<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Hi All,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The scoring formula thread brings in
two camps of thoughts (from my reading) that each should be addressed.
Troy, Earl, and Eric have touched on the method or "process"
that should go into scoring and tear sheets for FAI. Troy had some
great, valid points about the tear sheets in which I agree would lead to
a more honest judging result, and create the "transparent" view
of the contest to the contestants. Besides process or following FAI
rules, the other issue several people have tried to delicately step around
is the topic that if one brings up, is typically attacked as having "sour-grapes"
or upset in other ways at the outcome. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">So lets bring up the big question and
debate as free-thinking adults: How do we ensure that the flight
in question (any class) is being judged purely on the technical quality
of the flight compared against the known set of downgrades? If the
flight in question is judged with integrity and without prejudice, it is
quickly recognizable as a less than perfect event. The judging committee
has gone a long way to create information sets and education regarding
the rules and technical guide lines for the patterns and the individual
maneuvers. In the class though, we then typically say something like,
" .... but you have to remember that judges are human." While
this catch all statement is used (in the class room setting) to present
a case as for why there may be minor differences in scoring (judge-to-judge),
we may not be giving the "human" factor the priority of education
it deserves as compared to the affect this same "human" factor
has on the outcome of the event. How do we ensure that each flight
is being scored on its quality and merits, without regard to any additional
factors? How do we ensure that any institutional or historical bias
does not turn one fliers "7" into an "8", and another's
"7" into a "6"? We have taken the "technical"
education pretty far - but how can human behavior be changed?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Ideally, the judges should not even
"know" who is flying which is to say again, that the score is
not based on the flyer, but the quality of the flight. For example:
Should the pilots all fly the same plane, with the same color scheme,
with the judges shielded from view of the identity of the pilot? I
doubt this would go over well for many reasons however - one reason is
that recognition for past performance is a key factor in today's or future
results. Thus, each pilot with excellent or poor prior results is
at advantage or disadvantage to have the judges to know that it is indeed,
them who is flying. Opposition to such on the high end in regards
to scoring, is evidence of this "X" factor in the overall final
results. I'm not advocating a 1-design class, just using it for example.
How do we ensure that judges are evaluating the flight on its merits
alone, and not according to additional factors such as (name your favorite).
The additional human factors if brought to the chair, are worthy
of discussion. Heres a question: Do you want habitual long
standing judges with years of experience in the FAI/Masters finals chair,
or somewhat newer judges who are technically educated but bring less prior
experience to the chair of this same group of competitors? </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Again, the point is process (in the
FAI since following what rules are there), and human, ensuring the each
flight is evaluated solely on the its own merit, as unique discreet events
without regard to past performance or future expectation. However,
from the previous threads, it appears that "Advanced" suffers
from a lack of technical knowledge in the chair where as the other end
of the spectrum (FAI) can suffer from the human factor part of the equation.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">All ideas welcome,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Jim W.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>