| Subject: Same old debate |
Author:
Ali
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 17:28:44 10/15/03 Wed
In reply to:
Robin
's message, "Re: stupid acronyms" on 17:03:59 10/15/03 Wed
Given that so much of the remainder of my proposal depends upon the premise of team-marking, it is not possible to incorporate individual marking into it - the knock-on effects unravel the entire principle. Therefore any movement towards individual marking in a 2-division format will require:
a) a seperate and entirely new proposal
b) an EGCM to pass it in time for IVDC2004
c) an entirely different team scoring system
d) an entirely different overall scoring system
I personally see no good reason whatsoever to pursue a), b) makes it impossible in practice anyway (certainly within the bounds of good sense) and I have tried my utmost in the past to produce c) and d) (since the existing ones were proven at IVDC2003 not to work), and am convinced that devising such systems properly for individual marking is impossible.
Ian, if you can resolve all these problems by Saturday, please do. I cannot.
I might also add anyone successfully proposing such a motion would be expected to fulfil (as I currently will) a consultant role to the event organisers and, more importantly, the scrutineers, ensuring that the any new format runs smoothly in practice. He would have to consider carefully how his format affects each scrutineers' unique working methods, and spend time ensuring that the fully understand the format and how to implement it, as well as supervising the inevitable difficulties during the competition. He must also write, from scratch, computer applications implementing his scoring systems, develop them to be stable, easily-used and thoroughly-tested, and put them into use as part of his consultant role. Presuming he also wishes to compete, this must fit around his own dancing on the day.
It's a big job.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 