If we discuss this and everybody put forward their opinions, regardless of any credibility or lack of credibility they have for attending or not attending worlds, and nothing comes from it, we haven't really lost anything (apart from our time, but presumably we would have found something else on modified to complain about anyway
). On the other hand, if something does come from it, even if it's really small, then we've gained.Basically we're in a situation where we can't possible lose (apart from if we resort to personal attacks etc. but almost everybody is mature enough to avoid that).
This is the case with all discussions. It doesn't matter how "qualified" the people discussing the issue are. They're either going to not achieve anything positive or they are. It's very unlikely that discussion and the expression of opinions ever leads to actual negative outcomes.
That's what I really don't understand with the people who say we should "respect the judges" and not say anything, or that only "qualified" people should be allowed to discuss things. Restricting discussion loses the potential that that discussion will result in anything positive occurring.
Meaningless discussion isn't really a bad thing, and it occasionally leads to people becoming inspired and bring about positive outcomes. A complete lack of discussion ensures that nothing will ever change.
If only discussion that is actually going to definitely make progress and change things is going to be allowed, I think we should just ban all discussion, since we can pretty safely say that there's a very good chance all discussion on this forum will change nothing.
In any event I think a lot of positives have come from this, although they're not tangible. I would say that because at this stage judging is so subjective, it really comes down to reading the footbag zeitgeist. Judges are subconsciously trying to determine which routine is the best given the current expectations of the footbag community. If dropless is no longer a big thing, as David Clavens suggested, but it used to be, maybe the judges read the zeitgeist correctly. Maybe if the same routines were performed 10 years ago the judges would have given different results because of different expectations. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, although obviously it would be a lot better if the rules forced the judging to be more objective and uniform.
The point is that a number of people who have commented in this topic, and probably others who have read it but not commented have judged and will judge footbag events, including worlds, in the future. By hearing a multitude of different opinions about what makes a good routine, which of these routines was better and why, and how routines should be judged, it gives everybody a much better overview of where the zeitgeist currently sits and what the different arguments are.
Even if somebody reading this who judges the next event absolutely disagrees with everything I've said about things like the significance of drops and unique moves =/= variety, by being forced to think about those things, they've been forced to build a defensible position, and that's a very positive step forward.
So I think this discussion has achieved a number of positive things, and I also think, that it's raised some important questions, that even if they don't get addressed, at least people can think about. What should the significance of a drop be? What do we mean by "variety?" What does "artistic merit" mean? Should judges judge compatriots?
I would say that raising issues and discussing things, even if no decisions are made from those discussions, is always positive (providing you're not working within a time frame, and we're not). I would say that trying to shut down discussion or limit discussion to only people who meet specific criteria is counter productive and misses the big picture.
----
I will try very hard to avoid deconstructionist posts in the future! I feel dirty.
