<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:st1 =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns:mailto><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16544" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=296224900-19102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I'll post my dissertation on TBL again since this issue
seems to crop up time and time again...</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=296224900-19102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=296224900-19102007>
<DIV
style="mso-element: dropcap-dropped; mso-element-frame-hspace: 3.0pt; mso-element-wrap: auto; mso-element-anchor-vertical: paragraph; mso-element-anchor-horizontal: column; mso-height-rule: exactly; mso-element-linespan: 3"><FONT
face=Garamond><SPAN class=296224900-19102007>T</SPAN>he Tarasov-Bauer-Long (TBL)
Scoring method has been around since the 1970’s.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It has been used in the full size arena
since 1978 and has been used at every full size IAC World Championship since
1980.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The TBL method applies proven
statistical probability theory to the judge’s scores to resolve style
differences and bias, and to avoid the inclusion of potential faulty judgements
in contest results.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>To understand
just why we need TBL, and how it works, is if considerable importance to us
all.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It is important to the pilots
because it is there to reduce the prospect of unsatisfactory judgements
affecting their results, and it is important for judges because it will
introduce a completely new dimension of scrutiny into the sequence totals, and
it will also discreetly engage the attention of the Chief Judge, or Contest
Director, if the judges conclusions differ sufficiently from all those other
judges on the same panel.</FONT></DIV>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"
align=left><FONT face=Garamond>When people get together to judge how well a
pre-defined competitive task is being tackled, the range of opinions is often
diverse.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This is entirely natural
among humans where the critique of any display of skill relies on the
interpretation of rapidly changing visual cues.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In order to minimize the prospect of any
“way out opinions” having too much effect on the result, it is usual to average
the accumulated scores to arrive at a final assessment, which takes everybody’s
opinion into account.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Unfortunately
this averaging approach can achieve the opposite of what we really want, which
is to identify, and where needed, remove those “way out opinions” because they
are the ones most likely to be ill-judged and therefore should be discarded,
leaving the rest to determine the more appropriate result.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"
align=left><FONT face=Garamond>In aerobatics the process of judging according to
the rulebook normally leads to a series of generally similar personal
views.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>However, one judge’s
downgrading may be harsher or more lenient than the next, their personal
feelings toward each competitor or aircraft type may predispose toward favor or
dislike (bias), and they will almost certainly miss or see things that other
judges do not.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>How then can we
“judge” the judges and so reach a conclusion, which has good probability of
acceptance by all the concerned parties?</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"
align=left><FONT face=Garamond>The key word is <B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">probability</I></B>, the concept of a
perceived level of confidence in collectively viewed judgements has entered the
frame.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>What we really mean is that
we must be confident that opinions pitched outside some pre-defined level of
reasonable acceptability will be identified as such and will not be used.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This sort of situation is the daily
bread and butter of well established probability theory which, when suitably
applied, can produce a very clear cut analysis of numerically expressed opinions
provided that the appropriate criteria have been carefully established
beforehand.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"
align=left><FONT face=Garamond>What has been developed through several previous
editions is some arithmetic which addresses the judge’s raw scores in such a way
that any which are probably unfair are discarded with an established level of
confidence.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>To understand the
process you need only accept some quite simple arithmetic procedures, which are
central to what is called “statistical probability”.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"
align=left><FONT face=Garamond>The TBL scoring system in effect does the
following:</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoListBullet2
style="MARGIN: 0in 0.25in 12pt 0.75in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; TEXT-ALIGN: left; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"
align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore">·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face=Garamond>Commonizes the judging
styles.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoListBullet2
style="MARGIN: 0in 0.25in 12pt 0.75in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; TEXT-ALIGN: left; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"
align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore">·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face=Garamond>Computes TBL scores</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoListBullet2
