Date:	Wed, 28 Jun 1995 06:35:47 -1000
From:	sasaki@netopd.harvard.edu (Marty Sasaki)
Message-Id: <199506281635.MAA08527@netopd.harvard.edu>
Organization: Harvard University Office of Information Technology
Subject: Re: The Highs and Lows at Mid-American . . .posted for Sam Ritter ]

From: sritter@umi.com
Cc: sritter@umi.com
Subject: Re: The Highs and Lows at Mid-American . . .posted for Sam Ritter 
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 10:32:58 -0400

Marty,

Please post, this will be my last post on this subject.


BOTTOM LINE:
------------

-  Ken Nealy was asked on Saturday if Highs and Lows were
	being dropped.  He had plenty of time to check
	scores and call Frank by Sunday, 6 p.m.  Instead, he 
	just said they were being dropped and DID NOT BOTHER
	to check the scores.  He said that the program was
	configured to do that.  Since Ken said that the
	program was supposed to do it, where did Ken get 
	that idea from?  It was either Mr. Nasty, Nasty's 
	program documentation( there is documentation isn't 
	there? ), or Ken ASSumed it.

-  It was apparent that the event organizers and chief judge
	had every intention of dropping highs and lows from
	the frantic search for a rule that would allow them
	to keep all the scores, and from the "Oh ****" 
	body language during their conference when they 
	realized they f***ed up.

-  The chief judge KNEW the mix of the judging panels at
	this event because HE picked them.  I believe that
	this is usually the case at most events.  If the 
	chief judge does not pick them, he/she at least
	scans the list of judges.

-  Rules should be used to run the events by.  Rules SHOULD
	NOT be used to cover up mistakes as they were at
	the Mid-American.

-  It is standard practice that "new" programs are tested
	to check the results that they are expected to give.
	It was evident that Ken Nealy and the organizers of
 	the Mid-American did not check the programs results.


My problem was with how the rules were used *dishonestly* by
the chief judge and event organizers to cover their mistakes.  THAT IS
THE POINT!!!  At least two placings
changed.

If it were there intentions that the high and low scores
not be dropped, why was it said that they were being
dropped???? 

No Whining, just the facts.

Good Winds

Sam Ritter



 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


Date:	Wed, 28 Jun 1995 14:50:49 -1000
From:	ac078@detroit.freenet.org (Ken Nealey)
Message-Id: <3sstd9$frp@detroit.freenet.org>
Organization: Greater Detroit Free-Net, Detroit, MI
Subject: Re: The Highs and Lows at Mid-American . . .posted for Sam Ritter ]



Earlier this afternoon, I received a phone call from the Chief Judge - 
Terry McPherson, I later verified the information that I was provided 
with Robyne Gardner, AKA Regional Director, Region 5. The AKA has chosen 
to uphold the decision that Terry made at the event. The scores will 
remain as posted at the event (5 judges with no Hi/Low drop).

Sam Ritter has been notified of this decision.


Ken Nealey


 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


Date:	Wed, 28 Jun 1995 09:48:42 -1000
From:	mr.nasty@ix.netcom.com (Frank Kenisky )
Message-Id: <3ssbmq$s25@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom
Subject: Re: The Highs and Lows at Mid-American . . .posted for Sam Ritter ]

>From Sam Ritter:
>Please post, this will be my last post on this subject.

I certainly hope not.

>      Since Ken said that the
>	program was supposed to do it, where did Ken get 
>	that idea from?  It was either Mr. Nasty, Nasty's 
>	program documentation( there is documentation isn't 
>	there? ), or Ken ASSumed it.

As it has been mentioned, the event organizers and Ken Nealy, had only
a few days to prepare and utilize this program. The program is not new.
I have sucessfully used this program for the past 5 years. It has only
been recently that others have asked to use it without me there. As far
as documentation, I do have documentation which I did not complete
because as I stated, I was the only one using the software for the
longest time, there was no reason for me to have documentation to tell
me how to run software I designed.

