On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:38:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Schmidt wrote:

I don't disagree that on many or perhaps most days, meeting this criteria for "fair" seems reasonable. When conditions are not good though, as they often will not be, I think it is too broad. By the same place do we mean the start cylinder, or something smaller? And does "everyone" mean every single pilot (no matter the skill range in the class)?

If this is what we are talking about, I think the incentives need to be thought through. This would create a situation where a pilot, or group of pilots, who preferred that the day's scores not count would have an incentive to not try their hardest, and later claim the start was not fair (I am absolutely not saying this happened at Nephi).

Besides, the specific criteria in the rules for a valid day is that only 25% of starters have to get anywhere -- very weak, uncertain conditions, in which luck would likely be a major factor. The start is part of the race (in many racing sports, the start effectively IS the race). Why such a difference in philosophy?

If it seems unlikely that anyone calling himself a glider pilot would sandbag and whinge for a few crummy points (not Nephi, flamethrowers away please), remember we are busy arguing about 2nd place. Imagine if it were about 1st, to whom the real money, the groupies, and the global fame go... ;

I think this reinforces the idea that significant devaluation is the more appropriate remedy for situations like Nephi. Enough pilots got away for the day to be worth something, but not not enough got away for it to be worth very much.

Unless we throw out devaluation entirely I think there will always be the possibility for a pilot to reduce the value of the day by not completing the task - either on purpose or despite his/her best efforts. The impact of one individual can have on scores is generally constrained. It should be considered unsportsmanlike conduct for pilots to collude to have a larger impact on the scores for the day by collectively opting out.

A review of the circumstances that led to the current restrictions around the definition of competitor would be instructive.

Andy Blackburn
9B