style="MARGIN: 0in 0.25in 12pt 0.75in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; TEXT-ALIGN: left; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"
align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore">·<SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><FONT face=Garamond>Publishes results</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"
align=left><o:p><FONT face=Garamond> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"
align=left><FONT face=Garamond>Commonizing the judging styles involves
remodeling the scores to bring all the judging styles to a common format and
removing any natural bias between panel members.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Following some calculations, each
judge’s set of scores are squeezed or stretched and moved en-bloc up or down so
that the sets all show the same overall spread and have identical averages
(bias).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Within each set the pilot
order and score progression must remain unaltered, but now valid score
comparisons are possible between all the panel judges on behalf of each
pilot.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"
align=left><FONT face=Garamond>Computing the TBL score involves looking at the
high and low scores in each pilot’s set and throws out any that are too “far
out” to be fair.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This is done by
subtracting the average for the set from each one and dividing the result by the
“sample standard deviation” - if the result of this sum is greater than 1.645
then according to statistical probability theory we can be at least 90%
confident that it is unfair, so the score is discarded.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This calculation and the mathematically
derived 1.645 criteria is the key to the correctness of the TBL process, and is
based on many years of experience by the full size aerobatics organization with
contest scores at all levels.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The
discarding of any scores of course changes for a pilot the average and standard
deviation of their remaining results, and so the whole process is repeated.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>After several cycles any “unfair” scores
will have gone, and those that remain will all satisfy the essential 90%
confidence criteria.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"
align=left><FONT face=Garamond>Publishing the results is derived by averaging
each pilot’s scores.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The final TBL
iteration therefore has any appropriate penalty/bonus values applied and the
results are then sorted in order of descent of the total scores to rank the
pilots first to last.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>These final
scores may, or may not, be normalized to 1000 points, depending on the setting
for the selected class.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"
align=left><FONT face=Garamond>Educating and improving the judges is a useful
by-product of this process in that it provides all the bells and whistles how
each judge has performed by comparison with the overall judging panel average
and when seen against the 90% level of confidence criteria.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The TBL system will produce an analysis
showing each judge the percentage of scores accepted as “OK”, and a comparison
with the panel style (spread of score) and bias (average).</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 12pt; TEXT-ALIGN: left"
align=left><FONT face=Garamond>Unfortunately TBL, by definition, brings with it
a 10% possibility of upsetting an honest judge’s day.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The trade-off is that we expect not only
to achieve a set of results with at least 90% confidence that are “fair” every
time, but that the system also provides us with a wonderful tool to address our
judging standards.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>TBL will ensure
that every judge’s opinion has equal weight, and that each sequence score by
each judge is accepted only if it lies within an acceptable margin from the
panel average.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>TBL, however, by
necessity takes the dominant judging panel view as the “correct” one and it
can’t make right scores out of wrong ones.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>If 6 out of 8 judges are distracted and make a mess out of one pilots
efforts, then for TBL this becomes the controlling assessment of that pilots
performance, and the other 2 diligent judges who got it right will see their
scores unceremoniously zapped.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In
practice this would be extremely unusual - from the judging line it is almost
impossible to deliberately upset the final results without collusion between a
majority of the judges, and if that starts to happen then someone is definitely
on the wrong planet.</FONT></P></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=296224900-19102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=296224900-19102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=296224900-19102007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>vicenterc@comcast.net<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 18, 2007 8:11
AM<BR><B>To:</B> NSRCA Mailing List<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D3
Championship - Scoring System Overhaul<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Tony,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Do you know if the TBL system eliminates the high and low
scores? I think that is a good solution but we can not do it in local
contests. Probably we could in some contests since we have many Masters
vs. F3A. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Do you know "link" where we can read about TBL system?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=signature id=signature>--<BR>Vicente "Vince" Bortone</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Tony" <tony@radiosouthrc.com>
