Poland vs Portugal - The Challenge. Are you brave enough to take it?

[Eínon]

Hi, I´m in too. 

Portugueses contem comigo desta vez! 

Eínon

[Nine]

De castelo não percebo nada mas ajudo na mesma

[hippotam]

Judging from the responses, I guess you guys take the challenge?

[LBaixinho]

Judging from the responses, I guess you guys take the challenge?

Off course

[tânia]

Judging from the responses, I guess you guys take the challenge?

Any doubt?

[hippotam]

So be it! Good men and women of Portugal - let the joust begin! 

(we wil send the revised, detailed rules for your review/approval soon)

[hippotam]

Hello again. We discussed weighted score rules and we see two drawbacks:
- a strategic move is possible: a community can review the creations before thay are submitted and choose only few (even one) excellent creation and intentionally do not enter the average and weak ones. If one community does that and the second community enters its all creations, the second will always loose.
- communites are tempted to exclude young & inexperienced builders from the contest because they would "lower the score" which would be not fair

So, we propose that we count and compare:
- all points for the smaller community
- points for top X creations of the larger community where X is the total number of creations entered by smaller comminity

Example: Portugal enters 15 creations, Poland enters 20 creations. We count all Portugal entries and top 15 Polish entries.

What do you think?

[El_gordo]

Example: Portugal enters 15 creations, Poland enters 20 creations. We count all Portugal entries and top 15 Polish entries.

What do you think?

In this case, the count would exclude your 5 "not so good" entries; it would be tantamount to a strategic move (such as "filtering" the best creation, in our case). A large community with expectedly more members would therefore have a larger chance of a high score in its first 15 classed members

There isn't a magic formula, I guess 


Pedro

[hippotam]

Good point. Back to the drawing board :-) Any ideas?

Of the top of my head - weighted scores with the required minimal number of entries? 5? 10?

Just to be clear - I am very far from thinking anyone would cheat here. Just trying to develop "solid" rules.

[El_gordo]

Good point. Back to the drawing board :-) Any ideas?

Of the top of my head - weighted scores with the required minimal number of entries? 5? 10?

I don't know - it might work.
Do you think it's reasonable to have people enroll beforehand, to have a head count, and then we can better decide the scoring?

Just to be clear - I am very far from thinking anyone would cheat here. Just trying to develop "solid" rules.

I got that


Pedro

[LBaixinho]

One thing that i'm not understanding. The classification of the Classic-Castle judges are known? Or we only know the winner and the honor-mentions?

If the answer to the second question is yes, i think that don't matters the number of member will enter!

[pedroagnelo]

I think our challenge should be parallel to the CCC; By this I mean anyone on both communities can participate or not, but for the challenge there could be teams with a set number of members that would compete directly with the same creations.
Like so we can better define the rules and weight factors and at the same time not interfere with the participation of inexperienced members on either community

[hippotam]

One thing that i'm not understanding. The classification of the Classic-Castle judges are known? Or we only know the winner and the honor-mentions?

If the answer to the second question is yes, i think that don't matters the number of member will enter!

We only know the winner and the list of honorable mentions (all mentions are equal). What you see here is all we got from judges.

I think our challenge should be parallel to the CCC; By this I mean anyone on both communities can participate or not, but for the challenge there could be teams with a set number of members that would compete directly with the same creations.
Like so we can better define the rules and weight factors and at the same time not interfere with the participation of inexperienced members on either community

Cound you please provide more details of this idea? I'm not sure if I got the picture right.

[LBaixinho]

One thing that i'm not understanding. The classification of the Classic-Castle judges are known? Or we only know the winner and the honor-mentions?

If the answer to the second question is yes, i think that don't matters the number of member will enter!

We only know the winner and the list of honorable mentions (all mentions are equal). What you see here is all we got from judges.
(...)

So, the numbers of members and MOCs that enter on competetion don't matter. Only the top of them will give points. And these are choosen by Classic-Castle Judges. I don't understand why a community have to choose 10 or 15 to enter the competition?

The CCC rules have a point that saids that a member only can enter 2 MOCs for each category, maybe we can use this as a limit.

Maybe i'm not gotting the right picture, too

[hippotam]

I don't understand why a community have to choose 10 or 15 to enter the competition?

The CCC rules have a point that saids that a member only can enter 2 MOCs for each category, maybe we can use this as a limit.

Maybe i'm not gotting the right picture, too

I wasn't suggesting limiting number of entries for a community. I meant something different. I do not know If I should explain further my orginal idea since El_gordo already pointed out it's weakness. Maybe, to avoid further confusion, you propose rules now, and I will comment on them?