homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:53 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 57 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:09 pm
Posts: 160
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 7
Evan wrote:
Stoa seems to be a lot more gracious with script submission. I remember when I did platforms and I made a small error on my citation, they just marked it and told me to have it fixed by next tournament. No big deal.

I also had a small mistake in italicizing in a different year, and they just let me reprint a revised copy at my hotel and bring it back. Again, no big deal.

So I find NCFCA's draconian script submission standards to be utterly ridiculous. It seems that they are fanatically pursuing the letter of the law and completely missing the spirit. DQ'ing someone over a small citation error is sheer folly.



Like Brennan said, you usually can fix it and bring it back the next day. I have not heard of someone being DQ'ed over a small citation error (assuming it is one that could be fixed). Even at Nationals, a friend of mine didn't italicize a part of her script and was still able to compete in that event as long as she brought the revised script the next day. My point was that rules like this are unnecessary anyway, not that NCFCA handled rule violations like these ungraciously.

_________________
~ Savannah Rigby

Beaver/Rigby | 2015-2016

Check out this video!

And this one!


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 4:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 1:58 am
Posts: 244
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: do I want you to know...?
Hammy wrote:
mountain dude wrote:
Other than that, I think it's nothing less than cruel to punish IE competitors for minor rule violations as NCFCA does.

This is a two sided coin. On one hand, yeah it doesn't seem right that your speech shouldn't pass SS if you fail to italicize the author. But at the same time, if you actually read through the rules and double check your preparation then there's no conceivable reason that you should have a rule violation. The vast majority of the time it's the student's fault for not practicing due diligence.


I wasn't referring to script submission; that's a lesser problem. I'm all for online script submission-it saves valuable time at tournaments, and makes it easy on both the students and the staff-it's easier to correct a script when you're sitting comfortably in your house than at a tournament where you might not have free access to a printer. It also allows the people correcting it to do a better job. That's a different issue though.

I don't think NCFCA should punish students for minor violations (e.g. missing a citation) because that's nearly always inadvertent. If it's something major in a speech then I can understand disqualifying/dropping the competitor, but many of the errors that I've seen NCFCA punish inadvertent and very easily fixed. Punishing somebody by dropping them to the bottom just because "they weren't in compliance with the rules, and everybody else was" is not the way to foster effective communication, which is the primary goal here, not competition. The rules can also be rather ambiguous in many situations. One of my best friends was disqualified from ADS because he hadn't fully memorized it, so he paraphrased a few sections. In my opinion, that's not against the rules, because he's sticking as close to the script as he is able. There is an argument to be made for both sides, but it is rather ambiguous.

_________________
Jonathan Meckel || Nebraska || NCFCA Boycotter. #BracketGate #BracketLivesMatter
Free at last, they took your life, they could not take your pride


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1361
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
mountain dude wrote:
One of my best friends was disqualified from ADS because he hadn't fully memorized it, so he paraphrased a few sections. In my opinion, that's not against the rules, because he's sticking as close to the script as he is able.

I'm really curious how anyone caught him doing this. :D But no, quite honestly, that's a rule violation that gives a definite advantage over those who follow the rules and totally memorize the speech. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a rule that gives a little bit of leniency in the memorization of platforms, but as it stands now, the event doesn't work like that.

mountain dude wrote:
and makes it easy on both the students and the staff

It really doesn't make it easier on the staff at all. The script submission team doesn't have all the time in the world before tournaments. Whether they have jobs or simply taking care of their families, it would simply be unfair to ask them to perform these duties pre-tournament in order to save a little bit of time for students. Now online script subs that you submit and are reviewed on registration day could have potential, but I don't know enough about tournament logistics to know if that would place an undue burden on the SS team. Also, bear in mind that the NCFCA has a very poor website design and any form of online script subs (at this point) would be a nightmare for them to sort out on the pre-existing website.

mountain dude wrote:
I don't think NCFCA should punish students for minor violations (e.g. missing a citation) because that's nearly always inadvertent.

If the rules aren't enforced, then who would follow them?

mountain dude wrote:
Punishing somebody by dropping them to the bottom just because "they weren't in compliance with the rules, and everybody else was" is not the way to foster effective communication, which is the primary goal here, not competition.

