|
||||||||
FAO all those alleging ‘fix’ … |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#101 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In sunny (hah!) Yorkshire
Posts: 13,939
|
Quote:
I get the celeb part, as no one wants to have their unpopularity proven, but if they just release the voting percentages rather than the actual vote numbers, how could that tell competitors how much they make? And why isn't it commercially sensitive for whoever provides the call service for I'm a Celeb?
At the time the other reality TV shows with a public vote didn't exist I assume, I don't watch them so have no idea when IACGMOH started. |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#102 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,727
|
Quote:
The dance-off that was only put in place because the public wasn't happy with the bottom scorer going out without a chance to redeem themselves, you mean? It wasn't the judges who demanded a second decision. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to have that responsibility taken away from them since it's being used chiefly as a means to impugn their reputations these days.
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'! Whoever went out in the semi would've caused moans from some people, but at least there would've been one less excuse for them. |
|
|
|
|
|
#103 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,818
|
Quote:
The dance-off that was only put in place because the public wasn't happy with the bottom scorer going out without a chance to redeem themselves, you mean? It wasn't the judges who demanded a second decision. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to have that responsibility taken away from them since it's being used chiefly as a means to impugn their reputations these days.
ETA: Dammit, Ellie. Again!! ![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#104 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
|
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. And if you change who gets to the final ,the whole storyline changes. Claudia has a better journey story than Ore, dances as good as anything that turns up, and a potentially far more vote friendly, and spectacular show dance. As it is, the judges can just continue to overmark Ore, praise what isn't there, repeat his journey story, as often as possible, and enough voters will believe what they are told, or find Louise and Danny unconvincing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#105 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,727
|
Quote:
The fact that there is a combination that keeps him out of the dance off, isn't much of an argument. Its not an answer to the point made - because that combination is very unlikely - which means the consequence is also unlikely, compared to the others. its irrelevant- because his high (over) marks meant the judges had an existing reason to save him anyway, against anyone. . And its irrelevant, because the bigger issue is in the scoreboard order as a whole. The marks are in an order , and individually such, as to not only keep Ore out of the dance off - but save him if he ends up there. .But what they also do, is to practically ensure that Claudia faces someone in the dance off, with an equal or superior mark, that can be used to excuse sending her home. If you mark the dances as many viewers and professionals would have, Claudia is far less likely to hit the bottom two, and would have had a superior marked dance - which would have made sending her home very controversial. Its not only Ore's inflated marks, but other people's low marks, that determines who gets to the final.
And if you change who gets to the final ,the whole storyline changes. Claudia has a better journey story than Ore, dances as good as anything that turns up, and a potentially far more vote friendly, and spectacular show dance. As it is, the judges can just continue to overmark Ore, praise what isn't there, repeat his journey story, as often as possible, and enough voters will believe what they are told, or find Louise and Danny unconvincing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#106 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 🍷 🎼 ☔
Posts: 10,117
|
Quote:
The fact that there is a combination that keeps him out of the dance off, isn't much of an argument. Its not an answer to the point made - because that combination is very unlikely - which means the consequence is also unlikely, compared to the others. its irrelevant- because his high (over) marks meant the judges had an existing reason to save him anyway, against anyone. . And its irrelevant, because the bigger issue is in the scoreboard order as a whole. The marks are in an order , and individually such, as to not only keep Ore out of the dance off - but save him if he ends up there. .But what they also do, is to practically ensure that Claudia faces someone in the dance off, with an equal or superior mark, that can be used to excuse sending her home. If you mark the dances as many viewers and professionals would have, Claudia is far less likely to hit the bottom two, and would have had a superior marked dance - which would have made sending her home very controversial. Its not only Ore's inflated marks, but other people's low marks, that determines who gets to the final.
And if you change who gets to the final ,the whole storyline changes. Claudia has a better journey story than Ore, dances as good as anything that turns up, and a potentially far more vote friendly, and spectacular show dance. As it is, the judges can just continue to overmark Ore, praise what isn't there, repeat his journey story, as often as possible, and enough voters will believe what they are told, or find Louise and Danny unconvincing. Had Claudia topped the public vote it would mean Louise would face the dance off instead, so perhaps they knew how much support Louise had at that point, making sure it was a tie for the bottom two just to ensure her vote counted for more. |
|
|
|
|
|
#107 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
|
Quote:
I don't remember there being any demand from viewers for the dance off. It was first introduced in series 4, randomly in the quarter final, to save Emma Bunton from elimination against Louisa Lytton, and was not popular at all. I don't think the judges demanded it, I think the producers did because they want as much control over the result as possible. Why would viewers want it? So people they haven't bothered to vote for can be dragged to the final? There have been more unpopular results with the DO than in series without it.
