[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...ng-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.]

Originally Posted by 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-

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.]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[nanaimo]

why not just bring bobo the clown altogether

[Novo]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

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.]

Originally Posted by Novo

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?!

[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.]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

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

His #1 single says he does, yeah

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.]

Originally Posted by Locke.

His #1 single says he does, yeah

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

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

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.]

Originally Posted by Jack_

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.]

Originally Posted by Niamhxo

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.]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

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_]

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.

[Niamh.]

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.