I think there are some good alternatives that have been proposed, but there has been so much discussion they are hard to find any more.  My feeling is that any CC that tries to come up with a single "winner" will never make us happy.  If teams can agree to something with multiple categories, and WE don't get burdened with the whole task of creating that competition, it might still work.

Just Heads up  that the CC discussions should be starting soon
I've already sent reminders out to some of the teams already
 
if anyone has ideas pleas post here
 
I'll try to keep everyone in the loop as much as possible
you may even find some other teams popping in here to post or comment
 
Do I still have/'need a co-captain or do I need another volunteer?
 
 

XZ,
I am a bit more free than last year and would be willing to do whatever is needed.  I am not great for coding, but I am sure I can be helpful in other ways.
 
As for suggestions, I will start thinking it through, but I cant think of a way to get around some of the issues of last year yet besides us folding under our own names.

Here are a couple of threads on this from last year as a refresher for ideas as we move forward...
 
http://forums.evga.com...1611130&high=Chimp
 
http://forums.evga.com...1398085&high=Chimp

First, let me state that I have never participated in a Chimp Challenge (I just started folding in July).  There are two primary reasons I started folding – first and foremost, it was for all the friends and family (myself included) that have been through Cancer.  The second is because of the great atmosphere I felt in reading through the DC forums here.  Many of the people here have helped me in one way or another to get my rig(s) up and running and folding. 
 
As for the history with CC, I obviously can’t say one way or the other.  However, I agree with a previous post that we shouldn’t turn away because we don’t like what is going on.  I believe that we would then just reinforce what everyone has said is the problem – it has lost focus.  IF we leave, then we are basically asking others to return the focus.  The thing I like about this team is the leadership role in the Folding community.  If the goal of the CC is to extend the awareness of Folding and bring in new folders, then we should be at the forefront.  Anyway, with that, I will make a few suggestions below.  Please note, however, these are based on my (very) basic understanding – so take them with a grain of salt:
 

1. Personally, I would vote for NOT changing names.  For me, one of the main motivators is to see how far I can get in the team standings – personal challenges and all.  Switching over prohibits that.  Some of the friendly nudging I’ve seen in threads here all talk about seeing somebody else in their rearview mirror.  Team placement is important for many people. 
2. As for the part about the increase in folders (or bringing folders back in to the…um…fold) – perhaps that part of the contest runs longer?  Then you can see how many stick around.  Just like marketing – for every 100 you reach and get started, only a handful will stay the course. 
3. The Challenge should be fair so that any team, of any size (folders OR output) has a shot.  So – some form of normalization needs to happen.  Otherwise, it becomes a runaway challenge between a small handful of teams.  With that, perhaps a percentage based range?  Then, you don’t prohibit smaller teams from being in the thick of the challenge.  As an example, base it on a % increase from an average of the last 3 months of production (hopefully this will eliminate some of the bias introduced from different work units, base points, etc.). 
4. I like the idea of different smaller challenges.  Look at many of the competitions around – they all have “First place in the X division” and then an overall “Grand Champion.”  Some thoughts:
   1. A percentage based increase for people in different buckets (e.g. - <500k, 500k – 1MM, 1MM – 5MM, etc.).
   2. Biggest jump in team standing (or Stanford’s standings).

Note:  with the above two, if the goal is to bring in new folders, they will have something tangible for which they can gear up.  I know when I first started, I was intimidated by the “power” folders on the team.  I thought to myself, there is NO WAY I can ever get to that sort of level.  If I was involved last year, having a more “level” playing field with my peer group would have been more motivational.
 
If the objective is to bring in more folders and educate people of the benefits of Folding, then we need to either start (or do a better job of) reaching people on an emotional level.  Sure, the EVGA Bucks is a nice incentive, but people don’t start folding solely for the EVGA Bucks.  I would guess that people start folding (or stay with it) because they know someone that has been afflicted by Cancer or some other disease that Folding is attempting to fight.  At first I was scared off by some of the posts about power bills, the increase in heat, crashing hardware, difficulty with the clients, etc.  But, I started to read the threads in the “Why we Fold” section.  As I read through them, I realized I’m not on an island – this goes beyond one person.  If I can make a difference, I’m going to give it a go.  Far too often, people believe that THEY can’t make a difference (I know I felt that way before I started). 
 
Anyway – that’s my opinion on the matter. 
 
Fold on! 

I think just starting the conversation is a good sign. Time does heal most wounds...
 
I support the idea of not changing names or spiting up of teams. However I am adamant about not handicapping. I find it impossible to believe that we cannot find two members to represent every team with an open mind looking to grow the event without forcing some kind of handicap that does not allow all to have a shot at winning...
 
Otherwise, they are not leaders. Leaders find ways to succeed.
 
Now if they want us out like [H], then they should man up and say so. However just doing very little with the elephant in the room is counter productive.  

