http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Thu, 1 Apr 2004 15:40:07 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/01/092917.php#comment-55117 I am not suggesting that FOX is altering the votes. I am saying that they tell the judges to overly praise candidates so that the voters keep on the people FOX wants to go to the finals. BUT I am much more interested in the fact that people don't see that this is all about GAME THEORY. My beef is that people do not understand that NOBODY is voted off. Rather, the person with the least amount of votes is gone. There is a difference. Most of the public who watches the show, although they vote, don't understand the distinction (And ramificaitons) of voting for you who want to stay on vs. voting someone off. I get MAD because cannot believe that Amy Adams is gone. BUT, if you consider that the system is based on most votes for you want to stay on, it makes perfect sense: **** The favorites have a huge fan base who votes, so they have no worries. Camille and John Stevens did horrible on Tuesday. When singers do bad, this inspires their fan base to vote like crazy to "save them." The people flying under the radar (doing good, but not awesome) don't get votes. People don't vote for them, because, well, they think they are safe. They are not in need of votes. This is what happened in Amy and Latoya's case. People did not vote in hoards for either of these people because they felt they didn't need to, or went out to save Camille/John Stevens. Thus Amy Adams is gone. Now IF you got to vote people off, all the voting fans of everyone but Camille and Jon would be voting Camille and Jon off, thus insuring either Camille or Jon would be off. It is THIS difference that no one sees and I get so furious when people say that the show voting itself is rigged, when the only thing shady about the voting is that you vote you want to stay on, and not off. How many times do I have to stress this point for any AI fans/media to get it?????? Amy Adams is off because you vote to keep people on. If you voted to get people off, it would have surely been Camille or John Stevens. End of story. ********** 55117@blogcritics.org Thu, 1 Apr 2004 15:40:07 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/01/092917.php#comment-55101 Pappy - Believe me - my entire website is dedicated to this show. If there is anyone who understands the mechanics of voting, I would be on that list. I have addressed this issue with my readers time and time again, but nobody seems to listen. Most people vote for their favorites and then they vote a couple of times for a reject or two in order to get their favorite contestant's biggest threat booted. Although the show reserves the right to pick and choose whomever they want, I do not think they are doing that, and here is why... The disclaimer appears for only a millisecond during the closing credits of the show. However, it has little merit if any. Viewers are induced to call the show as the announcer, host and judges inform the viewers each and every episode (multiple times, I might add) that their votes are what determines the outcome. I would imagine that the disclaimer only appears for situations like Corey Clark (AI2) where a contestant engages in disqualifying behavior. If the show is in fact picking and choosing contestants despite the votes(as you and every other conspiracy theorist suggests), then their lawyers have no brains in their heads. Each and every episode entails an inducement for Americans to pick and choose their winners. They are asked to call in their votes BEFORE the discalimer appears. Therefore, the disclaimer is not valid. Moreover, not every person has an adequate notice of this disclaimer because we are not forced to watch the credits as they roll across our television sets. If the show is in fact acting as you have suggested, then it will only be a matter of time before the truth comes out and Fox is involved in a lawsuit for deceit, unfair competition, misrepresentation and fraud, etc. Now - as for my reviews - for future reference, they are not to be taken seriously. There are times that I too will throw conspiracy theories into the mix. However, that doesn't mean I really believe any of them. 55101@blogcritics.org Thu, 1 Apr 2004 14:13:48 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/01/092917.php#comment-55079 Pappy - I wouldn't call Ruben a "hack" at all. He's a good singer and America is the one who chose him to win, not FOX, though I must admit that I don't like the type of songs he sings. And I seriously doubt "FOX" would even care if Clay was gay or not when they are profiting from running a reality show (Playing It Straight) about a woman trying to systematically pick a straight guy from a group of gay and straight guys. FOX will seemingly exploit anybody -- gay, straight, short, rich, poor, fat, skinny, pretty, ugly (The Swan) or otherwise. It does seem though sometimes that the judges do go easy on people that they should be harsher on and they treat others harshly that they should go easier on, but I'm sure the judges have favorites certain contestants just like the rest of us do. If humans are involved it's never going to be a perfect system. 55079@blogcritics.org Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:22:43 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/01/092917.php#comment-55040 "...because everyone knows LaToya London is going to face off against Fantasia in the final!!!!" Of course we know this, because FOX tells the judges to overly praise LaToya and Fantasia to make sure they get enough votes to survive to the finals, much the same way they never said an ill word about that hack Ruben Studdard simply because FOX wanted him to win because FOX execs thought Clay Aiken was gay and did not want to risk having a gay Idol winner. 55040@blogcritics.org Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:55:59 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/01/092917.php#comment-55039 (Repost) You obviously do not understand how Idol voting works... Did it ever occur to anyone besides myself that there is a HUGE difference between voting people off and voting to keep people on? If Idol voting had been to vote off the person you want off, it would have been a Camille vs. Jon Stevens slugfest. BUT since you vote for you want on, if someone has a bad night + a large fan base, those fans are inspired to vote. Further the top people's fans are always inspired to vote. That left Amy Adams, good but with a small voting fan base, out of the loop. FOX does the vote who you want to stay on purposely. They find it more interestingly because you honestly have no idea who will get the LEAST amount of votes (NOT VOTED OFF since you don't vote negatively). Of course it makes more sense to let fans vote people off, but this is how FOX gets ratings. They use game theory to their advantage. 55039@blogcritics.org Thu, 1 Apr 2004 10:53:35 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/04/01/092917.php#comment-55009 Right on, RC, America sucked dog ass Tuesday night. 55009@blogcritics.org Thu, 1 Apr 2004 09:59:59 EST