UPSB v4
Research Department Feedback / Reforming the judging system
-
Date: Tue, Sep 10 2013 18:30:16
Ok, there we go. Hi everyone. WC14's rules were just released, and this year again it comes up with the same judging system we had for years. It's been quite a while since I'm wondering about what would be a good judging system, and I'm pretty much convinced that this one just isn't good. So first I'll try to explain why I think it is a bad system, and then I'll try to say what are the alternative ways of judging I thought about. I'm just warning the reader : my aim here is NOT to come with a judging system saying it's The One And Only. I just try to point out what is bad in this system, and find tracks to a new one. [SIZE="4"][COLOR="orange"]So, what's wrong with our current judging system ?[/COLOR][/SIZE] First, what does it currently look like ? There it is, from the wc14 rules released just today. You can also find it here, because it's not easy to read. [spoiler="The current judging system"]3.1.1 Execution Execution not only refers to the smoothness and control of the whole combo, but also the quality of the tricks executed and the pace/flow of the combo. Grade Description 5 The combo has exception smoothness and/or the tricks are executed perfectly at an adequate pace. 4 There are no mistakes but the combo does not have exception smoothness or some tricks are not executed perfectly. 3 There are no major mistakes, but minor mistakes such as uneven rotations, loss of control, shaky pen can be observed. 2 There is one major mistake in the combo. 1 There are multiple major mistakes. 0 The pen is dropped during the combo. 3.1.2 Difficulty Difficulty is divided into 2 categories: Trick Difficulty and Linkage Difficulty. Trick difficulty refers to the difficulty of tricks executed, while linkage difficulty refers to the difficulty of combining several tricks together. Grade Description 5 The combo has very difficult tricks AND very difficult linkages. 4 The combo has very difficult tricks OR very difficult linkages. 3 The combo has some difficult tricks or linkages, but nothing exceptional. 2 The combo is average in trick and linkage difficulty. 1 The combo is below average in difficulty. 0 Only very basic tricks and linkages are used. 3.1.3 Creativity Creativity can be represented as two levels. The base level describes the use of existing concepts, tricks or linkages in unconventional variations. It also refers to the use of unpopular tricks in interesting ways. This will be referred to as Creativity (Creative). The advanced level describes the use of totally new concepts and tricks never seen before. This will be referred to as Originality (Original). Grade Description 5 The combo contains multiple original and creative concepts which are exceptional and key to the appeal of the combo. 4 The spinner uses at least one original element which is exceptional and key to the appeal of the combo. 3 The spinner uses multiple creative elements which are useful to the appeal of the combo, but none are original. 2 The spinner uses at least one creative element which is useful to the appeal of the combo. 1 The spinner makes an attempt to be creative or original, but the result is not convincing or useful. 0 The spinner makes no attempt to be creative. 3.1.4 Presentation Presentation refers to the visual appeal and style of the combo. This includes anything from camera angle, structure of the combo, linkages and appearance of the pen and hands (and to a lesser extent, the body as a whole). To obtain 5 points in this criteria, you must have an excellent style which is fresh and interesting to watch. The combo must be well structured with a good balance and variety of tricks and nice linkages between. The style and hands must look good from the used angle. You may choose to deduct 1 or 2 points for each of the following flaw. The flaw must be major in order to deduct 2 points. - Poor structure: the tricks are not balanced or there is a lack of variety. - Style: the style of the spinner is not distinctive enough. - Linkages: the linkages between the tricks are boring or uninteresting. - Appearance: the pen or the hands appear ugly or make ugly movements. The appearance must be really bad to justify this penalty. 0.5 point can be deducted here if the choice of pen is inadequate for the combo. - Bad camera: the angle or the camera are detrimental to the appreciation of the combo. The camera must be really bad to justify this penalty.[/spoiler] [B]So first let's talk about execution.[/B] To have 5/5, one needs his combo to have "exception smoothness and/or the tricks are executed perfectly at an adequate pace". That is like awesomely vague. To me there are two main things under the word "execution". First, the fact that there is no mistakes of course. Second, the control. Control is the most important thing about execution, it is what proves that the spinner actually masters what he's doing. You can have a combo with no mistakes, but with total lack of control, for instance (even if there are actually some mistakes) RPD WT13 r1 : moving arm, uncontrolled rythm... Then the word "smoothness" actually doesn't mean anything, it's more like a style applied to a very good control : for example I consider raimo and Spinnerpeem as two masters of control, but only raimo can be called "smooth" ; yet their control have the same value. The current criteria do not really differentiate "no-mistakes" and control, or they are very vague (because "executed perfectly" doesn't mean anything, it's basically saying that something must be well executed to be well executed). [B]Then, difficulty. [/B] One has 5/5 if "the combo has very difficult tricks AND very difficult linkages". It could be considered as actually great, because spinners are obliged to respect a minimum of variety, so that there can't