Scioly.org

Hello fellow competitors,

I was wondering if there is any anticipation for next year's event, since under the current statement by Scioly; the event rules will remain the same. What are your thoughts and feeling on next year's detector with the same rules?

I personally feel that next year, this will be a very redundant event with everyone having close to perfect detector scores, and thus making this a very boring, yet competitive event.

MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 11:13 am Hello fellow competitors,

I was wondering if there is any anticipation for next year's event, since under the current statement by Scioly; the event rules will remain the same. What are your thoughts and feeling on next year's detector with the same rules?

I personally feel that next year, this will be a very redundant event with everyone having close to perfect detector scores, and thus making this a very boring, yet competitive event.

I agree that most teams will likely have very accurate devices. Maybe they could increase the multipliers to spread the scores out a little bit? It seems like teams will have to do well on the test as well to be competitive now.

Just change regional to State rule.

Personally, I would like to see a change in the task itself. I feel like its pretty feasible given that all the basic materials (microcontroller and related hardware) can be reused. Only thing that might change is the sensors themselves

shrewdPanther46 wrote: ↑March 17th, 2020, 6:46 am Personally, I would like to see a change in the task itself. I feel like its pretty feasible given that all the basic materials (microcontroller and related hardware) can be reused. Only thing that might change is the sensors themselves

That would be what would happen if we carried on the normal rotation, right? Detector Building would come back for its second year, with a different measurement task?

MTV<=>Operator wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 11:26 am

MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 11:13 am Hello fellow competitors,

I was wondering if there is any anticipation for next year's event, since under the current statement by Scioly; the event rules will remain the same. What are your thoughts and feeling on next year's detector with the same rules?

I personally feel that next year, this will be a very redundant event with everyone having close to perfect detector scores, and thus making this a very boring, yet competitive event.

I agree that most teams will likely have very accurate devices. Maybe they could increase the multipliers to spread the scores out a little bit? It seems like teams will have to do well on the test as well to be competitive now.

That doesn't change a thing - it just makes it even more luck based. If the event is to be made better, the underlying task, or the way it is accomplished, must be made more difficult, not the method by which it is measured.

LIPX3 wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 4:16 pm

MTV<=>Operator wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 11:26 am

MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 11:13 am Hello fellow competitors,

I was wondering if there is any anticipation for next year's event, since under the current statement by Scioly; the event rules will remain the same. What are your thoughts and feeling on next year's detector with the same rules?

I personally feel that next year, this will be a very redundant event with everyone having close to perfect detector scores, and thus making this a very boring, yet competitive event.

I agree that most teams will likely have very accurate devices. Maybe they could increase the multipliers to spread the scores out a little bit? It seems like teams will have to do well on the test as well to be competitive now.

That doesn't change a thing - it just makes it even more luck based. If the event is to be made better, the underlying task, or the way it is accomplished, must be made more difficult, not the method by which it is measured.

Completely agree. I'm really hoping that when they change the rules for this event, they don't place more emphasis on luck in the scoring.

pepperonipi wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 4:22 pm

LIPX3 wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 4:16 pm

MTV<=>Operator wrote: ↑March 16th, 2020, 11:26 am

I agree that most teams will likely have very accurate devices. Maybe they could increase the multipliers to spread the scores out a little bit? It seems like teams will have to do well on the test as well to be competitive now.

That doesn't change a thing - it just makes it even more luck based. If the event is to be made better, the underlying task, or the way it is accomplished, must be made more difficult, not the method by which it is measured.

Completely agree. I'm really hoping that when they change the rules for this event, they don't place more emphasis on luck in the scoring.

Can you clarify on "luck based" in this scenario. I feel that this year the rules were pretty straightforwards and easy to follow though on. Opinions?

MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 5:11 pm

pepperonipi wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 4:22 pm

LIPX3 wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 4:16 pm
That doesn't change a thing - it just makes it even more luck based. If the event is to be made better, the underlying task, or the way it is accomplished, must be made more difficult, not the method by which it is measured.

Completely agree. I'm really hoping that when they change the rules for this event, they don't place more emphasis on luck in the scoring.

Can you clarify on "luck based" in this scenario. I feel that this year the rules were pretty straightforwards and easy to follow though on. Opinions?

They were definitely straightforward (aside from ambiguity on whether or not readings had to be blind), but by luck based they mean how the accuracy of the reading oftentimes comes down to how much the calibration thermometer, and not the device, itself fluctuates.

Umaroth wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 5:21 pm

MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 5:11 pm

pepperonipi wrote: ↑March 19th, 2020, 4:22 pm

Completely agree. I'm really hoping that when they change the rules for this event, they don't place more emphasis on luck in the scoring.

Can you clarify on "luck based" in this scenario. I feel that this year the rules were pretty straightforwards and easy to follow though on. Opinions?

They were definitely straightforward (aside from ambiguity on whether or not readings had to be blind), but by luck based they mean how the accuracy of the reading oftentimes comes down to how much the calibration thermometer, and not the device, itself fluctuates.

I think that's a fairly relateable factor, but the way to keep this as straightforward as possible is to try to get a better thermometer and try to keep your calibration thermometer in the same area as a your probe, you can do this by just taping them both together and sticking them on one side of the cup, pot, etc. Every time except for one I got to see the thermometer during my reading allowing me to get exact to ±0.1 Celsius. Just a few suggestions.