[NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship

Thu Oct 18 07:57:24 AKDT 2007

MessageThank you Larry.  I'm glad you have the gumption to speak your mind.  If there are major transgressions occurring they should all receive identical treatment. For anything less only promotes hypocrisy.  One of the more vile human traits. 

    Del

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lisa & Larry 
  To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:26 PM
  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 

    To: NSRCA Mailing List 

    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) 

      To: NSRCA Mailing List 

      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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

      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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/e0d23e63/attachment-0001.html 