[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

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.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Jack_

...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? 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_]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

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? 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.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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.]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

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.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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!

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

...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_]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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:

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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?