Replaying Events for 2021

[bxt72]

I really hope that even if they keep the same events, they at least tweak the rules for dimension-critical events like Wright Stuff and ELG, otherwise people are just going to reuse old devices (which the dimension changes are supposed to prevent). WS rules are also kind of messed up in terms of dimension proportion so I hope they change those. Also, what is going to happen to topic-specific events (like how A/P and Water Quality rotate around topics each year)?

[EwwPhysics]

I really hope that even if they keep the same events, they at least tweak the rules for dimension-critical events like Wright Stuff and ELG, otherwise people are just going to reuse old devices (which the dimension changes are supposed to prevent). WS rules are also kind of messed up in terms of dimension proportion so I hope they change those. Also, what is going to happen to topic-specific events (like how A/P and Water Quality rotate around topics each year)?

I believe that they would keep the same topics as this year.

[Rossyspsce]

I feel sorry for the people who did not get the chance to compete at regionals and states, but I feel like retaining the same rules will mess up some team's composition because teams are always planning for the incoming years. No one would expect the rules to continue. This also will mean that the new events this year are the events sophomores now have to strive for, but the issue is that this year's new events are for the juniors so they could have their last two years on the team focused on this new event. Now you have sophomores being confused to pick up these new events when the juniors are already set for these events since they have already had the experience. Other big issues are the build events capping to their maximum capacity very quickly without any rules change (especially boomilever and gravity vehicle). These are just my main concerns with the rules not changing next year.

i mean if you think ab it, keeping the same rules is kinda like a new rule in itself, while many people are unhappy ab the rule changes, rather lack of, and want to voice their opinions, i think it would be best for all of us to take a step back and consider the situation from the perspective of the TOs

[OpticsNerd]

I really hope that even if they keep the same events, they at least tweak the rules for dimension-critical events like Wright Stuff and ELG, otherwise people are just going to reuse old devices (which the dimension changes are supposed to prevent). WS rules are also kind of messed up in terms of dimension proportion so I hope they change those. Also, what is going to happen to topic-specific events (like how A/P and Water Quality rotate around topics each year)?

Well said.

If they don't change the rules for certain build events in some states there will be so many teams by the end of the summer with devices so good that it will end up being luck that determines the winner.

As a compromise they could keep the same build events but change the dimensions while keeping the general idea close to the same. For example, maybe in WS they could keep the 2 directions bonus but change the dimensions.

[knightmoves]

I really hope that even if they keep the same events, they at least tweak the rules for dimension-critical events like Wright Stuff and ELG, otherwise people are just going to reuse old devices (which the dimension changes are supposed to prevent). WS rules are also kind of messed up in terms of dimension proportion so I hope they change those. Also, what is going to happen to topic-specific events (like how A/P and Water Quality rotate around topics each year)?

The stated intent was that people could reuse their stuff (builds, resources, etc.) which implies no rule change beyond clarification of language etc. If you change the rules, you can't do that, so you may as well go on with the normal event rotation.

Unless you want to argue that SOSI is going to be cancelled because of COVID-19, so it's safer to run this year's events with rule tweaks than bringing in new events without sending them through SOSI first.

[feng]

Since only ~25% of the events are actually rotating out, it would make sense to just go on with the normal event rotation. For events like A&P that currently have annual rotations, it would be fairer for new team members in that all students would start at the same point. In addition, for all the build events, it is only fair to change the required dimensions and perhaps some parts of the rules. The normal event rotation could accomplish the same, if it were continued.

The whole spirit of Science Olympiad is to encourage learning in all areas of STEM. When a season is lost due to unfortunate events like the current situation, I would hope that we can continue with our studies, even without the actual competition. There is some discussion about having postponed or unofficial virtual competitions; I feel that this is what we should do. All the hard work we have put in throughout the season would not go to waste, and we would continue carrying out the spirit of Scioly. This year's event rules have not been lost as they have already (at least partially) served their purpose of promoting science learning. This is my perspective as an event coach and as an educator.

No solution is perfect, but continuing with the event rotation can only encourage more learning and introduce new areas to be explored. I truly hope the decision of replaying this year's rules can be reconsidered, allowing normal event rotations to continue next year.

[builderguy135]

With 2020 events coming back for 2021, how will the forums be rolled over for 2021? Will 2020 posts be kept?

[Jdh3]

I recognize Science Olympiad is not a democracy but it would make sense to me to have each State Director send an email (or survey monkey) to every coach in their state asking if they want new events or repeat events. The results could then be tallied and the true sentiment of the competitors recognized. If we can do it with hundreds of millions of votes, we can do it with a small number of schools (no State has more than 800).
I also realize this would mean a possible shift for the Rules writers but most of the rules were well along anyway.
Thanks

This would imply state directors dont have a horse in the race. As both a previous competitor (2014-2017) and tournament director (2017-2020), I have some understanding of both sides here. Many state tournament directors (myself included) have ordered thousands of dollars worth of materials and spent many hours chasing down supervisors for exams. If the events were to be repeated for next year, all of that money and hard work wouldn't have to be thrown away and my efforts not in vain. Of course, as an alumni from a competitive school, I also totally relate to not wanting the event slate to be repeated. However, you have to remember that nearly all of the state directors are not alumni and never competed. They are educators with small budgets and limited resources.

Yes, resources will be wasted but the entire point of Science Olympiad is learning.
The question is what is the more important priority: Adding different learning opportunities for the students or saving resources and making it easier for the tournament directors?
Personally, I would, without hesitation, put the students ahead of inconvenience for the event supervisors and directors.
Thanks

[Jdh3]

One other interesting point is the registration fees paid by the teams. My assumption is the State and National competitions were canceled early enough that they could refunds for facilities and hotels.
If a state did not have any regional or state competition and since Natls was cancelled, what benefit did the school get for the payment of the fees? Will they get some sort of credit for next year?

[SilverBreeze]

I recognize Science Olympiad is not a democracy but it would make sense to me to have each State Director send an email (or survey monkey) to every coach in their state asking if they want new events or repeat events. The results could then be tallied and the true sentiment of the competitors recognized. If we can do it with hundreds of millions of votes, we can do it with a small number of schools (no State has more than 800).
I also realize this would mean a possible shift for the Rules writers but most of the rules were well along anyway.
Thanks

This would imply state directors dont have a horse in the race. As both a previous competitor (2014-2017) and tournament director (2017-2020), I have some understanding of both sides here. Many state tournament directors (myself included) have ordered thousands of dollars worth of materials and spent many hours chasing down supervisors for exams. If the events were to be repeated for next year, all of that money and hard work wouldn't have to be thrown away and my efforts not in vain. Of course, as an alumni from a competitive school, I also totally relate to not wanting the event slate to be repeated. However, you have to remember that nearly all of the state directors are not alumni and never competed. They are educators with small budgets and limited resources.

Yes, resources will be wasted but the entire point of Science Olympiad is learning.
The question is what is the more important priority: Adding different learning opportunities for the students or saving resources and making it easier for the tournament directors?
Personally, I would, without hesitation, put the students ahead of inconvenience for the event supervisors and directors.
Thanks

I hope the resources can be saved until the events rotate back... that being said, I don't know what portion of volunteers are college students, and they will eventually graduate just as we will... I believe general consensus is replaying rules is disliked, but a non-negligible portion of students and tournament directors do want events to be repeated. Any ideas on how to push ideas from either side to NSO? Even if they probably won't listen, I'd like to try anyway...