It's already been discussed in the CMS hangouts for a while now.AstroKing wrote: ↑March 24th, 2020, 1:33 pm 2020 EVENTS ARE OFFICIALLY BEING REPLAYED FOR THE 2021 SCIOLY YEAR!!
https://www.soinc.org/sites/default/fil ... 031820.pdf
SOInc has said that they will "adjust" the rules for various events, though only a couple specific examples are given. I would assume (and hope) that both boom and gravity will be changed enough to merit some device redesign, but nobody can really say for sure.
I feel that there is a need for merit in the changing of your device from last year, since it will give a further objective in the event itself.Creationist127 wrote: ↑March 25th, 2020, 3:50 pmSOInc has said that they will "adjust" the rules for various events, though only a couple specific examples are given. I would assume (and hope) that both boom and gravity will be changed enough to merit some device redesign, but nobody can really say for sure.
The whole point of "replaying" 2020 rules is to allow for less well-funded teams, which were unable to test their devices and use their binders and study materials to use them this year. Adjusting the rules for events like builds not only defeats the purpose of allowing reused builds, but disadvantages teams which have lost coaches and lost funding. Removing, or switching out topics may not be great for these teams, but adding on topics allows both teams which have and have not competed to learn a larger variety of material and allow supervisors to write more challenging tests. This could be in the form of combining freshwater and saltwater topics for water quality, adding a system to anat, or simply adding topics which can be tested to events like road.MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑March 25th, 2020, 4:01 pmI feel that there is a need for merit in the changing of your device from last year, since it will give a further objective in the event itself.Creationist127 wrote: ↑March 25th, 2020, 3:50 pmSOInc has said that they will "adjust" the rules for various events, though only a couple specific examples are given. I would assume (and hope) that both boom and gravity will be changed enough to merit some device redesign, but nobody can really say for sure.
I agree with what you're saying, but aren't your directions the wrong direction - Detector appears to be skewed rightsciolyperson1 wrote: ↑March 25th, 2020, 4:37 pmThe whole point of "replaying" 2020 rules is to allow for less well-funded teams, which were unable to test their devices and use their binders and study materials to use them this year. Adjusting the rules for events like builds not only defeats the purpose of allowing reused builds, but disadvantages teams which have lost coaches and lost funding. Removing, or switching out topics may not be great for these teams, but adding on topics allows both teams which have and have not competed to learn a larger variety of material and allow supervisors to write more challenging tests. This could be in the form of combining freshwater and saltwater topics for water quality, adding a system to anat, or simply adding topics which can be tested to events like road.MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑March 25th, 2020, 4:01 pmI feel that there is a need for merit in the changing of your device from last year, since it will give a further objective in the event itself.Creationist127 wrote: ↑March 25th, 2020, 3:50 pm
SOInc has said that they will "adjust" the rules for various events, though only a couple specific examples are given. I would assume (and hope) that both boom and gravity will be changed enough to merit some device redesign, but nobody can really say for sure.
The forums community here is a large part of participants, but not diverse, as many of the less well off teams aren't active on forums, so opinions expressed by many here, which although seem like the majority, may not be.
Although personally I do wish there would be changes to events, I don't think changing specs on builds would benefit the Science Olympiad community as a whole, which I'm sure people like bear would agree. However, changing a way an event is scored, like weighing the time component of gravity more, or changing changing how the detector build is scored, would be beneficial. Changes like these would need to benefit the scoring distribution for teams, as I'm sure most people would agree with, scores for builds will be too close together next year.
I do hope that they go over score distributions for certain events, however. If you take a look at Princeton Score Distributions:
Boomilever: extremely skewed right. Many teams have scores between 0 and 1000.
Detector: extremely skewed left, primarily due to perfected builds.
Gravity: Extremely, extremely skewed right. Just luck.
PPP: Half of all teams at the invitational got between 5.5 seconds and 11 seconds.
Wright Stuff: skewed right. Most teams struggled to get anything more than 20 seconds.
Ideally, there would be a uniform or normal distribution (which is the case for most study events), but build events' rules need work in order to prevent their placements relying on luck too much.
Skew is the direction the "tail" of the graph points, not the "head"LIPX3 wrote: ↑March 25th, 2020, 7:53 pmI agree with what you're saying, but aren't your directions the wrong direction - Detector appears to be skewed rightsciolyperson1 wrote: ↑March 25th, 2020, 4:37 pmThe whole point of "replaying" 2020 rules is to allow for less well-funded teams, which were unable to test their devices and use their binders and study materials to use them this year. Adjusting the rules for events like builds not only defeats the purpose of allowing reused builds, but disadvantages teams which have lost coaches and lost funding. Removing, or switching out topics may not be great for these teams, but adding on topics allows both teams which have and have not competed to learn a larger variety of material and allow supervisors to write more challenging tests. This could be in the form of combining freshwater and saltwater topics for water quality, adding a system to anat, or simply adding topics which can be tested to events like road.MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑March 25th, 2020, 4:01 pm
I feel that there is a need for merit in the changing of your device from last year, since it will give a further objective in the event itself.
The forums community here is a large part of participants, but not diverse, as many of the less well off teams aren't active on forums, so opinions expressed by many here, which although seem like the majority, may not be.
Although personally I do wish there would be changes to events, I don't think changing specs on builds would benefit the Science Olympiad community as a whole, which I'm sure people like bear would agree. However, changing a way an event is scored, like weighing the time component of gravity more, or changing changing how the detector build is scored, would be beneficial. Changes like these would need to benefit the scoring distribution for teams, as I'm sure most people would agree with, scores for builds will be too close together next year.
I do hope that they go over score distributions for certain events, however. If you take a look at Princeton Score Distributions:
Boomilever: extremely skewed right. Many teams have scores between 0 and 1000.
Detector: extremely skewed left, primarily due to perfected builds.
Gravity: Extremely, extremely skewed right. Just luck.
PPP: Half of all teams at the invitational got between 5.5 seconds and 11 seconds.
Wright Stuff: skewed right. Most teams struggled to get anything more than 20 seconds.
Ideally, there would be a uniform or normal distribution (which is the case for most study events), but build events' rules need work in order to prevent their placements relying on luck too much.