Again, Mr.Ritter, what does this have to do with my program? I think
nothing. I think you are only reflecting what your peers sad image. If
you have a beef with me, then take it up with me, don't go around the
event organizers to get to me. Take up your argument with me.

As far as this being your last post, I surely hope not. You see
Mr.Ritter you have opened a can of worms. The issue regarding the high
lows, has only just begun. I certainly hope we can address this without
attacking one another.

>-  It was apparent that the event organizers and chief judge
>	had every intention of dropping highs and lows from
>	the frantic search for a rule that would allow them
>	to keep all the scores, and from the "Oh ****" 
>	body language during their conference when they 
>	realized they f***ed up.

How do you prove intention? Now, the body language, my convince you of
what you wanted to see. As far as the event organizers decision it was
well within their right.

>-  The chief judge KNEW the mix of the judging panels at
>	this event because HE picked them.  I believe that
>	this is usually the case at most events.  If the 
>	chief judge does not pick them, he/she at least
>	scans the list of judges.

I agree.

>-  Rules should be used to run the events by.  Rules SHOULD
>	NOT be used to cover up mistakes as they were at
>	the Mid-American.



>-  It is standard practice that "new" programs are tested
>	to check the results that they are expected to give.
>	It was evident that Ken Nealy and the organizers of
> 	the Mid-American did not check the programs results.

Where does it specify this hype? In your mind. What constitutes a "new"
program? Any program used by them would have been "new". The program
does provide this correct calculations to the input. It does not ASSume
what you do.

It does *NOT* ASSume that the AKA Rules drops the high and low scores
of each of the judges which has not yet been determined. I might be a
nasty crude bas**d, but I am not so arrogant to think I know what the
AKA meant when they wrote to drop the high and low scores. I leave that
up to the event organizer and scorekeeper.

>My problem was with how the rules were used *dishonestly* by
>the chief judge and event organizers to cover their mistakes.  THAT IS
>THE POINT!!!  At least two placings
>changed.

THE POINT!!! Your point is that the an event should be run by the
rules, but that the rules were used *dishonestly*. Now that puzzles me.
If the rules don't suit you then they are dishonest? Maybe that is why
other events which change the rules according to suit your needs
attract you so much.

The *RULES* were written to provide us as a SPORT with a consistancy
between events. Without this consistancy we have no rules. The rules
are meant to be followed. I didn't make the rules and neither did the
event organizers. The AKA made the rules. Your Sport Kite Committee
made those rules.

Now if you address this, of which I have no control, then my friend you
have truly opened a can of worms. And for you to hide under the shadow
of Marty's e-mail is to be a great big chicken.

If an AKA sanctioned event does not follow the rules, which it agreed
to in the sanctioning request, then didn't that event break the
agreement of the sanctioning? If it did, then wouldn't that void the
sanctioning, according to the agreement? And if it did, wouldn't the
AKA take a more responsible presence by not allowing the benefits of
sanctioning to that event?

Now, are you arguing rules, which I have no control over? Or are you
arguing that you don't like me so my program sucks?

For those you say I rant, I give you Sam Ritter. This is ranting.

>If it were there intentions that the high and low scores
>not be dropped, why was it said that they were being
>dropped???? 

Well now, according to the last post by Ken Nealy, the scores stand.
According to what I sawk; even without seeing them, anyone with half a
brain could understand that if there is a 9 point difference between
one score and another then, mathamatically even dropping the high lows
would make little or no difference. The point was proven when Ken
posted the scores.

According to Ken's latest results, the head judge made the best
decision. Regardless of how you preceived it or how it may have
appeared to you. The decision, based on the MIX of judges, proven by
your statement regarding the point spread, was accurate.

If the point spread had been within a tenth of a point then, this would
probably have made more of a significant difference. But then again
this is a simple math equation, and math deals with logic. Something
you and others seem to lack.

