and that they should all be up every week. If that happens what's the point of the show? Don't we and the bookies then know exactly who will be evicted and who will win?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
not necessarily we know every year roughly who is going to win, its usually the pretty boy and a complete and utter waste of space.imo
if the format changed and the HMs just gave valid reasons why we should keep them in, then leave it entirely up to us, then "who goes you decide" means just that. there are many HMs who slipped past the hms noms and we loathed and wanted them out long before the hms put them up. also it would put a stop to the block voting such as we have seen this year, and it will keep the hms on their toes guessing who is for the chop.
if the format changed and the HMs just gave valid reasons why we should keep them in, then leave it entirely up to us, then "who goes you decide" means just that. there are many HMs who slipped past the hms noms and we loathed and wanted them out long before the hms put them up. also it would put a stop to the block voting such as we have seen this year, and it will keep the hms on their toes guessing who is for the chop.
Some good points there Mozart - BUT if we lost the HM's nominating each week we'd lose a lot of tension and excitement from the show. A lot of the frisson in the house comes from them having to nominate each other and we may not like how it pans out sometimes but it would a be a poorer show without it.
quote:Originally posted by littleleicesterfox:
Some good points there Mozart - BUT if we lost the HM's nominating each week we'd lose a lot of tension and excitement from the show. A lot of the frisson in the house comes from them having to nominate each other and we may not like how it pans out sometimes but it would a be a poorer show without it.
yes maybe you are right, but contestants are becoming too cock sure of themselves, and the formatting does need tweaks and changes. to cause a bit of friction and competivness they could add a couple of tasks where they have to compete and win to be saved from the public vote. I just think and always have thought nominating each other is wrong, we are supposed to decide who goes, but we only decide who goes from those that the HMs dislike.
I agree that the nominating should be tweaked but to stop it altogether ruins the show. If everybody is up every week the game is a foregone conclusion.
quote:Originally posted by mozart:
not necessarily we know every year roughly who is going to win, its usually the pretty boy and a complete and utter waste of space.imo
if the format changed and the HMs just gave valid reasons why we should keep them in, then leave it entirely up to us, then "who goes you decide" means just that. there are many HMs who slipped past the hms noms and we loathed and wanted them out long before the hms put them up. also it would put a stop to the block voting such as we have seen this year, and it will keep the hms on their toes guessing who is for the chop.
I think its time the public chose - but BB will fiddle the vote like before - so i dont vote and waste money on them .As far as the bookies are concerned,they can 'take their chances '
like the rest.
I think it's refreshing that they are able to discuss nominations.
It's cost me my favourite housemate this year (Freddie) but from a game perspective I like it.
It's cost me my favourite housemate this year (Freddie) but from a game perspective I like it.
I think the BB rule about noms is crazy, to say you have to have a valid reason to nominate someone, why, it doesn't make sense, like Sophie says, she couldn't nominate because she couldn't stay within the rules.
She said she didn't have any reason to nominate anyone.
That sounds fair enough to me, so how can it be against the rules.
Surely BB doesn't want the HM's to lie again.
What kind of a twisted show is it?
She did the best thing anyway.
Good on your Sophie, hope you win now as well.
She said she didn't have any reason to nominate anyone.
That sounds fair enough to me, so how can it be against the rules.
Surely BB doesn't want the HM's to lie again.
What kind of a twisted show is it?
She did the best thing anyway.
Good on your Sophie, hope you win now as well.
quote:Originally posted by Hicky:
She said she didn't have any reason to nominate anyone.
That sounds fair enough to me, so how can it be against the rules.
Of she she would have had reasons to nominate someone. I'm not buying this 'I love everyone' rubbish that fence sitters want to come out with. They just want to look nice. Sophie has done enough bitching in the house to convince me she does not think everyone in there is an angel.
And if it was just the public deciding every week anyone controversial would leave very quickly and it would be a boring show with the pretty young and boring boys taking over even earlier than usual.
quote:Originally posted by Free Thinking:quote:Originally posted by Hicky:
She said she didn't have any reason to nominate anyone.
That sounds fair enough to me, so how can it be against the rules.
Of she she would have had reasons to nominate someone. I'm not buying this 'I love everyone' rubbish that fence sitters want to come out with. They just want to look nice. Sophie has done enough bitching in the house to convince me she does not think everyone in there is an angel.
And if it was just the public deciding every week anyone controversial would leave very quickly and it would be a boring show with the pretty young and boring boys taking over even earlier than usual.
She said she didn't have a valid reason to nominate someone, she didn't want to lie and make a reason up, which is of course against the rules, although a lot do.
So she did the right thing.
Pity the others didn't do the same instead of making false excuses to nominate.
it wouldnt be so bad if they were all up infact i think if theres an eviction next week they will all be anyway and its going to be a vote to win and after the person with the least votes is evicted next friday the phone lines will stay open for people to continue voting for there favorite 
.
.quote:Originally posted by Hicky:quote:Originally posted by Free Thinking:quote:Originally posted by Hicky:
She said she didn't have any reason to nominate anyone.
That sounds fair enough to me, so how can it be against the rules.
Of she she would have had reasons to nominate someone. I'm not buying this 'I love everyone' rubbish that fence sitters want to come out with. They just want to look nice. Sophie has done enough bitching in the house to convince me she does not think everyone in there is an angel.
And if it was just the public deciding every week anyone controversial would leave very quickly and it would be a boring show with the pretty young and boring boys taking over even earlier than usual.
She said she didn't have a valid reason to nominate someone, she didn't want to lie and make a reason up, which is of course against the rules, although a lot do.
So she did the right thing.
Pity the others didn't do the same instead of making false excuses to nominate.
Well I don't believe her. And other people did come up with valid reasons. Bea (even if she isn't that likeable) came up with valid reasons I think.
It's not the end of the world, but it IS stupid to refuse to nom. They all knew the rules when they went in, and signed contracts accordingly.
Much as I like Siavash, BB could have knocked all this daftness on the head last time by telling him: "Fine - the exit door to your right is open. Please leave the diary room and the BB house."
Bet Sophie would have thought of valid reasons this week if she knew the alternative was the boot.
Much as I like Siavash, BB could have knocked all this daftness on the head last time by telling him: "Fine - the exit door to your right is open. Please leave the diary room and the BB house."
Bet Sophie would have thought of valid reasons this week if she knew the alternative was the boot.
The housemates should not be allowed to nominate the same person 2 weeks running. This would help spread the votes around.
A failure to nominate reduces the prize money by ÂĢ5000 for each time a name is not given.
Then watch how many of the greedy barstewards hold onto their principles.
A failure to nominate reduces the prize money by ÂĢ5000 for each time a name is not given.
Then watch how many of the greedy barstewards hold onto their principles.
They knew when they went in the house what the rules were. I agree that voting for the same people every week or block voting spoils it. So BB need to sort it out. Also people who are nominated should be able to save themselves and put someone else on the chopping block to make it a bit more interesting. I just think not nominating and being able to discuss it all seems pointless.
In all fairness the nominations have been as predictable as a forum poll.
I much prefer the way they did it with saivash and sophie, and i want to see more of the same thanks.
I much prefer the way they did it with saivash and sophie, and i want to see more of the same thanks.
quote:Originally posted by Demantoid:
Bet Sophie would have thought of valid reasons this week if she knew the alternative was the boot.
There's no doubt about that. She saw that Siavash's punishment seemed very lenient so she just did the same.
quote:Originally posted by longcat:
Also people who are nominated should be able to save themselves and put someone else on the chopping block to make it a bit more interesting.
Yeh, some REAL random element thrown into the mix instead of just Endemol putting up who they want.
All HMs must be punished equally as well, no favouritism.
quote:Originally posted by luxor:
The housemates should not be allowed to nominate the same person 2 weeks running. This would help spread the votes around.
A failure to nominate reduces the prize money by ÂĢ5000 for each time a name is not given.
Then watch how many of the greedy barstewards hold onto their principles.
that's what I think they should do.