New Requirements For Ranking Pieces

[[old] slo_boat]

<!--QuoteBegin-monkey+May 20 2005, 02:41 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(monkey @ May 20 2005, 02:41 AM)</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.<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 /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I don't think that C2 is leaving concerns unanswered. I took the time to write an e-mail expressing my concerns about the issue and offering constructive suggestions. I received a nice reply and a short explanation. I know from this thread and the related threads that several other people have also exchanged e-mails with C2. It's clear that C2 is struggling with the best ways to validate the rankings. I don't really like the new system. I prefer a two-track system that would keep the informal rankings as they are and a separate formal record keeping system (that would be even more rigorous than what is currently proposed by C2).<br /><br />I tried to create a thread for people to use to post suggestions and ideas instead of simply whining. That thread died a quick death. It seems that the interest was not so much for proposing alternatives or working with C2 as it was for complaining.<br /><br />Why anyone would expect C2 to respond to this thread is beyond my comprehension. Many of the posts are repetitive, overly critical, and petty. I realize that the tone of the thread is overly influenced by a small number of participants. Fortunately, a handful of people have taken the time to try to understand the issue. They understand the intent of the rule changes, and they have tried to be constructive. <br /><br />I applaud C2 for working to create a stronger system for recognition in the emerging sport of indoor rowing or rowing ergometer racing. I understand that they have a difficult task trying to balance the counter-culture appeal of the first CRASH Bs and erg racing in general, the informal nature of the activity, and the demand for standards created by the evolution of this activity from merely a way to train when the water was iced over and to a sport in its own right. This sort of outrage has accompanied every effort to develop standards by every athletic governing body for developing sports. <br /><br />If you want to have a conversation with C2, then have a conversation. Venting on a public forum is not an invitation to dialogue.<br />

[[old] michaelb]

<!--QuoteBegin-slo_boat+May 20 2005, 09:29 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(slo_boat @ May 20 2005, 09:29 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why anyone would expect C2 to respond to this thread is beyond my comprehension. Many of the posts are repetitive, overly critical, and petty. I realize that the tone of the thread is overly influenced by a small number of participants. Fortunately, a handful of people have taken the time to try to understand the issue. They understand the intent of the rule changes, and they have tried to be constructive. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Boy, I disagree. I don't think this thread has been excessively negative and I think a public response by C2 is required. Many people here, hopefully including myself, have been trying to raise valid issues and concerns about the new system, and C2 has apparently, at least publically and officially, provided absolutely no justification or response. I think the anger and objections are well founded:<br /><br />1) this decision could not have been made on the spur of the moment at the end of April? Why did C2 not raise this issue in Jan and allow public input in advance?<br /><br />2) why punish those top competitors who have actually spent the $850 to buy one of their rowing machines and prevent them from rowing at home?<br /><br />3) why has C2 abandoned online racing, and why are they not taking steps to encourage and foster online racing, including by supporting those races and allowing those races to be ranked and considered valid?<br /><br />#3 is what particularly gets me, and we have already seen examples this year of some of the fastest people in the world racing online against each other, and yet apparently those results will not count. Online racing is the future of indoor rowing and racing. How C2 cannot see that is simply beyond me.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-slo_boat+May 20 2005, 07:29 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(slo_boat @ May 20 2005, 07:29 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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 />Yes and that's too bad, as it leaves any "top 3" times from now on highly suspect, and will exclude the plethora of those that are valid.<br /><br />I checked some of the IND-V times last night, and the profiles show no more information than any of the others. There are no public ergs listed, and no witnesses, yet those times were given a -V.<br /><br />The new "rules" are public, thus all discussion of the rules should be public.

[[old] Dickie]

<!--QuoteBegin-slo_boat+May 20 2005, 10:29 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(slo_boat @ May 20 2005, 10:29 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />Why anyone would expect C2 to respond to this thread is beyond my comprehension. Many of the posts are repetitive, overly critical, and petty. I realize that the tone of the thread is overly influenced by a small number of participants. Fortunately, a handful of people have taken the time to try to understand the issue. They understand the intent of the rule changes, and they have tried to be constructive. <br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well, maybe a class in comprehension is in order for you, as C2Bill started this thread and because he did, I do expect a public response to my and others concerns. <br /><br />I agree that a lot of the posts are repetitive, but that might not be the case if a response had been forthcoming. Some are critical but I would not say overly critical and there is some pettiness, but we do deserve answers and what better place than here, on the thread started by C2Bill.<br /><br />I also read your thread and there were some good ideas posted there as well, but no responses. I think the thing that bothers me most is the lack of a response from C2Bill. I feel somewhat insulted by this lack of common courtesy. All I really want to know is why the change, why now, why wasn't there some discussion prior to the change. I said in an earlier post that I recognize that C2 owns the site, but the data belongs to the members (and let's not forget that many of us are customers as well), without it the site is useless and I think that we deserve some consideration and some input to the process, certainly we deserve some advance notice of significant change.

