Poorly Run Event Stories

[OctoPiGenius]

Event supervisor forgot to print out the test double sided, leaving half of the test cut. He realizes 30 minutes in. Such a disaster :/
All the other teams, including the teams in our time period, got only 20 minutes to finish that test.

[Rivkaaa]

In the LISO invitational on 12/08 in Kellenburg Memorial High School, the division B crime busters event was so poorly run that it’s bad hilarious to our team. The proctor didn’t tell anyone where to find the actual plastics, which you needed to answer a few questions, and the actual station with the water, alcohol, and vegetable oil was set up, but without anything to test in them. The powders were scrambled up and turned over, and nobody was able to easily find anything. It was a disaster, but I somehow clutched 6th place with my partner.

[CPScienceDude]

At the Valpo Invitational thermo was a mess. 1st off, the Supervisor gave us water that was at 58, and wouldn't do anything about it. And the test was ALL multiple choice and 15 questions. 3 of the questions had to be scrapped because the answer was right next to them and one because we weren't given all the information to answer the question.

[dxu46]

From UChicago a few days ago...

Experimental Design (11): 9/10 for the experiment, 2/10 for grading
The actual experiment wasn't bad, the only problem I had with it was that the topic was too generic (Newton's Laws) The ES's were great, even handing out the second portion of the write up at exactly 20 minutes. But the main problem I had with this event was the grading. Awards came, and neither Ladue A nor B medaled. So, we expected something in the 90s ish out of 110, but when we got our test, it said that we got 102/110, with ladue A getting 103/110. At this point, we're slightly worried, because this is a really good score. The results came in today...and we got 11th. Ladue A ended up 7th, which does not make sense. 1 point (usually?) doesn't cost 4 places. TheChiScientist told me that 1st place got 109 points. So, the difference from 1st to 11th was 7 points. I'm pretty sure that this only happens at nationals, and this tournament wasn't close to nats. The test graders graded this write up really easy, because my hurried 2 minute affair Analysis was definitely not worth 9/10 of the points.

[JoeyC]

Every Protein misgrade ever. There's a reason you usually don't get the tests for those back.

[UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F]

I dunno if this counts as poorly run but

Geologic Mapping was basically a combo of kind of easy plate tectonic questions (which included questions asked twice or thrice with slightly different phrasing), a little stratigraphy in the middle, and some basic questions about a map. Makes me curious what other event supervisors are going to make of Geologic Mapping (I sure don't know what to make of it).

Circuit Lab had a pretty good hands-on portion (although kind of simple) but the test was only two sheets of paper front and back long, so a lot of people finished it in around ten or twenty minutes.

[hmmm]

NJ UCC Regionals Fossils 3rd Block somehow lasted 80 minutes. Also, half of the Lagerstätten weren't on the rules.

Also, I heard that one of the events had a test that was taken from CCC regionals.

[sciolyperson1]

FJDKSLjkljfkldsjlefd mystery at UCC.

Materials given were just lots of tape, and useless stuff like a dvd, 3(?) or 4 index cards, a spoon and a fork, and two cups, one small one large.
The prompt was to build the tallest arch that could support a tennis ball.

At Rustin, the prompt was similar, except we didn't have to hold anything, and an arch was defined as a structure with no straight edges (they used a 5cm block to measure). Their definition was pretty clear and concise, albeit rather tedious.

However, at UCC, their definition of an arch varied a lot. They said that "the curve" had to support the load (tennis ball), yet while we implemented curves into our design, apparently it didn't count. They also wanted our structure to be perfectly symmetrical (....which it was...). If you think about it though, how the heck do you implement a single spoon or a single fork into the structure, while keeping it symmetrical?
In our block (of 7 teams), not a SINGLE team was placed into tier 1.

[builderguy135]

FJDKSLjkljfkldsjlefd mystery at UCC.

Materials given were just lots of tape, and useless stuff like a dvd, 3(?) or 4 index cards, a spoon and a fork, and two cups, one small one large.
The prompt was to build the tallest arch that could support a tennis ball.

At Rustin, the prompt was similar, except we didn't have to hold anything, and an arch was defined as a structure with no straight edges (they used a 5cm block to measure). Their definition was pretty clear and concise, albeit rather tedious.

However, at UCC, their definition of an arch varied a lot. They said that "the curve" had to support the load (tennis ball), yet while we implemented curves into our design, apparently it didn't count. They also wanted our structure to be perfectly symmetrical (....which it was...). If you think about it though, how the heck do you implement a single spoon or a single fork into the structure, while keeping it symmetrical?
In our block (of 7 teams), not a SINGLE team was placed into tier 1.

Agreed. At Rustin, although their materials were on the simple side, they gave a very straightforward definition of an arch (no straight segments >5cm) and they were extremely consistent about measurements. Although the materials were more complicated at regionals, all of their specifications were subject to opinion (Ex. Is the structure perfectly symmetrical? How would you define a curve?). At one point, two of the supervisors were even disagreeing to each other on whether or not our build would constitute an arch.

[waffletree]

FJDKSLjkljfkldsjlefd mystery at UCC.

Materials given were just lots of tape, and useless stuff like a dvd, 3(?) or 4 index cards, a spoon and a fork, and two cups, one small one large.
The prompt was to build the tallest arch that could support a tennis ball.

At Rustin, the prompt was similar, except we didn't have to hold anything, and an arch was defined as a structure with no straight edges (they used a 5cm block to measure). Their definition was pretty clear and concise, albeit rather tedious.

However, at UCC, their definition of an arch varied a lot. They said that "the curve" had to support the load (tennis ball), yet while we implemented curves into our design, apparently it didn't count. They also wanted our structure to be perfectly symmetrical (....which it was...). If you think about it though, how the heck do you implement a single spoon or a single fork into the structure, while keeping it symmetrical?
In our block (of 7 teams), not a SINGLE team was placed into tier 1.

Agreed. At Rustin, although their materials were on the simple side, they gave a very straightforward definition of an arch (no straight segments >5cm) and they were extremely consistent about measurements. Although the materials were more complicated at regionals, all of their specifications were subject to opinion (Ex. Is the structure perfectly symmetrical? How would you define a curve?). At one point, two of the supervisors were even disagreeing to each other on whether or not our build would constitute an arch.

lmao a dvd...and 2 different sized cups XD
hehe i like to hear that our coaches (rustin proctors) did decent. they are the official state mystery arch supervisors