I believe that you're missing something here. While part of the reasoning behind punishing people for rule violations is to keep the playing field fair, the majority of the reasoning revolves around learning to follow the rules. This is something that a lot of homeschoolers lack, an ability to follow the rules consistently. Generally there is so much more leniency in the homeschool world than in the public school world. Deadlines, submission content, etc. can easily be shoved aside or overlooked. NCFCA is a representation of the real world when it comes to rules. It stresses that we need to learn to follow the rules, and if we can't learn to do this, then we're punished accordingly.

_________________
-Joshua
08-09 | Half-Timer | Verdict | R8
09-10 | Timer | Verdict | R8
10-11 | Folkert/Folkert | Verdict | R8
11-12 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
12-13 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
13-14 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
14-15 | Folkert/Porter | Arx Axiom | R8
15-16 | Doto/Folkert | Verdict | R8


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 1266
Home Schooled: Yes
If rules aren't needed, why enforce them?

And let's not pretend that someone who makes a citation mistake will somehow be unable to function in the real world unless they are punished for it :P

_________________
I have gone to find myself. If I get back before I return, keep me here.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1361
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Db8r_from_Dixie wrote:
If rules aren't needed, why enforce them?

Has yet to be seen.

Db8r_from_Dixie wrote:
And let's not pretend that someone who makes a citation mistake will somehow be unable to function in the real world unless they are punished for it :P

Good man, we won't pretend. Ever taken any college courses? No proper citations, no good grade.

_________________
-Joshua
08-09 | Half-Timer | Verdict | R8
09-10 | Timer | Verdict | R8
10-11 | Folkert/Folkert | Verdict | R8
11-12 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
12-13 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
13-14 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
14-15 | Folkert/Porter | Arx Axiom | R8
15-16 | Doto/Folkert | Verdict | R8


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2440
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
Hammy wrote:
Db8r_from_Dixie wrote:
And let's not pretend that someone who makes a citation mistake will somehow be unable to function in the real world unless they are punished for it :P

Good man, we won't pretend. Ever taken any college courses? No proper citations, no good grade.

Also not true. Even academically rigorous institutions generally don't care about citations as much as the NCFCA.

Generally speaking, professors don't care about formatting as long as you keep it semi- consistent. Heck, I was rereading a term paper I wrote my senior year (writing sample for grad school, not rampant narcissism) and found something completely miscited. As in, it was a quotation from McClellan's Mexican War journal and I somehow cited it as a WWII propaganda poster. Still got an A.

_________________
-Bryan
Assistant Mock Trial Coach, University of Nebraska at Omaha


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:23 pm 
Offline
Guardian of the Black Room
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 845
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: 127.0.0.1
LocutusofBorg wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Db8r_from_Dixie wrote:
And let's not pretend that someone who makes a citation mistake will somehow be unable to function in the real world unless they are punished for it :P

Good man, we won't pretend. Ever taken any college courses? No proper citations, no good grade.

Also not true. Even academically rigorous institutions generally don't care about citations as much as the NCFCA.

Generally speaking, professors don't care about formatting as long as you keep it semi- consistent. Heck, I was rereading a term paper I wrote my senior year (writing sample for grad school, not rampant narcissism) and found something completely miscited. As in, it was a quotation from McClellan's Mexican War journal and I somehow cited it as a WWII propaganda poster. Still got an A.

Yeah. My professors for any writing-related class I had would just say "so long as I can find the article, and it somewhat resembles MLA, APA, or (whatever), you're ok."

_________________
"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits"
- G.K. Chesterton


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1361
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
anorton wrote:
LocutusofBorg wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Db8r_from_Dixie wrote:
And let's not pretend that someone who makes a citation mistake will somehow be unable to function in the real world unless they are punished for it :P

Good man, we won't pretend. Ever taken any college courses? No proper citations, no good grade.

Also not true. Even academically rigorous institutions generally don't care about citations as much as the NCFCA.

Generally speaking, professors don't care about formatting as long as you keep it semi- consistent. Heck, I was rereading a term paper I wrote my senior year (writing sample for grad school, not rampant narcissism) and found something completely miscited. As in, it was a quotation from McClellan's Mexican War journal and I somehow cited it as a WWII propaganda poster. Still got an A.

Yeah. My professors for any writing-related class I had would just say "so long as I can find the article, and it somewhat resembles MLA, APA, or (whatever), you're ok."

Lucky ducks. :P My professors have always required strict MLA formatting and legitimacy of sources.

_________________
-Joshua
08-09 | Half-Timer | Verdict | R8
09-10 | Timer | Verdict | R8
10-11 | Folkert/Folkert | Verdict | R8
11-12 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
12-13 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
13-14 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
14-15 | Folkert/Porter | Arx Axiom | R8
15-16 | Doto/Folkert | Verdict | R8


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2440
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
Legitimacy of sources is another question and not the subject of this discussion. I would say the NCFCA does a terrible job of caring about the legitimacy of sources, although that's a cultural, not institutional, thing.

_________________
-Bryan
Assistant Mock Trial Coach, University of Nebraska at Omaha


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:10 am 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2268
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
It stresses that we need to learn to follow the rules, and if we can't learn to do this, then we're punished accordingly.


1. Wrong goal

The mission of the National Christian Forensics and Communications Association (NCFCA) is to promote excellence in communications through competitive opportunities where homeschool students develop the skills necessary to think critically and communicate effectively in order to address life issues from a biblical worldview in a manner that glorifies God.


Hammy, I've heard a variation of your argument from the lips of Mrs. Hudson herself, and it baffles me. If we believe NCFCA's mission statement, then the organization's primary purpose is not to train dutiful rule-followers, but to train leaders that can think critically and communicate effectively.

I hope my gut is wrong, but I it tells me that NCFCA likes the idea of training thinking leaders, not the actual practice of doing so. It's a pity that the organization seems to have gone the way of so many businesses: a lofty mission that barely affects its day-to-day decision-making.


2. Irrelevant response

Saying that students need to obey authority is not relevant to evaluating the justness and effectiveness of a rule (see red herring fallacy).


3. Circular rationalization

This is how I heard your argument: "learning to follow the rules justifies the rules." If my interpretation is accurate, your argument would preclude any type of reform for any reason, even in cases where the rules/decision are obviously ineffective, unjust, or misguided (for an example, see "Topic: Respecting NCFCA Leadership").

_________________
This account doesn't express the opinions of my employers and might not even express my own.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 1266
Home Schooled: Yes
Yeah. What other people said. some freshman level professors are sticklers about citations, but even then there is no correlation between incorrectly citing a source in ncfca and incorrectly citing one in college so it cannot be a legitimate purpose of the rule.

I have always found societies' obsession with enforcing rules for the sake of rules misguided. But that's another topic entirely :P

_________________
I have gone to find myself. If I get back before I return, keep me here.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1361
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Mr Glasses wrote:
This is how I heard your argument: "learning to follow the rules justifies the rules."

Let me adjust that. Learning to follow the rules justifies the punishment.

Mr Glasses wrote:
then the organization's primary purpose is not to train dutiful rule-followers, but to train leaders that can think critically and communicate effectively.

Are secondary goals irrelevant?

Mr Glasses wrote:
Saying that students need to obey authority is not relevant to evaluating the justness and effectiveness of a rule (see red herring fallacy).

And I apologize if what I said came across that way. My point about learning to follow the rules was refuting specifically the area of enforcement of rules and not the content of the rule itself. I'd be happy to discuss rule content justice, but that's not what I'm getting at here.

_________________
-Joshua
08-09 | Half-Timer | Verdict | R8
09-10 | Timer | Verdict | R8
10-11 | Folkert/Folkert | Verdict | R8
11-12 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
12-13 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
13-14 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
14-15 | Folkert/Porter | Arx Axiom | R8
15-16 | Doto/Folkert | Verdict | R8


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 12:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 1:58 am
Posts: 244
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: do I want you to know...?
I'm all for enforcing the rules, but you have this completely out of context. There's a difference between enforcing the rules and punishing violations. Punishment is only appropriate for cheating, but cheating is twofold: an unfair advantage AND the intention to gain it. When only one or neither of these is present, there is no merit for punishment whatsoever. All I'm saying is that the competitors should be given a chance to fix the issue in their speech, and if they don't, then they are in willful violation of the rules. That's enforcement, not punishment.

