Rule Discussion: NSC 70+ ~ A NEW SUGGESTION!

[VedatiNet]

Your whole argument basically boils down to a certain level of annoyance at not being in the final, which isn't where you should be approaching this discussion from...

Thats absolutely not true. We are here to discuss the rules and Im saying that I think that we need to change that rule that says Everyone should vote in the final. Its just an idea, propose for rule changing but of course everybody is free to agree or not.

 

[Sean]

Thats absolutely not true.

Your referral to your loss of interest after not qualifying suggests so

The main reason why the voting for non-qualifiers is compulsory is the make the whole final result much fairer and the winner more representative. You shouldn't have to earn your right to vote.

 

[berlyda]

I was told about this idea a while back...and i still don't really get it
Yes, i agree that the ideal situation would be that all qualifiers are these "combined qualifiers", but having just 1 doesn't make much sense imo.

We already have 10 qualifiers based on the votes of the people that are in the same semi, so what is the logic in having yet another qualifier that depends (if only partially) on those votes?! We will always have countries that are close to qualifying; it's unfortunate that it often happens to the same countries, but it's not a problem!

Surely the increased popularity of reju-voting means that we should have more reju-qualifiers?? At the moment, only 1 of 11 qualifiers is chosen by the opposite semi. So the taste of the opposite semi is barely taken into account! Now that the reju has enough voters for it to accurately reflect the taste of the opposite semi, i believe we should have an extra reju qualifier.

And i think there should be only 9 main qualifiers, to balance it out further.

 

[VedatiNet]

And i think there should be only 9 main qualifiers, to balance it out further.

9 main and 2 REJU its better I think

 

[pyryniemi]

We already have 10 qualifiers based on the votes of the people that are in the same semi, so what is the logic in having yet another qualifier that depends (if only partially) on those votes?! We will always have countries that are close to qualifying; it's unfortunate that it often happens to the same countries, but it's not a problem!

THIS.

 

[MrJadeEwen]

I've had a think and why use a jury with combined qualifier when we could just have all voters voting in the exact same way, eliminating reju. Giving full voting rights in both semi's to all countries (WL included) although it's only mandatory to vote in the semi you are allocated for.

 

[aletem]

Ok, 30 finalists are wayyy too much. I am against cutting the top10, to a top9 main qualifiers. If you do want to add an additional reju qualifier, well you can cut the PQs from 6 to 5. I wouldn't mind that. Cutting it to 4 is just too much. Other than that the rules are just fine, it is that we have too many countries at this point and qualification sometimes seems mission impossible, no matter what you send. Someone already pointed out that who deserves to qualifies is a subjective manner.

 

[lucian-crusher]

I sugested Nati to upgrade the roster to 70 countries and if in the future the WL gets smaller and 10 countries withdraw then we should come back to 60 countries! That's the only change I would agree. For the rest I agree with Ervin!

 

[94ayd]

28 is a really awkward-looking number, IMO! I'd prefer to have 30 - PQs, 10 main Qs, 1 re-ju Q and 1 combined Q. I like Martin's idea about having votes of the people in both semis + WLs and stuff in one place. I don't see why we need to be 100% following the ESC format (we're not doing it anyway...). Obligatory voting isn't too bad, IMO.

 

[Teddie]

I'm only on the WL, so this may not count, but the current qualifying system frustrates me for several reasons

1) 28 countries is to much for the final. The vast majority of you send great songs, so not only is it difficult to pick a top ten, it can take over an hour to listen to all the songs.

2) Having PQ'ers seems odd to me since my previous song contest experience never had this. Can i just ask why these are allowed while the MSC's were discontinued because they create a two-tiered system, with the PQ'ers essentially doing the same time?

3) REJU qualifiers, why not simply have all points counted equal and have 10-12 qualifiers from each semi. or perhaps three 20-song semi's with 8 qualifiers each. Furthermore, i believe having all countries counted equal pointswise will encourage people to vote as currently, the vast majority of votes are effectively not counted it is possible to vote in a final REJU and not have any of your countries allocated points because it amalgamates the rest of the jury's votes.

Sorry if that sounds slightly arrogant, but i may have worded it wrong

 

[Le Bruit]

I think we should have a private jury that comes out with one winning song à la ESC 1956. No scoreboards, no qualifiers, no points, no whining. Problem solved.

Those rest-jury rules are beginning to give me a light headache. I don't understand half of what Nati explained on his first post. Why, if we want to be a ESC simulation as close as possible to the real thing, don't we play by the same rules?

