View Single Post
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-04-2012, 23:02
Katie_UPS's Avatar
Katie_UPS Katie_UPS is offline
Registered User
AKA: Katie Widen
no team
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Wisconsinite lost in Texas
Posts: 955
Katie_UPS has a reputation beyond reputeKatie_UPS has a reputation beyond reputeKatie_UPS has a reputation beyond reputeKatie_UPS has a reputation beyond reputeKatie_UPS has a reputation beyond reputeKatie_UPS has a reputation beyond reputeKatie_UPS has a reputation beyond reputeKatie_UPS has a reputation beyond reputeKatie_UPS has a reputation beyond reputeKatie_UPS has a reputation beyond reputeKatie_UPS has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Chairman's Award Concerns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale View Post
I think what's really needed for the Chairman's Award is some form of peer review. The judges aren't in a position to determine the amount of creative embellishment in those essays and presentations nor do they have time to do so. As a previous poster mentioned, can they can't always figure out the timeline of things a team does.
I feel like this would put teams in a lose-lose situation. If a team calls you out for lying (whether you did or not), then you're chances are ruined. And by the same token, calling out a team puts you(r team) at risk for being called "un-GP".

Also, malicious teams would ruin the system, because not everyone is a okay with losing (even if its to the better-prepared opponent), and although GP operates under the ideal of adjusting the average by bringing the floor up (instead of the top down), some teams still don't get that.