Whoever went out in the semi would've caused moans from some people, but at least there would've been one less excuse for them. The dance off problem only comes when the marking that produces the dance off fails to be consistent with comments , what the viewer sees, or what other informed markers would award, or when, what looks like unjustified hyping of some candidates, is reflected in decisions. . When the marks and dance off results ,coincidentally even, begin to follow the logic of who has other commitments before the series end, or that exclude them from the tour , or deal with a major PR problem for the show, its natural people will begin to wonder why the marks and outcome were as they were. |
|
|
|
|
|
#108 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,727
|
Quote:
The dance off was put in to stop the joke candidates surviving even on a residual vote, and because the vote displayed unacceptable biases . its meant to preserve the best of the viewers bottom two, and gives a chance to get rid of the Sergeants, Widdecombe's . Grants and Balls, if they are still coming high enough in the vote to survive a public vote elimination. its pointless having a dancing competition if the final ends up being between a joke candidate and one good dancer, or if one of the best goes home because they look different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#109 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 353
|
Quote:
The fact that there is a combination that keeps him out of the dance off, isn't much of an argument. Its not an answer to the point made - because that combination is very unlikely - which means the consequence is also unlikely, compared to the others. its irrelevant- because his high (over) marks meant the judges had an existing reason to save him anyway, against anyone. . And its irrelevant, because the bigger issue is in the scoreboard order as a whole. The marks are in an order , and individually such, as to not only keep Ore out of the dance off - but save him if he ends up there. .But what they also do, is to practically ensure that Claudia faces someone in the dance off, with an equal or superior mark, that can be used to excuse sending her home. If you mark the dances as many viewers and professionals would have, Claudia is far less likely to hit the bottom two, and would have had a superior marked dance - which would have made sending her home very controversial. Its not only Ore's inflated marks, but other people's low marks, that determines who gets to the final.
And if you change who gets to the final ,the whole storyline changes. Claudia has a better journey story than Ore, dances as good as anything that turns up, and a potentially far more vote friendly, and spectacular show dance. As it is, the judges can just continue to overmark Ore, praise what isn't there, repeat his journey story, as often as possible, and enough voters will believe what they are told, or find Louise and Danny unconvincing. Ore's dances were up and down through the series- he had an average patch after the Jive for a couple of weeks. But then got back to form and was phenomenal in the final - where the best and most popular dancer on the night in the judges and public's opinion became the champion. WELL DONE STRICTLY CHAMPION ORE !!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
#110 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,733
|
i sometimes think i'd need a diploma in advanced conspiracy and quantum logic in order to even start to understand just how deep the rabbit hole of seduction, manipulation and out right shenanigans is.
plug me back into the matrix. and make me someone too important to be banned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#111 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,943
|
Quote:
So in series 8 and 9, where there was no dance off, who was the joke contestant who reached the finals? Who was the best one who went home because they looked different? I don't remember anything in those two series that would justify bringing back the DO, the producers just wanted even more control over the result.
In series nine though it seemed to make no difference at all atlhough the only contestant of mixed ethnicity was Chelsee who was too good. I don't think Johnny Ball ought to have been the first boot - ageism bid. |
|
|
|
|
|
#112 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 80,198
|
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.
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. ![]() That was only in the semis AFTER the scores, he must have had a low vote to be in the do the previous week. As for pollsters, yep, they sure are unreliable, but that's all the Beeb had an' all - there wasn't any secret poll that said anything else. I pretty much agree with the rest of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#113 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,233
|
It's funny to me how, depending on how the conspiracy theory swings, the judges use both overmarkimg and undermarking to ~fix it. Duffers get overmarked to encourage people to let them go on a high, ringers are undermarked to inspire sympathy, yada, yada, yada.
