Amended Nationals Appeals Policy

User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4253
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Location: somewhere in the sciolyverse
Has thanked: 88 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Amended Nationals Appeals Policy

Post by Unome » April 23rd, 2018, 4:26 pm

soinc.org wrote:At the end of the Science Olympiad National Tournament Awards Ceremony each team’s head coach will be provided one copy of the final scores. Within one hour after the ceremony is completed the head coach may submit compelling evidence of a scoring inconsistency using this Team Ranking Inquiry Form (will be a live link at the 2018 National Tournament). If the evidence is verified, the appropriate points, medals and trophies will be awarded for that team only. Thinking that your team "did better" than scores reflect is not considered compelling evidence. Teams will not be asked to return awards or to relinquish any points. Scores for the Science Olympiad National Tournament are not official until they are posted on the soinc.org website. For more information about Science Olympiad Scoring, please visit our Policies section.
The obvious question is of course "what prompted this?", and the answer likely has to do with the second-to-last and last bolded sections. The relinquishing of points part looks unusual at first glance but appears to be consistent with past scoring corrections (e.g. 2013 with Booth and 2014 with SAA).
Userpage
Chattahoochee High School Class of 2018
Georgia Tech Class of 2022

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.

CMS AC
Member
Member
Posts: 151
Joined: January 10th, 2017, 3:54 pm
Division: B
State: NJ
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy

Post by CMS AC » April 23rd, 2018, 5:57 pm

What would be an example of "compelling evidence?"

User avatar
daydreamer0023
Member
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: January 29th, 2015, 5:44 pm
Division: Grad
Location: I have no idea where I am, but I can tell you exactly how fast I'm going ;)
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 0

Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy

Post by daydreamer0023 » April 23rd, 2018, 6:00 pm

CMS AC wrote:What would be an example of "compelling evidence?"
Knowing another team had a visibly worse build run than you, yet they placed much, much higher point wise.
"I am among those who think that science has great beauty. A scientist in his laboratory is not only a technician: he is also a child placed before natural phenomena which impress him like a fairy tale." - Marie Curie

Enloe '19 || UNC Chapel Hill '23

See resources I helped create here!

User avatar
dxu46
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 798
Joined: April 11th, 2017, 6:55 pm
Division: C
State: MO
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy

Post by dxu46 » April 23rd, 2018, 6:09 pm

daydreamer0023 wrote:
CMS AC wrote:What would be an example of "compelling evidence?"
Knowing another team had a visibly worse build run than you, yet they placed much, much higher point wise.
Doesn't that qualify as "thinking your team did better?"

User avatar
daydreamer0023
Member
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: January 29th, 2015, 5:44 pm
Division: Grad
Location: I have no idea where I am, but I can tell you exactly how fast I'm going ;)
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 0

Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy

Post by daydreamer0023 » April 23rd, 2018, 6:30 pm

dxu46 wrote:
daydreamer0023 wrote:
CMS AC wrote:What would be an example of "compelling evidence?"
Knowing another team had a visibly worse build run than you, yet they placed much, much higher point wise.
Doesn't that qualify as "thinking your team did better?"
Not necessarily. For example, if you see your Helicopter get 2 min in the air and know you got all the bonuses...then saw someone's Heli get 14 seconds with no bonuses (which you can notice fairly easily based on watching their run)...and they get 10 places higher then you...that is grounds for argument.
"I am among those who think that science has great beauty. A scientist in his laboratory is not only a technician: he is also a child placed before natural phenomena which impress him like a fairy tale." - Marie Curie

Enloe '19 || UNC Chapel Hill '23

See resources I helped create here!

hippo9
Member
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: March 12th, 2018, 9:35 am
Division: C
State: IN
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 0

Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy

Post by hippo9 » April 23rd, 2018, 6:31 pm

daydreamer0023 wrote:
dxu46 wrote:
daydreamer0023 wrote:
Knowing another team had a visibly worse build run than you, yet they placed much, much higher point wise.
Doesn't that qualify as "thinking your team did better?"
Not necessarily. For example, if you see your Helicopter get 2 min in the air and know you got all the bonuses...then saw someone's Heli get 14 seconds with no bonuses (which you can notice fairly easily based on watching their run)...and they get 10 places higher then you...that is grounds for argument.
Also, it could be something like you could tell a team got tiered just by visibly looking at their device, but they still somehow beat you.
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research." - Albert Einstein

2018: Battery Buggy, Road Scholar, Roller Coaster
2019: Chem Lab, Code, Disease, Fossils, Geo Maps, Sounds
2020: Astro, Chem Lab, Code, Fossils, Geo Maps, Sounds

User avatar
dxu46
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 798
Joined: April 11th, 2017, 6:55 pm
Division: C
State: MO
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy

Post by dxu46 » April 23rd, 2018, 6:34 pm

hippo9 wrote:
daydreamer0023 wrote:
dxu46 wrote: Doesn't that qualify as "thinking your team did better?"
Not necessarily. For example, if you see your Helicopter get 2 min in the air and know you got all the bonuses...then saw someone's Heli get 14 seconds with no bonuses (which you can notice fairly easily based on watching their run)...and they get 10 places higher then you...that is grounds for argument.
Also, it could be something like you could tell a team got tiered just by visibly looking at their device, but they still somehow beat you.
Right, I forgot that most build events are open to the public.

User avatar
rfscoach
Coach
Coach
Posts: 593
Joined: July 7th, 2008, 4:58 pm
Division: B
State: GA
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy

Post by rfscoach » April 23rd, 2018, 6:43 pm

CMS AC wrote:What would be an example of "compelling evidence?"
In the case if JC Booth in 2013, it was being scored as a No Show in an event they participated in.
I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees. I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.

SciNerd42
Member
Member
Posts: 81
Joined: March 15th, 2017, 6:14 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy

Post by SciNerd42 » April 23rd, 2018, 8:22 pm

The problem (that has no solution), is that teams can tell if a mistake was made with building events (you knew you had a higher time, score, but were ranked lower) but with academic events, you have no evidence, and you just have to assume everyone was scored right.

Skink
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 947
Joined: February 8th, 2009, 12:23 pm
Division: C
State: IL
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy

Post by Skink » April 23rd, 2018, 8:27 pm

SciNerd42 wrote:The problem (that has no solution), is that teams can tell if a mistake was made with building events (you knew you had a higher time, score, but were ranked lower) but with academic events, you have no evidence, and you just have to assume everyone was scored right.
Yeah. And, this is a feature, not a bug. There's a beast of a slippery slope the moment they open up any subjectively scored events to prying eyes.

Locked

Return to “2018 Nationals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest