I'd have vetoed Dragonette tbh.

 

Iamamiwhoami declared the TRUE WINNER.

I'm just going to address the veto situation AND basically tell you all why I veto some songs and not others (transparency FTW :D). When we see the list of confirmations, sometimes the country name is included, sometimes it isn't, and it doesn't make a difference. There's the same amount of discussion on certain entries when we don't see who is sending it than if we do know who is sending it. With Kerli, I vetoed it because it racked up a hefty amount of views on Youtube within a few hours and was set for a big release. With Darin, I vetoed him because it was a new release, hyped on blogs and had the potential (and still does) of doing very very well outside of Sweden. There was no ulterior motive behind my decision. I didn't veto Tone, due to the fact that she's hardly known on Buzzjack. Not many people besides Phil or Norway even knows who she is and I doubt she'll ever be big. I understand people think she has a huge following on here, but she kind of doesn't. Her thread is 12 pages long and has been there for almost 2 years (that includes the 10-month gap of inactivity!), so I fail to see how she is a sensation! I supported the veto on Molly Sanden because she had just participated in Melodifestivalen and had placed reasonably well in it. I didn't veto Eric Saade because I didn't see his music as being as popular or current as Molly's, and he DNQd which just shows that we were right not to veto it.

 

With regards the question of whether or not a mod's entry bypasses vetoing: I don't think we've ever had a situation where a mod's entry has been genuinely cheap? I understand your concerns that it MIGHT happen, but it hasn't and I doubt it will. And it certainly won't on my part. If I have an issue with an entry, it gets a veto from me regardless. I know the other mods hold this stance too. May I suggest that perhaps the hosts of the future competitions send the confirmation list to us WITHOUT country names? It doesn't make a difference to us but some people on here think it does so it would get rid of that 'fear' straightaway.

 

I have a few reservations about the 'jury' idea. It's a good idea, but I don't support the motives behind it. There seems to be a common concern that mods bypass the system. As I've said above, this isn't the case and I would like a few examples if you think differently. When has a mod ever entered something cheap? Tone's thread, which was started two years ago, has 12 pages and I can't see her being famous outside of Norway. Hardly cheap. I don't think we've ever had a situation where people have had huge problems with a mods entry, and so I'm finding it a bit hard to understand why this is an issue when it hasn't been before. I don't mean to sound like a prick, but these worries have come out of nowhere and it does seem as if people are just tagging along to a not-so-great argument. I can't see how mods get a free-pass, which makes the whole 'jury' argument rather weak.

 

I am also quite worried about the apparent lack of confidence in the mods. We've never discussed vetoing something because of X person or whatever. If you're that worried about it you can ask the admins and global mods, who can vouch for us, as they can see everything we discuss. It has never happened, and never will because it's stupid. We look at the songs and discuss whether or not they're cheap or whether or not they'll go on to become future hits. This is the process which you've supported. There have been times when we've disagreed or have been on the fence about songs, and so we didn't veto them. It's not an easy thing to do and we do make mistakes, but most of the time we're right and I fail to see how minor issues (Darin OUT: Tone IN) warrant such a huge response. It's also worth noting that it wasn't that long ago when members decided what was banned from being sent. Some of those vetoes were ridiculous, so the 'non-mods' or 'respected members' weren't 100% right the whole time either. Please don't forget that you actually used to call the shots, and I don't seem to remember anybody having any issues in handing the responsibility over to the mods. In fact, I think most of us supported it?

 

Your concerns have been noted and we WILL discuss them. I think there should now be a rule for the confirmation lists to include songs ONLY and no country names so people don't think there's something going on. A better vetoing appeals process like Silas mentioned seems good, too. We do appreciate the concerns and the time taken to tell us what you think, and any other concerns that you have are more than welcome! I apologize for the novel, but I really do feel it's worth pointing out that there shouldn't be any suspicion of or lack of confidence in the mod team. We try to do what's best for the competition and I really think the concerns are unwarranted. Please don't let our reactions to this make you think twice about bringing an issue up. Feel free to PM any of us with any concerns if you don't want to discuss them publicly. We can then forward them to each other anonymously and discuss them.

 

Thanks for bearing with me! :D

 

I seem to recall occassions in the past where the mods have discussed some of our own proposed entries and decided that they shouldn't be entered, so it isn't the case that we always allow through whatever we want to enter.

