Jury vs Televote

[MyHeartIsYours]

^ It does matter when your 25th regulars like the UK!

 

[JackBauer]

I think that instead of only using the top ten from the jury and the televotes to make a country top ten we should use their rank for the 25 songs and merge them to get a top 10.

If a song is top 3 with televote because of friendly voting but is very bad i imagine it would be between 18-25 th with the juries and receive less point from a good song with 6th from televote and who is 8-12Th with the jury.

3th televote + 19 th Jury = 11
6 th televote + 12 th jury = 9

So the better song would rank higher in the final ranking.

And sometimes a song which is 11 th with televote & 12 th the jury could get one or two points instead of nothing at all.

It's just stupid to see some crazy voting from the jury and televote with their top 3/4 to make an awful top ten when i'm sure a lot of good songs are 6th,7th or 8th with televote or the jury and just missing with the other being 11,12th or 13th and then being much more worthy of a few points than other stupid or from neighbours songs.

 

[virus666]

I can accept Juries' role when they'll stop behave like televoters do (a majority of them not all)!!! This could only happened if there is one and only jury at the concert hall these 3 nights!!! Oh yes.. I don't know how it's going to be in reality (43 people in final.......), but then at least they'll cannot manipulate results that easy!

 

[DanielFullard]

Its worked out for better the last few years so I say leave it as it is

 

[MaryAnny]

I also think it's better now. It would be more fair to me if the juries vote at the same night, but oh well.

It will never be perfect. I remember the time before televoting; people were also complaining that neighbours gave each other points.

 

[FallenAngelII]

In my opinion, the ultimate system would be true 50/50 vote. wach jury and televoting result is announced separately and points from 1-8m 10 and 12 are given out separately. In other words, each country gets two sets of each point. Then it will truly be 50/50. Many countries already adopt this system for their national finals.

With the current system, an entry can get a jury's 12 pointer, yet get only 4 or so points because the televoters gave it zero points while the rest of the jury's picks got televoting marks.

 

[lucian-crusher]

I don't like the juries! The juries where introduced to avoid Diaspora and Political voting but they wen far beyond that. They stated voting for good voices and songs that they consider quality. The juries should act just like a public that doesen't vote for countries and only for songs.

 

[FallenAngelII]

I don't like the juries! The juries where introduced to avoid Diaspora and Political voting but they wen far beyond that. They stated voting for good voices and songs that they consider quality. The juries should act just like a public that doesen't vote for countries and only for songs.

Uh... how are you supposed to objectively vote forth a winner if not by going with which song is the best song? In fact, that's one of the things the EBU tells the juries to look for: Well-written songs.

What, do you think the juries are supposed to just guess what their kinsmen would vote for had it not been for disapora and neighbour voting? Their job is, among other things, to vote for good songs. Voices don't really factor in very much, but they help.

 

[lucian-crusher]

Uh... how are you supposed to objectively vote forth a winner if not by going with which song is the best song? In fact, that's one of the things the EBU tells the juries to look for: Well-written songs.

What, do you think the juries are supposed to just guess what their kinsmen would vote for had it not been for disapora and neighbour voting? Their job is, among other things, to vote for good songs. Voices don't really factor in very much, but they help.

Well! They should vote like a public. I mean, in 2006 got a lot of points and I am sure that if there was a jury they would've gotten 0 from every single member because the jury members would've said that that's not even a song. Same would go for in 2007. The juries should just forget they have music studies and vote for the song that goes better to their ears....

 

[A-lister]

@ lucian-crusher

I kinda agree with you. I don't like the juries at all.
Firstly they do not reduce the diaspora votes (their only target so far is to reduce points to ex-USSR countries while Turkey/Greece/Bosnia can send whatever and still get jury support AND diaspora support aswell).

Also they are turning this into some kind of singing contest a a la Idol, when it should be a SONG contest. They've totally overlooked songs that appeal to the people and songs with hit-potential in favor of "well-sung ballads" that no one cares for and that has no life after Eurovision.

And also we have the problem with english and ethnic, jurie seem to favor English and vote against any local/ethnic sounding songs, making me wonder if their whole agenda is to basically destroy some of the characteristics of this contest.

Since they're not reducing diaspora power, and since they're voting mostly for has-been ballads, I don't see what they really are here for.

AND juries vote political aswell! Do not forget that! Also we can see corruption cases, wheres you can't corrupt million votes, but a group of 5 people can easily be bought.

 

[FallenAngelII]

A-Lister, either prove those claims or just stop throw blatant lies around as if they were fact.

What in the world is Bosnia doing on that list?!

 

[Sabiondo]

@ lucian-crusher

I kinda agree with you. I don't like the juries at all.
Firstly they do not reduce the diaspora votes (their only target so far is to reduce points to ex-USSR countries while Turkey/Greece/Bosnia can send whatever and still get jury support AND diaspora support aswell).

No foget that also Russia will had the support ilimitated of Armenia & Belarus and they will not stoped to seend their 12-10 points to Russia uniless if the singer or song is really bad..¡¡¡

 

[A-lister]

A-Lister, either prove those claims or just stop throw blatant lies around as if they were fact.