<BR>
<META content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)" name=Generator>
<STYLE>v\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
o\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
w\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
.shape {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#VML)
}
</STYLE>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PostalCode"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="State"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="address"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="Street"></o:SmartTagType>
<STYLE>st1\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#ieooui)
}
</STYLE>
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">This TBL will find
these problems and is in use at World Champs. The problem is that you
need at least 5 judges on a line.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Tony Stillman,
President</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=navy><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Radio South,
Inc.</SPAN></FONT><FONT color=navy><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">139 Altama Connector,
<st1:address w:st="on"><st1:Street w:st="on">Box</st1:Street>
322</st1:address></SPAN></FONT><FONT color=navy><SPAN
style="COLOR: navy"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><FONT face=Arial
color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Brunswick</SPAN></FONT></st1:City><FONT
face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">, <st1:State
w:st="on">GA</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode
w:st="on">31525</st1:PostalCode></SPAN></FONT></st1:place><FONT
color=navy><SPAN style="COLOR: navy"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">1-800-962-7802</SPAN></FONT><FONT
color=navy><SPAN style="COLOR: navy"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">tony@radiosouthrc.com</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR tabIndex=-1 align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">From:</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">On Behalf Of
</SPAN></B>vicenterc@comcast.net<BR><B><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:44
AM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> NSRCA Mailing List;
NSRCA Mailing List<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B>
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship - Scoring System
Overhaul</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">I agree with George. If I remember right from
statistics courses 20 years ago, this type of problem follows the normal
distribution or bell shape curve. In order to have any significant
precision in the scoring system we will need to have at least 33 judges per
round. We all know that it is impossible for us to have 33
judges per round. I also agree with George that at the end of the
contest the winner is usually the best pilot and if you ask around very high
percentage will agree with the results.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Well, we need a PHD in statistics to help us
out.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">--<BR>Vicente "Vince"
Bortone<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN-LEFT: 3.75pt; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 1.5pt solid; PADDING-TOP: 0in; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">-------------- Original message --------------
<BR>From: <glmiller3@suddenlink.net> <BR><BR>> I've said this
before and most people don't "get it", but we are asking more <BR>>
precision from our scoring system than is mathematically possible. <BR>>
<BR>> In the case of FAI scores, the raw scores are rounded to one
significant digit <BR>> (whole numbers only from 1-10). This means that
after any mathematical <BR>> manipulation, the result is only "Accurate"
to one digit and the result should <BR>> be rounded to that digit using
some standardized "rounding algorithm".... We are <BR>> manipulating a
single digit of significance and basing outcomes on up to EIGHT <BR>>
digits (1234.5678 ). Mathematically speaking any "normalized score" between
<BR>> 950.0000 and 1000.0000 is the same score.....900 to 949; 850-900;
etc. All <BR>> other problems of judgin! g! incon sistency, bias,
averaging, etc pale in <BR>> comparison. <BR>> <BR>> As I've said
before, I'm astounded that a system that is so mathematically <BR>>
flawed can provide results that are as good as they are....for my part, I
<BR>> usually feel like I have been ranked pretty fairly compared to the
other pilots <BR>> in my class even though the ranking is based on
statistically meaningless <BR>> numbers. <BR>> <BR>> George
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ---- "Woodward wrote: <BR>> > Guys -
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > 1. Why do we average
judge's scores together? <BR>> > <BR>> > a. The whole system is
predicated on judges being <BR>> >
competent/consistent/correct/un-biased. If this first rule is violated
<BR>> > ranging from small to 100 point raw score difference, the idea
of now <BR>> > "averaging" the score also has no validity. <BR>>
> b. Why not just let each judge's score stand as! ! is, < B
R><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">> > unaltered, and produce two
normalized scores per round? <BR>> > c. Averaging the scores together
may be doing a disservice <BR>> > to everyone. <BR>> > d. You
would basically have two sets of scores per round. <BR>> > IE you may
end up with 1000 points on one card, and an 800 on the other. <BR>> >
<BR>> > e. This would identify immediately any cause for concern.
<BR>> > f. Would it provide an immediate training tool back to our
<BR>> > system of pilots, judges, and CD? <BR>> > g. Attempting
to "un-average" the scores to determine what <BR>> > happened takes
place anyway on the flight line, after the scores are <BR>> > printed.
<BR>> > <BR>> > 2. Are we asking too much from judges? <BR>>
> <BR>> > a. Is applying downgrades, then counting backwards from
10, <BR>> > in the context of "turnaround" pattern where maneuvers can
happen <BR>>! ; > back-to-back quickly, too d! ifficul t across the
full spectrum of <BR>> > competitor/judges? <BR>> > <BR>>
> 3. Dropping Rounds: <BR>> > <BR>> > a. Is this still a good
idea? <BR>> > b. I wouldn't mind dropping one round, but it was
explained <BR>> > to me last night that this is an artifact from the
days of when people <BR>> > would break a prop on touch-n-goes, and in
general lower equipment <BR>> > reliability. <BR>> > c. In the
age of higher equipment reliability, is the <BR>> > 'round-drop'
scenarios still good, left as is? <BR>> > <BR>> > 4. Dropping
Rounds - Take 2: <BR>> > <BR>> > a. In the context of point #1,
maybe we should be allowed <BR>> > to drop the lowest scored judge
from each round, versus the entire <BR>> > round. <BR>> > b. Why
should the pilot drop the entire round, when one <BR>> > judge may
have scored him 1000 points, and the other 800? ! <BR>> ; > c. If you
end up with a! tie at the end, you just keep <BR>> > counting "1000's"
until the other pilot runs out - tie is now "untied." <BR>> > <BR>>
> <BR>> > <BR>> > I hope some smart guys can chime in on
potential over-hauling idea. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > ________________________________
<BR>> > <BR>> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
<BR>> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
Lisa & <BR>> > Larry <BR>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 17,
2007 10:27 PM <BR>> > To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' <BR>> > Subject:
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>>
> <BR>> > OK...I probably shouldn't start this, but I will...
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > I haven't read all
the threads, but I have read the ones below <BR>> > in this series.
<B! R>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >! ; <BR>& gt; > The NSRCA
has already set the standard and a method to determine <BR>> > judging
bias and has held a NSRCA member accountable to this standard <BR>> >
this year and the AMA sanctioned the individual. This is fact....Agree
<BR>> > with the method to determine bias (or not) it was used to
impose an AMA <BR>> > sanction on a member. <BR>> > <BR>>
> <BR>> > <BR>> > IMHO this discussion suggests that bias has
occurred in the D3 <BR>> > championship or possibly another at the
same level FAI. If this is the <BR>> > case the NSRCA must review this
and apply the same discipline using the <BR>> > same measurables to
provide for the same sanctions. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >
<BR>> > If the NSRCA is unwilling to investigate or isn't willing to
use <BR>> > the same method to determine bias, then clearly we (the
NSRCA and AMA) <BR>> > ha! ve dise nfranchised a NSRCA member and
should r! ethink his sanction. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >
<BR>> > Our rules and penalties must check and balance. Then they must
<BR>> > be applied to all members equally regardless of status in
membership. <BR>> > This is the only way to reduce / eliminate bias.
I'm also unwilling to <BR>> > entertain the thought the District
Championship is any less important to <BR>> > the NATS. They are both
sanctioned contests ran by a CD accountable to <BR>> > the AMA.
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Flame suit on...
