Event Standards Revisited

[Ian W]

I have been reading the posts on the Scottish Champs with interest. As one of the recipients of the last outburst on this board, I wondered if I could make some constructive suggestions.

I too get annoyed when I go to quality events and there are controls sited in the wrong place or controls in badly mapped areas etc.. I think that a web forum could be a strong positive force for improved standards, but only if used well.

Let me remind you of the outburst about Wharncliffe in case you have forgotten or didn't see it. After the event Andy posted a (perfectly correct) complaint that the shortest technical course was too easy and JM4 contained a couple of legs that were too hard. However, he (incorrectly in my opinion) implied that this was due to planner and controller(me) incompetence. He did not talk to any event officials before posting - in fact he wasn't actually at the event.

The background to the problem was that 5 weeks before the event (after I got back from holiday), I went out to look at control sites and discovered that the bracken had grown so much since Karl had taped the sites that much of the forest was unusable. I told the planner and Organiser (as was my duty as a responsible controller) that there was no way that the courses would be fair (or even enjoyable) and that I thought the event would have to be cancelled. They asked that, if they could find usable areas and replan the courses, if I would reconsider. Karl did a lot more work and managed to put together a new set. I went out again, raised some more objections which Karl again fixed. However, the usable parts of the forest were such that some imperfections remained. We just couldn't find routes of the right length/difficulty for a couple of courses. We were aware of this but I decided, on balance, that most competitors would prefer the event to go ahead. By now time was very short, pressure high, and some minor errors got overlooked (like we advertised a JW5M course). We also failed, as we probably should have done, to add some warnings in the final details. However, in general the event went well, all controls were in the right place, most courses were fine and many people enjoyed it. In fact, as far as I am aware, no-one who was at the event made a direct complaint about the courses either in person or on here.

I felt that most reasonable people would have accepted these explanations if only they had given us a chance to give them before suggesting we were incompetent. I think, therefore that this wasn't handled very well. (However Andy, I forgive you, I know you only get worked up because you care)

However, I do accept that direct approaches to the planner/controller on the day are not always appropriate. The competitor can still be fired up and the exchange can become confrontational. Waiting a day or two might actually be much better. In addition, it can be useful to exchange experiences with others to ensure that one is right to complain and a web forum is a good way to do this.

Turning to the Scottish, it does seem that something was amiss - it didn't affect me on course 6 (although the map did seem a bit iffy on both days) but I talked to several who were affected. I can understand that many competitors would like an explanation of what happened and why.

Maybe there should be an official forum (on nopesport or elsewhere) where disaffected competitors could post (as politely as possible) and share their opinions on pereceived problems with events, but resist the temptation to attribute this immediately to incompetence. The appropriate event officials would be expected to respond to these with comments, explanations and even apologies (we all make mistakes sometimes and just have to say sorry). If these were accepted by the community (by poll?) then it would hopefully just serve as a way of defusing things. If not, then BOF ought to consider a more detailed investigation followed by appropriate action if necessary.

In my experience, the requirement to answer to ones peers if mistakes are made is a powerful force to ensure that people take care to get things right. In the workplace where people are together every day this can happen fairly naturally. As many of us are widely distributed and even largely anonymous, then using the web could provide a good substitute.

Ian.

[Stodgetta]

Learning from mistakes is about the only positive that can come out of making them in the first place, to learn from them you have to know they have been made, and the best way to find out about mistakes is from the competitor. Communicating with event officials face to face on the day can lead to confrontation, and I agree that "counting to 10" before writing/saying something is a good idea. People who have made it home from the event and posted on Nopesport have had plenty of time to calm down, are not writing comments in the heat of the moment and will stand by what they say.

However, if there was an open forum where the competitor is encouraged to highlight problems, and criticise events from a planning/controlling/organising/mapping point of view I think it would turn into a whinging post and very few events would come away unscathed - there are few events where there isn't a small problem that someone notices. Finding volunteers, particularly for larger events, would become more and more difficult as a result.

It is very easy to criticise, it is less common to praise.

I would argue that Nopesport has already made a difference in the quality of a lot of spotlight events. At 2 high-profile events our club has been involved with in the last 6 months or so (YBT final and JK), the organisers have been acutely aware that if there was a problem with the event it would get a slating on the forum and have strived to put on the best event possible (I believe this would have been the case anyway, but there was always the fear of a Nopesport slating). As it gets bigger and more people are aware of its existance, this effect will become more powerful.

