CASE 1
It’s a matter of translation… A new UK Expert experienced a situation where a meeting at the start of the set up stage of the Competition was predominantly in German, even though it had been advertised as being in English. It started in English but the speakers soon lapsed into German and as interpreters were not on hand to translate, the UK Expert began to feel very frustrated. The situation was made worse by the fact that the Chief Expert did not acknowledge what was happening.
What happens next?
UK ekspertti pyytää puheenvuoron, jossa esittää kokouskielen palauttamista englanninkiellelle.
CASE 2
Candid Camera… On day 3 of the Competition, the UK Competitor had again done very well. The UK Expert saw a member of an official delegation from another country taking part in the same competition take a photo of the UK Competitor’s work so he asked him to stop taking pictures and move along. 10 minutes later he noticed that the same man was back doing the same thing. When the UK Expert spoke to the man concerned, the individual indicated that he did not speak English. A short time later the UK Expert noticed the UK Competitor in tears on his Competition stand. The Competitor then asked to speak to the Chief Expert with the UK Expert present. He explained that as he had gone for a break, he and another Competitor had seen the delegate who had taken photos of the UK Competitor’s work show them to the Competitor representing his own country. He was very upset about this as he suspected his work was being copied.
What happens next?
Yhteydenotto oman maan kilpailijaan on kielletty kilpailun aikana. Kuvaaminen lajialueella on kiellettyä.
Englantilainen ekspertti kertoo asiasta pääekspertille. Asia yritetään ratkaista lajialueella. Ratkaisuun osallistuvat SMT ja/tai Jury President ja/tai ETD. Jos ratkaisuun ei päästä asia etenee Jury Presdients meeting. SMT voi myös päättää että asia pitää viedä suoraan Hearing Commiteehen (olisin kyllä tätä mieltä).
CASE 3
A matter of consistency..
In one skill area, a blind marking system is in place to try to make the judging process as fair as possible. However, Experts sometimes find it possible to recognise the work of their Competitors. An issue occurred for one UK Chief Expert which revolved around inconsistent and unfair marking. A group of five judges were marking a piece of work. Four of the judges had awarded 5 or 6 marks for the work and one judge had awarded 9 marks. The Chief Expert knew that the judge which had given the high marks was the Expert of the Competitor who had done the work. This marking was also inconsistent with the way he had marked other work. The Chief Expert asked the judge concerned to explain why he had awarded such high marks as they were out of line with the other results. (This was common practice when this situation occurred.)
What happens next?
Kun subjektiivisessa arvioinnissa tuomareiden pisteissä on ero enemmän kuin kolme pistettä, asiasta keskustellaan. Voiko korkeimman pistemäärän antanut tuomari pudottaa pistemääräänsä tai voiko alhaimman pistemäärän antanut tuomari nostaa pisteitään?
Subjektiivisessa arvioinnissa (tuomareita 5), ylin ja alin pistemäärä suljetaan pois ja kilpailija saa pisteensä kolmelta muulta tuomarilta
CASE 4
Tactical Marking…
This situation occurred when a new marking system was introduced. At the end of each day a leader board displayed the results. At the end of the first day, the UK Expert noticed that the Swedish Expert (who he got on well with) had given the UK Competitors low marks and he was concerned about why this might be the case as he had seen the quality of their work and thought that it was very good. On this occasion he decided against saying anything but at the end of the second day, he noticed the Swedish Expert had again awarded the UK Competitors low marks. He checked the work they had done and again was suspicious about why the Swedish Expert had marked them so poorly. He suspected that this Expert was marking down the UK Competitors to influence their position in the Competition.
What happens next?
Ensimmäisen päivän arvioinnille ei enää mahda mitään, mutta toisen päivän arvioinnin allekirjoitustilaisuudesssa UK expertti ei allekirjoita päivän pistetulosta ja asia viedään....juryn käsittelyyn.
CASE 5
A question of time…
The following situation occurred because of a misunderstanding around the finish times on day 2 of the Competition and was exacerbated due to the cultural differences which existed between competing nations. A competitor from Hong Kong became very upset when he realised he had to stop and was not being given any extra time after he had understood that he had been given 10 minutes extra and had timed his work to the second. The misunderstanding arose because of the language barrier. The Competitor became so upset he threw his passport off the stand. The Hong Kong Competitor’s Expert was also very upset, as were the majority of the Asian delegation.
What happens next?
Ekspettti vastaa, että kilpailija ymärtää tehtävän. Jos tehtävään tulee muutokisia on kilpailijalla vastuu näyttää "en ymärrä" -korttia, jotta kaikki tarpeellinen tieto välittyy oikein.
Tactical Marking…
This situation occurred when a new marking system was introduced. At the end of each day a leader board displayed the results. At the end of the first day, the UK Expert noticed that the Swedish Expert (who he got on well with) had given the UK Competitors low marks and he was concerned about why this might be the case as he had seen the quality of their work and thought that it was very good. On this occasion he decided against saying anything but at the end of the second day, he noticed the Swedish Expert had again awarded the UK Competitors low marks. He checked the work they had done and again was suspicious about why the Swedish Expert had marked them so poorly. He suspected that this Expert was marking down the UK Competitors to influence their position in the Competition.
What happens next?
Ensimmäisen päivän arvioinnille ei enää mahda mitään, mutta toisen päivän arvioinnin allekirjoitustilaisuudesssa UK expertti ei allekirjoita päivän pistetulosta ja asia viedään....juryn käsittelyyn.
CASE 5
A question of time…
The following situation occurred because of a misunderstanding around the finish times on day 2 of the Competition and was exacerbated due to the cultural differences which existed between competing nations. A competitor from Hong Kong became very upset when he realised he had to stop and was not being given any extra time after he had understood that he had been given 10 minutes extra and had timed his work to the second. The misunderstanding arose because of the language barrier. The Competitor became so upset he threw his passport off the stand. The Hong Kong Competitor’s Expert was also very upset, as were the majority of the Asian delegation.
What happens next?
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti