theGryphon

Troy, I don't know if you're talking to me, or what part of your post is referring to me. If you are talking to me, you should first know that I'm not suggesting anything regarding CC name removal or not. Stamina can be used as a replacement of Conversion, or along with it. 

Regarding Stamina, I don't know what you're thinking, 1) that what it's trying to capture is meaningless, or 2) that it's not able to capture it?
I won't argue with the first one; if you and/or anybody think that "the ability for a team to hold it up during the whole competition" is meaningless, there's nothing I can say to that. For me, it is very meaningful. About the second one, you'd be wrong if you claim it's not capturing it, because it is. What I'm doing is not something I invented (or pulled out of my butt); moving average is a classical way of smoothing things out (so that single observations do not affect the outcome significantly), and it is used very widely in time-series analysis, which is what's necessary to capture the dynamics of daily production during the course of the competition. 

I have to say I'm not liking the way you're saying "coming up with tricks". There are no tricks, and I'm genuinely working to develop a fair system. 

If you think any team is going to run away with this system, you'd be so wrong that you'll laugh at yourself when it's over.
First thing you're missing, the system I posted above (#671) does not say what categories should be used, or whether CC names should be dropped or not. It does not care what those categories are, and regardless it puts them together in a perfect balance. 

For the record, I also came to believe that CC names should stay. I wasn't thinking like this sometime ago, but the more I thought about it, CC names really make this competition very unique. But, as I said before, I will implement whatever the teams agree on.

 
I wasn't referring you, or to any one person - just the way things seem to have shifted in general.  I'm not singling anyone out.
 
Regarding stamina:
1) how difficult is it for an individual or a team to maintain a constant output?  Pretty easy - just keep doing what you're doing no effort required.
 
2) Moving average obviously is going to have days above and days below due to the inherent variability in folding.  The only way to win this category is to increase your folding production everyday.  To do so obviously that means a team wasn't coming out in full force from day 1.  The choices team have are: do we subject ourselves to punishment caused by the random variations inherent in folding or do we hold back and gradually increase production throughout.  My guess is that most teams will choose the first option, but then we're just sitting around wondering who is going to be hurt the most by random variations.  Or in summary, this category will be essentially randomly determined.
 
When I say you are using statistical tricks, I say that with the intention that you are attempting to use them to bring relevance to a category that is meaningless.  When you suggest things like: 5% cap, 0% cap, moving average...it is simply a statistical trick that tries to bring meaning to a category that is relatively meaningless.
 
As I said at the start, I am not speaking directly to you...just based on the consensus opinion that appears to be developing.  If we use no chimp names and stamina rather than conversion I think the contest unfairly favors EVGA.
 
Regarding the chimp names in general: taking a random poll of the population has several problems.  I won't get into them here, but I would take any poll results with a heavy grain of salt.

troy8d

If we use no chimp names and stamina rather than conversion I think the contest unfairly favors EVGA.

Actually, I'd think the opposite would be true.  If we use the entire team instead of CC name, then what happens when part-time folders get their bucks?  They go back to their other teams and the EVGA stamina is reduced.
 
Maybe I'm missing the way non-CC name would work (sorry, 24 pages is long to re-read).  Does it assume everyone folding for team EVGA is in the competition, or do we still need an opt-in (e.g. signup) so we know which folders should be credited towards the competition?

OK, sorry for being late to the party.  I found this in post #371.

devdog51
3.Create a separate folding team specifically for CC  for each team. You can keep your username and your points but it divides it, allowing only for interested individuals to participate in CC. It also seems like it would allow for a better ability to monitor points for the CC itself.

Isn't this a nice compromise on the CC-name?  It still requires an action on folders part to opt-in without the hassle and potential issues of manually switching clients over, priming keys for QRB, etc.  We've done this in the past with internal competitions, so we have the know-how to create sign-ups and track stats, etc.  So the learning curve/growing pains in theory shouldn't be that high.
 
Then we could use stamina as a measurement based on the sub-teams that signed up for the CC.
 
 
 

Again, I want to emphasize that I am simply expressing my own opinions here.
 

texinga

I have a bit of a hard time agreeing that it isn't difficult to maintain output.  I mean, we see it all the time in contests.  Just look at the charts that Gryph shared of last years CC, or even more recent our own March Madness.  I think it can be a challenge to maintain constant output (not from a machine perspective), but from a people perspective.

 
Its easy to get wrapped up in statistics, but the numbers themselves don't tell the whole story.  I heavily discount any fall off in last year's Chimp Challenge because of how bad the format was.  Many people on our team entered with the intention "no matter how bad they try to handicap us we will be able to overcome it," and lost interest when they found out just how bad it was.  
 
For Folding M@dness, it was simply a loss of "bucks folders" that led to a decline.  The contestants themselves did not decline, but rather the team as a whole did as "bucks folders" hit their quota and folded for another team or took the rest of the month off.
 

texinga
 
What other method would you suggest to take the pulse of our members Troy?  I didn't think the Poll was so flawed and I would expect most people answered it with intent to help and share their feelings.  I'm a bit tired of people poo-pooing things that don't necessarily align with personal beliefs.  Rather than dismiss the clear repeated fact that Folders do not like having to change names for Chimp Challenge, why not at least recognize it and help us gather facts in the best way?  Taking a shot at the Poll is not really trying to listen to people, but rather feels like a dismissive attempt to satisfy one's personal feelings about the matter.

 
Of course that was their intent, but I would argue that they don't fully understand what it is they are voting on and the ramifications of each choice.  The way the poll was presented, the implications of each option was not clearly presented causing many people to revert to the path of least resistance and a simple "what is easiest for me" vote.  Without proper context, what exactly are people voting on? The only thing worse than not voting is an uninformed vote.  If I were to be cynical I might even say that face with a fully informed choice people would still choose the "what is easiest for me" choice, but I tend to give the vast majority of folks here much more credit than that.   
 
I would love to have been able to make a better designed poll, but unfortunately EVGA doesn't think its members are capable of responsibly using the poll feature and therefore restricts access to it.  So there is little I can do to help you gather facts in a meaningful way.

I do not appreciate the accusation that I am using my own personal beliefs to inform what I believe is best for the contest as a whole.  At the moment, I don't think its a long shot to claim that I have spent more time any anyone else engaging in this debate thinking about contest design and what makes them interesting, fair, and fun.  Time and time again I have put my own personal views aside for the greater good.  But if you are not interested in what I have to say I can just as easily spend my time elsewhere. 

Gryphon I was under the impression that shrinking the range to 50-100 would lessen the amount that stamina differences are emphasized. Is that correct?

theGryphon

It's true that the Stamina scores end up being spread more because the original range is typically smaller compared to other categories. I can change the final ranges to 50---100, no problem, if that's gonna make it look better.

Troy, I thought you were referring to the system in #671, but you are referring to the case where CC names are dropped and Stamina is used in place of Conversion. I understand your concern and I'm giving a good hard thought on it right now; whether such a case would favor EVGA. I want everyone to understand that 1) I'm not proposing any selection of categories, and 2) I'm absolutely not trying to favor any team. I've been meaning to look into that case in more detail by running scenarios etc. but I couldn't find the time yet.

If anyone's wondering what I would suggest, I'd say 1) keep the CC names, and 2) add Stamina as a fourth category. But again, I'll investigate the case above, share what I find and let you guys decide.

The problem with that is, adak will never agree to CC names. His forum is completely against them. And until he's proved to be the minority he will not change his stance. There's bound to be some imperfections in the system the first year we try it. We can tweak it after the results of this year.

Listen there's been an unofficial deadline set of next friday for the determination of the system. Basically if the system works, let's implement it. If we continue to nitpick over minor details, then we will be here til the trumpet sounds trying to figure out the perfect system and we will have lost anyone who even wanted to participate. No one knows exactly what's going to happen, especially not including CC names. That's the beauty of it ......at least we're not cheating.

Troy, I won't bother to quote all that stuff your said in that reply, but will simply say that I disagree with you on just about all of it.  What I think you often miss (with your intellect) is to just trust that people are able to read between the lines and may just understand things a bit better than you give them credit for.

texinga

planetclown
OK, sorry for being late to the party.  I found this in post #371.

devdog51
3.Create a separate folding team specifically for CC  for each team. You can keep your username and your points but it divides it, allowing only for interested individuals to participate in CC. It also seems like it would allow for a better ability to monitor points for the CC itself.

Isn't this a nice compromise on the CC-name?  It still requires an action on folders part to opt-in without the hassle and potential issues of manually switching clients over, priming keys for QRB, etc.  We've done this in the past with internal competitions, so we have the know-how to create sign-ups and track stats, etc.  So the learning curve/growing pains in theory shouldn't be that high.
Then we could use stamina as a measurement based on the sub-teams that signed up for the CC.

