Scioly.org

mrcadman wrote:

acanoli wrote:Exactly. They changed the tiebreaker from "closest up to 60" to " closest to 60." This clears it up so they can allow 60.99 to be scored for completion. But what it also does, is it changes the tiebreaker so that you're trying to get as close to 60 as possible.

Consider 2 teams, A, B, and C. All of them get all the basic points and no penalties. A stops at 59.9, B stops at 60.1, and C stops at 60.9. First of all, A gets last place because it got 2 less points than B and C, since it operated for one less "whole second." B and C are tied, but B wins the tiebreaker because it is the "closest to 60 seconds."

I'm just explaining this clearly so that everyone hears me, this is a major clarification. Until now teams had been shooting for either around 59.9 or 60.9, now they're shooting for around 60.1.

This is the first time I can remember where clarification made a major decision like this!

I think you are still misreading it. Closest to 60 seconds, not just closest to 60. Thus 60 whole seconds, which would still be 60.99, as they've been saying over and over.

Actually I think that you are misreading it.
"The second tie breaker should be what was recorded in either tenths or hundredths up to 60.99 seconds since 60.99 seconds is technically 60 whole seconds"
60.1 is closer to 60 seconds than 60.99

penclspinner wrote:

mrcadman wrote:

acanoli wrote:Exactly. They changed the tiebreaker from "closest up to 60" to " closest to 60." This clears it up so they can allow 60.99 to be scored for completion. But what it also does, is it changes the tiebreaker so that you're trying to get as close to 60 as possible.

Consider 2 teams, A, B, and C. All of them get all the basic points and no penalties. A stops at 59.9, B stops at 60.1, and C stops at 60.9. First of all, A gets last place because it got 2 less points than B and C, since it operated for one less "whole second." B and C are tied, but B wins the tiebreaker because it is the "closest to 60 seconds."

I'm just explaining this clearly so that everyone hears me, this is a major clarification. Until now teams had been shooting for either around 59.9 or 60.9, now they're shooting for around 60.1.

This is the first time I can remember where clarification made a major decision like this!

I think you are still misreading it. Closest to 60 seconds, not just closest to 60. Thus 60 whole seconds, which would still be 60.99, as they've been saying over and over.

Actually I think that you are misreading it.
"The second tie breaker should be what was recorded in either tenths or hundredths up to 60.99 seconds since 60.99 seconds is technically 60 whole seconds"
60.1 is closer to 60 seconds than 60.99

I'm done with this one. 60.0 is the turning point, the very beginning of the 60th second. 60.99 makes use of the whole 60th second. Since they've set the limit to 60.99, you don't really think they're going to just score "some ways back" do you?
Go back and read the sentence again. "Closest time of operation to 60 seconds", not "closest to 60". One would assume they meant whole seconds, which they've defined as 60.99 ad nauseum. 60.0 is merely the beginning of the 60th second and 60.99 is the end of it. A logical average would be 60.5 wouldn't it?
Assuming 60 when they've stated 60.99 is going to mislead someone, and vice-versa.
I do think they should definitely simply state ____"A perfect score is 60.xx"____, and leave it at that.
Meh, we could have saved half the internet if they'd of used a simple sentence like that.
As long as they tell the kids before/when they walk in, they'll be quite fine.

The real change was in interpreting "up to 60 seconds" to include "up to 60.99" seconds and 59.99 seconds to be 59 seconds. To get maximum points under Para. 4.g this requires the operating time to be at least 60.00 seconds and no longer than 60.99 seconds. It's my understanding that this was the intent all along, but the rule-writers didn't state it clearly.

Note: For simplicity's sake, I used hundredths of a second. I don't know if this resolution will be used at the national tournament, but it's probably a safe assumption.

Apparently, they missed that it nullifies, to a great extent, the second tiebreaker. Since the first tiebreaker (fewest penalty points) can't be depended on to break ties, there is no assurance they could/would be broken.

It's unfortunate when these types of situations arise, but writing bulletproof rules is an extremely difficult task. Not many people have the right mind-set for it, so there are bound to be times when things slip through. When that happens, the normal reaction is to start applying "band-aids®". Sometimes the "cure" only makes things worse.

What I wrote in my last post was not an assumption or a guess. The intent is to use "whole" seconds for scoring and to use fractions of a second for the second tiebreaker. Not sure how I can say it any clearer.

Still, it would be wise to be prepared for all contingencies. There's still time for changes!

Back in Feb I asked for a clarification of the tie-breaker and the rules committee did reply back to me - by email. They never bothered to publish the clarification on the web-site. They stated the tie-breaker is closest to 60.00 secs, so 60.01 is better than 60.99. I tested their scoring spreadsheet and noticed that it did not agree with the clarificaton - it scored 60.99 better than 60.01. They did manage to have the spreadsheet corrected in time for our invitiational, but I don't think enough people really understood why this change was made.

The closest to 60 tiebreaker is going to make things even tighter as there is no longer the danger of being eliminated by going over 60.99.

The closest to 60 tiebreaker is going to make things even tighter as there is no longer the danger of being eliminated by going over 60.99.

If you go over 60.99 you will not get the 60 points under Para. 4.f. (See Para. 3.i.)

That is what I mean go over 60.99 and you no longer have a perfect score as while you get the 2 points per second up to sixty you do not get at the minimum points for task completion or points for triggering the last trap. So programmers will program to 60 seconds vs. 60.99 to avoid effective elimination.

Does anyone know what the 2011 task will be?

GoNerdHerd wrote:Does anyone know what the 2011 task will be?

We're not going to know until this year's Junkyard is done. And even then you probably won't find out until September at the earliest, assuming you go to a coach's clinic or something.

gyourkoshaven wrote:Kicking off the thread: This looks REALLY fun.

If you don't have rules yet, the purpose of this is to drop a golf ball in the center of a device, and then somehow have 4 mousetraps snap in a certain order within 1 minute, but a bonus is to go as long as you can in the 1 minute (I think it's a 118 pt. bonus if you were to do it in 59 secs).

Ideas and thoughts?

i had that last year but in div C they gave two different things to build and in comp u only use one but u dont know which one, and we never used one cauz both nats and our state used the coin sorter, and the water weighing device was just left to die