RCP 2021-003
Enter NAR login credentials for access.
Please enter your username or email address. This should be the same login you use for your NAR membership
12 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Home
- Join NAR
- Site Map
- Contact Us
- My Membership
- About NAR
- American Rocketry Challenge
- Model Rocket Info
- High Power Rocketry
- Educational Resources
- Find a Launch
- Local Clubs
- Insurance Questions/Claims
- Safety
- Rocket Motor Information
- Contest Flying – NAR Competition
- National Scoreboard
- US Team Selection Scoreboard
- Register an NAR Launch
- Competition Results Entry
- Team Registration
- Teams List
- Contest Events
- Competition Meets
- International Competition
- Competition Guide
- U.S. Model Rocket Sporting Code
- Rules Revision Process
- US National Model Rocket Performance Records
- Sport Rocketry Magazine
- Member Resources
- Website Fixes
- Donate
- What’s My NAR Number?
- Log out
High Power Rocket Certification
Design and Fly High Power Rocket Vehicles Learn MoreLocal Rocketry Clubs
Connect with Proven Rocketry Experts Find A Club TodayMembers-Only Forum
Engage in meaningful conversations about rocketry topics that matter. Get Connected!Sport Rocketry Magazine
Six 48 Page Issues a year with NAR Membership!
The specific “how to” implementation of this rule was purposely left out of this change, in order to allow the most practical methods to be developed. As an example, at NARAM, an official (not a scale judge) can check in scale models and data packets and assign a number assigned to the model/packet and maintain a list of the number and contestant. Judges would not be present at model check-in. General viewing can be held prior to model pick up as usual. Flight judging would occur and the judges would know the modelers identity at that point. Likewise, NRC data input folders for craftsmanship events (if they continued as NRC events) need not be linked in an identifiable way by the static judges. flight judging would be at the local field level and not be blind judging. Clubs that want to hold Craftsmanship Events at local contests as non-NRC events are free to modify the rules (like waiving the blind judging requirement) just as they are currently free to do for any non-NRC event.Â
Sorry Don, but this one just doesn’t make sense in the real world. Judges know who has which model, simply by prototype/size/build techniques. A 1/48th scratch Saturn IB is…..insert Flanigan here. A larger, detailed BBX at about 1/11th scale is….yours truly. If there was a super nice Saturn IB in B div….insert Alyssa. A vector thrust controlled large scale prototype in C Div…likely same modeler that did it this year. And so on with I-Beams, Royal, Pods, Feveryear, etc. We are way too small of a community for most entries to be unknown. 🙁
As a public school teacher/band director, I must agree with updating this change in the judging model for scale. There will always be techniques used by present builders easily recognizable. However, to encourage new members to participate in this activity and increase the size of the community participating, ( a serious concern based upon past # participating), this will guarantee new members are judged equally on their techniques and presentations regardless of their years of participation. As a judge for 40 years in many types of activities, it is extremely difficult to not lean one direction or another based upon knowledge of the participant. This is regardless of a judges best intentions, it is human nature. This change is a very easy step to take to encourage all to participate knowing they will be judged exclusively on their build with no outside influence. Bind judging is not a new concept, it is a very important method used to make certain we are representing a fair and equal opportunity for all involved.Â
Great idea in principle, but I suspect judges will end up knowing who made most of the models before final judging. It would be difficult or impossible to enforce a blind, practically speaking.
What problem is this RCP trying to solve? Don, you expressed an opinion and apparently expect us to just accept it as fact. I agree with most of the others in that this RCP is impractical.Â
I disagree with Barbara Tobin’s opinion that, it is extremely difficult to not lean one direction or another based upon knowledge of the participant. If it is that difficult to suspend subjective bias you should not be a judge.
>>>If it is that difficult to suspend subjective bias you should not be a judge.<<< Those are good words to heed in the upcoming months. Thanks Wolf for this comment. 😉
Wolf, let me turn this around. Can you justify why judges need to know who made the model they are assessing? I have not seen any justification for why judges need to know who the modeler is (at least until the flight judging occurs). Blind judging can only help the impartiality of judging. Why fight this?
This would need a bit more detailing and maybe a few practice runs before trying to enforce. For example, rules require NAR number (or name, though I can’t remember the last time I saw this done) on the model, so that’s not totally anonymous. Scale pack also has to have name, number, etc., At some point in the judging process, the scores have to go to the card so this means some degree of splitting the judging between [static] and [everything else].
Although I agree in principle with the proposal, I doubt if it would have the intended affect.
This is a proposal which sounds good in theory: Make judging as unbiased as possible. In practice, from my experience as a scale judge or chief scale judge at about twenty-five NARAM’s:
* I get emails months ahead from competitors asking my advice on prototype selection, data, and building techniques. When I finally see the resulting entry at NARAM, of course it’s no mystery as to who built it. In many other cases, the model will be one we’ve judged at previous NARAM’s. So the first problem with this RCP is that for the most part, it can’t work as intended. Half or more of the entries are going to be “known”.
* During turn-in the judges are very busy directing traffic, dynamically shifting table space for one division or another to accomodate the mix of entries, answering rules-related questions that a random volunteer would be ill-equipped for, praising the efforts of junior entrants, and as time allows confirming that entries don’t have any required elements missing. We can’t do that if we aren’t there — presumably sequestered in our hotel rooms lest we see who’s walking what through the hallways.
* Despite our turn-in diligence, for usually the day or two following I’m having to track down a sometimes long list of entrants whose entries will be disqualified if I can’t interact with them to explain what’s needed. Even if we wanted to simply DQ those (which we don’t), Rule 11.8 allows the modeler to correct ommisions right up until flying time… yet in some cases we can’t complete static judging without the missing data or model element(s).
I doubt this would prove practical.
I am in support of this RCP, but not really for the reasons cited, or based around the chat so far.
On my first day of building a scale model (for a completion that is) I was quite astonished at the need to put a non-scale NAR # on that scale model. Seemed kind of crazy and silly to me then. Still feel the same way now. What is the point really? Putting it on the shoulder of a nose cone (or similar) sounds perfect to me.
Note that this is coming from someone fairly capable in the “art” of hiding an NAR # on a model…