Nice hearing from you BWG
 
OCF and OCAU are already wondering when discussions will start
my problem is getting all the teams to talk and discuss things
 
last year - it as just me and zodac in the CC forum (mostly)
http://chimp.sagacioustec...index.php?topic=24.120
 
kinda of hard to have a discussion on topics when the captains don't talk (unless pushed to do so on the last week or two)
 
most of the teams would have settled for straight Points last year - I had TSC, OCF, OCAU, HWC, on-board with just points
 
RETARDOCAU  proposal (OCAU) from last year
 
best PPD - Monkey Balls.jpeg
best growth - Monkey Brain.jpeg
best WU output - Banana.jpeg
best overall - CC Trophy.jpeg
Last Place - The Dreaded Monkey Paw.jpeg
 
which I didn't mind - something for everyone
 
 
dickering over what is a proper formula, unless you have an independent 3rd party referee/organizee like stanford to set up a fair ground rules, we will have issues.
 
both Adak and me last year came to the conclusion only 2 things should be looked at
 
Points and Overall performance over last year (growth)
(which is why we even considered two winners and two races)
 
the problem lies on where we drop the division - on how much of each
 
and how to you determine growth over last year CC?
since we use total team stats now- we go back and see the entire teams output last CC
do we have records of that?
or we have a points race this year and start recording and collecting for next years?
 
the new formula from last year was an improvement over Zodac's previous one
 
zodac's formula (once I provided an analysis of it) was exponential
 
what you want is something more linear or level (balanced)
 
eliminating conversion by getting rid of changing names only helps the bigger teams (now we get those that didn't want to join under any condition - there are lots of those)
 
and reduces conversion errors - people who make change over errors
 
my suggestion
if we get rid of the change-over we go by how much improvement MAX PPW over last year PPW (or PPM)
 
ie
we just use last years team stats(during the CC)  % difference between last years and this year
and some % of PPD    - ie take 20-40 % PPD(ie normalized 0-40) and 60-80% growth (ie normalized 0-60)
 
One thing to note BWG
 
we only got thing to move and progress when we went to the teams(and each individual forum) with open discussions rather than using the CC forum.
getting direct contact with each forum and talking directly is what moved the log jam
 
seems the CC forum doesn't work well because team captains don't visit or discuss or post back what has been discussed in their own forums for their own members to cast feedback on
 
Id rather have an open forum (like Stanford does to at least keep membership in the loop) so  at least info gets to users - so in case the captains aren't around the teams get the info and can provide feedback of some kind
 
---------------------
update ADAK (OCF) proposes
 
What do you think about the 20th to the 27th of April? That's the last week of April,    

Don't worry BWG- you here and plugged in
lets see if we can get this figured out early
 
getting everyone on IRC or teamspeak?
I don't think this is acheiveable - TSC would be an issue along with OCAU (both on other side of globe) 
 
just contacting someone on TSC takes weeks (at least that was what it was like last year)
 
CBC and TPU might take a few days
HWC and OCF are easy - shouldn't be an issue
 
MPC was out last year
 
responding to every post? if you wish
I would suggest reading and seeing what we can agree with and make progress on
 
if OCF,HWC,EVGA and OCN can come up with a format and formula that works that the others can agree on would be the easiest
 
 
congrats on the new job
and make sure you spend quality time with your kids
you don't have to work like a dog on the forums to please me or others - what is important is family
 
 

Hey XZ, on a side note, where do you get that crunching sig that shows badges? Im sarting up crunching right now, hopefully I can save some money and buy my new CPU in time for CC ato switch over to folding again

Adak latest idea
-----------------------------------
Simple, straight forward handicapping example.

This uses a simple ratio between competing teams, to handicap a race. It's ONLY based on folding points.

First, a background RACING average is determined for let's say, three teams, for a 1 day race.
The race day has 8 update periods - just like the Chimp Challenge.

Code:
                        Team 1: Ants,    Team 2: Bats,  Team 3: Cats
=====================================================================
Racing Averages:             5M              10M             12M (per day)
 Handicap Ratio:            12/5            12/10               1   (most productive team has no handicap)
 
 Points updates:  (raw folding points)
                          1:   600,000      1,200,000     1,400,000 
  2:   650,000      1,225,000     1,430,000
  3:   712,000      1,330,000     1,510,000
  4:   710,000      1,389,000     1,518,000
  5:   740,000        960,000     1,901,000
  6:   725,000        975,000     1,890,000
  7:   688,000      1,212,000     1,720,000
  8:   777,000      1,301,000     1,677,000
     ======================================
     5,602,000      9,592,000    13,046,000

Each point update is multiplied by the handicap, to avoid any "jumps" in the race points, at the end of a day.

