Fifth Judge possible?

[Niamh.]

after last weeks fiasco Simon is said to be considering introducing a 5th judge to stop a similar scenario from occurring. I don't know how true this article is but interesting none the less

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1328610/X-FACTOR-2010-Simon-Cowell-furious-Dermot-OLeary-stokes-fixing-claims.html

[Locke.]

Yeah Paddypower have got odds on this. Gary Barlow favourite at 3/1

[Niamh.]

Gary Barlow would be a good choice actually

[Legend killer]

Katy Perry all the way

HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Vicky.]

The debacle has led to claims Simon Cowell is considering introducing a fifth judge to ensure if one of the panel refuse to vote, it would be possible to got to deadlock if the remaining four voted 2-2.

That makes no sense at all. Basically all that is saying is the judges will no longer have to vote...its up to them if they chose to, and if anyone has two acts in the bottom they just get let off :/

[Jack_]

Hm, I think I've come up with a fairly good idea which would involve five votes but only four Judges...

-Goes to post new thread-

[Niamh.]

Hm, I think I've come up with a fairly good idea which would involve five votes but only four Judges...

-Goes to post new thread-

interesting..............

[Novo]

They need someone like Chico.. the Judge's panel seems a bit to serious at times.. needs to be lightened up a bit with a bit of Chico time

[nanaimo]

maybe a guess judge everyweek, a person that represents the public

[Niamh.]

They need someone like Chico.. the Judge's panel seems a bit to serious at times.. needs to be lightened up a bit with a bit of Chico time

to make it even more of a farce than it already is? No thanks

[nanaimo]

why not just bring bobo the clown altogether :)

[Novo]

to make it even more of a farce than it already is? No thanks

How would it be a farce? Chico would be a great addiction

[Niamh.]

How would it be a farce? Chico would be a great addiction

yeah because he really knows what it takes to make it, doesn't he?!:joker:

[Jordan.]

It'd just be unneccessary getting another judge, I dont get some peoples problem that it went to majority vote, Normally everyone dislikes when it goes to deadlock anyway.

No need to change something because some people cant help but moan.

[_Seth]

Oh FFS how stupid. No, just no. All that should be done is to remove the possibility of judges abstaining their vote.

Guest judges are always annoying, and even if there are 5 judges - most of the time they're all gonna vote, so it'll be impossible to go to deadlock.

What the genuine ****? This is so stupid I don't understand. It's what the judges signed up to do - they should be FORCED to vote, or be fired on the spot, live on TV. I'm being serious.

[Locke.]

yeah because he really knows what it takes to make it, doesn't he?!:joker:

His #1 single says he does, yeah

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01699/chico-eddie-mulhol_1699904i.jpg

[Niamh.]

It'd just be unneccessary getting another judge, I dont get some peoples problem that it went to majority vote, Normally everyone dislikes when it goes to deadlock anyway.

No need to change something because some people cant help but moan.

I think what they need to do is either have a rule that when a judge has both acts in the bottom that they either always go last so they have the dead lock option, always abstain from voting and so it's majority rules or always have to vote whether they want to or not. If this was made clear and it was stuck to then people couldn't complain.

[Niamh.]

His #1 single says he does, yeah

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01699/chico-eddie-mulhol_1699904i.jpg

oh you like that idea too? there's a surprise:joker:

[Jack_]

I think what they need to do is either have a rule that when a judge has both acts in the bottom that they either always go last so they have the dead lock option, always abstain from voting and so it's majority rules or always have to vote whether they want to or not. If this was made clear and it was stuck to then people couldn't complain.

The only reason people are complaining is because it was Katie in the Bottom Two. No one would give a flying ***** if it was Paije VS TreyC, just like no one gave a flying ***** when it happened the first time in Series 4. It's only because it's Katie that people are complaining. They need to get over it - especially considering last year most of them were always moaning that it went to Deadlock too often, and it was rendering the Judges votes pointless. And now they DO want it to go to Deadlock? But only when Katie is in the Bottom Two? How odd...

[Niamh.]

The only reason people are complaining is because it was Katie in the Bottom Two. No one would give a flying ***** if it was Paije VS TreyC, just like no one gave a flying ***** when it happened the first time in Series 4. It's only because it's Katie that people are complaining. They need to get over it - especially considering last year most of them were always moaning that it went to Deadlock too often, and it was rendering the Judges votes pointless. And now they DO want it to go to Deadlock? But only when Katie is in the Bottom Two? How odd...

