The Event Coordinator's Dilemma

[dholdgreve]

have all schools and participants sign waiver and get a recording set up.

allocate 10 ~ 20% of score to be at discretion of EC interview with students.
but do this with EC and a witness... record and have EC and witness fill out score sheet signed.

yea, more work... but puts more power to EC to allow them to question students and the students have burden of proof to convince their level of commitment.

else, EC have burden of proof and yea... feces will hit the fan...

well, maybe it'll hit the fan either way...

that' seems really sketchy to change the scoring system now. If the rules were written that way, fine. Id rather you just DQ my kids because they didn't abide by the rules.

Ya, I don't want to add more rules to the batch that so many already have trouble following... But it may be something for the National Rules Committee to address in future years... It was a great step adding 3i a few years ago, but I like the idea of the signed document better... It also would help to identify the penalty if kids can't answer or refuse to answer the questions asked in 3i. Technically, this could effectively eliminate sending in non-builders to test the towers, since they probably would not be able to answer these questions.

[MIScioly1]

have all schools and participants sign waiver and get a recording set up.

allocate 10 ~ 20% of score to be at discretion of EC interview with students.
but do this with EC and a witness... record and have EC and witness fill out score sheet signed.

yea, more work... but puts more power to EC to allow them to question students and the students have burden of proof to convince their level of commitment.

else, EC have burden of proof and yea... feces will hit the fan...

well, maybe it'll hit the fan either way...

that' seems really sketchy to change the scoring system now. If the rules were written that way, fine. Id rather you just DQ my kids because they didn't abide by the rules.

Ya, I don't want to add more rules to the batch that so many already have trouble following... But it may be something for the National Rules Committee to address in future years... It was a great step adding 3i a few years ago, but I like the idea of the signed document better... It also would help to identify the penalty if kids can't answer or refuse to answer the questions asked in 3i. Technically, this could effectively eliminate sending in non-builders to test the towers, since they probably would not be able to answer these questions.

I think that would be a good thing anyway. Students who haven't prepared for a study event can't just get thrown into a study event and do well, so why can students who haven't built a device be tossed in to test that device, purely for scheduling expediency? I would be strongly in favor of allocating a small number of points (10%?) to answering questions about the builds.

[cool hand luke]

that' seems really sketchy to change the scoring system now. If the rules were written that way, fine. Id rather you just DQ my kids because they didn't abide by the rules.

Ya, I don't want to add more rules to the batch that so many already have trouble following... But it may be something for the National Rules Committee to address in future years... It was a great step adding 3i a few years ago, but I like the idea of the signed document better... It also would help to identify the penalty if kids can't answer or refuse to answer the questions asked in 3i. Technically, this could effectively eliminate sending in non-builders to test the towers, since they probably would not be able to answer these questions.

I think that would be a good thing anyway. Students who haven't prepared for a study event can't just get thrown into a study event and do well, so why can students who haven't built a device be tossed in to test that device, purely for scheduling expediency? I would be strongly in favor of allocating a small number of points (10%?) to answering questions about the builds.

I would be fine with this if the event schedule was published a few months in advance. however at regionals we typically get it 2 weeks prior, and there are changes up until the morning of the competition. That makes it pretty hard to manage.

[Raleway]

According to the rules, it is up to the discretion of the supervisor. In my opinion, knowing some people get put on build events simply for the sake of having two people, as long as one person is able to easily affirm they built it and the supervisor senses it is beyond "reasonable doubt" that they built it, then I see no reason to doubt it. However, like you said, if there are glances or a very unconvincing yes (or hesitation signing waiver), then I see "reasonable doubt" and you should ask questions. Some teams simply copy designs however and could have built it themselves, but especially coming from high-tier teams, everyone knows the math or physics behind the tower. Maybe asking simply which joints are under which type of stress or asking rules questions or asking building questions such as what thickness is this bracing would be sufficient to determine if the competitor built it. (Also some teams are indifferent about an amazing build simply because they are used to spending 10 hours on high quality builds).

TLDR; It is the supervisor's discretion and if they see reasonable doubt, they should grill the competitor to determine beyond reasonable doubt that they did or did not build it. Do NOT be afraid to take it up with the coach as this is quite the problem with many teams and too often it goes unnnoticed. Good luck!

[dholdgreve]

According to the rules, it is up to the discretion of the supervisor. In my opinion, knowing some people get put on build events simply for the sake of having two people, as long as one person is able to easily affirm they built it and the supervisor senses it is beyond "reasonable doubt" that they built it, then I see no reason to doubt it. However, like you said, if there are glances or a very unconvincing yes (or hesitation signing waiver), then I see "reasonable doubt" and you should ask questions. Some teams simply copy designs however and could have built it themselves, but especially coming from high-tier teams, everyone knows the math or physics behind the tower. Maybe asking simply which joints are under which type of stress or asking rules questions or asking building questions such as what thickness is this bracing would be sufficient to determine if the competitor built it. (Also some teams are indifferent about an amazing build simply because they are used to spending 10 hours on high quality builds).

TLDR; It is the supervisor's discretion and if they see reasonable doubt, they should grill the competitor to determine beyond reasonable doubt that they did or did not build it. Do NOT be afraid to take it up with the coach as this is quite the problem with many teams and too often it goes unnnoticed. Good luck!

In some cases, taking it up with the coach is like asking the fox to guard the hen house...

I'm not sure was being referred to as "discretionary." The penalty approach the E/C takes? In many events, the discretionary amount is specified... In Crimebusters for instance, if a team doesn't clean up after themselves or their kit contains additional items, they may be penalized up to 10% of their score... It would be nice if Nationals could establish similar boundaries here.

[scioly2012]

According to the rules, it is up to the discretion of the supervisor. In my opinion, knowing some people get put on build events simply for the sake of having two people, as long as one person is able to easily affirm they built it and the supervisor senses it is beyond "reasonable doubt" that they built it, then I see no reason to doubt it. However, like you said, if there are glances or a very unconvincing yes (or hesitation signing waiver), then I see "reasonable doubt" and you should ask questions. Some teams simply copy designs however and could have built it themselves, but especially coming from high-tier teams, everyone knows the math or physics behind the tower. Maybe asking simply which joints are under which type of stress or asking rules questions or asking building questions such as what thickness is this bracing would be sufficient to determine if the competitor built it. (Also some teams are indifferent about an amazing build simply because they are used to spending 10 hours on high quality builds).

TLDR; It is the supervisor's discretion and if they see reasonable doubt, they should grill the competitor to determine beyond reasonable doubt that they did or did not build it. Do NOT be afraid to take it up with the coach as this is quite the problem with many teams and too often it goes unnnoticed. Good luck!

I agree! I think if there is reasonable doubt that the team built the tower, they should be subject to more intense questioning. (However, I don't think they should be asked questions about the physics, just the building process. It's possible to have built a tower without having a solid grasp on the physics or specific vocabulary.)

[retired1]

I remember a build event at the first national held at UCF in Orlando. 4 assistant ES's and they all asked some questions. One gave students a long long question period. Like 3-5 time as long as the other assistants.
If there is going to be serious questioning, each assistant should ask the same questions.
As far as engineering or physics questions, I do not think that middle school students get into that on most teams. Just building a tower is tough for many.
I had enough of a problem just trying to read the rules let alone reading balsa man's entries.
This is pretty much a standard in out region.

[WhatScience?]

The problem with this is that event conflicts are a thing. For as long as scheduling remains the way it is now, I don't think this can be fairly implemented.

Maybe if the ES created a list of questionable schools and then asked if they were filler to those questionable. Then, you could ask the real builder to meet you when they are available or maybe in the hour in between the last session and awards. It would take maybe a minute for each of the questionable ones to determine everything and it seems a lot better than punishing schools because of something like scheduling.

[Raleway]

Unfortunately, there is no "penalty" besides disqualification to lowest possible tier. That's how I would interpret the rules since the structure is required to be built by the student; if it isn't they really shouldn't even get participation points but they showed up, so they should be placed behind all other participants. By taking it up with the coach, I meant to let them know and explain your decision in person as thus it isn't as misunderstood in my opinion.

[wlsguy]

One thing to consider is the requirement that one of the 15 competing students built the tower. This is not necessary the ones testing it. I have worked with a school previous which had a single expert tower builder who would let other team members test the tower at invitationals to “spread the medals around”. They only cared about the regional and state medals.
This is permitted for all build events but worked best with towers because the basic loading technique was easier to learn then flying planes or operating mission.