CBQ Rules Changes

The CBQ Rule Book design balances a complex set of interdependent principles and standards to optimize for missional outcomes, to encourage the most people to memorize the most verses of Scripture. As CBQ continues to grow and mature, deeply considered changes to these rules may occasionally be worth implementing; but given that the rules system sits at the heart of Quizzing, any proposed changes must be thought through fully, weighing value, cost, and multi-order effects both positive and negative.

Tenets and Architecture

The following are rules tenets:

• Rules must be clear, unambiguous, and as simple as possible, but no simpler.
• Rules must be optimized for fairness.
• Rules must be objective, since subjective standards unavoidably render inconsistent rulings, which leads to litigiousness.
• Rules must be deeply evaluated in the context of the whole of the rules system and multiple, differing Quizzing environments. In most cases, even the smallest rules carry an undercurrent of unavoidable complexity due to multi-variable inputs and outputs and multi-order effects.
• Rules should not be amended to address challenges that can be solved through other means.

The following are rule book architecture requirements:

• The rule book must be as short as possible without loss of effectiveness.
• The rule book must not require reference to any external source for comprehensive understanding of the rules system or any rules detail.
• Terms, definitions, and concepts in the rule book must be linearly introduced, with any references to them always following their introduction.
• The rule book must be public, version controlled, and auditable.

Recent CBQ Rules Changes

Below is a table of recent Christian Bible Quizzing (CBQ) rules changes, including links to read the commentary covering each change and links to the exact rule content changes. The goal is to help explain and provide clear justification for each change. The changes are discussed in reverse chronological order.

Thinking Through Rules

When preparing a rules change proposal, submitters are encouraged to leverage the following concepts and devices to think through the change more effectively:

Hard Cases Make Bad Law

The hard cases make bad law principle suggests that creating laws or legal precedents based on extreme, unusual, or highly specific cases—especially those involving personal or emotionally charged circumstances can lead to poorly crafted laws that are overly broad, narrow, or otherwise unsuitable for general application. It emphasizes the importance of crafting laws based on general principles rather than individual, exceptional events. All rules changes must prove not to fall into this category.

Model Thinking Framework

The model thinking framework consists of a lengthy suite of heuristics for thought depth self-evaluation; however, 2 of these are paramount when considering rules changes. First, ensure you break down the proposal, challenges, and opportunities into fundamental elements, then reason up from these. Second, ensure you think though limits, optimization, and systematic analysis.

Bloom's Revised Taxonomy (2001)

Although Bloom's Taxonomy was originally devised as a framework for categorizing educational goals, the 2001 revised taxonomy is useful as a means to evaluate the quality of thinking invested in any essay. The revised taxonomy has 6 levels: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create. All rules change proposals must provably demonstrate thinking quality at or above level 4.

• Instructional Video A arrow_outward
• Instructional Video B arrow_outward

Change Proposal Process

The rules change proposal process is as follows:

1. Analyze (at minimum) the rules change using all the concepts and devices described above
2. Submit a change proposal for evaluation
   • Transcribe the current rule
   • Concisely write the desired rule change (as short as possible, but not shorter)
   • Detail the value, cost, and multi-order effects both positive and negative as it pertains to missional outcomes
   • Comment on how the change adheres to rules tenets and rules system architecture
   • Prove the change does not fall into the "hard cases make bad law" category
     • Detail the inciting incidents, which must be at least 2 where at least 50% are not based on your own teams or quizzers
   • Prove use of model thinking framework leverage and thinking at a taxonomy level of 4 or greater
   • Steelman the null case plus at least 1 alternative
3. The Chancellor will form and chair a confidential committee to evaluate the proposal
   • The committee must thoroughly evaluate the proposal using using all the concepts and devices described above
   • Each member of the committee must privately ask God for wisdom
4. The Chancellor, taking the committee's findings under the advisement, will render a final judgement
   • If a change is to be made, the Chancellor will write and publish (or cause to be written and published):
     • The official rules changes
     • An explanatory essay and commentary

Submit a Change Proposal