Scioly.org

BennyTheJett wrote: ↑March 26th, 2020, 7:36 pm ...At the very least, states should look into running trial events that don't count toward team scores more. New events aren't just added, they are trialed out first, and we will get new events faster, and push our knowledge of science further with a broader event list. As it is now, WI NJ and TX do almost all the trials for the events (with exception of a few meets, notably nats), however only really competitive teams compete at nats)....

When I competed, NYS did count events. I competed in Geologic Mapping when it was first made (?), and I will say that the rules were *not good*. Like, I get it was a new event, it's hard to write rules, but it was really frustrating...I really appreciate the chance to have done the event, but sometimes we would kill the event, and other times we would have no clue what was coming. And *everyone* I knew from teams that were competitive or not felt that way. I know you said that the events aren't just added, but I did the event for three whole years, and there were still significant changes needed to get to the current-day iteration. That was the case for most trial events back then iirc...so as far as I'm concerned (very anecdotally), "trialed" trial events still require significant work (and this is sensible imo).

I believe NY also still runs (uncounted) trials? Frankly, I think it's nice to let trials be open to everyone so anyone who is interested in the event can try and give feedback!

syo_astro wrote: ↑March 26th, 2020, 10:55 pm

BennyTheJett wrote: ↑March 26th, 2020, 7:36 pm ...At the very least, states should look into running trial events that don't count toward team scores more. New events aren't just added, they are trialed out first, and we will get new events faster, and push our knowledge of science further with a broader event list. As it is now, WI NJ and TX do almost all the trials for the events (with exception of a few meets, notably nats), however only really competitive teams compete at nats)....

I believe NY also still runs (uncounted) trials? Frankly, I think it's nice to let trials be open to everyone so anyone who is interested in the event can try and give feedback!

Yea, in 2018 and 2019 we ran Science Quiz Bowl, Duct Tape Challenge, and Parasitology, but tbh I think the former two were here mainly for fun purposes and less for the sake of actually testing new rules. Parasitology though did seem like an actual event with an actual list, and we actually had some teammates do it just for the sake of doing it. (although I always tried to do Science Quiz Bowl for the meme haha)

In 2020 they were gonna run Solar Power, Green Generation, and Science Quiz Bowl, two out of three of which seem like legitimate events that probably actually were looking for testing data on. Solar Power was also run as an uncounted trial at SOUP, so yeah. Maybe it's in development?

syo_astro wrote: ↑March 26th, 2020, 10:55 pmWhen I competed, NYS did count events. I competed in Geologic Mapping when it was first made (?), and I will say that the rules were *not good*. Like, I get it was a new event, it's hard to write rules, but it was really frustrating...I really appreciate the chance to have done the event, but sometimes we would kill the event, and other times we would have no clue what was coming. And *everyone* I knew from teams that were competitive or not felt that way. I know you said that the events aren't just added, but I did the event for three whole years, and there were still significant changes needed to get to the current-day iteration.

Yea I've heard this too, particularly from my brother who did Geologic Mapping from 2014 to 2016, and based on looking at some of his ancient tests, things were wild. We present-day Geologic Mappers are all very thankful for the trial years though! It's allowed me to have a positive experience with an awesome event for two years.

MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑March 26th, 2020, 12:46 pm

sciolyperson1 wrote: ↑March 26th, 2020, 11:26 am

MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑March 26th, 2020, 10:35 am Never said they couldn't be, and they're also on the Solon Invitational Forum as well I'm pretty sure.

They did not, and shouldn't be.

Big oof, my bad. I mean I thought they meant only tests wouldn't be publicly put out, not the scores (since it doesn't really make a difference if they're out or not, since most of the invitationals I've been to have put out everything online, but I personally feel that way and not everyone agrees).

Although I doubt you have bad intentions, Ohio tournaments are generally cautious about raw scores because it could violate FERPA laws. This isn't a matter of personal preference that "doesn't really make a difference if they're out or not," but rather something that could land tournaments in a lot of hot water. Again, you probably mean well, but it's advisable to check before you post to know you're not doing something that tournaments don't want.

gz839918 wrote: ↑March 27th, 2020, 9:07 am Although I doubt you have bad intentions, Ohio tournaments are generally cautious about raw scores because it could violate FERPA laws.

And for anyone who wants to play amateur lawyer and argue that releasing SO competition raw scores doesn't violate FERPA, you might be right. You might have a decent argument as to why you're right. But Science Olympiad doesn't have enough money to find out.

knightmoves wrote: ↑March 27th, 2020, 11:29 am

gz839918 wrote: ↑March 27th, 2020, 9:07 am Although I doubt you have bad intentions, Ohio tournaments are generally cautious about raw scores because it could violate FERPA laws.

