4 Levels

[SJC]

Agreed. So why are you insisting it should be part of BOF's internal workings?

What this discussion has shown is that there are two three level views of the world.
One from the competitors viewpoint and one from the BOF viewpoint.

In an ideal world these two views would coincide, but unfortunately they don't.
Events that would be viewed by many competitors as national (ie outside their region) are only viewed by BOF as regional (ie not within their remit). This divergence of views is never going to change unless BOF takes on the responsibility for a large number of events. This isn't going to happen, and the clubs wouldn't want it to either.

Only a four level structure will allow both sides to have a common view of the world, which is the only way any solution will work in the long run.

[fish]

Only a four level structure will allow both sides to have a common view of the world, which is the only way any solution will work in the long run.

Except there is no gurantee that it will. In fact I think the odds are it wouldn't - simply because almost every individual/club/region has a different view point of what event should be what level (particularly level 2 and 3).
The question would remain who decides which 4 levels are to be used, and how do you get the same levels across different regions?


An administrative 3 level system is clear (for administration), and then the marketing/branding/publicity of events can take place separately to this.

As an aside - within a three level system - there should (IMO) be only two levels of controllers, those who can do the National level events, and a second level of controller for the L2 events (and it's up to clubs choosing if they want a controller for level 3 events). I'm not up to date with the controller guidelines but would have thought this L2 controller should be equivalent to the present grade 3. (which no doubt raises another layer of debate).

[Oldman]

The last thing orienteering wants is yet another reorganisation - let's focus on making this one work. However, I do think that more could have been done to explain to us punters why (and by whom) there was perceived to be a problem, what the nature of the problem was, and in what way the new situation was felt to be an improvement.

And any vote at the AGM to change to a 4 level system would cause major upheaval.

Do those that seek to change the newly introduced event structure have any idea how much time and effort (mostly by volunteers) has gone into the change from the old five level structure? Another change, before the new system has had a chance to bed in, would be most unwelcome (and possibly lead to the resignation of many hard working volunteers).

I sensed the debate was heading this way: I said earlier there was polarisation and what is happening could have even worse consequences.

I hope those for whom this debate is largely sterile will vote against the proposal (if indeed it gets submitted).

[SJC]

An administrative 3 level system is clear (for administration), and then the marketing/branding/publicity of events can take place separately to this.

This takes us back to the BOF view of the world, not the competitors.
All the marketing/branding in the world won't sort out the fixture list if the events aren't being fed into it in a way that is understandable to the competitor.

[Neil M40]

Only a four level structure will allow both sides to have a common view of the world, which is the only way any solution will work in the long run.

Why do you think the competitors view of the world has only 4 levels? Within L2 there are as many levels as there are events - every event has differentiators that make it different from every other event. Quality of terrain, mapping, planning obviously make a difference and are not guaranteed by any endorsement from BOF. Different L2 (or old regional events) are regional league events, selection races, UK Cup races, FCC races, club leagues, YBT, holiday events, branded events (eg Dales Trophy, November Classic), compass sport cup. All these make a difference to an individual competitors choice. You are suggesting that BOF arbitrarily draw a line in the middle of this and try to keep one lot of events on one side and the other side on the other - a system which wasn't working before and won't work now.

By insisting on 4 event levels I assume you want one (or both) of two things - a return to strict age classes or a fixture list that makes it clearer which events are worth going to.

I am not going to accept a return to strict age classes - and 3 competitors at each event. I am all for a fixture list which makes it clear which events I want to go to. This is not provided by BOF drawing an arbitrary line, but rather by providing the right information to enable a choice to be made.

- which courses are on offer
- what competitions are on offer

There is probably more that other people would like to see.

aaah- just read your latest post. It seems that agreement has broken out.

[Scott]

So, this is the 200th post on this thread, and we appear to have made a small amount of progress. Anybody want to talk about how we've managed to end up in this situation in the first place?

It seems that very few people feel as if they were adequately consulted on the new structure, despite the big public meeting/EGM thingy, and that the neither the details of the changes nor the rationale behind them have been adequately communicated either to the clubs and associations or to the membership in general, despite numerous article in Focus and on the website.

Various committees also made assorted changes to the original proposals (controller levels, embargoes, what should happen to the old C4s), many of which have now been altered yet again, adding to the general bewilderment. The "transition year" didn't seem to help make things any clearer.

What should BOF have done differently? What can they do differently in future?

[SeanC]

Could the AGM proposal be dropped if we agreed to version 2 of the bof fixtures list software?* A way of searching on and describing the competition (eg NW Galoppen) would be a good start and might address some of the problems that the 4 level advocates have.