For those who wish to flame me, and are not my dearest friends, please
e-mail me by Mr.Nasty. My friends call me Frank. :)

>No Whining, just the facts.
>
>Good Winds
>
>Sam Ritter
>

-- 
*************>>>>>>>>>>>>>MR.NASTY<<<<<<<<<<<<<**************
Fiesta Kite Ideas	  http://www.tmn.com/kiteweb/home.htm
8302 Tiguex		  Mr.Nasty@ix.netcom.com
Universal City, TX 78148  (210) 659-1803 or (512) 326-6221
*************************************************************


 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


Date:	Wed, 28 Jun 1995 10:53:15 -1000
From:	ac078@detroit.freenet.org (Ken Nealey)
Message-Id: <3ssffr$nd2@detroit.freenet.org>
Organization: Greater Detroit Free-Net, Detroit, MI
Subject: Re: The Highs and Lows at Mid-American . . .posted for Sam Ritter ]


In a previous article, sasaki@netopd.harvard.edu (Marty Sasaki) says:

>Marty,

>Please post, this will be my last post on this subject.


>BOTTOM LINE:
>------------

>-  Ken Nealy was asked on Saturday if Highs and Lows were
>    being dropped.  He had plenty of time to check
>    scores and call Frank by Sunday, 6 p.m.  Instead, he 
>    just said they were being dropped and DID NOT BOTHER
>    to check the scores.  He said that the program was
>    configured to do that.  Since Ken said that the
>    program was supposed to do it, where did Ken get 
>    that idea from?  It was either Mr. Nasty, Nasty's 
>    program documentation( there is documentation isn't 
>    there? ), or Ken ASSumed it.

JUST THE FACTS:
---------------
Sam Ritter's wife asked me if the Hi/Low scores were being dropped
- Sunday morning (not Saturday). She did not indicate or even
suggest that a problem may exist.  When Sam brought his
"calculations" to my attention, it was late Sunday afternoon.  For
not being able to drop everything and investigate this matter
instantly, I am truly sorry (I had to field crew for my daughter
who was flying IIB and then I had to fly EIB). Based on my
understanding of the documentation, and the discussion regarding
tie - breaking I apparently presumed that the Hi/Low scores were
being dropped.  

I previously indicated: "if anyone was remiss, it was me...". I am
not infallible.  I also indicated that trying to complete
everything and test every possible scenario in the very short time
frame that I had to work with was nearly impossible. 

I am not making excuses however, the event organizers also
contacted me Thursday (the event started Saturday morning) night
and asked if I could also bring some portable 2 way radios to
effectuate communications at the Mid-American SKC. I have access to
same, however, they are digital trunked radio's which operate off
a repeater system: so I had to program the radio's to operate
without the repeater system since Kalamazoo is beyond the range of
our repeater system. 

Yes, I probably tried to do too much with such a short time frame
to work with. I was merely trying to accommodate the last minute
requests of the event organizers. For this, I am truly guilty.

>-   It was apparent that the event organizers and chief judge 
>    had every intention of dropping highs and lows from
>    the frantic search for a rule that would allow them
>    to keep all the scores, and from the "Oh ****" 
>    body language during their conference when they 
>    realized they f***ed up.

>-  The chief judge KNEW the mix of the judging panels at
>    this event because HE picked them.  I believe that
>    this is usually the case at most events.  If the 
>    chief judge does not pick them, he/she at least
>    scans the list of judges.

I agree Sam, the Chief Judge knew the mix of judges - he did pick
the panels.  

Believe it or not, there were problems on several of the judge
panels, Same resulted in numerous, individual per judge scores that
were more than questionable.  When a flyer performs an excellent
ballet (no crashes - a couple tricks that work with the music)
routine, how can a given judge give a flyer a lower score for both
choreography and execution than a flyer who crashed - required an
assisted re-launch? Why were judges asking if they could give a
flyer lower scores because they did not like the music - it was
boring or they did not like the kite?  These kind of things happen
when the majority of the judges have very little experience. Yes,
Sam these things really did happen at the subject event.

