Originally Posted by cantos:
“Get a grip, is this the actions of a normal person.”
“Get a grip, is this the actions of a normal person.”
Yes.
It's called common courtesy. I know it's not very common on the internet, but people should at least try.
Should voting be restricted to ONE per person?
3 of 6
Yes.
It's called common courtesy. I know it's not very common on the internet, but people should at least try.
Originally Posted by LaughingSock:
“Yes.
It's called common courtesy. I know it's not very common on the internet, but people should at least try.”
“Yes.
It's called common courtesy. I know it's not very common on the internet, but people should at least try.”
Well it has been missing in quarters this year
Originally Posted by amelia_lee:
“Nope, it's not a private forum, if it was then it wouldn't be on, but those there for anyone to see and use just like any part of the forum.
It's sillyness to feel that you are excluded from normal forum use just because it is an appreciation forum. It's no different.
I post in the tennis thread, anything I post there is not confidential and open for all to see and use, why would it even matter?”
“Nope, it's not a private forum, if it was then it wouldn't be on, but those there for anyone to see and use just like any part of the forum.
It's sillyness to feel that you are excluded from normal forum use just because it is an appreciation forum. It's no different.
I post in the tennis thread, anything I post there is not confidential and open for all to see and use, why would it even matter?”
So its 'sillyness' (silliness) to feel that you are excluded from normal forum use but ok to be classed as not normal ? (see my above post)
(I am guessing it must be ok to you as you re-quoted the post and agreed)
People should be allowed to vote as they please,as for block voting it's always happened so what makes this year so different, someone's favourite not winning how sad.
Originally Posted by Scencia:
“So its 'sillyness' (silliness) to feel that you are excluded from normal forum use but ok to be classed as not normal ? (see my above post)
(I am guessing it must be ok to you as you re-quoted the post and agreed)”
“So its 'sillyness' (silliness) to feel that you are excluded from normal forum use but ok to be classed as not normal ? (see my above post)
(I am guessing it must be ok to you as you re-quoted the post and agreed)”
Why on earth would you be excluded from normal forum use? It is not a private forum.
Yes it's completely fine with me. Why would someone put something out on a public forum they didn't want read or ever used. If you don't want it used that way, don't post it out in the open.
Originally Posted by Roberta_Lewis:
“People should be allowed to vote as they please,as for block voting it's always happened so what makes this year so different, someone's favourite not winning how sad.”
“People should be allowed to vote as they please,as for block voting it's always happened so what makes this year so different, someone's favourite not winning how sad.”
Because people block voted for the wrong dancer apparently!! If they'd all block voted for the right dancer (ie the favourite of the bittercakes posters), this wouldn't be an issue.
Just saw I've been quoted. How absolutely ridiculous. First of all, I online voted so I didn't spend a single penny. Even if I had spent money, why would it matter? What people do is none of anyone else's business. Secondly, if this is a way of releasing your frustration because your favourite didn't win well that's even more immature and lunatic-ish than voting over 60 times. We wanted him to win, so we voted. It's simple as. BBC don't restrict you to one vote, so why would I only vote once??
Originally Posted by Roberta_Lewis:
“People should be allowed to vote as they please,as for block voting it's always happened so what makes this year so different, someone's favourite not winning how sad.”
“People should be allowed to vote as they please,as for block voting it's always happened so what makes this year so different, someone's favourite not winning how sad.”
Absolutely people should be allowed to vote as they please, but once only!
IMO block voting devalues the show and makes a mockery of the credibility of the whole online voting process, which is why there's such a volume of bad feeling on this forum for the result.
I think with some of the admissions mentioned in an earlier post of block voting online adds up to nearly 2000 votes between 9 people who posted on DS (probably a lot more 'shy' block voters too).
This should be proof enough the online voting system hasn't been thought through properly and needs to change.
I mean, 2000 online votes... between 9 people!?
I thought JAL were worthy winners over the series so I've no axe to grind, but I'd have liked them to have won fair & square on the night without any 'weighting' taking place, and I'd say the same for any other contestant as well.
The fact that that person went and pulled out and quoted all those comments from the AT (which is huge) is pathetic...
All I would like to say is if one person votes once for a particular dancer and someone else votes 50 times for another dancer; is that the true representation of the popularity of someone.
Originally Posted by andyd1302:
“Absolutely people should be allowed to vote as they please, but once only!
IMO block voting devalues the show and makes a mockery of the credibility of the whole online voting process, which is why there's such a volume of bad feeling on this forum for the result.