Nothing about the SF was a fix. Ore woul have still been in the DO if the public didn't vote for him, especially with the tie and Claudia would have been safe if the public had voted for her. This desperate need to belittle Ore and explain why certain celebs votes didn't stand up the last two weeks is ridiculous. Maybe the insesant and unpleasant articles and comments and abuse directed st him for the final week made a lot of people sympathetic so when he went and danced so wonderfully they were more inclined to vote for him. |
|
|
|
|
|
#114 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,727
|
Quote:
Just to play Devil's advocate here - in series eight - Widdy almost reached the quarter finals and Jimi Mistri got sent home earlier than he should have been and the first boot was Goldie.
The DO doesn't really help anything, it just moves the danger zone higher up the leaderboard and causes more annoyance among viewers, because they can speculate about wrong decisions by four judges rather than accepting a lower combined score (although I know some people will never accept anything whatever happens ).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#115 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,129
|
Quote:
I get the celeb part, as no one wants to have their unpopularity proven, but if they just release the voting percentages rather than the actual vote numbers, how could that tell competitors how much they make? And why isn't it commercially sensitive for whoever provides the call service for I'm a Celeb?
Releasing percentages would be just as bad as releasing actual votes for those at the bottom. |
|
|
|
|
|
#116 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,943
|
Quote:
It's funny to me how, depending on how the conspiracy theory swings, the judges use both overmarkimg and undermarking to ~fix it. Duffers get overmarked to encourage people to let them go on a high, ringers are undermarked to inspire sympathy, yada, yada, yada.
Nothing about the SF was a fix. Ore woul have still been in the DO if the public didn't vote for him, especially with the tie and Claudia would have been safe if the public had voted for her. This desperate need to belittle Ore and explain why certain celebs votes didn't stand up the last two weeks is ridiculous. Maybe the insesant and unpleasant articles and comments and abuse directed st him for the final week made a lot of people sympathetic so when he went and danced so wonderfully they were more inclined to vote for him. |
|
|
|
|
|
#117 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,943
|
Quote:
Widdy stayed one week longer than Ed Balls stayed with a dance off. As to Jimmy and Goldie - look what happened in this series to Tameka and Melvin with the DO. At least in series 8 Michelle Williams hung on through several bottom twos without having to be saved by the judges.
The DO doesn't really help anything, it just moves the danger zone higher up the leaderboard and causes more annoyance among viewers, because they can speculate about wrong decisions by four judges rather than accepting a lower combined score (although I know some people will never accept anything whatever happens ). |
|
|
|
|
|
#118 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 🍷 🎼 ☔
Posts: 10,117
|
Quote:
So you wouldn't be bothered if you got 1% of the vote and the other 15 shared 99% between them?
Releasing percentages would be just as bad as releasing actual votes for those at the bottom. Semi final & final I cannot see how the percentages would hurt, and it might alleviate the fix claims. Can you really see any one of the semi finalists on much under 20% of the vote? |
|
|
|
|
|
#119 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,727
|
Quote:
So you wouldn't be bothered if you got 1% of the vote and the other 15 shared 99% between them?
Releasing percentages would be just as bad as releasing actual votes for those at the bottom. I was only questioning the commercial sensitivity reason. I was not saying they should release the percentages, just saying that if they did it would not let any competitors know how much money they were making, |
|
|
|
|
|
#120 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,233
|
Quote:
They gave the voting figures for SPOTY. Just a straight public vote from those names offered.
Semi final & final I cannot see how the percentages would hurt, and it might alleviate the fix claims. Can you really see any one of the semi finalists on much under 20% of the vote? |
|
|
|
|
|
#121 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 🍷 🎼 ☔
Posts: 10,117
|
Quote:
The thing is, if you're the type of person who screams fix because your fave goes out, you're probably going to be the type of person who won't believe any proof. So no matter how many voting numbers were released, if you believe the big bad judges, the producers and the Bbc are willing to risk the success of one of the biggest shows on television in order to conspire to stop your favourite winning, the chances are you'd still get tin foil hat conspiracies about why the voting percentages weren't reliable.
