Re: Equity - some questions

> Herman De Wael 
> Sven Pran wrote:
> >> Herman De Wael
> > [...]
> >> It's not the sentiment I have a problem with, it's the argument that
> >> Sven
> > uses.
> >> What he's saying boils down to this:
> >>
> >> "Yes, I notice that to people are treated differently, but they
> >> should not
> > worry,
> >> because according to the definitions, the second one did not recieve
> >> a
> > penalty."
> >>
> >> Well, that's a faulty argument. Because I'm not discussing whether
> >> there's
> > a
> >> penalty or not, but whether one pair has been treated unfairly.
> >>
> >> OTOH, you are saying, "That's the laws folks, deal with it."
> >> Which is also a valid point, but not against my argument, which is
> >> "the
> > law is bad
> >> and should be changed."
> >>
> >> See what I'm getting at?
> >> When we're discussing whether a law is fair or not, and whether or
> >> not it
> > should
> >> be changed, there's no use saying "the law's the law and that's that."
> >>
> >> Herman.
> >
> > [Sven Pran]
> > Sometimes I do wonder if you understand what you claim you are reading?
> >
> > The fact is that pair A plays a board against pair B in a round when
> > this board is not scheduled for them to be played. Pair A had already
> > played that board in an earlier round while pair B is scheduled to
> > play that board later.
> >
> > What I am saying is that pair A keeps the result they made on that
> > board when they played it the first time while as pair B can no longer
> > obtain any valid result on that board they must accept an artificial
adjusted
> score.
> > And as pair B is (jointly) responsible for the irregularity their AAS
> > shall be AVE-.
> >
> > The reason while pair A and pair B are seemingly treated differently
> > is that only pair B must take an artificial adjusted score.
> >
> > Would it be more fair if the law stated that the result already
> > obtained by pair A should be cancelled so that they also would receive
AVE-?
> >
> > Would it be more fair if pair A alone was penalized 10% of a top to
> > "compensate" for the AVE- awarded to pair B while was not penalized
> > because they already had been given that AVE- score?
> > That would certainly be treating the pairs differently.
> 
> Treating the pairs differently is not the problem.
> After all, the sitautions are differently (as you keep reminding us), so
they must
> be treated differently.
> The question is which of the two ways is the more equitable.
> 
> And it seems to me that:
> if A gets the score it has received, that is an equitable score.
> if B gets its on average, that is an equitable score.
> If B gets AV0, that is also an equitable score.
> If A gets 10% PP, that can be regarded as an equitable penalty.
> If B gets 10% PP, that can be regarded as an equitable penalty.
> If B gets AV- in stead of AV0, that is an equitable penalty.
> 
> But if B gets AV- AND a 10% PP, they have to "penalties" as opposed to A's
one.
> And that is no longer equitable.
> 
> And if you insist "them's the rules" then the rules are flawed.
> 
> OK?

[Sven Pran] 
No, I have never suggested that B should get AV- and in addition 10% PP, in
fact I don't see any convincing reason for imposing PP to either pair here.

I am convinced that (in the long run) the prescribed rectification is both
fair and the best solution: When the result on a board must be cancelled
then a pair that for whatever reason already has a valid score on that board
keeps this score and a pair that cannot get a valid score receives an
artificial adjusted score: AVE- , AVE or AVE+ as prescribed in Law 12C2.

And remember that when Law 12C2a says: 
"average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a
contestant directly at fault, 
average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and 
average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault." 
this doesn't prevent the Director from ruling that both pairs are directly
at fault (or both pairs are in no way at fault).

In the case we are discussing I shall almost always rule that both pairs are
directly at fault.  
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml