New Requirements For Ranking Pieces

[[old] nkoffler]

Since I'm not a top 3 performer, these changes don't affect me directly. I do not believe there is widespread cheating in the ranking and see the burdens imposed to get times verified as a bit much. That said, some of the rhetoric here misses a few key points:<br /><br />First, we are not members of a collective governing body. We are participants in a system that C2 is supporting with its own money. The idea of self-regulation has appeal but that appeal is diminished when dues would have to be collected to pay for the website and ranking engine.<br /><br />Second, in imposing the new ranking rules, C2 is trying to make the sport of indoor rowing more 'official.' This goes against the grain of the Crash-B foundings (not formed by C2) but it has some appeal. For example, 2000M records will now only be valid if set at sanctioned 2000 meter races. This seems to increase the excitement around these competitions. <br /><br />Third, given all that C2 provides us--a terrific product at a fair price, free goodies for achieving various meter goals or marathons, great customer service, plenty of supporting materials and advice, a free forum and ranking database, etc.--they seem to be getting very little 'benefit of the doubt.' If (and that is in question) pieces can be ranked as IND and verified as IND_V and RowPro, the rankings would seem to have a chance of functioning very much like they did before only with additional information.<br /><br />A little patience in seeing how this works out over the course of the year seems warranted. Almost all of us (if not all) are primarily competing against ourselves in any event and can easily track those times.<br /><br />Neil<br />M/LW/US/38<br /><br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-nkoffler+May 18 2005, 09:18 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(nkoffler @ May 18 2005, 09:18 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If (and that is in question) pieces can be ranked as IND and verified as IND_V and RowPro, the rankings would seem to have a chance of functioning very much like they did before only with additional information.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><b>Pieces can only be ranked as IND, when they are NOT one of the top 3 times in the rankings.</b>

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A little patience in seeing how this works out over the course of the year seems warranted.  <br /> </td></tr></table><br />"All that is necessary for ignorance to triumph is for wise men to say nothing."<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Almost all of us (if not all) are primarily competing against ourselves in any event and can easily track those times.<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Yes we are all competing against ourselves, however this is now going to be taken to extreme and, more precisely, exclusion. The top 3 times will NOT easily be tracked, and not be able to be tracked at all, because they are not going to be allowed to be in the rankings.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-c2bill+May 5 2005, 10:48 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2bill @ May 5 2005, 10:48 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>to enter a time that qualifies for a top 3 spot in your event</b>, you MUST notify Concept2 PRIOR to rowing and entering the time. Concept2 will require you to row on a public machine and have a witness that can verify the time. </td></tr></table><br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+May 18 2005, 08:46 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ May 18 2005, 08:46 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"All that is necessary for ignorance to triumph is for wise men to say nothing." <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The irony here is a bit overwhelming.

[[old] Porkchop]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+May 18 2005, 12:02 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ May 18 2005, 12:02 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+May 18 2005, 08:46 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ May 18 2005, 08:46 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"All that is necessary for ignorance to triumph is for wise men to say nothing." <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The irony here is a bit overwhelming. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You have a gift for understatement.

[[old] nkoffler]

The Rupp just keeps outdoing himself. It really is amazing.<br /><br />The quote which he is mangling is "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to say nothing" -- Edmund Burke. It is applicable in many situations but not here.<br /><br />I would understatedly say that C2 and 'evil' have no business being in the same sentence other than, "That C2 machine is just evil" or words to that effect.<br /><br />Perphaps John will be starting up an online erging forum and rankings so that he can be completely satisfied with the rules. He would presumably still endlessly debate himself.<br /><br />As George Orwell wrote in 1984, "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."<br /><br />Neil<br />M/LW/US/38

[[old] aerial]

<!--QuoteBegin-c2bill+May 5 2005, 12:48 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2bill @ May 5 2005, 12:48 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->many of you have already seen this announcement (which appears to anyone who ranks any sort of piece in the ranking) - however I wanted to also be sure to post it here.<br /><br />The ranking has for years operated purely on an honor system - by and large i think this has worked well.<br /><br />in any sport, however, top athletes can expect to be held to a higher standard and endure more scrutiny. This is true in the sport of indoor rowing as well.<br /><br />To that end this is the notice that now appears for ranked results:<br /><br /><b><br />IMPORTANT NOTE:</b> New for the 2006 season, to enter a time that qualifies for a top 3 spot in your event, you MUST notify Concept2 PRIOR to rowing and entering the time. Concept2 will require you to row on a public machine and have a witness that can verify the time. <br /><br />**This applies only to top 3 spots (as determined by measuring against the 2005 rankings) <br /><br />**To enter a top 10 result a new code is required for the 2006 season- this may be obtained by emailing denah@concept2.com <br /><br />**Race results are exempt from this requirement <br /> </td></tr></table><br />

[[old] John Rupp]

Neil,<br /><br />The quote you posted is not the same one that I posted, which is: "All that is necessary for ignorance to triumph is for wise men to say nothing." It is quite interesting that you made a connection between C2 and evil. If you will read my post again you will see that I made no such connection and, in fact, think their rules are simply misguided, hence the difference between the quotation that you posted and mine.<br /><br />I am satisfied with any rules that are reasonably equitable and accessible for the great majority of participants. C2's rules are neither of those. The previous ranking guidelines were much less obtrusive and also more inclusive and accurate than the new ones. Leaving out the great majority of legitimate times is neither inclusive nor accurate.<br /><br />George Orwell did not write "1984" in 1984. It is one of my favorite books though and I have several copies, including thee online. It is rather amusing that you think C2's position is strength from ignorance. It is like advising someone to not pet a mountain lion but they do it anyway and then get their head chewed off. Well in my opinion that is not strength, but ignorance surely is ignorance, and it's not my head anyway.<br /><br />My favorite quote of Orwell's is: WAR IS PEACE<br /><br />And now our current president, ~That's right we're going to bomb the h*** out of the rest of the world to have peace.~ <br /><br />Which doesn't make any sense, does it. BUT that's how some people look at things.

[[old] schmink]

<br /><br />Just for the record if there is a poll as someone suggested, I am totally against the new rules for this season.<br /><br />Dave

[[old] John Rupp]

The rules apply to all rowers, by age and gender in each and every weight class, as currently listed in the rankings.

[[old] nkoffler]

John-<br /><br />My responses to your post are below in brackets.<br /><br />Neil,<br /><br />The quote you posted is not the same one that I posted [I know that's is why I wrote that you 'mangled' the famous quote], which is: "All that is necessary for ignorance to triumph is for wise men to say nothing." It is quite interesting that you made a connection [Please analyze me more, Dr. Freud!!!!] between C2 and evil. If you will read my post again you will see that I made no such connection and, in fact, think their rules are simply misguided [good, but are they ignorant?], hence the difference between the quotation that you posted and mine.<br /><br />I am satisfied with any rules that are reasonably [by your standars of reasonable, that's leaves a world of room] equitable and accessible for the great majority of participants. C2's rules are neither of those. The previous ranking guidelines were much less obtrusive [of course] and also more inclusive [by definition] and accurate [not clear and not tested, yet] than the new ones. Leaving out the great majority [the great majority? Wow, what math!!] of legitimate times is neither inclusive nor accurate.<br /><br />George Orwell did not write "1984" in 1984. [Oh, thanks for setting me straight on that. I just thought he was just dyslexic in 1948.] It is one of my favorite books though and I have several copies, including thee online. It is rather amusing that you think C2's position is strength from ignorance. [Glad to provide amusement but that is not what I think at all. My comment was meant to be a jab at you.] It is like advising someone to not pet a mountain lion but they do it anyway and then get their head chewed off. Well in my opinion that is not strength, but ignorance surely is ignorance, and it's not my head anyway. [Can we start putting these things together for publication? How about giving you a 10% cut of the proceeds?]<br /><br />My favorite quote of Orwell's is: WAR IS PEACE<br /><br />And now our current president, ~That's right we're going to bomb the h*** out of the rest of the world to have peace.~ <br /><br />Which doesn't make any sense, does it. BUT that's how some people look at things.<br /><br />[I certainly wan't interested in diverting this discussion to one about the state of geopolitics. That is a topic for some other forum.]<br /><br />[Thank you for the continued amusement.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />Neil]<br />

[[old] holm188]

<br /><br />maybe the top 3 posters (in # of posts) should warn C2 a day in advance before posting to ensure that their posts are not:<br />-a reply to their own post,<br />-continuous repeating without new info<br />-confusing the "Add Reply" button and a simple <CR><br /><br />Just to lighten up a little the discussion for those not in the top 3 of their category anyway. No offence or seriousness ment.<br /><br />

[[old] monkey]

I think what is doubly disappointing here is that C2 appear to have chosen to completely disregard and ride roughshod over the valid concerns about the new rules raised in this thread.<br />Whilst I commend the motivational work done by them in other areas I think they have really let themselves down with their apparent attitude over this.<br /><br />Its pretty obvious that C2 are just biding their time until this issue goes away leaving all the concerns unanswered.<br /><br />I fear the any top 3 ranker must now always harbour further doubts about the real status of their position as potential top 3 rowers that have no access to a 'public erg' and wish to post their times are excluded.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-monkey+May 19 2005, 11:41 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(monkey @ May 19 2005, 11:41 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think what is doubly disappointing here is that C2 appear to have chosen to completely disregard and ride roughshod over the valid concerns about the new rules raised in this thread. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Isn't that just a bit "dramatic"? <br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Whilst I commend the motivational work done by them in other areas I think they have really let themselves down with their apparent attitude over this.<br /><br />Its pretty obvious that C2 are just biding their time until this issue goes away leaving all the concerns unanswered.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The drama continues....<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I fear the any top 3 ranker must now always harbour further doubts about the real status of their position as potential top 3 rowers that have no access to a 'public erg' and wish to post their times are excluded. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You don't seriously believe that the #1 time ranked online represents the best possible performance of anyone in the World (before or after the "new rules".), do you? <br /><br />Anyway, do you have any idea of what a "top 3 ranker" might be like? In the events where the time is actually what might be considered "fast", the people that can do that are likely not using the ranking for motivation or validation, i.e. Dwayne has continued to improve his times over his own times; the way to real improvement.<br /><br />Have no fear, the ranking world will continue to have all of the "status" it always has, and as far as we can tell at this point, NO ONE IS BEING EXCLUDED, if they are, please pipe in and say so.<br /><br />Cheers!<br /><br />To borrow from Roland B.: Keep it light, keep it fun.