[NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship - Scoring System Overhaul

Woodward, Jim jim.woodward at baesystems.com
Thu Oct 18 04:27:47 AKDT 2007 

Guys -   

 

1.	Why do we average judge's scores together?  

	a.	The whole system is predicated on judges being
competent/consistent/correct/un-biased.  If this first rule is violated
ranging from small to 100 point raw score difference, the idea of now
"averaging" the score also has no validity.
	b.	Why not just let each judge's score stand as is,
unaltered, and produce two normalized scores per round?
	c.	Averaging the scores together may be doing a disservice
to everyone.
	d.	You would basically have two sets of scores per round.
IE you may end up with 1000 points on one card, and an 800 on the other.

	e.	This would identify immediately any cause for concern.
	f.	Would it provide an immediate training tool back to our
system of pilots, judges, and CD?
	g.	Attempting to "un-average" the scores to determine what
happened takes place anyway on the flight line, after the scores are
printed.  

2.	Are we asking too much from judges?

	a.	Is applying downgrades, then counting backwards from 10,
in the context of "turnaround" pattern where maneuvers can happen
back-to-back quickly, too difficult across the full spectrum of
competitor/judges?

3.	Dropping Rounds:

	a.	Is this still a good idea? 
	b.	I wouldn't mind dropping one round, but it was explained
to me last night that this is an artifact from the days of when people
would break a prop on touch-n-goes, and in general lower equipment
reliability.  
	c.	In the age of higher equipment reliability, is the
'round-drop' scenarios still good, left as is?

4.	Dropping Rounds - Take 2:

	a.	In the context of point #1, maybe we should be allowed
to drop the lowest scored judge from each round, versus the entire
round.  
	b.	Why should the pilot drop the entire round, when one
judge may have scored him 1000 points, and the other 800?
	c.	If you end up with a tie at the end, you just keep
counting "1000's" until the other pilot runs out - tie is now "untied."

 

I hope some smart guys can chime in on potential over-hauling idea. 

 

 

________________________________

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Lisa &
Larry
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:27 PM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship

 

	OK...I probably shouldn't start this, but I will...

	 

	I haven't read all the threads, but I have read the ones below
in this series.

	 

	The NSRCA has already set the standard and a method to determine
judging bias and has held a NSRCA member accountable to this standard
this year and the AMA sanctioned the individual. This is fact....Agree
with the method to determine bias (or not) it was used to impose an AMA
sanction on a member.

	 

	IMHO this discussion suggests that bias has occurred in the D3
championship or possibly another at the same level FAI. If this is the
case the NSRCA must review this and apply the same discipline using the
same measurables to provide for the same sanctions.

	 

	If the NSRCA is unwilling to investigate or isn't willing to use
the same method to determine bias, then clearly we (the NSRCA and AMA)
have disenfranchised a NSRCA member and should rethink his sanction.

	 

	Our rules and penalties must check and balance. Then they must
be applied to all members equally regardless of status in membership.
This is the only way to reduce / eliminate bias. I'm also unwilling to
entertain the thought the District Championship is any less important to
the NATS. They are both sanctioned contests ran by a CD accountable to
the AMA.

	 

	Flame suit on...

	 

	Larry Diamond

	 

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Mike Hester <mailto:kerlock at comcast.net>  

	To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>


	Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:24 PM

	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship

	 

	He's not alone. Although he probably should work on the delivery
;)

	 

	I would support any of the 5 proposals that Ryan listed. Judging
FAI can be frustrating enough, but to be told you're not getting it
right when you're already doing everything you know how to do, that's a
hard pill to swallow regardless of the statement's accuracy.

	 

	You guys out there do need to realize these guys can fly...and
are very good...problem is they're flying against this Jason dude,
travels a lot, flys all the time, might even have a national title or 2
along the way, not sure. I'm sure you know the type. *ahem*

	 

	Because my wife generally keeps scores in D3, we have some
pretty good access to each and every score entered. I can tell you guys
without a doubt at times there are some SERIOUS differences in scores
between judges on the same round. I don't mean a little, I mean like 100
points on the RAW score. Even if this Jason character was flying
straight 10s, the differences if you work them out mean the others are
barely flying a straight line....and that's not the case. I have no
doubt these guys don't think they should be beating Jason in a 6 round
contest where 2 of the rounds are "F" rounds, but I am sure most people
would agree the scoring could use some improvements.