be full power tricks combos winning anymore. What is the problem with this ? First, most people will want to do "linkages > linkages > linkages > linkages" and then putting a lot of powertricks in the finisher. So it creates kind of an unique structure that everyone will reproduce. That's a shame, but well, we can say it is not too bad. The real problem with this criteria is way more important. The only question we're asked is "is there difficult tricks and linkages in this combo ?". That brings us to the main wrong thing about this system that I'll develop all along this article : the structure not being taken in consideration. As I explained in my article about structure (that I'd like people to glance after reading this article because it's very linked), with this system the "highlight structure" is valued. That is to mean that one can only make combos like "hard linkage > spam > hard linkage > spam > hard finisher" and win the world tournament. That's what sutomo did this year. The problem with the highlights scheme is that, according to structure-based criteria, it's actually not as difficult as a combo with steady difficulty, and moreover it demonstrates that there wasn't as much thinking about the combo. A combo where everything is linked with consistency and relevance (most obvious examples are RPD or fel2fram) is way more valuable than a highlight combo, even if the latter is more likely to please the eye of a novice judge. [B]It is pretty much the exact same problem with originality. [/B] The rules say "the combo must contain multiple original and creative concepts which are exceptional and key to the appeal of the combo". (Just btw, the differenciation between original and creative is pretty much irrelevant, as there can be endless arguments about whether it is truly new-and-never-seen or not). Here, it says that the concepts must be "key to the appeal of the combo". So, here we meet again our highlight structure. The best thing to illustrate what I'm saying is a13x WT13 r3. Everyone was focused on the dual pass, as it is an obvious highlight, without seeing that before it the linkages was as spammy as a demon sonic. Being original actually isn't all about finding new concepts (even if it remains important). One can be original with very basic tricks : when key3 performs a TA>midback>TA rev>indexaround, all the tricks are very basic, but the linkage is awesomely original (and nearly impossible to master). For both difficulty and originaly, the problem is that we only consider trick by trick, or linkage by linkage, but we don't actually consider the whole combo and its structure. [B]I don't have much to say about presentation... [/B] It is totally #imoyolo. A judge can rate absolutely as he wants in this criteria, with as specious reasons as "the hand is ugly". As a result, it is often the criteria used by bad judges to make win the spinner they want to win even if he loses on other criteria. [SIZE="4"][COLOR="orange"]So, what are the tracks we can follow to improve the system ?[/COLOR][/SIZE] I think there are two main paths we can follow here. [B]We can decide that we want to improve the criteria. [/B] Then, we have to accept the fact we are defining a WT game, with a precise ideal of spinner that would be as technical as possible. And we also have to accept that the winner of the WT is not the best spinner in the world, just the most WT-friendly. So what do we need to do to develop more accurate criteria, more precise to define what is actually technically best ? The most important thing is to take in consideration the structure, for it is a transverse concept to all the criteria (and that is here I would like you to refer to the previous article about it). I also think that defining such precise criteria could possibly (but that's just a suggestion) permit to have way less judges. Maybe we could work with only 5 judges for the whole tournament, as unbiased and competent as possible and coming from any community. Because, we have to admit it, the problem is also that most of the judges of WT/WC just aren't competent enough. Once again, I don't pretend to come with the ultimately true new system. I'm just having some ideas, but the most relevant thing we can do is forming an international workgroup in order to think about it seriously. [B]We can also decide that we don't want such precise criteria and refuse to create a "WT-game". [/B] But then, we would have to completely eradicate the mere concept of criteria. Every community would say precisely why, according to its vision of penspinning, spinner A or spinner B should win. Or maybe ask each community to judge with their own criteria. It could seem very strange and revolting said like that, but it actually is a solution to avoid creating a "ideal penspinner" and try to synthesize all different ways of seeing the penspinning (for instance japanese vision is very different from thai vision or french vision, whatever). Then of course there would be way more judges. It'd be more complicated to organize, but if it's what we want why not. I don't know what choice is the best right now. I only know that with the actual system, we are in-between : [B]trying to select the most technical spinner without adapted criteria to do so.[/B] So, thanks for reading ! I hope you'll have ideas and suggestions about a new judging sytem, and I mainly hope that we'll create an international workgroup about it. -Yaemgo PS : IMO PS² : sry if ima bad at engrish EDIT 9/11 : btw @Zombo, I'd like to have your opinion about this when you have a moment =)
-
Date: Tue, Sep 10 2013 19:06:49
wow, i cant say your right or wrong but this was a nice article, read both of them. very nice! edit: also, i remember seeing alot of complaints from WT13 about the judges. So, this might be the awnser to the problems they had with the last judges.
-
Date: Tue, Sep 10 2013 19:15:16
i actually thought this made some seriously valid points. of course, im not sure where the answer lies, but if pen spinning should evolve still, we should also evolve our criteria. i do like your focus on structure as well. something that should be more focused on with judging.
-
Date: Tue, Sep 10 2013 20:43:38
i love you and I agree with you and yolo But seriously, judging really gets ridiculous when it comes to Difficulty. And most people (me too) have no idea how Presentation should be judged.
-
Date: Tue, Sep 10 2013 20:47:53
We can decide that we want to improve the criteria.
ATM judges need criteria, as there is no serious impartial woldwide judging comitee.We can also decide that we don't want such precise criteria and refuse to create a "WT-game".
Then, we need that judging comitee. And we dont have it (nor really a lot of people to make it) I made a post about this in the RD and i got no answers so far, so i'll give some of my points in here. (you also gave some of them in your post) 1.- difficulty, creativity and smoothness are subjective We could make some serious criteria for what a smooth combo is, indeed i think that yours are fine. But what happens with difficulty and creativity? Both are related in so many complex ways that its near impossible to make definitions. For example, an average combo is more difficult than a bad combo with a strong finisher, and with current system the strong finisher wins. Also, the lenght of the combo (in time and stuff~), smoothness, speed and control are into difficulty too. With creativity its even funnier. Quote:The base level describes the use of existing concepts, tricks or linkages in unconventional variations. It also refers to the use of unpopular tricks in interesting ways. This will be referred to as Creativity (Creative).
This (going out of the definition, but reading WT13 judgings) means: 1.- use a flashy trick that newbies dont know to get creativity bonus 2.- master a kind of flashy tricks and use them in every round "in unconventional variations" to get creativity bonus, and execution bonus too. 3.- wave your hands to get creativity bonus 4.- include quite creative tricks in "oldschool" combos to get THE creativity bonus Ok, lets say it. I'm a bit radical with this and i give 0 creativity to 99% of the spinners. So what could be a solution for this? removing criteria in the things we can not make serious criteria. Also, including a penalty system for major errors. Example of a system this way: 5p - Execution (with criteria) 5p - Theme (with criteria) 5p - Difficulty (without criteria) 5p - Creativity (without criteria) Penalties: 3p - Bad presentation Deduct from 0 to 3 points for a bad presentation/video quality/angle that makes difficult to watch the combo 3p - Lack of creative progression Deduct from 0 to 3 points to the spinners that repeat the same tricks/linkages in one or more rounds 3p - Combo aesthetics dont match the theme Deduct from 0 to 3 points to a combo that has a final "impression" that doesnt match the theme Why i think this system is cool? Ü 1.- The presentation criteria is removed. That gives more importance to the combo itself and its only taken into account when it makes difficult the combo analysis/view. 2.- It removes the idea that getting a good R1 combo is wining the WC/WT 3.- Gives more liberty in the execution criteria, because of the "Combo aesthetics dont match the theme" penalty. That way, smooth combos still get a good punctuation, but spinners like blue or me can go a bit crazier in technical theme. 4.- A spinner can get a -9/20 punctuation :3 5.- Its true that having 10 points without any criteria can be quite hard, but in a championship like WC where you have a ton of judges, having lots of points of view may be better that giving really complex definitions in those fields. Do you like it? no? do you like me? D: PS : IMO PS2 : sry if ima bad at engrish PS3 : YOLO -
Date: Tue, Sep 10 2013 21:13:03