I'm not picketing for online script submission, but you can definitely not make the case that there are not any tournament staff who could fit in checking scripts before the tournament. Our logistics coordinator for the region spent probably over 10 hours a week preparing for tournaments during this tournament season. Script submission would, depending on the tournament, probably take a single person between 5 and 10 hours to complete. It'd be very, very easy to ask competitors to email a PDF to a specific email address by a specific date, and it would be worth the time on both ends.

Hammy wrote:
I believe that you're missing something here. While part of the reasoning behind punishing people for rule violations is to keep the playing field fair, the majority of the reasoning revolves around learning to follow the rules. This is something that a lot of homeschoolers lack, an ability to follow the rules consistently. Generally there is so much more leniency in the homeschool world than in the public school world. Deadlines, submission content, etc. can easily be shoved aside or overlooked. NCFCA is a representation of the real world when it comes to rules. It stresses that we need to learn to follow the rules, and if we can't learn to do this, then we're punished accordingly.


NCFCA can teach us rules without punishing us for inadvertently violating them. Rules for the sake of rules are a pointless infraction. It ultimately becomes like the Jews of the New Testament who make rules to bind people and then punish them or look down on them for their incrimental violations. NCFCA isn't nearly there yet, but those problems do exist.

Hammy wrote:
But no, quite honestly, that's a rule violation that gives a definite advantage over those who follow the rules and totally memorize the speech.


No way. I don't know that you can say that it gives him an advantage to not know all of his script. If anything it makes him appear less professional and more disorganized. At least, that's been my experience. Cheating is twofold: an unfair advantage and the intention to gain it. In this case, neither is present.

I'd like to simply pose the question: Why? What good results from disqualifying/dropping somebody because they violated a rule? What good does it do? Even if there's a kid who is the biggest jerk on the block who is determined that he is above the rules, than NCFCA isn't gonna convince him any different. That is not their job anyways. What good does it serve, for that guy, or for the one who wrote a great speech that everybody loved, but got dq'd because he missed a citation? How does that serve communication at all?

Jesus does not teach that you'll get punished for every little wrongdoing. He doesn't teach you that every time you fall you'll suffer for what you did wrong. He teaches that when you fall, he'll help you up. The entire rules/enforcement system is so twisted because it's based on the exact opposite of that. It's based on the fact that we need to do every little thing correctly or the officials and the other competitors will say "This is not fair, we're going to punish you, even though your speech was awesome."

Tell me, how is this okay? It's not.

_________________
Jonathan Meckel || Nebraska || NCFCA Boycotter. #BracketGate #BracketLivesMatter
Free at last, they took your life, they could not take your pride


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 2:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:12 pm
Posts: 79
Home Schooled: Yes
mountain dude wrote:
Punishment is only appropriate for cheating, but cheating is twofold: an unfair advantage AND the intention to gain it. When only one or neither of these is present, there is no merit for punishment whatsoever.

To this, I agree.

_________________
Lincoln Douglas 2012-2013
Anastasi/Clarahan 2013-2014
Anastasi/Anastasi 2014-2015
Anastasi/Anastasi 2015-2016
Anastasi/Anastasi 2016-2017
~~~
Arete TP Club :becool:


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1361
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Seabass00 wrote:
mountain dude wrote:
Punishment is only appropriate for cheating, but cheating is twofold: an unfair advantage AND the intention to gain it. When only one or neither of these is present, there is no merit for punishment whatsoever.

To this, I agree.

1 Corinthians 2:11 wrote:
For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

Impossible standard.

_________________
-Joshua
08-09 | Half-Timer | Verdict | R8
09-10 | Timer | Verdict | R8
10-11 | Folkert/Folkert | Verdict | R8
11-12 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
12-13 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
13-14 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
14-15 | Folkert/Porter | Arx Axiom | R8
15-16 | Doto/Folkert | Verdict | R8


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 3:24 am
Posts: 769
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Alabama
Hammy wrote:
Seabass00 wrote:
mountain dude wrote:
Punishment is only appropriate for cheating, but cheating is twofold: an unfair advantage AND the intention to gain it. When only one or neither of these is present, there is no merit for punishment whatsoever.

To this, I agree.

1 Corinthians 2:11 wrote:
For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

Impossible standard.


Not really. If someone walks in the extemp room, opens his laptop, and goes "Oops! I forgot to turn off my wifi. I'll do that action now which will take 2 seconds.", he's obviously not trying to gain an advantage over everyone else. Just because you can't read someone's mind doesn't mean you can't make a reasonable assessment of the intent behind their actions (or lack thereof).

_________________
- Brennan Herring (Team Policy Coach, Catalyst Speech and Debate)

Ethos is also pretty cool, you should check it out.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1361
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
_TakenUsername_ wrote:
Not really. If someone walks in the extemp room, opens his laptop, and goes "Oops! I forgot to turn off my wifi. I'll do that action now which will take 2 seconds.", he's obviously not trying to gain an advantage over everyone else. Just because you can't read someone's mind doesn't mean you can't make a reasonable assessment of the intent behind their actions (or lack thereof).

And what if that same kid is a pro at minimizing windows and has actually been surfing the web for 15 minutes before the proctor actually took a look at his wifi connection? He then says, whoops, I'll just do that action now which will take 2 seconds.

_________________
-Joshua
08-09 | Half-Timer | Verdict | R8
09-10 | Timer | Verdict | R8
10-11 | Folkert/Folkert | Verdict | R8
11-12 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
12-13 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
13-14 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
14-15 | Folkert/Porter | Arx Axiom | R8
15-16 | Doto/Folkert | Verdict | R8


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 3:24 am
Posts: 769
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Alabama
Hammy wrote:
_TakenUsername_ wrote:
Not really. If someone walks in the extemp room, opens his laptop, and goes "Oops! I forgot to turn off my wifi. I'll do that action now which will take 2 seconds.", he's obviously not trying to gain an advantage over everyone else. Just because you can't read someone's mind doesn't mean you can't make a reasonable assessment of the intent behind their actions (or lack thereof).

And what if that same kid is a pro at minimizing windows and has actually been surfing the web for 15 minutes before the proctor actually took a look at his wifi connection? He then says, whoops, I'll just do that action now which will take 2 seconds.


If we're looking at hypothetical scenarios, someone could exit out of those windows and cut his wifi before the proctor got there at all. The current rules don't make it impossible to do that. The point is not to make a whole lot of people suffer because of the paranoia that one person might someday skirt the rules. The problem is that there is so much focus on the letter of the law, that its become almost entirely separated from its intent.

_________________
- Brennan Herring (Team Policy Coach, Catalyst Speech and Debate)

Ethos is also pretty cool, you should check it out.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1361
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
_TakenUsername_ wrote:
Hammy wrote:
_TakenUsername_ wrote:
Not really. If someone walks in the extemp room, opens his laptop, and goes "Oops! I forgot to turn off my wifi. I'll do that action now which will take 2 seconds.", he's obviously not trying to gain an advantage over everyone else. Just because you can't read someone's mind doesn't mean you can't make a reasonable assessment of the intent behind their actions (or lack thereof).

And what if that same kid is a pro at minimizing windows and has actually been surfing the web for 15 minutes before the proctor actually took a look at his wifi connection? He then says, whoops, I'll just do that action now which will take 2 seconds.


If we're looking at hypothetical scenarios, someone could exit out of those windows and cut his wifi before the proctor got there at all. The current rules don't make it impossible to do that. The point is not to make a whole lot of people suffer because of the paranoia that one person might someday skirt the rules. The problem is that there is so much focus on the letter of the law, that its become almost entirely separated from its intent.

No one would suffer needlessly if they would follow the rules. It isn't that complicated, you read the rules before you go to a tournament and make sure that you are in compliance. This isn't a problem with the league, it's a problem with individual competitors. Sure you have isolated examples of rules being pulled out of a hat, but these are very few examples indeed.

_________________
-Joshua
08-09 | Half-Timer | Verdict | R8
09-10 | Timer | Verdict | R8
10-11 | Folkert/Folkert | Verdict | R8
11-12 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
12-13 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
13-14 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
14-15 | Folkert/Porter | Arx Axiom | R8
15-16 | Doto/Folkert | Verdict | R8


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:13 pm
Posts: 163
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Runnin through the 6 with my woes
I think the underlying question here is whether we should support a system that protects innocent competitors from being unfairly adjudicated at the expense of a few competitors possibly receiving an unfair advantage or a system that operates based off of no tolerance and risks disqualifying a few of those innocent competitors. It's my belief that the first option is more favorable.

_________________
~Jacob Beaver


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 57 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited