New York 2020

[waterlubber]

In my opinion, the test writer for each event should be the one that is the most qualified, not the first one to sign up.

Thank you @bennythejett!

That would be great, but how do you determine qualifications? National placements could be a start, but that is largely dependent on partners and which team you happen to be on. Perhaps if too many people sign up for an event, we can have some sort of process to determine qualifications. Anyway this is just for fun, so I don't think we should be too worried about it.

My plan was to have tests be submitted and then sent to the other submitters and volunteers for ranking.
As for coordination, I have the discord server set up and a LOT of experience with Google Forms, so I can set up submissions stuff, etc.
idk which communication platform you guys prefer, most of the people in the Discord came from the science olympiad one, and some prefer IRC or other FOSS communications platforms.

Building events would require a rules rewrite, but anyone can do one and we can just agree on it.

[snowyowl]

You could cowrite a division B event you aren't in, or you could write for one you are and forfeit the right to "compete".

Thank you this is a good idea (obviously requiring review from a division C member)

[BennyTheJett]

I think that people are signed up for events they understand. At the end of the day we should be just fine without a true "most qualified". The tests are merely for our entertainment, so I'm not all that concerned with who's most qualified, rather what the product is. Everyone can contribute, some just more than others. I like the idea of the discord.

[snowyowl]

I think that people are signed up for events they understand. At the end of the day we should be just fine without a true "most qualified". The tests are merely for our entertainment, so I'm not all that concerned with who's most qualified, rather what the product is. Everyone can contribute, some just more than others. I like the idea of the discord.

Agreed, I think multiple people working on one test will minimize errors and improve the quality, without requiring too much work with qualifications.

[ET2020]

I think you should make the slots for test writers unlimited. Then once everyone has signed up start to dwindle the people to the more experienced or knowledgeable ones.

But how do you decide who is more experienced? Are you going to PM them individually and ask for state/nat medal counts in the event they're writing? What is people lie in order to be allowed to write the test?

[snowyowl]

I think that people are signed up for events they understand. At the end of the day we should be just fine without a true "most qualified". The tests are merely for our entertainment, so I'm not all that concerned with who's most qualified, rather what the product is. Everyone can contribute, some just more than others. I like the idea of the discord.

Agreed, I think multiple people working on one test will minimize errors and improve the quality, without requiring too much work with qualifications. And ET2020, I think this may solve your problem.

An additional idea is to get approval from regional or state coordinators (that the tests are good) even though the tournament may not be official.

[waterlubber]

I think that people are signed up for events they understand. At the end of the day we should be just fine without a true "most qualified". The tests are merely for our entertainment, so I'm not all that concerned with who's most qualified, rather what the product is. Everyone can contribute, some just more than others. I like the idea of the discord.

The quality of an SO test significantly affects the placement of teams, bad tests mean teams are either bunched up near 100%/0% or placement has nothing to do with actual skill. I think a lot of teams would appreciate an idea of how well they'd do at states, and besides, good, hard tests are WAY more fun than tests clearly written by someone with little experience with SO.

(For example, a "bad" test would have questions not applicable to the event, or incorrect answer key, or be so easy that nearly everyone has a perfect score. A "good" test would have a nearly even score distribution and cover a wide area of topics.)

Keep in mind that qualifications don't correlate with test quality, an EE might know his stuff really well but still make a bad circuit lab test, and a div C student might write an incredibly comprehensive circuit lab test but have few qualifications. That's why I think grading the tests before hand is a better idea.

[BennyTheJett]

Waterlubber, you should put the spreadsheet in the discord.

EDIT: Yeah I see the point of more than 4 making it hard to write, so let's cap the number of people per event to 4 please so we aren't all pulling our hair out.

[IHateClouds]

I think you should make the slots for test writers unlimited. Then once everyone has signed up start to dwindle the people to the more experienced or knowledgeable ones.

But how do you decide who is more experienced? Are you going to PM them individually and ask for state/nat medal counts in the event they're writing? What is people lie in order to be allowed to write the test?

i dont think there are going to be people interested enough in test writing to lie about it ...

[waterlubber]

Waterlubber, you should put the spreadsheet in the discord.

I'm working on a google form for people to submit volunteer stuff instead of directly editing the sheet, and then I'll merge the results in.