Contact us

FSC Chat Box

Mozz

Well-known member
Joined
February 23, 2011
Posts
11,248
The FSC mod team recently discussed and voted on the issue of non-voting juries, including juries that vote after the deadline.

The result of this discussion and voting is that there will be a new rule for these juries. Juries that fail to send their votes before the voting deadline will move to the bottom of the scoreboard and of the end result list, while retaining their points.
 

Leydan

Worldvision Mod
Staff member
Joined
March 1, 2013
Posts
18,237
Location
UK
I'm glad a rule for this has finally come in for this, 4 juries missing out on voting last edition was ridiculous. However, I personally don't think that really is enough. :? Really nothing seems to have changed except coming last? I don't know about anyone else but i think it should be stricter, with them losing all their points and maybe being banned from the next edition. I know this may mean a slightly lower number of participants some months but i'm sure it would deter people missing the voting deadline if there was harsh consequences.
 

A-lister

Veteran
Joined
December 28, 2009
Posts
32,843
The FSC mod team recently discussed and voted on the issue of non-voting juries, including juries that vote after the deadline.

The result of this discussion and voting is that there will be a new rule for these juries. Juries that fail to send their votes before the voting deadline will move to the bottom of the scoreboard and of the end result list, while retaining their points.

Hmm, so they will end up in the bottom but retaining their points? It will look a bit odd having let's say a country with 100+ points in the bottom. Why not simply end up with 0 points then? Or maybe I misunderstood something here xshrug

Anyways I'm still surprised how a deadline of a full month seems so impossible to make it on, I mean it's a long time. Sure sometimes we have less time, some times more, but a whole month should be enough really.
 

Paper7

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2011
Posts
4,853
Location
near zurich airport
Hmm, so they will end up in the bottom but retaining their points? It will look a bit odd having let's say a country with 100+ points in the bottom. Why not simply end up with 0 points then? Or maybe I misunderstood something here xshrug

Anyways I'm still surprised how a deadline of a full month seems so impossible to make it on, I mean it's a long time. Sure sometimes we have less time, some times more, but a whole month should be enough really.

I honestly think, that the long deadline is what causes the non-votings. I think some people (inclusive me) at first thinks "There is so much time left", starting forgett about FSC and then remembers too late (not including me, never missed a voting here :D) their participation in FSC. Alltough its simply to remember because DDL is always somewhere in the last days of the month.

Not that i will say we need a shorter deadline, it's fine to have a contest with a long one... in the end it is their problem, not everyone elses one, alltough it is sad if your 12 points are worthless or the winner would not be the "real" winner.
 

Mozz

Well-known member
Joined
February 23, 2011
Posts
11,248
I'm glad a rule for this has finally come in for this, 4 juries missing out on voting last edition was ridiculous. However, I personally don't think that really is enough. :? Really nothing seems to have changed except coming last? I don't know about anyone else but i think it should be stricter, with them losing all their points and maybe being banned from the next edition. I know this may mean a slightly lower number of participants some months but i'm sure it would deter people missing the voting deadline if there was harsh consequences.

Hmm, so they will end up in the bottom but retaining their points? It will look a bit odd having let's say a country with 100+ points in the bottom. Why not simply end up with 0 points then? Or maybe I misunderstood something here xshrug

Anyways I'm still surprised how a deadline of a full month seems so impossible to make it on, I mean it's a long time. Sure sometimes we have less time, some times more, but a whole month should be enough really.

I wanted to react to Ashley yesterday but thought it might be better to do that when more reactions to the new rule came in.

The rationale behind the "non-voting jury moves to the bottom but retains their points" is: the song retains the points received because that is what the song has deserved; the jury that sent the song however loses its position because that jury is sanctioned for non-voting or late voting. It is not the song that is sanctioned but the non-voting jury. This is (imo) better than sanctioning the song with a reduction in points or with a reduction in a percentage of the points received.
A second advantage is that the results, with the new rule at work, show what position a song would have yielded if the non or late voting jury had voted.

I personally think reducing both the song's points to zero and moving the jury to the bottom would a bit too harsh. But if there are more FSC members proposing this then I'll bring it up for discussion in the mod team and we'll vote on it.

As for repeated non or late voting by the same jury, we have the warning system. After a jury has received 3 warnings, they will get a sanction. BUT: since a while the FSC mod team is discussing the warnings system. Soon we'll vote on it. If there's a change in the warning system we'll announce it.
If there are enough FSC members who think that the warning system is not strict enough for non or late voting juries, then the FSC mods can discuss this and we'll think of something new.

I honestly think, that the long deadline is what causes the non-votings. I think some people (inclusive me) at first thinks "There is so much time left", starting forgett about FSC and then remembers too late (not including me, never missed a voting here :D) their participation in FSC. Alltough its simply to remember because DDL is always somewhere in the last days of the month.
Not that i will say we need a shorter deadline, it's fine to have a contest with a long one... in the end it is their problem, not everyone elses one, alltough it is sad if your 12 points are worthless or the winner would not be the "real" winner.

You've basically replied for me: the deadline is everybody's own responsibility. The FSC mods post the voting deadline very clearly in the threads and thread titles. It shouldn't matter whether the voting period is 5 days or 25 days.
 

