Totallympics International Song Contest Discussion

[mrv86 3,138]

@OlympicIRL for the moment I choose option A

 

was thinking the following:

 

For multiple member juries, instead of adding the total points, what about applying the tie-breaking criteria? That would mean that for that specific jury, their numer one song should be the one with most individual juries ranking it first. Then in case of a tie, we should look for each song how many 2nd places, then 3rd places, etc. And only in case of an absolute tie, then a random draw?

[OlympicIRL 5,532]

14 hours ago, mrv86 said:

@OlympicIRL for the moment I choose option A

 

was thinking the following:

 

For multiple member juries, instead of adding the total points, what about applying the tie-breaking criteria? That would mean that for that specific jury, their numer one song should be the one with most individual juries ranking it first. Then in case of a tie, we should look for each song how many 2nd places, then 3rd places, etc. And only in case of an absolute tie, then a random draw?

Thanks for voting 

 

I’m not sure if I understand how that system works. Maybe you could explain it further.

[mrv86 3,138]

8 hours ago, OlympicIRL said:

Thanks for voting 

 

I’m not sure if I understand how that system works. Maybe you could explain it further.

 

Sure.

 

Here's how the Italian jury result during last year Annual Contest, using the traditional method.

 

	J1	J2	J3	J4	J5	TOT
IRL	9	8	8	11	2	38
NZL	8	1	5	12	3	29
CRO	1	9	12		7	29
LTU			10	6	4	20
BRA	10	2	2		5	19
TUN	11	5	3			19
NED	7	12				19
CHN			9		9	18
SVK			7		10	17
ALG		10		7		17
ESP		7		9		16
GER	2				12	14

 

Now here how I propose it could work:

 

1) First every song receiving the maximum 12 points should be ranked.

 

	J1	J2	J3	J4	J5	TOT
CRO			12			12
GER					12	12
NED		12				12
NZL				12		12
POL	12					12

2) As we can see, last each jury member chose a different "winner" song. So in this cases the first tie breaking criteria would be total number on individual juries voting for them, which will result in something like this:

 

 

	J1	J2	J3	J4	J5	TOT	JV
NZL	8	1	5	12	3	29	5
CRO	1	9	12		7	29	4
NED	7	12				19	2
GER	2				12	14	2
POL	12					12	1

 

 

3) Then we can see there's still have a tie between the Dutch and German entries. So, the next criteria to apply would be which of those received the "bigger" points, resulting in the Netherlands' song beaing ranked third and Germany's fourth.

 

As you can see at this point, Poland's entry which wasn't originally ranked, yet was deemed the winner by one individual jury would still receive some decent points.

 

4) Then we will repeat the same process with those songs ranked second by the individual juries:

 

	J1	J2	J3	J4	J5	TOT	JV
IRL	9	8	8	11	2	38	5
TUN	11	5	3			19	3
DEN	3	11				14	2
AUS			1		11	12	2
COL			11		1	12	2

 

5) Now, Australia and Colombia tie can't be broken by the factors explained above, so a random draw would take place to rank them.

 

6) Then the same process would be repeated with songs ranked 3rd, then 4th and so son, if necessary.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by mrv86

[OlympicIRL 5,532]

@mrv86 Thanks for explaining, I understand what you mean now. But I think that’s not the fairest system. For example, pretend the Italian jury with 5 members voting for 5 different songs as first preference and 5 different songs as 2nd preference. That means 10/12 votes in the combined are already used. 
And then a song which received 10 points from all 5 members (50 combined points) would only receive 2 points in the combined. Even though it is the most liked in general and probably deserves the combined 12 points.

 

Also, another example. A song which receives 11 points from all 5 members (55 combined) would be ranked behind a song that receives a single 12 from one member and nothing from the other members. I think that would not be a reflection of the overall taste.

 

There needs to be a balance if possible between allowing for the overall favourites to be rewarded fairly but also allowing individual preferences to appear in there too.

[dcro 10,210]

How about just ensuring that each song which received maximum 12 points from any of the jury members must be included in the final points distribution?

 

In this case it would mean throwing out Spain, Germany getting 2 points and Poland being promoted to 1 point. Basically a favorite song would be guaranteed to get a point of two, if not otherwise represented. It should work well even with larger juries.

 

	J1	J2	J3	J4	J5	TOT
IRL	9	8	8	11	2	38
NZL	8	1	5	12	3	29
CRO	1	9	12		7	29
LTU			10	6	4	20
BRA	10	2	2		5	19
TUN	11	5	3			19
NED	7	12				19
CHN			9		9	18
SVK			7		10	17
ALG		10		7		17
ESP		7		9		16
GER	2				12	14

 

	J1	J2	J3	J4	J5	TOT
CRO			12			12
GER					12	12
NED		12				12
NZL				12		12
POL	12					12

Edited January 24, 2020 by dcro

[OlympicIRL 5,532]

20 minutes ago, dcro said:

How about just ensuring that each song which received maximum 12 points from any of the jury members must be included in the final points distribution?

 

In this case it would mean throwing out Spain, Germany getting 2 points and Poland being promoted to 1 point. Basically a favorite song would be guaranteed to get a point of two, if not otherwise represented. It should work well even with larger juries.

 

Well that's the thinking behind the new proposed points distribution. With extra points behind awarded to the first preference of each jury member it will hopefully ensure they appear somewhere on the combined list.

