If a judge has two acts in the bottom two...

[Jack_]

...can they please ask Dermot to get them to vote last please, because that way it forces them into making a decision and the potential for deadlock (everyone's favourite) is still there. Asking them first, or anything other than last for that matter, turns the vote into a majority one...and um...that's dull.

If you get them to vote last, either they abstain and as a result leave a majority vote sending one of their acts home (didn't this happen once or twice too? it's the most moronic decision ever to abstain if you vote last), or force a tie and send it to deadlock, which is fairer, but most of all it makes the vote more interesting and forces the judge to make a decision.

Really bugs me why they go to them first :shrug:

[Niamh.]

I think it's better, i prefer when it doesn't go to deadlock so atleast when one judges refrains from voting we get an actual judges decision rather than deadlock

[Scream]

I said this yesterday too...if they abstain when they're last then it is almost like they are voting if they choose not to vote. It's annoying.

[Jack_]

Louis trolling for deadlock dramas >

It's the best bit of the results show. When the possibility of deadlock is removed, suddenly there's a whole lot less of tension.

[GiRTh]

I dont think they should be allowed to abstain. Part of their job is to judge and if they are too fragile to make a decision then they should give up their job as a judge.

[Josy]

I dont think they should be allowed to abstain. Part of their job is to judge and if they are too fragile to make a decision then they should give up their job as a judge.

Yeah I agree with this, they should be forced to make a decision.

[Jack_]

You can't actually force them though, if they just point blank refuse to vote what are they supposed to do, have Dermot sack them live on air? If you go to them last whatever decision they make will have some outcome on the result meaning really they have voted regardless. Abstain and they've ended up leaving the existing majority to send an act home (when Kelly did this it was ****ing moronic) or vote and send it to deadlock. Whichever way they're backed into a corner that forces them to affect the outcome some way.

Also I can understand abstaining, say you vote first and the act that you voted for stays after the other judges vote in a 3-1 majority or deadlock, you've then got to work with an act you sent home...not exactly the greatest atmosphere really.

[GiRTh]

You can't actually force them though, if they just point blank refuse to vote what are they supposed to do, have Dermot sack them live on air? If you go to them last whatever decision they make will have some outcome on the result meaning really they have voted regardless. Abstain and they've ended up leaving the existing majority to send an act home (when Kelly did this it was ****ing moronic) or vote and send it to deadlock. Whichever way they're backed into a corner that forces them to affect the outcome some way.

Also I can understand abstaining, say you vote first and the act that you voted for stays after the other judges vote in a 3-1 majority or deadlock, you've then got to work with an act you sent home...not exactly the greatest atmosphere really.If the judges want to abstain then they should make it a toss of a coin or something that will make them sh*t their pants. They'll soon vote.

Again its their job to mentor whether they like it or not so I dont care if they have to work with someone who they wanted to send home. They're happy to take all the media attention and giant salary that comes with being an x factor judge so they should be made to make tough decisons

[Josy]

Judges are there to judge so having them refuse to make a decision every time it's their 2 acts in the bottom is pointless and I think deadlock is a bit crap tbqh it makes the whole sing off on a Sunday pretty pointless if it's just going to go with the votes anyway.

[Jack_]

Well that wouldn't make very good TV if Dermot just said 'well me just get this coin out to decide the result...we're going to TOIN COSS' *flashy red graphics and booming music*

tbh the public would probably be more pissed at something like that too and either way I don't think the judge would care. The only way they will ever be backed into making a decision is if they're asked last, any other position and you allow them to cop out and not have to contribute

[Sophiee]

I dont think they should be allowed to abstain. Part of their job is to judge and if they are too fragile to make a decision then they should give up their job as a judge.
I agree with the op, but I agree with this too. they should have to make a decision.

[GiRTh]

Well that wouldn't make very good TV if Dermot just said 'well me just get this coin out to decide the result...we're going to TOIN COSS' *flashy red graphics and booming music*

tbh the public would probably be more pissed at something like that too and either way I don't think the judge would care. The only way they will ever be backed into making a decision is if they're asked last, any other position and you allow them to cop out and not have to contributeI think they'll soon vote if the thing was made into a lottery by their abstention. I;m not saying make it a toss of a coin I'm saying thats an example of something that I think will force the judges into voting. Abstaining makes them look weak IMO

[GiRTh]

Actually the more I think about it the more I like the coin toss idea. They should make it so if a judge abstains then all of the power is taken away from the judges and its decided on the toss of a coin. So none of the judges vote and the whole thing goes to a coin toss. Now that would be dramatic.

[Jack_]

If the judges want to abstain then they should make it a toss of a coin or something that will make them sh*t their pants. They'll soon vote.

Again its their job to mentor whether they like it or not so I dont care if they have to work with someone who they wanted to send home. They're happy to take all the media attention and giant salary that comes with being an x factor judge so they should be made to make tough decisons

Still don't see how you expect them to be forced to vote, like all they have to do is not say anything, the judge has more power over Dermot and the show, how can they be forced to say a name? Hold a gun to their family backstage or something?