	 

	Being one of these evil incompetent D3 masters judges *ahem* I
would certainly support more of a cooperative effort than some kind of
protest. I have been very supportive of all the FAI guys and especially
the scoring, and am usually the guys everybody throws something at
during a judging seminar because I'm trying to clarify something that
effects mainly FAI. 

	 

	I think to identify the "problem" will take a willingness to
recognize that the situation is caused by a LOT of factors, not any one
or two. If anyone's interested, I'll outline the ones I see clearly. 

	 

	I'm not sure if this will all have the intended effect that jim
was looking for in the end, but if nothing else it does draw some
attention to a situation and we should have a closer look. 

	 

	As for me, soon I'll be practicing, bracing for the onslought of
FAI pilots come to masters to punish me =)

	 

	-Mike

		----- Original Message ----- 

		From: McLaughlin, Ryan (FRS.JAX)
<mailto:ryan_mclaughlin at ml.com>  

		To: NSRCA Mailing List
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

		Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1:50 PM

		Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship

		 

		I didn't want you to stand alone in this...it's too
important.

			-----Original Message-----
			From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Woodward,
Jim
			Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1:31 PM
			To: NSRCA Mailing List
			Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship

			Ryan M.,

			I think this takes the cake as a first time
nsrca-list email.  Thank you for the support.

			Jim W.

			 

			CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message,
including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and proprietary information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by
reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 

			 

			
________________________________


			From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
McLaughlin, Ryan (FRS.JAX)
			Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1:19 PM
			To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
			Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship

			This is my first post to the NSRCA list as I am
a bit 'internet shy', but I thought I might be able to add some value to
the FAI judging discussion Jim W started.  Although I tend to err on the
side of diplomacy : ), I believe the feelings Jim expressed are
legitimate and shared by many FAI competitors throughout the country.
As a long time participant, I realize that bias is not a new problem but
I do not think we should accept this is as a "fact of life" and move on.
I think we have an excellent opportunity here and we should make the
most of it.

			The primary issue to address in my opinion is
not disparity in judging standards between judges, though as Earl points
out, this is important.  Rather, it is the different standard applied to
pilots within one score set--i.e.. scoring a pilot lower or higher based
on who he is.  Our penchant for creating "superstars" is the most
discouraging aspect of FAI competition.  To remedy this, we must all
make a conscious decision to change a long established tradition in our
sport.  Are we ready to take this on?

			Complaining isn't the answer and neither is
staying quiet, a mistake that has made the FAI competitors as
responsible as anyone else for the situation.  To this end, I submit for
your review the following ideas to specifically target the FAI bias
issue:

			1. Sacrifice one FAI round per contest to serve
as an "open" round for all contestants expected to judge FAI during the
event.  Allow everyone to compare notes and use this as a coaching
opportunity.

			2.  Drop one FAI pilot to Masters at each
contest to serve as a judge for all rounds and use volunteers from other
classes to serve as the others.  This would have to be an agreement made
among FAI pilots.

			3.  Extend the pilots meeting to go over
specific issues, maybe a new one or two every meet rather than just
pointing out the landing zone, etc.  Make a "mini" judging seminar
mandatory each contest.

			4.  Certify judges for FAI on a volunteer basis
and only use "certified" judges in the contest. 

			5.  Utilize peer judging, in other words, have
FAI pilots judge themselves.  If a pilot is not flying, he is judging
his fellow competitors.

			Some of this may seem radical, but I believe
there is room for a bit of this.  Pattern belongs to us right?  I
welcome any ideas or critique anyone can offer.  I will clarify any of
the above upon request.

			Thank you for your consideration. 

			Ryan McLaughlin 
			Eustis, Florida 

			 

			
________________________________


			This message w/attachments (message) may be
privileged, confidential or proprietary, and if you are not an intended
recipient, please notify the sender, do not use or share it and delete
it. Unless specifically indicated, this message is not an offer to sell
or a solicitation of any investment products or other financial product
or service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official
statement of Merrill Lynch. Subject to applicable law, Merrill Lynch may
monitor, review and retain e-communications (EC) traveling through its
networks/systems. The laws of the country of each sender/recipient may
impact the handling of EC, and EC may be archived, supervised and
produced in countries other than the country in which you are located.
This message cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. This
message is subject to terms available at the following link:
http://www.ml.com/e-communications_terms/. By messaging with Merrill
Lynch you consent to the foregoing.

			
________________________________


		 

		<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center> 

		_______________________________________________
		NSRCA-discussion mailing list
		NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
		http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

	
________________________________


	_______________________________________________
	NSRCA-discussion mailing list
	NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
	http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20071018/ad340496/attachment-0001.html

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list