Belton HS Robotics
Registered: 1510103351 Posts: 1
Reply with quote #1
Looking over the rubric we were confused of the difference between signs and posters. Were posters things that were being put up in pit areas or on stands to mark which team was which. If so were signs the ones that our team held up that was specific to each competing team, if we can have any clarification on this subject it’d help us a bunch.
Registered: 1443021001 Posts: 184
Reply with quote #2
Here is interpretation from Dallas BEST head Judge:
I checked the rules and there is no specific guidance or definition to differentiate signs vs posters.
My interpretation is that posters are meant to be mounted and fixed, such as part of the display booth or hung up in the school to promote and advertise the team. Signs are hand held and displayed by spectators in the stands or team cheerleaders and fans. Both signs and posters are graded under the same section of the rubric, so as long as they are part of the “multiple avenues of support - signs, posters, props, costumes, t-shirts” and are “creative and noticeable”, they should get graded appropriately.
Registered: 1447734057 Posts: 14
Reply with quote #3
I apologize in advance for the potentially pedantic nature of this inquiry, but it seems to me that the final twenty points awarded on the Spirit and Sportsmanship score sheet have the potential to penalize teams for building an exceptionally robust machine. To be awarded points, the sheet implies that repairs and adjustments must be made. If a team has no need to repair their robot, does that denote a lack of spirit or sportsmanship? Perhaps teams could start with 20 points, and as repairs are made (if they are made), judges could observe and then deduct points accordingly.
*In hindsight, I probably should have posted this under awards and judging, but this seemed to be a relevant thread.
Registered: 1445376852 Posts: 7
Reply with quote #4
I am not a judge, but I have always understood that to be based on what judges actually see happening. Is an adult nearby while students are making adjustments? Is an adult in charge? I feel like points are only taken away the more they see adults in charge rather than students. If the students have nothing to repair or do, then there would be no reason for adults to be around at all, and thus the team should get full points.
Also, I don't think that's pedantic at all. At our hub competition, we were docked points in an earlier section - helping other teams in need. Our team helped others several times, but the judge scored us as having "no direct evidence". It's unfortunate that some of the scores are so dependent on what a judge actually witnesses in such a chaotic atmosphere.
Registered: 1441986896 Posts: 41
Reply with quote #5
not pedantic at all. Our team was docked 10 of the 20 points in this category. judges comment: "I saw no one making adjustments to the robot." we also won the most robust robot award.
Perhaps some modification to the wording of the rubric is in order. Similarly to ptownrobotics... we were also docked 11 of 20 points by another judge who "saw" no evidence of our team helping any other. They definitely did - quite often, just not in front of that judge. One practice that we see at regionals, that we do not see at the local level is a ballot for teams to list those that have helped them. They get a point for turning in a completed form. and judges have more data as a basis for their scoring.
Registered: 1443021001 Posts: 184
Reply with quote #6
'Evidence' is a hard one to show in Notebook Safety category too. Saying that you did something is poor evidence. Saying that the oven was at 189C for 2 hours, is not as good evidence as a thermometer graph showing the temperature every 5 minutes.
A log sheet of team names, and descriptions of problems you solved, initialed by the other team is more convincing 'evidence' of helping other teams. Is it too meta to have problems specifically for other teams to help you solve, as a way of helping other teams score well on helping other teams?