Replaying Events for 2021

For anything Science Olympiad-related that might not fall under a specific event or competition.
User avatar
pepperonipi
Wiki Moderator
Wiki Moderator
Posts: 158
Joined: January 21st, 2019, 11:38 am
Division: C
State: FL
Location: adding wiki templates lol
Has thanked: 106 times
Been thanked: 130 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by pepperonipi » March 12th, 2020, 2:34 pm

Unome wrote:
March 12th, 2020, 1:48 pm
LIPX3 wrote:
March 12th, 2020, 12:05 pm
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?
Sure. These are my issues with the event.

Like Umaroth said somewhere earlier, luck is a huge factor with the devices because most of the top teams are able to build accurate temperature sensors. However, a lot of variation can come with factors, such as where you place the probe end in the water or timing. In hot water (such as say, 70C), I have found that moving the probe from the bottom of a cup to the top can result in a change of about 1-2 degrees - which is a pretty significant margin. Also, note that time can definitely factor in to the situation - for example, your device may be 0.1-0.0 degrees off 95% of the time, but then the weird probe that the tournament is using lags behind for a second and suddenly luck has made the difference between the probe and your device 0.2, while other teams didn't experience this. I understand that the devices at nats are all supposed to be pretty good, but like this is ridiculous - I mean, it's just luck between the top teams at this point.

The design log is basically free points, if you do it. Most supervisors just scan over the info, and the design log doesn't even make sense in a variety of ways. For example, what's the point of showing your equation on a physical graph when you may just change it during the calibration period anyways?

The LEDs are obviously easy to get as well - this basically just comes down to simple wiring and coding skills. Literally something along the lines of " if (T > 20) { redLED(true); greenLED(true); blueLED(false); } ..."

The parameters for the test are four bullet points in the rules. I don't have a huge problem with this, but considering that in many cases this has been what has broken some teams apart (such as Princeton), it would be nice to see some more expansion in this section.

Also, this event really needs some clarification on what is allowed and what isn't allowed. This caused a lot of confusion and FAQ's this year, and caused a lot of frustration when a competitor was told that the piece they were using was no longer allowed. Just my two cents.
These users thanked the author pepperonipi for the post (total 5):
Unome (March 12th, 2020, 3:04 pm) • MacintoshJosh (March 12th, 2020, 3:56 pm) • sciolyperson1 (March 12th, 2020, 4:40 pm) • EastStroudsburg13 (March 13th, 2020, 4:00 am) • ZanaBanana (March 13th, 2020, 2:39 pm)
i eat a lot of pizza!!
no seriously help me

Boca Raton Community High School
My Wiki Page | School Wiki Page | WikiProject Tournaments of States | Pi-Bot

2019: Code, Fermi, Thermo
2019 Trials: WTF (MIT), Detector (Nationals)
2020: Detector, Orni, Code (Substitution: Penn)
2020 Trials: Data Sci (Princeton)

pb5754
Member
Member
Posts: 463
Joined: March 5th, 2017, 7:49 pm
Division: C
State: NJ
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 29 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by pb5754 » March 12th, 2020, 2:36 pm

chalker wrote:
March 11th, 2020, 5:51 pm
Another point that hasn't been raised is the running of trial events. It's very likely that many tournaments next year will end up running events that were scheduled for the 20-21 season as trial events. That will be an opportunity for competitors to participate in new things or events they might have been looking forward to.
tbh I think it may be better to instead run 2019-2020 events as trials and just switch to the originally scheduled events for 2020-2021.
These users thanked the author pb5754 for the post (total 2):
svph300 (March 12th, 2020, 6:55 pm) • gz839918 (March 13th, 2020, 8:38 am)
West Windsor-Plainsboro High School South '21

User avatar
SilverBreeze
Member
Member
Posts: 213
Joined: November 28th, 2019, 3:42 pm
Division: C
State: CA
Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
Location: Pretend hugging Umaroth because social distancing
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 80 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by SilverBreeze » March 12th, 2020, 2:47 pm

pepperonipi wrote:
March 12th, 2020, 2:34 pm
Unome wrote:
March 12th, 2020, 1:48 pm
LIPX3 wrote:
March 12th, 2020, 12:05 pm
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?
Sure. These are my issues with the event.