RPD;268890]Do you like it?[/QUOTE] Nope :/ [QUOTE=RPD;268890]do you like me? D:[/QUOTE] Yup <3 [QUOTE=RPD;268890]This (going out of the definition, but reading WT13 judgings) means: 1.- use a flashy trick that newbies dont know to get creativity bonus 2.- master a kind of flashy tricks and use them in every round "in unconventional variations" to get creativity bonus, and execution bonus too. 3.- wave your hands to get creativity bonus 4.- include quite creative tricks in "oldschool" combos to get THE creativity bonus Ok, lets say it. I'm a bit radical with this and i give 0 creativity to 99% of the spinners. [/QUOTE] I agree. [QUOTE=RPD wrote: So what could be a solution for this? removing criteria in the things we can not make serious criteria. Also, including a penalty system for major errors. Example of a system this way: 5p - Execution (with criteria) 5p - Theme (with criteria) 5p - Difficulty (without criteria) 5p - Creativity (without criteria) Penalties: 3p - Bad presentation Deduct from 0 to 3 points for a bad presentation/video quality/angle that makes difficult to watch the combo 3p - Lack of creative progression Deduct from 0 to 3 points to the spinners that repeat the same tricks/linkages in one or more rounds 3p - Combo aesthetics dont match the theme Deduct from 0 to 3 points to a combo that has a final "impression" that doesnt match the theme
Here I disagree. That is not the right solution, because basically it is still *trying to select the most technical spinner without adapted criteria to do so* (because the most technical part is left to #imoyolo), so it's actually not so different from the current system. You said that "what happens with difficulty and creativity? Both are related in so many complex ways that its near impossible to make definitions". It's totally true, but once we admitted that, the best solution is not to say "oh well screw the criteria then", it's to think and research about all that complexity to find criteria as accurate as possible. -
Date: Wed, Sep 11 2013 02:42:48
yo, honestly, i think we could really make a judging comitte if we tried
-
Date: Wed, Sep 11 2013 13:14:49
i feel that everyone has different pen spinning styles and some that suit them,some that they execute really well...some may love it,some may not... to me,the point system is just a flaw...pen spinning is like a form of art(at least for me),and art can never really be counted in terms of its 'beauty'.in fact,art can never really be placed side by side and be compared to see which is better,cos everyone has different styles... like i said some may like it,some may not...its kind of being biased in a sense already... but thats how the society counts it,i cant find of another way that can actually make competitions a much better way of counting whos the winner. its just like in battles...theres two spinners,A and B... A spins really well,excute the linkages really smooth... B spins a bit rough,but does many hard linkages... many people might vote for A(just an example...) but what if you have a different PSing style,and prefer how B spins? but then,others may disagree with what you said,because of the fact that they have different styles and hates how B spins... so,overall,competitions is something thats cool,its exciting to see spinners battle it out,but again...theres still quite a flaw in it...
-
Date: Wed, Sep 11 2013 13:47:38
[QUOTE='[4-OH-4];268925']i feel that everyone has different pen spinning styles and some that suit them,some that they execute really well...some may love it,some may not... to me,the point system is just a flaw...pen spinning is like a form of art(at least for me),and art can never really be counted in terms of its 'beauty'.in fact,art can never really be placed side by side and be compared to see which is better,cos everyone has different styles... like i said some may like it,some may not...its kind of being biased in a sense already... but thats how the society counts it,i cant find of another way that can actually make competitions a much better way of counting whos the winner. its just like in battles...theres two spinners,A and B... A spins really well,excute the linkages really smooth... B spins a bit rough,but does many hard linkages... many people might vote for A(just an example...) but what if you have a different PSing style,and prefer how B spins? but then,others may disagree with what you said,because of the fact that they have different styles and hates how B spins... so,overall,competitions is something thats cool,its exciting to see spinners battle it out,but again...theres still quite a flaw in it...[/QUOTE] Well, that's actually off-topic. It's an old debate to determine whether PS is an art or a sport or whatever. But here we're just trying to see how we can make judgements better for the tournaments. Because we're speaking about tournaments, ergo competition, ergo judging, I don't understand how your post is relevant.
