You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Miscellaneous

    Is it correct changing rules between any discussion?

    Take out anything, whether any game or any discussion, the rules are set already. Even if not, there should not be done any changes just because someone object for something which is not really correct.

    Here we were having Group discussion in ISC. Suddenly between the discussion while it is running the rules get changed. Someone opposed that in GD one should not take any one's particular name and within no time the rules are changed!

    Take out the history of GD in ISC, myself or those who have participated earlier, always had discussion taking someone particular name, we had to take particular member's name and his point to discuss. What is wrong in it, we are not doing personal fight but "Group Discussion".

    No where in any discussion, whether in my classroom discussion, or in our library GD or in any TV GD. There is no such rules that one can't take any particular participant name and discussed with his/her points.

    Why there were no such rules earlier in ISC GD? What was so urgency to changed it in between.

    Is it correct changing rules in between anything?
  • #593447
    I fully support Mr. Jeets in this regard. Changing rules midway tantamounts to shifting goalposts, causing undue benefits to one or some participant(s). Although I never address any participant personally in GD, but I have noticed that it was earlier allowed in this platform.
    Caution: Explosive. Handle with care.

  • #593449
    Members are requested not to jump into conclusions. There seems to be some confusion. A suitable clarification will be posted on behalf of the admin after an internal discussion.
    Knowledge is knowing tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad - Miles Kington.

  • #593478
    In a Group Discussion, we cannot avoid addressing a repondent's name. It would be a pleasure to the participants. We had been doing it, and there was no objection from any quarter. In future, if ISC doesn't want the name to be addressed, we can resort to post the response number in the beginning and avoid name calling.

    I strongly recommend no changing of rules and procedures while the discussion is already 'ON'.

    No life without Sun ¤

  • #593522
    Rules should never be changed after an event is announced or at the time of announcing results. Some of us play by the rule but end up being at a disadvantage because the people behind the scenes decide to change the rules they had set, in favour of those who did not follow the rule. The sudden change of rules inadvertently helps those who had disregarded them in the first place.

    This practice is neither fair nor a show of true sportsmanship, something which is harped upon here, quite often. If members ignore a rule they should be disqualified. Why should other rule-adhering members be penalised?

    The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want - Psalm 23:1

  • #593525
    After some consultation and discussion, we have concluded that this thread is, in all probability, the result of some confusion that has been created.

    We, including the admin and editors, know and understand that rules should not be changed in between any task, be it be games, competitions or exams or any event for that matter.

    And, no rule was changed during the course of this discussion under reference either. Actually there is no laid down rule as to how a member should be addressed during an active discussion or otherwise. We have permitted members to have a choice and have been following it as a matter of practice. But it has been suggested many a time that it would be better to address a person by name when you are responding to him instead of putting in the response numbers and we still stand by it. In the wake of confusions being galore in different aspects in the recent times, I think it would be better to elaborate further. By suggesting that it would be better to address another member by name, it need to registered and understood that the same is allowed only for the purpose of responding to a point put forth by him and not as a tool to settle personal differences or scores.

    I have gone through the responses in the particular GD and could not find any change that has been effected in between. Some members appear to have voluntarily opted to refer to response numbers instead of names after an unwarranted spat on the issue in between two participants. I seriously have a doubt whether Jeets got confused by my response at #593324 in the thread under reference wherein I had said that some changes have been made after a discussion. If that be the case, I wish the author had read my response properly and with reference to the context. When I said that "some changes have been made to the decision after discussion within the team", I did not mean that some rule was changed, but the decision referred to therein was with regard to restoration/ amendment of some responses (of portions not directly pertaining to the topic) that were earlier deleted by the ME.

    Let it be clear that we will continue with our GDs in the same way we have been doing in the past until and unless some changes are officially announced. And as an additional input, let it also be clear that the editor who moderates a GD will have the right to delete or edit a response which is irrelevant or inappropriate.

    Hope the point in question could be clarified. An humble request to our members- please wait before responding to any thread that raises a point that calls for an explanation from the side of admin. It would be better to hear both sides before arriving at a conclusion.

    Knowledge is knowing tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad - Miles Kington.

  • #593541
    Well, I would not like to argue in this matter but want to make it clear from my view.
    My response no 593297 first got deletion and now when I checked it has come back. However, my point was not for deletion. My point was why my post response number # 593375 got unnecessary edited (first entire para when I have mentioned that particular lady name got deleted. Even when I didn't use any aggression but replied her with her name. When I used other name, it was there but not that particular lady name which is why surprised me. As if taking her name is something a big crime. And this happen after she has mentioned that taking name in GD is not good.

    As per her I have got offended in GD? Surprised, this was not my first GD. I have always responded with valid fact and point and always have mentioned details from History and not just useless logic and emotions. Would like to request her not to assume thing without getting into details.


This thread is locked for new responses. Please post your comments and questions as a separate thread.
If required, refer to the URL of this page in your new post.