Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman
HQ adjudicating which transgressions get freebies and which don't is a slippery slope - one which invites public discussions about which teams have been *more wronged* by game and/or administrative blar beyond their control.
I'd prefer HQ focus their efforts on minimizing the controllable root causes that lead to such transgressions occurring. That is the kind of "freebie" I think all teams would genuinely appreciate!
|
While I agree with the latter paragraph, I have to take some exception to the former; policies that remove adjudication (that is, judgment) lead to ridiculous things like second graders getting suspended for chewing their Pop Tarts to look like pistols.
"Zero-tolerance" polices are zero-thought policies specifically because they strip the adjudicating body of the ability to apply judgment and reason to the situation, and that makes them bad policy.
So yes, HQ should do everything they can to minimize all situations wherein such calls have to be made in the first place, but when those transgressions occur, the use of judgment to arrive at the most desirable (or least undesirable) outcome is not a slippery slope, it's necessary for sane and reasonable policy.