>-  Rules should be used to run the events by.  Rules SHOULD
>    NOT be used to cover up mistakes as they were at
>    the Mid-American.

>-  It is standard practice that "new" programs are tested
>    to check the results that they are expected to give.
>    It was evident that Ken Nealy and the organizers of
>    the Mid-American did not check the programs results.

It was tested, I previously indicated that I was remiss for not
specifically testing the Hi/Low drop thing.

>My problem was with how the rules were used *dishonestly* by the
>chief judge and event organizers to cover their mistakes.  THAT IS
>THE POINT!!!  At least two placings
>changed.

Lets permit the AKA to be the judge of whether or not the rules
were dishonestly or capriciously applied to this event. You did
file a formal protest, due process is being followed.

>If it were there intentions that the high and low scores
>not be dropped, why was it said that they were being
>dropped???? 

>No Whining, just the facts.

>Good Winds
>
>Sam Ritter

Again, I want to apologize to everyone involved with and/or who
participated in the Mid-American SKC for any inconvenience or
personal problem or concern that resulted from this. Further, I
want to remind everyone that due process is being pursued to
determine if a rules violation occurred. Let's give the system a
chance to work. It was merely the intent of the event organizers to
improve this event - for everyone that prompted their actions to
bring in a scorekeeping system at the last minute. Further, I will
say it again, I am SORRY that I was remiss in testing the Hi/Low
drop thing.  

I am NOT SORRY that I put forth the effort in an attempt to respond
to the event organizers request. After all it is kiting.

Ken Nealey



 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


Date:	Mon, 10 Jul 1995 03:11:50 -1000
From:	mr.nasty@ix.netcom.com (Frank Kenisky )
Message-Id: <3tr8um$er4@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom
Subject: Re: The Highs and Lows at Mid-American . . .posted for Sam Ritter ]

Getting back to the discussion as to which high/low scores should be
dropped. The AKA Rules book does not specify which high/low scores
should be dropped.

A couple of weeks ago I asked the question, which high/low scores
should be dropped. I also asked, other scorekeeping programers not to
comment so to avoid influencing others.

In order to distinguish what I mean by which high/low scores, I will
identify the different variables.

    1) The judges raw high/low score by component
    2) The judges high/low score by contestant
    3) The judges overall high/low score

Utilizing each one of these differently will provide a different
computation.

No one commented. There has been ample time for discussion. Does,
anyone, including Sam Ritter, have any comments? Or are we waiting for
guideance?
-- 
*************>>>>>>>>>>>>>MR.NASTY<<<<<<<<<<<<<**************
Fiesta Kite Ideas	  http://www.tmn.com/kiteweb/home.htm
8302 Tiguex		  Mr.Nasty@ix.netcom.com
Universal City, TX 78148  (210) 659-1803 or (512) 326-6221
*************************************************************


 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


Date:	Mon, 10 Jul 1995 09:26:02 -1000
From:	mr.nasty@ix.netcom.com (Frank Kenisky )
Message-Id: <3trusa$9b1@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom
Subject: Re: The Highs and Lows at Mid-American . . .posted for Sam Ritter ]

The topic is open to the discussion of what is being used currently.
Also, any arguments about other uses of high/low. As of this posting
there can be no discussion regarding what you may have thought but the
pros and cons of other methods.

If I may add, again I would like to thank Sam Ritter for bringing up
this issue. I would like to thank Chuck for being so patient. And I
would like to make note that no one knew which high/low scores to keep.
NOONE. 

Yes, Chuck, which high/low scores does your system keep.
-- 
*************>>>>>>>>>>>>>MR.NASTY<<<<<<<<<<<<<**************
Fiesta Kite Ideas	  http://www.tmn.com/kiteweb/home.htm
8302 Tiguex		  Mr.Nasty@ix.netcom.com
Universal City, TX 78148  (210) 659-1803 or (512) 326-6221
*************************************************************


 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


Date:	Mon, 10 Jul 1995 08:37:29 -1000
From:	cjsigal@netcom.com (Chuck Sigal)
Message-Id: <cjsigalDBIJqH.FoF@netcom.com>
Organization: Berkeley Buggy Bums
Subject: Re: The Highs and Lows at Mid-American . . .posted for Sam Ritter ]

In article <3tr8um$er4@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, Frank Kenisky wrote:
<clip>
>A couple of weeks ago I asked the question, which high/low scores
>should be dropped. I also asked, other scorekeeping programers not to
>comment so to avoid influencing others.
<clip>
>No one commented. There has been ample time for discussion. Does,
>anyone, including Sam Ritter, have any comments? Or are we waiting for
>guideance?

May I speak now? :-)
-- 
 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |   A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in   |
 |   human history--with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila.  |
 |                        Mitch Ratcliffe, Technology Review, April, 1992  |
 | Chuck Sigal                                                             |
 | Albany,CA,USA    Voice/Fax:01.510.527.3547   e-mail:cjsigal@netcom.com  |
 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+



 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


Date:	Tue, 11 Jul 1995 03:22:56 -1000
From:	ac078@detroit.freenet.org (Ken Nealey)
Message-Id: <3tttvg$40s@detroit.freenet.org>
Organization: Greater Detroit Free-Net, Detroit, MI
Subject: Re: The Highs and Lows at Mid-American . . .posted for Sam Ritter ]




Frank,

Given reference to the AKA rule book, 3rd edition, Section 5 - Judges
Criteria and Scoring (page 20), Section A, Heading 2 - Judging Panels,
paragraph b, in part, reads; "Generally, if 5 or more judges are used, the
high and low scores for each component will be deleted from the final score".

To apply the foregoing, it is necessary to understand what is meant by "each
component".  Typically, an individual ballet score is comprised of 2
components - choreography 60and execution 40 To effectuate the hi/low
drop per the above referenced rule, you would drop the hi/low score for the
choreography component and the hi/low score from the execution component. The
same methodology applied to League Style Precision, the total score is
comprised of 5 components, each with a 20weight factor. You would drop the
hi/low form each compulsory 1, 2, 3 and 4 (component) and the hi/low from the
Continuity (transition moves) component. If you refer to page A3, Appendix C
of the rules book, there is an example of a scorers worksheet that applies
the aforementioned methods.

What about ties? refer to Section B, paragraph 1 of the above referenced
rule, in part, same reads; "If a 5 judge panel was used, the high and low
scores (which were excluded from the initial tabulations) are added back in
to determine the final standings". This is at best a little vague. The rule
suggests that the hi/low scores are added in to determine the final
standings. Does this mean that everyones hi/low score is added back in? This
could effect the scores and ranking of the entire event (e.g. EIB).
Therefore, in my opinion, the hi/low scores are added back in for only the
contestants who are tied; to effectuate the tie breaking process only. If a
tie still exists, you would apply the next level of the tie breaking process
as described in Section B, paragraph 2 of this rule. You would only use same
to effect the finish rank of the affected (tied) contestants. 

Ken Nealey



 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


Date:	Tue, 11 Jul 1995 07:24:33 -1000
From:	cjsigal@netcom.com (Chuck Sigal)
Message-Id: <cjsigalDBKB0x.8K1@netcom.com>
Organization: Berkeley Buggy Bums
Subject: Re: The Highs and Lows at Mid-American . . .posted for Sam Ritter ]

In article <3trusa$9b1@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, Frank Kenisky wrote:

>Yes, Chuck, which high/low scores does your system keep.

The only way I know to answer that question is to explain in some detail.

