|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 19, 2016 15:10:40 GMT 1
I love the new way of voting, the only thing I dislike is that the spokespeople will only announce the  ;__; |
|
|
|
Post by ✨💃 on Feb 19, 2016 15:14:50 GMT 1
I love the new way of voting, the only thing I dislike is that the spokespeople will only announce the ;__; tbh same ;____; |
|
1,252
1,552
That's it!! I've come up with a new recipe!! <3
|
Post by SanBeanzie on Feb 19, 2016 18:41:38 GMT 1
If only people weren't meddling with the votes in the first place there wouldn't be a need for change. Saying that, I'm actually rather looking forward to it in a weird way so we'll find out if it'll work.
|
|
6,123
12,104
Fool me once, October Rain. Fool me twice, Hurricane
|
Post by Tufkai on Feb 19, 2016 20:46:35 GMT 1
I hate it. The voting procedure was one of the best things about Eurovision. I always loved to have all the different countries sing their different songs and tell us their different votes in the end. But now they (SVT) killed it. Now the televoting will be presented as if Europe was just one country. This works in Melodifestivalen because Sweden IS one country. But in Eurovision it takes away ALL of the televoting's charm. I loved watching the voting and be like: "Oh 8 points from Albania, thanks Albania! And 3 points from Georgia, cool! And omg, 12 points from Latvia, they seemed to really love it  ". THOSE were the little things that created the excitement for me. "Knowing the winner in the last minute" is not the most important kind of excitement imo. But now we will just get the unpersonal points delivered by the host, not knowing where they came from. This is so boring. Why should I look up the countries' votes on the internet after the show if you can just present them during the show as it was always done?? We will only see the jury votes -.- I don't care what those 5 "music experts" from each country voted for. I want to know what the country voted for. And personally, I don't even think that it was a problem that Loreen already was the obvious winner after 30 or something countries. We all knew months before the show that she would win. So please. Some people say that Sweden should never be the host again, lol. I of course wouldn't be this drastic, but I certainly don't like all those unnecessary changes made by Sweden... If the spokespersons of each country are only allowed to announce their 12p of the jury vote, I honestly wonder why there are spokespersons AT ALL. It's simply not worth the effort. I wouldn't be surprised if spokespersons will be completely removed by 2017. And that's sad. This is such a depressing move in the wrong direction. I'm very open for change, but not if it's so poorly done and has almost no benefits. I know Julian already replied to this, but here is my response - They used the same system in the Irish Eurosong in 2015 (and I'm sure there were many others, but I don't watch the N.S's) I loved watching the voting and be like: "Oh 8 points from Albania, thanks Albania! And 3 points from Georgia, cool! And omg, 12 points from Latvia, they seemed to really love it ". THOSE were the little things that created the excitement for me. That's what you think happens? The top votes of the televoting are generally a result of diaspora and have nothing to do with how much people liked the song. I will agree that it is ridiculous how the jury is "professional". From 1959 to 1997 there was a rule that musical composer and publishers were not allowed on the jury. What happened to that? But at least the jury is based on how much they liked the song, and not diaspora. If you ask me, the televoting has ZERO charm. The 12 points for many countries remain the same year after year. Sometimes there's a surprise like with Greece and Cyprus last year, but overall, it remains relatively similar. I don't think I would care that much if they got rid of the spokespeople. Ever since they introduced satellite voting in 1994, they have just been a source of annoyance. Okay, every now and then we got someone like the guy who gave the Slovenian votes for a few years, but most of the time, it's awful, awful comedy from people trying to get their fifteen minutes of fame. I think there are a few benefits. One is that there is an even smaller chance of a country getting 0 points. |
|
|
|
Post by Nutzername92a on Feb 19, 2016 23:35:28 GMT 1
I loved watching the voting and be like: "Oh 8 points from Albania, thanks Albania! And 3 points from Georgia, cool! And omg, 12 points from Latvia, they seemed to really love it ". THOSE were the little things that created the excitement for me. That's what you think happens? The top votes of the televoting are generally a result of diaspora and have nothing to do with how much people liked the song. I will agree that it is ridiculous how the jury is "professional". From 1959 to 1997 there was a rule that musical composer and publishers were not allowed on the jury. What happened to that? But at least the jury is based on how much they liked the song, and not diaspora. Umm, sorry? As you can see in my comment, I was clearly talking about the smaller points as well. I'm not a person who only cares about the 12p. Those 3 points from Georgia do make it exciting for me too. And if your country is not an ex-Soviet country, those 3 points are indeed an indicator that the Georgians liked your song and did not only vote for their neighbours and diaspora. Also those 12 points from Latvia if Lithuania and Estonia are not in the final do definitely mean that they liked your song. Not every country is infested with diaspora voting. And I know how to value those points. If for example Germany gets 12p from Austria, I obviously don't get as excited to this as to 12p from Moldova. I wouldn't go and say that Austria only voted because of the song. I'm not stupid. Also, you say the jury votes are based on how much they liked the song... I would LOVE to agree here, but I so hardly cannot agree. It's simply not true. We've had multiple examples of jury manipulation in the past. Or just look at Azerbaijan's jury votes for example: Every year Turkey (if participating) is on top and every judge puts Armenia dead last. Do you seriously mean to tell me that they all loved all of Turkey's songs, hated all of Armenia's song and do not vote politically? (And btw the same goes for Armenia always putting Azerbaijan last). In Germany, one of the judges said she wouldn't vote for Conchita because she thought that Conchita would win anyway. And in the same year you could also see how hard some judges were putting Russia last because of politics. Or judges put certain countries very high because their mother is from there or something. Or they simply have a (negative or positive) bias towards some countries. I totally cannot agree when you say that juries vote based on the song, whereas the televoting's 12p are "generally a result of diaspora voting". The judges of a country are less likely to vote for the same countries over and over again, but on the other hand it also turns into big randomness. Lastly, you say that "less 0 points" is a benefit. Yes, there will be less 0 points. It could be debatable if this is a benefit, as "0 points" is a very iconic thing in the contest... but let's not go there, I agree that this is a benefit. However , this is not a product of the new voting presentation. I was only criticizing the presentation. This is a product of how they will calcucate the points now. Basically, they are returning to the system from 2009-2012. Both jury and televoters make their top 10 - with the difference being that now they will not create a "combined top 10", but simply add them together. I'm in favor of this. I like this change, as this was one of my main issues with the 2013-2015 system: the winner of the televote could end up with 0 points. Now the winner of the televote will definitely get stuff. I'm very happy about this. But I was criticizing how they'll present the votes. Having the televotes from all countries (summed up as one) announced unpersonally by the host still doesn't have any benefits that would be worth mentioning imo. I would so very much prefer if they made an international jury (consisting of 2 real experts from each country, so around 80 people in total), give them 30% power, and then the host can announce their result at the end. --- Also, replying to your post in the other thread: I personally am not "butthurt" that the spokespeople will only announce the 12p and not the 8p & 10p anymore. Btw by using that word you lost some respect, but anyway... My position was not that they broke this tradition, but that it's simply not worth the effort to only make them say one country (their 12 points). We might as well ditch the complete idea of interacting with all countries during the voting procedure. I mean, why would we require all countries to set up a camera in front of a cool background, choose a nice spokesperson with a beautiful dress, pretty hair, cute make-up and everything... if they are only allowed to say "Hi this is Malta, 12p to Azerbaijan, goodbye"??! This is just sooo unefficient, it's not worth the effort at all. So much work for such a little outcome. But this interaction with all countries is a very important and emotional thing, as it's the only way of being present for some countries (the non-qualifiers). This interaction is what makes Eurovision so special. I don't like to see how this gets less and less importance and I don't want it to turn into a sterile and unpersonal thing. Also, based on the "excitement" aspect: Often there were some three-horse races for example, where it was very exciting to see who would get the 8p, the 10p and the 12p. The 8p and 10p were part of creating suspense. But now all those things are removed just for the sake of having Petra Mede announce the winner in the last minute. And to be honest, it even was Sweden's fault in 2013 when they just stopped the voting procedure to crown Emmelie as the winner AND THEN continued the voting again. That was awkwardness par excellence. They were the ones who started announcing the winner too early. Most people wouldn't even have noticed that Emmelie already won, but Sweden decided to make it awkward and make the last countries completely irrelevant and boring. |
|
6,123
12,104
Fool me once, October Rain. Fool me twice, Hurricane
|
Post by Tufkai on Feb 20, 2016 0:05:23 GMT 1
That's what you think happens? The top votes of the televoting are generally a result of diaspora and have nothing to do with how much people liked the song. I will agree that it is ridiculous how the jury is "professional". From 1959 to 1997 there was a rule that musical composer and publishers were not allowed on the jury. What happened to that? But at least the jury is based on how much they liked the song, and not diaspora. Umm, sorry? As you can see in my comment, I was clearly talking about the smaller points as well. I'm not a person who only cares about the 12p. Those 3 points from Georgia do make it exciting for me too. And if your country is not an ex-Soviet country, those 3 points are indeed an indicator that the Georgians liked your song and did not only vote for their neighbours and diaspora. Also those 12 points from Latvia if Lithuania and Estonia are not in the final do definitely mean that they liked your song. Not every country is infested with diaspora voting. And I know how to value those points. If for example Germany gets 12p from Austria, I obviously don't get as excited to this as to 12p from Moldova. I wouldn't go and say that Austria only voted because of the song. I'm not stupid. Also, you say the jury votes are based on how much they liked the song... I would LOVE to agree here, but I so hardly cannot agree. It's simply not true. We've had multiple examples of jury manipulation in the past. Or just look at Azerbaijan's jury votes for example: Every year Turkey (if participating) is on top and every judge puts Armenia dead last. Do you seriously mean to tell me that they all