Protectiveness over Resources

[daydreamer0023]

I think this is a good topic to have been brought up and I just want to throw my two cents in here. In the past, our school has placed fairly well within the state - but was not able to perform as well in Nationals in part due to lack of ability to attend invites and lack of connection with the sector of the Science Olympiad community on Facebook that was doing test trading, advice sharing and the like.

Part of that problem was funding, but part of that problem also was the lack of awareness and participation in (not sure those are the right words to describe it, but it gets my point across) notes and test trading with the FB community. Yes, we had standouts at Nationals who did medal in the top 6, but as a whole, our team struggled in comparison to be as competitive as other teams who participated in competitive invites and had those connections. The highest placing we ever got at Nats was 15th, and that was in part due to one individual who did exceptionally well (I was not there during that year, but I have heard about it), but in the more recent years, we have been around the mid/bottom 20s in ranking.

This is the first year that I can recall that we are attempting to attend a major invitational tournament and it is definitely the first year that our team leadership has gotten and utilized connections with other teams through FB (and even that may not have happened if I had joined FB because of SSSS and discovered the scioly community there). We're not far enough into the season yet to say that it will make an impact on how well we do, but I'd say that what we've gained so far has been helpful.

Also, I understand the hesitation of editing the wiki (I can't count the number of times that people print out the wiki the night before for tryouts and use it for notes without really understanding it), but although I would like to add to it, I don't know how much to add would be too much to the point where I'm not giving away every last bit I know. In other words, I don't know how to find that balance (and if anyone knows how to balance that, feel free to let me know).

Again, these are just my two cents. Feel free to add your opinion or disagree with me.

[WhatScience?]

I feel that you all keep on saying the advantage given to established schools and while I agree with this, it is not insurmountable. Hard work and being proactive can overcome it.

Also, the wiki should really only be edited by either grads or people adding basic information. The wiki is and should remain a place to start so that you know mainly what you need to study and so that you can work further from there.

The test exchange on the other hand should remain open for those who want it but there should also be a private one. We should strive to make all types of sciolyers comfortable and if they do not want to share resources openly, they should have an opportunity to do so privately. Those who are working for the good of the community in general should have that option as well.

In summary, just work to make every type of sharing popular and allow people to choose what they want to take part in.

[Person]

Also, the wiki should really only be edited by either grads or people adding basic information. The wiki is and should remain a place to start so that you know mainly what you need to study and so that you can work further from there.

I'm going to have to disagree with this: in my opinion, the wiki should be mainly edited by the competitors themselves. Often times, graduates may not be up-to-date with the events, especially newer ones such as Fast Facts and Potions and Poisons. Also, while they may have competed in older events such as Optics, the rules can change over time and they may not be able to add the correct information to the wiki. Thus, current competitors are the best source of information for the wiki. Furthermore, adding to the wiki can help one understand his or her event better and lead to a more thorough understanding. Not to mention, some people (myself included) think editing the wiki is fun!

The test exchange on the other hand should remain open for those who want it but there should also be a private one. We should strive to make all types of sciolyers comfortable and if they do not want to share resources openly, they should have an opportunity to do so privately.

I think East has made it clear that there will not be a private test exchange: Scioly.org should be a collaborative place with free exchange of information and resources and having a private test exchange for a limited amount of users defeats that purpose.

[EastStroudsburg13]

Plus, with how widespread Facebook exchanges are already, I'm not sure there's really a need. Also, it'd take quite a bit of effort to set up a separate log-in system within the general logins in use. Like we said, you're free to do whatever you want on your own time, but it's just not worth it to try to set up a private exchange to be part of this site.

And finally about the wiki, as has been stated, the wiki should not be an all-encompassing compendium of event information, but should have a general base of information so teams using the wiki would have a grasp on the basic requirements of each event. Remember, event experts are in a unique position because they have the power to present their event to less-experienced teams in a way that will hopefully get them interested and start researching beyond the wiki to help them get better, and getting more students excited about science is really what this is all about.

[pikachu4919]

This is only my opinion. If you disagree with it, then that's fine, but there's no need to totally roast it on a spit if you do disagree.

