Replaying Events for 2021

[shalubeta]

Yes, I also feel like replaying the events will just make it harder for low-ranking teams to actually place, and I do expect a more boring season in 2021.

[nicholasmaurer]

So in the spirit of "replaying" events, I can assume conflicts will be completely the same on the nationals schedule? Changing those up could be a way to make a significant difference without changing too much, although some people will probably get thrown under the bus.

ill just start by saying i have no idea, but i dont see the event schedule changing too much. im not sure how official they are but i've seen event logistics manuals (https://www.soinc.org/sites/default/fil ... 100819.pdf) that specify some suggested conflicts like between similar events so that it might be considered in schedules? i think its mainly so that people can specialize w/o having a bunch of conflicts.

To my knowledge, the National Tournament schedule included in the annual rules (which is then used as a guide by many tournaments) is set by that year's National Tournament Director as it needs to be based on what the host site can accommodate. That is why, for example, Disease Detectives was not scheduled for the impound slot this year when it traditionally had been. However, I would expect *similar* conflicts next year simply because they try to minimize student conflicts (i.e. avoiding multiple bio events in the same hour).

[MTV<=>Operator]

Most of the points I wanted to make have already been brought up, but I'd like to reiterate the monotony of reiterating events. Most test writers will only cover material within a reasonable range, and I'd strongly prefer not spending my sophomore year chasing down the definition for that one oceanography term that returns two Google results, one of which is a research paper, only to be disappointed when I am not tested on it. I don't want to turn studying into a tedious chore I need to complete hoping to stay reasonably competitive when one of my favorite aspects of SciOly is exploring new yet specific fields I wouldn't get to in a classroom. Keeping events really takes the enjoyable aspect out of Science Olympiad, and I want to try new things and continue to learn rather than feel as though I'm wasting a year. In addition, this limits the number of events I can study for over the course of high school, and I feel as though I am only participating in SciOly for one year for the two years' worth of time I will be putting into this. It will make it more difficult for new members to "break in" to the team, especially if some schools with coaches that cannot afford to spend as much time on SciOly decide to reuse tryouts. For every student out there that has complained of a proctor reusing an old test to save time, I expect this to occur much more frequently in the 20-21 season. If a competition is underfunded or short of volunteers or a test writer is short on time, the easiest way out would be to use last year's test. Also, I was anticipating the return of my favorite event my senior year, but now I will not be able to do that event, instead spending that time combing over old events yet again. Many others will be missing out on the events they were anticipating. While there are competitors that will want to keep this year's events because they enjoyed them and did not get a chance to compete at higher levels or at all, and I do understand and sympathize with that, I feel that replaying events is holding SciOly back as a whole and limiting the main purpose: learning.

That was a longer post than I expected.

[Godspeed]

Most of the points I wanted to make have already been brought up, but I'd like to reiterate the monotony of reiterating events. Most test writers will only cover material within a reasonable range, and I'd strongly prefer not spending my sophomore year chasing down the definition for that one oceanography term that returns two Google results, one of which is a research paper, only to be disappointed when I am not tested on it. I don't want to turn studying into a tedious chore I need to complete hoping to stay reasonably competitive when one of my favorite aspects of SciOly is exploring new yet specific fields I wouldn't get to in a classroom. Keeping events really takes the enjoyable aspect out of Science Olympiad, and I want to try new things and continue to learn rather than feel as though I'm wasting a year. In addition, this limits the number of events I can study for over the course of high school, and I feel as though I am only participating in SciOly for one year for the two years' worth of time I will be putting into this. It will make it more difficult for new members to "break in" to the team, especially if some schools with coaches that cannot afford to spend as much time on SciOly decide to reuse tryouts. For every student out there that has complained of a proctor reusing an old test to save time, I expect this to occur much more frequently in the 20-21 season. If a competition is underfunded or short of volunteers or a test writer is short on time, the easiest way out would be to use last year's test. Also, I was anticipating the return of my favorite event my senior year, but now I will not be able to do that event, instead spending that time combing over old events yet again. Many others will be missing out on the events they were anticipating. While there are competitors that will want to keep this year's events because they enjoyed them and did not get a chance to compete at higher levels or at all, and I do understand and sympathize with that, I feel that replaying events is holding SciOly back as a whole and limiting the main purpose: learning.

That was a longer post than I expected.

I agree, when you recycle the events, you will have nothing left to learn.

[AmBecomeFossil]

One general policy many of you might not be aware of is that, in general, every year we keep ~50% of the events the same, make minor changes to ~25% of them, and major changes/replacements to ~25% of them. This policy has been in place for almost the entirety of SO for the purposes of ensuring there isn't too much change from year to year.

I feel like not enough people here are realizing this. Yes next season will be a bit different than normal but you're all acting like it's the polar opposite of what we normally get. IMO, as long as all the build events are given minor rule changes, the season should play out fine. Ideally the knowledge events would also get minor changes (ID events get a few more specimens, other events are given a new sub-topic, ect), but even if this didn't happen it would still play out fine.

[l0lit]

To my knowledge, the National Tournament schedule included in the annual rules (which is then used as a guide by many tournaments) is set by that year's National Tournament Director as it needs to be based on what the host site can accommodate. That is why, for example, Disease Detectives was not scheduled for the impound slot this year when it traditionally had been. However, I would expect *similar* conflicts next year simply because they try to minimize student conflicts (i.e. avoiding multiple bio events in the same hour).

Yeah, I really hope the Disease Detectives and Experimental Design blocks are back to impounds slot, it was a pain to deal with conflicts-wise as a competitor and grading-wise as a supervisor.

[sciolyperson1]

Most of the points I wanted to make have already been brought up, but I'd like to reiterate the monotony of reiterating events. Most test writers will only cover material within a reasonable range, and I'd strongly prefer not spending my sophomore year chasing down the definition for that one oceanography term that returns two Google results, one of which is a research paper, only to be disappointed when I am not tested on it. I don't want to turn studying into a tedious chore I need to complete hoping to stay reasonably competitive when one of my favorite aspects of SciOly is exploring new yet specific fields I wouldn't get to in a classroom. Keeping events really takes the enjoyable aspect out of Science Olympiad, and I want to try new things and continue to learn rather than feel as though I'm wasting a year. In addition, this limits the number of events I can study for over the course of high school, and I feel as though I am only participating in SciOly for one year for the two years' worth of time I will be putting into this. It will make it more difficult for new members to "break in" to the team, especially if some schools with coaches that cannot afford to spend as much time on SciOly decide to reuse tryouts. For every student out there that has complained of a proctor reusing an old test to save time, I expect this to occur much more frequently in the 20-21 season. If a competition is underfunded or short of volunteers or a test writer is short on time, the easiest way out would be to use last year's test. Also, I was anticipating the return of my favorite event my senior year, but now I will not be able to do that event, instead spending that time combing over old events yet again. Many others will be missing out on the events they were anticipating. While there are competitors that will want to keep this year's events because they enjoyed them and did not get a chance to compete at higher levels or at all, and I do understand and sympathize with that, I feel that replaying events is holding SciOly back as a whole and limiting the main purpose: learning.

That was a longer post than I expected.

As for builds:
Boomilever was to be replaced by Elevated Bridge/Bridge Building. The reasoning for replaying this year's events next year was for students to "retain and reuse their resources and devices," however bridges and boomis don't tend to be reused for multiple competitions. I'd love to see some event rotation happening in this category of builds... I know a lot of people (except Madcow ) were hyped for bridges.
Gravity Vehicle is already the must luck-based vehicle event I've competed in - at MIT, 3cm off didn't even medal. At this rate, it would simply be a coin toss between 1st and 10th. As a competitor, I really don't like luck being a major part in my event placements. I tend to build a car every year, not building one again would be a shame. Testing Gravity for a 2nd year, using the same car, would be quite boring
I'd love to see Detector rules be modified a bit as well. According to teammates and others, almost everyone is getting perfects on the builds, allowing little differentiation between top teams.
As for wright, hopefully they can change up the dimensions a little.... specs were just a bit too hard this year.

Overall, great events, just some tweaks would make it a lot funner. Small things like Gravity with 3 target points which aren't centered on the track, or tweaks to boomi specs... I'd be excited.

[mooonstone]

It's a tough topic. I know many people on the forum have had the chance to compete in at least one regional/invitational tournament, or maybe even states, but for a number of other teams, like mine, we have yet to compete, even at the regional level. While I agree that next year would probably be a lot less exciting and more competitive if the events/rules remain the same, I also would like at least some opportunity to compete in the events that I've spent all these hours on this past year, and I'm sure other people in the same situation as me would agree as well.

If there was some way they could at least postpone the regional tournament to a later date (maybe even during the summer?) when conditions improve I would be willing to have that and still be able to rotate new events for the 2021 season.

[bromothymol]

Detector definitely needs some big changes to the rules, there is a lot of luck playing into it and as already mentioned, scores are insanely skewed to the right.

[Creationist127]

It's a tough topic. I know many people on the forum have had the chance to compete in at least one regional/invitational tournament, or maybe even states, but for a number of other teams, like mine, we have yet to compete, even at the regional level. While I agree that next year would probably be a lot less exciting and more competitive if the events/rules remain the same, I also would like at least some opportunity to compete in the events that I've spent all these hours on this past year, and I'm sure other people in the same situation as me would agree as well.

If there was some way they could at least postpone the regional tournament to a later date (maybe even during the summer?) when conditions improve I would be willing to have that and still be able to rotate new events for the 2021 season.

I do agree - many teams have had their year's worth of resources wasted. However, they could tweak the rules in order to accommodate both sides - those which want new rules and those which dont.

Tweaks to the rules could be tweaks that affect how you test the vehicle, but not how you compete in it. If rules for Gravity, for example, said that the track had to have 3 target distances which are at different places along the track (9m straight, 1m right, 10m straight, 0.5 left, and 11.5m straight, .75 to the right, for example), you could use the same ramp and car that you built, while having a larger gap between top placements in order to minimize luck in the event.

Or for PPP, they could give a limit on say the psi used, or a limit on the weight of the rocket.

Study events could incorporate an extension of this year's topics. This would allow for this year's resources to be used, but could incorporate a larger variety of topics to ease boringness to those who had enough of this year's rules.

This effectively gives a chance for those who did not compete yet to still use their resources, while allowing those which did compete to add and study more topics.