Rules and scoring thread

[aaronwelsh]

Here’s a potential spin on “Steve O’s crazy idea”: suppose every day there was a fixed number of points that was up for grabs each day. I don’t know what scale would make sense, given the other points that might be floating around, but to demonstrate the concept let’s say 1200 points per day. These would be allocated to each rider based on their total miles for that day: (1200 / total FS miles ridden that day) * (number of miles that the rider contributed to the total)

So on a really nice day maybe FS riders are all out riding and rack up 3600 miles total… they will each earn 1/3rd of a point per mile, in addition to whatever other points they’re earning.

On the worst day of the year, perhaps only 150 miles total get ridden. On that day, each mile will earn you (1200/150)=9 bonus points per mile.

The main drawback will be that riders traveling to warm climates will skew the distribution. Perhaps you are only eligible for these points if you’re riding near DC.

[LhasaCM]

@Steve O 169134 wrote:

I think Charles Darwin would disagree with you, as do I. Every single good thing we have or know or do is because of change. We are changing things all the time: keeping the good changes and discarding and learning from the not so good. Bikes went down the road without gears and pneumatic tires, didn’t they? Why change?
If we decide to make changes only if we know in advance they’ll be good, well, how would we know that? In which case we’re still eating berries and hunting woolly mammoths.

Steve – I think we’re close to being in violent agreement. My point (which wasn’t very well spelled out) is that it is good to look at different ideas and to embrace change. However, one should also be open to the possibility that after looking at all of those things, it isn’t necessary to implement a change just because you spent the time in looking at things – that’s just a way of justifying the need for doing the study in the first place. And speaking of DC bureaucrats: how many times, both in DC with transitions in political leadership, but also in private sector/Hollywood/etc., do people come in and make changes just because they’re new, the old person is gone, therefore you MUST make changes and whatever your predecessor did was terrible? It annoys the heck out of me each time.

Change because we think maybe this will be an improvement or maybe this better aligns with the consensus goals of what we’re doing or maybe this will save something or whatever is good. And yes, you learn from successes and failures and adapt. In other words, I’m just saying that there should be a reason other than “let’s make a change because let’s make a change.” And by bouncing ideas around and discussing them, I’d hope we’re also going through the process of identifying those reasons (e.g., the idea for increasing the points for the first few miles has the benefit of _____). That’s all.

[Bob James]

@Steve O 169133 wrote:

And another way to change things up would be to replace miles with time. As it is now (to use the negative construct some seem to prefer) slow riders are “penalized” for being slow. In a sense, how much time you spend out in the cold and dark and wet and gnarly is perhaps a better measure than how far you go. This would shoot cvcalhoun way up the leaderboard, which kinda makes sense: she is the only player I know who has an electric jacket after all.

This seems consistent with scoring recognizing misery level riding in winter weather. Strava records both moving and elapsed time, where moving would be the better time I think. In 6 hours of moving time, rider A might ride 100 miles or more, where rider B may only go 70 miles. Both rode in the same wintry conditions for same amount of time, but rider A was rewarded with 30 points more just for going faster. You can still have a mileage unofficial mileage leaderboard, with points being based on moving time.

The competition incentive is the same, striving for more time versus miles. Of course, a counter argument could be those with more time available could be favored. I know if I’m in a hurry with limited time, I might ride 2-3 mph faster than if time is not a constraint. But the counter/counter argument is if you go slower to get more points, your exposed to the wintry conditions longer so are earning those points.

Again, not advocating for a change, but if a change will be tried, I’m in favor of one that does not “score” for social participation, encourages daily riding, emphasizes team over individual, try’s to level the playing field (i.e. from riders with luxury of more time/flexibility, are faster, slower, stronger, weaker, heavier, skinnier, prettier, uglier, prefers bagels over doughnuts, tea over coffee etc..)

[LhasaCM]

@aaronwelsh 169135 wrote:

Here’s a potential spin on “Steve O’s crazy idea”: suppose every day there was a fixed number of points that was up for grabs each day. I don’t know what scale would make sense, given the other points that might be floating around, but to demonstrate the concept let’s say 1200 points per day. These would be allocated to each rider based on their total miles for that day: (1200 / total FS miles ridden that day) * (number of miles that the rider contributed to the total)

So on a really nice day maybe FS riders are all out riding and rack up 3600 miles total… they will each earn 1/3rd of a point per mile, in addition to whatever other points they’re earning.

On the worst day of the year, perhaps only 150 miles total get ridden. On that day, each mile will earn you (1200/150)=9 bonus points per mile.