Jack, I'm not getting into to this with you 3 days running.

So you think having a set rule on the matter is a bad thing?

[Jordan.]

I think what they need to do is either have a rule that when a judge has both acts in the bottom that they either always go last so they have the dead lock option, always abstain from voting and so it's majority rules or always have to vote whether they want to or not. If this was made clear and it was stuck to then people couldn't complain.

I think this would be the best, they should have just done that in the first place. They obvioisly thought by making Cheryl choose second it would cause more drama, which it has, but unfortunately Cheryl is left taking all the blame now.

& agreed with what Jack said.

[Niamh.]

I think this would be the best, they should have just done that in the first place. They obvioisly thought by making Cheryl choose second it would cause more drama, which it has, but unfortunately Cheryl is left taking all the blame now.

& agreed with what Jack said.

Well, I think if Simon came out on Saturday and announced that in the future when a judge has both acts this is what's going to happen, then whatever it is, atleast people would know and would have no reason to think it's been fixed to suit whatever acts are in the bottom 2

[Jack_]

Jack, I'm not getting into to this with you 3 days running.

So you think have a set rule on the matter is a bad thing?

...it's not case of getting into it again, it's pretty obvious. If no one complained the first time it happened why are they complaining now? There is absolutely no way there would be so much fuss if it were Paije VS TreyC...no one cares enough about them to speak out.

And no, because I already believe there is [or would've been] a set rule - just that it was never publicised, it was a sort of 'this is what we will do if for some strange reason this ever happens'. Those sort of things, generally, do not need to be told to the audience of a television show - it's 'backstage rules' essentially. And for Dermot to run through all of that before the Judges vote would not only confuse people, but it would also waste a lot of unnecessary time [time that they're also short of as well]. There's lots of rules in all TV shows that no one knows about - and nobody wants to know about either.

[Niamh.]

...it's not case of getting into it again, it's pretty obvious. If no one complained the first time it happened why are they complaining now? There is absolutely no way there would be so much fuss if it were Paije VS TreyC...no one cares enough about them to speak out.

And no, because I already believe there is [or would've been] a set rule - just that it was never publicised, it was a sort of 'this is what we will do if for some strange reason this ever happens'. Those sort of things, generally, do not need to be told to the audience of a television show - it's 'backstage rules' essentially. And for Dermot to run through all of that before the Judges vote would not only confuse people, but it would also waste a lot of unnecessary time [time that they're also short of as well]. There's lots of rules in all TV shows that no one knows about - and nobody wants to know about either.

So it's ok for you to comment on solutions even make a thread about it with your own idea on it but not for people who don't like Katie?:conf: I don't like Katie but I was just commenting on a newspaper article.

But the problem is most of us took it as a given that the judge who had the 2 acts in would go last, it was done earlier in the series for Simon so it was expected to happen the same for Cheryl. I don't think them clarifying their stance on this would be too much to ask after the controversy and public annoyance it has caused.

[Jack_]

So it's ok for you to comment on solutions even make a thread about it with your own idea on it but not for people who don't like Katie?:conf: I don't like Katie but I was just commenting on a newspaper article.

But the problem is most of us took it as a given that the judge who had the 2 acts in would go last, it was done earlier in the series for Simon so it was expected to happen the same for Cheryl. I don't think them clarifying their stance on this would be too much to ask after the controversy and public annoyance it has caused.

I never said you couldn't offer solutions or comment on newspaper articles, I'm just stating that the only reason all of this fuss and 'solutions' being drawn up are only because Katie was in the Bottom Two. Sure, there'd be the odd comment on forums here and there each week when an act went out [like there always is] - but the only reason this has caused so much fuss is because Katie stayed.

No one would bat an eyelid, like I said, if this was Paije VS TreyC...because no one cares enough. It's only because people want rid of Katie.

[Vicky.]

I think what they need to do is either have a rule that when a judge has both acts in the bottom that they either always go last so they have the dead lock option, always abstain from voting and so it's majority rules or always have to vote whether they want to or not. If this was made clear and it was stuck to then people couldn't complain.

Yes this sounds good. if it was consistent, then people wouldnt have any grounds to complain.

