Level of Playing Field

Same level of playing field is always used either as an excuse or justification for failure or success. For example, if a team lossed in a competition, the team might want to find an excuse and the playing field is not equal was always quoted. When we want to help someone by creating criteria or category that will flavour to our prefered team, then this is called justification. After involving with many community development programmes on the grassroot level for many years, I could conclude that no level of playing field is the same. The nature of neighbourhood, the demographic profile of the community, the different of socio-economic status, the difference in upbringing path, education and even the living environment make it very difficult for having an identical neighbourhood. When this happened, to set a criteria that give upmost advantages to a particular neighbourhood is, to me very tough unless we tailored made it. Having said this, the very best can do for many who run a competition is to set criteria or standard that become norm and accepted to the majority. It is important these criteria to make known to everyone well in advance, to communicate effectively with everyone include the jury and prospective participants. More critically everyone should know in advance so that they are not caught off guard in making the preparation. If an international or national or city standard has been set, made known to everyone and has been accepted, are we going to lower our criteria so that the individual who cannot meet the standard can have a same level of playing field? Some might think so. For example, to lower the passing mark in an examiniation so that the passing rate can maintain or improve. Similarly if a quota to be met, perhaps it is not uncommon that the checking criteria be changed. However, in most of the occassion especially for a contest, it is not ethical to change the criteria to give advantages to the weaker teams, I presume.