Welcome to Gaia! ::

... psst mike is being racist. grape juice and watermelon?

Actually I think an anonymous judging system is more fair both to player and judge than a transparent system. So long as the owner and the players arnt judging no one should have anything to complain about.

Then the judges dont take unnecessary abuse either. A player requests an explanation for a decision and gets a reply that cant start an argument.

Honestly players are more likely to behave when they dont know who they are pissing off. As to the isues of accountability the only person the judges should be accountable too are each other, and the owner, and transparency is something players who have been screwed regularly feel they need.

A good owner guaruntees competency with checks and balances.

Obviously none of this is relevant to the gtb, but thats kinda besides the point.

Or you can be told who the judges are, and then they can make scores/comments anonymously.

Everybody wins.

Except the terrorists.

lol that works, I am of the opinion that the owner of the tournament should never be one of the acting judges though.

I keep hoping the black smith will show up and fix everybodies weapons...

I laughed.

A purely anonymous system doesn't allow for true accountability or transparency, both of which are required in any context where a person or group of persons has any sort of authority.

If someone joins an event.. they should have the right to know who is doing the grading, because each person is entitled to their own opinion. If you don't like judge X because you don't think he's trustworthy, then you can choose not to join the tournament.. but you can't make an informed decision without information. Transparency is something every person ought to want unless they just like being ignorant and having their decisions made for them.

No one should just arbitrarily or unquestioningly accept or trust authority simply because they have authority. Transparency is required so that people can make informed decisions and those in authority can be held accountable if they do something they shouldn't.

Saying that judges should only be accountable to each other is like saying that politicians should only be accountable to other politicians. Doesn't work. Never has. If you expect people to follow your rules or your leadership, you have to be accountable for your actions. The only time that changes is when you have a monopoly on force and can threaten someone with sufficient punishment to MAKE them listen. Such a monopoly doesn't exist online, though.

Like Grim said though, the system most often used is: we know who the judges are, but we don't know which judge is giving which set of scores. That way we can maintain accountability and transparency without looking at our scorecards and going "Judge X gave me one less point than Judges Y and Z! THIS IS BULLSHIT!"

You can't go full-on anonymous with a system, but you can't have complete and total transparency either.. but you have to have enough transparency to let people make their decisions, and to ensure some degree of accountability, or at least to provide participants the ability to raise concerns, questions, criticisms, etc.

Better throw in a z-snap for good measure, Soks.