Our SI’s state the following scoring penalty for arbitration:
Her penalty shall be a scoring penalty as calculated in rule 44.3c equal to 40% of the number of entries in her class or 50% of the difference between her finishing position and the number of entries in her class, whichever is less.
I’ve set up a scoring code “ARB” that calculates the 40% portion of the penalty, but how would I go about having Sailwave automatically calculate the minimum of the 40% and 50% portions? Can a formula be set up to do this?
I might be being a bit dumb, but I cannot see how to separate
classes within fleets.
At our regatta today we had 6 RS 400s racing in our Fast Handicap
fleet. The club wished to give separate prizes for the RS 400s, so
I was trying to separate the results accordingly. Obviously I
could create a separate RS 400 fleet with the same start time,
but, out of interest I tried creating a separate start being Fhcap
AND RS 400 (Start 2) and making the original start Fhcap NOT RS
400 (Start 1). Having done that I could not see a way of scoring
and publishing the results for the different starts. I should say
I have 4 other fleets running, with another fleet needing to
separate the RS 200s from the rest.
Needless to say, I resolved the problem by creating separate RS
400 and RS 200 fleets, but wondered whether there was an
alternative way of doing it.
Unfortunately Sailwave cannot currently do this automatically. It
may come as Jon has had a similar requirement at an event he was
scoring a few weeks ago. It might be on the Todo list for our
Northern Hemisphere quieter period.
Are the RS400's to be scored separately or are their results to be
extracted and just presented as RS400 results? The choice has the
potential to change the ranking order in the RS400 due to relative
positions. I know because I have exactly the situation in the past.
The method I suggest is using aliases. But as I have already mentioned this has the potential to change the rank order compared to the rank in the Fast Handicap set of results. If you use aliases you must creat a start for the aliased competitors which will have the same start time for the RS400 as the Fast Handicap.
Are the RS400's to be scored separately or are their results to be
extracted and just presented as RS400 results? The choice has the
potential to change the ranking order in the RS400 due to relative
positions. I know because I have exactly the situation in the
past.
The method I suggest is using aliases. But as I have already
mentioned this has the potential to change the rank order
compared to the rank in the Fast Handicap set of results. If you
use aliases you must creat a start for the aliased competitors
which will have the same start time for the RS400 as the Fast
Handicap.
Hi Ian, When you say they wanted to give separate prizes for the RS400’s It depends upon how you extract their results. If the intention is to score them within the Fast handicap fleet and you want to extract them from the overall results you could use the built in prize selection or the external SWPrize program.
If you want them to be scored in the Fast handicap fleet and also in a separate RS400 fleet I would suggest using Aliases
I might be being a bit dumb, but I cannot see how to separate
classes within fleets.
At our regatta today we had 6 RS 400s racing in our Fast Handicap
fleet. The club wished to give separate prizes for the RS 400s, so
I was trying to separate the results accordingly. Obviously I
could create a separate RS 400 fleet with the same start time,
but, out of interest I tried creating a separate start being Fhcap
AND RS 400 (Start 2) and making the original start Fhcap NOT RS
400 (Start 1). Having done that I could not see a way of scoring
and publishing the results for the different starts. I should say
I have 4 other fleets running, with another fleet needing to
separate the RS 200s from the rest.
Needless to say, I resolved the problem by creating separate RS
400 and RS 200 fleets, but wondered whether there was an
alternative way of doing it.
Hi Greg - As Huw said, currently this is not possible to do automatically and I was scoring the Techno Europeans which had a similar clause in the SI’s and I guess its also in the Techno Worlds which I’m scoring at the end of October so will try and get something added ASAP. Decision I have to make is do I add a specific rule for this or di I allow for expressions to be evaluated for when other rules get added.
Our SI’s state the following scoring penalty for arbitration:
Her penalty shall be a scoring penalty as calculated in rule 44.3c equal to 40% of the number of entries in her class or 50% of the difference between her finishing position and the number of entries in her class, whichever is less.
I’ve set up a scoring code “ARB” that calculates the 40% portion of the penalty, but how would I go about having Sailwave automatically calculate the minimum of the 40% and 50% portions? Can a formula be set up to do this?
The 44.3(c) in the rulebook gives a default method of calculation. If
there is to be something else then it probably should be customizable
with an expression since there are in theory an almost infinite number
of possible alternatives to the default calculation method.
I think I understand the motivation behind this type of provision though
I don't necessarily agree with it. However, accepting the premise I
don't think this particular implementation is really fair. Assume a
10-boat fleet. The scores after applying the penalty would be (use lower
score) [50%Mod explained below]:
As I see it the scores near the bottom aren't "fair" in that even after
taking a penalty an 8th place boat is still beating a boat. I think the
basic idea is that the standard penalty should apply in the top half of
the fleet but a somewhat lesser penalty in the bottom half. [I don't
necessarily buy the premise but that isn't the point of my comment.] I'd
implement that by adding 1 to the 50% calculation (or maybe that should
be adding one to the number of entries when doing the calculation?).
This still gives some (though less) benefit to 6th, 7th and 8th over the
standard calculation but wouldn't under-penalize 8th, 9th and 10th.
As to the premise, I don't see why boats at the back of a fleet should
be treated differently and better than boats at the front. I don't
really like that idea. On the other hand, I understand that boats at the
back have very little incentive to take a penalty if their resulting
score is going to be the same as a DSQ. If I were forced to use such a
provision I'd argue for the modified version (adding 1 to the 50%
calculated penalty). But, I'd favor sticking with the default method of
calculation, if for no other reason than consistency with the majority
of events.
Art
···
On 8/29/2015 1:23 PM, Jon Eskdale jon@sailwave.com [sailwave] wrote:
Hi Greg - As Huw said, currently this is not possible to do automatically
and I was scoring the Techno Europeans which had a similar clause in the
SI's and I guess its also in the Techno Worlds which I'm scoring at the end
of October so will try and get something added ASAP. Decision I have to
make is do I add a specific rule for this or di I allow for expressions to
be evaluated for when other rules get added.
Our SI's state the following scoring penalty for arbitration:
Her penalty shall be a scoring penalty as calculated in rule 44.3c equal
to 40% of the number of entries in her class or 50% of the difference
between her finishing position and the number of entries in her class,
whichever is less.
I've set up a scoring code "ARB" that calculates the 40% portion of the
penalty, but how would I go about having Sailwave automatically calculate
the minimum of the 40% and 50% portions? Can a formula be set up to do
this?
Note that the wording within our clubs SI’s is taken verbatim from the Sail Canada prescriptions (www.sailing.ca). I’m not privy to the reasoning behind the 50% portion of the prescription. In fact, to me, this makes it even less of a penalty to take the arbitratioin than it is to take a on-water scoring penalty as in the case of Rule 44.3.
You mentioned expressions. How do I go about entering the expression (where, how) for the scoring code? When I view the Scoring Properties, I only see a series of check boxes:
I’ve seen discussion regarding expressions before in the user’s group, but have never had cause to implement such a thing, so this is a new area to me. I know there are special codes for things such as the number of competitors, number of starters, etc. but I don’t know where I find a complete listing of them. Also, does sailwave support a MIN(x,y) or if-then-else type expression similar to MS Excel?
I’ve seen in other threads that there are special codes for things like # of starters, # of competitors, # of boats that came to the starting area, etc., but I don’t know where to find a full listing of codes. Also, does sailwave support a MIN(x, y) type of expression, or if-then-else function similar to MS Excel?
This is a new area of sailwave for me and I appreciate any guidance I can get.
Hmmm… it appears the box I see cannot be pasted into the reply… it cuts off all the text below.
3rd time lucky?
I know that sailwave has special codes for things like # starters, # boats that came to the starting area, # competitors, etc. However, I don’t know where to get a full listing of these codes. Also, does sailwave support a MIN(x, y) function for the expressions, or a if-then-else function similar to MS Excel?
Furthermore, where do I enter expressions for scoring codes? All I see is a list of pre-defined check boxes.
This is a new area of sailwave to me. I’ve not have cause to require expressions before, so any guidance is greatly appreciated.
As to the "no worse than DNF" the 50% formula would never be worse than
equal to last so you wouldn't need to worry about that.
Elsewhere in Sailwave (such as custom scoring systems) you can write
your own expression (i.e., formula) to be used for calculating a score.
With scoring codes you don't have that option and have to choose from
the 15 or so available options. I believe Jon was saying he could give a
couple more options that the user could choose from OR he could provide
for the ability to enter and use expressions. I think the latter
approach would be better as allowing for more flexibility in the
uncommon circumstances when some special calculation is needed.
I did NOT realize that Sail Canada had such a prescription (just tried
to access their website but it locks up my browser!). I might contact
them to get some explanation and make a suggestion. I would think
prescriptions with special scoring calculations are not a good idea
generally has they probably aren't going to be supported by the standard
scoring programs.
I too feel that a simple 40% scoring penalty would be appropriate,
but even with this more straight forward approach, there is still a
'but not scored worse than DNF' provision within 44.3(c). So it ends
up being the same issue, either way there is a MIN(x, y) function
that is required.
