Fencing Quiz

[Craig]

I asked Bill to take a look at the quiz and we're talking about what the FOC would like to see in terms of the quiz system to get their blessing.

My #1 concern is to make sure that misinformation is not being spread, and I thank everyone for pointing out the problem questions.

Thanks to everyone on their feedback. I'm sure that having the quiz online will get some interesting rules discussions (and not just flick flame wars) going.

Cheers,
Craig

[135711]

oh god, i can't stand it, my score is 2nd to last. are you suuuuuurrrre that everyone took the test without cheating?

[BugabooX]

re manifest cheating and weapon modifications:

I'm of the opinion with others here that if a fencer has obviously modified his weapon, he *is* cheating.

But.

After giving it some more thought, I realized what the silly rulesmakers may have intended: A modified weapon could be caught before being used to cheat in scoring a touch. Sorta like stopping a guy with a gun as he's walking into the bank -- did he *intend* to use the gun? More than likely. But the point is moot because he was caught before that ever ocurred.

It's the "manifest" part of the rule that makes a difference. As one dictionary defines it, manifest means "To show plainly; to make appear distinctly; ... to put beyond question or doubt; to display; to exhibit."

So if he uses the modified weapon, it's a manifestation.

(Try to use this logic in school, though, when the teacher finds a cheat sheet taped under your desk just before the history test starts. I don't think people care about the difference between a red card and a black card in most situations like that.)

[oiuyt]

I would argue that being caught with a switch in one's epee is manifest cheating even if the switch has yet to be used. Intentional modification of the weapon I think covers things like adjusting the tilt of the bell guard after passing weapons control (at events where the bell would be checked in weapons control, ie World Championships, Olympics).

"in an obvious case of fraud" would, to my believe, indicate the first of those two cases. I see the argument for it "merely" being intentional modification, I just think that it's very poorly worded if that's the intent.

Craig- one thing to think about is that we don't want the online quiz to become the easy way of getting all of the correct answers for the real ref test. Giving the answers the way you do is very important so that people can discover what they have problems with or misconceptions about. Balancing these two goals is tricky. Add in that it would be nice to have the questions be the actual study guide questions and you might quickly get into an unsolvable dilemma. No, I don't have a good solution, I'm merely pointing out a potential for a problem.

-B :)

[DHCJr]

The problem is what is the definition of a switch. Not taking the spagetti all the way up to a connector can be considered a switch. Also as you so well pointed out, you should only wrap the wire around one time. What if they took the wire around several times with the nut tight, but the excess goes around but not under the nut. Is it intentional or is it sloppy.

There are times when it is obviously sloppy and sometimes obviously intentional, but it is an opinion, not fact. At least for me and many of the Armorers I know, if it an opinion, we 'fix' the weapon and eliminate the switch.

An example, carrying a gun without a permit would be a misdemenor, while killing someone with that same gun would be a felony.

Also, I agree with you wholeheartedly, there will be those who you this as a cheat sheet. Epee Mike, I think that was the best post of this line. They will pass the official test, because they have the answers, but they don't understand the rules. An idea would be to create questions, not from the official study guide.

[mfp]

Originally posted by DHCJr
An example, carrying a gun without a permit would be a misdemenor, while killing someone with that same gun would be a felony.

That's a terrible analogy -- in California (where your profile shows you live) penal code section 12031 concerning carrying a loaded firearm runs on for thousands of words and there are seven additional broad conditions that determine whether carrying is a felony or a misdeanor.

Also, I agree with you wholeheartedly, there will be those who you this as a cheat sheet. Epee Mike, I think that was the best post of this line. They will pass the official test, because they have the answers, but they don't understand the rules.

I feel providing the questions and answers promotes more understanding of the rules rather than less. Sort of along the lines as where the FAA provides every question that could be possibly asked for every FAA "written" test. Some state DMVs do that as well. While there are some who crib just to remember enough to pass their written test, many more are prompted to think about what's behind the questions and the rules. And a written test is usually just one part of successfully completing an FAA certification or passing a DMV license exam -- there's also the practical test.

[DHCJr]

You're right; my wording was very poor. What I should have said, that carrying a gun does not necessarily mean it is a felony, but killing someone with the same gun (not in self-defense), will most likely be considered a felony. Thank you for correcting that.

On the second I was trying poorly to agree with Epee Mike about balancing the two goals. It seems I did not make myself clear.

Thank you again,

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by DHCJr
Epee Mike, I think that was the best post of this line. They will pass the official test, because they have the answers, but they don't understand the rules. An idea would be to create questions, not from the official study guide.

ummm...... I'm kinda confused. It seems like the post you are responding to is not mine, but rather oiuyt's.

-m

[DJ Apostrophe]

Originally posted by epeemike81
ummm...... I'm kinda confused. It seems like the post you are responding to is not mine, but rather my oiuyt's.

-m

Hey! He's my oiuyt too (not to mention tyler would probably have something to say on this matter too)
-w

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by DJ Apostrophe
Hey! He's my oiuyt too (not to mention tyler would probably have something to say on this matter too)
-w

oops..... sorry.

I was going to say "my coach", but changed it.

-m

[DHCJr]

My apologies to both Epee Mike and oyuit. Both of you have that rather prominent U Mass logo and it had been at the end of a long day. I meant no offense. I felt it was well written by whoever wrote it and was trying to agree. Thank you to all that caught my mistake.

[135711]

i think that's where i was making my errors also; i went to black card whenever i saw intentional modifications after a red card. [i thought so]

[andrewmcleod]

With regard to making a hit while falling:
The following yellow card offence has not been removed.
"Irregular movements on the piste (*); hits made with violence or while falling (*) .t.87"
The asterisk (*) indicates the hit should be annulled.