Scioly.org

@IvanGe What was your roller coaster score? I'm just curious seeing that you got 1st place in it (congrats btw)

Sh1mSh4dy wrote:I personally do not blame the battery buggy proctors, I can't blame any proctors for running an event harshly. In the end, it was down to us not being able to prove that our vehicle was within the rules. (Although I think we should have been able to bring the buggy within the rules?)

Getting slightly off topic, but I still believe this important enough to mention: It is up to the proctor's discretion whether or not they choose to check devices for complying with the rules. It is by no means required of them and it is a generous courtesy if they choose to. Checking all devices for complying within the rules before a team's designated slot is logistically too difficult often times and thus should only be done if the supervisor is extremely familiar with the rules so it can be done quickly or if there is a large staff volunteering (this is pretty rare). As long as the supervisor treats all teams the same (checking all devices or checking none for errors), then they are operating fairly.
Additionally, unless the team had an extra battery that was labeled impounded (which I highly doubt cause they would have used it in that scenario), they wouldnt have been able to bring the device into spec anyways during the teams time slot due to the prohibition of outside materials.

windu34 wrote:

Sh1mSh4dy wrote:I personally do not blame the battery buggy proctors, I can't blame any proctors for running an event harshly. In the end, it was down to us not being able to prove that our vehicle was within the rules. (Although I think we should have been able to bring the buggy within the rules?)

Getting slightly off topic, but I still believe this important enough to mention: It is up to the proctor's discretion whether or not they choose to check devices for complying with the rules. It is by no means required of them and it is a generous courtesy if they choose to. Checking all devices for complying within the rules before a team's designated slot is logistically too difficult often times and thus should only be done if the supervisor is extremely familiar with the rules so it can be done quickly or if there is a large staff volunteering (this is pretty rare). As long as the supervisor treats all teams the same (checking all devices or checking none for errors), then they are operating fairly.
Additionally, unless the team had an extra battery that was labeled impounded (which I highly doubt cause they would have used it in that scenario), they wouldnt have been able to bring the device into spec anyways during the teams time slot due to the prohibition of outside materials.

I wish there was a like button on the forums, but even though there isn't, this is so, so true.

I've seen this situation quite a few times. One was in 2015 when my team wasn't called out for using a galvanic cell on our mission possible device (which was illegal) until the state tournament, and we were penalized quite a bit although our device was still allowed to run (I guess the proctor was a bit nicer to us? Idr, I wasn't there nor was I involved in it at all). The second: I ran Thermodynamics B and C at Indiana's State Tournament this year and dealt with a team that got particularly upset there because they said their device dimension specs weren't checked at the regional (and the regional they went to happened to be the one that I was a tournament executive for ). Going off topic from Battery Buggy, the Thermo rules say that unless a device cannot safely be operated, even if it does not meet the construction specs for dimensions, it is at least still allowed to compete, although a heavy penalty is applied, in which what happened was that I measured the box (without the measurement cube that it was supposed to fit in), determined that although it was out of spec, it's technically allowed to compete with the penalty according to the rules (the real situation was much stickier than that, but that part isn't the most relevant to this).

The spiel that I gave to this team at IN state, and that I think is also just as relevant here, is that no side, whether the ES or the competitor, can assume that the other will be completely in tune with the rules (although we would all love for that to happen, it seems like it would only happen in an ideal world). Especially for events with a build, sure, it is on the ES to know the construction specs and be able to check for those at any tournament level (with punishments obviously being lighter at invitationals and much heavier at state), but the competitors should also be held responsible for thoroughly reading the rules and making sure that their devices meet the specs to avoid running into trouble with ES's that may be stricter. You absolutely CANNOT assume that just because you didn't get called out for your device being out of spec at invitational or regional competitions, your device will be fine at state. The ES's at state and beyond DO crack down on the construction spec rules much more. This is a lesson that ES's, regardless of the level they supervise at, shouldn't necessarily assume that all the competitors they will see will know the rules in and out, and competitors shouldn't necessarily assume the same of the ES. In the end, with problems of teams complaining about getting nicked at state because ES's at invitational/regional competitions weren't strict with checking specs, there's some fault on both parties - the competitors and the earlier competitions' ES's - for the angst in the situation.

vehicleguy wrote:@IvanGe What was your roller coaster score? I'm just curious seeing that you got 1st place in it (congrats btw)

Ours was around 450

nicksalanitri wrote:

vehicleguy wrote:@IvanGe What was your roller coaster score? I'm just curious seeing that you got 1st place in it (congrats btw)

Ours was around 450

Btw i saw your roller coaster, it was absolutely beautiful. Job well done

scioly2345 wrote:

nicksalanitri wrote:

vehicleguy wrote:@IvanGe What was your roller coaster score? I'm just curious seeing that you got 1st place in it (congrats btw)

Ours was around 450

Btw i saw your roller coaster, it was absolutely beautiful. Job well done

Thank you so much! It means a lot to know it was appreciated by others.

Gonna move it because it's more relevant here

kate! wrote:
To be honest, I don't think there'll be states getting 3 bids any time in the future without giving every state 2 bids first, no matter how big the state that wants 3 bids is. 2 bids in New York is pretty fair because it encourages competition, usually the top 3 teams are fighting to get in, while if you added 3 bids, there wouldn't be enough strong competition.