My current understanding (and believe me it is not immune to change)
is bassed the process that one would use with the traditional
hand computation method, "Work Sheets". These are in the "Rule Book" in
Appendix C  A-3. Please bear with my crude ASCII representations.
Below are two used for one contestant who is involved in a tie. I've
marked the high and low scores with a ^ below them ie.
	|---|
	|6.4|
	|-^-|

FIRST DROP HIGH / LOW

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual Precision	   1   2   3   4   5   mid3  wt	 score
--------------------------|---|---|---|---|---|----|----|-----|-------------
Comp. #1		  |6.4|6.7|7.0|7.9|6.4|20.1|x2.0|40.2 |XXXXXXXXXXXXX
--------------------------|-^-|---|---|-^-|---|----|----|-----|XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Comp. #2		  |4.2|6.0|4.4|7.0|5.8|16.2|x2.0|32.4 |XXXXXXXXXXXXX
--------------------------|-^-|---|---|-^-|---|----|----|-----|XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Comp. #3		  |6.9|7.7|4.0|8.0|6.6|21.2|x2.0|42.4 |XXXXXXXXXXXXX
--------------------------|---|---|-^-|-^-|---|----|----|-----|XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Free Style Technical *	  |4.8|4.5|3.0|4.8|4.3|13.6|x3.0|40.8 |XXXXXXXXXXXXX
--------------------------|---|---|-^-|-^-|---|----|----|-----|XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Free Style Artistic	  |6.0|6.6|3.0|6.0|5.3|17.3|x1.0|17.3 |XXXXXXXXXXXXX
--------------------------|---|-^-|-^-|---|---|----|----|-----|------net----
					     final score|173.1| /3 | 57.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

IF A TIE RESULTS THEN RETURN HIGH AND LOW FOR THOSE INVOLVED

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual Precision	   1   2   3   4   5   ALL   wt	 SCORE
--------------------------|---|---|---|---|---|----|----|-----|-------------
Comp. #1		  |6.4|6.7|7.0|7.9|6.4|34.4|x2.0|68.8 |XXXXXXXXXXXXX
--------------------------|-^-|---|---|-^-|---|----|----|-----|XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Comp. #2		  |4.2|6.0|4.4|7.0|5.8|27.4|x2.0|54.8 |XXXXXXXXXXXXX
--------------------------|-^-|---|---|-^-|---|----|----|-----|XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Comp. #3		  |6.9|7.7|4.0|8.0|6.6|33.2|x2.0|66.4 |XXXXXXXXXXXXX
--------------------------|---|---|-^-|-^-|---|----|----|-----|XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Free Style Technical *	  |4.8|4.5|3.0|4.8|4.3|21.4|x3.0|64.2*|XXXXXXXXXXXXX
--------------------------|---|---|-^-|-^-|---|----|----|-----|XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Free Style Artistic	  |6.0|6.6|3.0|6.0|5.3|26.9|x1.0|26.9 |XXXXXXXXXXXXX
--------------------------|---|-^-|-^-|---|---|----|----|-----|------net----
					     final score|281.1	/5 = 56.22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

IF A TIE STILL EXISTS USE THE FREE STYLE TECHNICAL SCORE TO BREAK IT.
			      ^------------------^ ^---^
			      row		   col

	    For this Contestant:
	       Score is equal to 57.7
Level one tiebreaker is equal to 56.22
Level two tiebreaker is equal to 64.2

And now for something completely different...

If 2 + 2 = 4 what is 65.2 + Very Good?
See page 28 of the "Rule Book".
-- 
 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |   A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in   |
 |   human history--with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila.  |
 |                        Mitch Ratcliffe, Technology Review, April, 1992  |
 | Chuck Sigal                                                             |
 | Albany,CA,USA    Voice/Fax:01.510.527.3547   e-mail:cjsigal@netcom.com  |
 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+



 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


