Scioly.org

Rule 3.h. states "Students must be able to answer questions regarding the design, construction, and operation of the device per the Building Policy found on http://www.soinc.org"

I have several interpretations on this rule. And would like to request some assistance as to what is the more correct option.

1. The event facilitator must ask 2 or more questions regarding the students Bridge design. If the students cannot sufficiently answer the questions, they will be knocked down to Tier 3.
-The problem with this is that the facilitator can now be SUBJECTIVE with this event. I believe that is wrong. However, the rule must be satisfied to ensure fairness.

2. This is a SUBJECTIVE rule and should not be enforced. However by not enforcing it, the facilitator cannot judge whether the students built the Bridge in all fairness.

3. Students will be questioned for ensuring they themselves built the Bridge. If the students cannot sufficiently answer the questions, AND the facilitator has reasonable suspicion that the students did NOT build the Bridge, then the facilitator may disqualify the team in question and receive 0 points. To be fair to all teams and students, all teams will be asked the same questions to either test their knowledge or to find the team PLAUSIBLE of violating the Building Policy.

https://www.soinc.org/building_tools_policy

"INVESTIGATION OF SUSPECTED VIOLATION OF BUILDING AND TOOLS RECOMMENDATIONS

Tournament officials must rely on the integrity of principals, coaches, students and parents involved in Science Olympiad.
Astute and professional Event Supervisors will be able to evaluate student compliance as such:

Event supervisors may extensively question the lead student as to the design and construction of the device.
Questioning may include the overall design and construction as well as the component parts and how they operate and function within the device.
Other students on the device team may also be questioned.
Each team coach will be required to certify that all work presented for the tournament complies with the Building and the Use of Tools Recommendations.

SANCTIONS FOR NON-QUALIFIED PARTICIPATION

If the students on the device team cannot answer the questions correctly and/or the coach cannot verify the device was student-built, then the Event Supervisors have grounds to believe the students did not design and build the device.
The team will be disqualified from the event and scored accordingly"


My thoughts on the correct way is to have the facilitator ask all teams the same questions as OBJECTIVELY as humanly possible. Bridges that the facilitator has reasonable suspicion of not being built by the students may be DQ'd if the students cannot provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.
For Bridges that do not raise suspicion, the Facilitator shall still ask questions and either teach the students the engineering principles of their bridge, or reinforce the students knowledge of Engineering Principles. Either way the underlying principle is for students to learn and better themselves.

I think you are over-thinking this. We put that statement in on several events as kind of a 'safety valve' for event supervisors and to help point out the building policy. From my experience, it's usually pretty obvious during checkin / testing when competitors didn't have anything to do with the construction of their device. This gives event supervisors a rule to point to when they decide to question those situations. I don't think it's necessary to come up with some sort of standard 'test' that gets administered to every team.

I think it's just a shared responsibility between students, coaches, and parents. The best coaches (and best teams) place a high value on the code of conduct. Enforcing it is another issue. With an event like bridge building, you'd be amazed at what kids can do with patience and practice - and they may not have the other skills to communicate that with others.

Unless the event was written so the bridge had to be built on site (which would be cool - and nothing's impossible, right?) it's tricky to see how "ethical/legal" a device really is. But, for the overwhelming majority of sci Olympians, integrity outweighs bad behavior.

It's really not difficult to tell which bridges were built by the kids and which were built by coaches or parents... The ones built by coaches and parents are usually carried into the venue by the coach or parent, carefully removed from the packaging by the coach or parent and tentatively handed to the kid... The kid takes the bridge, and somewhat carelessly throws the bridge on the inspection table, then sits with bridge in hand, waiting his turn to test. While waiting, the kid may hold one end, tapping the other end of the bridge against the chair or his leg like a drumstick...

A student that has spent 3 hours of his life building this structure will treat it with respect... like grandma's fine china.. He/ She will take great pride in it, even if there are dozens that look more impressive.

As a coach that has run this event several dozen times, it really doesn't take questioning, just observing... The real question is what to do when you obviously have a high quality bridge that has obviously been built by someone other than the student, and when asked who built it, denies that it was coach built. I have to feel that there is a certain amount of Karma out there just for those people.