The only way they can be forced to make a decision it to have them vote last, which is the point of this thread. I don't like them abstaining because majority votes are dull, but seriously unless Dermot goes to them last, they will continue to cop out and there's no way to force them to vote

Judges are there to judge so having them refuse to make a decision every time it's their 2 acts in the bottom is pointless and I think deadlock is a bit crap tbqh it makes the whole sing off on a Sunday pretty pointless if it's just going to go with the votes anyway.

The sing off has always been pointless, it barely has any affect on the vote at all, it's just there to fill time

Deadlock is the best thing about the results shows, the Flash Vote rules were ruining all the tension of the judges votes since we knew what the outcome would be going into the vote, Tamera's bottom two wasn't much better since it was obvious they'd save her anyway but even the small potential for Louis to do his usual trolling of moaning about how difficult it is and then taking it to deadlock at least made it somewhat exciting. Last nights would have been good too had they gone to Nicole last since seeing her either abstaining and sending an act home or taking it to deadlock would have made it more dramatic. That is of course assuming Louis would have sent Hannah home, which if Nicole was to vote last, I think it would have been 2-1 somehow

[Niamh.]

Ohhh do you know what they should do? They should cut the judges from voting at all. They should have an independent panel of judges (that change every week) that vote solely on the sing off performance

[Jack_]

Actually the more I think about it the more I like the coin toss idea. They should make it so if a judge abstains then all of the power is taken away from the judges and its decided on the toss of a coin. So none of the judges vote and the whole thing goes to a coin toss. Now that would be dramatic.

Viewers would without a doubt be more pissed off at that than a judge abstaining. Let's say it were Sam Bailey VS Shelley, Sharon refuses to vote and then the random/coin toss idea sends one of the favourites to win the show home...not gonna go down well or do anything beneficial for the figures really

[GiRTh]

Or they say if a judge abstains then they cant vote for the rest of the series.

Or they make it so their other act is automatically in the bottom two the next week

There are many way to do it but I think they should make it so there is a severe penalty for not voting.

[Niamh.]

Or they say if a judge abstains then they cant vote for the rest of the series.

Or they make it so their other act is automatically in the bottom two the next week

There are many way to do it but I think they should make it so there is a severe penalty for not voting.

That would be a good one

[Jack_]

Or they say if a judge abstains then they cant vote for the rest of the series.

Or they make it so their other act is automatically in the bottom two the next week

There are many way to do it but I think they should make it so there is a severe penalty for not voting.

The first one would make every vote a majority one which is tediously dull, also giving one judge the sole power each week (assuming the bottom two are two acts from different categories, if they aren't then that judge would abstain again and you'd end up in a situation where only two judges could vote meaning it would be deadlock on a predictable 1-1 vote every week, how bizarre), and the second option would be ridiculously unfair and the amount of complaints from viewers would be unbelievable

The judge also wouldn't care if they don't get to vote, it's not life or death. They don't want to vote in the first place when abstaining so telling them they never have to vote again is akin to telling a student that's truanting that they're being suspended...you're giving them what they want

The only way out of this is to have the judge vote last. Anything else and they can absolutely abstain and get away with it

[GiRTh]

That would be a good oneI think we've got something here.

Make it so it affects their other acts if they abstain. Or better still if they have three acts it affects tae act that wasnt in the bottom two.

Like I say, abstaining make them look weak and indecisive IMO so there should be a very harsh penalty for it.

[GiRTh]

The first one would make every vote a majority one which is tediously dull, also giving one judge the sole power each week (assuming the bottom two are two acts from different categories, if they aren't then that judge would abstain again and you'd end up in a situation where only two judges could vote meaning it would be deadlock on a predictable 1-1 vote every week, how bizarre), and the second option would be ridiculously unfair and the amount of complaints from viewers would be unbelievable

The judge also wouldn't care if they don't get to vote, it's not life or death. They don't want to vote in the first place when abstaining so telling them they never have to vote again is akin to telling a student that's truanting that they're being suspended...you're giving them what they want

The only way out of this is to have the judge vote last. Anything else and they can absolutely abstain and get away with itI dont agree. If it affects their other acts then I think they'll vote. I think the public will be screaming at the judges to grow a set and make a decision.

Also, the whole point is that the penalty is harsh maybe even overly harsh cuz having the majority vote is just as unfair. IMO And the option of abstaining becomes out of the question.