Like Umaroth said somewhere earlier, luck is a huge factor with the devices because most of the top teams are able to build accurate temperature sensors. However, a lot of variation can come with factors, such as where you place the probe end in the water or timing. In hot water (such as say, 70C), I have found that moving the probe from the bottom of a cup to the top can result in a change of about 1-2 degrees - which is a pretty significant margin. Also, note that time can definitely factor in to the situation - for example, your device may be 0.1-0.0 degrees off 95% of the time, but then the weird probe that the tournament is using lags behind for a second and suddenly luck has made the difference between the probe and your device 0.2, while other teams didn't experience this. I understand that the devices at nats are all supposed to be pretty good, but like this is ridiculous - I mean, it's just luck between the top teams at this point.

The design log is basically free points, if you do it. Most supervisors just scan over the info, and the design log doesn't even make sense in a variety of ways. For example, what's the point of showing your equation on a physical graph when you may just change it during the calibration period anyways?

The LEDs are obviously easy to get as well - this basically just comes down to simple wiring and coding skills. Literally something along the lines of " if (T > 20) { redLED(true); greenLED(true); blueLED(false); } ..."

The parameters for the test are four bullet points in the rules. I don't have a huge problem with this, but considering that in many cases this has been what has broken some teams apart (such as Princeton), it would be nice to see some more expansion in this section.

Also, this event really needs some clarification on what is allowed and what isn't allowed. This caused a lot of confusion and FAQ's this year, and caused a lot of frustration when a competitor was told that the piece they were using was no longer allowed. Just my two cents.
People have had to rebuild after an FAQ came out, and there was a close call with the regression thing at Solon invite... I hope Detector rules are fixed next year.

Maybe the Bird List could be fixed as well? The no-annotations rule means spelling mistakes on scientific names can't be corrected, so you just kind of have to remember it, and some of the scientific names don't match the given common name... also, only some species have scientific names...
Troy SciOly 2019 - now
Suzanne SciOly 2016 - 2019
Please don’t replay rules next year.
Events this season: Water Quality, Forensics, Ornithology, (some experience in DP)

LIPX3
Member
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: January 10th, 2016, 8:41 am
Division: C
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by LIPX3 » March 12th, 2020, 3:38 pm

pepperonipi wrote:
March 12th, 2020, 2:34 pm
Unome wrote:
March 12th, 2020, 1:48 pm
LIPX3 wrote:
March 12th, 2020, 12:05 pm
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?
Sure. These are my issues with the event.

Like Umaroth said somewhere earlier, luck is a huge factor with the devices because most of the top teams are able to build accurate temperature sensors. However, a lot of variation can come with factors, such as where you place the probe end in the water or timing. In hot water (such as say, 70C), I have found that moving the probe from the bottom of a cup to the top can result in a change of about 1-2 degrees - which is a pretty significant margin. Also, note that time can definitely factor in to the situation - for example, your device may be 0.1-0.0 degrees off 95% of the time, but then the weird probe that the tournament is using lags behind for a second and suddenly luck has made the difference between the probe and your device 0.2, while other teams didn't experience this. I understand that the devices at nats are all supposed to be pretty good, but like this is ridiculous - I mean, it's just luck between the top teams at this point.

The design log is basically free points, if you do it. Most supervisors just scan over the info, and the design log doesn't even make sense in a variety of ways. For example, what's the point of showing your equation on a physical graph when you may just change it during the calibration period anyways?

The LEDs are obviously easy to get as well - this basically just comes down to simple wiring and coding skills. Literally something along the lines of " if (T > 20) { redLED(true); greenLED(true); blueLED(false); } ..."

The parameters for the test are four bullet points in the rules. I don't have a huge problem with this, but considering that in many cases this has been what has broken some teams apart (such as Princeton), it would be nice to see some more expansion in this section.

Also, this event really needs some clarification on what is allowed and what isn't allowed. This caused a lot of confusion and FAQ's this year, and caused a lot of frustration when a competitor was told that the piece they were using was no longer allowed. Just my two cents.
That's about what I was going to say. Everyone who knows what they're doing is close in score that who does well just comes down to luck. I might make a video about how to build a competitive device to attempt to force Science Olympiad into making the rules less simple.
These users thanked the author LIPX3 for the post:
Unome (March 12th, 2020, 4:10 pm)

BadDai
Member
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: April 8th, 2019, 11:07 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by BadDai » March 12th, 2020, 3:54 pm

Would it still be possible for the Science Olympiad committee be able to change the events back into what they were supposed to be for next year.

User avatar
BennyTheJett
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 275
Joined: February 21st, 2019, 2:05 pm
Division: C
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by BennyTheJett » March 12th, 2020, 3:58 pm

BadDai wrote:
March 12th, 2020, 3:54 pm
Would it still be possible for the Science Olympiad committee be able to change the events back into what they were supposed to be for next year.
Anything's always possible, but science olympiad is known to have its mind made up by the time it posts anything that important, so it'd be quite unusual for them to go back on it. I have my fingers crossed, however!
2021 Events:
Astronomy, Dynamic Planet, Fossils, Geologic Mapping, Water Quality, Possibly Geocaching.

President and Founder (also the only member atm) of the Pibot Domination Corps

Jdh3
Member
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: December 4th, 2018, 3:11 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by Jdh3 » March 12th, 2020, 4:06 pm

I recognize Science Olympiad is not a democracy but it would make sense to me to have each State Director send an email (or survey monkey) to every coach in their state asking if they want new events or repeat events. The results could then be tallied and the true sentiment of the competitors recognized. If we can do it with hundreds of millions of votes, we can do it with a small number of schools (no State has more than 800).
I also realize this would mean a possible shift for the Rules writers but most of the rules were well along anyway.
Thanks
These users thanked the author Jdh3 for the post (total 2):
vehicleguy (March 12th, 2020, 5:58 pm) • gz839918 (March 13th, 2020, 8:39 am)

User avatar
JoeyC
Member
Member
Posts: 300
Joined: November 7th, 2017, 1:43 pm
Division: C
State: TX
Has thanked: 498 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by JoeyC » March 12th, 2020, 5:02 pm

Jdh3 wrote:
March 12th, 2020, 4:06 pm
I recognize Science Olympiad is not a democracy but it would make sense to me to have each State Director send an email (or survey monkey) to every coach in their state asking if they want new events or repeat events. The results could then be tallied and the true sentiment of the competitors recognized. If we can do it with hundreds of millions of votes, we can do it with a small number of schools (no State has more than 800).
I also realize this would mean a possible shift for the Rules writers but most of the rules were well along anyway.
Thanks
I think most of the people on the forums support you on this. Unfortunately, SOInc is somewhat clear that they don't really care about these type of things.
I mean just like at the bid situation....
Ohayo!
Dynamic Planet, Protein Modeling, Fast Facts, Thermodynamics
Dynamic Planet, Machines, Ornith
John 14:15
Scientia Potentia Est
Has Gotten Coronavirus: No

In memory of Ravi Zacharias, a friend of Christ.

User avatar
BennyTheJett
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 275
Joined: February 21st, 2019, 2:05 pm
Division: C
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by BennyTheJett » March 12th, 2020, 5:12 pm

JoeyC wrote:
March 12th, 2020, 5:02 pm
Jdh3 wrote:
March 12th, 2020, 4:06 pm
I recognize Science Olympiad is not a democracy but it would make sense to me to have each State Director send an email (or survey monkey) to every coach in their state asking if they want new events or repeat events. The results could then be tallied and the true sentiment of the competitors recognized. If we can do it with hundreds of millions of votes, we can do it with a small number of schools (no State has more than 800).
I also realize this would mean a possible shift for the Rules writers but most of the rules were well along anyway.
Thanks
I think most of the people on the forums support you on this. Unfortunately, SOInc is somewhat clear that they don't really care about these type of things.
I mean just like at the bid situation....
What specifically do you mean about the bid situation? For the most part, SOinc does a pretty good job with bids I think. I know Texas disagrees a little bit for reasons I won't go into, but that's the way some things work. The system isn't as flawed there as it is with repeating the events.
2021 Events:
Astronomy, Dynamic Planet, Fossils, Geologic Mapping, Water Quality, Possibly Geocaching.

President and Founder (also the only member atm) of the Pibot Domination Corps

User avatar
JoeyC
Member
Member
Posts: 300
Joined: November 7th, 2017, 1:43 pm
Division: C
State: TX
Has thanked: 498 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Replaying Events for 2021

Post by JoeyC » March 12th, 2020, 5:20 pm

Yeah... but there's a lot that could be done in quite a few states about bids that wouldn't be too hard. However, SOinc doesn't really care.
To put it in different terms, it feels like Nintendo; it does good with its stuff, but doesn't support its users.
These users thanked the author JoeyC for the post:
SilverBreeze (March 12th, 2020, 7:13 pm)
Ohayo!
Dynamic Planet, Protein Modeling, Fast Facts, Thermodynamics
Dynamic Planet, Machines, Ornith
John 14:15
Scientia Potentia Est
Has Gotten Coronavirus: No

In memory of Ravi Zacharias, a friend of Christ.

Post Reply

Return to “General Competition”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest