Spring Racing Carnival Qualifier Races - Scoring?

[Kiralynn]

Someone brought up the idea that race course judges should get points in the rider standings. This would allow them to earn a slot in the Bree Cup, even though they sacrificed opportunities to earn points in the standing by volunteering to judge. I can see there are many pro's and con's to this and would like to hear your feedback.

How do we compensate race volunteers?
How do we encourage people to judge, when most judges are also racers?
How do we determine who earns the six (?) ranking-based slots in the Bree Cup?
Do we want the rider standings to be strictly a measure of riding skill or also of participation in racing?

How many standing points should the following be worth:
* Judging (currently 0)
* Running the race (currently 1 cumulative)
* Winning 3rd place (currently 1)
* Winning 2nd place (currently 3)
* Winning 1st place (currently 5)

If we ultimately allow the top X (currently 6) riders from the standings to earn entry in the Bree Cup without racing in a qualifier, we will schedule a run-off if there is a tie for any of the ranks that puts us over 6 riders.

[Erroodwen]

Here is an idea for those who WANT to race but normally end up having to judge instead:

Since the race itself doesn't take that long, you could have 2 back to back races- so half the field races while the other half judges and then vice versa on the 2nd race. That way everyone one gets to participate and those who want to race but end up judging actually get to race. Plus, it would mean people that normally won't volunteer to judge would have to judge.

Of course you would end up with 2 people earning 5/3/1 points. I'm not sure how you would want to work that out, but it's unlikely 2 people would end up tied all season.

[Sonca]

I understand why the aspect of granting some sort of points to people who decide to judge instead of race to keep the race from being canceled due to lack of judges is being considered. However, I do not think that someone who just judges should be considered the same as someone who shows up to run in every race but just cannot manage to place better than fourth.

Based on the standing posted in the WAR site (and assuming that she did not judge this season) if this was in place this season, having helped judge 3 races and run none of them, I would rank higher than Faerochil who did run one race.

How about tracking a separate list of 'provisional' points for the judges that can somehow be used in the event that it will make a difference in someone's rank based qualification (sorry, it's still too early for me to think how this all would work). Someone who races every time but decides at the last minute to sacrifice a race or two to fill in as judge in order to keep the race running should be granted more of a provisional bonus than some one who volunteered several days earlier and rarely (if ever) races.

[Byrcha]

You could do what Sonca suggests by awarding 1-point for judges and 2-points for racing. The trouble though is that if a bunch of judges end up qualifying for the Bree Cup ... who will judge the Bree Cup itself? Perhaps there is some other way to reward/encourage judges? Either way, we likely just need to find more racers and more judges.

[Andeon]

I suggested this earlier to Kiralynn - she may have forgotten it, or dismissed it as not useful, but I'll bring it up again, since you asked :)

I was intrigued briefly by the idea that race *winners* (at least the #1 spot, maybe others) would, as part of their winnings, be required to judge a race - obviously, this would cut the peak off the curve, so to speak, as the most consistent winners would now also show up and therefore place at fewer races, making the top end of the curve much lower, I imagine, if I remember anything about math and statistics (which I mostly don't), but it *would* be one way of making the overall rankings a tad more competitive, while making the (arguably) best riders (and biggest winners) also supporters of the industry, which I don't think is *too* much to ask.

now, if we institute *THIS*, ALONG with giving judges minor points (1) or *provisional* (i.e. tiebreaker) points, then this would still be an excellent way for top racers to still get an edge against similarly highly-ranked riders if there's a really close standing, while providing at least an extra, reliable judge for each race

now, obviously, there'd be a couple of sore points to this - for example, the last race rider in the season wouldn't have a race *during* that season to be able to judge for (we wouldn't make the a #1 winner give up his slot in the Bree Cup to judge, after all), but that could easily be carried over into next season

the more obvious limitation is that not every racer will be able to attend/judge the immediate next race, depending on his/her schedule - but I think we can count on most winners to show up for *a* race and judge, if they're asked to as part of the accolades of taking #1 in a race

anyway, that's the first idea I had - I'll see if it's got legs, and think about the other point arrangements while I'm at it...

[Kiralynn]

Andeon wrote:

the more obvious limitation is that not every racer will be able to attend/judge the immediate next race, depending on his/her schedule - but I think we can count on most winners to show up for *a* race and judge, if they're asked to as part of the accolades of taking #1 in a race

I think this idea has some possibilities. I see the biggest drawback in that a percentage of our winners are not in the LMB and have never judged. I was concerned that LMB members would feel put upon when they were under social pressure to volunteer after a win, while non-LMB members could skip out without any social implications. Also, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around how this would affect the standings. There are only 8-10 scoring races, so every race counts.

[Andeon]

Kiralynn of Rohan wrote:

Andeon wrote: the more obvious limitation is that not every racer will be able to attend/judge the immediate next race, depending on his/her schedule - but I think we can count on most winners to show up for *a* race and judge, if they're asked to as part of the accolades of taking #1 in a race I think this idea has some possibilities. I see the biggest drawback in that a percentage of our winners are not in the LMB and have never judged. I was concerned that LMB members would feel put upon when they were under social pressure to volunteer after a win, while non-LMB members could skip out without any social implications. Also, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around how this would affect the standings. There are only 8-10 scoring races, so every race counts.

there's no doubt - there are definitely some snags with this idea...

to give an example - we'll assume 1 particular player who's so good, (s)he gets 1st place in every race they run. Because every time they take 1st place, they lose out to judging a race, the most they can get is 5 #1 wins during a season - setting them at 25 points (if I understood the point totals correctly) and 5 whatevers you decide that judges might get

Now, the next best racer, would take #1 in any race that our best racer doesn't compete in ,and makes 2nd place in every race (s)he does, giving, except, that, if this one is taking #1 spot for every race our first rider isn't in, (s)he's also only getting to race in 5 races, giving him/her a total of 25 points. He *would* be taking second in each race the first guy is getting #1 in, but because he takes #1 in the other five races, he (i'm giving up on the (S) in each case) is also losing out on racing because of judging, meaning, at best, he'll end up possibly 3 points ahead, as in the very first race he takes 2nd vs our head guy taking 1st, meaning that 2nd guy will end up 3 points ahead during THIS season, and be the first one to give up a race to judge next season.

