[NSRCA-discussion] FAI 1/2 points

[John Gayer]

Wrong question.
The real question is why round at all?  Once you allow half point 
deductions in the judge's mind, just let them stand.


On 8/1/2016 2:31 PM, John Pavlick via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
> /"//No particular reason was given for the rounding up... They 
> preferred it versus rounding down."/
>
> Well that sounds like a scientific explanation. Since it makes no 
> reference to how floating point numbers and quantization errors 
> actually work, we’ll have to accept it as fact. J
>
> John Pavlick
>
> Cell: 203-417-4971
>
> idslogo2
>
> Integrated Development Services
>
> *From:*NSRCA-discussion 
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Scott 
> Smith via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Monday, August 01, 2016 3:43 PM
> *To:* Stuart Chale; General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI 1/2 points
>
> I asked that same question and was told:
>
> /"//No particular reason was given for the rounding up... They 
> preferred it versus rounding down."/
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Stuart Chale via NSRCA-discussion 
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>
> Some ideas and changes are just plain stupid!  There I said it :)
>
> I have always hated the fact that some judging criteria and downgrades
> were different in FAI and AMA.  Makes judging which is a tough job to do
> right even tougher.  You have to know 2 different sets of rules and in
> the long run only lowers the accuracy of judging, most likely more so
> for the FAI fliers.  But that is another can of worms.
>
> I thought that allowing 1/2 points in FAI sounded like a good idea, we
> are used to it in the rest of the classes.  And since the FAI pilots are
> in most part the better fliers they are more likely to make the 1/2
> point errors as compared to the greater inaccuracies usually seen in the
> lower classes.
>
> But wait an 8.5 becomes a 9, and a 9 is still a 9  ??????
>
> So just to prove how silly this idea can be I used Scott's scoring
> program and ran a fictitious contest with 2 flyers and 2 rounds.  I used
> a couple of friends as contestants so to not offend anyone.  I also had
> to use the masters sequence as an example, as the program automatically
> rounds up FAI scores.
>
> Hopefully the PDF files are attached.
>
> Each flyer received identical scores in each of their 2 flights. AR
> received all 7.5's except one maneuver which was an 8.5, and DL all 8's
> .  In round 1 scores were not rounded up and in round 2 the scores were
> rounded up as they would automatically be done in FAI.
>
> Look at the files for AR round 1 and DL  round 1.  It would seem pretty
> obvious who should win that round and without rounding up AR gets a
> 947.75 to DL's 1000.
>
> Note that every maneuver but one was judged higher for DL.
>
> Now look at AR round 2 and DL round 2 rounded up.  The same exact judges
> scores with only 1 maneuver scored higher for AR, but due to the
> rounding up AR wins the round 1000 to 989.86.
>
> Now this is the extreme and unlikely to actually happen in a contest to
> this extent but just the fact that it works this way makes the whole
> idea of rounding up ridiculous.
>
> Is there really an argument that this is a good thing?
>
> Stuart C.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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/20160801/8754ed25/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 735 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20160801/8754ed25/attachment.png>