Time Outs

[knockitoff]

This question (and another of Sure's) look alot like our "Tournament Consideration" exam questions.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by knockitoff

This question (and another of Sure's) look alot like our "Tournament Consideration" exam questions.

If it's an open book exam (and it would appear to be), what's the issue with asking? The idea behind open book exams is that the process of finding the answer teaches the student. If that's not what they want, they need to proctor the exam.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If it's an open book exam (and it would appear to be), what's the issue with asking? The idea behind open book exams is that the process of finding the answer teaches the student. If that's not what they want, they need to proctor the exam.

The issue is that the answer can usually be found in either the rule book or case book without a great degree of effort being involved either. And that's how you learn the rules. You sureasheck aren't learning 'em just by asking questions here and copying the answers that you're given. In that case the student isn't really learning a damn thing.

The idea is to put a little time and effort into learning the rules. I might have put more time and effort into looking up the correct rules citation than the OP did in posting his question. Jmo but you should post questions after you fail to find them in the book(s).

My apologies to surehands if he did try to look up the answers first......

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The issue is that the answer can usually be found in either the rule book or case book without a great degree of effort being involved either. And that's how you learn the rules. You sureasheck aren't learning 'em just by asking questions here and copying the answers that you're given. In that case the student isn't really learning a damn thing.

The idea is to put a little time and effort into learning the rules. I put more time and effort into looking up the correct rules citation than the OP did in posting his question.

I agree that looking for the answer in the rules book and case book is better, but again if that's what you want proctor the exam. If you don't proctor the exam, all you're really testing is whether the take is capable of finding the answer in time. And you will learn from that process, but not as well.

If getting rules explained by other officials is wrong, we need to just shut the whole forum down. If you want to test whether your officials know the rules, you need to proctor the exam.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If getting rules explained by other officials is wrong, we need to just shut the whole forum down. If you want to test whether your officials know the rules, you need to proctor the exam.

I never said, or implied, that getting rules explained by other officials is wrong....except in the case where a poster is doing so to avoid opening up the rule books and doing a little work on their own. I have no idea if that is the case with regards to surehands, but if it is, he's only cheating himself. You learn the rules by studying the rules. If you're not sure, ask away. But do some work first. There are no shortcuts.

As I also said, just my opinion.

We clear now where I'm coming from?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I never said, or implied, that getting rules explained by other officials is wrong....except in the case where a poster is doing so to avoid opening up the rule books and doing a little work on their own. I have no idea if that is the case with regards to surehands, but if it is, he's only cheating himself. You learn the rules by studying the rules. If you're not sure, ask away. But do some work first. There are no shortcuts.

As I also said, just my opinion.

We clear now where I'm coming from?

I'm clear on where you're coming from. I just don't find it a consistent philosophy. I don't think getting rules explained by other officials is ever wrong. It's just sometimes not the best way to learn.

The thought process of many people seems to be that it's illegitimate to ask a question on the forum that's a test question. Every scenario that's posted on this forum could just be a cleverly disguised test question. Which would make the entire forum illegitimate if you accepted that premise.

Personally, having worked with far too many officials who wouldn't even put in the effort to ask on a forum in the first place, I'm glad to see the effort being made in the first place. Should we encourage them to look for the answers in the rules book and case book? Yes. But let's be glad they they aren't being willfully ignorant in the first place.

In short, I'd like to see fewer posts with "That looks like a test question." which is just a pointless accusation and more posts like yours with rule citations.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I'm clear on where you're coming from. I just don't find it a consistent philosophy. I don't think getting rules explained by other officials is ever wrong. It's just sometimes not the best way to learn.

The thought process of many people seems to be that it's illegitimate to ask a question on the forum that's a test question. Every scenario that's posted on this forum could just be a cleverly disguised test question. Which would make the entire forum illegitimate if you accepted that premise.

Personally, having worked with far too many officials who wouldn't even put in the effort to ask on a forum in the first place, I'm glad to see the effort being made in the first place. Should we encourage them to look for the answers in the rules book and case book? Yes. But let's be glad they they aren't being willfully ignorant in the first place.

In short, I'd like to see fewer posts with "That looks like a test question." which is just a pointless accusation and more posts like yours with rule citations.

I'm sorry, where was the accusation in my post?