US Rules change needed for devaluation of contest day

On Sunday, August 24, 2014 3:31:29 PM UTC-7, wrote:
While drop a day might be interesting, it doesn't really apply in my mind for fixing what we encountered the last day of Nephi. Many of us truly could not get high enough to get out on course and have any kind of fighting chance to fly the task. The thunderstorm that swept through killed that for 80%+ of us in the last class to launch.



I took 3 tows just to make sure I gave it every possible effort to get up and out. Ron (CD) did a great job on the ground making some hard decisions with little info or time to decide and he sure tried for everyone to get a chance to fly. He then did a great job in analyzing the protest and flight data from everyone and made the right call for throwing out the day in my opinion. Yes, there is a new protest on the throwing out the day, so who knows what the final outcome is, but I firmly believe it should be discarded..



I think drop a day has its place but not for days where 80%+ of the class can't even get up high enough to get out on course after trying for hours to get up...



Bruno - B4

Bruno, why don't you think the Worst Day Adjustment rule would handle the situation on the last day at Nephi? It seems to me adopting 11.4.4 would have covered this well, without requiring other changes to rules such as the definition of a competitor (as John points out there are reasons that "Competitor" is defined as it currently is), or devaluation formulas.

As for the validity of the day, IMO 11.1.3 is clear that the day was valid. There is no requirement in the rules that a certain percentage of entrants be able to get a start.

Mark,
John's latest post sums up own thoughts very nicely and much better/shorter than I could have expressed:

"My working definition of a "fair" task is that everyone who takes a launch gets the opportunity to start the task at more or less the same time at more or less the same altitude from more or less the same place. It does not necessarily include "all ships have a good chance to finish the task" since on some days the 1-26 will rule on handicap and on others the Nimbus 4. It is the job of the CD to use the advisers prior to opening the start to assess whether a fair start is possible. QT"

I personally experienced (after launching 3 times to make sure) that those opportunities as John mentioned were NOT present during the last day.

Take care,
Bruno - B4

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:14:50 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Mark,

John's latest post sums up own thoughts very nicely and much better/shorter than I could have expressed:



"My working definition of a "fair" task is that everyone who takes a launch gets the opportunity to start the task at more or less the same time at more or less the same altitude from more or less the same place. It does not necessarily include "all ships have a good chance to finish the task" since on some days the 1-26 will rule on handicap and on others the Nimbus 4. It is the job of the CD to use the advisers prior to opening the start to assess whether a fair start is possible. QT"



I personally experienced (after launching 3 times to make sure) that those opportunities as John mentioned were NOT present during the last day.



Take care,

Bruno - B4

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 should mention that my protest is more narrowly concerned with the rules as they are now, not as they could or should be.

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:38:03 AM UTC-7, Mark Schmidt wrote:
On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:14:50 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Mark,



John's latest post sums up own thoughts very nicely and much better/shorter than I could have expressed:







"My working definition of a "fair" task is that everyone who takes a launch gets the opportunity to start the task at more or less the same time at more or less the same altitude from more or less the same place. It does not necessarily include "all ships have a good chance to finish the task" since on some days the 1-26 will rule on handicap and on others the Nimbus 4. It is the job of the CD to use the advisers prior to opening the start to assess whether a fair start is possible. QT"







I personally experienced (after launching 3 times to make sure) that those opportunities as John mentioned were NOT present during the last day.







Take care,



Bruno - B4



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... ;

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

So the scores are in, the protests filed, and the dust has settled - or has it?

The more I think about this, not just Day 6 at Nephi, but also other contests I have attended, the more I think that all post flight score devaluation should be discarded.

My line of thinking is that somebody who has a good day should not have their score lowered or discarded because somebody else did not. A contestant should get what is earned, nothing more, nothing less.

When somebody has a "flight of a life time", then has it thrown out because somebody else had a crap day, how is that fair?

P9

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 3:27:00 PM UTC-6, wrote:
So the scores are in, the protests filed, and the dust has settled - or has it?

The more I think about this, not just Day 6 at Nephi, but also other contests I have attended, the more I think that all post flight score devaluation should be discarded.

My line of thinking is that somebody who has a good day should not have their score lowered or discarded because somebody else did not. A contestant should get what is earned, nothing more, nothing less.

When somebody has a "flight of a life time", then has it thrown out because somebody else had a crap day, how is that fair?

P9

I must say that as a competitor i much prefer the 1-26 Championships approach. Instead of knocking down the score of the top competitor on "tough" days they raise up the scores of the rest. winner always gets 1000 points. On a tough day then each mile is worth more points, just the way that it feels like in the cockpit.

On Wednesday, 12 November 2014 15:14:54 UTC-7, Tony wrote:
On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 3:27:00 PM UTC-6, wrote:
So the scores are in, the protests filed, and the dust has settled - or has it?

The more I think about this, not just Day 6 at Nephi, but also other contests I have attended, the more I think that all post flight score devaluation should be discarded.

My line of thinking is that somebody who has a good day should not have their score lowered or discarded because somebody else did not. A contestant should get what is earned, nothing more, nothing less.

When somebody has a "flight of a life time", then has it thrown out because somebody else had a crap day, how is that fair?

P9

I must say that as a competitor i much prefer the 1-26 Championships approach. Instead of knocking down the score of the top competitor on "tough" days they raise up the scores of the rest. winner always gets 1000 points. On a tough day then each mile is worth more points, just the way that it feels like in the cockpit.

I am not sure what the right answer is but I want to see competitions won in the air not on the ground. FWIW

I agree with P9. The soaring rules have alot of special equations designed to tune the system and "ensure"....."fairness." A noble effort but the "tuning" often results in other unintended consequences.

In sailing, for example, if many boats break down or capsize in high winds, the winner does not have his/her score discounted. In light air, if the winner meets the time limit, he/she wins and if ALL other boats miss the time limit they get a score equal to the total number of boats started. You either finish the race or you get a zero.

This has a simplicity and beauty to it. I prefer it. Every race should count and every winner should be a full winner.

It sounds like people want more equation tuning. More complexity (at significant cost). I say make it simple and pure...

FWIW...

On Thursday, November 13, 2014 7:46:06 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
I agree with P9. The soaring rules have alot of special equations designed to tune the system and "ensure"....."fairness." A noble effort but the "tuning" often results in other unintended consequences.

In sailing, for example, if many boats break down or capsize in high winds, the winner does not have his/her score discounted. In light air, if the winner meets the time limit, he/she wins and if ALL other boats miss the time limit they get a score equal to the total number of boats started. You either finish the race or you get a zero.

This has a simplicity and beauty to it. I prefer it. Every race should count and every winner should be a full winner.

It sounds like people want more equation tuning. More complexity (at significant cost). I say make it simple and pure...

FWIW...

Some are bent on making the rules remind us our tax laws ...