2 semis, 10 qualifiers, and a top 5 from the previous edition. 25 songs in final, yay! And if you really want a rest-jury thing, well... keep it as it was when it was first installed. No +6 points scheisse and stuff, just plain simple. It was working perfectly! Simplicity is the key, otherwise people get scared off and leave the game.

 

[zechhh]

I don't see how 30 songs in the final is that much worse than 28? And, as was already pointed out, it's not as if all of those songs were completely new to everybody so I don't really see the problem with increasing that number.

We would be able to vote for 1/3 of the songs so it would be a nice number as well.

 

[iowacorn]

4 PQ!

 

[Leaf]

I'd go with 30 songs. I'd rather not decrease the chance of prequalifying or qualifying in the top 10.

 

[Schlagerman1]

I was in my bed, couldn't sleep, so I started to think about this rules thread. I like the idea with the combined qualifiers (they should be called Piteå-qualifiers, this idea came up during Nathans visit together with Jochen in my appartment ) and think that they would be a great compliment to the qualifiers we have. I have nothing against 30 finalists at all, we are here to enjoying music and the more the merrier.

Now for the main reason I am awake. I am one of those that has for over 20 editions earned for a change in the competition. It has been all from having small changes like adding or reducing the rejus to bigger ones lik cut off all PQs or even make 3 semis or an "2nd chance round". I feel that a change is needed, for the competition to grow and be more alive. To wake it up after so many editions with "the same procedure". I feel also that the contest is so strong itself with so many countries, many people involving in the contest and interested in joining, that if we happen to change, and it would fail, then it still would survive. Now this thought has evolved to an idea:

A try-out period, having different "changes" for a certain number of editions

My suggestion is that we are having 5 editions (likely NSC 72 to 76) there we try five different ideas of different qualifying rules. It can be small rulechanging one, like just adding the combined qualifiers and make it 30 in the final, or to bigger ones, like having 3 semifinals. This is how it would look if we start with the next edition:

NSC 71: A Normal edition, in the meanwhile we are making ideas, having a big poll in the end and the five with the most votes gets to be tried out.
NSC 72: The first idea gets to be tried out, I suggest the one that has the least change from the original plan, just to not make it messy for the host or the competing countries.
NSC 73: 2nd idea, another step in change
NSC 74: 3rd idea, an another one
75: 4th, one more step
76: 5th, The biggest change out of the ideas.
77: We have a normal edition again, in the meanwhile we are having a vote there all the 5 ideas + the rules we have now are in. The one with the most votes get's implemented in NSC 78 or latest 79.

Now some of you may think that this could kill the contest. It won't, as I said, we have loads of individuals that loves the contest too much, so if something weird happens, then there is someone that can step in! What happens if the host mess things up? That could happen of course, but I am certain of that if we try this, we mods will help out the host for each edition, educating it and help it out through the whole edition so it goes as smoothly as possible. If an idea would broke completly, then we mods can put stop the edition and go back and redo it with the rules we have at the moment.

I think this is at least something we should try out, I mean what can we lose? We have a great system, yes, but what if we could find something even better? Something that just fits the contest, ourselves, like the hand to a glove. And if we now happen to decide to keep this format, then we can be proud and say that we at least tried to look for better ones, but already find it! That is at least good spirit, both for ourselves and for the contest itself!

 

[Liam]

I'm liking the idea Nati! And I like the idea of 30 qualifiers too... I don't know why people are being so pissy about it It's two extra songs... if need be we can stray away from the ESC style voting and add a 15 points! It's not as if we are strictly following the Eurovision rules anyway.

 

[Sean]

I'm against the trying a new thing out every edition thing as I feel that would just make those editions pointless and seem like fake competitions. Hope that makes sense

 

[anselm]

Why do we have to make things unnecessarily complicated? :shock: I'm really satisfied with the way NSC is right now and we shouldn't forget that it's mainly about sharing our favourite music.

 

[dogmeat]

I'm against the trying a new thing out every edition thing as I feel that would just make those editions pointless and seem like fake competitions. Hope that makes sense

That.
Those editions would lose on their prestige. And that's most unfair towards eventual winners of them.
A potential discussion a year later:
- Don't you forget i won NSC 73!
- Yeah, but it was the edition when we were trying out the idea of people being supposed to vote on weed.

 

[Sabrewulf238]

I don't see 30 songs as too much, any more than that yes...but I think 30 is a nice round number.

Really though, I'm not pushed one way or another on this. It sounds like a nice idea and I'd happy to see it...but on the other hand I won't be losing sleep if it's not implemented.