Changes

1,326 bytes added ,  04:43, November 25, 2007
→‎Challenges: another challenge, with explanation
Line 48: Line 48:  
:I think the whole point of future competitions should be reviewed.  Why are they being held; to improve the quality of articles or to increase the total number?  There is an inherent conflict in these aims which should be resolved.  The rules for this competition were outlined beforehand and so long as edits comply with them then they should be allowed to stand. Public recriminations about other competitors' work does Conservapedia no favors - it appears childish, small-minded and leaves the same bad-taste that quibbling over professional sports now engenders.  It also opens us up to ridicule. At my school, the traditional values of sport were upheld, that the playing of the game with respect for your opponents was what mattered, not the winning. If you lost and had played well then you could still hold your head up and be proud of your contribution. These were the values that a British, traditional conservative, Christian school of 450 years standing tried to instill into its pupils, ones that I still hold dear even if they are not universally appreciated. I hope that we can close this issue and move on.  If points are deducted from my score then so be it. I will respect the verdict of the judges.  I played the game according to the rules and will not make any counter claims against other players, even if it means that my team are disadvantaged by it.  [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:25, 24 November 2007 (EST)
 
:I think the whole point of future competitions should be reviewed.  Why are they being held; to improve the quality of articles or to increase the total number?  There is an inherent conflict in these aims which should be resolved.  The rules for this competition were outlined beforehand and so long as edits comply with them then they should be allowed to stand. Public recriminations about other competitors' work does Conservapedia no favors - it appears childish, small-minded and leaves the same bad-taste that quibbling over professional sports now engenders.  It also opens us up to ridicule. At my school, the traditional values of sport were upheld, that the playing of the game with respect for your opponents was what mattered, not the winning. If you lost and had played well then you could still hold your head up and be proud of your contribution. These were the values that a British, traditional conservative, Christian school of 450 years standing tried to instill into its pupils, ones that I still hold dear even if they are not universally appreciated. I hope that we can close this issue and move on.  If points are deducted from my score then so be it. I will respect the verdict of the judges.  I played the game according to the rules and will not make any counter claims against other players, even if it means that my team are disadvantaged by it.  [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:25, 24 November 2007 (EST)
   −
:: BrianCo, please don't take a challenge personally.  It reminds me of when my son was first cite by the referee for committee "fouls" in basketball.  It made my son very upset.  But the "fouls" are part of the game of basketball, challenges and objections are part of the practice of law, and I think post-contest challenges enhance our contests.  These challenges facilitate scrutiny of the rules and improves the spirit the game.  In the first contest, the judges did disqualify some points and penalize one team.  In the second contest, none of that post-contest analysis occurred and I think that was unfortunate.  People will compete in these contests closer to their spirit in the future if there is a vigorous post-contest analysis.  Challenges help promote that.  Thanks and Godspeed, and please feel free to shine light on my team's work in kind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:05, 24 November 2007 (EST)
+
:: BrianCo, please don't take a challenge personally.  It reminds me of when my son was first cited by the referee for committee "fouls" in basketball.  It made my son very upset.  But the "fouls" are part of the game of basketball, challenges and objections are part of the practice of law, and I think post-contest challenges enhance our contests.  These challenges facilitate scrutiny of the rules and improves the spirit the game.  In the first contest, the judges did disqualify some points and penalize one team.  In the second contest, none of that post-contest analysis occurred and I think that was unfortunate.  People will compete in these contests closer to their spirit in the future if there is a vigorous post-contest analysis.  Challenges help promote that.  Thanks and Godspeed, and please feel free to shine light on my team's work in kind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:05, 24 November 2007 (EST)
 +
 
 +
* With reluctance, I feel compelled to challenge TK's 280 points which are apparently based on assigning (or merely changing?) one obscure category in a hundred or so entries.  I may be mistaken but don't immediately see the value in that re-categorization, even though under a hyper-literal reading of the rules it may be entitled to points.  In the quality spirit of the contest, I think these points require a challenge. 
 +
 
 +
* Also, while TK obviously did a splendid job picking his team, I wonder if there should be additional scrutiny and possibly a penalty for how a captain manages his players during a contest.  I ended up having to divert precious time and effort from my team towards policing a player on TK's team, and while I'm not seeking points for that effort, I do think judges should consider assessing captains based on unsportsmanlike conduct by their players.  I think the analogy in basketball may be the "technical foul" award against a captain or entire team.  As I said in my comments to BrianCo above, I hope there is good sportsmanship in reaction to these challenges and that nothing here is taken personally.  I do think that challenges and some accountability enhances the contests and will lead to even greater achievements next time!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:43, 24 November 2007 (EST)
    
== Judges ==
 
== Judges ==
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
126,215

edits