On the sharing of tests:
I get why people are so cautious about sharing tests. You want to get other tests, so you contact other people and set up more or less, a black market. You want tests from other competitions that you didn't go to and on the same level as the tests you're trading out so you have more practice material. I get why you might not want to post them publicly on scioly.org, because the tournament directors told you not to (which appears to not really stop you anyways), or you may be afraid that another competition will just rip your test off online to use for their own since they're too lazy to write one themselves (because as ridiculous as it sounds, that HAS happened), or for whatever other reasons. I get why all of that happens.

But I definitely agree with East's original post in this topic about how this act becomes more privatized to a select number of teams who have those connections, and not all teams may have them. And I also agree that this could hurt Science Olympiad as a whole. We want to encourage the forming of more teams (as certain states' scioly populations seem to be dying out), but if some of the best resources are kept private to those select teams who have the connections to access them, then it certainly won't help encourage new teams, as it can really only widen the gap between them and some of the more established and/or stronger teams. I understand the concerns and repercussions of opensourcing tests, but the way in which the people accessing them choose to use them to learn is what determines how successful they will be. That side is not under the control of the people who have the tests and choose to share them. But if not sharing tests is used as a means to boost yourself while lowering the amount of competition you have standing in your way to advancing to state or nationals, then it definitely has the potential to discourage new teams and possibly (not certainly) create a Troy effect.

On the sharing of notes/etc:
While sharing of notes certainly isn't a bad thing, I think there can be cautions that should be taken with that: on a more general note, you'll be more likely to do well in an event if you create your own resources rather than totally using and relying on someone else's. So if one shares his/her notes, people who just take them, print them, and use them in competition as a shortcut to building their own notes are more than likely just hurting themselves since they may not understand the content and the way it's laid out as well as the note's creator. The person sharing notes and the person using those notes may not have the same strategies or topic weaknesses.

This is from my own experience and may be too specific for this thread, but I feel like it may somewhat get my point across - there were times when I'd share my forensics notes with my teammates and share my forensics flowcharts with users who asked me. I'm not sure how those users fared (especially since they probably have old copies of my flowcharts and not the most up-to-date ones (which I still haven't really finished turning into a document yet)), but I can tell you that among my teammates that succeeded me in forensics when I left for college, I don't think any of them became strong at the event at the time that I left, and most of them (but not all of them, as I observed recently) ONLY printed MY notes and didn't really do much else. While all of them would frequently tell me, "OMG, your notes are so OP!" I'm not sure they thoroughly understood the stuff on them. I was glad when there were one or two that would look at my notes as a starting point yet build their own to actually use in competition since I realized that that's the best way to learn forensics - the observe-it-yourself way. Even me, I used some of the national supervisor's resources as a starting point, and while I used elements of her resources, I made changes to whatever I used and also compiled more notes on my own based on my observations when practicing the lab portion.

Also, with builds, I know people are reluctant to share their designs since they're afraid others will copy them, but I will say this: it's one thing to see a design. It's completely different other thing to be able to fully replicate someone else's. And that can be hard to do. Plus, when a build is repeated over multiple years, usually the design specs in the rules are changed to the point that it could be nearly impossible to use an old design.

TL;DR: don't have fear in sharing your resources. The repercussions that may come with doing so will mostly be in the hands of those who access them, not necessarily in yours.

windu34 also brings up a good point about people being great, if not better resources. They'll always have some wisdom and good advice that you won't be able to get out of tests, notes, etc. And if you've got questions (*certain conditions apply), ask them on the forum, more than likely there will be someone who would be willing to answer it. Or, you could ask people on social media if you choose to do so. But under this, another topic: I get that being more secretive about what you know is a measure to keep a competitive edge over others, especially within your team as much as against other teams. But eventually, you could stand to tell the younger members of your team all you've learned since you're gonna want to pass on that knowledge to them so that that knowledge doesn't leave the team with you and it'll give a good starting point for keeping that event strong.

