ok, so let's look at this:

we're building a track, that is 20s till now.
if we have awesome 20s with checkpoint, we get a good score
if we have bad 20s with checkpoint, we get a bad score
if we have awesome 20s without checkpoint, we get a 0 score
seems legit.

ohei2 says:

pjw says:
It's not your job to "make sure" a track doesn't win (or does win, for that matter). You are one judge. Your job is to provide exactly 20% of the scoring for these tracks.

It is my job as a judge to provide my opinion and nothing more I have done here. I take much time and care to evaluate your submissions. Missing CPs are a major annoyance to me like subject missed in an essay and one can only get an "F" for it to translate it into American terms.

So your opinion is that a track without a checkpoint every 10 seconds is completely worthless (0 out of 10)? Okay, I guess you've made yourself clear.

Your opinion (and your reaction to a "major annoyance") seems very odd and extreme to me. It basically means that if you are annoyed by my track, it will be impossible for that track to win, even if the other judges disagree with you.

Obviously we don't have to agree--the internet is a big place. I just won't be participating in anything you're judging in the future.

pjw says:
I just won't be participating in anything you're judging in the future.

I fully understand your displeasure, but come on.. go for it in stage 4.

As this topic seems to grow hotter by the hour, I'd just like to add something to the discussion.

I came across a book in a second-hand charity store the other day, with a collection of articles from the NY Times 'The Ethicist' column, where readers send in questions, to which an 'ethic expert' replies. One case was similar to -- though more extreme -- what is unfolding here, in our beloved forums.

When reading another man's ethical opinion, one must always remember that there is nothing that verifies his thoughts as better than one's own. However, it is good to analyze one's own opinion and consider the reasons behind it. To read a well-argued opinion which differs from one's own is equally healthy, for a person's reach can never extend further than his vision does.

Anyway, I managed to find the article on their web page. Here it is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/23/magazine/the-way-we-live-now-1-23-00-the-ethicist-hung-juror.html

deep... I agree to both jonas and broadsword.