When I considered that one, my first thought was...won't it remove all that CC production from the main stream Team EVGA's numbers?  On the other hand, if people that would prefer to Fold under their own name instead of EVGApes each year are being asked to be "good team players" and not worry about their personal points, configuration efforts, etc, then maybe the same could be said of the overall Team too.

Not a new folding team as seen on EOC.  Each participant would keep their folding name/teams intact (no switching clients).  Instead it would be run like the internal competitions at EVGA.  Each teams' participants would opt-in and be grouped together for the CC.  Stats could be tracked by adding the points for all participants for each team.
 
Troy's reservation above is valid though.  I guess counting on honesty & good sportsmanship is out of the question?

planetclown

texinga

planetclown
OK, sorry for being late to the party.  I found this in post #371.

devdog51
3.Create a separate folding team specifically for CC  for each team. You can keep your username and your points but it divides it, allowing only for interested individuals to participate in CC. It also seems like it would allow for a better ability to monitor points for the CC itself.

Isn't this a nice compromise on the CC-name?  It still requires an action on folders part to opt-in without the hassle and potential issues of manually switching clients over, priming keys for QRB, etc.  We've done this in the past with internal competitions, so we have the know-how to create sign-ups and track stats, etc.  So the learning curve/growing pains in theory shouldn't be that high.
Then we could use stamina as a measurement based on the sub-teams that signed up for the CC.

When I considered that one, my first thought was...won't it remove all that CC production from the main stream Team EVGA's numbers?  On the other hand, if people that would prefer to Fold under their own name instead of EVGApes each year are being asked to be "good team players" and not worry about their personal points, configuration efforts, etc, then maybe the same could be said of the overall Team too.

Not a new folding team as seen on EOC.  Each participant would keep their folding name/teams intact (no switching clients).  Instead it would be run like the internal competitions at EVGA.  Each teams' participants would opt-in and be grouped together for the CC.  Stats could be tracked by adding the points for all participants for each team.

Troy's reservation above is valid though.  I guess counting on honesty & good sportsmanship is out of the question?

Actually I still think that's a good idea and it takes care of the problems being mentioned by throwing away the CC names. As for the deadline....we were being generous for the teams that apparently dont wont to speak out very much.

planetclown
I guess counting on honesty & good sportsmanship is out of the question?

I don't think it is out of the question at all to count on good sportsmanship and honesty.  Frankly, I'm tired of seeing people use that as a reason that we can't try new things.  If CC is so (potentially) plagued with cheaters, then you know what, I wouldn't want to participate in it anyway.  For crying out loud, this is supposed to be about curing diseases and sometimes I wonder if it really isn't really more about the contest mechanics itself.  To read some of the (seemingly endless) concerns about how someone can cheat the system this way and that, well it just get's very old.

To answer my own question: I believe it is too tempting and too easy for a single individual to sign up everyone in the top 20 on their team.

troy8d

texinga
Troy, I won't bother to quote all that stuff your said in that reply, but will simply say that I disagree with you on just about all of it.  What I think you often miss (with your intellect) is to just trust that people are able to read between the lines and may just understand things a bit better than you give them credit for.

I certainly understand your point of view, but don't think that I share it when it comes something like this.  While we both assume the best in people, I think where we truly differ is that I believe that the majority of people seek to minimize their individual effort - whether it comes to switching a folding client or taking the time to see all relevant sides of the issue.  As someone that instructs college aged students (which are a large portion of our gamer population) I witness this first hand daily.

Perhaps a more poignant example however is Gryphon:  in an earlier post Gryphon explained that while he was against the name conversion originally, he now see its value and favors it.  I would attribute the level of engagement he has come to have in design process and fully considering the implications of each option as the impetus that changed his mind.

Troy, I would say that you know too little of me to make those kind of sweeping statements.  You may think that was a lucid response that was supposed to make a point, but it meant nothing to me.  Let's just you and I stop conversing because we don't communicate well and that has been a historical situation with you and I.

No problems Devdog, I'm back on-track and there won't be any more back and forth with Troy.  Apologies to the Team too. 

devdog51

troy8d

To answer my own question: I believe it is too tempting and too easy for a single individual to sign up everyone in the top 20 on their team.

Yes but that could still happen with the CC names. You cant get rid of the one percent so you have to work around it. 

 
It can't happen with CC names.  You cannot force someone to participate in the CC against their will (or ignorance) unless you sneak into their house and change their clients.  Completely different than stopping by EOC and pulling a few of the largest producers names.