Page 1 of 5
Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
Posted: April 23rd, 2018, 4:26 pm
by Unome
soinc.org wrote:At the end of the Science Olympiad National Tournament Awards Ceremony each team’s head coach will be provided one copy of the final scores. Within one hour after the ceremony is completed the head coach may submit compelling evidence of a scoring inconsistency using this Team Ranking Inquiry Form (will be a live link at the 2018 National Tournament). If the evidence is verified, the appropriate points, medals and trophies will be awarded for that team only. Thinking that your team "did better" than scores reflect is not considered compelling evidence. Teams will not be asked to return awards or to relinquish any points. Scores for the Science Olympiad National Tournament are not official until they are posted on the soinc.org website. For more information about Science Olympiad Scoring, please visit our Policies section.
The obvious question is of course "what prompted this?", and the answer likely has to do with the second-to-last and last bolded sections. The relinquishing of points part looks unusual at first glance but appears to be consistent with past scoring corrections (e.g. 2013 with Booth and 2014 with SAA).
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
Posted: April 23rd, 2018, 5:57 pm
by CMS AC
What would be an example of "compelling evidence?"
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
Posted: April 23rd, 2018, 6:00 pm
by daydreamer0023
CMS AC wrote:What would be an example of "compelling evidence?"
Knowing another team had a visibly worse build run than you, yet they placed much, much higher point wise.
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
Posted: April 23rd, 2018, 6:09 pm
by dxu46
daydreamer0023 wrote:CMS AC wrote:What would be an example of "compelling evidence?"
Knowing another team had a visibly worse build run than you, yet they placed much, much higher point wise.
Doesn't that qualify as "thinking your team did better?"
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
Posted: April 23rd, 2018, 6:30 pm
by daydreamer0023
dxu46 wrote:daydreamer0023 wrote:CMS AC wrote:What would be an example of "compelling evidence?"
Knowing another team had a visibly worse build run than you, yet they placed much, much higher point wise.
Doesn't that qualify as "thinking your team did better?"
Not necessarily. For example, if you see your Helicopter get 2 min in the air and know you got all the bonuses...then saw someone's Heli get 14 seconds with no bonuses (which you can notice fairly easily based on watching their run)...and they get 10 places higher then you...that is grounds for argument.
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
Posted: April 23rd, 2018, 6:31 pm
by hippo9
daydreamer0023 wrote:dxu46 wrote:daydreamer0023 wrote:
Knowing another team had a visibly worse build run than you, yet they placed much, much higher point wise.
Doesn't that qualify as "thinking your team did better?"
Not necessarily. For example, if you see your Helicopter get 2 min in the air and know you got all the bonuses...then saw someone's Heli get 14 seconds with no bonuses (which you can notice fairly easily based on watching their run)...and they get 10 places higher then you...that is grounds for argument.
Also, it could be something like you could tell a team got tiered just by visibly looking at their device, but they still somehow beat you.
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
Posted: April 23rd, 2018, 6:34 pm
by dxu46
hippo9 wrote:daydreamer0023 wrote:dxu46 wrote:
Doesn't that qualify as "thinking your team did better?"
Not necessarily. For example, if you see your Helicopter get 2 min in the air and know you got all the bonuses...then saw someone's Heli get 14 seconds with no bonuses (which you can notice fairly easily based on watching their run)...and they get 10 places higher then you...that is grounds for argument.
Also, it could be something like you could tell a team got tiered just by visibly looking at their device, but they still somehow beat you.
Right, I forgot that most build events are open to the public.
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
Posted: April 23rd, 2018, 6:43 pm
by rfscoach
CMS AC wrote:What would be an example of "compelling evidence?"
In the case if JC Booth in 2013, it was being scored as a No Show in an event they participated in.
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
Posted: April 23rd, 2018, 8:22 pm
by SciNerd42
The problem (that has no solution), is that teams can tell if a mistake was made with building events (you knew you had a higher time, score, but were ranked lower) but with academic events, you have no evidence, and you just have to assume everyone was scored right.
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
Posted: April 23rd, 2018, 8:27 pm
by Skink
SciNerd42 wrote:The problem (that has no solution), is that teams can tell if a mistake was made with building events (you knew you had a higher time, score, but were ranked lower) but with academic events, you have no evidence, and you just have to assume everyone was scored right.
Yeah. And, this is a feature, not a bug. There's a beast of a slippery slope the moment they open up any subjectively scored events to prying eyes.