Bad Rules Proposal

Tue Oct 25 05:35:31 AKDT 2005

The single major problem with this system is that now, ONE PERSON can decide
the entire contest.  This realistically only affects a handful of people and
unfortunately, we are human.  In the Masters finals specifically you end up
with people judging twice.  Lets say one of those judges likes or dislikes a
person, now that person can score the one person he likes, 2 points higher
on every maneuver, while scoring every other person correctly.  In a contest
where 5 positions were decided by 8 normalized points, one person can decide
those positions.  Bias does exist, right, wrong, intentional, unintentional,
it doesn't matter.  I would rather have 3 out of 5 judges in the middle get
it right, than 4 out of 5, with the 5th one WAY out now totally affecting
the contest.  I will give you the one judge that may get a snap/spin correct
on a zero, and the others don't, fine...but what about the guy who gives
10's just because he wants to.  I have no problems with a guy that scores
everyone consistently, but if you have one judge who does play favorites one
time, then he has decided the entire contest by himself.

Arch

-----Original Message-----
From: Atwood, Mark [mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 10:55 PM
To: Arch Stafford; discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: Bad Rules Proposal

I'm interested in hearing more on this....

Let me express my thoughts which are very subject to influence.

I've heard this argument before...that we must drop the highs and lows
to eliminate potential bias and to help offset the occasional "Snap
Nazi".

First, I'd like to express that dropping both high and low score on a
panel of 5 judges is statistically absurd (from a math perspective).
Even with the old 10-12 judge format it was dicey, but clearly more
effective.  That being said, I would pose the argument that dropping
those scores does more harm than good.

In the case of the "biased" judge...the assumption is that he/she would
be the high or low...which is unlikely to be the case.  There IS
typically a high judge...averaging 9's in the finals...and a low judge
(not sure where that average falls but it's probably down in the 7.5
range for a finals flight...   Regardless...if it any of the 3 lower
scoring judges that's biased in favor of a flight...adding .5 pt or even
a full point to every score still won't get his scores thrown out.  What
you do successfully accomplish is tossing out the same 2 judges...for
virtually every flyer...therefore completely wasting their time AND
defeating the purpose of having 5 judges in the first place.

As for the snap nazi problem...I've seen far more examples of someone
getting scores from 4 judges and a zero from one...for doing the wrong
maneuver (i.e only one judge got it right) than I have the other way
around.  Dropping scores would only serve to squelch the good judge in
that scenario.

This IS a problem...the zero's on Snaps and Spins especially.  I've
become aware that some see zeroing a snap as an easy, uncontested way to
ruin someone's flight.  Pretty petty...but it seems to be the new sheik
form of bias.  Personally...I'd LOVE to see someone propose getting rid
of the "ZERO" criteria since we can't seem to agree on it at all and
simply make poor snaps and poor spin entry's a downgrade...it would
eliminate a lot of bickering...but that's another subject.

As for the dropping of highs and lows...I would like to hear a
compelling and statistically relevant argument (and yes...I would like
to see the math) that shows how this helps our judging with anything
less than 12 judges.

-Mark
AMA Dist III Board member

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of Arch Stafford
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 10:18 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Bad Rules Proposal

Just wanted to throw out a new rules proposal that I saw recently.  I
have
no issues with any part it except the part that they use all judges.
This
is ridiculous in the finals.there is no reason to not drop the high and
low
scores from each maneuver.  This is the way the proposal was submitted.
It
can't be changed, it just has to be voted on.  This realistically only
affects a small number of people.  In my opinion we need to make sure
that
we contact the competition board to vote this down.  A lot of these
rules
just get voted in by people that it doesn't affect.  I hope people will
contact the competition board in your AMA district to vote this down,

Thanks,

Arch

RCA-07-15 - Insert in amend AMA rule handbook page 72, under section 13:
Determining the winner.

Proposed insert at the end of 13.1:  For all AMA classes all judges'
scores
are to be included in the tabulation of scores regardless of the number
of
judges used in a normal, matrix, or finals round.  

If you have concerns either way on this proposal, you should contact
your
AMA Contest Board representative and let him know about it. I've
included
the whole proposal below. BTW, all the proposals are available on the
AMA
site in the Competition section.

RCA-07-15 - Insert in amend AMA rule handbook page 72, under section 13:
Determining the winner.

Proposed insert at the end of 13.1:  For all AMA classes all judges'
scores
are to be included in the tabulation of scores regardless of the number
of
judges used in a normal, matrix, or finals round.  

Proposed insert new 13.2:

At large contests such as a National level contest, the number of
contestants may exceed the time available to run a complete round in
front
of the same judges.  In this case the D may elect to use the matrix
system
for the 6 round event.

The Matrix system is intended for use in situations where the number of
pilots exceeds that which can be run on 1 site, in front of 1 set of
judges,
and within the time limitations of the event.  For example, the Masters
class at the NATS often falls into this category.

The explanation, construction and scoring instructions for the Matrix
system
are proposed in 13.3.  Where possible and practical, each competitor
will
fly 6 matrix rounds.  The best 4 of 6 rounds will be used to determine
the
finalists.  If the event cannot run a finals round due to inclement
weather
etc., the best 4 of 6 rounds will be used to determine the winner.

Finals format - If a Finals event is included, the number of finalists
will
be 20% of the total or a practical number to match the time available.

The Finals format is also subject to the time available.  The CD can opt
to
run a 4 round final, or a 3 rounds (or less) finals.  If a 3 round final
is
selected one normalized preliminary overall position score will be
carried
over.  To allow for weather problems the best 2 of 2, or 2 of 3 will
determine the winner.  If a 4 round finals is chosen then there will be
no
carry over overall position scores.  Again, to allow for weather issues
the
best 1 of 1, 2 of 2, 2 of 3 or 3 of 4 normalized finals scores will
decide
the winner.  Equal judging exposure will be applied and only completed
rounds will be counted in the final standings.

=================================================
If you want your reply email to go to the list, you must Cc: the list!

To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the
list.

=================================================
If you want your reply email to go to the list, you must Cc: the list!

To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.