The main drawback will be that riders traveling to warm climates will skew the distribution. Perhaps you are only eligible for these points if you’re riding near DC.

Another drawback to that idea is that – holding weather constant – it rewards those able to ride when others aren’t. Though I’m not a high mileage rider, I do average twice as much per day on the weekend/holidays than I do during the week (because of work/taking daughter to school/etc.) Someone with a different work schedule or more flexibility could disproportionately benefit from a setup like this beyond what I think is intentioned. Definitely a self-reflection bias here, but while the weather may govern whether I ride, how much I ride is more a function of too many other external factors (I figure once I’m dressed for going out, I’ll go out for whatever time I’ve managed to carve out and can get away with, conditions be damned).

[hozn]

The idea of using time is a good one. There was (is?) a pointless prize leaderboard that is “hours in the saddle”. It might not shake things up in a big way, but it seems consistent with the goals (the being outside part).

Yeah, we’d definitely need to use “moving time”, as elapsed time could be crazy long for (e.g.) those who prefer to count their to/from work commute as a single ride.

Perhaps we need to setup a vote/poll on the idea of using social points, to see where the already-registered players stand on that. (Though we also don’t have to be completely democratic about any of our changes.)

Strongly rewarding the early miles does seem to put emphasis back on the team’s participation being key to victory, which I think makes sense.

[LhasaCM]

@jrenaut 169101 wrote:

[Obligatory suggestion of exactly the scoring system we have now]

Building on this suggestion: generally speaking, it’s nice to know the rules of the game before you sign up. The sticky thread (http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?12635-Freezing-Saddles-Important-Information) very clearly says that these are the rules for 2018, subject to change in future years. If folks have signed up with an expectation of scoring based on 10 points per day and 1 point per mile, wouldn’t that by itself argue for keeping the scoring the same for 2018, making “alternative” leaderboards for various ideas folks have to see what it does to the scoring/offering pointless prizes/etc., and then figuring out between April and November what, if any, changes to make to the “official” leaderboard in advance of next year (FS 2019)?

(And yes – I’m as guilty as anyone for piling onto these discussions with ideas/arguments/etc. – and probably will keep participating in that discussion because it’s interesting to me/taxes a different part of the brain than I get to use a lot/etc., but will try to keep a better sense of perspective.)

[Steve O]

I’ve been giving some more thought to the Surowiecki System (S^2). Again, recognizing the potential technological constraints, a version of it could be used to create a completely democratized scoring system.

Essentially the participants themselves define the scoring system for themselves: no particular individuals, like me or hozn or jrenaut, have any more influence than anyone else. If you play the game, then you are the scoring system for the game.

How it works:
Each day you ride you get 100 points (or some value) that you then award to others (not on your team). The data about everyone’s riding is available, so if you think the riders who rode the farthest should get the most points, then they get them. If you like time better than miles, then those people. If you hear it snowed a lot in Germany, give more points to consularrider. If Sunyata visited 11 breweries in one day (!), then, dammit, she gets mine.

Because there are so many players, no one player can have much influence. If it turns out the vast majority of players like the simple days+miles, then that’s the way it will work out. If it turns out players like clever ride titles a lot, then that will play out in the scoring. If you learn someone is riding while sick and you think they deserve some bonus for that, then do it. Etcetera, etcetera. Your ability to influence the system is small, but not zero, and more if you ride on more days.

The scoring system IS the people who play the game. Instead of the Putin system where a top-down entity decides for us, it’s more an Athenian system of direct democracy. And it adapts as we go along. If the “crowd” senses the leaderboard is skewed, they will start reallocating their points so that it more closely comports with their sense of what it ought to be. After 78 days, the leaderboard will reflect almost exactly the cumulative preferences of the players. What could be better than that?

It completely eliminates the need to argue over a scoring system, because the scoring system itself embodies the discussion and gives each player an equal voice (weighted by daily participation). One might also think of it as a market-based system, where each player gets currency and you vote with your wallet.

And it completely eliminates the need to discuss the scoring system year to year. Each year the scoring system will reflect the preferences of that year’s players.

[aaronwelsh]

@LhasaCM 169140 wrote:

Another drawback to that idea is that – holding weather constant – it rewards those able to ride when others aren’t.

Well those who can devote a ton of hours, and those who can ride during daylight hours, will have a big advantage no matter what scoring system we use. Not sure we should use that as a knock against any particular methodology.

[Steve O]

@LhasaCM 169137 wrote:

Change because we think maybe this will be an improvement or maybe this better aligns with the consensus goals of what we’re doing or maybe this will save something or whatever is good. And yes, you learn from successes and failures and adapt. In other words, I’m just saying that there should be a reason other than “let’s make a change because let’s make a change.” And by bouncing ideas around and discussing them, I’d hope we’re also going through the process of identifying those reasons (e.g., the idea for increasing the points for the first few miles has the benefit of _____). That’s all.

In the case of Freezing Saddles–which is not exactly the same as changing international diplomacy policy–what would be the downside to trying a change? Particularly since we don’t seem to know if it will be better or worse. Why not, then?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]15813[/ATTACH]

[LhasaCM]

@Steve O 169149 wrote:

I’ve been giving some more thought to the Surowiecki System (S^2). Again, recognizing the potential technological constraints, a version of it could be used to create a completely democratized scoring system.

Essentially the participants themselves define the scoring system for themselves: no particular individuals, like me or hozn or jrenaut, have any more influence than anyone else. If you play the game, then you are the scoring system for the game.

How it works:
Each day you ride you get 100 points (or some value) that you then award to others (not on your team). The data about everyone’s riding is available, so if you think the riders who rode the farthest should get the most points, then they get them. If you like time better than miles, then those people. If you hear it snowed a lot in Germany, give more points to consularrider. If Sunyata visited 11 breweries in one day (!), then, dammit, she gets mine.

Setting aside any ideals or anything else with this (such as a potential tendency to either reward, or consciously not reward, people you already know on other teams): to me, this would make participating in the competition seem like a daily chore, and I’d opt out. (There’s probably a reason or two that the Athenian system of direct democracy gave way to representative democracy.)

@Steve O 169152 wrote:

In the case of Freezing Saddles–which is not exactly the same as changing international diplomacy policy–what would be the downside to trying a change? Particularly since we don’t seem to know if it will be better or worse. Why not, then?

Trying a change? For some of the small tweaks, probably not much downside. However, it seems that even the discussion of some of the more significant changes being proposed, particularly trying to score a social aspect, is driving people away. To me, that’s a pretty big downside, and makes me think that any potential upside isn’t worth it. Others may feel differently, of course. (And I’m sure others are wondering why it took so long for me to get to that spot.)

[jrenaut]

@LhasaCM 169142 wrote:

he sticky thread (http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?12635-Freezing-Saddles-Important-Information) very clearly says that these are the rules for 2018, subject to change in future years. If folks have signed up with an expectation of scoring based on 10 points per day and 1 point per mile, wouldn’t that by itself argue for keeping the scoring the same for 2018, making “alternative” leaderboards for various ideas folks have to see what it does to the scoring/offering pointless prizes/etc., and then figuring out between April and November what, if any, changes to make to the “official” leaderboard in advance of next year (FS 2019)?

YES. THIS. And hereby discussions for changing the scoring systems for 2018 are ended.

Anyone who wants me to make them an alternative scoring system leaderboard, let me know. We can track how it does this year and then vote for next year.

[cvcalhoun]

@hozn 169120 wrote:

I don’t think it’s my decision. I did at least sign up to play this year (very non-seriously, I would have chosen “slacker”, but I kinda agree w/ SteveO that this shouldn’t really be a thing), but others of you do a lot more in terms of organizing this.

Well, so far, you and jrenaut seem to be in charge of the website, which is where the scoring is totted up (unless you’ve gotten a lot of input from any of the volunteers I sent you). I’m not sure who else could be in charge of scoring. I’m doing registration, Sunyata is doing team assignments, Henry is doing the sticky, and CBGanimal and wheels&wings are doing happy hours, none of which are really affected by scoring.

[Edelweiss]

I like lots of the suggestions being made and debated, but I feel the Pointless Prizes and Reindeer Games are incentive for those who want to participate in social events. As Carol pointed out, Forum posts and other social interaction can’t really be tallied. So I think keeping the social points separate or minimal is a direction I would support.
My second fear is that the Sleeze ride might be re-invented as a 2- or 3-mile ride. I am in favor of loading more points on the first few miles, but not changing sleeze from 1-mile to something more. Reward for riding 2-miles or 3 gets to the heart of FS, Ride More in Winter, but keep the minimum at the minimum: 1 mile, please.
Edelweiss

[rcannon100]

I concur. Keep scoring fundamentally the same; let social or new fangle thingies be pointless prizes. At least try new fangle thingies as pointless prizes as beta tests before messing about with a game that ppl have already signed up for thinking it wood fundamentally run a certain way.

[dkel]

It’s decided: I am so not signing up for this this year.

[Author]

Posts