Development committee minutes

[Scott]

As for other aspects of these minutes, do people agree with the concepts (and underlying reasoning) of the proposed Navigation and Racing Challenges? Opinions are welcomed, yes there will be implementation issues to clarify but let's try to avoid getting bogged down in those for now and focus on the ideas.

Thank you Scott...

Well, you can hardly put out a proposal with details of the implementation in it and then expect people to ignore those details.

Anyway, given how central EWTs are to the whole concept, I think it's hardly picky to point out why that might be a problem - I suspect that EddieH's reservations will be shared by many, and not without good reason...

[Scott]

My posts keep vanishing between pages - should I take that as a hint?

As for other aspects of these minutes, do people agree with the concepts (and underlying reasoning) of the proposed Navigation and Racing Challenges? Opinions are welcomed, yes there will be implementation issues to clarify but let's try to avoid getting bogged down in those for now and focus on the ideas.

Thank you Scott...

Well, you can hardly put out a proposal with details of the implementation in it and then expect people to ignore those details.

Anyway, given how central EWTs are to the whole concept, I don't really think it's being too picky to point out why that might be a problem - I suspect that EddieH's reservations will be shared by many, and not without good reason...

[distracted]

My posts keep vanishing between pages - should I take that as a hint?

You're posting too much?

Well, you can hardly put out a proposal...

Exactly, it is a proposal...

Anyway, given how central EWTs are to the whole concept

No, that's not the concept, it's a possible implementation. There's a huge difference. The concept is far simpler - that there should exist a system, similar to the old colour-coded and badge standards, that allows those competing to attain particular racing 'standards' on courses of specified navigational difficulties.

On the particular suggestion made - the reasoning was that the level you attain should not depend on who turns up on the day - i.e. you should expect the best to be there. Which is how courses are meant to be planned at the old 'badge' events anyway...

[Scott]

No, that's not the concept, it's a possible implementation.

With respect, that's definitely not how it's been presented in the minutes - what's there looks awfully like a concrete proposal for exactly how the new scheme should work. "It was agreed that this decision should be taken to Events Committee" sounds to me, and to everybody else who reads them, like the new scheme is going to be exactly as specified.

[Mrs H]

Well I for one am incredibly pleased to see two M21s involved in, and arguing about, the future of the sport - keep it up

[wonderboy]

I have an image in my mind of two bald men fighting over a comb

[Mrs H]

i think you'll have to find another metaphor - as i recall, they both have extremely luxuriant heads of hair

[SeanC]

Roadrunner wrote

"I also can't see the Navigation Challenge being of much interest beyond TD1 and TD2: isn't it the same as the former "Iron Badge" which hardley anyone claimed?"

Mathematically yes, it's the same formula but that's where the similarity could end. This new award must surely have a more appealing name than "Iron badge", and since the award could be calculated and listed automatically by the BOF supercomputer and website this gives it completely different possibilities. For example club captains could announce awards at AGM's, BBQ's in the newsletter etc. which would be a good way of getting newcomers involved with clubs. Or club coaches could use the awards to motivate newcomers and announce the awards in club newsletters. Does anybody else see these possibilities?

But yes it seems most useful for new adult orienteers and children, but probably up to TD4 standard, so on reflection I think Scott's 1 to 5 star concept might be the way to go (though I would stop at 4 stars).

[geomorph]

re EddieH's concerns on the extra work for the racing challenge.

What if the attainment certificate were not based on estimated times (could be widely out in poor weather etc) but on the fastest leg total time - oh just thought would we have to exclude running down runners? - as this then just requires passing the buck to the software

This assumes that the fastest leg sum is the best that can be done; there has to be sufficient fit participants who can navigate well at least part of the time.

does such mean that if the race is just a bunch of geomorph-like punters it would be easier to get a gold. Possibly for consistently good navigators with low fitness, but definitely not for inconsistent navigators with high fitness, and as for the inconsistent low fitness folk, just enjoy the day out.

[frog]

Re the rankings, I like them as they are. Why make them more elitist? I suspect the same people would be at the top and it just means those of us half way down the list get less from our BOF membership. For most of us the BOF rankings are just fun. I don't mind if they had a second list for the top folk, but doing things to disadvantage the non-elite orienteers who do much of the event organising etc seems very small minded.

[roadrunner]

Another question: how would the Racing Challenge work at Level 1 events? Would the EWT for (say) M75L be based on what an M75 could do (which would be sensible but out of step with the other events), or on what an M21 could do (which might mean the championship time was slower than the bronze time ), or are Level 1 events excluded altogether - which will make them less attractive to the non-elites.

[mappingmum]

Re the rankings, . . . . . . For most of us the BOF rankings are just fun.

I concur!

[The Loofa]

Re the rankings, . . . . . . For most of us the BOF rankings are just fun.

I concur!

This approach has left me puzzled and I'd like to explore it. If the ranking list is just fun it implies they think some aspects of the sport aren't fun - indeed aren't even supposed to be fun.

So could frog or mappingmum explain which bits aren't supposed to be fun. I'm curious.

[madmike]

I think, yet again, someone is drawing the wrong implication from someone else's post but then I might be drawing the wrong........

[awk]

As for other aspects of these minutes, do people agree with the concepts (and underlying reasoning) of the proposed Navigation and Racing Challenges?

Possibly navigation challenge, but not racing challenge no - but then neither motivated me when I came into the sport. That was the competition, and the nature of orienteering itself. Incidentally, how many adults did the old badge scheme motivate: I wouldn't go pushing a revamp of a scheme unless I'd done some investigation into the numbers motivated.

I like the mechanism even less. Development Group are about increasing participation, and appear to think the ranking scheme is irrelevant to that. I can't see the "Racing Challenges" having any similar impact - not least by being times based on a guesstimate by the planner. Even international planners have been known to get their estimated winning times woefully wrong on occasions.

I am sure that there is a way of using ranking points to earn badges, if that's what DG see as an incentive for increasing participation. In other words, used appropriately, the ranking list could very well support increasing participation if properly used, and the schemes would be better integrated.

I have been a long term sceptic when it comes to the ranking scheme, not least because of the requirement to break it down into so many different lists (I was once ranked on 4 different lists, but not the one I was interested in because I couldn't get on to it for months because my previous age group's points didn't count, blah, blah, blah - what nonsense). However, I can really see a single list ranking list based on a wide range of events (L1 and L2 - disagree with DG big time on this one), as being of genuine interest. Far more so than a standard based on an arbitrary guesstimate.