5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 99:
Line 99: − + Line 109:
Line 109: − + Line 115:
Line 115: − + Line 123:
Line 123: − + Line 130:
Line 130: + + + + + + + + − ===Role of Captains===+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Challenges
(For use by judges only)
(For use by judges only)
===Sschultz entry points(2-0)===
===Sschultz entry points (2-0)===
This matter was referred for determination under the rules for Contest3. The locus of this dispute revolves around the contributions of [[User:SSchultz]]. Some of his articles are felt to be silly, thereby becoming an attempt to game the system and unworthy of merit. Is a "silly article" worthy of points?
This matter was referred for determination under the rules for Contest3. The locus of this dispute revolves around the contributions of [[User:SSchultz]]. Some of his articles are felt to be silly, thereby becoming an attempt to game the system and unworthy of merit. Is a "silly article" worthy of points?
<br/>[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:10, 24 November 2007 (EST)
<br/>[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:10, 24 November 2007 (EST)
====Addendum====
====Addendum (2-0)====
We, the Judges, feel that due to the lack of recordkeeping on the part of SSchultz, false claims of credit, and blatant overcrediting, his score will not be counted into the official total.
We, the Judges, feel that due to the lack of recordkeeping on the part of SSchultz, false claims of credit, and blatant overcrediting, his score will not be counted into the official total.
<br />[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:06, 25 November 2007 (EST)
<br />[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:06, 25 November 2007 (EST)
===Brianco lecture linking===
===Brianco lecture linking (2-0)===
As regards the matter of linking by BrianCo between lectures, we decide as follows. The points are to be allowed as the rules clearly allow such points to be accrued. We, the Judges, exist solely to interpret and apply the rules, therefore we must rule accordingly.
As regards the matter of linking by BrianCo between lectures, we decide as follows. The points are to be allowed as the rules clearly allow such points to be accrued. We, the Judges, exist solely to interpret and apply the rules, therefore we must rule accordingly.
<br />[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 25 November 2007 (EST)
<br />[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 25 November 2007 (EST)
===GregLarson categorization===
===GregLarson categorization (2-0)===
This matter directly stems from the SSchultz controversy. At bar is whether or not points should be allowed for editing entries which were disqualified by the judges for their very limited nature. We feel that this should not be, and consequently disqualify all such edits. We feel that, when the rules are vague, the guiding principle should be that points are granted for improving Conservapedia. This applies not only to the individual edit made, but to the whole article. Greg made contributions which would normally be helpful, however they were made to pages which should not have been there in the first place. For these reasons, we have determined that the points gained by removing the template from the pages in question shall be negated.
This matter directly stems from the SSchultz controversy. At bar is whether or not points should be allowed for editing entries which were disqualified by the judges for their very limited nature. We feel that this should not be, and consequently disqualify all such edits. We feel that, when the rules are vague, the guiding principle should be that points are granted for improving Conservapedia. This applies not only to the individual edit made, but to the whole article. Greg made contributions which would normally be helpful, however they were made to pages which should not have been there in the first place. For these reasons, we have determined that the points gained by removing the template from the pages in question shall be negated.
[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 23:32, 25 November 2007 (EST)
[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]<sup>[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]</sup> 23:32, 25 November 2007 (EST)
<br />[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:46, 25 November 2007 (EST)
<br />[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:46, 25 November 2007 (EST)
===Contest Outcome (2-0)===
Despite the point adjustments noted above, the overall winner remains the same. '''Congratulations to [[Conservapedia:Team Supply Siders|Team Supply Siders]]!'''
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:56, 29 November 2007 (EST)
===Proposed Changes to rules===
===Proposed Changes to rules===
Since Conservapedia contests are, by their nature, group events, we feel that it is not for the Judges to decide how future contests will be run. We would advise that all interested participate in the great discussion occurring above. We have, however, come up with some general guidlines and suggestions, which we think can be helpful for future discussions. They are listed in no particular order.
*Define roles for Team captains
**There was some confusion as to what, exactly, a Team Captain's responsibilities include. Adding this language to the rules could help clear up confusion in the next contest.
*Ensure all players fully understand the rules before the contest commences
**Players who are unclear of the rules can cause undo strife and confusion. Ensuring all players agree and understand the rules will lead to a more fun competing atmosphere.
*Remove the rule granting points for linking within American Government lectures
**We feel that contests should stay within the realm of the encyclopedia. Additionally, adding redundant links within a lecture do not serve to improve the lecture.
*Add rules governing actions not currently covered (such as adding a redirect)
**Lack of a specific rule in these areas lead to players guessing how many points undefined actions are worth.
*Mandate clear point tallies
**During the course of judging, we had to go through the contributions of some players and try to determine which edits coincided with which points. This is an undue burdon on the judges which is easy to remove. While there is no need to go into as much detail as he did, [[User:Iduan/Contest3|Iduan]] has created a transparent, easy to read, and easy to judge points tally.
*Define a purpose for the contest as part of the rules
**For situations which the rules do not cover, having in writing a "spirit of the rules" can help guide players to the correct action.
*Enact a system for interpreting rules during the contest
**For some actions, it is necessary to have an immediate ruling, rather than wait until the end of the contest.
*Rewrite the rule concerning "Wanted Pages" links
**Since the [[Special:Wanted Pages|Wanted Pages]] is a dynamic page, a given term's wanted status can easily change within the contest. Additionally, it is prohibitively difficult to determine, when judging, whether a page was actually on the wanted pages list at the time the page was made.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:56, 29 November 2007 (EST)