I think with some of the admissions mentioned in an earlier post of block voting online adding up to nearly 2000 votes between 9 people registered (probably a lot more 'shy' block voters too), proof enough the online voting system hasn't been thought through properly.
I mean, 2000 online votes... between 9 people!?
I thought JAL were worthy winners over the series so I've no axe to grind, but I'd have liked them to have won fair & square on the night without any 'weighting' taking place, and I'd say the same for any other contestant as well.”
“Absolutely people should be allowed to vote as they please, but once only!
IMO block voting devalues the show and makes a mockery of the credibility of the whole online voting process, which is why there's such a volume of bad feeling on this forum for the result.
I think with some of the admissions mentioned in an earlier post of block voting online adding up to nearly 2000 votes between 9 people registered (probably a lot more 'shy' block voters too), proof enough the online voting system hasn't been thought through properly.
I mean, 2000 online votes... between 9 people!?
I thought JAL were worthy winners over the series so I've no axe to grind, but I'd have liked them to have won fair & square on the night without any 'weighting' taking place, and I'd say the same for any other contestant as well.”
Really? Oh my word, that's just crazy! Wow, yeah, just wow.
Originally Posted by amelia_lee:
“Really? Oh my word, that's just crazy! Wow, yeah, just wow.”
“Really? Oh my word, that's just crazy! Wow, yeah, just wow.”
Your point?
Jay had more fans. Every poll had him in the lead with 45-75%
Even if you restricted everyone to 1 vote he more than likely would have won.
All the polls I've seen where it asks if the right person won are 50-55% which suggests half wanted Jay to win and the other half were split between Kellie and Georgia.
Every dancer will have fans who multivote, Jay just had more fans.
Even if you restricted everyone to 1 vote he more than likely would have won.
All the polls I've seen where it asks if the right person won are 50-55% which suggests half wanted Jay to win and the other half were split between Kellie and Georgia.
Every dancer will have fans who multivote, Jay just had more fans.
The simple answer is yes.
Mobile telephones and mobile internet on them is now endemic. That means everybody has a chance to vote on their own phone. And if they don't, who cares? It's not life or death. But these prats should not be rewarded in their attempts to skew the voting for free by casting multiple votes and proxy hopping because they haven't anything better to do.
Mobile telephones and mobile internet on them is now endemic. That means everybody has a chance to vote on their own phone. And if they don't, who cares? It's not life or death. But these prats should not be rewarded in their attempts to skew the voting for free by casting multiple votes and proxy hopping because they haven't anything better to do.
Originally Posted by Becky245:
“Just saw I've been quoted. How absolutely ridiculous. First of all, I online voted so I didn't spend a single penny. Even if I had spent money, why would it matter? What people do is none of anyone else's business. Secondly, if this is a way of releasing your frustration because your favourite didn't win well that's even more immature and lunatic-ish than voting over 60 times. We wanted him to win, so we voted. It's simple as. BBC don't restrict you to one vote, so why would I only vote once??”
“Just saw I've been quoted. How absolutely ridiculous. First of all, I online voted so I didn't spend a single penny. Even if I had spent money, why would it matter? What people do is none of anyone else's business. Secondly, if this is a way of releasing your frustration because your favourite didn't win well that's even more immature and lunatic-ish than voting over 60 times. We wanted him to win, so we voted. It's simple as. BBC don't restrict you to one vote, so why would I only vote once??”
I think you have actually pointed out people's issue in your first sentence.
You didn't want to pay, so used the free votes, which is fine, but obviously if you didn't want to pay, you would never vote as much as you managed to squeeze through online, so if they limit it to three per house online then it should avoid these those thousands between a couple of people.
To me, there is nothing crazy about posting quotes that are there to be quoted and read and it happens pretty much everyday on forums everywhere, I don't know why the AT would presume to be exempt.
Originally Posted by Becky245:
“Just saw I've been quoted. How absolutely ridiculous. First of all, I online voted so I didn't spend a single penny. Even if I had spent money, why would it matter? What people do is none of anyone else's business.”
“Just saw I've been quoted. How absolutely ridiculous. First of all, I online voted so I didn't spend a single penny. Even if I had spent money, why would it matter? What people do is none of anyone else's business.”
Originally Posted by Becky245:
“Ok got to 25 email accounts before it went 20:30... i think we'll be ok to get him to the next round”
“Ok got to 25 email accounts before it went 20:30... i think we'll be ok to get him to the next round”
You made it public business by declaring it on an open forum that you tried to skew the voting. We didn't make you do that. You did that all by yourself.
