MouseAdventure Wrap-up, Results, and Everything Else - Page 11

innerSpaceman · 10-24-2005, 05:42 PM

Well, I don't much care whether that's the way it's done or not. It's bull****. Their team came in third, if they are the one's who had the next highest score to the two teams that tied for second.

Hotels may not admit to having a 13th floor, but that floor just above the 12th is not the 14th.

Not Afraid · 10-24-2005, 06:15 PM

Well, it may be BS but it is common practice. I'm not surprised that this is the method that is used for MA.

innerSpaceman · 10-24-2005, 08:45 PM

common practice is not good enough for my friends. It seemed to me as if "and featuring Nirvanaman" was fretting about their placement, and I simply wanted to point out to him and the other folks we love on that team that they did tremendously well ... even better than their official placement title indicates. Like I said, you can call the 13th floor the 14th, but that don't make it so.

They had the third highest score.

Heheh, I actually think M.A. should have tie-breakers. Maybe a really quick mini-quest, or at least a fast round of geek trivia on the spot.

Alex · 10-24-2005, 10:28 PM

You know Steve, sometimes I get the sense you just like to complain. I don't know why that thought pops into my head every once in a while.

If we had a tie breaker they would have come in fourth. Even though we didn't use a tie breaker (because they've been arbitrary in the past this time I decided to take the risk and hope we wouldn't have a 1st place tie) they still had three teams finished in front of them. That is fourth place. There were three scores higher than theirs. That is fourth place. Even though there were only two unique scores higher than theirs, they were still in fourth place.

Now, I hope this doesn't somehow diminish their result (and if they feel it does I hope one of them will contact me) because they still did very well.

As for going down to 4th place, with 150 teams we figured we could expand the prizes (I've been involved in races that go to 10th place with prizes, in 8 different age categories for each gender). If the general preference is that we not, then we'll reexamine the decision next time.

innerSpaceman · 10-24-2005, 11:07 PM

I'm not complaining about the way it's done, by MouseAdventure or by any other competition. I'm simply arguing against what I see as the illogicality of it. Alex, you pointed out some very logical positions, namely, that there were 3 teams ahead of them, and that there were 3 separate scores ahead of them.

My logical points are that there were 2 different scores ahead of them, not three. That the place number following 2nd is 3rd, even if there are two 2nds. And that they did the third best of any teams in the two-day competition. That two teams did precisely as well as each other does not, in my personal book for which I critcize no one else, mean that they did fourth as well ... even though 3 individual teams did better.

The whole point of this game of semantics on my part is not to complain, but simply to pump up the standings of some friends of mine who got the title of "fourth" when no title of "third" was given at all. No complaint about the scoring methods of MouseAdventure was meant to be implied; simply a point about general scoring logic and semantics.

Oh, but I still think a tie-breaker during the actual awards ceremony would be fun. It's not like randomness is a thing unseen in MouseAdventure quests (see, for example, the recent David Koenig trivia quest during the Saturday night competition). It would be entertaining, and then each team would be given their own unique, final ranking. No big deal either way, just a bit of fun.

As for including a 4th place in the, um, first place ...well, I personally think it's kinda on the lame side. Wasn't there even a fifth place awarded, or did I imagine that? In any event - 1st, 2nd, 3rd are the traditional "winners circle" places of the vast majority of races and competitions. I'm not saying that MouseAdventure must stick to that tradition. If it makes more teams happy to get recognition and get prizes, that's pretty cool. Heck, I'm even in approval of the decision to "retire" the so-called Masters so that others can have a shot at winning. The more people who win, the better. Winning is fun, no doubt about it.

But I find it odd that M.A. will bend tradition to award a 4th or 5th place, and yet will stick with the tradition of "skipping" a lower placement award when there's a tie at a higher one.

Still, glass half empty or glass half full? True that 3 teams did better; also true that they got the 3rd highest score. Whether that entitles them to be called "third place" is an irrelevant matter of semantics. No big deal either way.