This year it is the judges over marking and subsequent placement on the leader-board, plus the lack of critique for some, where for others they are slated for the same error that I question. Along with false claims of never danced before and throwing to the wolves those with a modicum of previous dancing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#122 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,124
|
Can't help feeling it was jolly sporting of Oti and Danny to go along with the conspiracy to fix a win for Joanne and Ore. I wonder if the BBC sent the boy's round or maybe it was written into their contracts that they should make two significant and visible errors in one of their routines on final's night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#123 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,161
|
Quote:
Can't help feeling it was jolly sporting of Oti and Danny to go along with the conspiracy to fix a win for Joanne and Ore. I wonder if the BBC sent the boy's round or maybe it was written into their contracts that they should make two significant and visible errors in one of their routines on final's night.
From ridiculous music choices, ignoring faults that others are slated for , both under marking and over marking to manipulate the board and comments deliberately made to boost or undermine certain contestants to produce what ever story they feel is best that keeps the viewing figures up. I am grateful for it in a way as I want the show to continue BUT I felt this season it was done with a very heavy hand and left me with a feeling that the final 3 were chosen almost in spite of the fact that the public are supposed to be deciding their winner. The possibilities of less manipulation leading to a different 3 in the final and a generally less dissatisfication with Ore winning will always be there for me. It's always been there though the show has been rocked by huge upsets over seemingly popular dancers leaving earlier than they should has boosted headlines for years. I just felt the show manipulated results throughout the weeks a little too heavily. People are fixated on the Ore win, on the night he didn't make mistakes and did more crowd pleasing dances, he won, fair play to him, it's the weeks leading up to that win that bother me. Not him winning on the night , which he did fair and square on the night, but he and all the final 3 could not have been there if the PTB had not been so heavy handed in their manipulation. You can see I am conflicted. I want the show to be successful, but I fear this year sSCD lost a little too much of the feeling that the public were getting what they wanted. |
|
|
|
|
|
#124 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,124
|
Quote:
Now you know that's silly, what is equally silly is denying that storylines are manipulated, the whole season long so that the PTB produce good viewing figures to ensure the continued success of the show.
From ridiculous music choices, ignoring faults that others are slated for , both under marking and over marking to manipulate the board and comments deliberately made to boost or undermine certain contestants to produce what ever story they feel is best that keeps the viewing figures up. I am grateful for it in a way as I want the show to continue BUT I felt this season it was done with a very heavy hand and left me with a feeling that the final 3 were chosen almost in spite of the fact that the public are supposed to be deciding their winner. The possibilities of less manipulation leading to a different 3 in the final and a generally less dissatisfication with Ore winning will always be there for me. It's always been there though the show has been rocked by huge upsets over seemingly popular dancers leaving earlier than they should has boosted headlines for years. I just felt the show manipulated results throughout the weeks a little too heavily. People are fixated on the Ore win, on the night he didn't make mistakes and did more crowd pleasing dances, he won, fair play to him, it's the weeks leading up to that win that bother me. Not him winning on the night , which he did fair and square on the night, but he and all the final 3 could not have been there if the PTB had not been so heavy handed in their manipulation. You can see I am conflicted. I want the show to be successful, but I fear this year sSCD lost a little too much of the feeling that the public were getting what they wanted. ) But I disagree about manipulation. I agree that remarks and marks do not always seem to be given even handedly, but that goes for all contestants. Sometimes it's swings other times its roundabouts. I thought they were ridiculously generous to the model from Liverpool for example. I also thought they didn't give enough credit to Mark Benson or Mr Robinson ( name forgotten - it's late) For me it doesn't suggest a conspiracy but simply that dance is subjective and this isn't a real competition so it isn't that important. Plus we don't get the same view as the judges and annoyingly the camera crew frequently cut off their all important feet. |
|
|
|
|
|
#125 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 90,767
|
Quote:
The fact that there is a combination that keeps him out of the dance off, isn't much of an argument. Its not an answer to the point made - ...
That claim of mathematical impossibility was the only "fact" adduced to support the claim that Ore was "manipulated into the final". So it is relevant and effective to show it was not true. The rest of your post is a similar conspiracy theory in which judge's marks aren't their genuine opinion of the dancing but instead are carefully calculated both to protect Ore and to eliminate Claudia. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:36.








) But I disagree about manipulation. I agree that remarks and marks do not always seem to be given even handedly, but that goes for all contestants. Sometimes it's swings other times its roundabouts. I thought they were ridiculously generous to the model from Liverpool for example. I also thought they didn't give enough credit to Mark Benson or Mr Robinson ( name forgotten
- it's late)