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
|