 

Thanks for all your feedback though, it's good to know your thoughts so that we can discuss potential ways of improving the systems we use and ultimately the contest itself!

I can only speak for myself and not others that raised the issue but it's honestly not 'suspicion of the moderators' or any sort of mass revolt, it's just a suggestion to make it a more level playing field so that EVERY entry is 'examined' by four people, as opposed to three (a mod wouldn't veto their own entry after all!). For the record, for various reasons I'd have vetoed a couple of the mods entries since this process came into place, but I'm not going to say which they are - however, Look Back wasn't one of them!

You only need three of us to agree to send an entry crashing out of the contest. The reasoning behind just letting three people vet the mods entries is we, in theory, should no more than anyone what makes an acceptable entry.

It's really not about lack of confidence or trust or anything like that and I wouldn't read that much into it, not from my comments at least, as I said, I can't speak for other people. I trust Silas, Tom Kay, Ghosty and Cal 100%, think that you're one of the strongest mod teams we've ever had, and I respect the decisions that you make with the veto process.

 

By making a 'Have your say' topic, people are going to publicly say what they feel, which they may have resisted before. It's testament to how good the contest IS at the moment that this is the only constructive criticism that most people can offer. And it's not even criticism as such, I guess people are just thinking aloud. Nobody's suggesting that anything shady is going on behind the scenes (certainly not me anyway!), I think it's more that people are keen to see a completely level playing field with every single entry being subject to four objective nods of approval.

 

I'm hardly a saint myself when it comes to sourcing entries, Sunrise was nabbed from the Radio 2 playlist and Don't Go was played at the end of the Skins finale, and briefly went top 100 on iTunes! Everyone has a month when they're not COMPLETELY inspired, I was just relieved that both passed the vetting with these things in mind!

It's really not about lack of confidence or trust or anything like that and I wouldn't read that much into it, not from my comments at least, as I said, I can't speak for other people. I trust Silas, Tom Kay, Ghosty and Cal 100%, think that you're one of the strongest mod teams we've ever had, and I respect the decisions that you make with the veto process.

 

By making a 'Have your say' topic, people are going to publicly say what they feel, which they may have resisted before. It's testament to how good the contest IS at the moment that this is the only constructive criticism that most people can offer. And it's not even criticism as such, I guess people are just thinking aloud. Nobody's suggesting that anything shady is going on behind the scenes (certainly not me anyway!), I think it's more that people are keen to see a completely level playing field with every single entry being subject to four objective nods of approval.

Our primary concern is over how objective everyone would be. We know that we are objective, it's part of our job. We also have major concerns over the logistics and potential ramifications. It does upset/concern/anger me that people are suspicious that we wouldn't hold our entries to the same high standards. It still is a level playing field as we have so much experience doing this we veto our entries before confirming them (I have overlooked an insane number of tracks because I would have vetoed them) and then they are being vetoed again by all four of us.

I think the simplest way forward for now is what happened in the last contest. For every entry that is vetoed, if all of the mods who vetoed it explain the reason behind it, then at least we know the reason behind it so we can learn for the future.

 

I like Silas' idea of developing some sort of appeal system for any entries vetoed by the mods and this could be put forward to this 4-person panel as this would make it even more fair if it does get vetoed as a majority of 8 is much fairer than a majority of 4 - of course this is nothing against the mods as their opinion is just as much valued. And then if the extra people decide that they think it shouldn't be vetoed and there isn't a majority verdict for the veto, then the person would have won their appeal in a fair way. This would mean that the "panel" would only have to review a small number of entries which means time spent communicating wouldn't be as much as reviewing all 40 or so entries.

 

I think this would be a simple way of sorting out the veto situation as those who disagree with their entry being vetoed would then be put forward to 4 more people who can then judge it too. Therefore a larger sample of judges, the more valid the veto (I've just been revising psychology, hence the samples etc. :kink:)

 

Does that make sense? Of course it's only an idea :D

 

EDIT: Of course this doesn't have anything to do with the mods' entries situation - but my original idea was focused on all of the entries being put forward to a panel and not just the mods.

Edited April 27, 201213 yr by Ryan741

The mods are judging by the song and not by who wants to send it. I think the system is fair, they are doing a great job and I respect them because it's not an easy thing to do. So I would say we don't need changes but if the majority want we should change this (I believe in democracy :kink: ). Maybe the host (or the runner-up) could be the 4th person when it comes to a mod's entry. But I still say I trust them 100%.

 

oh and I don't think we have a dance/pop overload, it's far more balanced now than it was in the first (or first 2) years. We have a dance, pop, indie, rock etc. entry in each contest, so everyone can find a song from the genre he like.

 

There is a sentiment that mods are favoured in the vetoing process, which I feel is unfounded and there's no evidence to suggest that this occurs. My post pointed out that there's no favoritism. I seem to recall me not supporting a veto, but it went ahead anyway because it was 3 against 1. There's nothing stopping this from happening towards a mod. My novel above is just hitting out at the idea that people seem to think we're immune from the process. It only takes a majority to veto, so having an extra person won't make a difference. Mods' entries have never been vetoed because they didn't need to be. Please don't take my post the wrong way, but it is a level-playing field and I think the concerns voiced are over-the-top.

 

Apols if I've come across way too strong, but my Friday was what the French call a real 'cauchemar'! :lol:

Mods' entries have never been vetoed because they didn't need to be. Please don't take my post the wrong way, but it is a level-playing field and I think the concerns voiced are over-the-top.

 

Obviously it's all subjective to what people consider worthy of a veto, and as the mods it's up to you four to make the final call. But from me at least my comments are not concerns, they're more of a passing suggestion, I couldn't actually care less if nothing changes! I think that too much may have been read into the comments here, nobody is suggesting any dodgy goings on at all or mistrust of the mods.

 

I suppose the root of the issue is that every month some people must take a look at the confirmation list and think 'wait, how did that get let in when my entry didn't' and it ruffles some feathers. For example I bet far more BJSC participants had heard play (respected member) and Let It Go (mod) pre-contest than had heard Spread A Little Light or whatever it's called :lol: And 1 million odd people will have heard Don't Go (respected member) on the Skins finale! All three were very worthy entries though in their own right, just as I feel like the Molly track would have been, hence the suggestions for a veto appeal/jury from others. I'm also sorry for rambling and like I say, it makes it sound like I have an issue with the way things are currently done. I certainly don't, I wouldn't and couldn't do any better a job than the four of you do.

I'm completely with Rich. I don't mean to personally offend anybody, but I only voiced this because this is a topic where we can actually voice them. I also agree with him that I trust you guys 100% with the decisions and am sure you're only doing what you think is right. I just think that we should have a couple of extra people know and have a more balanced view on a mods entry.

 

This idea was most definitely inspired by the Darin veto. I'm not going lie. (But again the discussion with/about his song, I wasn't around much and missed it all. I probably would have been fighting for him not to be veto'd, but I wouldn't have sent him in for confirmation had I been there, just to save hassle) I just don't think it should have been veto'd. I still don't see why it was. It most certainly wasn't as cheap as the Tone entry the month before. (imo, nothing personal but that had far much more hype on here in comparison) She's been entered in this contest a couple of times before and was a firm Eurovision favourite act so had got herself a little fanbase on here that would be no different to entering, say a Glee song or something else equally as liked on here.

 

But after having said all that, maybe I'm just a lot more lenient? Because I wouldn't have called for Tone to be vetoe'd. I just don't think it was fair to veto Darin, when the contest before she was sent with that song, that iirc had quite a positive feedback on Buzzjack before it was sent to BJSC. It made a few personal charts too.

 

I was just making a suggestion on what I think would/could be an improvement to the contest. I didn't mean to make it feel like we didn't respect you as mods or anything. So for that I'm sorry, but I stand by my contribution.

i like turtles

 

NO SRSLY THO, if there's outrage re: tied winner, i LOVE iamamiwhoami and not so much Dragonette, but Dragonette's hardly something to be vetoed... I'm surprised it won tbh so let Tom Kay havehisting x

I can only speak for myself and not others that raised the issue but it's honestly not 'suspicion of the moderators' or any sort of mass revolt, it's just a suggestion to make it a more level playing field so that EVERY entry is 'examined' by four people, as opposed to three (a mod wouldn't veto their own entry after all!). For the record, for various reasons I'd have vetoed a couple of the mods entries since this process came into place, but I'm not going to say which they are - however, Look Back wasn't one of them!