[Pablita 185]

On 19/01/2020 at 21:49, OlympicIRL said:

Totallympics International Song Contest: Rule Change Question

 

 

 

 

 

Ok so given how the voting was going (everyone voting for Option A) and due to some comments about agreeing but having concerns about the points format, I think the fairest thing is to scrap the original poll and continue with a revised one. The revised poll will still allow users to disagree with any proposed changes, however, instead of having a simple agree, disagree, this poll will offer a range of options in terms of the format.

 

 

So to remind everyone of the background of this poll, on the TISC Annual 2020 thread, @Dunadan has brought up the idea of changing the internal voting format for multi-member juries as he feels the current system in large multi-member juries means that the preferences of one member can be completely wiped out by the combined voting.

 

As such I thought it would be a worthwhile exercise to gauge the opinion of the wider TISC community on this issue.

 

 

It is important to be clear here that this does not mean that a large multi-member jury will award more points than any other jury. The internal points will be combined as normal to create a set of points from 12 to 1, in the same way that all national juries will award their points.

 

 

********************

 

 

 

 

Question:

In the case of multi-member juries with more than 3 jury members, the internal voting should be structured to allow each member of that jury to award points in which of the following formats?

 

 

(a) 18-15-12-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

(b) 16-13-11-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

(c) 15-12-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

(d) 14-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

(e) 12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

 

 

 

Apologies to all who voted in the original poll. Thank you for your votes and opinions as you have enabled a more clear and accurate poll to be created. However, I need you all to read through the revised poll and again cast a vote for your preference.

 

We will put a deadline of  Friday, 31st January 21:00 GMT for members to vote on this issue and whatever option receives the majority vote, the result of this poll will be implemented in time for the upcoming TISC Annual 2020 in Algeria and the rules will be edited accordingly.

Only users who have participated in a previous TISC event are permitted to vote in this poll.

 

I will not participate in the vote unless there is a tie in the result at which point I will cast a vote to break the deadlock.

 

 

Thank you for continued your attention

 

@bestmen @konig @LDOG @KingOfTheRhinos @titicow @vinipereira @intoronto @Manulete @Function CR Lee @dcro @Agger @Wumo @thepharoah @Finnator123 @Bohemia @Benolympique @uk12points @Janakis @Vektor @Fly_like_a_don @Griff88 @Ruslan @Werloc @Glen @mrv86 @Ionoutz24 @heywoodu @Wanderer @Skijumpingmaster @rybak @kungshamra71 @IoNuTzZ @DaniSRB @hckosice @justony @Cobi @Belle @amen09 @tuniscof @dezbee2008 @Olympian1010 @stefanbg @Damian @catgamer @Quasit @Dolby @Monzanator @kungshamra71 @FC Mezhgorye @Jur @Memo @Argenis Gonzalez @Henry_Leon @SteveParker @Pablita @Gianlu33

 

 

 

I prefer option e: I like things to remain as they are.

 

Moreover I think that this decision should be first voted by Italian jurors: if the majority of us (Italian jurors) has no problem with the current system why should we be forced to change it?

[OlympicIRL 5,532]

31 minutes ago, Pablita said:

 

I prefer option e: I like things to remain as they are.

 

Moreover I think that this decision should be first voted by Italian jurors: if the majority of us (Italian jurors) has no problem with the current system why should we be forced to change it?

Thanks for your vote. 
 

It’s a fair point also and I personally don’t like imposing different formats on national juries against their will. And yet I don’t want to ignore what majority are voting for here.

 

I don’t know what everyone thinks about it? Whatever happens, the result of this vote will become the “default” option. But should those larger multi juries be allowed to decide on their own format for distributing their points?

[Henry_Leon 1,400]

Maybe the current system, for large multi-member juries, is OK

 

These are the TOP 3 excluded after a combined votes by ITALY 

 

			top 3
	members	top3	without  pts	%
2019  OP	4	12	0	0%
2019  A	5	15	5	33%
2018  OP	4	12	2	16%
2018  A	4	12	1	8%
2017  OP	4	12	0	0
2017  A	4	12	3	25%
2016  A	4	12	1	8%
TOT		87	12	13,79%

 

You can see that we talk about a little cases and if only one voted this song and others members No the songs wasn't so good........

 

ITALY jury have always voted the winner of the contest, the actual system isn't so bad........

 

Detail of top 3 not voted (12 of 87)

1st = 1 time

2nd= 6 time

3rd = 5 time

 

The 18 points at the first song of each members are unnecessary, i voted for E option

[Henry_Leon 1,400]

On 19/01/2020 at 15:59, Vektor said:

I vote A. I think the current system can potentially create frustration and lower juror turnout, so I agree on that the top choice of the jurors should have a greater  weight in the internal voting. 

Until now never happened in ITALY members (I think)

 

 

On 19/01/2020 at 17:04, bestmen said:

 

for my part as the host , i know it's a little troubling but i wish that multijuries could combine their votes and send me the final one

 

they send their vote to each others and one of them will combine it , but yeah only if we can trust him because he could change his vote after receiving the others

 

but previously we all noticed that they know the votes of their colleagues when you ask , so it still possible

 

 

We send votes at the host and HE send at all the combined and the recap of each members votes (we trust in the host, not all had send back the votes in the past)

 

 

3 hours ago, OlympicIRL said:

Thanks for your vote. 
 

It’s a fair point also and I personally don’t like imposing different formats on national juries against their will. And yet I don’t want to ignore what majority are voting for here.

 

I don’t know what everyone thinks about it? Whatever happens, the result of this vote will become the “default” option. But should those larger multi juries be allowed to decide on their own format for distributing their points?

 

1st.: agree !

2nd: No, there are rules.