Matt's critique
From CyberOne Wiki
Matthew Shinners
December 27, 2007
CyberONE: Law in the Court of Public Opinion
Professor Nesson
Final/Critique
Critique of ‘Closing Time’
The project ‘Closing Time’ involved the process of registering for endurance races, both marathons and triathlons. The site is a forum for people who compete in these events to both share times for registration for a variety of marathons and triathlons, as well as discuss the varying methods of registration. From the site, I have learned that there are three main registration methods. The first is a first-come, first-serve method, wherein the registration goes live and whoever gets their information in first gets to run the race. This method is like ticket sales for a concert. The second method is the lottery system. Through this method, from what I can gather, you register for a lottery, and then all of the registrants are thrown into a huge computer program (or giant, Bingo-like tub) and picked randomly to compete. The final method is the qualifying method (used, most locally, for the Boston marathon). By this method, the competition is limited to the first so many (in Boston’s case 25,000) who meet a qualifying time. Each of these methods has their positives and negatives.
The first method has the benefit of parity. Everyone knows (or should know) when the registration is, and they know almost immediately if they will be running in the race (for training purposes). However, it also benefits those who can sit at a computer for a morning, continually clicking on the register button, while those who have jobs or busy schedules miss it. The lottery system addresses this problem, but keeps people in limbo as to whether they’ve made the cut for the registration. It also doesn’t give people an incentive to register early, and it doesn’t properly allow people full knowledge of participation in time for a full training schedule. The final method both allows people to know that they will compete immediately, as well as ensures a competitive field. However, it cuts out a large number of people who would love to compete in an endurance race but don’t meet the qualifying times.
The author does a great job of gathering information regarding the registration dates and methods for a variety of marathons. Almost every state has a section for its races and information regarding them. He also does a great job of summarizing the various methods of registration.
However, the author doesn’t seem to make much of an argument. He even says, in the sole op-ed entry in the blog, “I do not know exactly how I personally feel about each of these methods”. As a site designed to shed light on the problems of registration for endurance race marathons as well as an attempt to solve them, it puts forward very few solutions. The author deals with a number of arguments for and against each registration method, but he does this from a purely objective point of view. The pros and cons are a mere list, not a critique. There is very little strong narrative voice behind the analysis; he seems to try his hardest to remove opinion from his writing. As someone trying to make an argument, he comes across as weak and waffling. Taking a stance, any stance, would be preferable to this. Creating a new method (maybe by combining the three enunciated) would be a great addition to the site.
As a collator of information regarding registration dates and methods for various marathons, the website and author excel. However, as acting as an advocate for change in the registration process, the author seems to completely lack teeth.
I personally think that the best method for registration is a mix of the different types. I ran in Boston 3 years ago as a ‘bandit’, or a person who doesn’t register, qualify, or run for charity and just hops into the race. This was mainly a combination of my lack of ability to qualify because of location reasons (I couldn’t drive anywhere without a vehicle) and the very few slots that are available for charity runners (I ran for a charity at Boston College, but they were only allowed three numbers for the 50 people who ran for the cause). I can understand the necessity for the larger, more prestigious marathons to be made up mainly of people who have qualified for it (the Iron Man Triathlon and Boston Marathon are seen as some of the hardest and most prestigious, so limiting it to those who have earned it seems appropriate, on some level). However, for other marathons, I think that holding a certain number of slots for different types of registrants is the most appropriate. For those who are very gung-ho about running the marathon and want to know right away, a large number of slots could be on a first come, first serve basis. Other slots could be held for those who register late, but still want to run, on a lottery system. And a certain percentage of runners (say 10%) could register only after qualifying, thus keeping the high level of competition in the endurance races that people watch to see. I think that this method is most accommodating for the highest number of people. The amount of each slot could be changed for each race, based on how many people traditionally register by each method and the level of competition for the race.
The website has sections where people can discuss their personal registration and endurance race stories. However, these sections are, as of now, blank. A few interviews with race officials and policy makers, explaining why they chose the registration methods they did, would be a welcome addition to the site. These explanations could then be critiqued by the author, and a solution might start to emerge. These interviews would also offer a glimpse into the minds of the decision-makers, allowing the racers who read the site to get an insider’s understanding of why certain decisions are made. Someone might be vehemently against the lottery method until they read a story about the single mom who wants to run the race, but had to drive her children to work during the first come, first serve registration time. Or someone might be against the qualifier-only method, until reading the race official’s story of how they tried to open Boston to the general public, only to be inundated with tens of thousands of unqualified applicants, drowning out the world-class marathoners from competing and thus lowering the profile of this otherwise world-class event. By generating personalized accounts of situations where the different methods do or do not work for individuals, the author could create a forum through which people begin to understand the difficulty and multi-faceted nature of the registration process argument.
After this, however, a stance should be assumed by the author as to how the registration method could be improved. Simply stating the pros and cons of each method doesn’t advocate much for change. In the end solutions should be offered that would deal with the worst cons of each of the three, while including as many of the pros as possible. Also, as the moderator of the discussion, the author would have the final word on all of the interviews and personalized stories that were posted on the page, allowing him to comment on what he thinks are the strongest and weakest ‘arguments’ offered in each of these. By generating all of this content and critique, a strong argument could be made for a method that the author thinks is best suited for the unique world of endurance race registration.
