Selecting Judges
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
Comment
Good idea, Patricia!
We are discussing the addition of this bullet point:
• A sponsor of or the owner of a company sponsoring the rider competing in the event.
It may need to be more broad. The goal here is to make sure bias is not allowed for riders who have sponsoring situations (or potential sponsoring situations). We should try to cover situations where the rider is "auditioning" for sponsors or being considered by them. Also the idea that a judge might not be a direct sponsor, but someone closely related to the sponsoring company or organization.
So how to write that without making an ugly, complex bunch of legalese? Here is my attempt with the above stuff in mind:
A person should not judge an event if he or she is:
- A sponsor, part of a sponsoring organization or connected to an organization sponsoring any riders in the group to be judged
That's incomplete. Not sure how to address the idea of riders who are working on sponsorships. We can't say things like "potential sponsors" because that could be anyone in a position to be a sponsor, and rule out too man possible judges.
I also recommend putting this bullet point at #3, and having the one about judges from the same family as #4.
Comment
John, thanks for the suggestion. I agree that it is tricky to be inclusive of what we want. I will make the changes that you suggest, I think they are helpful improvements.