Quote:
Originally Posted by GiRTh
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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:
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
11-11-2013, 02:49 PM
Linear Mode