And for anyone who wants to play amateur lawyer and argue that releasing SO competition raw scores doesn't violate FERPA, you might be right. You might have a decent argument as to why you're right. But Science Olympiad doesn't have enough money to find out.

Due to the ambiguity of the situation I have taken down the raw scores.

MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑March 26th, 2020, 4:16 pm

Tailsfan101 wrote: ↑March 26th, 2020, 4:07 pm

SilverBreeze wrote: ↑March 26th, 2020, 2:07 pm If event rules were completely replayed, it would be interesting, though impractical, to see many trials that would be counted in the team score. It would be a way to separate teams without wasting this season's hard work and materials, and having 7 or so would let each team member pick up a new event. For teams that just want to put this year's effort to use and get a chance to compete, they could compete in official events only. The obvious downside is how infeasible it would be to host so many additional events.

Another downside to having ~7 trials count toward the final score is that many smaller teams, such as my team, would have a very hard time covering every event. We struggle to cover 23 as it is; if we had to cover 30 (or even 25 or 26), we might not have enough people.

I feel that will become especially tricky if you keep the max team member count at 15, and don't allow alternates to compete in these trials.

I would also like to point out that many small teams don't even have 15 members as it is due to a lack of interest, yet can still perform well because the students on the team are devoted to SO. But if the amount of scored events increases, it may become impossible for these teams to perform well no matter how committed the students are. Our team was fortunate to pull together 15 students this season, as recruitment tends to be a struggle. We have had alternates on just one occasion, and it was only two students. So even if the maximum number of students is raised, it still puts many smaller teams at a disadvantage. I would be delighted if more tournaments could host trial events (the only tournaments I've attended with trials are nationals), as it does not force teams to cover more ground.

Tailsfan101 wrote: ↑March 27th, 2020, 2:19 pm

MoMoney$$$;)0) wrote: ↑March 26th, 2020, 4:16 pm

Tailsfan101 wrote: ↑March 26th, 2020, 4:07 pm

Another downside to having ~7 trials count toward the final score is that many smaller teams, such as my team, would have a very hard time covering every event. We struggle to cover 23 as it is; if we had to cover 30 (or even 25 or 26), we might not have enough people.

I feel that will become especially tricky if you keep the max team member count at 15, and don't allow alternates to compete in these trials.

I would also like to point out that many small teams don't even have 15 members as it is due to a lack of interest, yet can still perform well because the students on the team are devoted to SO. But if the amount of scored events increases, it may become impossible for these teams to perform well no matter how committed the students are. Our team was fortunate to pull together 15 students this season, as recruitment tends to be a struggle. We have had alternates on just one occasion, and it was only two students. So even if the maximum number of students is raised, it still puts many smaller teams at a disadvantage. I would be delighted if more tournaments could host trial events (the only tournaments I've attended with trials are nationals), as it does not force teams to cover more ground.

What I'm proposing is that 28 events are scored, and teams can drop the 5 lowest events, resulting in the same number (23) of events counting towards a team score, and allowing teams to pick which events they want scored more.

I only skimmed this, but a few tidbits

1. Trial events are an opportunity for our alternates to compete. By making them count, that would take away what may be their one chance of competing.
2. Unless trial events are standardized (which given they semi are next year), it would be kinda annoying to study a event endlessly, only to be able to compete in it once or twice. If you fully standardize trials, you might as well make them official scioly events and implement a drop x amount of events rule.
3. I'm of the opinion that consistentcy is key for any scioly team. If a more consistent team beats a less consistent team with a bomb or two, the more consistent team deserves the nationals bid. It wouldn't be fair to steal it from them because if you drop x amount of events the other team would win.
4. Scioly is a science competition. But states us also meant to select the best team to represent them at nationals. Therefore the fairest way to do that is to score the same way that nationals does it.

uh sorry if im interrupting or anything but wasnt boomi an event for about 3 yrs? and wasnt elevated bridges an event in 2011 or 2010?

sneepity wrote: ↑March 27th, 2020, 8:09 pm uh sorry if im interrupting or anything but wasnt boomi an event for about 3 yrs? and wasnt elevated bridges an event in 2011 or 2010?

Just for the future, usually it won't be necessary to ask the same question in multiple topics, as there's a high chance it will be seen and answered if posted in just one.