Should the EBU ban Georgia?

[Sammy]

by saying tolerance I mean the fact that if it was Germany or Sweden (or another big country), it would probaby end with a warning... thus Georgia deserves to have another chance and if the juries cheat next year, EBU should ban them. Now EBU should punish Georgia by imposing a fine on them.

firstly, it's a mere assumption that germany would be treated differently
secondly that assumption can not be the basis for a decision now
thirdly that has nothing to do with tolerance or second chances

 

[revallsay]

[MENTION=12855]Pawhlen[/MENTION] and [MENTION=13155]Sammy[/MENTION]:
EBU has a right to ban Georgia, I have no doubts, but right now they should impose a fine on them... seriously. Some countires may withdraw, some countires may back be back but if EBU ban anyone there will be less countries participating. Do they want this? It should be one and only time that EBU imposed a fine on a country and any other rule breaker (including Georgia) should be banned in the future. I mean, they should show everyone that the rules have to be stuck to but as it is the first time, they should be gentle (this time only). And if they decide to ban Georgia, why not ban Azerbaijan and Armenia?

 

[Pawhlen]

[MENTION=12855]Pawhlen[/MENTION] and [MENTION=13155]Sammy[/MENTION]:
EBU has a right to ban Georgia, I have no doubts, but right now they should impose a fine on them... seriously. Some countires may withdraw, some countires may back be back but if EBU ban anyone there will be less countries participating. Do they want this? It should be one and only time that EBU imposed a fine on a country and any other rule breaker (including Georgia) should be banned in the future. I mean, they should show everyone that the rules have to be stuck to but as it is the first time, they should be gentle (this time only). And if they decide to ban Georgia, why not ban Azerbaijan and Armenia?

As already mentioned in here, if some countries withdraw because they have been caught "cheating" then they don´t have any future in the contest in my opinion. If you can´t compete fair and square in a Music Contest just for fun, then you shouldn´t compete at all

 

[revallsay]

But some countries may withdraw because they don't have funds ect... I don't think Georgia is the biggest problem with cheating.

 

[Pawhlen]

But some countries may withdraw because they don't have funds ect... I don't think Georgia is the biggest problem with cheating.

I agree that Georgia is not the biggest problem with "Cheating" it is by a long mile.

 

[Sammy]

Well if they impose a fine, that's OK by me. Given that its not the ridiculous amount Azerbaycan once got fined for not showpng teh Armeinan entry some years ago. I can also imagine, that Georgia can decinde between a fine and a banning for a year. This would also help them not to loose their face. But I'm definitifly in favor of a clear consequence. And of course if there are other suspicious juryvotes, that has to bechaecked as well and treated equally / accordingly.
And as I said before: if a country withdraws because it mustn't cheat, then please withdraw!

 

[Mlyn]

Re: Georgia might be banned?

Ban Germany as well. Their jury was insane and also in line.

 

[Haverdge]

[MENTION=12855]Pawhlen[/MENTION] and [MENTION=13155]Sammy[/MENTION]:
EBU has a right to ban Georgia, I have no doubts, but right now they should impose a fine on them... seriously. Some countires may withdraw, some countires may back be back but if EBU ban anyone there will be less countries participating. Do they want this? It should be one and only time that EBU imposed a fine on a country and any other rule breaker (including Georgia) should be banned in the future. I mean, they should show everyone that the rules have to be stuck to but as it is the first time, they should be gentle (this time only). And if they decide to ban Georgia, why not ban Azerbaijan and Armenia?

Guilt by association? Is this "European" justice? Why would Armenia be banned, we didn't do anything.

 

[ClassifiedCat]

Indeed, the juries from all the countries should be banned. They can be more corrupted than the televoting can be. They should judge the songs, the act in a professional way and with the same criteria. How that in Irish, Spanish juries was a juror who put Romania first and other one put Romania last? I think it is obvious that Romania wasn't the worst finalist, but accepting that it was the worst how that there, in a professional jury, someone else find it the best? I think the juries should be eliminated or to have just 25% power.

Different people have different tastes so that's why Romania was 1st and last.

 

[Matt]

They should only be banned if the others in the Caucasus get the ban too. I'm willing to bet it's a statistical impossibility for the jurors all to think the Armenian and Azeri songs were worst :roll:

While I agree that there are fishy votes in several countries, nothing was as blatantly obvious as Georgia. I mean their Top 8 is identical. In Armenia and Azerbaijan that only applies to one country. So we need to look at this a bit more objectively. Fortunately the EBU went ahead and disqualified the juries. There is more work to be done and this transparency has been kinda awesome.

So we need to give he EBU at least the chance and react/learn from it. We'll find out soon how this is going to effect future outcomes.

 

[Matt]

Different people have different tastes so that's why Romania was 1st and last.

That is true. I'd rather have two jurors vote the complete opposite than have 5 Moldovan jurors put Romania in first place. They are clearly not doing their job properly.

