RCP 2021-003

LYNN THOMAS said : subscriber Report 6 months ago

I doubt this would prove practical.

MARC MCREYNOLDS said : subscriber Report 7 months ago

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).

Guy Gehlhausen said : subscriber Report 7 months ago

Although I agree in principle with the proposal, I doubt if it would have the intended affect.

Chandler STEVENS said : subscriber Report 7 months ago

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].

Wolfram von Kiparski said : subscriber Report 7 months ago

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. 

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.

 

 

PATRICK PETERSON said : subscriber Report 7 months ago

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. 

Barbara Tobin said : subscriber Report 7 months ago

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. 

CHAD RING said : editor Report 7 months ago

 

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.  :(

 

Donald Carson said : microsite admin Report 8 months ago

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.