[Jack_]

Okay hypothetically

Shelley VS Lorna, Sharon refuses to vote

Sam Bailey is therefore definitely in the next bottom two, meaning she may as well not turn up to perform of Saturday and they lose a hell of a lot of revenue from not opening her line (not gonna happen) plus viewers since she's a favourite, plus complaints because it's unfair (seriously the amount of people that care about judges abstaining is minute)

Then when the vote happens, let's say Kingsland Road VS Sam B, the vote goes 1-1 after Gary and Sharon vote, then what happens if Louis trolls and takes it to deadlock? How do the tied vote rules work since Sam's line wasn't open? Does she go home because she secured her bottom two place the previous week? Bit unfair and asking for viewer backlash no? It's far too messy

[GiRTh]

Okay hypothetically

Shelley VS Lorna, Sharon refuses to vote

Sam Bailey is therefore definitely in the next bottom two, meaning she may as well not turn up to perform of Saturday and they lose a hell of a lot of revenue from not opening her line (not gonna happen) plus viewers since she's a favourite, plus complaints because it's unfair (seriously the amount of people that care about judges abstaining is minute)

Then when the vote happens, let's say Kingsland Road VS Sam B, the vote goes 1-1 after Gary and Sharon vote, then what happens if Louis trolls and takes it to deadlock? How do the tied vote rules work since Sam's line wasn't open? Does she go home because she secured her bottom two place the previous week? Bit unfair and asking for viewer backlash no? It's far too messyExactly. It take the option of abstaining out of the equation.

[Niamh.]

I think we've got something here.

Make it so it affects their other acts if they abstain. Or better still if they have three acts it affects tae act that wasnt in the bottom two.

Like I say, abstaining make them look weak and indecisive IMO so there should be a very harsh penalty for it.

yep definitely, it's a bit like when people refuse to nominate in BB, it shouldn't be tolerated :nono:

[GiRTh]

How about this one.

If they abstain then they have to abstain everytime their acts are in the bottom two. Thus, they can never save their own act.

Jack, we can go for ages on this but I dont think the judges should be allowed to abstain under any circumstances.

[Jack_]

Exactly. It take the option of abstaining out of the equation.

Except it doesn't because you cannot guarantee that they will vote, yes it may be seriously unlikely under those circumstances but the possibility is still there and every TV show has to have a contingency plan for the most unlikely of circumstances, much like how in the voting T&C's available online you'll find the rules of what happens in the ridiculously unlikely event that the winners vote is completely tied between the two finalists, where all the previous votes across the live shows for each act would be aggregated and that would decide the winner, or if that was still tied (yes, they still have a plan for that), then the judges (producers) decision is 'final'. These things are so unlikely to be ever used but there still has to be a plan for them in case they do somehow to come to be, it's a live TV show after all. Which as a result means unless all the issues I pointed out with your idea of securing the surviving act in the abstaining judges category a place in the next bottom two can be ironed out, it could never be used because in the unlikely event that a judge actually did abstain (and tbh they could for strategic reasons, say the act that survived is their least favourite, if they abstained they'd be in the bottom two and could possibly go home the following week), they would be ******ed as to what exactly to do. You can't run a TV show like that, it just won't ever happen.

How about this one.

If they abstain then they have to abstain everytime their acts are in the bottom two. Thus, they can never save their own act.

Jack, we can go for ages on this but I dont think the judges should be allowed to abstain under any circumstances.

That also forces every vote into a majority one which as I've already said is seriously dull and lacks a lot of tension, plus hypothetically:

Two acts in same category are in the bottom two, the judge would be abstaining anyway so it doesn't matter to them. And then if they're in two different categories, one judge would have the sole power as with another idea someone presented, which is kinda unfair (especially on the act with the abstaining judge, there would be a lot of complains about this guaranteed).

I don't understand why you're not down with the idea of getting them to vote last, it's the most simple yet effective method and requires no format changes. It's been done before and has solved the problem, backing the judge into a corner where whatever decision they make affects the outcome, that's as good as it gets. The whole reason I created this thread was so that a judge couldn't back out of making a decision and removing the potential for deadlock completely.

For anyone that doesn't remember:

aMcyaXF5_xI

I actually remembered wrong, Kelly votes third, but as it was 2-0 at that point it produces exactly the same effect, so if they get Dermot to either go to the judge with both acts in the bottom last if it's 1-1, or third if it's 2-0, then either way they're backed into affecting the result.

That video, whilst Kelly's decision is ridiculously dumb, is far more exciting, easier to understand and fairer (even though Kelly's decision is arguably sorta unfair) than any of the ideas presented in this thread

[Scream]

If they refuse to vote then the other judges get to pick their other acts save me song on the spot... that would be funny seeing them improvise :P

[GiRTh]

My disillusionment with the x Factor stems almost entirely from Simons tactical voting during the Katie Waissel fiasco. Tactical voting by the judges is virtually impossible to stop but I at least want them to make a decision and have it in the back of their mind that they have sent someone home. - Not leave it to the public. I think having the public decide each week is the fairest option but I appreciate there is little drama in that scenario. - Thus I'm not a fan of the mentor with both contestants in the bottom two going last. Its too easy for them to send it to deadlock. I want the dream scenario where the mentor goes first and is as good as forced to choose one of their acts over the other.

I dont doubt that my suggestions are harsh or even unfair but I think all other options lead to an easy cop out by the judges.