US Rules change needed for devaluation of contest day

On Monday, 25 August 2014 13:17:39 UTC-6, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Monday, August 25, 2014 5:02:51 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:





In summary I would like to look at tweaking the scoring formula to devalue a day like the ones above and I support using the WDSA rule and would support a regional event that used it.







Nick Kennedy











I think we would welcome concrete proposals of exactly how you'd change -- proposals that showed understanding the current rules and the many situations they were evolved to cope with. "Competitor" got defined up from anyone taking a tow, after a similar string of unhappy results, which we don't want to go back to.







For the moment, my view is that we should include anyone who lands out before the start as "competitor." Otherwise, I can't think of a tweak (other than worst day score adjustment) that gives whatever the desired outcome is here, without screwing up the other days for which this rule was designed.







A big review and simplification of devaluation is in order, but nothing on my mind in that regard will help here. Remember in your proposals how much everyone wants simplicity and transparency, and how little anyone understands the current rules!







John Cochrane



This would mean allow devaluation after 20% non completion.



Maximum Speed Points:

‡

MSP = STF * (1250 * SCR) (but not greater than STF * 1000)



Scored completion ratio:

‡

SCR = (Number of Finishers) / (Number of contestants)



Where a contestant is defined as any pilot that took a tow and turns in a valid flight log.



Requiring pilots to land out to be a contestant is too high of a bar. Why would we require them to land out if they are down to 1000 feet and have a good airport in reach? Often in the west the airport may be the only safe place to land if they can not get up to several thousand feet.



Tim

Currently for FAI Class Regional Competition a contestant is defined as; A Contestant is a regular entrant whose Scored Distance (Rule 11.2.3) is greater than zero.

Are you proposing that the definition of a contestant be changed to '

On Monday, 25 August 2014 13:17:39 UTC-6, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Monday, August 25, 2014 5:02:51 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:





In summary I would like to look at tweaking the scoring formula to devalue a day like the ones above and I support using the WDSA rule and would support a regional event that used it.







Nick Kennedy











I think we would welcome concrete proposals of exactly how you'd change -- proposals that showed understanding the current rules and the many situations they were evolved to cope with. "Competitor" got defined up from anyone taking a tow, after a similar string of unhappy results, which we don't want to go back to.







For the moment, my view is that we should include anyone who lands out before the start as "competitor." Otherwise, I can't think of a tweak (other than worst day score adjustment) that gives whatever the desired outcome is here, without screwing up the other days for which this rule was designed.







A big review and simplification of devaluation is in order, but nothing on my mind in that regard will help here. Remember in your proposals how much everyone wants simplicity and transparency, and how little anyone understands the current rules!







John Cochrane



This would mean allow devaluation after 20% non completion.



Maximum Speed Points:

‡

MSP = STF * (1250 * SCR) (but not greater than STF * 1000)



Scored completion ratio:

‡

SCR = (Number of Finishers) / (Number of contestants)



Where a contestant is defined as any pilot that took a tow and turns in a valid flight log.



Requiring pilots to land out to be a contestant is too high of a bar. Why would we require them to land out if they are down to 1000 feet and have a good airport in reach? Often in the west the airport may be the only safe place to land if they can not get up to several thousand feet.



Tim

Current definition for a contestant is; A Contestant is a regular entrant whose Scored Distance (Rule 11.2.3) is greater than zero.

I agree that another change of the develuation rule to cover this kind of situation is going to come at a cost. For me, it simply comes down to what scenario is more important and therefore more weighted:

Scenario 1) Pilots purposefully abandoning or not starting a good task which intentionally devalues (or kills in this case) the day. This has happened in the recent past (from what I have gathered) and was part of the reason that rule was changed into its current form

-OR-

Scenario 2) Preventing a "bad luck" situation in which some pilots (in a class) are unable (very subjective word at best) to start the task when others are able to start and complete the task easily. This is a very, very hard thing to qualify as being "unfair." How do you determine what is skill vs. bad luck is or at what point a task changes from "flyable to unflyable?" A thunderstorm is one thing but this rule would also effect a blue, weak day in the midwest for example. What is fair, what is skill, what is luck?

Changing the devaluation formula to protect against this rare, difficult to define, highly subjective and odd "bad luck" situation is going to cause a lot of additional rule complexity and unintended consequence.

In sailing, this kind of "uncontrollable variable" or "bad luck" situation (micro or macro scale weather) happens literally ALL THE TIME!!! A wind shift or reversal can easily take the race leader to the back of the pack (especially in unstable conditions) while taking the boat well back in the pack into the lead. In fact, this is normal. Managing this crazy risk is simply part of sport. Its very difficult for sure! Its not really considered bad luck anymore by top competitors in sailing. Its part of nature and part of understanding the mechanics of weather on a micro scale (near a shoreline or on an inland lake for example). Competitors must learn to manage the instability and learn deal with it emotionally when it doesn't go your way (all the time).

In Formula One racing for another example, when you get a flat tire after hitting a foreign object, you don't have the option of protesting to throw the race out! You have to learn to suck it up and move on to the next race.

In my opinion the SSA rules cannot protect from all situations that involve uncontrollable variables (bad luck). The SSA rules are already stretched pretty thin and try to "cover" a lot of complex situations (perhaps far too many ;-)). Occasionally we all will have to accept a "tough luck" situation and move on. This is the nature of sport. Rules cannot take "bad luck" out of the game.

In short, I do not believe that we should change this rule.

Sean

A review of Sean's scenarios is the right thing to consider. I think there are some days that need to be left to the protest process, some may benefit from a better way for the CD to assess whether/when to open the gate and perhaps some change in how you count a competitor under circumstances where heading out on course is a clear lawn dart. In this case a substantial majority couldn't get to the altitude required for cross-country flight after the gate opened. Ron mentions this altitude (9,000' IIRC) in the analysis of the day and this altitude is mentioned in the rules as a guideline. One could imagine counting as a competitor anyone who either has a score for the day or can't reach this height after the start gate opens. Or, the rules could allow the CD to declare anyone who takes a launch to be a competitor on a marginal day - much as we hate leaving anything to the CDs discretion. It does seem odd to require people to land out.

In hindsight it seems to me that devaluation was the right treatment for this sort of circumstance - if people had landed out instead of back at the airport that's what would have happened.

9B

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 5:23:05 PM UTC-4, wrote:
A review of Sean's scenarios is the right thing to consider. I think there are some days that need to be left to the protest process, some may benefit from a better way for the CD to assess whether/when to open the gate and perhaps some change in how you count a competitor under circumstances where heading out on course is a clear lawn dart. In this case a substantial majority couldn't get to the altitude required for cross-country flight after the gate opened. Ron mentions this altitude (9,000' IIRC) in the analysis of the day and this altitude is mentioned in the rules as a guideline. One could imagine counting as a competitor anyone who either has a score for the day or can't reach this height after the start gate opens. Or, the rules could allow the CD to declare anyone who takes a launch to be a competitor on a marginal day - much as we hate leaving anything to the CDs discretion. It does seem odd to require people to land out.



In hindsight it seems to me that devaluation was the right treatment for this sort of circumstance - if people had landed out instead of back at the airport that's what would have happened.



9B

My working definition of a "fair" task is that everyone who takes a launch gets the opportunity to start the task at more or less the same time at more or less the same altitude from more or less the same place. It does not necessarily include "all ships have a good chance to finish the task" since on some days the 1-26 will rule on handicap and on others the Nimbus 4. It is the job of the CD to use the advisers prior to opening the start to assess whether a fair start is possible.
QT