just don't ban my semi 2 votes or Trashlexis won't be happy :heehee:

And here comes Trashlexis telling why he doesn't like this banning idea :kink:

And here comes Trashlexis telling why he doesn't like this banning idea :kink:

Hence the last resort proviso :P And anyway, here's hoping that Nick voted in semi 1 first :kink:

Hence the last resort proviso :P And anyway, here's hoping that Nick voted in semi 1 first :kink:

 

I hope none of my votes are removed after all that effort and time I spent listening to both semis :snif:

just don't ban my semi 2 votes or Trashlexis won't be happy :heehee:

 

also I don't think that optional voting partnerships would work that well, because it might encourage friendly voting unless the 'partnerships' were drawn at random but then of course not everyone would want to do it...

Well, it's not so much a partnership - it's just finding someone in the other semi willing to vote. But then, I do appreciate that people might be bribed into double-voting with the offer of points, so perhaps getting partnerships together then randomising the partners?

 

Or alternatively, have everyone double-vote, but make partnerships for those who don't want to double-vote? If anything that's anti-friendly voting seeing as you'll be searching for someone to not give you points! :lol:

 

Or, as an ineffectual method, we could have everyone announce their partnerships and then have a statistician check the regularity with which partners exchange points :kink:

I hope none of my votes are removed after all that effort and time I spent listening to both semis :snif:

I do hope so :(

i think its worth while refining then bringing forward after the NF rule has been fully debated.

i think its worth while refining then bringing forward after the NF rule has been fully debated.

 

agreed, I can see it being another issue that will cause split opinion...

 

it's not something that would bother me much either way to be honest, but people don't seem to like new integrations in the rules so I probably would leave it as it is to be honest

agreed, I can see it being another issue that will cause split opinion...

 

it's not something that would bother me much either way to be honest, but people don't seem to like new integrations in the rules so I probably would leave it as it is to be honest

Hence why I said I'd elaborate on it after the final :P

Oh god. By the time of NF debate we will have tonnes of things like this. I never thought the contest has so many potential blur moments :lol: :(

Uh, i've really not had anytime to listen to these songs at all. And now my computer's decided to die LOL so expect very late votes from me.

It would, but you could discount Rich's votes as a last resort...

 

Which reminds me of a proposition I've been wanting to put forward that I will elaborate on after the contest :o Would people be willing to allow optional voting in both semis, with the proviso of 'partnerships' created to ensure balanced voting? (i.e., before you vote in the other semi, you have to find someone in the other semi willing to vote in yours)

Thankfully Nick got his semi 2 votes to me at about 7:30 this morning, panic over. ^_^

 

I don't think this is a good idea. I'm not as against it as I am with NF songs, but I think the way it is now is enough of a load for the hosts. This would make it possible for there to be the equivalent of three finals and all those votes to arrange could be a bit much? As good as voting in both semis would be, I think the system we have now works. I'm open to being swayed though.

 

U WANNA SEE ME WIND IT WIND IT?

It's all changed now anyway, apparently the two songs weren't that far ahead. It'll probably change again when I add the overnight votes. I remember why I love hosting so much now. :dancing:

It would be worth discussing fully in the future, especially if we get to the stage where we have 3 semi's.

 

It would help to prevent the problem of a great indie song not qualifying because it's in a pure pop semi.

I think it breaks the KISS rule, far too complicated for my liking

I wish there was a formula for that, Phil :(

I think it breaks the KISS rule, far too complicated for my liking

The what rule?

I wish there was a formula for that, Phil :(

i'm sure i could whip one up.

 

i did get an A1 at Higher Maths :magic:

i'm sure i could whip one up.

 

i did get an A1 at Higher Maths :magic:

Higher Maths has been my life for the past 3 years and is to be for 2 years more. :lol: So I can conclude there's no formula tbh :( [/majordisappointer]

Edited April 2, 200916 yr by Pavel Af Ugglas

Higher Maths has been my life for the past 3 years and is to be for 2 years more. :lol: So I can conclude there's no formula tbh :( [/majordisappointer]

Higher Maths is a high school qualification in Scotland similar to England's [and wales] A-Levels

What are we even looking for a formula for?

What are we even looking for a formula for?

allowing everyone to vote in all 3 semis with some not voting all 3.

 

i think