Sorry that I wrote y'all an essay, but this is a topic I feel like I have lots to say on

[Froggie]

Froggie:
Yes, it is your opinion, but I'd like to discuss it;). Categorizing people has advantages, but...people are complicated and categorizing doesn't account for that. Also, there's a difference between intent (e.g. I never wanted to be competitive and only wanted to help) and action (e.g. I ended up being helpful but also being competitive for medals). There's of course reasons for that (e.g. I cared about my team at the time and...should've balanced time better >.<).

Conclusion: Keep this in mind, and try not to be Type 4.

I also see no problem with being someone who is new. Being new means you're still learning and figuring things out. We were all there once, and one should be welcoming to people on the newer side of things! Probably I misunderstand what you mean (?).

1. Ok, this is completely my fault... I wasn't exactly trying to categorize people (I know it seemed like it) and what they did/do, just like, umm, it's kind of hard to explain but I guess like ideas? Kind of like the ideas people have on this topic? Again, totally my fault, should have made that clearer. (Not that it's much clearer now)
2. See #1; I meant that kind of mindset, and how you shouldn't have that kind of mindset.

I apologize for any confusion, I was kind of making pretend-Sciolyans and making them ideas (that doesn't make any sense), I should have made that clearer...
Anyway, I hope this clears everything up.
(As you can see I am not good with words)

[knottingpurple]

Also, with builds, I know people are reluctant to share their designs since they're afraid others will copy them, but I will say this: it's one thing to see a design. It's completely different other thing to be able to fully replicate someone else's. And that can be hard to do. Plus, when a build is repeated over multiple years, usually the design specs in the rules are changed to the point that it could be nearly impossible to use an old design.

I think I've heard more of build-hiding within the same year, than between years - I can remember hearing about teams that deliberately dropped build events by bringing back-up copies of their builds, or even not going to the event at all, at invites early in the season. I guess the idea was they thought their builds were good and didn't want other teams to copy them? But I've never done a build event and don't know how much of a difference that would actually make.

[Raleway]

You can never have enough tests- ever. I've personally done about 40 or so sets of Materials Science tests. I have also written too many tests (they start to get formulaic after a while). It is in my very honest opinion that with anything of value, an economy starts. At that point, every person (or team I guess) is for themselves. There's nothing preventing lower-tier teams from trading materials and whatnot (I have personally seen teams that don't get out of regionals have very devoted captains that obtain over 20 sets of tests). However, it seems counterintuitive that only top-tier teams trade with other top-tier teams; that's a conflict of interest. Many smaller teams strongly benefit from test trading as it forgoes the conflicts of interest for the bigger teams. Countering that point would be the fact that most top-level teams raise enough funds to travel and afford each invitational, allowing them to trade out of state to also forgo that conflict of interest. Sure, creating a set of tests on maybe SOUP or PUSO level is difficult, but reaching out to those alumni or even the veterans here can be really helpful and a way to write that set of tests. Every team is interested in a set that can help their team, which gives that set of tests value.

TLDR; Just write a bunch of tests if you can't attend invitationals. Writing tests is also a form of preparation as you get into a test-maker's mind! I know more teams than I have fingers that have written invitational level tests (some even have written 3 sets!). It all depends on how much you're willing to give to upgrade your team.

[Unome]

It is in my very honest opinion that with anything of value, an economy starts.

This exactly.

However, it seems counterintuitive that only top-tier teams trade with other top-tier teams; that's a conflict of interest. Many smaller teams strongly benefit from test trading as it forgoes the conflicts of interest for the bigger teams.

Agreed, the majority of teams that I've traded with have been teams looking to improve or on the verge of qualifying for Nationals - more advantageous for both of us than trading with teams that we're likely to compete against.

[Random Human]

Random Human

Have approval from East...?

This is the kind of thing that started this thread. Please try to keep relevant. If you read East's post, you should respect that you should not be posting messages like that. There is already this forum (where we stand with supporting open test exchanges) and facebook (where I assume most test exchanges are in more closed groups).

Uhhh... No like East told me specifically on pm that we are allowed and able to start a test exchange on another website. Anyone interested?