EUROVISION 2020 - General Discussion Thread

[escYOUnited]

Please post any and all discussions regarding the contest itself, host country and city, organisation, rumours and other topics not related to any specific country's selection process.

 

[MalagaToledo]

Actually Eurovision was invented for the Juries back in 1956

Statistical analyst I've been watching eurovision for more years than there are on your birth certificate. Troll someone else.

 

[ESC94]

Statistical analyst I've been watching eurovision for more years than there are on your birth certificate. Troll someone else.

Chill down and eat a Snickers!!

 

[MalagaToledo]

Chill down and eat a Snickers!!

Lass mich in ruhe OK and troll someone else. Have a nice day.

 

[FRFanESC]

You declining to give me answer tells me more than enough. You don't have to answer me, it's obvious you are in jurry favour.

Don't talk in my place, please.

Let me tell you 2 more sentences before I never talk to you again. Eurovision is invented for us, wieviers to be entertained. It wasn't invented for jurries.

It seems that you forgot that at the beginning, juries were the only one to decide the winner.

My last sentence to you is: you can ask any artist and all of them would tell you if they can choose, they would prefer televote win instead of jurry win including jurry winner Zelmerow.

They perform for people, they do concerts for people and they earn their money thanks to people. Jurries don't have anything to with it except maybe some music awards.
It's obvious, but you need the support brom bith if you want to win.

I wish you all the best in your life. Even if u try to talk to me, I won't respond.

Ok, so you don't talk anymore when you realize that someone has a different opinion from yours ?

 

[MalagaToledo]

Wow, he/she/it even uses my trademark style of writing. Must be my fan or smth. But I don't need to spend my time on that user . Case closed.

 

[ESC94]

Ok, so you don't talk anymore when you realize that someone has a different opinion from yours ?

To answer your question: Yes, he/she does that .

 

[Mainshow]

When do we get the full list of participants? Like the official one?

 

[FRFanESC]

Wow, he/she/it even uses my trademark style of writing. Must be my fan or smth. But I don't need to spend my time on that user . Case closed.

What are you talking about ? lmao You want to make me angry by saying this (I still didn't understand, tho), you must be 15.

 

[Realest]

When do we get the full list of participants? Like the official one?

Usually aroundd 07.11.

 

[Mainshow]

Usually aroundd 07.11.

Ui that's still 2 months away...

 

[Loindici]

Statistical analyst I've been watching eurovision for more years than there are on your birth certificate. Troll someone else.

Well, [MENTION=15870]Realest[/MENTION] is right: televoting was only introduced starting from 1998. Before that, all voting systems only involved juries.

 

[HayashiM]

it isn't 50:50 actually. it's cumulative, jury score + televote score. what if it's the average of jury score and televote score ((jury+televote)/2)?

If by (jury+televote)/2 you mean "we take the final sum of all televote and jury points for the country xyz and divide that by two", then this operation won't change anything on the final results, because basically, everyone now has half the points they had previously.

If on the other hand you mean combining both jury and televote results in a specific country before deciding on any of the points this country should award, than that could of course change something on the final results, and it is the system that had been in use pre-2016.

 

[HayashiM]

Well, [MENTION=15870]Realest[/MENTION] is right: televoting was only introduced starting from 1998. Before that, all voting systems only involved juries.

Just because something used to be done in a certain way, that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good way though, right? I don't see any easy and realistic way how to have a televote in the 1956. But that is not the case anymore.

More to the point of this instance of "jury hate thread", I feel that some sort of "protection against joke entries and bloc voting" is necessary. But I don't agree with the current form it is implemented, as I have already discussed a few times, so I will try to be brief.

In my opinion:
- juries are in many cases not actually professional, or their professional experience is laughable at best
- the juryvote has preferential treatment compared to the televote, especially under the current 2019 system, which I find to be an insult to the televote. Yes, there had been that dramatic annoucement of points for Keiino, but the average viewer who doesn't follow Eurovision closely never got the actual information of "this is THE televote winner", unlike for the (incorrect) juryvote winner.
- 5 people in a jury X the entire televote is a too big difference -> the individual jury members have too much power
- juries are also prone to bloc voting, and no I don't agree that "things thus balance themselves out", because you will still have countries that in fact don't benefit from neither jury or televote blocs
- as this year has showed, juries do make mistakes in swapping their rankings, and some of the preference changes between semi and finals (e. g. one person ranking a song in the top 5 if the semi, then 26th in the finals) are suspicious at the very least
- potentially, if I wanted to bribe anyone in the entire decision process, jurymembers are the weakest spot to attack
- I could go on...

