Scioly.org

Unome wrote:

scioly2012 wrote:In C ours was around 2700, and Mentor(5th) said theirs was around 2800. Could anyone elaborate on what an "elevated" tower might look like for next year? And I wasn't in towers when they had the two-part tower rules, could someone explain how that would be scored?

A two-tiered tower woudl most likely involve a rule stating that all parts of the tower above a certain height (this height was different between B and C in 2012 if I remember correctly) must fit within a tube of a certain diameter (it'll probably be some readily-available size) - example image

I have no idea what you mean by an elevated tower.

Random Human wrote:

Unome wrote:

scioly2012 wrote:In C ours was around 2700, and Mentor(5th) said theirs was around 2800. Could anyone elaborate on what an "elevated" tower might look like for next year? And I wasn't in towers when they had the two-part tower rules, could someone explain how that would be scored?

A two-tiered tower woudl most likely involve a rule stating that all parts of the tower above a certain height (this height was different between B and C in 2012 if I remember correctly) must fit within a tube of a certain diameter (it'll probably be some readily-available size) - example image

I have no idea what you mean by an elevated tower.

I think that if they keep the same 1 part rule. This event would be pretty boring. All they could do besides this is change height and bonus. Adjusting the height wouldn't be much of a challenge. Bonus should open up a new window for people to explore in. But overall keeping this 1 part configuration rule will make the event to simple and boring for people who did the event this year.

Dohnnovan wrote:When you see a new post in National Tower Scores and are hoping to see Beckendorff's tower score but you don't

Random Human wrote:

Dohnnovan wrote:When you see a new post in National Tower Scores and are hoping to see Beckendorff's tower score but you don't

I don't think anyone knows it...
at this point it would be best to ask Chalker, or some administrator in the tournament.
I'm guessing their tower hit about 3800 ish...

Crtomir wrote:

Random Human wrote:

Dohnnovan wrote:When you see a new post in National Tower Scores and are hoping to see Beckendorff's tower score but you don't

I don't think anyone knows it...
at this point it would be best to ask Chalker, or some administrator in the tournament.
I'm guessing their tower hit about 3800 ish...

Nah. From what I've heard, everyone scored below what they had been getting in the season. These are the Division B scores as we know them:

1st ???? Beckendorf
2nd 3428 Gelinas
3rd 3340 Marie Murphy
4th ???? Daniel Wright
5th 2980 Tower Heights
6th ???? Winston Churchill

Does anyone else know the scores for 1st, 4th, and 6th?

Balsa Man wrote:The issue relates to the rule “constructed of wood and bonded by adhesive. No other materials are allowed.” The B division team I’ve worked with this year were advised during check-in that the markings on their tower (done with felt-tip markers/highlighters) were….a problem; that they could be DQ’d- that by the rules, there could/should be no marks on the tower. The decision was made, very appropriately IMHO, not to DQ them, with a….warning not to do it next year… But a couple hours later, the C team I’ve been working with checked in with similar markings, and not a word was said about them….
(snip)
What I hope can be done is getting language in the rules for next year (and subsequent years) that clearly allows for marking done in a way that ….gains no advantage in terms of structure performance. Just a simple statement that marks to guide/facilitate construction are not considered “materials”; just like the statement that bamboo is not considered wood.

SOPomo wrote:

Balsa Man wrote:The issue relates to the rule “constructed of wood and bonded by adhesive. No other materials are allowed.” The B division team I’ve worked with this year were advised during check-in that the markings on their tower (done with felt-tip markers/highlighters) were….a problem; that they could be DQ’d- that by the rules, there could/should be no marks on the tower. The decision was made, very appropriately IMHO, not to DQ them, with a….warning not to do it next year… But a couple hours later, the C team I’ve been working with checked in with similar markings, and not a word was said about them….
(snip)
What I hope can be done is getting language in the rules for next year (and subsequent years) that clearly allows for marking done in a way that ….gains no advantage in terms of structure performance. Just a simple statement that marks to guide/facilitate construction are not considered “materials”; just like the statement that bamboo is not considered wood.

I can bring it up at SOSI next month.