Thank you for your email. We have both starter kits in hand.
I think it would be much better if we could set up a meeting to clarify some matters which we have doubts.
It is precisely your statement that the 'two teams visited the sites together as one and they had visited the sites physically. if they had not visited the sites, they would not have known the questions and the answers.'. This is also my point, that if your role had just been to check their answers before submission, how would it be possible that you knew if their answers were right/ wrong unless you were also there with them? Would that not then constitute assistance as they are supposed to participate in the race themselves?
Perhaps it is best we could meet up to to discuss the matter. If it suits you, would this Friday be good?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
enquiry letter part 5
dear mr. tan,
"It would imply that you had helped the two teams in their race as they would not have known what the questions were at each of the 24 sites until the team (and by assocation, yourself), had visited the sites physically."
this is completely false! the two teams visited the sites together as one and they had visited the sites physically. if they had not visited the sites, they would not have known the questions and the answers. i was the one who registered the teams, and it is only right that i have to make sure that they filled up their registration particulars correctly, the team names and they ticked the correct category. in my reply to you, in no way did i say that i had helped/alter/change/given the answers to the students. so under what circumstances would it constitute "providing assistance" to the students?
to quote from your previous mail, "We are having some difficulty retreiving your starter kits." my queries are: what has happened to the starter kit of the other team? how did the results announced turn out to be that way if the teams had submitted the two cards one after the other?
desmond
"It would imply that you had helped the two teams in their race as they would not have known what the questions were at each of the 24 sites until the team (and by assocation, yourself), had visited the sites physically."
this is completely false! the two teams visited the sites together as one and they had visited the sites physically. if they had not visited the sites, they would not have known the questions and the answers. i was the one who registered the teams, and it is only right that i have to make sure that they filled up their registration particulars correctly, the team names and they ticked the correct category. in my reply to you, in no way did i say that i had helped/alter/change/given the answers to the students. so under what circumstances would it constitute "providing assistance" to the students?
to quote from your previous mail, "We are having some difficulty retreiving your starter kits." my queries are: what has happened to the starter kit of the other team? how did the results announced turn out to be that way if the teams had submitted the two cards one after the other?
desmond
enquiry letter part 4
Dear Desmond,
Thank you for your enquiry and information on the teams with regards to Fun on Foot : The Heritage Marathon held on Saturday 19th July.
I gather from your email that you sent in two student teams. You also stated that you assisted both student teams in their answers before submission. It would imply that you had helped the two teams in their race as they would not have known what the questions were at each of the 24 sites until the team (and by assocation, yourself), had visited the sites physically.
Our Registration Form clearly states that teams under the 'Educational Catergory' can only consist of 'Full-time students of secondary schools, JCs, ITEs, Polytechnics and tertiary institutions.' This clearly rules out any assistance of any sort from adults, teachers or non-full time students.
By stating that you have physically checked the answer scripts of both teams, this constitutes a breach of the rules and regulations as stated. We have no choice but to disqualify both teams on grounds of flouting the rules and the composition of the team under the educational catergory.
This will make both teams liable to disqualification. We will therefore require you to surrender your prizes for MEZZ in this instance.
Please feel free to contact me if you need any further clarifications and for information on how you can return the prize money.
Regards
S*** H***
Thank you for your enquiry and information on the teams with regards to Fun on Foot : The Heritage Marathon held on Saturday 19th July.
I gather from your email that you sent in two student teams. You also stated that you assisted both student teams in their answers before submission. It would imply that you had helped the two teams in their race as they would not have known what the questions were at each of the 24 sites until the team (and by assocation, yourself), had visited the sites physically.
Our Registration Form clearly states that teams under the 'Educational Catergory' can only consist of 'Full-time students of secondary schools, JCs, ITEs, Polytechnics and tertiary institutions.' This clearly rules out any assistance of any sort from adults, teachers or non-full time students.
By stating that you have physically checked the answer scripts of both teams, this constitutes a breach of the rules and regulations as stated. We have no choice but to disqualify both teams on grounds of flouting the rules and the composition of the team under the educational catergory.
This will make both teams liable to disqualification. We will therefore require you to surrender your prizes for MEZZ in this instance.
Please feel free to contact me if you need any further clarifications and for information on how you can return the prize money.
Regards
S*** H***
enquiry letter part 3
Hi S*** H***,
No, both are under the education category and both are students.
One team name is MEZZ, members are: Pek Zhi Kai, Matthew Liu, Eugene Yeo and Zhi Jie
The other team is ACS(I) Ventures, members are: Louis Leong, Alvin Lin, Zhen Yi and Kyne Wong
Sincerely,
Desmond
No, both are under the education category and both are students.
One team name is MEZZ, members are: Pek Zhi Kai, Matthew Liu, Eugene Yeo and Zhi Jie
The other team is ACS(I) Ventures, members are: Louis Leong, Alvin Lin, Zhen Yi and Kyne Wong
Sincerely,
Desmond
enquiry letter part 2
Hi Desmond,
We are having some difficulty retreiving your starter kits. You say that both teams are in the education catergory? One's yours (ie. teachers) and the other is your students?
Cheers
S*** H***
We are having some difficulty retreiving your starter kits. You say that both teams are in the education catergory? One's yours (ie. teachers) and the other is your students?
Cheers
S*** H***
enquiry letter part 1
Dear Sir,
With regard to my query on the results (education institute category), I am wondering what is the outcome of your investigation.
Just a short detail regarding my query:
I sent in 2 teams (MEZZ and ACS(I) Ventures) in the education institute category. Just before the two teams submitted the score card at the check point, I checked and made sure that the two teams have similar answers to the questions. Thereafter, the two teams submitted the score card one after the other, with no other teams standing in between them. Upon the announcement of the results, one team was awarded first while the other team was unplaced. My query is: how is this possible that, when the two sets of answers are similar, no other teams standing in between the two teams and the winning margin was so big, yet one team came in first and the other team was unplaced?
Thank you for your investigation and would anticipate a thorough investigation into this matter on your part.
Mr. Desmond Yap
With regard to my query on the results (education institute category), I am wondering what is the outcome of your investigation.
Just a short detail regarding my query:
I sent in 2 teams (MEZZ and ACS(I) Ventures) in the education institute category. Just before the two teams submitted the score card at the check point, I checked and made sure that the two teams have similar answers to the questions. Thereafter, the two teams submitted the score card one after the other, with no other teams standing in between them. Upon the announcement of the results, one team was awarded first while the other team was unplaced. My query is: how is this possible that, when the two sets of answers are similar, no other teams standing in between the two teams and the winning margin was so big, yet one team came in first and the other team was unplaced?
Thank you for your investigation and would anticipate a thorough investigation into this matter on your part.
Mr. Desmond Yap
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
it's okay to fail exams now...
good news for all students out there! cancel all your tuition class, throw your revision books, notes, ten years' series out of the window NOW! i am here to bring you good news, according to taiwan newspaper:
"It is possible that students who score a zero on their college entrance examination will be accepted by universities this year, an official at the College Entrance Examination Center said on Saturday"
hurray, play hard and sleep! you can stop studying, throw your CAS files away, stop submitting EE and TOK, get below 24 points for IBDP. there's always TAIWAN waiting for you...
Sunday, July 20, 2008
fun on foot 2008 - heritage festival
gruelling journey, 24 checkpoints, 6 hours... it was sheer hardwork and proper planning with a little bit of strategy that allows us to defend our title for fun on foot 2008. thus, the team is now $1000 richer and happier for the weekend.
however, the win is not without controversy as our second team left empty handed, even though we submitted similar answers, at the same time. how is it possible that one team came in 1st while the other team ended up empty handed is anyone's guess. lodge an official complain with the organiser but i am not having high expectations that i will get a satisfactory answer. this is organised by heritage board, part of the government sector/stat board. they will give me some stupid excuses which is expected of all government sector/stat board. shall wait for a reply from them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)