Scioly.org

The problem with using actual names, in my mind, is that there is no way to verify that the names are real. It is easy to verify if the usernames are real since all one needs to do is come to the site. I can change the form to actual names if that is wanted, but the 25 signatures would have to re-submit. I'll leave that decision up to the collective.

I don't mind putting my actual name up. It seems a bit unnecessary, though, and also harder to verify if the name is real.

Quick answer. I do think the user name is an issue. Once you sign in, do you use your real name or the user name in the actual petition? If you use the user name, it is unlikely to be taken as seriously as using real names. If the user name gets paired with the actual name I can see that as being a problem for some people. Many people don't mind that others know their real identity whereas some prefer that other now know. You can allow both I suppose. I think real names with affiliations would carry much more weight. But I'm not an expert about these things.

I am surprised people think that the user names are more verifiable than actual names-especially with affiliations. Its up to others to decide. I'd be ambivalent if it means I have to put my actual name next to my user name but I could be the only one.

The weight is the same - it's a human being against this ruling. However, it's easier to verify that a username is a person.
In a case that you're describing, there's no way to do a petition. That's just counterproductive. This is much better than any other option that's reasonable for maximum participation.

I see your point casyotis.

caseyotis wrote:The weight is the same - it's a human being against this ruling. However, it's easier to verify that a username is a person.
In a case that you're describing, there's no way to do a petition. That's just counterproductive. This is much better than any other option that's reasonable for maximum participation.

I think the point of the petition was to so that we could address the letter from students on the forum who signed the petition. Not necessarily just to have a petition to overturn the ruling.

haverstall wrote:

caseyotis wrote:The weight is the same - it's a human being against this ruling. However, it's easier to verify that a username is a person.
In a case that you're describing, there's no way to do a petition. That's just counterproductive. This is much better than any other option that's reasonable for maximum participation.

I think the point of the petition was to so that we could address the letter from students on the forum who signed the petition. Not necessarily just to have a petition to overturn the ruling.

The petition says something about allowing Ward Melville to participate. However, that's mostly irrelevant to what you're responding to.

blockhead wrote:I am surprised people think that the user names are more verifiable than actual names-especially with affiliations. Its up to others to decide. I'd be ambivalent if it means I have to put my actual name next to my user name but I could be the only one.

You are allowed to put your real name. However, since the message is addressed from the Science Olympiad Student Center, I do not think it is a bad idea to have usernames. It is fine to have a mix.

The current situation can be described as a moral dilemma. Allowing WM to compete entails giving them an exception to the rule that late registration disqualifies a team. Allowing an exception can have consequences. It may make it more likely that other teams miss the deadline by a day or two. On the other hand, strict adherence to the rules results in a devastating outcome for 15 kids hard working dedicated students who have done nothing wrong. It is the kind of disappointment that can have a lasting impact-it may color their choices to participate in future academic activities. The result is also a violation of trust by adults.

People deal with moral dilemmas in different ways. One way (conventional) to deal with moral dilemmas is to always stick to the rules without questioning the fairness or appropriateness of doing so. In this case, the rule is that the team can't go and the impact on the kids or the fact that the consequence is way out of proportion to the infraction is not even considered. Another approach to moral reasoning involves carefully and thoughtfully considering universal ethical principles. People who approach (post conventional) problems in this manner consider laws as they pertain to larger principles such as justice and upholding social order, protecting human rights. For these people, rules are not to be blindly followed but must be considered in light of the context; decisions involve carefully weighing the pros/cons to each action and then taking the action that seems to uphold the highest value.

Hopefully the administrators will carefully consider the principles involved and will make a decision that upholds the higher value-to avoid taking an action that will likely have a devastating impact on a group of hard working students who did nothing wrong.

blockhead wrote:The current situation can be described as a moral dilemma. Allowing WM to compete entails giving them an exception to the rule that late registration disqualifies a team. Allowing an exception can have consequences. It may make it more likely that other teams miss the deadline by a day or two. On the other hand, strict adherence to the rules results in a devastating outcome for 15 kids hard working dedicated students who have done nothing wrong. It is the kind of disappointment that can have a lasting impact-it may color their choices to participate in future academic activities. The result is also a violation of trust by adults.

People deal with moral dilemmas in different ways. One way (conventional) to deal with moral dilemmas is to always stick to the rules without questioning the fairness or appropriateness of doing so. In this case, the rule is that the team can't go and the impact on the kids or the fact that the consequence is way out of proportion to the infraction is not even considered. Another approach to moral reasoning involves carefully and thoughtfully considering universal ethical principles. People who approach (post conventional) problems in this manner consider laws as they pertain to larger principles such as justice and upholding social order, protecting human rights. For these people, rules are not to be blindly followed but must be considered in light of the context; decisions involve carefully weighing the pros/cons to each action and then taking the action that seems to uphold the highest value.

Hopefully the administrators will carefully consider the principles involved and will make a decision that upholds the higher value-to avoid taking an action that will likely have a devastating impact on a group of hard working students who did nothing wrong.

I'm not sure that you understand exactly what change we're trying to make. We do not want them to make an exception for us. We want the rule to change unequivocally for all future tournaments. This is not only about the errors that led to our own expulsion, it is about the inherent problems in the rules. This harsh penalty goes completely against Science Olympiad's mission statement, which is to spread the love of science to students. Shutting kids out for no fault of their own is clearly not doing that. I appreciate your support, but I want it to be clear that while we are devastated by our own loss, we feel it is more important that no other team ever go through this again.