By that point there'll be no way to fit any more teams.
On the viewpoint of a team that's good but not at the top I'd disagree. With 3 extremely strong teams we feel like we don't have a chance at nats. Putting a extra slot would give us hope that we can get lucky and slip into nats, and probably make us try harder. Our school has proved that were capable of getting third, we've done it before. I feel like with a third team ward FM and Colombia will try less but the competition between schools such as GNS stuy spankenkill and us would drastically increase and would make states alot more interesting. Of course this is fantasizing and will never happen.

For div B this applies less now that Goff beat eagle hill but before this it used to almost always be eagle hill and gelinis. Now that Goff got in the competition would definitely increase with Goff having hope for next year and eagle hill wanting revenge. With a addition of a third slot competition would definitely increase with CP Weber and bay trying to slip in but since Goff got in the competition wouldn't increase by as much.

Name wrote:Gonna move it because it's more relevant here

kate! wrote:
To be honest, I don't think there'll be states getting 3 bids any time in the future without giving every state 2 bids first, no matter how big the state that wants 3 bids is. 2 bids in New York is pretty fair because it encourages competition, usually the top 3 teams are fighting to get in, while if you added 3 bids, there wouldn't be enough strong competition.

By that point there'll be no way to fit any more teams.
On the viewpoint of a team that's good but not at the top I'd disagree. With 3 extremely strong teams we feel like we don't have a chance at nats. Putting a extra slot would give us hope that we can get lucky and slip into nats, and probably make us try harder. Our school has proved that were capable of getting third, we've done it before. I feel like with a third team ward FM and Colombia will try less but the competition between schools such as GNS stuy spankenkill and us would drastically increase and would make states alot more interesting. Of course this is fantasizing and will never happen.

For div B this applies less now that Goff beat eagle hill but before this it used to almost always be eagle hill and gelinis. Now that Goff got in the competition would definitely increase with Goff having hope for next year and eagle hill wanting revenge. With a addition of a third slot competition would definitely increase with CP Weber and bay trying to slip in but since Goff got in the competition wouldn't increase by as much.

aHEEEEEEM murphy... has... been... consistently... getting... 3rd... and 4th... for years... just like goff
The competition in B would be between the top 6 teams for sure- Gelinas, Goff, Eagle Hill, Murphy, and then C.P. Weber and C.J. Hooker would be competing too, along with Bay Academy which is steadily getting better.

Name wrote:Gonna move it because it's more relevant here

kate! wrote:
To be honest, I don't think there'll be states getting 3 bids any time in the future without giving every state 2 bids first, no matter how big the state that wants 3 bids is. 2 bids in New York is pretty fair because it encourages competition, usually the top 3 teams are fighting to get in, while if you added 3 bids, there wouldn't be enough strong competition.

By that point there'll be no way to fit any more teams.
On the viewpoint of a team that's good but not at the top I'd disagree. With 3 extremely strong teams we feel like we don't have a chance at nats. Putting a extra slot would give us hope that we can get lucky and slip into nats, and probably make us try harder. Our school has proved that were capable of getting third, we've done it before. I feel like with a third team ward FM and Colombia will try less but the competition between schools such as GNS stuy spankenkill and us would drastically increase and would make states alot more interesting. Of course this is fantasizing and will never happen.

For div B this applies less now that Goff beat eagle hill but before this it used to almost always be eagle hill and gelinis. Now that Goff got in the competition would definitely increase with Goff having hope for next year and eagle hill wanting revenge. With a addition of a third slot competition would definitely increase with CP Weber and bay trying to slip in but since Goff got in the competition wouldn't increase by as much.

Allowing some states to get top 3 teams only raises more arguments than answers. How do you cut off what states get 3 teams? How many teams do you need to add overall to give some states 3 teams? How many states with 2 deserving teams would lose a spot to a state that now has 3 bids?

There's a definite argument for adding more bids to nationals so that we have more 2-bid states. But, nationals is and always will be the tournament for the best teams in each state (DC notwithstanding), not the best teams in the country. I realize it's tough if you're in a hard state, but if you're not in the top 2 of your state, your nationals argument is limited. Mason took matters into their own hands and look like a top contender this year; that's the only solution.

So I went to Syosset too. Maybe this will sound a bit like "back in my day!"...whatever. When I competed it didn't seem like GNS/Stuy could ever get top 5 or 6. They might've a few times (I forget, maybe GNS, but certainly not often). I recall them definitely getting top 10, but there were just so many teams shooting for those spots, and there still are! Just because a lot of teams are at the top, it certainly doesn't stop things from changing, especially one that still gets top 10 like Syosset.

Next, adding more schools sounds like more of a bandaid. Even if you up the number of nats spots to 3, there will be a vast majority of teams and teams that will be very miffed at effectively never being able to make it. I won't go into the example issues because East covers this well. Also, You can bet the current top 3 will NOT back down from fighting for their spots, quite the opposite since they can all go.

For middle schools, I don't really know how the state competition works as well because I didn't go to as competitive a middle school, but what I hear is it is heavily coach-dependent, so I'm unsure how upping the amount of teams would help things all that much (as it seems much more consistent and even less likely to change overall).

I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, as I came from your HS too, but I do think there is a bit of a deeper perspective to be had *because* I came from your HS...