loved all of Turkey's songs, hated all of Armenia's song and do not vote politically? (And btw the same goes for Armenia always putting Azerbaijan last). In Germany, one of the judges said she wouldn't vote for Conchita because she thought that Conchita would win anyway. And in the same year you could also see how hard some judges were putting Russia last because of politics. Or judges put certain countries very high because their mother is from there or something. Or they simply have a (negative or positive) bias towards some countries. I totally cannot agree when you say that juries vote based on the song, whereas the televoting's 12p are "generally a result of diaspora voting". The judges of a country are less likely to vote for the same countries over and over again, but on the other hand it also turns into big randomness. Lastly, you say that "less 0 points" is a benefit. Yes, there will be less 0 points. It could be debatable if this is a benefit, as "0 points" is a very iconic thing in the contest... but let's not go there, I agree that this is a benefit. However , this is not a product of the new voting presentation. I was only criticizing the presentation. This is a product of how they will calcucate the points now. Basically, they are returning to the system from 2009-2011. Both jury and televoters make their top 10 - with the difference being that now they will not create a "combined top 10", but simply add them together. I'm in favor of this. I like this change, as this was one of my main issues with the 2012-2015 system: the winner of the televote could end up with 0 points. Now the winner of the televote will definitely get stuff. I'm very happy about this. But I was criticizing how they'll present the votes. Having the televotes from all countries announced unpersonally by the host still doesn't have any benefits. I would so very much prefer if they made an international jury (consisting of 2 real experts from each country, so around 80 people in total), give them 30% power And then the host can announce their result at the end. --- Also, replying to your post in the other thread: I personally am not "butthurt" that the spokespeople will only announce the 12p and not the 8p 10p anymore. Btw by using that word you lost some respect, but anyway... My position was not that they broke this tradition, but that it's simply not worth the effort to only make them say one country (their 12 points). We might as well ditch the complete idea of interacting with all countries during the voting procedure. I mean, why would we require all countries to set up a camera in front of a cool background, choose a nice spokesperson with a beautiful dress, pretty hair, cute make-up and everything... If they can only say "Hi this is Malta, 12p to Azerbaijan, goodbye"??! This is just sooo unefficient, it's not worth the effort at all. So much work for such a little outcome. But this interaction with all countries is a very important and emotional thing, as it's the only way of being present for some countries (the non-qualifiers). This interaction is what makes Eurovision so special. I don't like to see how this gets less and less importance and I don't want it to turn into a sterile and unpersonal thing. Also, based on the "excitement" aspect: Often there were some three-horse races for example, where it was very exciting to see who would get the 8p, the 10p and the 12p. The 8p and 10p were part of creating suspense. But now all those things are removed just for the sake of having Petra Mede announce the winner in the last minute. And to be honest, it even was Sweden's fault in 2012 when they just stopped the voting procedure to crown Emmelie as the winner AND THEN continued the voting again. That was awkwardness par excellence. They were the ones who started announcing the winner too early. Most people wouldn't even have noticed that Emmelie already won, but Sweden decided to make it awkward and make the last countries completely irrelevant and boring. I'll just talk about the stuff I agree with, since I'd just be repeating myself otherwise Yes, the former USSR juries do bloc--vote (besides the Baltics and Ukraine) and Azerbaijan is the worst. Actually they're probably the only country where the jury is worse than the televoting (the others are mostly on par). About the comment I made about the 8,10 and 12..I wasn't directing it at you. Honestly, I'm not even sure what to think of it. I was referring to some people on YouTube claiming it was a "tradition" (even though it's only been done that way for 10 years). And yeah, it is really annoying when they announce the winner before it's over. I think most people would agree on that |
|
|
|
Post by (inactive) on Feb 20, 2016 9:25:07 GMT 1
So yes, after the amount of points from televoting, we will see how much everyone gave   + the voting will start right after the performances are over because juries voted earlier than televoting. And while they're announcing jury points, the televoting points are counted and announced in the end  |
|
|
|
Post by αndreas on Feb 20, 2016 9:27:19 GMT 1
um I'm sure that they won't ditch the intervals or the recaps |
|
1,942
5,805
Our first caress
|
Post by Mordecai on Feb 20, 2016 9:39:11 GMT 1
^
Not to mention...
1: Not everyone wants to vote and watch the results at the same time
2: They aren't going to interrupt the jury voting to tell you to stop televoting. That's unprofessional. Nor are they going to extend the voting window until the end of the jury voting either.
3: If people could vote whilst the jury votes are being revealed it could lead to the influence of voters (e.g if a person likes song 1 and 2 but song 1 is first and song 2 is coming last, they're more likely to vote for them because they don't have as many votes).
|
|
|
|
Post by (inactive) on Feb 20, 2016 13:29:34 GMT 1
I have to correct myself, the jury votes will start right after the televoting is stopped. No spaces in between closing of the voting and first votes because jury votes are done earlier. ^^
|
|