I would agree that there needs to be a way of improving and maintaining event standards - I was not at the Scottish Champs but enough individual comments have been posted to show there were avoidable problems and lots of people were disappointed, but I don't think Nopesport is the place to do it officially - I see the website as the equivalent of a conversation with your friends in the car park, except that here it is written down for posterity (ish!) and everyone can see. I don't know where is the right place to do it - does the BOF website have a technical bit it could use (I looked briefly but couldn't find an obvious page it could link into)?.

If there was to be a "critical forum" I would like to see is a positive comment bit running in tandem with it where people who have seen something good at an event can be encouraged to feed back - positive reaction is far more encouraging and improvements in event standards can be the only outcome from this.

[DaveR]

I think the main problem with maintaining event standards is that there really is no feedback mechanism for comments either positive or negative.

As a competitor your only feedback routes are either:
1) talk to the planner or controller at the event (if you can find them, they may be busy!)
2) If you are really unhappy, lodge a formal protest (the "nuclear" option, which people are, understandably, reluctant to use)

As a planner or controller if you have the time then you can hang around the finish or carpark and try to provoke people into commenting on your event, but it would be quite easy to miss or avoid any comments if you were busy helping to run the event.

I'm not sure what the best way to encourage feedback is. The ideas that occur to me (and they are certainly not new) would be a suggestion box to let people leave comments if they wanted (would it ever be used?), and hats/armbands or whatever to let people identify the event officials. I also like the idea of some form of internet based forum or board where people could leave comments. The difficulties are that not every event official would necessarily read such a board, it might turn into a whinge fest and it might become clogged with it blank pages for comments on local events in Little Nettlehampton. However I do think it is important that people can comment on the event in Little Nettlehampton as these local events are the main training for event officials.

I do not see requiring more formal courses/examinations for planners or controllers as a way of encouraging more people into taking on these roles, although voluntary courses can have a place.

Dave

[distracted]

Some clubs are now setting up their own forums/bulletin boards. One that springs immediately to mind is that of CLOK, who have a bulletin board for each event. This allows both feedback on the event, and also allows discussion about particular courses/legs/route choices etc. I think this is a better idea than having a centrally based forum, as I would guess it stands more of a chance getting read by the event officials if it is particular to a club.

[RFM]

I'd like to reply to Ian's useful posting when I have a bit more time. The thread on the Scottish Champs had moved on by the time I got back from a wet Skye at the weekend but I'd like to address some of the issues raised there as well.

However, just to report that the BOF Office has been developing an event feedback form which both allows participants to feed back to officials but also helps Event Operations Committee (of which I am Chair) to take up issues relating to event standards. I hope this form will be live soon.

As I reported on an earlier thread, there will be a workshop at the 24 September conference looking at issues of fairness, quality and consistency in event standards. No doubt as a result of recent posting on Nopesport we will need a large room!

Ranald

[RJ]

I think there are two main areas where criticism or comment arises.

1. where the guidelines for the event are not met

2. where something specific has gone wrong

As far as meeting guidelines goes it should be possible to analyse the event afterwards and compare fact with guideline. eg. course lengths, range of lapse times etc. Not meeting guidelines in this respect often has a very direct result on customer satisfaction. This is just a graphical exercise.

Inadequate parking, controls misplaced, poor facilities, poor quality terrain, slow results, computer failure, agressive(!) vegetation, and WEATHER all have the potential to upset a competitor's perception of the event. Most of these can be planned for and eliminated.

[swat]

It is also worth highlighting positive aspects of events to show what to do as well as what not to do. I don't think an open forum will always be negative - posters here have been quick to praise good quality events - eg the recent threads on the Harvester and York city race.

[eldroc]

From the BOF Event Operations Committee minutes of meeting of 5th Feb -

05/06 d) - Feedback from Events
There was general acceptance of the draft web pages allowing feedback from events. Some changes were dscussed and improvements suggested. It was agreed to implement these changes before allowing a trial of the system

- so it looks as if there might be a feedback facility on the BOF website some time soon!

