Comment...
 
In my mind i have had this thought for a few years. Just not said it...
 
It is very likely that one or more of the smaller teams are just happy to be able to participate and do not care about the race. This should not be lost in all of this. That is commendable to say the least. And with that in mind, may also be part of why so few participate in the design. They may feel they could not add value to the conversation. Who knows.
 
Questions...
 

• Are we working to make this better with more than three of nine Captains every year?
• Are the other teams going to work at making a commitment to start testing ideas, and be actively engaged online from Feb 1st on?

 
If either of those questions has a "No" answer, we are wasting our time.
 
"If" that ends up being the case... I respectfully say thank you for all the efforts spent by all. It is time to step aside from the CC and move on.
 
Our team has re-discovered the "Positive Vibe" that made us who we are.
 
There our thousands of fantastic teams across the world that are working as hard as anyone does. 
 
It is time to put on our big boy pants and lead. Enough of this following stuff that only offends internal help and those that read one sentence or part of one and think they know who we are as people and as a team.
 
My thought if this is the case...
 
I like the ideas of splitting into teams to participate with other teams in the CC, or running an internal parallel race. However, I see no reason to spend this much time and energy to see the same silly results year after year. We are to good for that. We may stumble from time to time, but we shall not fall...

Yep AB, I had some of these same thoughts earlier today. We could be trying to solve things that mainly matter to us, but that other teams are largely indifferent to. Even if we do something, change something, the end result could be that nobody else cares, wants it or even wants to expend time thinking about it. A sobering indicator is, go visit their forums and read what is being discussed. It ain't any of this stuff from what I'm seeing. They are plodding along, having fun and are largely oblivious to the things we are discussing here.

Could be that we are "shouting at the rain".

Viper97


Meanwhile, I'm changing out my tinfoil hat.  This one is worn to a frazzle!

you still have a hat left?
 
Mine was disintegrated and now all I got is a bald patch and some frazzled hair

There are always some good folks out there.  There is no doubt about that but there are also bad ones.  Those that did right know who they are... those that didn't well I'm thinking they know and have to live with it.

XZ, I think you have put in a considerable amount of effort, I read your posts on a couple of forums and saw minimal amounts of participation.
 
To say that, some teams just enjoy the CC and don't worry about winning, seems to also be reflected in my travels TechPowerup! are very happy to contribute, and to climb off the bottom, it was seen as an achievement that they were very happy to make.
 
Whist I don't have an answer to this, my opinion is that basicaly the CC is a great idea, it's not working for us in this years format (an improvement over last year it must be said).
 
Therefore we need to do one of 3 things (not original thoughts and if you have posted them already I agree)
 
1, Accept it as it is and participate or not depending on your valid and understood views.
 
2, Accept it is flawed, and work hard to change it -again understanding that other teams view the CC in a different way to us, and as the big dog we will be the ones to beat. That the end result needs to be good for all (how that will be achieved I have no idea at all)
 
2, The depressing option (for me at least), that we stop participating as EVGA in the CC and follow as individuals folders for our team or as a Pirate for an other.
 
My last comment is about us as a team.
 
I think that the March Madness developed a folding groundswell, that's not been around for a long while. Recent weeks have been fantastic (and yes I have blocked someone who was degrading my experiences - happily not one of ours) We need to capitalize on this and avoid any internal strife. Recently I have read lots of post - all valid and most I either agree with, or have some sympathy for, we need to ensure these don't become devisive.
 
So after contributing my thought and opinions, what do I have to offer for the future?
 
My recommendation is, that we leave the CC to settle and then come back in mid May after we have all had time to consider CC, our views and the team good, and start to go forward from there. We should then not need tin hats or any other defensive device,
I've been here for long enough to have faith and confidence in the folks that contribute and work hard for the science and the team, old and new members alike.
 
We don't need this to become a heated/defensive discussion and time to reflect may assist there. There are a lot of people who contribute, theirs efforts I applaud.
 
Sorry if it read a bit soap box ish  

Adak1
blah blah blah

 
You still don't get it.  Fair is not about EVGA winning, its about the fact that 6 out of 9 teams have essentially half (or less) the points of the leading team.  Furthermore you came over to our forum, acted like an **** and gloated about how smart/great/better you are - almost no one here respects you.  There is no indication that you have anything other than your own self interest in mind, which becomes another reason it is perceived as biased and perception ultimately becomes reality (although the fact that 2/3 of the teams have no chance to win pretty much speaks for itself).  The fact that you continued to use data that favored your team rather than the "lost" data that was subsequently provided further undermines your credibility - especially because were it not for that your team would be in 3rd behind VGT and EVGA.
 
The main problem, however, is that continue to insist that the current system will correct itself over time.  There are two problems with this.  First, while it may improve over time, it will still has a tremendous amount of design flaws that the likely result is continued unbalance.  The folding world is changing constantly, meaning last year's CC data alone gives an incomplete picture.  Rather than seek to improve the system you choose to pedantically defend it.  Second, it takes an incredibly long time to add data to the system - namely 365 days in between data points.
 
If you are here to defend the system you designed, you can stop wasting your time here.  No one is drinking your cool aid. 
 
If you are genuinely interested in coming here with the intention to improve the design of the Chimp Challenge, I would suggest you start by apologizing to our team as well as those individuals that you specifically and directly belittled.  As the self-proclaimed designer of the handicapping system you have a huge credibility problem at the moment.  When designing a system that plays such a large role in determining the winner, credibility is essential.
 
Either way, some light reading on the topic: http://www.bloomberg.com/...also-close-minded.html

troy8d

Adak1
blah blah blah

You still don't get it.  Fair is not about EVGA winning, its about the fact that 6 out of 9 teams have essentially half (or less) the points of the leading team.

 
I NEVER said fair was about EVGA winning. That why I don't like YOU. You make every effort to smear everything I say, with both exaggerations, and untrue statements.
 

Furthermore you came over to our forum, acted like an **** and gloated about how smart/great/better you are - almost no one here respects you.  There is no indication that you have anything other than your own self interest in mind, which becomes another reason it is perceived as biased and perception ultimately becomes reality (although the fact that 2/3 of the teams have no chance to win pretty much speaks for itself).  The fact that you continued to use data that favored your team rather than the "lost" data that was subsequently provided further undermines your credibility - especially because were it not for that your team would be in 3rd behind VGT and EVGA.

 
1) I can't get other captains to agree to use data in that short a time frame. An objection to using it was made in the Captain's forum. Xavier knows this, and can confirm it for you.
 
2) I was going to accept Drougnor's data, because imo, he's trustworthy, I can not validate his data, if asked to do so, and as a matter of course, should not accept it.
 
3) I was very busy with a computer program at that time, and also in preparing my team for the race. We don't race well without a lot of prep work, being made. That includes recruiting, sending out a dozen or so different announcements  to various sub-forums, and over 350 PM's to members and former folders, etc.
 
We've done well the past two years, because I've learned that being a less active captain within the team and forum, means the team will race poorly. It doesn't matter how much you work in the Captain's forum, you also have to do a lot of work in the public forum, or your team won't race as well as it could.
 
The teams that aren't racing well, are teams that are un-motivated to race well - HWC has posted (and again XZ can verify, that they don't care about how well the team races this year. "Just do it".
 
If you go to the OCAU site, the last post in the CC thread was mine - back in March. Their Captain abandoned due to a family emergency, and there was next to no preparation done for the race.
 
And that pattern is true with most of the teams in the bottom half of the ranking - limited or no preparation.
 
We have recruited about 40 people to race with us. How many does Tech PowerUp have?
 
These aren't just my wild assertions, they're facts - we had 237 active folders in March. Today, we have about 287 active folders. I went to four different teams to recruit (not [H] by the way) racers. THAT is why OCF is doing well. It's time, and work, and lots of it. It's not some twisted conspiracy.
 

The main problem, however, is that continue to insist that the current system will correct itself over time.  There are two problems with this.  First, while it may improve over time, it will still has a tremendous amount of design flaws that the likely result is continued unbalance.  The folding world is changing constantly, meaning last year's CC data alone gives an incomplete picture.  Rather than seek to improve the system you choose to pedantically defend it.  Second, it takes an incredibly long time to add data to the system - namely 365 days in between data points.

Let's take two teams - the Ants, and the Bats. They're equal. The Ants use the year between CC's to recruit more members, and motivate it's folders to race, and update their systems, etc. The Bats do nothing, and stay the same.
 
Now it's CC time. Both teams race to form - just as expected. Which team should win?
 
Clearly the Ants should win. They've come in much stronger than the Bats this year. But if we handicapped them with your format, the Bats would win about half the time, because throughout the year, you balanced the teams out every week or month, or even every day.
 
That's why I don't do that. The Ants will always win, because they're always the stronger team. Even though the Bats get a little help every year by the better handicap, still the Ants will continue to win - because they're getting stronger every year, and the Bats never do.
 
