Scioly.org

I didn't mean in that sense. I hope the best for the Eagle Hill program as you guys have a lot of talent

Fmschools wrote:Once again good job Goff, great job Gelinas even though dale(a kid on you b team) obviously built you a team tower because you wouldn't have chosen tower as one of you events to not do if you could place 2nd at states and had placed at nats the year before but that's for another time. Ps sorry this is long but it's worth reading.

If I remember correctly, Gelinas chose their particular events to drop at regionals primarily on the basis of schedule conflicts. I would recommend against making baseless accusations, or at the very least not having strong evidence.

On a more positive note, like so many others I would like to congratulate both the Gelinas and Goff teams on their incredible wins. It is only our third year at Nationals (and third full year in SciOly), but it was such a close race none of us had any idea of where it was going as the schools were being announced. The Bay Academy would like to wish both Gelinas and Goff big wins at Nationals! And on a side note, I was overwhelmed by the thanks and congratulations we received from so many coaches and their students after the ceremony as well as the "champion caliber" congratulatory e-mail I received from the Gelinas team. It all meant so much to us being one of the new kids on the block. Best to all and we'll see you next year

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:

GoffWalrus wrote:Umm... does it really matter who wrote this? You let tiny little Goff overtake you. This should be a learning experience for all of you.

It matters quite a bit. This is a public place. If a user speaks about their team it reflects on the entire school.

To add on to this, it reflects on FM high school as well, which we are not pleased about. I just want to add a little perspective from our point of view. I think what fmschools is trying to say is that the Eagle Hill kids, particularly the returners from last year, have been frustrated the whole year. That being said, posting that is not a productive way to vent their frustration and hopefully whoever posted it will apologize for some of the things they said, if not here then to their teammates in private. After last year, when they won states, both of their coaches quit and stopped working with the team altogether. They had less access to the school and their coaches were completely new to Science Olympiad. From what we saw, however, they were still working hard to try to make nats. As for the Gelinas tower accusations which Unome already touched on, I know that some of the Eagle Hill kids talk to a few of the Gelinas kids, and they did have their concerns about the tower situation. While I don't think the accusations are baseless, I will say that they are not appropriate, particularly in this setting, and there are many tower builders at Gelinas, Murphy, and Ward Melville who are all incredible builders.
That being said, congrats to Gelinas and Goff from F-M, and we're looking forward to representing NY at nats with you guys and Columbia!

The accusations are not baseless, as Dale did build the tower for previous competitions. However he only gave us pointers, me and jed built the tower with dales advice. also, we only dropped towers at regionals because of a conflict.

GoffWalrus wrote: Umm... does it really matter who wrote this? You let tiny little Goff overtake you. This should be a learning experience for all of you.

Congratulations to Gelinas and Goff!

Regarding Eagle Hill: Coaching changes are always tough - SO has a steep learning curve, particularly for teams that are very competitive. Additionally, even the best teams can have an off year or have bad luck at their State Tournament. I would encourage you to give your new coaches time to adjust, reach out to Div C alumni for advice and coaching, and get some more parents involved to support the program. Each year starts fresh. In the meantime, keep your heads up, wish the best of luck to the teams representing NY at the National Tournament, and start getting ready for next year.

Personally, I feel that it is not right for Eagle Hill to blame it on their coaches or members (the so called “bad 8th grader”). We are in the same situation as Eagle hill, meaning we lost our coaches as well, and we still were still able to pull off first place. I do agree, however with their appeal for battery buggy because it was able to pass invitationals and regionals prior to states. That was an unfair decision and I believe it should have been able to run and compete. They were not notified at these tournaments of the unlabeled batteries and were not able to fix them because of this.

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:

GoffWalrus wrote:Umm... does it really matter who wrote this? You let tiny little Goff overtake you. This should be a learning experience for all of you.

It matters quite a bit. This is a public place. If a user speaks about their team it reflects on the entire school.

Thank you, I can see this point of view. Hopefully Eagle Hill does great next year

swagmcswag1223 wrote:Personally, I feel that it is not right for Eagle Hill to blame it on their coaches or members (the so called “bad 8th grader”). We are in the same situation as Eagle hill, meaning we lost our coaches as well, and we still were still able to pull off first place. I do agree, however with their appeal for battery buggy because it was able to pass invitationals and regionals prior to states. That was an unfair decision and I believe it should have been able to run and compete. They were not notified at these tournaments of the unlabeled batteries and were not able to fix them because of this.

I think my point was that blame doesn't seem a productive use of time, and spreading blame in a public forum is something typically regretted later. Having new coaches if unquestionably difficult, although it's not an insurmountable barrier. The teams that advanced deserve congratulations and the support of their fellow NY teams. For those that didn't qualify, next year is a clean start.

swagmcswag1223 wrote:I do agree, however with their appeal for battery buggy because it was able to pass invitationals and regionals prior to states. That was an unfair decision and I believe it should have been able to run and compete. They were not notified at these tournaments of the unlabeled batteries and were not able to fix them because of this.

This is not true. Just because supervisors at prior regional/invitational tournaments do not penalize for something does NOT mean it is okay and therefore legal at future competitions. Different supervisors interpret the rules in different ways and some are more strict on rules than others. If the supervisor can point to a specific line in the rules that results in a penalty, then it is 100% a fair and justified ruling. When I have supervised build events in the past, I am definitely slightly more lenient at regionals and invitationals and choose to keep in mind the intent of the rules rather than a strict interpretation, but at a State tournament, you can bet I will penalize for every little detail and withhold a very strict interpretation. The SO battery policy is VERY CLEAR and it is reiterated in the Battery Buggy rules. It is the responsibility of the team to ensure their device falls within the parameters of the rules and it should have been as easy as having a team member or coach go through the rules and check your device before competition to make sure the competitor didn't overlook anything as seemingly trivial as this.