Replaying Events for 2021

[Unome]

I would be curious what the percentage is of teams who have not yet competed in anything, vs teams that have been competing in invites for months now or already had their regional. If most teams have given this set of rules a run, then I think it should be okay to move on as planned for 2021, but if most teams haven't even put their time to use yet, then that could be a driving force behind them repeating everything.

Very rough estimate I would say about half of teams have competed. But I would really need to look at the numbers to see for sure.

[SPP SciO]

One concern I have that I didn't see discussed already (may have missed it) pertains to the device building policy, which clearly states that builds must be totally constructed by students on the 15-person roster. It seems like it would be feasible for outgoing 9th or 12th graders to complete a build this year, and leave it on the shelf for someone to inherit next year. Hopefully it's as simple as adjusting some of the specs to prevent this from happening.

[moonwax]

I think this has probably already been stated, but I'll say it again: it's not just the 8th and 12th graders that will lose out if the events are recycled. My perspective is most likely different from the norm since I'm from a competitive school (and have already competed in several invitationals), but recycling the events will create a whole extra load of hassle. And I'm not prepared to deal with that, nor am I looking forward to it. Yes, I've spent this whole year studying and frying my brain to prepare for competitions. Yes, it's a bummer that regionals and states are most likely cancelled for me, because I worked so hard and I think I had a decent chance of medalling. But next year? I don't want to have to pour my time into scouring the web and flipping through hundreds of practice tests, all in an attempt to find some kernel of knowledge that'll give me an edge in the competition. I don't want to have to focus primarily on the speed and accuracy of my answers (instead of how much I'm learning) in order to come out on top in the competition. I don't want the entire cycle of events to be shifted, taking events I've been looking forward to out of the picture.

Of course, this all boils down to "I don't want to." This is just my (selfish) opinion as someone who has already competed this season, but I still feel that it needs to be said. Competitions are already scarily intense, and recycling the events will amp that up even more. Everyone (or at least almost everyone) will be impacted this change; and although some will definitely benefit from this decision, I, along with most of my teammates, won't.

[knightmoves]

One concern I have that I didn't see discussed already (may have missed it) pertains to the device building policy, which clearly states that builds must be totally constructed by students on the 15-person roster. It seems like it would be feasible for outgoing 9th or 12th graders to complete a build this year, and leave it on the shelf for someone to inherit next year. Hopefully it's as simple as adjusting some of the specs to prevent this from happening.

That would, of course, be cheating. Just like it's cheating if your varsity team builder helps build multiple copies of the same build, and the JV kids run it, or if your coach builds it, or if the machinist at your local machine shop builds it.

But what about builds which were build by a team composed of a sophomore and a senior (say)? Does the sophomore get to re-use the device next year? General rule 4 reads "All pre-built devices presented for judging must be constructed, impounded, and operated by one or more of the 15 current team members unless stated otherwise in the rules." A device which is partially built by one of the 15 team members and partially built by someone else doesn't quite fit within the letter of this law, but allowing re-use of a build in this case would seem to fit within the spirit of the rules.

I do wonder, actually, how strictly this rule is applied. If Kid A and Kid B work on a build together, and Kid A leaves the team (replaced for bad performance, quits, whatever), by a strict reading of this rule, Kid B and their new partner should start the build again from scratch. But I suspect that doesn't happen.

[knightmoves]

If events are being replayed will most national and state schedules also be replayed?

I would expect so. There might be a small change (I think someone mentioned when Disease Detectives ran at Nationals being dependent on the space that the host site has), but I'd expect to see the same conflict blocks.

[knightmoves]

Note while all the events will stay the same, there will likely be a few tweaks to some of the rules, particularly to address any rules clarification or FAQs that have come up this year.

Hey, chalker

This year's rules clarifications stated that for a number of events, the number of resource sheets that you were allowed to bring in to the event was one per competitor, so if you only had one person on an event, you only get one resource sheet. This seems unreasonably biased against small teams - not only are they disadvantaged by having a single competitor (there's nothing you can do about that - it's what they've got, and the nature of being a small team), but they are artificially disadvantaged by being allowed access to half the resources that the other teams get.

I think this artificial disadvantage is unreasonable, so you guys should change this rule.

[LIPX3]

I know this has been said, but Detector is going to be an absolute joke next year.

[SilverBreeze]

One concern I have that I didn't see discussed already (may have missed it) pertains to the device building policy, which clearly states that builds must be totally constructed by students on the 15-person roster. It seems like it would be feasible for outgoing 9th or 12th graders to complete a build this year, and leave it on the shelf for someone to inherit next year. Hopefully it's as simple as adjusting some of the specs to prevent this from happening.

That would, of course, be cheating. Just like it's cheating if your varsity team builder helps build multiple copies of the same build, and the JV kids run it, or if your coach builds it, or if the machinist at your local machine shop builds it.

But what about builds which were build by a team composed of a sophomore and a senior (say)? Does the sophomore get to re-use the device next year? General rule 4 reads "All pre-built devices presented for judging must be constructed, impounded, and operated by one or more of the 15 current team members unless stated otherwise in the rules." A device which is partially built by one of the 15 team members and partially built by someone else doesn't quite fit within the letter of this law, but allowing re-use of a build in this case would seem to fit within the spirit of the rules.

I do wonder, actually, how strictly this rule is applied. If Kid A and Kid B work on a build together, and Kid A leaves the team (replaced for bad performance, quits, whatever), by a strict reading of this rule, Kid B and their new partner should start the build again from scratch. But I suspect that doesn't happen.

I'm not sure if this is an issue NSO has discussed internally, but this could definitely put some teams at a severe disadvantage. Having graduating builders forces the team to start from scratch while other teams have been near-perfecting their builds. I know one of the reasons for replaying the rules is so teams don't waste their builds, but some builds will be wasted nonetheless, increasing the disparity between teams. Compounded with the advantage older members have over newer ones in repeated study events, 20-21 season is looking to be an extremely frustrating one. I'm starting to question whether I even want to do SciOly next year... then again, it's one of my main extracurriculars and I'd hate to take it out of my schedule, but I'd rather not spend all of next season trying not to pull my hair out.

[Unome]

I know this has been said, but Detector is going to be an absolute joke next year.

I've heard it was already considered very easy back when it was a trial event, do you have any more info?

[maxbajcz]

I'm OK with replaying the events next year, though with a few tweaks:

• Some of the events could be improved and I agree with a number of the ideas that are getting bounced around. Gravity Vehicle, for example, is entirely too easy. This is a problem because toward the end of the season, the difference in technical ability between teams becomes smaller than the effect of chance. The result would be rankings that are less based on the skill of the teams and more based on things like the differences in floor surface, etc.

• I think there is also an opportunity to have some events at tournaments to allow the class of 2020 to return to compete. Results could be tabulated separately - not counting toward team scores, but at least have the opportunity to earn a medal for the place they would have taken. Call them Hindsight 20/20 events or something.

• On a related note to the item above, has anyone considered having competition between event coaches? I would absolutely love that and I feel like it would both encourage teams to think outside the box a little more and it would foster some additional camaraderie between teams.

Overall, it makes sense to recycle at least the building events at least to the extent that materials are conserved. It would be good, though, to add some additional challenges or there will be very little differentiation between the top teams that have likely already perfected their devices.