theGryphon



AB, the multiple "category winners" is completely different from multiple "tier winners".
Categories are not tiers. They're different performance measures.
I think the tier idea is a failure by design because it automatically designates first class and second class citizens.
This is totally different from what the categories are trying to achieve: acknowledge performance in different areas and put them together in a way that gives all teams a chance to win the competition.

Random drawing thing may be liked by some, it's subjective I suppose. But from a totally objective point of view, it is not nearly a good incentive for teams to participate and try to do their best, compared to recognizing a performance measure that they can be (or, are) good at. The whole point of CC is to increase production and awareness for FAH, right? To do that, you (as a competition organizer) should give all teams an incentive to actually produce more and recruit more. Random drawing can't do that.

I assumed that he was talking about my idea. Im not trying to challenge anyone's intelligence. I just think that my category idea was a good idea that shouldnt be dismissed. If there is a fatal flaw that Im not seeing then I would likie to know before I start drawing up the whole idea on paper.

Afterburner

csm725OCN

My post got overlooked (no surprise there lol) but I recommend delaying the CC at least to after May 10th, since then HPCS is not a factor and the race can be more fair... we have some people abusing HPCS against even zodac's want for at least 750k PPD and it's not something I want to affect my team's performance...

I did see that. Thank you for reminding us.  And sense this is only a 10 day event I really see no issue with that other than the warmer ambient temps are rising by the day for folks around the world... Not that 5 days matters, just that any more of a delay could...

That seems to be the general consensus with OCAU as well to push it past the HPCS. If everyone on EVGA wants that too, Ill throw in my support to it on the captains forum.

devdog51

theGryphon



AB, the multiple "category winners" is completely different from multiple "tier winners".
Categories are not tiers. They're different performance measures.
I think the tier idea is a failure by design because it automatically designates first class and second class citizens.
This is totally different from what the categories are trying to achieve: acknowledge performance in different areas and put them together in a way that gives all teams a chance to win the competition.

Random drawing thing may be liked by some, it's subjective I suppose. But from a totally objective point of view, it is not nearly a good incentive for teams to participate and try to do their best, compared to recognizing a performance measure that they can be (or, are) good at. The whole point of CC is to increase production and awareness for FAH, right? To do that, you (as a competition organizer) should give all teams an incentive to actually produce more and recruit more. Random drawing can't do that.

I assumed that he was talking about my idea. Im not trying to challenge anyone's intelligence. I just think that my category idea was a good idea that shouldnt be dismissed. If there is a fatal flaw that Im not seeing then I would likie to know before I start drawing up the whole idea on paper.

 
I saw that you proposed to have different categories, but I'm not sure we're thinking the same thing when you say "categories". I've been thinking in terms of "different performance measures".
 
Different hardware categories, for example, is like having different tiers, and I don't know how you would detect, control, or enforce different hardware. Is there a way? 
 
"Number of clients" you mentioned is a performance measure, but again, just like the number of WUs, it is open to manipulation. 
 
Please point out if I (we) missed a post of yours...
 
Don't get me wrong, I would like to see different performance measures, but they shouldn't be open to manipulation. I said this before, but I really wish PG counted only successful WUs, it would've made a great performance measure... 
 

Also at some point you kinda have to trust the honor system. Since this contest is not done in physical presence of anyone there is no way to safe guard completely from cheating. If someone wants to cheat bad enough then they will. You just kind of have to throw out enough stuff that even if someone cheats the hope will be that they cant cheat on everything

True but how can you manipulate client #? stanford shows how many clients are returning on a username.

devdog51

True but how can you manipulate client #? stanford shows how many clients are returning on a username.

It's quite easy, by changing a registry value in Windows or deleting a file in Linux, or simply changing the client number in the advanced settings, in between WUs.  Doing so, each WU can appear to come from a different client.

If you did it so less WUs/less clients is better, you could equally have someone go to your nearest competitor and have loads of clients under their name instead.
 
At least with the three categories already decided we would be confident that they can't be easily manipulated.

Yeah, Punchy and zodac gave some possible examples, which will unfortunately but surely turn into reality if we add such performance measures. Again, it's sad but true.
 
Kind of OT, but would it be possible to convince PG to count and list only the successful WUs? Number of WUs is really a very important measure I think, and not only for competition purposes... I really want to see how many successful WU's I completed, for example.
 

Alright so, does everyone like Gryphon's system for the new system? We kinda need to get this issue resolved. What Im trying to come up with is for next year so its a moot point. We also need to edcide about the time. It seems like the best answer is to kepp it in the spring this year but move it to the 15th to resolve the HPCS issue, then have it in fall next year. Think over it; answer. Ill be back after work ends at 11 tonight.

I feel we should postpone it until later this year - after Summer. We've already lost a lot of recruitment time, still have a few things to discuss between the teams, and have had almost all teams ask for a cooler date for a few years.

We can't do it too close to December though, because then the Australians are in summer... I dunno what it's like in the US, but come September here and in the UK, it's considerably cooler.

shdbcamping

Wow, this argument is just getting crazy.

Thought..... No ONE WINNER. Just multiple category clinchers. 3 or 4, each with their own color monkey Head to carry til next year. If a team were to win in more than one category... they would have to chose which one. Other going to next in line............
.
Crap if this is just about sparking interest and friendly competition................. WHY declare just one winner?

Why not just have 8 winners and let each team win something then?

Ok here's my 2 cents... I think we should hold off till the 10th. As far as the way we determine the winner, well I don't care. The amount of research that is done during this time frame is awesome. I do think there are other teams that would give us a run for our money but I will participate either way.
It has taken me several months to get over my bad feelings toward Stanford but in the long run they are at least trying to find a cure. As my grandmothers Alzheimer's progresses I care less about my standings and more about the research.

Thank you all for folding or crunching!

Peace

troy8d

devdog51

Alright Gryphon since the CCC is your baby, Im going to pose Adak's questions to you directly:

** Removed**  

 
Yeah, let's not forget what I've been saying: I didn't come up with multiple categories idea, and all I did was to modify Troy's proposal to put together multiple categories. 
 
 
 

zodac

shdbcamping

Wow, this argument is just getting crazy.

Thought..... No ONE WINNER. Just multiple category clinchers. 3 or 4, each with their own color monkey Head to carry til next year. If a team were to win in more than one category... they would have to chose which one. Other going to next in line............
.
Crap if this is just about sparking interest and friendly competition................. WHY declare just one winner?

Why not just have 8 winners and let each team win something then?

How can one argue with sarcastic genius like that. I vote what biff said above. Why not let all teams be winners? Just in case any more teams come here trying to figure out why someone "HAS" to win... They at least won't be scared off from trying to figure out WTH is being proposed. Meglomaniacs are ruining the spirit of a contest trying to push something that would give their team(s) an unfair advantage........... NATO works faster JIMO/YMMV