Paper7

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2011
Posts
4,853
Location
near zurich airport
You've basically replied for me: the deadline is everybody's own responsibility. The FSC mods post the voting deadline very clearly in the threads and thread titles. It shouldn't matter whether the voting period is 5 days or 25 days.

Your answer sounds like i would have blamed the mods/rules for being reponsible for too late/non-existing votes, but i never told that. :confused: I just said why probably some people fail to vote and that it isn't still their own fault. I completely agree with what you said and with the new rule, alltought i would also preffer a "sit out one edition" sanction added.

If Lemmings fall into a Canyon, it's not the Canyons fault... alltough without him no Lemmings would fall down and die.
 

Mozz

Well-known member
Joined
February 23, 2011
Posts
11,248
lach... reading one word wrong can change the whole meaning. :lol:

i readed "answered to me" instead of "for me"... sorry for my failure :oops:

I think I now understand what you were doing. It's something that I sometimes do (too) and it gets me into situations exactly like these (of being misunderstood).

You were trying to describe how certain events in reality lead to other events. This is not the same as trying to point a blaming finger to certain events that have led to other (unwanted) events. Your perspective was purely scientific, not judging (blaming). And I appreciate it, because this approach is one that is usually the first step of solving problems. It's just that this way of describing reality is often easily misinterpreted as judging/blaming etc. But I understand now the thought behind your post and I can see why you suspect that the long voting period in FSC may lead to missing the voting deadline. The question is: who adapts to who? Should FSC adapt to the (few) people who tend to miss the deadline and shorten its voting period? Or should the (few) people who tend to miss the deadline adapt to FSC deadlines?
 

Mozz

Well-known member
Joined
February 23, 2011
Posts
11,248
There's a change in the FSC rules regarding warnings:

So far what happens now to juries that have received their third warning is: they will be put in RoW. If there's no RoW, they will need to sign up again for FSC.
The mods have discussed and voted on this. The rule will now change:

If the maximum number of countries is not reached and there is no RoW, the jury that has received their third warning will be banned from participation in the subsequent edition and in addition they will have to mandatorily vote in that edition.
 

Mozz

Well-known member
Joined
February 23, 2011
Posts
11,248
And if they don't? (vote in that edition)

The mandatory voting is really a part of the sanction. So if only one part of that sanction is fulfilled (the ban), then that's not enough. The count of sanctions will then still remain 1. Another edition will be given to that jury to fulfill the sanction. I.e. they will be given a ban + mandatory voting for another edition. And again and again if necessary.

I'll add some language to the new rule to make this clearer.
 

Mozz

Well-known member
Joined
February 23, 2011
Posts
11,248
The FSC mod team has recently decided and voted to overhaul the warnings system in FSC.

There are a few major changes.

- First and most importantly: the warnings will be divided in two types: a. DNV warnings = warning for not voting (or not on time) and b. general warnings = all other, non-DNV warnings.

- Within the DNV warnings system:
A DNV jury will receive a sanction only after a second time of non-voting within a period of 12 months. The sanction will be: a one month ban + mandatory voting in that month. So the jury will receive the sanction after having collected 2 DNV warning within 12 months. Example: the jury of the beautiful country of Liechtenstein failed to vote in January 2015 and failed to vote again in December 2015. The jury will receive a sanction. If that jury failed to vote in January 2016 (instead of in December 2015), then the DNV warnings will first go to 0 after December 31 (because the 12 month period has passed), then in January 2016 that jury will receive a DNV warning, the count will then be 1 and a new 12 month period starts.

- Within the DNV warnings system:
If a jury that has received a sanction does not fulfill the sanction, then they will be immediately banned for 6 editions.

- Within the general warnings system: the rule that was introduced on August 6 recently still applies (so nothing has changed when it comes to non-DNV warnings):
If the maximum number of countries is not reached and there is no RoW, the jury that has received their third general warning will be banned from participation in the subsequent edition and in addition they will have to mandatorily vote in that edition.
New in the general warnings system is: if a jury that has received a sanction does not fulfill the sanction, then they will be immediately banned for 6 editions.

Example:
Liechtenstein failed to vote in January 2015 and failed to vote in May 2015. The count of DNV warnings is 2, received within 12 months. Liechtenstein receives sanction for the edition of June 2015.
But Liechtenstein also failed to send an entry in September 2014 and November 2014. Then they fail to send an entry in July 2015. They have collected 3 general warnings. They will be moved to RoW in August 2015 and if there is no RoW they will receive a sanction in August 2015.

These changes are imminent.
 

Mozz

Well-known member
Joined
February 23, 2011
Posts
11,248
[MENTION=6221]Mozz[/MENTION] out of curiosity, what other situations would warrant a non-DNV warning?

The vast majority of the non-DNV warnings so far were given because a jury didn't send an entry. Then there were a few irregular cases in which the mod team had to vote on the issue and chose to give a warning.
 

Staewi

Well-known member
Joined
March 24, 2012
Posts
4,092
That moment when you learn :ma: Amine is actually a man. xrofl2 Voted in WV and in here only by mp3 and always thought it's a woman. :lol:
 
Top Bottom