"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

> I was browsing the IRTC thread to see if anything new had come up and came
> across the above discussion that I had read before without any interesting
> ideas popping into my head.  Upon revisiting it, however, I came up with a
> notion that I would like to share for consideration.
>
> Both John and Warp have good points.  On one hand, having the same person or
> small group of people win again and again can make the event a lot less
> compelling for new participants.  On the other hand, penalizing excellence
> doesn't seem like a good thing either.  Sometimes, a problem can be better
> addressed by making new opportunities than by making new rules.  How about
> this: Anyone who wins more than a certain number of times (say three in a one
> year period just for an example) receives an INVITATION to participate in a
> special "Honor Gallery" for a period of time(specific period negotiable).

when I was looking at the IRTC, "ok great, where's the beef (code)?"

Call it "penalizing excellence":
Honor Gallery members would have the mandatory privilege of revealing their

Otherwise its just meaningless egomania - elitist crap - very similar to what's
killing world economy. A few with exclusionary mentality, spoiling it for
everyone else, not sharing the wealth; which is info/data in the Information
Age, as in examples for improvement and growth of all. Those on a superiority
trip only prove their inferiority. FOR ALL or #^(% *#@$. IMHO

regards,
aQ


> Honor Gallery members would have their images for new rounds prominently
> displayed with the opportunity for viewers to comment and would have full
> voting privileges, but their images would not be voted on.  No one would be
> compelled to accept an Honor Gallery invitation, so any individual who finds
> the competitive aspect of the event an essential part of his or her experience
> would be free to participate as a normal entrant.
>
> In this way, the message to highly talented participants would be "You've made
> it to the top and have nothing more to prove," rather than "You're too good so
> we don't want you."
>
> It's just an idea.  Feedback is welcomed.
>
> Best Regards,
> Mike C.

Post a reply to this message