WM relays

[Guest]

i hate guests.

Why is that? Because you can't deride them and grind them into pulp because you don't agree with their view point. Perhaps it is this attitude to named posters that drives them to become guests.

[Klebe]

Bendover called me a tw*t - I am still here.

But yes, critical criticism is fine - personal abuse borne of a difference of opinion is not justified.

[bendover]

klebe, i don't remember that but don't doubt it. for which i apologise. but yes your still here. the reason i get bored with guests is that often quite pointed, opinionated posts are made anonymously. there's lots of pointed, opinionated posts that aren't made anonymously. no fear.
this i respect.

as for 'grinding people to a pulp'. bullshit. this is an internet forum. i probably only know personally about 20 people on this forum so get a grip, it's not personal if people on this forum don't agree with what you say.

for a start i haven't got a clue who klebe is but i've called him/her a twat. bad form yes, but i might go to an o-event and buy a map or stand in a toilet queue with klebe without knowing who he/she is and be perfectly civil. which stresses my point that it ain't personal, just a conflict in opinion.

[Mr. Furness]

yep, the OD "web - master" is my father, who is extremely efficient at doing the OD stuff. but he only puts stuff on the site- it is others who have to provide him with the info to go on it.

saying that, it is true that he was in thailand for most of last week, and then had to spend much of his spare time over the weekend barbequing and drinking with his estranged son.

i live REALLY close to kingsbury water park, and it can indeed be quite resistant to orienteers trying to run through it. burton dasset- now that would have been a good relay area. or maybe rough close...

i also hate guests, but for the main reason that you can't distinguish which guest is which. surely these people could join as "guest1,2,3.." etc, or put a signature. anonymity is fine, but indistinguishability is stretching it.

by the way that is a word.

[Adventure Racer]

I don't know what the official rules are, but seeing the comments about the misplaced control, is it not possible to remove this control from the results when you are using e-punching, by deducting the time for that leg (or for the legs both before and after that control)? I understand it involves added complication when doing the results, but maybe this is something that needs to be added to the software to account for these circumstances. ISTM this is the only totally fair way to deal with that control short of voiding the whole course which seems a far worse solution.

[FatBoy]

See other topic on Event Standards for discussion of removing controls:

http://www.nopesport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3980

In terms of software my nearly released one (mainly intended for UK EOD events) will allow any leg time to be removed. I understand Stephan has finally given in and his next version of OE will also allow this. From a programmer's perspective we can provide the tools, it's up to the rule makers and enforcers to decide whether to use it or not. There are other examples of need to remove a leg time - e.g. a road crossing.

[SIman]

I understand Stephan has finally given in and his next version of OE will also allow this.

This version of OE has been released. On day4 of the Scottish 6 Days we will be subtracting the time for a road crossing. We hope that that is the only use of the new facility that we will have to make.

[Guest]

>>> On day4 of the Scottish 6 Days we will be subtracting the time for a road crossing.

This seems to be an ideal use of the ability to remove a leg time as everyone will be aware of this before the event starts.

However, subtracting leg times after the race is fraught with dangers. One particularly bad example is when a control goes missing near the end of an event. Up until that point the person leading may well think they have beaten all their rivals. Then the removal of two leg times may change their respective positions, even though none of them was affected by the missing control.

[graeme]

However, subtracting leg times after the race is fraught with dangers. One particularly bad example is when a control goes missing near the end of an event. Up until that point the person leading may well think they have beaten all their rivals. Then the removal of two leg times may change their respective positions, even though none of them was affected by the missing control.

Voiding the course has exactly the same effect - one minute you think you've beaten all your rivals,
the next you haven't beaten any of them.

There's no perfect solution, and this example doesn't favour either.

[Guest]

>>> Voiding the course has exactly the same effect - one minute you think you've beaten all your rivals,
the next you haven't beaten any of them.

Not quite the same effect. Voiding the course states that you are unable to determine the winner, so no-one is given first place.

Taking leg times out is changing the race and the result after the event, and awarding first place to the competitor who came second.

[Guest]

>>>
Taking leg times out is changing the race and the result after the event, and awarding first place to the competitor who came second.

So is reinstating runners after the event and prize giving.

[Mr. Furness]

with regard to the removal of two splits:

if they remove splits and you move from first downwards, then the people who are promoted are done so because they beat you over the rest of the course. i.e. If you didn't lose time through luck and they did, because of the same problem with a certain control, it is entirley fair if the split is removed. if it is not, you would only win because you were the only person who didn't lose time, for whatever reason.

[Guest]

Mr. Furness you miss the point.

If a control disappears at the end of the event none of the earlier runners would have been affected and the results would have been based on the full course. Removing the control would change the finishing order.

This has great scope for out and out cheating.
Someone who has had a brilliant run with the exception of one control could go out and remove that control - throwing it into the bushes somewhere. The last few runners wouldn't be able to find it, so the results would be re-calculated with that leg and the next one removed.

But of course, no-one would do that would they ?

[Ed]

But of course, no-one would do that would they ?

not unless they were a Swedish...

(something like this actually occurred one year at the O-Ringen - a top M45(ish) blew one control, on finding it he 'threw it into the bushes'... he was caught because he'd punched the control before vandalising it, so by interrogating the box the organisers worked out it was him. I think he got banned for a year by the Swedish OF. The moral of the story being that if you want to vandalise a control, don't punch it first.)

[Mr. Furness]

ah- ok, see what you mean if a control goes entirely missing.

what your saying though is that someone who is good enough to win over 95% of the course will cheat so that they doesn't lose it in the last 5%.of the course. that seems odd. also, with electronic punching, if a control goes missing like that, then a certain amount of detective work can be done to make a fairly safe guess who the culprit was.

i do find this an interesting debate though, a rather good discussion topic!

also- would you reveal who you are? this is a very relaxed discussion and i don't have a clue why you would post anonymously.