What is a galoppen anyway? Are they events for women only

*might need some money from us

[fish]

This takes us back to the BOF view of the world, not the competitors.
All the marketing/branding in the world won't sort out the fixture list if the events aren't being fed into it in a way that is understandable to the competitor.

I can only concur with Neil - 4 levels wont change this, as I said every competitor has a different view of the number of levels of competition.
However, I can accept that a fixture list must be understandable, and not simply constrained by limited administrative info.
Long time since I looked at the fixture list...

[EddieH]

Ultimately I've found this thread useful and have moved from a no voting position to a definite decision to vote against the NW proposal.

It seems to me that YHOA are implementing the new system largely as the working party envisaged it - SOA clearly are not. I think the differences are hardly suprising as BOF's initial enforcement of the new levels (and their continued use of labels "regional" and "local") pointed towards SOA's version not YHOA's.

Hopefully regions will move more quickly towards consistency under the new system than via another upheaval. And if Scotland only have 8 ranking events a year so be it.

[Blonde bombshell]

I have tried to folow this thread, but have found the long explainations difficult to understand. After orienteering for many years I divide events into 4 levels:

1 BOC, JK, SOC and national
2 Badge / regional
3 Colour / local
4 Score, club, evening etc.

While I can see some badge events could be classed as national, I have also been to badge events that are no way near that level. The same applies for colour into badge level. I would not be able to explain exactly why each level is different to anyone else - this is the way I think.
I take into account - terrain & level of competition.
Changes have been made in orienteering that I didn't understand - junior classes from age class (easy to understand) to junior class (confusing), and more recently senior age classes to colour based classes. I use to enjoy the difference between colour and age class. Although the results now add the age groups the whole set up seems messy and not at all clear.
I am also disappointed at the sniping at 'the NW 4'. They appear to have submitted a proposal in the correct way. While you have the right to disagree, the manner in which you do so does your argument a disservice.

[seabird]

Sniping at the NW4?

It is just rather disappointing that they have not tried to implement the new scheme - before trying to change it.

I really do not think it would be hard for the competitor to differentiate between their most prestigious events and their Galloppen events - all of which are quality events - if all were at Level 2 They have more in common than they have differences.

Branding we have talked about as one way to achieve this - but another clear indicator to the competitor is that the highest quality events tend to have pre-entry; the others (galloppen) tend not to. Listing available courses is another.

[ricardito]

After orienteering for many years I divide events into 4 levels:

1 BOC, JK, SOC and national
2 Badge / regional
3 Colour / local
4 Score, club, evening etc.

Some time ago, I would have agreed with that, but my feeling is that the changes that have taken place over the years have blurred the "participant experience" between your (2) and (3) above to the extent that I no longer have any quibble with the 3 level system as it is now (only now!) settling down. In particular

- The pervasiveness of electronic punching/timing and pre-printed maps at all but the most informal events
- The move to colour coded courses at L2 with mapping onto age groups for those who want it, or to support local leagues etc (and this now backed up by the introduction of the unified ranking system, reducing any perceived "pressure" to adhere to the "correct" course)

[RJ]

It is just rather disappointing that they have not tried to implement the new scheme - before trying to change it.

Another little snied swipe! Perhaps it is BECAUSE they and others have spent many hours trying to make a system work that just won't, is why they have tabled the motion.

Hopefully regions will move more quickly towards consistency under the new system than via another upheaval. And if Scotland only have 8 ranking events a year so be it.

Which leaves the bulk..... perhaps in excess of 95% of the events in the fixtures...... firmly in Level 3. This is not good enough. Solve that in a reasonable manner in the 3 tier structure and I will go along with it.

[roadrunner]

Thinking about how things used to be (and there weren't so many complaints about levels being wrong then as there are in this thread!), it seems that the most logical mapping of the old 5 levels to the present 3 is:

Old L1 -> New L1
Old L2 -> New L1
Old L3 -> New L2
Old L4 -> New L2
Old L5 -> New L3

That seems to cover what most people want (separate off the truly local events and apply minimum rules to them as regards format, controller etc; merge the old Regional and Badge events). If that's what we end up with, maybe three levels will be OK, though it's clear that some events are currently listed at the wrong level.

[DJM]

This might be seen as the tail wagging the dog, but controllers have the problem about how you fit the current controlling system into a 3 tier structure.

It seems that, from a controlling point of view, you have

events needing a Grade 1 controller
events needing a Grade 2 controller
events needing a Grade 3 controller
events needing no controller

Now Level 1 and 2 events fit the first two on the list (at least when the current dispensation to allow G3 controllers to control L2 events finishes), and L3 events match the last two. Which makes it look as if there are actually two types of L3 - those needing a controller and those not.

Does this add up to four levels or not? Discuss!