Tisch
Spare potatoes
With the bizarre situation of 6 jurors from semi 2 being banned, and three of those ending up with some (sort of) made-up jury scores, what can we do to improve this going forward?
Some things that spring to my mind:
- Increase the size of the juries - at the moment half of the scores are decided by 200 people. If we double this, we reduce the chance of cross-contamination between them
- In addition to this, maybe SOMETHING like only choosing 5 juror's scores at random to use, and the jurors therefore don't know if their score will be used or not. Likewise, discourages the use of any big bags of money if it's not definite that those scores will be used...
- QUESTION: Are the jurors together when they watch the performances? Because they should be isolated, and not allowed to discuss where they think certain points should be allocated.
- Not fully related but I'm also struggling with the juror score weighting (which, again would be improved with a looser conglomerate of jurors). I know this changed in 2018(?) and reasons were given, but looking at Romania's jury vote, Finland were given one 4th, and four positions in the 20's. The 4th has massively outweighed the 20's and they end up with jury points. There would be less need to bribe individual jurors if their points mattered less than that.
- Lastly - if a juror's scores are wildly out of touch with other countries'/televotes/general opinion, a quick interview as to WHY couldn't hurt. I'm all for various jurors having various opinions, but if they're as professional as they should be, they should also be happy to back these up. ()
Some things that spring to my mind:
- Increase the size of the juries - at the moment half of the scores are decided by 200 people. If we double this, we reduce the chance of cross-contamination between them
- In addition to this, maybe SOMETHING like only choosing 5 juror's scores at random to use, and the jurors therefore don't know if their score will be used or not. Likewise, discourages the use of any big bags of money if it's not definite that those scores will be used...
- QUESTION: Are the jurors together when they watch the performances? Because they should be isolated, and not allowed to discuss where they think certain points should be allocated.
- Not fully related but I'm also struggling with the juror score weighting (which, again would be improved with a looser conglomerate of jurors). I know this changed in 2018(?) and reasons were given, but looking at Romania's jury vote, Finland were given one 4th, and four positions in the 20's. The 4th has massively outweighed the 20's and they end up with jury points. There would be less need to bribe individual jurors if their points mattered less than that.
- Lastly - if a juror's scores are wildly out of touch with other countries'/televotes/general opinion, a quick interview as to WHY couldn't hurt. I'm all for various jurors having various opinions, but if they're as professional as they should be, they should also be happy to back these up. ()