[bendover]

From the BOF Event Operations Committee minutes of meeting of 5th Feb -

05/06 d) - Feedback from Events
There was general acceptance of the draft web pages allowing feedback from events. Some changes were dscussed and improvements suggested. It was agreed to implement these changes before allowing a trial of the system

- so it looks as if there might be a feedback facility on the BOF website some time soon!

5th feb? define soon... it's the 7th june now... and this is the BOF website we're talking about so don't hold your breath..

[awk]

Looks like a good idea Ian - although I would like any site to encourage positive feedback too when an event is really good - they do exist as recent comments on Harvester, SinS, Scottish Relays, Battersea etc. show! This would also address one of the prime concerns behind that outburst you refer to - that there is currently no channel for feedback whereby a competitor feels issues are being addressed (or maybe the moves that Ranald mentions will deal with this?).

Without wanting to overly rake old coals:

However, he (incorrectly in my opinion) implied that this was due to planner and controller(me) incompetence.

I certainly never meant to imply that, and rereading my postings, don't think that is what I said, although I appreciate that others might interpret my words differently! I did ask questions about what the planner/controller were doing. That was meant to state (strongly) that I thought a substantial mistake had been made, but it's a big jump from a mistake being made to questioning competence - even the most competent make mistakes, that's the nature of humanity. That was echoed by the Scottish Champs: both planner and controller had demonstrated competence in the past, so to call them incompetent was to my mind wrong. But to draw attention to the string of problems at the event and question how they could have been allowed to happen was fair enough.

So - I'm sorry if that is how my postings could be interpreted - they weren't meant to imply that.

[SYO Member]

In the ongoing saga of alleged misdemeanours by Planners and Controllers at various events this year, one would think that British orienteering is in a state of complete decline with regard to event standards. However there is something that nobody on this forum has yet pointed out which is this. Rightly or wrongly, things are no different now to how they have always been and it is just that the problems that are identified are brought to everyone’s attention on Nopesport.

It’s not necessary to give specific examples, but you will find that in virtually every year there has been at least one high profile event that has had a problem either with the siting or description of a control or with the map. In addition to this, all of us have been to district or even regional events where something doesn’t seem to be quite right, or there has been a problem that has been freely admitted in the results.

I am not saying that standards should not improve or am trying to justify the fact that in spite of there being scores of problem free events each year, mistakes are occasionally made, but as has already been pointed out, all event officials are volunteers giving up vast amounts of time for other people’s enjoyment. The fact that most officials realise that orienteering will decline if they don’t, is another issue.

On Nopesport, I endorse the view that if you make adverse personal comments about event officials (which I don’t condone anyway), you should not be an anonymous Guest and should give some indication as to whether you have had experience of being a Planner or Controller yourself. If you haven’t, you probably won’t be aware of some of the following problem areas which can apply to any standard of event.

1. The Planner or Controller live a long distance from each other or the event area.
2. The update of the map is behind schedule and printing is finished a few days beforehand.
3. Either the Planner or Controller does not use email so the transfer of documents has to be done by post.
4. The Planner has 3 controls in a straight line (which I personally don’t have a problem with), but which Planning training says you shouldn’t have.
5. The Planner puts a control in an area where the Controller thinks the map is not correct.
6. The Planner puts all the controls out on the day even though some could have been put out and checked by the controller before the event.
7. A u-shaped depression is described as a ‘Depression’ instead of a ‘Small Depression’ on the descriptions.
8. A Small Gully on the map used as a control site is now filled with water and described as a Ditch on the descriptions.
9. Other examples similar to 7 and 8 which also have to be corrected by the Controller.
10. The White/Yellow courses are too difficult or long in the opinion of the Controller.
11. The Controller suggests to the Planner on the phone that a control or description should be changed but no change has been made when the next set of courses are received by the Controller.
12. The Planner has miscalculated a climb or a stated course length which is difficult to correct.
13. A control site has to be changed at the last minute and the first time the Controller is able to see the new control site is on the day of the event (the worst possible scenario).
14. The vegetation categorisation is not consistent across the map and when realised, it’s too late to change it.

Most of these issues are due to problems with the planning, and the Planner may be an experienced and accomplished orienteer whereas the Controller might be younger or controlling his first event and may not want to challenge the Planner too much. On the other hand, it is the Controller’s responsibility to check the final courses and descriptions with real control codes instead of the initial numbering convention used in the early stages and it is very easy to see how errors can creep in. For a district event now, an OCAD mapper may re-key text descriptions from an agreed master sheet (previously photo-copied for runners) to put on the pre-marked maps, leading to further checking by the Controller.

I agree that there should be no need for Controllers or Planners to attend any further courses (who has the time nowadays?), but other than adhering to the rules relating to TD and course lengths, it must be said that a lot of the work involved in fulfilling these duties is a mixture of plain common sense and experience. One definite requirement is that a feature used as a control should have the correct description according to the rules set down by the IOF. Sometimes even map legends get these wrong.

Finally, I’m afraid that I must disagree with my ex-EUOC team mate Gross and say that at C1and C2 events, there should be a UK rule that if a protest is lodged and a jury finds that a control is in the wrong place, the two legs each side of the control should just be taken off overall times instead of voiding the course. If a runner definitely knows a control is wrong, why can’t he just confirm this with other runners at the finish and lodge at least a verbal if not written protest (although I accept that it is harder to do in practice than in theory). If orienteering is still the thought sport, and the runner knows he is definitely right, why can’t he use this knowledge to psyche himself up further instead of being mentally disadvantaged on the run home, irrespective of how much time he wasted? At least the majority of runners on the course won’t have had a wasted trip.

Ray Waight

[Ed]

Finally, I’m afraid that I must disagree with my ex-EUOC team mate Gross and say that at C1and C2 events, there should be a UK rule that if a protest is lodged and a jury finds that a control is in the wrong place, the two legs each side of the control should just be taken off overall times instead of voiding the course. If a runner definitely knows a control is wrong, why can’t he just confirm this with other runners at the finish and lodge at least a verbal if not written protest (although I accept that it is harder to do in practice than in theory). If orienteering is still the thought sport, and the runner knows he is definitely right, why can’t he use this knowledge to psyche himself up further instead of being mentally disadvantaged on the run home, irrespective of how much time he wasted? At least the majority of runners on the course won’t have had a wasted trip.

Ray Waight

Agree with most of what you say, but disagree strongly on that point - if a control is in the wrong place then the course should be void. There's far too many possibilities for unfairness otherwise - and often controls are wrong because it is hard to be sure of being in the right place due to it being a slightly bingo-y feature or dodgy map (e.g. the JK pit(s) this year). It could also lead to an attitude among officials that it's not that much of a problem if a control is in the wrong place - when to be honest there's not many more heinous crimes that event officials can commit.

Yes, voiding the course means quite a lot of unhappy people, but the solution is simple - get the controls in the right place in the first place!

(edit: planning credentials - one badge event, one busa championships, one jirc individual, one jhi relay, a few other things... not all of them have been perfect, and quite a few of the problems above have come up, but I don't think I've yet put a control in the wrong place - at least, not at an event - hanging controls in a hurry for training I've not got a 100% success rate!)

[bendover]

glad you said all that ed. absolutely agree with you.

[Godders]

At the recent SOL at Achlean one of the controls on the M21L course was in the wrong place for the first 5 or so runners. The control was then moved to the correct place for the last few runners. The legs either side were removed from the results which moved me ahead of Kitch rather than being a few seconds behind .

I think I have to agree with Gross, Ed and Ben that voiding the course is the correct approach to take.

Having a rule to remove splits would be very dangerous - as soon as you find a control in the wrong place you could (to be extreme) jog round the rest of the course and then return to run the course in the knowledge that your 1 hour split was going to be deleted, or (more realistically) you could have a bit of a breather and wait for the next starter to catch you up.

Putting controls in the wrong place is totally unacceptable.

Dave (planner of BUSA on Touch, Scottish Night Champs, various smaller events), now under pressure for the Scottish Night Champs, Scottish O League weekend on Drummond Hill in October.

[FatBoy]

It's a tough call. For your theory to work Godders you'd have to be damn sure that control was in the wrong place to risk the strategy of having a rest etc. However I agree it does set a dangerous precedent by removing legs i.e. "It doesn't matter if I put the controls in the wrong place it'll get sorted out". On the flip side it does get as fair a result as possible out of an otherwise voided course. We should concentrate on getting the controls out in the right place first, but what if the control was vandalised?