[arista]

after last weeks fiasco Simon is said to be considering introducing a 5th judge to stop a similar scenario from occurring. I don't know how true this article is but interesting none the less

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1328610/X-FACTOR-2010-Simon-Cowell-furious-Dermot-OLeary-stokes-fixing-claims.html


Yes Do It.

[Niamh.]

I never said you couldn't offer solutions or comment on newspaper articles, I'm just stating that the only reason all of this fuss and 'solutions' being drawn up are only because Katie was in the Bottom Two. Sure, there'd be the odd comment on forums here and there each week when an act went out [like there always is] - but the only reason this has caused so much fuss is because Katie stayed.

No one would bat an eyelid, like I said, if this was Paije VS TreyC...because no one cares enough. It's only because people want rid of Katie.

The reason why people are annoyed is irrelevant, the fact is we are, and we want clarification of the rules so we don't find ourselves in this position again. As it is the public who keep the show going and line Mr. Cowells pockets then I don't think this is too much to ask for.

[Vicky.]

The reason why people are annoyed is irrelevant, the fact is we are, and we want clarification of the rules so we don't find ourselves in this position again. As it is the public who keep the show going and line Mr. Cowells pockets then I don't think this is too much to ask for.

Yup, dont really think it is too much to ask for a little clarification of how things are going to work from now on.

After all, if someone else ends up with two acts in the bottom, and are allowed to go last, that will drag all this back up again.

[Niamh.]

Yup, dont really think it is too much to ask for a little clarification of how things are going to work from now on.

After all, if someone else ends up with two acts in the bottom, and are allowed to go last, that will drag all this back up again.

Yeah, of course it will, people will be shouting fix even louder, that is of course unless Simon says From now on judges with 2 acts in the bottom will vote last!

[cub]

Easier just to have three judges as they did in the first three years.

[Jack_]

The reason why people are annoyed is irrelevant, the fact is we are, and we want clarification of the rules so we don't find ourselves in this position again. As it is the public who keep the show going and line Mr. Cowells pockets then I don't think this is too much to ask for.

...it's not irrelevant, because essentially it's not the 'fix' that people are more concerned/cared about - it's the fact that Katie stayed. There would not be as much fuss as this if it were someone else other than Katie - some would not even have noticed this 'fix' because they wouldn't have been paying attention for ways in which they, apparently, tried to 'keep Katie in'.

There's always backstage rules [can't think of the proper word for them] on TV shows, they're pretty much the small print except they aren't printed. They're just for 'in case this ever does happen' - rarely used and thus there's no reason for them to ever be publicised.

[Niamh.]

Oh FFS Jack, either stay on topic in the thread or don't post.

Dead. Horse.

[Vicky.]

...it's not irrelevant, because essentially it's not the 'fix' that people are more concerned/cared about - it's the fact that Katie stayed. There would not be as much fuss as this if it were someone else other than Katie - some would not even have noticed this 'fix' because they wouldn't have been paying attention for ways in which they, apparently, tried to 'keep Katie in'.

There's always backstage rules [can't think of the proper word for them] on TV shows, they're pretty much the small print except they aren't printed. They're just for 'in case this ever does happen' - rarely used and thus there's no reason for them to ever be publicised.

Jack, if they sort this now, then it will save outrage in the future if this happens again. Simple.

Even if they do it the normal way next time...say Paije and Aiden were in thje bottom this week, and dannii is asked last...there will be hell on as the decision with katie and treyc will be dragged up again.

The fact that sometimes the judge is asked last, and sometimes second/first kind of shows there is NO backstage rules about stuff like this. And they can just twist situations to suit themselves.

All they need to do is clarify what will happen if the same thing happens again.

[Jack_]

Even if they do it the normal way next time...say Paije and Aiden were in thje bottom this week, and dannii is asked last...there will be hell on as the decision with katie and treyc will be dragged up again.

The fact that sometimes the judge is asked last, and sometimes second/first kind of shows there is NO backstage rules about stuff like this. And they can just twist situations to suit themselves.

All they need to do is clarify what will happen if the same thing happens again.

...that's all well and good, but regarding this point:

Jack, if they sort this now, then it will save outrage in the future if this happens again. Simple.

This has happened in the past though, in Series 4, so Sunday's events were the 'future'. Why wasn't there outrage the first time it happened?