THIS.

 

That's why I proposed 5th person to be introduced, if only for just examining four mods' entries!

i like turtles

 

NO SRSLY THO, if there's outrage re: tied winner, i LOVE iamamiwhoami and not so much Dragonette, but Dragonette's hardly something to be vetoed... I'm surprised it won tbh so let Tom Kay havehisting x

Turtles r lazay. Just like you were lazay to register last month and give Jonna your 12 and make me the WINNAH. UR FAULT etc. :cry:

I'm not disregarding anybody's ideas, but I'm just not sold on the reasons behind them. Jonjo, in your original post you said "certain other songs are getting the go ahead. (Most the ones from the mods)" and that there's a slight bias towards the mods, which prompted me to reply the way I did. The only situation where this was considered to be the case was Darin-Tone, and even that was (and still is) being completely blown out of the water (imo, of course). I can't find any other situations where a mod has had a cheap entry that should've been vetoed, hence why I'm finding it difficult to accept the reasons for the jury. Subsequent replies about the jury idea to monitor mods' choices annoyed me because it does suggest that we're not fully trusted (even if that wasn't your intention, but it does come across that way). A mod's entry can be vetoed, it only takes a majority to do it. Like I said before, vetoes have gone ahead when I've disagreed with them, so there's nothing stopping this from happening to a mod's entry. And there have been cases where one of us supports a veto and the other three don't. It works both ways. Besides, we often have cases where two of us support a veto and two of us are against, so it doesn't get vetoed, perhaps when it should - so do we have to bring in a system where this doesn't happen? It seems to be a bit complicated, although not entirely unworkable. It's definitely something we're looking into, and I know we've agreed to some rule changes already in response to your concerns. Please don't let this deter others from raising suggestions. And please remember, it wasn't your suggestion I was against, just the reasons/sentiment behind it. I think Silas has a post ready with a few changes being announced, so please keep an eye out for it!

Besides, we often have cases where two of us support a veto and two of us are against, so it doesn't get vetoed, perhaps when it should - so do we have to bring in a system where this doesn't happen?

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Perhaps it's just that the mod vetting procedure is so behind the scenes that most of us didn't realise properly how it worked hence what must look like some uninformed off the cuff comments.

 

Until you've just said it, I didn't realise that a 50/50 split means that the entry still goes forward to the competition, so perhaps in cases like this, and this only it should go to a 'respected fifth member' or the host. It's honestly not lack of trust or anything like that, it's just giving a third party a chance to have an objective say if 50% of the mods are deeming the track too cheap or unworthy of being in the contest.

 

But I apologise if anything that I've said has come across as accusing or anything like that because it really wasn't intended in that way at all. When I say 'a level playing field' what I mean is that every single entry be subjected to the same procedure, the procedure of a panel of four deciding on a track's fate. This is all hypothetical but what would happen if Ghosty confirmed a new hot leak that only Silas objected to, but you and Tom let through? Under the current rules it would go straight through as it would be a 2-1 split for the track, however with an impartial fourth panel member objecting to it too, it could go to a 2-2 split and therefore be subject to extra scrutiny if this 'fifth member' thing came into force. It's not about lack of trust, it's about every entry having the same odds of going through various procedures the same way. To flip these trust accusations 180, the whole vetting procedure itself could be seen as a lack of trust on everyone that isn't a mod that we're all going to select uninspired contest ruining entries that have to be screened before being deemed suitable! Luckily nobody thinks of it like that, I don't think anyone does at least :lol:

If they ever have a tie, Jester, RFC and I can see the mod forum so maybe one of us (perhaps Jester as he's more established in BJSC?) could be the 5th opinion?

 

What I would add is, having read the discussions in the mod forum while I was being nosey, I really wouldn't say the mods usually favour their own entries.

I think for ultimate fairness it's best if hosts NEVER include which country has sent which song, so any bias can be minimised as much as possible.

I think for ultimate fairness it's best if hosts NEVER include which country has sent which song, so any bias can be minimised as much as possible.

It's already being done as far as I know.

Possibly, I only bother looking occasionally. Phil did say sometimes in his post, and looking at the last one there's a full list with country names in it.