if a judge said something like "I put Skater X in 1st. I hope you did too!", when others still have yet to submit their scores, it can be construed as that judge attempting to influence others to align with his/her own marks. Ideal judging has each judge arriving at their decisions independently, and not based off the opinions of someone else.
So what if they are attempting to influence others to align with their marks? EVERY judge should be doing that, the same as in any debate. It's the entire purpose of debate! All sides make their points heard, and people either shift their opinion based upon the outside perspective they've been given, or they come to the conclusion that their own opinion was already the most sound. If someone is so insecure in their own opinion that any outside pressure will cause them to crumble and shift like the wind, then that person is not fit to be a judge in the first place!
There are quick, important things that could be said between judges such as "did you see that two-foot landing? might have been hard to spot" or "did you see their wobbly edge in the footwork?" If attention can be brought to something that an observer might have missed, then it should be. Tech panels already communicate and I think the judging should be divided between Tech elements and PCS anyway, with all of the Tech judges serving as both callers and GOE assigners. The PCS judges being able to briefly discuss nuances and features of the program and performance is healthy to me too. Again, assuming these panels operated as honest, objective academic peer groups. Why wait until after everything is over to address problems that happened during the competition and possibly could have been fixed? That's like telling a gaming team they can't use voice communication during a match. The difference in coordination between having it or not is drastic.
I don't get why you keep parroting that most judges aren't prepared to judge. I get that you have a longstanding bitterness towards the ISU/judging, but you have yet to provide any concrete evidence that actually substantiates this assumption/accusation. I don't get the false equivalency of watching films either - there's nothing to suggest that judges don't independently study the sport themselves (the way fans like you or I do) in conjunction with their ISU/federation training.
There is no requirement in the ISU that the judges independently study the sport, and many of them don't, and weren't skaters themselves (which IS a concrete fact). In order for something to be legitimate it should be directly enforced. Imagine if doctors didn't have to pass rigorous training and testing, and just given basic overview and then let out there to be making important decisions. The ISU testing and assessment of judges is a joke, maybe that's my opinion but I've seen the actual tests, so at least I can say it's far below what I think the standard should be. It's another concrete fact, however, that judges are not selected on absolute merit by the ISU, since there is a limit of 1 judge sent per federation and those judges are put forth by the individual federations, not the ISU themselves.
From what I gather, it is rigorous work to get to that level. Sure there are cases of nepotism, but to be able to judge at an ISU level, you need vast experience and training.
You need to travel to competitions and play politics with the federation. Maybe that qualifies as rigorous busy work, but it doesn't make it inherently great work or great experience in having deep understanding about skating itself and the scoring system and how to use it. Very comparable to a factory worker being taught how to press all the buttons and look at things solely within the limited specifications given to them. To make the assembly line move. People who do that well get rewarded, but that doesn't mean they fully understand the product they've made (like a computer for example) and how it objectively compares in usage to other similar products.