That means, ideally, the guy that places 2nd in virtually every race beyond these two, will accumulate 29 points during the season (1 3rd place during the first race, 2nd place every race beyond that)

so, it's true that our effectively 3rd place rider will end up with more total points than our 2 first place contenders, by a 29 to 28 to 25 for our 3rd best, 2nd best and 1st best rider (*best* of course being a very fluid determination)

now, this might not be *entirely* properly indicative of skill, but seems to cover a significantly tight range to be acceptable, and this is, of course, assuming the most extreme of outcomes. Now, I'll grant, when you take into account that most riders, I think, only attended somewhere between half to two-thirds of the races, and and probably placed in half to two-thirds of those, the variances...well, I'm not sure - we're reaching the point where we would need a stats major to tell me if further dispersing the winners and points makes the overall point range lower, or more extreme...okay, I'm lost now :)

still, I'm sure, get someone good with math, and they can parse out the range of #'s you can effectively get, and get an idea if eliminating only the #1 rider of each race will drastically skew the overall rankings, or only skew it a little bit (I'm sure it'll get skewed to some extent no matter how it plays out)

the real question is just how skewed can the overall rankings afford to get, and does this idea push it too far out of range or not?

In the end, I find the rankings to be too variable and imprecise to be a *precise* measure of skill - they're more like a general gauge - I can usually count on the top rankers to be very competitive racers - lower rankers are usually indicative of somewhat less committed racers (not always of course, but it's a good *gauge* to start with) that have appeared less often and/or placed less often, which is why ranking is a nice measure, but not something to get particularly excited about, either way.

that's why I'm feeling like the rankings can afford a little number skewing in favor of getting some reliable judges added to the roster - I'd be curious if someone who really has the time to tackle the math can either prove relatively little variance, or prove great and crushing variance, based on the model I provided.

[Aalloria Borealis]

If you asked the first Three places to judge a race, and only one regardless of how many other races they come out to win later, that might help. Then there would at least be 3 more "pay it forward" spots that other racers could then win at....and making 3 more judges. And it wouldn't have to be the next race either, they could choose it at another time.

As for non-LMB racers skipping out.....award the points and the "prize" at the race they choose to show up and judge for. Don't show up, we cut your points and you get no prize. Just an idea.

Another, have a Volunteers Only qualifier for the Bree Cup? Or even a Judges Only for circuit points race.

[Kiralynn]

Do we disallow them from racing if they owe a turn at judging? Do we give them a pass for an important or interesting race? What happens if we give them multiple passes, but then they owe as many turns at judging as there are races left in the season? Do we deny them further races? If someone judges several races up front, are they clear for the rest of the season? What happens if six previous winners sign up to judge a race that only needs four volunteers, do they all get credit? What happens if somebody has a free day to come to a race (snow day, sick day, etc) but can't make one later, do they never get their prize?

I have a feeling if we start making future demands on people's time, both Banders and non-LMB folk will be much less likely to sign up for a race in the first place.

[Caiyyd]

It does seem to be making it a bit complicated. I think a simple point system would be easier to track and manage. Give the same number of points as a non winning racer and it should be fine. I know I will be willing to not race if a judge is needed and I would still get a point!

[Kiralynn]

So the new questions become this...

How much more important is it to win a race than merely participate?
How much should a person fall behind in the standings due to missing a race?

If the answer is:
VERY important and NOT MUCH behind -- 1 Judge, 1 Race + 2 3rd, 4 2nd, 6 1st.
VERY important and FAR behind -- 2 Judge, 2 Race + 2 3rd, 4 2nd, 6 1st.
NOT VERY important and NOT MUCH behind -- 1 Judge, 1 Race + 1 3rd, 2 2nd, 3 1st.
NOT VERY important and FAR behind -- 2 Judge, 2 Race + 2 3rd, 3 2nd, 4 1st.

Volunteering will remain just that... voluntary. We'll trust in Banders to pull through when the time comes.

[Molly Bayberry]

I wonder if you would consider going outside the kin to look for judges, Kiralynn. Molly is afraid of horses and doesn't ride, and so is always available to judge (real-life permitting), and I know many people who also don't ride and would be willing to serve as judges. This would free up LMB folks who want to race.

Look for role-players who don't care about winning or standings, there are lots in the Ales & Tales channel! There could even be a kind of team of judges, with some role-play training sessions, etc. :)

[Kiralynn]

I have thought about it, but this is something I have to be very careful with. I don't want to pick a stranger, as they may be part of a group that intends to cheat the race. (It happened once before.) I could ask Banders to ask their friends to judge, since then we wouldn't be dealing with complete strangers.

Hopefully we'll get some more feedback on the point scoring, since the poll was all over the board.

[Aldekim]

All over the board? Clearly we missed one option with no votes, the other 6 have one vote each.

[Byrcha]

I like the idea of asking some of our non-kin friends to help with the judging. While we could ask in /alesandtales, I agree that we should screen for those who we know/trust and forming a group in advance might help. Creating a RP scenario from it could be fun also.