Alex · 10-25-2005, 07:55 AM

1st, 2nd, 3rd, is not necessarily the tradition in certain types of competition (for example, at the Walt Disney World marathon, over 100 "place" prizes are given out). In all the races I've participated in as well as the academic competitions I used to do, awarding places beyond 3rd were common. Now that we're almost four times as large as the first MouseAdventures, going down one more place seemed logical

No, there was not a 5th place awarded.

I don't see illogic where you're seeing it. To me, the way we did it is the only logical way to do it. If we had 150 teams get perfect scores and the 151st had zero points, would you be arguing that they came in second place? I suppose you would, but that makes absolutely no sense to me. Did Ralph Nader come in second in the 2000 presidential election because Bush and Gore essentially tied? But maybe I'm just not seeing something that is obvious (see the discussion on MousePad about whether next-to-last and second-to-last are synonyms) to others.

It may be irrelevant semantics, but earlier the way we did it was, as you termed it, bull****. So my apologies for thinking you felt stronger about this than you do.

innerSpaceman · 10-25-2005, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

If we had 150 teams get perfect scores and the 151st had zero points, would you be arguing that they came in second place? I suppose you would, but that makes absolutely no sense to me.

Would you dispute that such a team did second best? That they got the second best score?

Zero points is a lousy analogy for any score. What about one point? If team 151 scored one point, is that not the second best score? Did they not do second best?

And let's face it, this is all about bumping my score up to 17th, so that I can avoid the suicide that the shame of falling to 18th demands.

Alex · 10-25-2005, 11:15 AM

No, that would be the 151st best score. It would be the second unique score. They did not do second best.

I'm willing to agree to disagree but I just don't see how your position would be the more logical one. Prizes are given out for place, not for unique scores.

I was going to say that under your system it would probably be more than a bump from 18 to 17, but I'm amazed to see that in the top 20, the only tie was for 2nd place.

innerSpaceman · 10-25-2005, 09:08 AM

oh, well the bull word is something I toss about most carelessly. When I feel strongly about something, I will usually call it goshdarned frelling bull****.

Morrigoon · 10-25-2005, 11:27 AM

Sorry Steve, I agree with Alex on this one. If three teams did better than you, then regardless of their rankings against eachother, you are in fourth place.

10-24-2005, 05:42 PM	#1
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Well, I don't much care whether that's the way it's done or not. It's bull***. Their team came in third, if they are the one's who had the next highest score to the two teams that tied for second. Hotels may not admit to having a 13th floor, but that floor just above the 12th is not* the 14th.
	Submit to Quotes

10-24-2005, 06:15 PM	#2
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	Well, it may be BS but it is common practice. I'm not surprised that this is the method that is used for MA.
	Submit to Quotes

10-24-2005, 08:45 PM	#3
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	common practice is not good enough for my friends. It seemed to me as if "and featuring Nirvanaman" was fretting about their placement, and I simply wanted to point out to him and the other folks we love on that team that they did tremendously well ... even better than their official placement title indicates. Like I said, you can call the 13th floor the 14th, but that don't make it so. They had the third highest score. Heheh, I actually think M.A. should have tie-breakers. Maybe a really quick mini-quest, or at least a fast round of geek trivia on the spot.
	Submit to Quotes

10-24-2005, 10:28 PM	#4
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	You know Steve, sometimes I get the sense you just like to complain. I don't know why that thought pops into my head every once in a while. If we had a tie breaker they would have come in fourth. Even though we didn't use a tie breaker (because they've been arbitrary in the past this time I decided to take the risk and hope we wouldn't have a 1st place tie) they still had three teams finished in front of them. That is fourth place. There were three scores higher than theirs. That is fourth place. Even though there were only two unique scores higher than theirs, they were still in fourth place. Now, I hope this doesn't somehow diminish their result (and if they feel it does I hope one of them will contact me) because they still did very well. As for going down to 4th place, with 150 teams we figured we could expand the prizes (I've been involved in races that go to 10th place with prizes, in 8 different age categories for each gender). If the general preference is that we not, then we'll reexamine the decision next time.
	Submit to Quotes