Originally Posted by CravenHaven:
“ should not be rewarded in their attempts to skew the voting for free by casting multiple votes.”
“ should not be rewarded in their attempts to skew the voting for free by casting multiple votes.”
^^^^^ This...
Originally Posted by cantos:
“All I would like to say is if one person votes once for a particular dancer and someone else votes 50 times for another dancer; is that the true representation of the popularity of someone.”
“All I would like to say is if one person votes once for a particular dancer and someone else votes 50 times for another dancer; is that the true representation of the popularity of someone.”
Well, sort of. Yes, they only have one fan each. However, fan two is the more moved. The fan world has its own rules, and by those rules, the second dancer is more popular because they have inspired the effort it takes to vote this many times. Popularity is a 3D concept, not just how many but how much. I would never do it - but it's only unfair if the opportunity to vote like this didn't exist for all contestants. It does and block voting will have taken place for all of them.
Even with one vote per person voting Jay would have won. He was leading by a large margin in every poll I read. Fans of all the finalists multi-voted and a number of them would have used various ways. All fans do it in every show on television. I actually think the judges overmarked Kellie on the night and may have even encouraged viewers to vote against their bias. Right winner won in the end.
Yeah, obviously its people's right to vote however many times as they please, but a system where small cartels of individuals can rack up 1000s of free votes in a matter of minutes isn't a valid one, and should be scrapped. It's all well and cute when it's some nutty fans on the Internet who do it, but some of these celebs have PR agencies behind them that, if they were so minded, could effectively buy a series win and the attendant publicity for their client very cheaply.
Originally Posted by CravenHaven:
“You made it public business by declaring it on an open forum that you tried to skew the voting. We didn't make you do that. You did that all by yourself.”
“You made it public business by declaring it on an open forum that you tried to skew the voting. We didn't make you do that. You did that all by yourself.”
Woo I've had a shout out too on page 1 😀. Fame at last!!
I didn't "skew" any voting, nor did anyone from the AT, I voted online within the rules. The number of votes I cast was a reflection of how much I wanted Jay to win, coupled with what I perceived to be the unfair way he was treated last night, particularly in comparison to Kellie. That's my opinion, I know others will strongly disagree and that's fine. I would have had no problem with one viewer one vote, as I think Jay would still have won
*heads back to the attic*
Originally Posted by Sabbatical:
“Well, sort of. Yes, they only have one fan each. However, fan two is the more moved. The fan world has its own rules, and by those rules, the second dancer is more popular because they have inspired the effort it takes to vote this many times. Popularity is a 3D concept, not just how many but how much. I would never do it - but it's only unfair if the opportunity to vote like this didn't exist for all contestants. It does and block voting will have taken place for all of them.”
“Well, sort of. Yes, they only have one fan each. However, fan two is the more moved. The fan world has its own rules, and by those rules, the second dancer is more popular because they have inspired the effort it takes to vote this many times. Popularity is a 3D concept, not just how many but how much. I would never do it - but it's only unfair if the opportunity to vote like this didn't exist for all contestants. It does and block voting will have taken place for all of them.”
Inspires levels of becoming fanatic? Because that is what it is.
Nobody on earth would inspire me to act in such a crazy way.
I think the world has become deluded in so many ways.
I tried to skew the voting? My god. You could have done the exact same if you wanted your favourite to win as much as we did? just don't get how this year is different? The year Sophie Bexter was in it I (along with the AT thread) did the same. We voted loads and she came 4th. Jay just was more popular.
Originally Posted by Monkseal:
“Yeah, obviously its people's right to vote however many times as they please, but a system where small cartels of individuals can rack up 1000s of free votes in a matter of minutes isn't a valid one, and should be scrapped. It's all well and cute when it's some nutty fans on the Internet who do it, but some of these celebs have PR agencies behind them that, if they were so minded, could effectively buy a series win and the attendant publicity for their client very cheaply.”
“Yeah, obviously its people's right to vote however many times as they please, but a system where small cartels of individuals can rack up 1000s of free votes in a matter of minutes isn't a valid one, and should be scrapped. It's all well and cute when it's some nutty fans on the Internet who do it, but some of these celebs have PR agencies behind them that, if they were so minded, could effectively buy a series win and the attendant publicity for their client very cheaply.”
This is a really good point.
3 of 6
