I think Mark's right about this. Olympic athletes get no say in how drug
tests are performed.
They do, however, have a right to a full understanding of how the tests
work. That's what the contest community has: the right to know how it works.
And, having paid attention over the years to all the posts from Tree and
Trey and others, I think that's what they've tried to do.
But determining the process should be in the hands of the sponsor, who will
set up the rules in line with the desired flavour of the contest, much like
the S&P rule in sprints. The sponsor's responsibility, then, is only to
communicate the rules to the contest community.
I think when you leave adjudication in the hands of the adjudicated, an
undeniable conflict of interests comes into play.
None of this should be taken to mean that you can't complain about processes
or rules you don't like. That is your right. But it's also the sponsor's
right to disagree.
73, kelly
ve4xt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Beckwith" <mark@concertart.com>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] computers ruined contesting
> Leigh said (my...edits):
>
> >Mark, I think you're missing the point...what this
> >discussion is about is the contest community
> >seeking open and democratic discussions and
> >decision-making on the subject of log checking...
> >our present log checking system is based on
> >exactly the opposite set of principles.
>
> I take this to mean:
>
> "the present log checking system is based on individual mavericks who
don't
> talk to each other, and that we, the peanut gallery, have a democratic
right
> to have the contests checked the way we want regardless of what the
> sponsoring organization thinks."
>
> I don't agree with that (if I got it right).
>
> I will be the first to say I could have missed something. But then again,
I
> may *not* have missed something. Many have jumped to the conclusion that
> what Leigh says is true. However, I only recall one email paraphrasing an
> exchange with Dan Henderson which concluded that because Dan said
something
> like "every checker does it his own way," there must be a flagrant
violation
> of democracy.
>
> Even though Dan said it (if that's what Dan said), it may not necessarily
be
> the case. It is a leap from "every checker does it his own way" to the
> conclusion above, without first, for example, asking the checkers what
> they're really doing, some of whom have already weighed in on the matter
> with reassurance that a "free-for-all" is not taking place.
>
> So far I think this conversation has been centered on that one post, but I
> could be wrong, and I for one would like to hear from other checkers
before
> concluding they're out of touch.
>
> I believe the checkers do it because they have expertise, track record,
> ability, etc, so I don't think they will be out-of-touch or
non-democratic.
>
> The post I made that Leigh says I was missing the point on, was pointing
out
> how it turned out this wasn't even the reason for the complainant's score
> reduction. I think this is very telling. In actuality we might be
> discussing a non-issue.
>
> Mark, N5OT
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
> THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on professional DVD and VHS!
> http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~jamesb/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|