[tlhIngan Hol] Suffix-number questions in the KLCP test
sustel at trimboli.name
Mon Nov 25 16:35:17 PST 2019
On 11/25/2019 5:24 PM, Will Martin wrote:
> I openly invite you to redesign the test. My whole point is that I
> don’t invite you to make whoever designed the test redesign the test.
I'm pretty sure your whole point was: don't offer criticism unless
I honestly can't tell if you're ignoring the real point to be defensive,
or if you actually don't get it. This is someone saying /I have a
problem, and here's something that would help./ And you dump on him with
/And who do you think you are?/
But okay, let's pretend it matters if I redesign the test. As a matter
of fact, I have given a great deal of thought to how I would design a
course in Klingon. I have posted extensively to the Duolingo discussion
boards with my thoughts on how that course is constructed, often arguing
with the very patient janSIy. I've thought much about how /I/ would do it.
And it always comes down to this: I don't have a platform. Nobody's
going to prefer SuStel's Klingon Kourse over Duolingo or the KLI. It
would be wasted effort. Plus, I've got two small children and a job and
a wife with a job; I haven't got lots of free time. Even now I'm
stealing time from putting my kids to bed to write this.
As for this particular test, I have already said that I'm not convinced
that it /needs/ changing. I'm not arguing with you that the test needs
to be changed, or that he's right and you're wrong. I'm telling you not
to attack him for making his point.
Nobody is saying the people who made the KLI tests haven't done a fine
job. QIDwI' proposed something he thinks is an improvement, explaining
why he thinks it is so. The wrong thing to do is to mock his explanation
and suggest he come back when he's proved his bona fides.
> If they care to, on their own timeframe, they can certainly be welcome
> to do it, but I’ve seen less positive suggestion on this point than
> I’ve seen negative reaction to what now exists, without much in the
> way of appreciation shown for the effort that went into creating the
> test and making it available.
He didn't just give a negative reaction. He gave an explanation of what
his problem is, and what he thought would positively fix it. And invited
someone to explain why what he wants isn't as good an idea as he thinks.
How profusely should he have shown his appreciation?
> If I seem defensive, it’s because I’m defending something I care
> about. I care about people creating resources for the KLI. I respect
> the hours they’ve put in, and I appreciate the positive intent of
> their efforts.
So, I think, does QIDwI'. He didn't say, /This test sucks!/ He said he
tried to take the level 1 test and realized it was asking him for things
he hadn't learned, and questioned the appropriateness of teaching them.
People are allowed to doubt the KLI.
> I never suggested that the test couldn’t be better, or that anyone
> willing to put the positive effort into redesigning it should be
> discouraged from doing so. I’m less interested in defending the
> specific, current form of the test than I am in defending the earned
> respect of whoever created the test and made it available.
> I would just as quickly defend respect for any new person who makes
> the positive effort to make the test better.
That is /exactly/ what he did. He explained his trouble with the test
and offered an outline of a solution. And you dumped on him.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tlhIngan-Hol