 

[ClassifiedCat]

That is true. I'd rather have two jurors vote the complete opposite than have 5 Moldovan jurors put Romania in first place. They are clearly not doing their job properly.

I totally agree. I remember last year there was an Italian juror who put Romania up high because it was Romania and she felt like she had to do it, and admitted it like it was no problem.

 

[Centrix]

Different people have different tastes so that's why Romania was 1st and last.

I didn't said that they should all put Romania first. But a juror put Romania first and another one put it last. This is not about personal taste, it is about professional judgement of a song. What makes a jury to be necessary if is about personal taste? Then let the televoting (all the people) to have all the power. Why should we have 5 different people with different taste to have 50% power. One of the jurors who put Romania first or one of the juror who put Romania last or both of them have nothing to do with PROFESSIONAL judgement of Romanian act, song or whatever criteria they must have.

That is true. I'd rather have two jurors vote the complete opposite than have 5 Moldovan jurors put Romania in first place. They are clearly not doing their job properly.

That also true. I will not start to deffend them. So, why to keep the juries? Can EBU control more the final results having these juries? It is right? I don't want juries to help Romania, I also don't want juries who put Romania last (I dare to say Romania wasn't for last place in Eurovision), I want professional judgement for the songs and the name of the countries should be ignored by the juries, whatever if in the country is big diaspora or if they judge the neighbours. Actually, the juries destroy only diaspora (even if the song obtain a top position in that year), while neighbourting voting still has power.

 

[Leydan]

[/b]

Guilt by association? Is this "European" justice? Why would Armenia be banned, we didn't do anything.

Because all your jury members put Azerbaijan last, as they did to you.

---------------------------------------------

It's ridiculous that Georgia should only get a warning, I really don't see why any of you would think that. What they did is blatant attempt at manipulating the votes, the EBU came down like a tonne of bricks on this sort of stuff and to have any credibility they should be banned, while they're at it investigate countries like Belarus and Montenegro who's votes were very similar and give the appropriate punishment.

 

[Centrix]

I think that we even have to encourage Georgia for their atittude - the first country, which overcomes the slavery of juries. They were on a 100% televote and isn't that what many people want?

Indeed. If the EBU wants to paly unfair keeping NO professional juries, then better to do a voting like Georgian one. If EBU don't accept then let the things become right and all the power in people hands.

 

[ClassifiedCat]

I didn't said that they should all put Romania first. But a juror put Romania first and another one put it last. This is not about personal taste, it is about professional judgement of a song. What makes a jury to be necessary if is about personal taste? Then let the televoting (all the people) to have all the power. Why should we have 5 different people with different taste to have 50% power. One of the jurors who put Romania first or one of the juror who put Romania last or both of them have nothing to do with PROFESSIONAL judgement of Romanian act, song or whatever criteria they must have.

I never said you said that. It is their professional judgement also that's true but other than that hologram it didn't have that much going for it (sorry). We do this to have diversity in our rankings and votes. If you want 5 same people than they will probably have the same 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on and so forth. Of course it has to do with professional judgement of the song... for Ireland at least.

 

[Centrix]

Professional judgement is a little different than personal taste. That's all my point. And if there is one juror to put a song first and another juror to put the same song last I think that is the best proof that there is a problem regarding professional judgement. I guess that there should not be more than 13 positions difference for a song at all 5 jurors if they should have the same criteria if they are able to do a professional judgement. There are 26 songs, 13 being already half of them.

 

[busybee]

Professional judgement..let me laugh at that!
One of our jury members was Maria Synatsaki...a TV presenter..that's how 'professional' those juries are.
Regarding Georgia, I don't think they should be disqualified. Sure, it seems strange that the 5 members had the same top 8 but, although highly unusual and suspicious, can it be proven that they cheated and it wasn't just some crazy coincidence? I think not.

 

[ClassifiedCat]

Professional judgement is a little different than personal taste. That's all my point. And if there is one juror to put a song first and another juror to put the same song last I think that is the best proof that there is a problem regarding professional judgement. I guess that there should not be more than 13 positions difference for a song at all 5 jurors if they should have the same criteria if they are able to do a professional judgement. There are 26 songs, 13 being already half of them.

Look at Romania's score for Iceland.

 

[Matt]

Professional judgement..let me laugh at that!
One of our jury members was Maria Synatsaki...a TV presenter..that's how 'professional' those juries are.
Regarding Georgia, I don't think they should be disqualified. Sure, it seems strange that the 5 members had the same top 8 but, although highly unusual and suspicious, can it be proven that they cheated and it wasn't just some crazy coincidence? I think not.

Considering it is more likely to win the lottery than having the exact top 8, that is obvious enough.

The thing I don't understand, isn't there an official notary or something with them? At least that is what the EBU is claiming, it seems odd that they didn't speak up when controlled voting was happening.