Scioly.org

1. Metric Mastery, 2014 SoCal State

I was not in this event, but my friend was. Apparently some people had been cheating, but instead of disqualifying just those people,they just cancelled the event.

Fulgorid_weevil wrote:1. Metric Mastery, 2014 SoCal State

I was not in this event, but my friend was. Apparently some people had been cheating, but instead of disqualifying just those people,they just cancelled the event.

2. Green Generation, 2015, regionals

The test was just a mashup of tests from online, and you could tell that the event captain didnt know much about the event. Guess who's coach happened to give out those tests?b That being said, our coach was actually a really dedicated coach.

1. Metric Mastery, 2014 SoCal State

I was not in this event, but my friend was. Apparently some people had been cheating, but instead of disqualifying just those people,they just cancelled the event.

2. Green Generation, 2015, regionals

The test was just a mashup of tests from online, and you could tell that the event captain didnt know much about the event. Guess who's coach happened to give out those tests? That being said, our coach was actually a really dedicated coach.[/quote]

Fulgorid_weevil wrote:1. Metric Mastery, 2014 SoCal State

I was not in this event, but my friend was. Apparently some people had been cheating, but instead of disqualifying just those people,they just cancelled the event.

2. Green Generation, 2015, regionals

The test was just a mashup of tests from online, and you could tell that the event captain didnt know much about the event. Guess who's coach happened to give out those tests? That being said, our coach was actually a really dedicated coach.

Since this reminder hasn't been thrown out as recently, please remember you can edit posts. Most people at least only stick to double posting (which I don't think is good unless really necessary/reviving threads), but when I see a triple post I must step in!

From Georgia's Division B State Tournament; Overall it was well run (better than last year ) but there were a few things with some events that I wanted to point out:

For Fossils, the event was set up so that, rather than rotating in timed segments through each of the stations, the proctor essentially told us to go to whatever station we wanted; if someone else was there, we would have to wait for them to finish, and she would sort it out as it happens. Eventually we had gotten through most of the stations, but we spent 10 minutes just waiting for Station 9 to be open; we never even got to do that (and it was the longest one!)
Lesson for aspiring proctors: Time the stations, and never "deal with it when it happens."

For Simple Machines, the test was competent (again, refer to last year ) except that when we asked the proctors what value we should round to for gravitational acceleration (10, 9.8, or 9.81) they took some time trying to figure out what we were talking about, then responded that they couldn't answer that question.
Lesson for aspiring proctors: Know a bit about the subject material whether you wrote the test or not.

Unome wrote:Overall it was well run (better than last year )

XD

Unome wrote:For Simple Machines, the test was competent (again, refer to last year ) except that when we asked the proctors what value we should round to for gravitational acceleration (10, 9.8, or 9.81) they took some time trying to figure out what we were talking about, then responded that they couldn't answer that question.
Lesson for aspiring proctors: Know a bit about the subject material whether you wrote the test or not.

So what units did they think acceleration was in, moles per liter?

samlan16 wrote:

Unome wrote:...

Unome wrote:For Simple Machines, the test was competent (again, refer to last year ) except that when we asked the proctors what value we should round to for gravitational acceleration (10, 9.8, or 9.81) they took some time trying to figure out what we were talking about, then responded that they couldn't answer that question.
Lesson for aspiring proctors: Know a bit about the subject material whether you wrote the test or not.

So what units did they think acceleration was in, moles per liter?

I have no idea; they just told us "we can't answer that."

At one invitational for forensics they wanted us to identify plastics but they didn't give any of the density liquids crucial to differentiating them (so this floats in water, that sinks in water, that one sinks too, WTH THERE ARE TOO MANY POSSIBILITIES FOR BOTH SIDES) and I pointed that out to them and they threw out plastics from the test.

pikachu4919 wrote:At one invitational for forensics they wanted us to identify plastics but they didn't give any of the density liquids crucial to differentiating them (so this floats in water, that sinks in water, that one sinks too, WTH THERE ARE TOO MANY POSSIBILITIES FOR BOTH SIDES) and I pointed that out to them and they threw out plastics from the test.

Haha, I wish the event supervisors could just throw out everything that's wrong, but no, it's more like "oh well, just try your best. I didn't make this test." Lesson for Event Supervisors: Read the rules and make a homemade test instead of copying stuff from the internet.

pikachu4919 wrote:At one invitational for forensics they wanted us to identify plastics but they didn't give any of the density liquids crucial to differentiating them (so this floats in water, that sinks in water, that one sinks too, WTH THERE ARE TOO MANY POSSIBILITIES FOR BOTH SIDES) and I pointed that out to them and they threw out plastics from the test.

Sadly, this happens all too often.