaining housemates will be gone within a matter of weeks. They probably went back to vote to evict because less people were enticed to spend money to save housemates than to evict them.

And they've obviously reverted back to VTE for a reason. I'd of thought people on here would be salivating over any change to the format that would remind them of the good old days on C4.

Like most times, wonkeydonkey is correct.

That's probably the only change that isn't worthwhile, though they needed to make it 3 up with save anyway.

Bit like saying the whole of the original Big Brother concept (and most of the seminal series) were wrong.

I don't think there's anything wrong with vote to evict, or getting rid of baddies in good evictions - it made the series in the first place.

What made the series in the first place was not having it cheap and tacky, and giving the public a good official website with live stream and having a cast that had variety.

The only thing Conor brought of interest was a despicable rant about assaulting a woman. Apart from that he was mostly in the background (that's one thing the editors did right, thank god).
So I think BB13 could have done without him to be honest.


If that's the reason then dayum, why is it everyone else always has to suffer because of Conor - Arron, Shievonne, Luke S, the voting process ect
Conor is just bad news and bad luck, unfortunately to other people and not himself.

I agree with all of that except for the part about Luke winning the one to one "by a fair margin".

In another thread, you said Nikki "barely survived against Sam". That was 1-on-1 vote in which Sam had 53.7%. What percentage do you think Luke had when he survived against Lauren?


I don't think they are the three least likeable. Anyway, the vote freeze makes it easier to save someone than in a classic vote-to-evict.

I made that point last night. What ever they do people will moan about how the nomination process is carried out.

Wrong. Stopped reading there.

Lol. I hadn't noticed it was the same. But in my defence, I only meant 'fair' in the sense of 'indisputable', not in the sense of 'by masses of votes'. There can be no dispute that Luke beat Lauren; and he was never in danger again, either under vote to save or vote to evict.



The thing about the vote freeze is that BB knows, as we do not, how the voting went the first time round. They have a good idea, therefore, who is likely to be saved on Wednesday.

My theory is that they are expecting it to be Dexter; and that they positively like the idea of a fight to the death between Sallie and Gina, with no distractions. I can see that it has possibilities for high drama, no bad thing so early on.

I don't know who else is very dislikeable btw except Jemima; most of them are still in the honeymoon "pottering about being friendly to everyone" phase. Give them time and no doubt something nasty will arise in the woodshed.

BB changed it without knowing what difference it would make. Voting to save had been used only in isolated cases before. That BB's gone with vote-to-evict this week suggests that vote-to-save can't have seemed all that much better to them.

BB3 BB5 - just examples of a couple of great series that were vote to evict.

And the evictions were part of what made those series.

Vote to save- gets rid of the boring housemates and keeps the characters in.

BB13 winner- can't even remember his name and can just about recal his face. Possibly the worst ever winner.

No further comment required, other than getting rid of the big characters is needed for other characters to develop. The same people dominating the show for weeks on end is tedious, it was bad enough with Speidi for 3 weeks in January.

There were some, including me. I never liked the change to voting to save.

And last year, voting to evict might have evicted Conor, which I think would have been a good thing.

When people say it wouldn't have evicted him, they can point to the 1-on-1 vote against Shievonne which he won by a large margin. (Shievonne had only 19.67% of the two-save votes.)

However, 1-on-1 evictions aren't the ones where the choice of system makes the most difference, and there two votes in which Conor was up against more than one.

Consider the one in which Arron went when the to-save percentages were Arron 12.80%, Conor 20.44%, Becky 21.30%, and Deana 45.46%. It was the week after Conor's rant, and Deana's supporters (and many others) had more objection to Conor than to Arron. So while it's not guaranteed, there's a pretty good chance Conor would have gone then. He'd also have been in more danger that with vote-to-save in the later vote in which Caroline went.

Sure, Conor's just one HM, but he had a huge effect on that series, and not for the better. There are other examples too. For instance, Lesley would most likely have survived in week 2 of bb6 if it had been vote-to-save. A lot of people wanted Lisa out in bb10, to the point where some wanted BB to rig things against her. But when Lisa was up for the first time, it was with a bunch of others, and BB made it vote to save. Hira went instead. Those are some examples.

Hira's also an example of another sort. She wasn't the biggest character, but she'd been fun in the Alex task and she had potential; she certainly wasn't the worst HM in there. For some of us, quieter HMs can be among the most interesting.

Those who prefer vote-to-save can find examples too, and examples can be argued over endlessly. Ultimately, though, it can't be decided by individual problem cases. People have to decide which system they think is better overall.

I think most of the disagreement about the voting system is because people disagree about which sorts of HMs make for a good and interesting BB.

Most people who want voting to save seem to think that voting to-evict voting ruined series after series by evicting all the big characters and leaving us with dullards; and they think voting to save will do the opposite.

But that's a notion of what makes a HM a big character, and of what makes a series intereting, that not all share. For example, from another thread:

Originally Posted by mickmercer:
“Well I'm glad all three are up.

They're not big 'characters', as in genuinely interesting people you'd be fascinated to have on your tv for weeks,
...”

I think that's more true of those who want vote-to-save, because we have less experience with it, and because some of its failure to give them all they want can be put down to BB still allowing only 2 to be up.

We've had years of experience with voting to evict, and most people have seen it evict some HMs they liked. I never thought vote-to-evict would necessarily give me the results I wanted.