(race folding points)       Team 1: Ants          Team 2: Bats               Team 3: Cats
==========================================================================================
 Points updates:  Raw points x handicap = race points
              1:  600k x 12/5 = 1,440,000  1.2M   x 12/10 = 1,440,000            1,400,000
              2:  650k x 12/5 = 1,560,000  1.225M x 12/10 = 1,470,000            1,430,000
              3:  712k x 12/5 = 1,708,800  1.33M  x 12/10 = 1,596,000            1,510,000
              4:  710k x 12/5 = 1,704,000  1.389M x 12/10 = 1,668,000            1,518,000
              5:  740k x 12/5 = 1,776,000    960k x 12/10 = 1,152,000            1,901,000
              6:  725k x 12/5 = 1,740,000    975k x 12/10 = 1,170,000            1,890,000
              7:  688k x 12/5 = 1,651,200  1.212M x 12/10 = 1,454,400            1,720,000
              8:  777k x 12/5 = 1,864,800  1.301M x 12/10 = 1,561,200            1,677,000   

Day #1 Race Point Totals:
                       Team 1: 13,444,800          Team 2: 11,511,600    Team 3: 13,046,000
                  
In this example, Team #1 Ants placed first, Team 3 Cats placed second, and Team 2 Bats placed third.           
                  
                  Which makes perfect sense because -

Team #1's raw points were well above their previous racing average. 
Team #2 was below their average racing production, and 
Team #3 was just barely above their average racing production.                  
   

I understand a handicap will keep the race close and exciting, which keeps interest up and everyone folding until the very end.
 
However, what's the fairest and most simple handicap system?  I really don't know, as this process appears to be the current divider across teams (and even within teams).
 
In my opinion, Adak's proposal above is about as simple as you can get, but getting a baseline for each team is tougher to do.  Base a handicap based on a one-day race - what's the incentive to win this mini-race instead of reeling it in a bit to get a better handicap for the CC?  Getting a "true" baseline for each team seems to be the major point of contention (again, my opinion).

patchesanook

why do we need handicaps ?

Otherwise the other teams won't enter the contest... It be a done deal from the get go - just based on positions in EOC 
(we know exactly how it would shake out barring a natural disaster)
 

patchesanook 
why should i pay $30 to $50 extra a month on my power bill just to see my teams points handicapped so we can lose.

 
So your asking the other teams to waste their $$$ for a absolute 100% certainty to stay in the same position as those in EOC
soooo... It's OK to waste their  $$$ but not ours
 
a straight up PPD race would be boring - because we know where everyone would lie - you know exactly the positions they be at in the end. Plus the fact the other teams if in would not apply effort in a losing adventure (if they participate at all)
 
that leaves some form of handicap
if the handicap is unfairly unbalanced for smaller teams- then other teams at the top wouldn't have a chance
which has been our problem before
 
although last years we had a chance(pretty goo formula) - but the team outing wasn't good (conversion/participation at it lowest)
and that was key in that race
conversion will be gone this year if we drop the chimp names
 
so the idea is to find something that works pretty fairly
 
 
 

Hi everyone im new to EVGA Folding, but i might have a suggestion for this challenge. Im a competitive bowler and we use a handicapped system for tournaments. It is based on a top avg like 225 per game. If your avg is below that you receive 90% of the difference between your avg and 225. We could have the teams set a goal for avg ppd or a total points and use a 90% handicap for them between what they set their goal and the top teams folding. 
 
There would have to be a rule about going over your goal, so that you don't get the points twice. Maybe have teams set high goals, and have points over your goal only count as half. It would also have to be set up so that your handicap points are lowered if you pass the goal. Otherwise you you could get double points. 
 
Or maybe to set the avg we run the first half of the contest to establish the average. that way if you didn't go 100 % the first two weeks you would only get 90% or maybe 80% of the points you didn't fold during the first few weeks. This would encourage you to increase folding throughout the contest, but mostly at the beginning

I think "handicapping" is basically unavoidable (in some form) given that we have such dissimilar quantities of Folders within each of the participating Folding teams.  Without handicapping, the smaller Teams would need to be satisfied with never winning CC and basically compete with the nearest team of similar size/capability.  CC isn't like our Time Zone Challenge where we all accept the competition based on dissimilar quantities of Folding members.  In CC, the other Teams aren't OK with playing that way. 
 
Similarly, with handicapping, our Team has seen no ability to win CC (in recent years) due to handicapping methods that limit us because we are the largest team competing.  And that is where the problem is with handicapping as I see it.  We can't seem to find a "magic formula" that actually works and is fun to use (and I applaud the people here have tried mightily to create one).
 
The design/method of handicapping still tends to make the "fair competition" (across all Teams) within CC an elusive thing.  Last year, it was so "competitively boring" for me that I just quit CC all-together and went back to normal Folding.  I love a good challenge and a good competition, but it has to be fun and interesting too.  We just haven't (yet) landed upon a design that yields that across all teams.
 
As was exhaustively discussed last year, I do hope the CC Names and having to switch over to them finally goes away this year.  For me CC has become more of an obligation (feeling) than a desire to participate the last 2 years.  I'm still hopeful though that we can land upon a great design that will make it "fun" like so many of our other contests that we run right here at EVGA. 

^^ Welcome!