jander14indoor wrote:All they have to do is have a power or control failure and nothing would happen. I saw a lot of those last year at regionals. They still get participation points as a minimum. They may get higher team points that way too. Better than tiered!
I definitely agree, I'm not trying to judge them remotely or anything. In fact, I'm just putting myself in their shoes and feel really bad for them by assuming they put a lot of time and work into the devices without scoring any points.
A few questions not just for Jeff or Ron_Swanson (obviously a great name), but everyone who has participated (either as a judge or competitor) in Robot Arm at a regional competition (also feel free to share this info after your state tournaments). I know they are kind of dense, but they will help us edit things for next year a lot. We'll ask for this feedback again in other formats, so don't be too stressed about answering now. Also feel free to send them as a PM to me if you don't feel comfortable posting it as a public message.
Approximately how many teams participated in the event (in particular, as a percentage of the overall number of teams at the tournament)?
What was the maximum/winning score?
What were the approximate (or exact) median and mean scores?
How many teams had devices that did not score any points? What were the reasons for these teams not scoring points?
Was the documentation generally good or did a lot of it appear to be made on the bus ride that morning? Did many teams simply not have documentation?
In your opinion, is the event too difficult, the correct level of difficulty or too easy?
Based on the overall experience of all the teams at the tournament, is there anything that you would change in the rules? Put another way, are there any glaring issues in the rules that affect a large number of teams?