10-24-2005, 11:07 PM	#5
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I'm not complaining about the way it's done, by MouseAdventure or by any other competition. I'm simply arguing against what I see as the illogicality of it. Alex, you pointed out some very logical positions, namely, that there were 3 teams ahead of them, and that there were 3 separate scores ahead of them. My logical points are that there were 2 different scores ahead of them, not three. That the place number following 2nd is 3rd, even if there are two 2nds. And that they did the third best of any teams in the two-day competition. That two teams did precisely as well as each other does not, in my personal book for which I critcize no one else, mean that they did fourth as well ... even though 3 individual teams did better. The whole point of this game of semantics on my part is not to complain, but simply to pump up the standings of some friends of mine who got the title of "fourth" when no title of "third" was given at all. No complaint about the scoring methods of MouseAdventure was meant to be implied; simply a point about general scoring logic and semantics. Oh, but I still think a tie-breaker during the actual awards ceremony would be fun. It's not like randomness is a thing unseen in MouseAdventure quests (see, for example, the recent David Koenig trivia quest during the Saturday night competition). It would be entertaining, and then each team would be given their own unique, final ranking. No big deal either way, just a bit of fun. As for including a 4th place in the, um, first place ...well, I personally think it's kinda on the lame side. Wasn't there even a fifth place awarded, or did I imagine that? In any event - 1st, 2nd, 3rd are the traditional "winners circle" places of the vast majority of races and competitions. I'm not saying that MouseAdventure must stick to that tradition. If it makes more teams happy to get recognition and get prizes, that's pretty cool. Heck, I'm even in approval of the decision to "retire" the so-called Masters so that others can have a shot at winning. The more people who win, the better. Winning is fun, no doubt about it. But I find it odd that M.A. will bend tradition to award a 4th or 5th place, and yet will stick with the tradition of "skipping" a lower placement award when there's a tie at a higher one. Still, glass half empty or glass half full? True that 3 teams did better; also true that they got the 3rd highest score. Whether that entitles them to be called "third place" is an irrelevant matter of semantics. No big deal either way.
	Submit to Quotes

10-25-2005, 07:55 AM	#6
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	1st, 2nd, 3rd, is not necessarily the tradition in certain types of competition (for example, at the Walt Disney World marathon, over 100 "place" prizes are given out). In all the races I've participated in as well as the academic competitions I used to do, awarding places beyond 3rd were common. Now that we're almost four times as large as the first MouseAdventures, going down one more place seemed logical No, there was not a 5th place awarded. I don't see illogic where you're seeing it. To me, the way we did it is the only logical way to do it. If we had 150 teams get perfect scores and the 151st had zero points, would you be arguing that they came in second place? I suppose you would, but that makes absolutely no sense to me. Did Ralph Nader come in second in the 2000 presidential election because Bush and Gore essentially tied? But maybe I'm just not seeing something that is obvious (see the discussion on MousePad about whether next-to-last and second-to-last are synonyms) to others. It may be irrelevant semantics, but earlier the way we did it was, as you termed it, bull****. So my apologies for thinking you felt stronger about this than you do.
	Submit to Quotes

10-25-2005, 11:15 AM	#8
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	No, that would be the 151st best score. It would be the second unique score. They did not do second best. I'm willing to agree to disagree but I just don't see how your position would be the more logical one. Prizes are given out for place, not for unique scores. I was going to say that under your system it would probably be more than a bump from 18 to 17, but I'm amazed to see that in the top 20, the only tie was for 2nd place.
	Submit to Quotes

10-25-2005, 09:08 AM	#9
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	oh, well the bull word is something I toss about most carelessly. When I feel strongly about something, I will usually call it goshdarned frelling bull****.
	Submit to Quotes

10-25-2005, 11:27 AM	#10
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	Sorry Steve, I agree with Alex on this one. If three teams did better than you, then regardless of their rankings against eachother, you are in fourth place. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes