|
||||||||
FAO all those alleging ‘fix’ … |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#76 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,460
|
Quote:
....
I'm sure those who were voted out early such as Melvin, Tameka and Daisy wouldn't want to know how few voted for them compared with the likes of Danny and Ed Balls. But then nowadays many don't care about how others feel or what effect an event has on their lives. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,161
|
Quote:
Sorry - where exactly did I call you - or any FM specifically - a 'hater'?
![]() The point I was making was that there has been so much venom directed at Ore from Danny fans that it's kind if understandable why some of them (not all of them - see my post) might be branded as that. I'm not going to repeat some of the more odious allegations that have been made, on here and on Twitter, because I don't think they deserve any more space than they've already had (plus the ones on Twitter really would contravene DS T&Cs - which I think you'll find nothing I said did). Nowhere did I say all Danny fans behaved in that way - if you've taken it that way, I'm sorry, but you have got the wrong end of the stick. My question about manipulation was admittedly mischievous - of course there is some manipulation in SCD, but a lot less there than other shows. And time and again the public has proved that however much the judges may hype any contestant, and however much they may try and steer the public in a certain direction, the public have their own opinions, which often contradict the judges'. At the end of the day, the producers/judges can only do so much - it's easily within the gift of the public to upend the leader board, if they are so minded. So I'd dispute your allegation that the public can be made to vote in a certain way - they really can't (exhibit A: Lisa Snowdon). There's also no evidence for your whole theory of Ore being manipulated into the final: if he had been unpopular in the semis, he would not have escaped the dance-off. Clearly he had been there previously but - see my original post - he's not the first finalist, let alone the first winner, to have been in the dance-off previously. There is an assumption that Danny was popular with the public, but his marks from the judges could easily have masked quite a different story - the one that was revealed in the semi-finals. But if you want to see manipulation in Strictly, I suggest you rewatch Series 6, where it was utterly shameless. And as far as the music choices go, they were pretty appalling across the board - I don't think Judge Rinder suffered any more than anyone else. As for all , some, me personally nowhere on the terms and conditions does it make any distinction, basically what ever you meant should not have been said. Of course there has always been manipulation and series 6 lead to a lot of ill feeling. I just feel this year the manipulation has been very heavy handed and didn't necessarily lead to a final 3 that was what a lot of people wanted. It's not enough to say that people voted for those who were in the final, they did, however, why others were in the dance off is a differing matter. Ed Balls famously mathematically gifted said that he and JR worked out that as the numbers of dancers decreased the weighting of the judges scoring assumed such prominence that there became a point where it is impossible for the person at the bottom to avoid the dance off. Now I am not mathematically gifted but if that is the case then actually the voting, scoring and dance off needs a complete overhaul as if people are voting for the bottom person, then no matter how many vote for them they are out due to the judges double input from the dance off that is really unfair. Any mathematically gifted person care to work out if that is true? |
|
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 10,653
|
Quote:
Gosh, sounds really awful.
At least on here, the worst we seem to get (as I saw in the 'Not appreciation' thread) are disgruntled nicknames for Ore such as 'Tiny Tears' (which actually made me laugh when I read it) and the latest one, 'Never Danced BefORE' (yes, they should copyright that and use it as the opposite to the word 'Ringer' when we discuss future series! But I also find the 'He only won it because of the BBC's manipulating PC diversity box ticking agenda' as a bit insulting to Ore's dance talents and all the millions of viewers who voted for him
|
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,727
|
Quote:
RE Ore manipulated into the final, he was placed top of the leader board with ties below. Mathematically it was not possible for him to be in the bottom 2
As for all , some, me personally nowhere on the terms and conditions does it make any distinction, basically what ever you meant should not have been said. Of course there has always been manipulation and series 6 lead to a lot of ill feeling. I just feel this year the manipulation has been very heavy handed and didn't necessarily lead to a final 3 that was what a lot of people wanted. It's not enough to say that people voted for those who were in the final, they did, however, why others were in the dance off is a differing matter. Ed Balls famously mathematically gifted said that he and JR worked out that as the numbers of dancers decreased the weighting of the judges scoring assumed such prominence that there became a point where it is impossible for the person at the bottom to avoid the dance off. Now I am not mathematically gifted but if that is the case then actually the voting, scoring and dance off needs a complete overhaul as if people are voting for the bottom person, then no matter how many vote for them they are out due to the judges double input from the dance off that is really unfair. Any mathematically gifted person care to work out if that is true? Ore 4 + 1 = 5 Danny 3 + 4 = 7 Claudia 2 + 3 = 5 Louise 2 + 2 = 4 Ore and Louise in the DO because public vote takes precedence. It is never impossible for the bottom of the board to escape the DO because if the board is a complete reversal of the judges scores the public vote decides and the top 2 on the judges board would be in the DO. |
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,818
|
Quote:
RE Ore manipulated into the final, he was placed top of the leader board with ties below. Mathematically it was not possible for him to be in the bottom 2
As for all , some, me personally nowhere on the terms and conditions does it make any distinction, basically what ever you meant should not have been said. Of course there has always been manipulation and series 6 lead to a lot of ill feeling. I just feel this year the manipulation has been very heavy handed and didn't necessarily lead to a final 3 that was what a lot of people wanted. It's not enough to say that people voted for those who were in the final, they did, however, why others were in the dance off is a differing matter. Ed Balls famously mathematically gifted said that he and JR worked out that as the numbers of dancers decreased the weighting of the judges scoring assumed such prominence that there became a point where it is impossible for the person at the bottom to avoid the dance off. Now I am not mathematically gifted but if that is the case then actually the voting, scoring and dance off needs a complete overhaul as if people are voting for the bottom person, then no matter how many vote for them they are out due to the judges double input from the dance off that is really unfair. Any mathematically gifted person care to work out if that is true? ...mathematically Ore could have been in the DO in the semi-final, but only if he'd been dead last with the public (4 + 1 = 5). If Danny had topped the vote (3 + 4 =7), then one of Louise and Claudia would have scored 5 (2 + 3) and the other 4 (2 + 2). Ore would have been in the DO by virtue of scoring lower with the public in the tie with the other 5 pointer. I'm not sure Ed and JR are right either. The person at the bottom can escape the DO if they come first with the public (and other scenarios played out) even when down to four contestants. Say you had no ties (which favour the bottom), you could reverse the judges' table exactly and everyone would have 5 points (4 + 1, 3 + 2, 2 + 3, 1 + 4). The two at the top of the judges' table would dance off. ETA: Ellie, you were much quicker and more succinct
|
|
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 185
|
I'm quietly amused by the angry denials of manipulation in SCD and in many ways I really envy the people who steadfastly refuse to believe - or cannot see - how and why it happens.
I work in a job where every word that is written or said is carefully crafted and considered to put across the preferred message or outcome. It's never blatant or resorting to outright deception, but the intent to, shall we say, 'massage' the perception of the person or people receiving the message is real and it happens all the time, in practically every industry around the globe. It can be as simple as the change of a single adverb or adjective, to the careful positioning of lighting or the background music that plays - but there are scores of people in almost every industry whose job it is to adjust these things to make sure that the audience or customer feels or thinks exactly what the industry wants them to. From my personal standpoint, it's incredibly frustrating and I don't always feel 100% comfortable with it because - as a specialist in my field - I tend to write in technical fact which is then altered according to a objectives of a non-technical marketing or PR officer; but hey - that's the world we live in now. I guess I envy those people who don't see these small manipulations and how, accumulated, they can "work their magic" because they can remain, on the whole, blissfully unaware that they are being subtly manipulated and can just take the message (or in this case enjoy the show) for how it is manufactured to be perceived. So I suppose I'm saying - if you enjoy the show and can't see the manipulation or even refuse to believe that it goes on, then who am I or anyone else to ruin that for you. 😊 Ps. And for what it's worth, despite disliking Ore, I can't deny that he danced the best on the final night and on that basis deserved to win. How he got to the final though...well I'll just keep that opinion to myself
|
|
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Titan Uranus
Posts: 31,966
|
The word 'fix' has lost all meaning by this point because it is sadly used all the time when people don't get the result they want.
It seems to be the age of refusing to accept different opinions and assuming there must be something else wrong. So I do take some enjoyment to see them have their bubble burst and maybe learn the lesson that the world doesn't revolve around them. I can imagine the producers just looking at the word 'fix' and laughing, thinking 'Ooo look, another crazy person', because they know the mud doesn't stick anymore. It's been rendered useless due to people's stubbornness. |
|
|
|
|
|
#83 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,727
|
Quote:
ETA: Ellie, you were much quicker and more succinct
![]() It normally happens the other way around and I end up deleting my post because someone's got there first.I agree with you both about the heavy hand of production - it's getting too obvious to ignore these days. I still remember some posts years ago on the K & A thread from the lady connected to the BBC who had attended some of their marketing meetings re SCD - very interesting reading about Matt Baker etc., so I've no problem believing they help out certain people each year in various (non-phone vote fixing) ways. |
|
|
|
|
|
#84 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,798
|
Quote:
The word 'fix' has lost all meaning by this point because it is sadly used all the time when people don't get the result they want.
It seems to be the age of refusing to accept different opinions and assuming there must be something else wrong. So I do take some enjoyment to see them have their bubble burst and maybe learn the lesson that the world doesn't revolve around them. I can imagine the producers just looking at the word 'fix' and laughing, thinking 'Ooo look, another crazy person', because they know the mud doesn't stick anymore. It's been rendered useless due to people's stubbornness. |
|
|
|
|
|
#85 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,161
|
Quote:
It was possible for Ore to be in the bottom 2, for example:
Ore 4 + 1 = 5 Danny 3 + 4 = 7 Claudia 2 + 3 = 5 Louise 2 + 2 = 4 Ore and Louise in the DO because public vote takes precedence. It is never impossible for the bottom of the board to escape the DO because if the board is a complete reversal of the judges scores the public vote decides and the top 2 on the judges board would be in the DO. With fewer dancers you only have say, a one in 6 , one in 5, one in 4 chance of not being in the dance off if you have to top the public vote in order not to be in the dance off if you are bottom of the leader board. So theoretically if someone with say 6 left in the competition is bottom of the leader board but 2 nd in the public vote they would automatically be in the dance off ? Even though they remain very popular with the public maybe that's why there has been a bit of general feeling that fairly popular people even though not very good dancers went a bit too early. |
|
|
|
|
|
#86 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 80,203
|
Quote:
There's going to be a shortage of straw in the Manger this year. So many people clutching at the last straw
![]() Truth is, this series, Ore was the outsider of the top five, in the do twice. When Danny was often top and overmarked at least as much as the rest of them. It seems to be being argued that SUDDENLY they started pimping Ore and he won as a result. And yet he danced brilliantly on the night, and Danny didn't. And Ore deserved to win. Some just cannot accept that at the end of the day, that's what happened. Surprised pretty much everyone, including the bookies. |
|
|
|
|
|
#87 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,727
|
Quote:
Ok thank you, but actually in effect does that mean Ed was right ?
With fewer dancers you only have say, a one in 6 , one in 5, one in 4 chance of not being in the dance off if you have to top the public vote in order not to be in the dance off if you are bottom of the leader board. So theoretically if someone with say 6 left in the competition is bottom of the leader board but 2 nd in the public vote they would automatically be in the dance off ? Even though they remain very popular with the public maybe that's why there has been a bit of general feeling that fairly popular people even though not very good dancers went a bit too early. |
|
|
|
|
|
#88 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 80,203
|
The other thing that gets me is I can't see WHY they would favour Ore.
I can see that sometimes they pimp someone who isn't as good but is obviously very popular. They did this with Abbey Clancey. But Ore WAS NOT popular. He'd ended up in the do twice, his polling wasn't good, and he was lower than the others everywhere, even the more reliable polls, he was still behind (though not so much). So WHY would they do it? Why would it matter SO much? The reasons given seem either mad or hugely arguable - BBC, Black contestant ![]() It didn't, not at all. And if Danny had danced better than Ore, he would have won. Most thought he would win anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
#89 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,161
|
Never liked the dance off, it serves no purpose except to help the judges get the result they want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#90 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,612
|
Quote:
I doubt that it would end the conspiracy theories. Those intent on saying it's a fix because their choice didn't win (which happens every year) would maintain they weren't the true figures or come up with another reason for it being a conspiracy.
Just suppose you were in the competition and when they released the figures you found you only got say 150 votes, when all the others got in excess of 150,000. Firstly how would you feel? And can you imagine the trolls on your twitter account? Wouldn't do a lot for your confidence would it? In fact it could send you into a deep depression. I'm sure those who were voted out early such as Melvin, Tameka and Daisy wouldn't want to know how few voted for them compared with the likes of Danny and Ed Balls. But then nowadays many don't care about how others feel or what effect an event has on their lives. |
|
|
|
|
|
#91 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,471
|
Quote:
The other thing that gets me is I can't see WHY they would favour Ore.
I can see that sometimes they pimp someone who isn't as good but is obviously very popular. They did this with Abbey Clancey. But Ore WAS NOT popular. He'd ended up in the do twice, his polling wasn't good, and he was lower than the others everywhere, even the more reliable polls, he was still behind (though not so much). So WHY would they do it? Why would it matter SO much? The reasons given seem either mad or hugely arguable - BBC, Black contestant ![]() It didn't, not at all. And if Danny had danced better than Ore, he would have won. Most thought he would win anyway. As for quoting polls: where have you been?!? 2016 is the year where all the pollsters were proved wrong! ![]() There is no reason for the producers to favour Ore, despite all the crazy theories being flung around which are, frankly, an insult to all the contestants. At the end of the day, pretty much every contestant in Strictly has done well for themselves - they have all raised their profiles and, let's be real, that's why they do it. I don't doubt that Danny will land a prime West End role in the next year. |
|
|
|
|
|
#92 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,471
|
Quote:
It was possible for Ore to be in the bottom 2, for example:
Ore 4 + 1 = 5 Danny 3 + 4 = 7 Claudia 2 + 3 = 5 Louise 2 + 2 = 4 Ore and Louise in the DO because public vote takes precedence. It is never impossible for the bottom of the board to escape the DO because if the board is a complete reversal of the judges scores the public vote decides and the top 2 on the judges board would be in the DO. |
|
|
|
|
|
#93 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,727
|
Quote:
BIB - unfortunately the semi-final results make it clear that Ore must have polled more than Danny and Claudia to escape the dance off. Which rather blows your allegation out of the water. However many CAPITAL LETTERS you use.
Ore 4 + 2 = 6 Danny 3 + 1 = 4 Claudia 2 + 3 = 5 Louise 2 + 4 = 6 Although he could just as easily have topped the vote in the semi, considering how the final turned out. |
|
|
|
|
|
#94 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 965
|
Quote:
Not necessarily more than Claudia, if it was
Ore 4 + 2 = 6 Danny 3 + 1 = 4 Claudia 2 + 3 = 5 Louise 2 + 4 = 6 Although he could just as easily have topped the vote in the semi, considering how the final turned out. |
|
|
|
|
|
#95 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,924
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#96 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,924
|
Quote:
That's all while the show is running though, I know those reasons. They could release the figures now it's all over without upsetting anyone surely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#97 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 490
|
Quote:
I'm quietly amused by the angry denials of manipulation in SCD and in many ways I really envy the people who steadfastly refuse to believe - or cannot see - how and why it happens. Ps. And for what it's worth, despite disliking Ore, I can't deny that he danced the best on the final night and on that basis deserved to win. How he got to the final though...well I'll just keep that opinion to myself
![]() There really isn't a great deal of reason for Strictly to manipulate a particular winner, but there is to maximise viewing figures. That most likely means the 'journey' contestant and the 'ringer' both need to get in the final, so you have people invested in the quality and the story. Ore was likely the more popular of the 'journey' contestants than Claudia was. You get manipulated in every walk of life, supermarket placement is just one example. To think a major money spinning TV program has none would be naïve in the extreme, to assume that means it is a fix is taking it a level too far. |
|
|
|
|
|
#98 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In sunny (hah!) Yorkshire
Posts: 13,940
|
Quote:
I'm not saying they're fixing the voting but there is something iffy about why they won't release the figures. Why?
That decision hasn't changed over the years that I am aware of. |
|
|
|
|
#99 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,727
|
Quote:
As I've said before, they won't release the voting figures for two reasons, one the oft touted one of it being a deterrent to celebrities taking part if people can see how unpopular they are and secondly, Ofcom many years ago, around the beginning of the show's lifetime actually before even the FOI Act, said the figures counted as commercially sensitive information which would be damaging to BT (providing the calls at that time) as it would give their competitors an idea of how much money they were making from the service.
That decision hasn't changed over the years that I am aware of. |
|
|
|
|
|
#100 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,924
|
Quote:
I would get rid of the dance off because I don't think the judges/producers should get two chances to get the result they want.
If you're pretending that Claudia going straight out in the semi (or, who knows, Danny?) would have been more acceptable to the conspiracy theorists and gripers, however, I think the expression is 'in your dreams'! |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:46.





It normally happens the other way around and I end up deleting my post because someone's got there first.