Mission Possible C

[Tesel]

Does anyone know the Nationals target time?

[PM2017]

Does anyone know the Nationals target time?

I've heard that it was 98 seconds, but I think that this is probably useless to you at this point.

[Tesel]

Does anyone know the Nationals target time?

I've heard that it was 98 seconds, but I think that this is probably useless to you at this point.

Actually that helps, I'm nowhere near nats, I just want to compare scores with the right target time.

[ScottMaurer19]

So for all those that are wondering (if there are any) here is what happened to my mission at nats:

To start with, here are my dimensions, tasks, timer, etc. My device was 14.5x16x20.5cm, had all the tasks, and I was running a 2 min 35 second chemical plus or minus 5 seconds using alkaseltzer and water that inflated the balloon for my balloon action. When testing my device before nationals, my timer ran 45 seconds fast, prompting me to recalibrate to 2 min 15 sec to play on the safe side.

So fast forward to competition...
I'm running my device, my balloon is inflating, and the balloon folds. For the first time ever, the balloon had folded over in the tube giving it 0% chance of completing the task (please note that I had done literally 100s of tests without any failure and without any incidence of the balloon folding). So I had, of course, come up with a plan to just lose my balloon action and timer and dropping me out of placing but preventing me from bombing. So I bring my hand up and ask the volunteer (who had been ES at previous invitationals, gave me a hard time at said invitationals, and treated me as if I had no idea what I was doing in my event) judging my device if I can use a touch to skip the action and because the balloon had folded and would be unable to finish the action. Now, anyone who's ever competed in mission would have expected to been allowed to use the touch and that my asking was simply courtesy and so as to not surpise the ES.

Instead I was told no. Multiple times. The reasoning? Because the balloon was still inflating and moving and therefore per rule 4h I wasn't allowed to touch because the balloon hadn't stopped or jammed and because it hadn't failed because it was still inflating and the chemical reaction was still running. That is absolutely not how the event is supposed to be run. So instead of being allowed to carry out my backup plan and save the rest of my run, I was denied my fair oppurtunity to run a device I had spent countless hours upon and had been winning all season.

Needless to say an arbitration was filed (thank you to my head coach and mother Cherese Fiorina and assistant coach/brother NicholasMaurer--who demanded that I call him out by name so he can take credit) and we won the appeal; I was to be permitted a complete rerun (one of the few ever to happen) with my balloon timer not counting for chemical timer points, my balloon action not scoring the 50 points, and a touch penalty. My device functioned exactly as intended although scoring substantially less than I was hoping and as far as I knew at the time ruining my chances of placing.

Rumor has it that Patrick Chalker expanded the rule 4h from simply stop to stop, jam, or fail for exactly that reason.

So, to sum it up, my device beat the odds having the timer fail for the first time and a successful arbitration that allowed the rerun of a device. It underperformed which was upsetting enough considering I was aiming for the top three and then they refused to let me save any reasonable placement I would have been able to get with said performance. This was the single worst application of the rules I have have ever heard of in mission that came, at least in my opinion, from an arrogant volunteer who assumes a huge sense superiority and intelligence over any competitor that they judge.


Note to the volunteer: just because your team has done well in mission at nationals in the past does not give you the right to tell me how to build my device for states and nats. Just because my "device looks like it could of performed really well" and you "don't want to do this" doesn't give you the right to misapply the rules and deny me the right to take a penalty in order to save my device. And FYI, a halogen creates light by HEATING up a filament and therefore you should not ask me to remove it from my device to prove that it actually generates enough heat that you or a thermometer could measure. I think my shocking sixth place finish despite an unexpected failed action and your miscoring and poor handling of the situation (there were many ways the situation could've been handled better even with your view of the rules) is amazing. This rant was not to be rude but should be seen as a wakeup call in how you run the even in the future and how you treat and view the competitors who are at your mercy for receiving the due credit from their hard work.

Please ignore any spelling/grammatical errors as I am exhausted and sick (like half my team )

I heard that other people may have issues with the same volunteer if they would like to share. And again, this post is not to be rude in anyway shape or form even if some of the things stated were emotionally bias. They are simply my views of the competion.

[Unome]

omitted for brevity

Speaking from my newfound Div D status, this is a really interesting case study of how to handle an appeal on the tournament side.

[ScottMaurer19]

omitted for brevity

Speaking from my newfound Div D status, this is a really interesting case study of how to handle an appeal on the tournament side.

If people are interested, I can go more in depth into how we appealed and what arguments/thought process was but I figured I'd leave out the gory details.

[Unome]

omitted for brevity

Speaking from my newfound Div D status, this is a really interesting case study of how to handle an appeal on the tournament side.

If people are interested, I can go more in depth into how we appealed and what arguments/thought process was but I figured I'd leave out the gory details.

*raises hand*

[ScottMaurer19]

Speaking from my newfound Div D status, this is a really interesting case study of how to handle an appeal on the tournament side.

If people are interested, I can go more in depth into how we appealed and what arguments/thought process was but I figured I'd leave out the gory details.

*raises hand*

Maybe tomorrow

[nicholasmaurer]

Speaking from my newfound Div D status, this is a really interesting case study of how to handle an appeal on the tournament side.

If people are interested, I can go more in depth into how we appealed and what arguments/thought process was but I figured I'd leave out the gory details.

*raises hand*

The core of the argument was that the competitors knew from the folding of the balloon that it could not successfully trigger the next action even given infinite time. Therefore, the action had failed, triggering 4.h. Furthermore, we argued that preventing a competitor from touching their device violated the intent of 4.h. and created an excessive penalty in violation of general rule 5. After all, 4.h. is silent on who declares an action to have stopped/jammed/failed and presumably competitors are better able to make an informed decision than supervisors.

Because the supervisor had not noted when the request to touch the device occurred, nor had they allowed the remainder of the tasks to be triggered, the only viable remediation was a complete rerun.

[MIScioly1]

There’s nothing more infuriating in Science Olympiad than having a crazy-good device underperform at competition. I’ve watched it happen to my team before and it totally sucks. Glad you at least still got a medal for it