What in the world is Bosnia doing on that list?!

Don't write to me ok? Who are you to think you can constantly jumping on my back.

It was an example of a diaspora country.

Anyways, I will not answer to any more attacks by you, I am not here to prove anything to you and you just have to accept people with different opinions.

NEXT.!

 

[Matt]

Firstly they do not reduce the diaspora votes (their only target so far is to reduce points to ex-USSR countries while Turkey/Greece/Bosnia can send whatever and still get jury support AND diaspora support aswell).

Well, that's not quite accurate.

Turkey 2009: 3rd with televoters, 7th with juries
Turkey 2010: 2nd with televoters, 8th with juries

Greece 2009: 5th with televoters, 11th with juries
Greece 2010: 7th with televoters, 11th with juries

Bosnia 2009: 7th with televoters, 12th with juries
Bosnia 2010: 16th with televoters, 14th with juries


The juries definitely caused Turkey and Greece to drop significantly so I'm not sure how you came up with that. And Bosnia seems kinda random to be added to the list but even in that case the jury didn't help them really.

Plus 2 years of data is not enough to make a proper determination.

 

[adnar]

Well...jury plays its part and I really enjoy their presence. I can't believe Romania giving "only" 10 points to Moldova and Germany giving "only" 10 points to Turkey would happen without juries. There are plenty more of examples that jury helps in breaking all the stereotypical votes like "we don't care that you sent a piece of crap, you are our friends".

 

[A-lister]

Well, that's not quite accurate.

Turkey 2009: 3rd with televoters, 7th with juries
Turkey 2010: 2nd with televoters, 8th with juries

Greece 2009: 5th with televoters, 11th with juries
Greece 2010: 7th with televoters, 11th with juries

So top.10 (or nearly) is a bad vote now? Considering those songs/performances I'd say juries gave these entries a helping hand aswell. Yes, they didn't vote these as high as televoters, but in some of these cases I'd say they voted it remarkably high still for being so called "professionals", or maybe it's just me who thinks a top.10 vote is still good positions.?

So imo they do not help reduce votes in cases needed, well maybe the ex-USSR countries, but Turkey/Greece are still getting plenty of help even from juries, even when they may have not deserved it.

Yep, Bosnia was maybe a bit random I admit.

 

[Sabiondo]

Well...jury plays its part and I really enjoy their presence. I can't believe Romania giving "only" 10 points to Moldova and Germany giving "only" 10 points to Turkey would happen without juries. There are plenty more of examples that jury helps in breaking all the stereotypical votes like "we don't care that you sent a piece of crap, you are our friends".

Must add that thanks by the jury, my motherland Spain stoped to gave their 12 points to Romania thanks also to the jury since 2 years ago..¡¡¡ now Romania just conform with 7 or 8 max from the Romanian diaspora in Spain.

 

[FallenAngelII]

Don't write to me ok? Who are you to think you can constantly jumping on my back.

When you constantly bring up the same old disproven arguments and refuse to provide evidence to prove your case, despite having been refuted, it's really tiresome for everyone else when you trumpet around your half-truths and lies as fact.

It's not an attack. I'm questioning the veracity of your arguments. And since you consequentially refuse to substantitate your arguments, yet you keep trumpeting them around as if they were facts, I'm also questioning your credibility as a debater.

The fact that you created an entire thread to complain about how the juries were highly biased, then brought up highly outdated and unsubstantiated statistics from 2004 to back up your arguments when I disproved you using 2009 and 2010 data and then left the thread, never stepping foot in it again afterwards shows that you tacitly admitted defeat. You simply couldn't prove your point.

Yet you keep on using your same old tired arguments. It's not about you proving yourself to me. It's about you substantiating your arguments to everyone else since you seem so fond of them and drag them up at every turn.

I just have the balls to directly call you out on it in a not-so-subtle way. Notice that Matt did the exact same thing using the exact same kind of data and argument I did. He was just nicer about it. He didn't directly imply that you're using half-truths and lies.

You can claim outrage due to being attacked all you want. You can call me rude and whatever. But in my book, the worst thing you can do in a debate is to refuse to prove your point, then refuse to admit defeat when your point is shattered by the opposition, ignoring the results of the debate as if it never happened and carrying on using the same, old, disproven arguments as if they were facts.

You've now been disproven by at least 3 separate people using actual statistics and facts. Yet you'll, no doubt, be using the same, old, stale arguments come tomorrow.

Anyways, I will not answer to any more attacks by you, I am not here to prove anything to you and you just have to accept people with different opinions.

"I disliked Greece's, Turkey's and Bosnia's entries in 2010 and 2009 and thus think their placements were unfair." - That's an opinion.
"Greece, Turkey and Bosnia were helped by the juries based on diaspora and neighbour voting in 2010 and 2009" - Those are factual statements.

Opinions do not have to be justified. Factual statements do. If you cannot prove your factual statements, admit defeat and stop using them.

So top.10 (or nearly) is a bad vote now? Considering those songs/performances I'd say juries gave these entries a helping hand aswell. Yes, they didn't vote these as high as televoters, but in some of these cases I'd say they voted it remarkably high still for being so called "professionals", or maybe it's just me who thinks a top.10 vote is still good positions.?

So imo they do not help reduce votes in cases needed, well maybe the ex-USSR countries, but Turkey/Greece are still getting plenty of help even from juries, even when they may have not deserved it.

A song/entry can be well-crafted (what the juries are supposed to be on the look-out for) without actually being personally appealing to every single person (the juries included). Turkey cranked out two highly well-produced entries in 2009 and 2010 and while their 2009 entry was painful to watch live, the juries are instructed to mostly disregard the live vocals in favor of studio vocals. Greece put up two well-produced stage shows in 2009 and 2010 (neither of which appealed to me, but I'm not surprised they scored 11th, which isn't that high of a position considering the lackluster competition they had from the rest of the field both years, the fact that in 2009, Greece was only ahead of Bosnia and Malta by 3 and 6 points respectively and that both years they were miles behind the Top 5.)

They simply placed nominally better than Top 12-16. They did a little less badly than them. People obsess about placements as if it's all about what place you end up in. No, no it's not. It's also about the margin of "winning". If you achieved 5th place 100 points behind 4th but only 2-12 points ahead of 6th-9th, it means you only lucked yourself into 5th place because the points were spread out among the "lesser" entries. You weren't exceptionally good, just less mediocre than the rest.

Imagine if this were an Olympic Sport:
In a race with 20 runners, the winner wins by a margin of 0.2 seconds ahead of 2nd place, who's 0.3 seconds ahead of 3rd, who's 0.1 ahead of 4th, who's 0.2 seconds ahead of 5th. Which means that 1st was 0.8 seconds ahead of 5th. It was a relatively close race and 5th place didn't do too shabby.

Now imagine a race where the winner (the same person as in the previour example) is ahead by 2nd by 1.3 seconds. Sure, whoever got 2nd place still got 2nd place, but it's not nearly as glorious a result as 3rd, 4th or even 5th in the earlier example.

Also, you know what, just because you didn't like certain entries doesn't mean it's beyond the scope of imagination for professional juries to have liked them for reasons other than diaspora and neighbour voting.

Maybe if everyone, televoters and jurists alike, like entries that you dislike and vice versa, maybe it's just you. Maybe you just have a quirky taste that not many people share.

 

[A-lister]

@ FallenAngelII

I'm gonna make this very short for you because you seem to have problem understanding simple things:

This is a discussion forum, we are here to share opinions and views.

I am not acting God in here like you constantly do. Somehow you think that your opinion is valid and that it's a "fact".

I've never stated my opinion as a given fact, it's just my personal analysis and opinion which you don't have to question every damn second. People are free to agree or not offcourse, but it's tiring with you commenting every second like people in here have to report to you. Sorry, you're not a holder of any truth, you're just stating opinions on here like everyone else, so don't act like something else.

Now if all you have to do is constantly acting like you own this forum and the right of opinion and somehow believe your opinion is more valid then don't bother writing to me ever again. Is it so hard to read?

Can't take my opinion or having a normal conversation? Well what are you doing on a discussion forum in the first place?

If you have any problem with me then be brave enough to PM me instead of making a scene in every topic I just write my opinion in.

And about Matt; he can discuss this in normal tone contrary to you and we've discussed this many times, but it's about mutual respect something you clearly lack.

End of discussion.

 

[FallenAngelII]

Point out to me a single time when I've trumpeted by opinion around as if it were fact, where I made factual statements that I couldn't back up when prompted.

Saying "The juries are biased against entries sung in languages other than English" isn't an opinionated statement at all. That's a factual statement. Neither is saying "The juries are still goverend by diaspora and neighbour voting patterns".

I have never once said that my opinion trumphs yours. I have simply time and again proven your factual statements inaccurate (or, if you persist on claiming they are not factual statements but opinionated statements, that your opinions are based off on faulty data, faulty interpretations of data and misinformation). Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's as far as opinions go. But maybe they're based off of misinformation and misinterpretation. I'm merely showing you that.

You also seem to be mistaken on how debates work. Debates work in how two opposing sides go at it with opposing viewpoints with the conviction that they hold the correct viewpoint and they thus try to prove the opposition wrong. Of course I think that you're mistaken if I'm debating against you. You clearly think that anyone who disagrees with you is mistaken, seeing as how you just told Matt that (though not in so many words).

Also, what part of this all is not a normal course of debate? Contrary to popular belief, debates aren't all sunshine and roses. People aren't lovey dovey all the time. If you can't take the heat of someone calling you out on using faulty arguments and logic, maybe you need to frequent more forums (specifically ones with more debates, especially heated ones, than this one). The arguments I've been using against you are downright tame compared to what is acceptable fare in debate on most forums. The fact that I have once been disciplined either in PM-form or in the threads I post on by the mods for my percieved hostile and unacceptable behavior and attitude (I believe you once expressed disbelief at the fact that I was allowed to run rampant with this "offensive attitude" (or somesuch) of mine not too long ago) or even simply humbly asked to tone it down is a testament to how not-out-of-line I am,