Note that the wording within our clubs SI's is taken verbatim from
the Sail Canada prescriptions (www.sailing.ca). I'm not privy to the
reasoning behind the 50% portion of the prescription. In fact, to
me, this makes it even less of a penalty to take the arbitratioin
than it is to take a on-water scoring penalty as in the case of Rule
44.3.
You mentioned expressions. How do I go about entering the expression
(where, how) for the scoring code? When I view the Scoring
Properties, I only see a series of check boxes:
I've seen discussion regarding expressions before in the user's
group, but have never had cause to implement such a thing, so this is
a new area to me. I know there are special codes for things such as
the number of competitors, number of starters, etc. but I don't know
where I find a complete listing of them. Also, does sailwave support
a MIN(x,y) or if-then-else type expression similar to MS Excel?
I’m not sure where you are reading the 50% scoring penalty, but there are no scoring penalties in the Sail Canada prescriptions. Here is the link to the Sail Canada prescriptions: http://www.sailing.ca/rules-s15703
Note that the wording within our clubs SI’s is taken verbatim from the Sail Canada prescriptions (www.sailing.ca). I’m not privy to the reasoning behind the 50% portion of the prescription. In fact, to me, this makes it even less of a penalty to take the arbitratioin than it is to take a on-water scoring penalty as in the case of Rule 44.3.
You mentioned expressions. How do I go about entering the expression (where, how) for the scoring code? When I view the Scoring Properties, I only see a series of check boxes:
I’ve seen discussion regarding expressions before in the user’s group, but have never had cause to implement such a thing, so this is a new area to me. I know there are special codes for things such as the number of competitors, number of starters, etc. but I don’t know where I find a complete listing of them. Also, does sailwave support a MIN(x,y) or if-then-else type expression similar to MS Excel?
Put this into Google [no quotes]: "site:sailwave.com expression"
This will bring up a bunch of pages that discuss the idea of
expressions, meaning user-defined formulae. As I recall, different
places where they can be entered have different usages. I've used them
but have to re-educate myself every time I need to set something up. On
the version I use, the best bet is to put your cursor over the box where
the expression is entered and some help should pop up for a VERY short
time (just keep moving off and back to read the whole thing).
As I said earlier, there is no place to use an expression with scoring
codes but Jon is considering maybe adding a spot.
The Sail Canada reference you gave (I was able to access by going back
to a VERY old version of Internet Explorer) shows that the concept is
NOT part of the Canadian prescriptions (which have the status of "rules"
in Canada) but instead part of some recommended sailing instructions if
you want to use arbitration. ISAF has approved an Appendix for the
2017-20 rulebook on procedures for arbitration (optional language that
events can use by simply referring to the App.) so I would expect the
Sail Canada recommendations to disappear. The wording approved by ISAF
for the next rulebook uses the default calculation method of 44.3(c) so
we might see this 40%/50% concept disappear.
Hmmm.... it appears the box I see cannot be pasted into the
reply.... it cuts off all the text below.
3rd time lucky?
I know that sailwave has special codes for things like # starters, #
boats that came to the starting area, # competitors, etc. However, I
don't know where to get a full listing of these codes. Also, does
sailwave support a MIN(x, y) function for the expressions, or a
if-then-else function similar to MS Excel?
Furthermore, where do I enter expressions for scoring codes? All I
see is a list of pre-defined check boxes.
This is a new area of sailwave to me. I've not have cause to require
expressions before, so any guidance is greatly appreciated.
Art, you are quite correct, it is NOT a prescription, however, it is located in the same “DOC.PDF” as the prescriptions. I misquoted this nuance. The text on the webpage states:
"Full Sail Canada Prescriptions to the Racing Rules of Sailing 2013-2016 with recommendations when arbitration is offered. DOCPDF "
Peter, the ‘doc.pdf’ is where the 50% scoring cap is mentioned.
I think I’ll recommend an SI update during the upcoming off season.
Jon;
On the understanding that you are contemplating addressing the use of expressions in scoring codes, I do recommend that rather than the addition of a new preselected scoring choice, that you do support full expressions. My reasoning is that nobody knows what the future holds and clubs may have a good (local) reason for amending the definitions of scoring codes, or adding new ones. I find that sailwave is generally quite good at being able to ‘tweak’ the scoring codes, however, the addition of expression support would be the ultimate in flexibility.
Note that I could see clubs having the desire to ‘tweak’ a ‘no worse than DNF’ to be ‘no worse than DNC’ or the like. An expression could easily handle all of the possibilities, albeit harder to code.