Changes

Line 51: Line 51:     
Last of all: I propose that the team gets its two points for a block, ''so long as the judges determine that any reasonable and prudent non-competitor would have acted similarly.'' Anyone can have a block reversed, but still have good and sufficient cause to apply the block at the time. But I wouldn't want to encourage even the appearance of someone blocking without cause merely to earn points.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 06:44, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
 
Last of all: I propose that the team gets its two points for a block, ''so long as the judges determine that any reasonable and prudent non-competitor would have acted similarly.'' Anyone can have a block reversed, but still have good and sufficient cause to apply the block at the time. But I wouldn't want to encourage even the appearance of someone blocking without cause merely to earn points.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 06:44, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
: Great points, TerryH.  The judges (and I hope you've agreed to be one) will have discretion to add or subtract points as prudent, just as a referee has some discretion in sporting events.
 +
 +
: I'll set up a namespace for the judges now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,506

edits