[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA BOD Meeting, 27 September

Tue Oct 2 17:24:45 AKDT 2012

I did the scoring for the F3A World Competition in Muncie last year.  The only software I could use was GNAMI, a French piece of software and the only software approved for use in a Worlds competition by the FAI,  Other than having to learn some French to understand the menus, it worked very well and included not only scoring, but judge analysis.  A couple of judges were dismissed after the early rounds as a result of reporting from the GNAMI software. The Worlds offered a rare importunity to "judge" the judges as there were relatively large judging panels. even in the early rounds. 

I have also used Scott Smith's Master Scoring software for some local contests this year. He also included judging performance metrics in his program so there is readily available reporting on judge performance if you use the software to its full potential.

I can't speak for the past, I would guess trying to import scores from past year's contests into Scott's program would be a tremendous amount of work.  

We do need to send our best judges to the Worlds based on performance and our Nats is the best place to do so. We also need to make sure we use a consistent scoring program year to year so there are valid comparison across at least a couple of years.

The selection for the 2013 Worlds will be based on what we have now . . . . . .  we can do better for 2015. 

Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com

________________________________
 From: Jonathan L Carter <joncarter60 at comcast.net>
To: 'General pattern discussion' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA BOD Meeting, 27 September

Ron – As an engineer I fully
understand that not only is data, data. Data is “King” First of, as
Jim said the word “skewed” was inadvertently used. There is nothing
wrong with the data that we have from any prior year. Secondly, to my
knowledge, we do not posses the raw data from the Finals for 2009 or 2010.  That
being said, if someone reading this says “oh, I have those files”
Please send them to me. I will take responsibility for the lack of data for
2011. I ran the scoring that year for Rusty Fried and in re-writing Dave Guerin’s
Excel spreadsheet I neglected to link up Judge ID to judge score for the
Finals. That data would be possible to recover manually by working from paper
score sheets that are stored somewhere at the AMA HQ but I really do not think
that is feasible at this time. I apologize for my mistake. (I am really not
that good at SW, I am a HW engineer by profession!)

As Jim Quinn mentioned, and as was
discussed at the BoD meeting; I am assembling several sets of data for Jim.  The
first and simplest set is simply the judge evaluation data from the 2012 Nats.
This was generated by Scott Smith’s program using the criteria that I
believe you, Ron, and several other people came up with. I will also send Jim a
set of combined data from the latest 5 years for which I have results.  Unfortunately
that is only 2008 and 2012. I will also send him a set that includes all data
that I have which has some entries as far back as 2004. 

I hope that explains how we are handling
the data for the judge recommendation, a task which we take quite seriously. I
believe going forward and using Scott’s SW for the Nats this will not be
an issue in the future.

Sincerely,

Jon Carter
NSRCA D7-VP
NSRCA Judging Committee Chair

If you wish to discuss this further you
can always contact me directly.

From:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ronald Van Putte
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012
4:55 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
NSRCA BOD Meeting, 27 September

Well, then we need to give credit where it is due.  Who was
responsible for the 2011 data?  

Ron

On Oct 2, 2012, at 6:50 PM, Derek Koopowitz wrote:

Data may be data but 2012
can be way better than 2011 if we don't have all of the 2011 that we need.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Ronald Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:
Jim - Data is data.  Analysis of data can be skewed, but not the
data.  As I said in the e-mail, "data from one year is no better than data from another
year.  The data includes contestants, judges and scores.  To me that
means that data is data and 2012 data is no better than 2011 data and so
on."

Ron

On Oct 2, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Jim Quinn wrote:

Hi Ron,

Firstly, thanks for reading our minutes!

Secondly, at the recent BoD meeting, during our lively discussion,
Jon's words seemed to flow easily. Reading them in the peace of a quiet evening
it seemes that "skewed" really isn't the word that should have been
used. As you know there have been occasions in the judging criteria where
all hasn't been totally smooth. For some reason Nats data has not always been
easily available, which is a mystery to me, but it isn't always totally
clear.

As Judging Chair, Jon is looking at all past Nats and Judging
criteria including the 2012 Nats. When he has gathered enough data we will
get together so I can send some names to AMA to be considered as Judges for
future World Championships.

Jim Quinn

________________________________

From: Ronald Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net>
To: General pattern
discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, October 1, 2012
7:30:30 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion]
NSRCA BOD Meeting, 27 September

I just looked at the minutes of the NSRCA Board of Directors' Meeting on 27
September:   http://nsrca.us/documents/boardmeetings/Board_Meeting_Minutes_-_09-27-2012.pdf

It includes:  "Jon Carter discusses FAI F3A judges to
recommend for World Championship. Ranking is based on Nationals finals for FAI
and Masters only. Jon recommends that we restart data as the older material is
slightly skewed. It is decided to use new data from 2012 forward because and
due to Scott Smith’s new software for scoring."

Perhaps one of the NSRCA Board members can explain what is meant by,
"the older material is slightly skewed."  

I can understand the inference of a skewing of interpretation of
judging data, but data from one year is no better than data from another year.
 The data includes contestants, judges and scores.  To me that means
that data is data and 2012 data is no better than 2011 data and so on.

Ron Van Putte
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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/20121003/1cb6f3d8/attachment.html>