The idea is to reward the team that has grown in strength, since last year, AND has a good race with:
*good full participation by it's members
*lots of recruiting
*lots of excitement in the forum during the race, to attract still other racers
who just want to be in on a fun event. We get a few every year that way.
 
Does my algorithm make better sense now?
 

If you are here to defend the system you designed, you can stop wasting your time here.  No one is drinking your cool aid. 

Yes, I am. You will not admit it, but you have NO facts to support your assertions, and yes, obviously, the handicap system WILL rebalance the teams, after every race. You know it. I know it. Everybody who studies it knows it.
 
Who's serving up the Kool-Aid?

If you are genuinely interested in coming here with the intention to improve the design of the Chimp Challenge, I would suggest you start by apologizing to our team as well as those individuals that you specifically and directly belittled.  As the self-proclaimed designer of the handicapping system you have a huge credibility problem at the moment.  When designing a system that plays such a large role in determining the winner, credibility is essential.

You can either accept facts, or not.  I have listed several facts that support my argument. You have never refuted a single one of them. All you have are your smears and innuendos - and wow! maybe a conspiracy!
 
Any 8 year old can understand 95% of my handicap system, because it's SO clear and simple. A balance is equal and fair, and you can call it any name you want, but it won't change the facts.
 
Weaker teams than EVGA need to be given a higher multiplier. Stronger teams than EVGA need to be given lower multipliers.
 
It's so simple, I'm amazed that you find the temerity to argue against it.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

Adak1


You have something of a self-fulfilling prophecy here - if you continue to tell your members that the CC is fixed, a conspiracy, hopelessly broken and should be put out of it's misery, etc., then you won't get the high support by your teammates, for the race. Maybe they will fold for WCG, as was suggested earlier in this thread.  Maybe they'll fold for the team, but not 100%. Which in turn, makes your finish in the race rather low, and makes you more sure that the CC is fixed, and a conspiracy, and etc.

You need to be positive, to attract your members to join you, and then fold 100% for you. It's honey you want, not vinegar. Encouragement, not contempt, for the members to join wholeheartedly, into the race effort. After the race, you can call it every name in the book if you want, but not before - that just kills excitement in your teammates, and they won't race well or at all, if you are describing the race in a negative way, before it starts.

The CC should always be a RACE, not a FAH promotional event, but people are always interested in races, and as a race, it IS a promotional event - but it has to stay a race, first. The Indy 500 is NOT at it's core, a bunch of drivers walking down the track, like a fashion show. It's a race, and so is the CC.

Did you notice in the race this year?

*we had the largest team, the smallest team, and a medium sized team, all in the top three teams, throughout most of the race?

*that those three teams were the three teams with the most growth in team (raw) points, over the last year?

*that we have more teams in a smaller range of race points, than ever before? From team #5 to #8, they are very closely packed.

The handicap will need to be adjusted after the race, but with every race, it will continue to make the changes needed, to bring the teams back toward a perfect balance.

You start off just fine. Then go to telling us what is wrong with US, then tell us what we should do and how to do it? You talk down about your fellow Captains and how broken this years CC is like you have no share in that?
 
You say that the CC is not about spreading the word about folding? REALLY????? And that it is a race? Are you kidding me? A race is where the majority of participants have a chance to win, not one shows up with a pair of running shoes, and another get's put on the shoulders of others to run for you, and the rest just have to sit in the bleachers and watch.
 
You lost me. I will no longer support any decision or input you have. I have read many of your post on other forums and your own that are deliberately talking down/degrading EVGA and putting the entire team in a bad light. You disappoint me to an extreme degree.
 
Enough! 

---

Need proof Fellow Folders from any team? Here...
 
He makes this post... http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7460884&postcount=303  and this one (Read all you like, just highlighting the last paragraph to show his beliefs and tactics)  http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7461221&postcount=329
 
That member (From the first link) comes to our forum and makes this one as a result... http://forums.evga.com/fb.ashx?m=1914820
 
And yes, I have more, and screen shots to protect the integrity of the posts... But hey... It is only one person that is a self proclaimed "Leader" and Designer of the 2013 CC. So he can take all the blame as well.
 
As I see it at this moment, it is a deliberate attempt at one person trying to "Act" like they are better and bigger than anyone, any contest or any team. That is disgusting to me. All creditably for such an individual has been lost. If this person has anything to do with the CC outside his own PPD moving forward I will NOT be participating or help in any way in the background for our team. And you can quote me on that. 
 
And you that know me... Know how much I give everyone chances to the point of upsetting a few of you. So for me to be here now, should speak volumes all on it's own. Leaders lead by example, not by demands and talking down to any member or team. 
 
While I do realize I am not a leader, I know what one looks like that I will follow...

AB, Troy and Adak.
 
I've researched Adak's post as I am sure you have.  In Adak's case he knows what he's posted.  What I have seen has proven to me what sort of human I'm dealing with. 
 
I've already made my judgment about him/her and the next CC. 
 
I'll be doing the CC next year and doing what I can to organize a strike team to help out one team not OCF to reach a goal of winning. 
 
See ya' all next year and hopefully working for a team WORTHY of the Jade Monkey.

You know.. even an 8 year understands that cheating win is wrong.

 
That is all.
 
 
PS. I would put money on EVGA not participating next year.

@Macaholic
Would you be surprised to learn that such recruiting has historically been used in the CC?
 
Would you be surprised to learn that PCPitStop has been recruited TWICE before this year, to fold for a CC team - once for a team named EVGA? (in 2009)? They still have the messages about it in their archive. Just ask them, or check it out. The only difference is, I'm above board about it - we post their names and their teams right up on the forum. And we pay them back. (EVGA did not)
 
Please refrain from wrapping me with unseemly motives. Last year, there was nobody from PCPitStop. Tom's Hardware had one person. TRP had two (iirc), and they both quit the TRP forum, earlier this year (it's now back in business). None of them even asked ABOUT joining the CC race. Also, the handicap system had not been approved at that time, and no rules had been made for new teams (or many other rules). No one had even mentioned a new team entering the CC, at that time.
 
So it wasn't a case of "conveniently" recruiting them this year. That was what they WANTED to do. I have asked Tom's Hardware and PcPitStop to consider racing separately next year, already.  TRP also.
 
Since "sub rosa" recruiting of others can't be prevented, and will happen, why not make it a part of the race? 
 
I'm all in favor of changing the recruiting practices, but the change must be:
 
1) something verifiable. Rules that can't possibly be enforced, are worse than no rules at all, since they only penalize the honest and above board teams.
 
2) something that encourages new racers to participate. I don't want the CC race to BE a promotional event primarily, but I do want it to HAVE a promotional effect, for FAH.
 
There is no "deck" to stack. We recruited this same way last year - and there was no rule made to prohibit it, either last year, or this year. There was not even a vote on such a rule.
 
I have no idea why you would post this, when they are not accurate. Ask Xavier. Ask Axipher for a copy of the Captain's forum posts - study them. What you're describing, is simply not there.
 
This year, we had to work (and Xavier did the majority of it), just to get the Captain's INTO the Captain's forum. You can't believe how little work was actually accomplished. Again, ask your Captain, he'll tell you.
 
Axipher did ask about having outside recruiting banned, but he did so only very shortly before the race - and I had to object to it. I had already recruited, and there was no further discussion of the subject, and no vote.
 

troy8d

jinihammerer

PS. I would put money on EVGA not participating next year.

Without a meaningful change in the organizational structure, I would do the same.  That is the true failure of the Chimp Challenge and everything else is just symptoms.  The faux recruiting by OCF, the horrible imbalance of the handicap system, ect. much easier to fix than the organizational problems.  Granted there are those (like XZ) that have worked tirelessly to not only make the CC happen, but also to make it better.  The overall apathy by most teams, however, is probably an indication of how meaningless the CC has become...

Yes. Famous paraprased quote is that those that do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. The [H]orde learned and so did MaxPC. Time that EVGA learned.

bill1024

Since "sub rosa" recruiting of others can't be prevented, and will happen, why not make it a part of the race?

That's fine then, but there can't be a handy cap.
There is an old saying.
Race what you brung, and hope you brung enough.
To make a handy cap with team data, then bring in racers that are not a part of that data, is sandbagging.

If you win that way and feel good about it, well then good for you.
I wouldn't.

 
That's why we DON'T  do that!
 
The recruits ARE included into the handicap - just exactly like they were part of the team, all along. That's WHY we use RACE data, and not regular team ppd, or points/month.
 
That completely eliminates sandbagging in the CC - unless you want to throw a year or two of racing, away. 
 
 

Well I for one say to my fellow team mates! 
  
 
 
Thank you for turning out this year!  This one I bought in honor of all of you.