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Larry Diamond
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > ----- Original
Message ----- <BR>> > <BR>> > From: Mike Hester
<BR><mailto:kerlock_x0040_comcast.net>> > <BR>> > To: NSRCA
Mailing List <BR><mailto:nsrca-discussion_x0040_lists.nsrca.org>! >
&g t; <BR>> > <BR>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:24
PM <BR>> > ! <BR>> ; > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D3
Championship <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > He's
not alone. Although he probably should work on the delivery <BR>> > ;)
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > I would support any
of the 5 proposals that Ryan listed. Judging <BR>> > FAI can be
frustrating enough, but to be told you're not getting it <BR>> > right
when you're already doing everything you know how to do, that's a <BR>>
> hard pill to swallow regardless of the statement's accuracy. <BR>>
> <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > You guys out there do need to
realize these guys can fly...and <BR>> > are very good...problem is
they're flying against this Jason dude, <BR>> > travels a lot, flys
all the time, might even have a national title or 2 <BR>> > along the
way, not sure. I'm sure ! you kno w the type. *ahem* <BR>> > <BR>>
> <BR>> > <BR>> > Because my wife ! general ly keeps scores
in D3, we have some <BR>> > pretty good access to each and every score
entered. I can tell you guys <BR>> > without a doubt at times there
are some SERIOUS differences in scores <BR>> > between judges on the
same round. I don't mean a little, I mean like 100 <BR>> > points on
the RAW score. Even if this Jason character was flying <BR>> >
straight 10s, the differences if you work them out mean the others are
<BR>> > barely flying a straight line....and that's not the case. I
have no <BR>> > doubt these guys don't think they should be beating
Jason in a 6 round <BR>> > contest where 2 of the rounds are "F"
rounds, but I am sure most people <BR>> > would agree the scoring
could use some improvements. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >
<BR>> > Being one of these evil incompetent D3 masters judges *! ahem*
I <BR>> > would certainly support more of a cooperative effort than
some kind of <BR>>! > p rotest. I have been very supportive of all the
FAI guys and especially <BR>> > the scoring, and am usually the guys
everybody throws something at <BR>> > during a judging seminar because
I'm trying to clarify something that <BR>> > effects mainly FAI.
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > I think to identify
the "problem" will take a willingness to <BR>> > recognize that the
situation is caused by a <st1:place w:st="on">LOT</st1:place> of factors,
not any one <BR>> > or two. If anyone's interested, I'll outline the
ones I see clearly. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >
I'm not sure if this will all have the intended effect that jim <BR>>
> was looking for in the end, but if nothing else it does draw some
<BR>> > attention to a situation and we should have a closer look.
<BR>> > <BR>> &! gt; <BR>> > <BR>> > As for me,
soon I'll be practicing, bracing for the onslought of <BR>> > FAI
pilots come to master! s to pu nish me =) <BR>> > <BR>> >
<BR>> > <BR>> > -Mike <BR>> > <BR>> > ----- Original
Message ----- <BR>> > <BR>> > From: McLaughlin, Ryan (FRS.JAX)
<BR>> > <BR><mailto:ryan_mclaughlin_x0040_ml.com>> > <BR>>
> To: NSRCA Mailing List <BR>> >
<BR><mailto:nsrca-discussion_x0040_lists.nsrca.org>> > <BR>> >
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1:50 PM <BR>> > <BR>> >
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship <BR>> > <BR>> >
<BR>> > <BR>> > I didn't want you to stand alone in this...it's
too <BR>> > important. <BR>> > <BR>> > -----Original
Message----- <BR>> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
<BR>> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
Woodward, <BR>> > ! Jim <BR>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 17,
2007 1:31 PM <BR>> > To: NSRCA Mailing List <BR>> > Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] D3 Champ! ionship <BR>> > <BR>> > Ryan M.,
<BR>> > <BR>> > I think this takes the cake as a first time
<BR>> > nsrca-list email. Thank you for the support. <BR>> >
<BR>> > Jim W. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, <BR>> > including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended <BR>> > recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and proprietary information. <BR>> > Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. <BR>>
> If you are not the intended recipient(s), please contact the sender by
<BR>> > reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >
________________________________ <BR>> > <BR>&g! t; > <BR>>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> >
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of <BR>>! ;
> McLaughlin, Ryan (FRS.JAX) <BR>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 17,
2007 1:19 PM <BR>> > To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>>
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] D3 Championship <BR>> > <BR>> >
This is my first post to the NSRCA list as I am <BR>> > a bit
'internet shy', but I thought I might be able to add some value to <BR>>
> the FAI judging discussion Jim W started. Although I tend to err on the
<BR>> > side of diplomacy : ), I believe the feelings Jim expressed
are <BR>> > legitimate and shared by many FAI competitors throughout
the country. <BR>> > As a long time participant, I realize that bias
is not a new problem but <BR>> > I do not think we should accept this
is as a "fact of life" and move on. <BR>> > I think we have an
excellent opportunity h! ere and we should make the <BR>> > most of
it. <BR>> > <BR>> > The primary issue to address in my opinion
is <BR>> > not disparity i! n judgi ng standards between judges,
though as Earl points <BR>> > out, this is important. Rather, it is
the different standard applied to <BR>> > pilots within one score
set--i.e.. scoring a pilot lower or higher based <BR>> > on who he is.
Our penchant for creating "superstars" is the most <BR>> >
discouraging aspect of FAI competition. To remedy this, we must all <BR>>
> make a conscious decision to change a long established tradition in our
<BR>> > sport. Are we ready to take this on? <BR>> > <BR>>
> Complaining isn't the answer and neither is <BR>> > staying
quiet, a mistake that has made the FAI competitors as <BR>> >
responsible as anyone else for the situation. To this end, I submit for
<BR>> > your review the following ideas to specifically target the F!
AI bias <BR>> > issue: <BR>> > <BR>> > 1. Sacrifice one
FAI round per contest to serve <BR>> > as an "open" round for all
contestants e! xpected to judge FAI during the <BR>> > event. Allow
everyone to compare notes and use this as a coaching <BR>> >
opportunity. <BR>> > <BR>> > 2. Drop one FAI pilot to Masters at
each <BR>> > contest to serve as a judge for all rounds and use
volunteers from other <BR>> > classes to serve as the others. This
would have to be an agreement made <BR>> > among FAI pilots. <BR>>
> <BR>> > 3. Extend the pilots meeting to go over <BR>> >
specific issues, maybe a new one or two every meet rather than just <BR>>
> pointing out the landing zone, etc. Make a "mini" judging seminar
<BR>> > mandatory each contest. <BR>> > <BR>> > 4. Certify
judges for FAI on a volunteer basis <BR>> > and only use "certified"
judges in the contest. <BR>> > <BR!>> & gt; 5. Utilize peer
judging, in other words, have <BR>> > FAI pilots judge themselves. If
a pilot is not flying, he is judging <BR>> > his fel! low com
petitors. <BR>> > <BR>> > Some of this may seem radical, but I
believe <BR>> > there is room for a bit of this. Pattern belongs to us
right? I <BR>> > welcome any ideas or critique anyone can offer. I
will clarify any of <BR>> > the above upon request. <BR>> >
<BR>> > Thank you for your consideration. <BR>> > <BR>> >
Ryan McLaughlin <BR>> > Eustis, <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Florida</st1:place></st1:State> <BR>> > <BR>> >
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > ________________________________
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > This message w/attachments
(message) may be <BR>> > privileged, confidential or proprietary, and
if you are not an intended <BR>> > recipient, please notify the
sender, do not use or ! share i t and delete <BR>> > it. Unless
specifically indicated, this message is not an offer to sell <BR>> >
or a solicitation of any investment products or other financial product
<BR>> > or service, an official ! confirm ation of any transaction, or
an official <BR>> > statement of Merrill Lynch. Subject to applicable
law, Merrill Lynch may <BR>> > monitor, review and retain
e-communications (EC) traveling through its <BR>> > networks/systems.
The laws of the country of each sender/recipient may <BR>> > impact
the handling of EC, and EC may be archived, supervised and <BR>> >
produced in countries other than the country in which you are located.
<BR>> > This message cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free.
This <BR>> > message is subject to terms available at the following
link: <BR>> > http://www.ml.com/e-communications_terms/. By messaging
with Merrill <BR>> > Lynch you consent to the foregoing. <BR>! >
&g t; <BR>> > <BR>> > ________________________________
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></P>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><B><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</SPAN></FONT></B></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>> > <BR>> >
_______________________________________________ <BR>> >
NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
<BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > ________________________________
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >
_______________________________________________ <BR>> >
NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
<BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<BR>> > <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________ <BR>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list <BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></mailto:ryan_mclaughlin_x0040_ml.com></mailto:nsrca-discussion_x0040_lists.nsrca.org></mailto:kerlock_x0040_comcast.net></BLOCKQUOTE></mailto:nsrca-discussion_x0040_lists.nsrca.org></BODY></HTML>