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).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.
Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
- Unome
- Moderator
- Posts: 4342
- Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: GA
- Has thanked: 239 times
- Been thanked: 95 times
Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
- daydreamer0023
- Member
- Posts: 198
- Joined: January 29th, 2015, 5:44 pm
- Division: Grad
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
Knowing another team had a visibly worse build run than you, yet they placed much, much higher point wise.CMS AC wrote:What would be an example of "compelling evidence?"
"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!
Enloe '19 || UNC Chapel Hill '23
See resources I helped create here!
- dxu46
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 809
- Joined: April 11th, 2017, 6:55 pm
- Division: C
- State: MO
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
Doesn't that qualify as "thinking your team did better?"daydreamer0023 wrote:Knowing another team had a visibly worse build run than you, yet they placed much, much higher point wise.CMS AC wrote:What would be an example of "compelling evidence?"
- daydreamer0023
- Member
- Posts: 198
- Joined: January 29th, 2015, 5:44 pm
- Division: Grad
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
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.dxu46 wrote:Doesn't that qualify as "thinking your team did better?"daydreamer0023 wrote:Knowing another team had a visibly worse build run than you, yet they placed much, much higher point wise.CMS AC wrote:What would be an example of "compelling evidence?"
"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!
Enloe '19 || UNC Chapel Hill '23
See resources I helped create here!
-
- Member
- Posts: 271
- Joined: March 12th, 2018, 9:35 am
- Division: C
- State: IN
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 6 times
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
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.daydreamer0023 wrote: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.dxu46 wrote:Doesn't that qualify as "thinking your team did better?"daydreamer0023 wrote:
Knowing another team had a visibly worse build run than you, yet they placed much, much higher point wise.
2018: Battery Buggy, Road Scholar, Roller Coaster
2019: Chem Lab, Code, Disease, Fossils, Geo Maps, Sounds
2020 and 2021: Astro, Chem Lab, Code, Fossils, Geo Maps, Sounds
When you miss nats twice by a combined two points
2019: Chem Lab, Code, Disease, Fossils, Geo Maps, Sounds
2020 and 2021: Astro, Chem Lab, Code, Fossils, Geo Maps, Sounds
When you miss nats twice by a combined two points
- dxu46
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 809
- Joined: April 11th, 2017, 6:55 pm
- Division: C
- State: MO
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
Right, I forgot that most build events are open to the public.hippo9 wrote: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.daydreamer0023 wrote: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.dxu46 wrote: Doesn't that qualify as "thinking your team did better?"
- rfscoach
- Coach
- Posts: 604
- Joined: July 7th, 2008, 4:58 pm
- Division: B
- State: GA
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
In the case if JC Booth in 2013, it was being scored as a No Show in an event they participated in.CMS AC wrote:What would be an example of "compelling evidence?"
I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees. I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
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.
-
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 8th, 2009, 12:23 pm
- Division: C
- State: IL
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Amended Nationals Appeals Policy
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.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.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest