That is OK, Brett, since I am sure you are justified in being suspicious of everyone around you... especially me. Since I am huge advocate of openness (which seems to be catching on as of late) and treating my fellow competitors like accountable adults and not little children that need to be watched over by "mommy".
I, of course, said the Nats was "rigged" so please, continue. The hyperbole is simply off the charts whenever you guys talk about the Nats (especially when the evil Bob Baron or sociopath Windy card is pulled out).
As usual, missed the point utterly and completely. I don't know why I waste my time, but I will try anyway. Actions and decisions have *real world consequences*, it's not some isolated debating society. I for one don't think "destroying stunt to save it" from some narrowly-perceived hypothetical "flaws" makes a lot of sense.
That's the underlying problem with publishing judge's scores and leaving them wide open (there's that word again) to the same sort of BS whispering campaigns we endured for majority of the 90's. You clearly stated that his was something you could consider acceptable, and that's why I think the judges need protection from you (and people who think similarly).
There is nothing in this event more important to this event than the judges, and there is nothing in this event more important than protecting them from scurrilous accusations and second guessing. Allow that, and there won't be an event.
Even if
you were prepared to act in a mature and responsible way and were prepared to objectively review the results, there is documented proof that others have not in the past, and there are no indications that they will in the future. We had people committing federal felonies over the release of one set of scores, apparently spurred on by emotionalism. What's going to happen when people get their hands on even more BS analysis used to "prove" the "facts".
And nice job - now you are engaging in exactly the sort of irresponsible behavior I was worried about. Not a word in my post said a d*mn thing about Baron being "evil" or Windy being a "sociopath". That doesn't appear in my post, the letter I posted, or in the private letter I sent to Bob Baron on the topic, or the commentary I had with Windy on the topic. I said my piece at the time with Bob, he said his piece back, and since he's gone and can't defend himself I will let that stand. I have no current beef with Windy, either, so barking up the wrong tree there, too.
Those words, chosen BY YOU, Bradley "Godzilla" Walker, were formed solely and exclusively to *start a war*, AGAIN, and get people out of thinking about the rational discussion and into an emotional debate. Now, it will get repeated, "summarized" for the "masses", misquoted and attributed to me, and you will have your mini-firestorm. Well done. Glad you "didn't want to start a controversy". And you didn't even bother to read carefully, I took you at your word, responded entirely to your own current statements. You read a bunch of your own predispositions into it, missing the point entirely, and wow, look how that worked out.
In this thread alone, you have gone from demurely asking for the scores, to suggesting that maybe judges "deserved to be run out" by rumor mongering and whispering campaigns, then jumped to falsely attributing statements/attitudes to me, presumably to get more people on your side. Of course that's classic "bomb-throwing" and exactly the reason no one with a shred of common sense would trust you to be able to have a rational debate on the topic or act responsibly with the data. And of course, while it might ""play" with a tiny number of people who still spoil for another war, it essentially proves my point (far better than I would have been willing to articulate it) to everybody else.
So, to summarize, you aren't a NATs participant (no problem), you expressed the view that it might be good for judges to "be run out" of the event on rumors (big problem), and then falsely attributed me with opinions I didn't express (irritating, but valuable to me as it essentially cinches my point) in an apparent attempt to spin up a new controversy. And now you want all the scores for "analysis" and we should just trust you to objectively evaluate them?
I still only have my 2 cents to put in, I don't decide myself, but nothing in this thread has done anything to convince me that releasing the scores (at least with the names intact, or with any method of reconstructing the relationship of judge to score) would go any better this time than before. Quite the contrary, it confirms my expectations pretty much right down the line. I would be abdicating my responsibility to the event if I didn't make my case. I
will not have anyone targeted by "analysis" if I can prevent it.
I can't see a big problem with releasing the scores "raw" with no way to reconstruct the identities, but that's a lot harder than it first seems. You can't even identify the groups, circles, or the pilots, and without that, there's no sensible analysis that can be done.
Brett
Topic: Nats Stunt Seeding (Read 13957 times)