--tldr-- : Yes I DO see a point in changing the system, the sooner the better. I don't say scrap the juries, but I think them having a 25 or 33% of the final say would do. If that's too much to ask, let's at least swap the annoucement order and let the televote points get announced first. It is the people who voted, had paid their money to vote, and for whom the show is made -> it is the televote that should be put into the spotlight. Also, statistically speaking, 10 jurymembers instead of 5 really wouldn't hurt.

Note that I write all of these arguments pointing out the issues I have without raising a single case of me being unhappy with how the juries have actually voted.

 

[andimuhammadrifki]

EBU has some criteria for the jury panel for each country. it's up to the broadcaster to decide who will be the juries. so if you think the juries decision is bad, the most reasonable way for me is to replace one or some of the juries, with people who have real musical jobs (singers-songwriters-composers-arrangers-musicians-record producers). don't change the system too much. the current system is already good.

 

[HayashiM]

EBU has some criteria for the jury panel for each country. it's up to the broadcaster to decide who will be the juries. so if you think the juries decision is bad, the most reasonable way for me is to replace one or some of the juries, with people who have real musical jobs (singers-songwriters-composers-arrangers-musicians-record producers). don't change the system too much. the current system is already good.

I tried to express with my above post the thought that the system is really not that great, independently on what the juries actually decide. It's quite a long post I admit.

I still don't think that so few people should have a 50% say, as professional as they might be. But having somewhat more relevant jury would be a big help, we can agree at least on that .

 

[ESC94]

Well, I think the "perfect" system doesn´t exist, everything has advantages/disadvantages and no matter how the points are awarded there will always be someone who complains about it.

 

[Edweis]

--tldr-- : Yes I DO see a point in changing the system, the sooner the better. I don't say scrap the juries, but I think them having a 25 or 33% of the final say would do. If that's too much to ask, let's at least swap the annoucement order and let the televote points get announced first. It is the people who voted, had paid their money to vote, and for whom the show is made -> it is the televote that should be put into the spotlight. Also, statistically speaking, 10 jurymembers instead of 5 really wouldn't hurt.

^THIS
I'm all for keeping the 50:50 statu quo but ESC should definitely swap the way points are revealed. Maybe keep the jury in first, but with all points put together like they do with televote nowadays... and reveal this tv vote with the spokesperson.
And 5 is way too low indeed, 10 would be better even I'm more for 15-20.

 

[Sammy]

They do the jury announcement while they are counting the televote. That's why there's a jury final the day before. So swapping those two would again make the show longer which is precisely what they wanted to prevent by introducing the new voting/announcement system.

 

[HayashiM]

They do the jury announcement while they are counting the televote. That's why there's a jury final the day before. So swapping those two would again make the show longer which is precisely what they wanted to prevent by introducing the new voting/announcement system.

I am sorry, I still find this hard to believe. The counting itself is a matter of (milli)seconds for computers. Given enough time, any reasonably skilled web developer can create a system that will have the final results in a matter of seconds, if integrated properly with the phone companies software. Even if you had one person per every country who would have to enter the points manually into the central system, you still only need a minute or two. You can still have 10 minutes to decide in which order will the presenters go, and you are good to start calling. With a little effort, you could actually design and implement the whole thing in a way that there's no human intervention needed, with an algorithm that determines the most exciting order (I guess they might even be using one already?) and start announcing the results the second you hear "stop voting now". I am not saying we need that last case, but I really don't think that "we need the time to count" is a good and valid argument to not be able to swap without significant delay.

 

[Sammy]

I am sorry, I still find this hard to believe. The counting itself is a matter of (milli)seconds for computers. Given enough time, any reasonably skilled web developer can create a system that will have the final results in a matter of seconds, if integrated properly with the phone companies software. Even if you had one person per every country who would have to enter the points manually into the central system, you still only need a minute or two. You can still have 10 minutes to decide in which order will the presenters go, and you are good to start calling. With a little effort, you could actually design and implement the whole thing in a way that there's no human intervention needed, with an algorithm that determines the most exciting order (I guess they might even be using one already?) and start announcing the results the second you hear "stop voting now". I am not saying we need that last case, but I really don't think that "we need the time to count" is a good and valid argument to not be able to swap without significant delay.

I‘ve never been involved in the process so I can‘t tell you for sure. But I tend to believe that you may underestimate the complexity of the procedure of counting, contolling, distributing the results etc. In any case the official explanation was like this and given the long interval acts in the past it seems really logical.