On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 1:14:49 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
BB,

You’ve said several times now (and I agree) that the effect of the hard deck isn’t to reduce incidents of pilots attempting low saves - but you have also said it’s purpose is to eliminate the points incentive for doing so. Since we’ve reasonably established that there’s no competitive advantage to be gained from deliberately planning to go that low I find myself stuck on what the benefit is. Reducing an incentive that you admit won’t alter behavior o outcomes seems like an incentive with zero effect and therefore meaningless from a rule-making perspective.

Help me out - what’s the purpose of eliminating an incentive that’s so dominated by other factors that it doesn’t drive behavior or outcomes?

9B

There are two separate aspects to the hard deck. One is to attempt to prevent some behavior. This is in my opinion a fools errand. The other is to keep from tempting others to that behavior who would not ordinarily engage, because it is rewarded with a win. You have invested a week or two weeks and 2000 miles of driving into a contest. You are doing well on the 13th day, but choose not to thermal at 500 ft and land out. Another pilot circles in the same spot at 400 ft and gets away, thrashing you on points that day.

There are numerous stories up thread about this happening.

The direction of encouragement is towards the most risky behavior that survives. We are bottom fishing the behavior continuum for trophies. If the pilot gets away from 400 ft, he doesn't need a retrieve, but the pilot that gave up at 500 ft shouldn't be punished by 5 places in the standings because he chose prudence. The problem in my view is not that saving from 400 ft is slow, there is no doubt about that. But it is very fast compared to a landout, as scored by our points system. On a day when everyone gets back, the couple of guys who dug out from 400 ft are likely way down the board. On a day when they are the only guys who made it back, they place 1 and 2.

There is a secondary aspect: I believe one really should be able to practice for competition. If the 400 ft save is part of competition, then 400 ft thermalling needs to be practiced. I'd like to see an attempt to round up 5 unacquainted instructors from across the country, with a financial interest in their 2 place trainer, who would gladly give instruction in 400 ft saves over say 10 randomly chosen, unfamiliar landing sites. I'll submit you cannot find those, because it will be deemed too dangerous. If it is too dangerous to practice, why is it allowed in competition?