| | ::Isn't the dispense of rulings in an unfair manner, making up new rules and new interpretations off the cuff how Conservapedia works? Pots, kettles and black comes to mind.[[User:SimonGordon|SimonGordon]] 14:06, 25 November 2007 (EST) | | ::Isn't the dispense of rulings in an unfair manner, making up new rules and new interpretations off the cuff how Conservapedia works? Pots, kettles and black comes to mind.[[User:SimonGordon|SimonGordon]] 14:06, 25 November 2007 (EST) |
| | *No, I wasn't attempting, nor had it in mind to truncate any review whatsoever. Following your lead of good sportsmanship, and your firmly held view I had somehow ''failed'' in my duties as Captain, I found little choice but to forfeit. In the Olympics (since you cite them as an example), there are thousands of rules, ''all enumerated in advance'' and covering a myriad of scenarios. Not so here. However your point about accountability is well made, and also brings to mind the conservatives tradition of self-reliance as well. As for feedback, I think we have all been following your post-contest comments closely, and taking our cues from them as they are invaluable! Feeling myself to be a complete failure in my ability to surmise what my Captain duties were, I personally found no other suitable sanction than to penalize myself by giving up my own points called into question, while we await the adjudication of the judges. As a conservative, I firmly hold to not wanting some advantage over my fellow team members, or members of the opposing team that is ever thought to be unfair. This exercise (of the contest) isn't about personal or team advantage, but the enrichment of Conservapedia. Given the many, many quality articles and edits (in spite of the questioning of some of them) once again this project is the winner! As Barry Goldwater so clearly said: ''"And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."'' --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 14:24, 25 November 2007 (EST) | | *No, I wasn't attempting, nor had it in mind to truncate any review whatsoever. Following your lead of good sportsmanship, and your firmly held view I had somehow ''failed'' in my duties as Captain, I found little choice but to forfeit. In the Olympics (since you cite them as an example), there are thousands of rules, ''all enumerated in advance'' and covering a myriad of scenarios. Not so here. However your point about accountability is well made, and also brings to mind the conservatives tradition of self-reliance as well. As for feedback, I think we have all been following your post-contest comments closely, and taking our cues from them as they are invaluable! Feeling myself to be a complete failure in my ability to surmise what my Captain duties were, I personally found no other suitable sanction than to penalize myself by giving up my own points called into question, while we await the adjudication of the judges. As a conservative, I firmly hold to not wanting some advantage over my fellow team members, or members of the opposing team that is ever thought to be unfair. This exercise (of the contest) isn't about personal or team advantage, but the enrichment of Conservapedia. Given the many, many quality articles and edits (in spite of the questioning of some of them) once again this project is the winner! As Barry Goldwater so clearly said: ''"And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."'' --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 14:24, 25 November 2007 (EST) |