-
Date: Wed, Sep 11 2013 14:38:39
So we need more specific criteria to cover structure and the like? I also think it'd help to base the limits of our criteria on real world examples for what is the best level to achieve in each criteria. So give links to videos with example scorings by the creators of the system, to demonstrate what SHOULD be derived from it. To help show what IS a 10/10 in difficulty. If you make the criteria specific enough, down to exactly what can give you a single point at each tier, you SHOULD be able to remove any personal judge bias and the results should be very similar, not varied. This is the best way to ensure the judging is done objectively rather than subjectively, in a tournament situation you want to remove the judge from any purpose than reading the criteria and seeing which match, you do not want their opinion. Also the system needs legitimacy. Each criteria should be designed with the help of spinners that are at the top of the level for that criteria, to help distinguish what is and is not of a 'high level'. So for originality and creativity you should ask Fel2Fram, Freeman and RPD, difficulty ask spinners such as i.suk, a13x, VGG and TBG, etc. This means that the criteria is going to match our current standards, it isn't going to be written up by someone who can't do a single power trick. If criteria is going to be divided into parts, for example execution including structure, you need to decide how many points to allocate to control. Do you really want to make it 50/50 with mistakes and structure, or do you want to reward spinners on one side more. I'd put slightly more emphasis on lack of mistakes, as they detract HEAVILY from execution compared to control, which becomes secondary.
-
Date: Wed, Sep 11 2013 15:22:07
eurocracy;268933]So we need more specific criteria to cover structure and the like? I also think it'd help to base the limits of our criteria on real world examples for what is the best level to achieve in each criteria. So give links to videos with example scorings by the creators of the system, to demonstrate what SHOULD be derived from it. To help show what IS a 10/10 in difficulty. If you make the criteria specific enough, down to exactly what can give you a single point at each tier, you SHOULD be able to remove any personal judge bias and the results should be very similar, not varied. This is the best way to ensure the judging is done objectively rather than subjectively, in a tournament situation you want to remove the judge from any purpose than reading the criteria and seeing which match, you do not want their opinion.[/QUOTE] I think not, because it's absurd to show a video saying "this is what a 10/10 in difficulty should mean". I forgot to mention it as a flail in our current criteria system, but I think it's not a good idea to define what is 1/5, what is 2/5, what is 5/5... What matters is how much spinner A's combo is more difficult than spinner B's, see what I mean ? This type of relative judgement is way more relevant than absolute judgement, because the latter would change every year. [QUOTE=eurocracy;268933]Also the system needs legitimacy. Each criteria should be designed with the help of spinners that are at the top of the level for that criteria, to help distinguish what is and is not of a 'high level'. So for originality and creativity you should ask Fel2Fram, Freeman and RPD, difficulty ask spinners such as i.suk, a13x, VGG and TBG, etc. This means that the criteria is going to match our current standards, it isn't going to be written up by someone who can't do a single power trick.[/quote] Oh my god. I disagree so hard I don't even dare answering you, maybe I'll do it later when I can stand back. [QUOTE=eurocracy wrote: If criteria is going to be divided into parts, for example execution including structure, you need to decide how many points to allocate to control. Do you really want to make it 50/50 with mistakes and structure, or do you want to reward spinners on one side more. I'd put slightly more emphasis on lack of mistakes, as they detract HEAVILY from execution compared to control, which becomes secondary.
I don't know. As I said, I don't pretend to know everything, and a group needs to think about it together. I as talking about that with sparking, ChainBreak and RPD and it needs a lot of thinking. First I was thinking about replacing "execution" by "control", still out of 5 points, and then remove 1, 2 or 3 points for mistakes. But I'm not adamant about this right now and it needs more research. -
Date: Wed, Sep 11 2013 15:27:02
Yaemgo;268937]I think not, because it's absurd to show a video saying "this is what a 10/10 in difficulty should mean". I forgot to mention it as a flail in our current criteria system, but I think it's not a good idea to define what is 1/5, what is 2/5, what is 5/5... What matters is how much spinner A's combo is more difficult than spinner B's, see what I mean ? This type of relative judgement is way more relevant than absolute judgement, because the latter would change every year.[/QUOTE] You're quite right here, it isn't very adaptive to new levels of difficulty and such, though it is more accurate to use for say, control and execution, where you can find combos with varying levels of control. [QUOTE=Yaemgo;268937]Oh my god. I disagree so hard I don't even dare answering you, maybe I'll do it later when I can stand back.[/QUOTE] Why would you not ask experts to help devise each criteria section? [QUOTE=Yaemgo wrote: I don't know. As I said, I don't pretend to know everything, and a group needs to think about it together. I as talking about that with sparking, ChainBreak and RPD and it needs a lot of thinking. First I was thinking about replacing "execution" by "control", still out of 5 points, and then remove 1, 2 or 3 points for mistakes. But I'm not adamant about this right now and it needs more research.
It was just an example of what needs to be considered, I wasn't expecting a solid answer straight ahead. It can also apply to other categories (Originality for example). -
Date: Wed, Sep 11 2013 15:43:41
@Yaemgo all im trying to say is...i think giving points for executing tricks cant be a weird way to judge...(i always get off topic of what im reading whenever i read long stuff,except stories) but look at it this way,your ideas can work...i think it gives a whole new 'look' to how people see the competitions now... but doesnt that mean people get deducted heavily for many stuff?
-
Date: Wed, Sep 11 2013 17:21:56
eurocracy wrote: So we need more specific criteria to cover structure and the like? I also think it'd help to base the limits of our criteria on real world examples for what is the best level to achieve in each criteria. So give links to videos with example scorings by the creators of the system, to demonstrate what SHOULD be derived from it. To help show what IS a 10/10 in difficulty. If you make the criteria specific enough, down to exactly what can give you a single point at each tier, you SHOULD be able to remove any personal judge bias and the results should be very similar, not varied. This is the best way to ensure the judging is done objectively rather than subjectively, in a tournament situation you want to remove the judge from any purpose than reading the criteria and seeing which match, you do not want their opinion.
This totally stops PS from evolving. If you want the world tournament to be some kind of exam to see who has learned his powertricks the best, this is the way to go. If not, we need a bit more thinking -
Date: Wed, Sep 11 2013 17:38:53
sparking;268948]This totally stops PS from evolving. If you want the world tournament to be some kind of exam to see who has learned his powertricks the best, this is the way to go. If not, we need a bit more thinking[/QUOTE] I revised that with this statement when replying to yaemgo above: [QUOTE=eurocracy wrote: You're quite right here, it isn't very adaptive to new levels of difficulty and such, though it is more accurate to use for say, control and execution, where you can find combos with varying levels of control.
It can likely be used for control, but not difficulty. -
Date: Thu, Sep 12 2013 00:54:59
The current criteria do not really differentiate "no-mistakes" and control, or they are very vague (because "executed perfectly" doesn't mean anything, it's basically saying that something must be well executed to be well executed).
Yes it does, major mistakes are considered obvious problems while loss of control is considered a minor mistake. Therefore if you have no mistakes but no control, the best you can score is 3/5.That brings us to the main wrong thing about this system that I'll develop all along this article : the structure not being taken in consideration.
Structure is considered separately in presentation. If it is clear that you are trying to increase your difficulty by ordering them in a poor manner, points will be deducted from Presentation. For example, if you put your hardest trick as first in your combo, you may lose points for bad structure in presentation.For both difficulty and originaly, the problem is that we only consider trick by trick, or linkage by linkage, but we don't actually consider the whole combo and its structure.
Again structure is considered in presentation, but if it is clear that it is important, we can create a new criteria for Structure.We can also decide that we don't want such precise criteria and refuse to create a "WT-game".
We tried to do that in WC10. The problem is language and effort from judges. Many judges wrote very short sentences. @Yaemgo, it's not too late to change the rules for WC14. The rules posted is a draft, almost straight copy from WC12. If we can create a better system before the tournament start, it will be adopted. -
Date: Thu, Sep 12 2013 04:57:31
I'm thinking about add 'variety' to judging system, I remember in WC12 nadhif vs. i.suk. Nadhif combined more variety in combo and i.suk with harder tricks. Both is interesting but the result could be different if there is variety to be judge
-
Date: Thu, Sep 12 2013 09:13:04
Gland]I'm thinking about add 'variety' to judging system, I remember in WC12 nadhif vs. i.suk. Nadhif combined more variety in combo and i.suk with harder tricks. Both is interesting but the result could be different if there is variety to be judge[/quote] Well, yes, I think it might be a good idea, but maybe hard to set and organize, again we need a lot of thinking about it. What we absolutely have to avoid is people just putting tricks together with no logic just to show they can make a lot of different stuff. Maybe include a variety part in the originality criteria. [QUOTE=Zombo;268976]Yes it does, major mistakes are considered obvious problems while loss of control is considered a minor mistake. Therefore if you have no mistakes but no control, the best you can score is 3/5.[/quote] Control can't be reduced to "losses of control sometimes" (that's considered as a mistake), it's a more general criteria on the overall combo, answering the question : does the spinner master the motion of his mod ? To me it also gathers rythm and "cleanness" as I discussed with sparking (what is generally called execution). [QUOTE=Zombo;268976]Structure is considered separately in presentation. If it is clear that you are trying to increase your difficulty by ordering them in a poor manner, points will be deducted from Presentation. For example, if you put your hardest trick as first in your combo, you may lose points for bad structure in presentation. Again structure is considered in presentation, but if it is clear that it is important, we can create a new criteria for Structure.[/quote] As I explained in my article about structure, it is a transverse concept. We cannot just consider a raw criteria called structure because it doesn't make sense, it is a concept we can find in pretty much every other criteria (mostly in difficulty and originality, a bit less in execution). So I think what we have to do is managing to integrate this concept in the other criteria so that it can be considered as its true importance. Btw I'm pretty sure we should just remove Presentation but well that's an other debate. [QUOTE=Zombo;268976]We tried to do that in WC10. The problem is language and effort from judges. Many judges wrote very short sentences.[/quote] Yes you're right, I'm aware of that. I think it's a bit too early anyway to try without any criteria if we have a lot of (inexperienced) judges. [QUOTE=Zombo wrote: @Yaemgo, it's not too late to change the rules for WC14. The rules posted is a draft, almost straight copy from WC12. If we can create a better system before the tournament start, it will be adopted.
I'm currently working on it with RPD and discussing about it with a lot of people. We still have to do a hard thinking, and then we'll publish a first version, that we'll maybe experiment in the EuroTour. (If anyone wants to help for this work just PM me or add me on Skype or something) -
Date: Fri, Sep 13 2013 13:55:03
I'm currently working on it with RPD and discussing about it with a lot of people. We still have to do a hard thinking, and then we'll publish a first version, that we'll maybe experiment in the EuroTour. (If anyone wants to help for this work just PM me or add me on Skype or something)
@Zombo (Again structure is considered in presentation, but if it is clear that it is important, we can create a new criteria for Structure.) Also, if you did the exercises i proposed in point nº1 here, you will know that difficulty is almost impossible to define, as its subjective. We want to change that criteria into "technical", which is based only in the breakdown of the combo. Mod, speed, control, style, weather, cats or hammers arent considered in technical. 3.- [B]Solving errors that older systems had[/B]. like people using the same structure again and again, same tricks, etc. Also the "stupid creativity bonuses" i stated some posts before this. 4.- [B]Making it open for future new combos/styles[/B]. Still, we can't make it closed to "old-school" styles. ... IMO -
Date: Fri, Nov 1 2013 07:16:29
Read every post in this thread, really inspiring. :D Every set of WT/WC is like a season in gaming world; things can change and the game itself can evolve. So having people like you guys who think a lot to contribute to the next season, is truly great. :D I agree with most of Yaemgo's points, especially the line saying the winner of WT/WC is mostly just WT/WC-friendly instead of the best spinner(s). What our real objective is, as I can tell from everyone's post, is to make WT/WC "friendly" to as many spinners as possible, so that every competitor is on the same page judged under an as-fair-as-possible standard. "Old-school", "new-tricker", "hand-waver", and spinners with all kinds of style, should all be given fair and sufficient points, or otherwise each board will just send out all "WT/WC-friendly" spinners to win, instead of making the tournament diverse and fun. I actually do agree that a small judge committee can be formed internationally, but with certified spinners of course. Didn't we have something like "International Pen Spinning Association" @RPD and others, and maybe express some of my views from an Asian perspective as a PSH admin. I hope the discussion can really come up with a significant improvement to the upcoming season of PS. The activity and excitement towards WT/WC had really gone down a bit every year, and better rules that bring more interesting and diverse tournaments can probably heat it up again. All have been said, I will try doing a translation (with credit ofc) of the main post of this thread to PSH. :XD:
-
Date: Thu, May 15 2014 14:21:46
sooooooooooooooo..... we changing the system ooorrr naaa?
-
Date: Fri, May 16 2014 13:47:28
The project was toο ambitious,we didn't got enough material to cover all the aspects needed for a complete rulebook