[[old] John Rupp]

BillP is very likely not the decision maker, but rather an obedient disciple simply carrying out the orders from the top.<br /><br />In any dictatorship, the absolute power is concentrated in one person or a small clique and others are expected to obey. If not, they will quickly get the boot and someone else will replace them. Independent thinking within the organization is NOT encouraged and not tolerated.<br /><br />I would not be at all surprised if this is the way C2 runs and, in fact, there is much evidence that it does. For example, there was no feedback gathered before making the new "rules", and no response from C2 since they have been. Thus BillP probably has very little say in how the rules were designed or how they might change, but rather is eager to implement the set policies.<br /><br />This all being said, such an organization is indeed very efficient. The problem is that once it gets going off course, in general or with any specific idea, then it tends to keep going the same direction and not change, regardless of the consequences. The emperor might have no clothes on, but none of those standing close to him are going to dare to speak up and say so.<br /><br />I'm not at all being critical of C2. They surely have done and continue to do very well, and I am certainly pleased that they have.

[[old] monkey]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+May 20 2005, 12:22 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ May 20 2005, 12:22 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--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. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Dramatic maybe, but true also<br /><br />No I don't believe that the #1 time ranked online represents the best possible performance of anyone in the World, that why I wrote "rowers that have no access to a 'public erg' and <u>wish to post their times </u>" but I believe these rules will make the ranking even less representative than it is already.<br /><br />No-one is being excluded? read the rules<br /><br />"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 />That means if you haven't for any reason got access to public machine, and you can row a top 3 ranked time, you can't enter it, your excluded.<br /><br />Perhaps you should read posts and rules a little more carefully before you "pipe in" with your sarcasm. <br /><br />As for keeping it light, I'm trying to, its not me who's come up with these daft rules that'll just inconvenience people and add no more validity to the rankings than there was before.<br /><br /><br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-monkey+May 20 2005, 12:18 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(monkey @ May 20 2005, 12:18 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No-one is being excluded? read the rules<br /><br />"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 />That means if you haven't for any reason got access to public machine, and you can row a top 3 ranked time, you can't enter it, your excluded.<br /><br />Perhaps you should read posts and rules a little more carefully before you "pipe in" with your sarcasm. <br /><br />As for keeping it light, I'm trying to, its not me who's come up with these daft rules that'll just inconvenience people and add no more validity to the rankings than there was before. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Okay, so people who can row a top 3 time AND can not meet the requirements AND wish to rank their time; Are being excluded.<br /><br />I stand corrected! Except that apparently you can still enter any time in the rankings, but it just will not have the "_v" next to it unless it is verified according to the rules, plus you are welcome to bluster about it right here on the Forum as much as you would like. Then it will even get special attention. <br /><br />Are you being excluded OR do you know of anyone who is?<br /><br />Me? Sarcastic? Nooooo?!?!?!

[[old] Jim Barry]

<br />From Bill Patton (earlier in this thread):<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-->4. if you think that you will be able to row a top 3 time and can not comply with these requirements, there may be other arrangements - this is the reason for the 'prior notice'. </td></tr></table><br /><br />I've not read every post here so sorry If I'm bringing up the same thing here, but this line here appears to offer some flexibility to those that "think [they]...can not comply". Those that are fearful of the ruling affecting their ranking experience here should write C2 directly and work out an agreement. What is the Eagles song? Already Gone? <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-->So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains <br />And we never even know we have the key </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />

[[old] monkey]

<!--QuoteBegin-Jim Barry+May 20 2005, 10:10 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Jim Barry @ May 20 2005, 10:10 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->From Bill Patton (earlier in this thread):<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-->4. if you think that you will be able to row a top 3 time and can not comply with these requirements, there may be other arrangements - this is the reason for the 'prior notice'. </td></tr></table><br /><br />I've not read every post here so sorry If I'm bringing up the same thing here, but this line here appears to offer some flexibility to those that "think [they]...can not comply". Those that are fearful of the ruling affecting their ranking experience here should write C2 directly and work out an agreement. What is the Eagles song? Already Gone? <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-->So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains <br />And we never even know we have the key </td></tr></table> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />A good point Jim and I hope its as flexible as it needs to be but I still think it would be far simpler to just remove the part of the rule that requires people to use a public erg when they've spent good money on their own machine.<br />Presumably though C2 would want to contact the witnesses even it was allowed to be rowed on a non public erg.<br />Emailing witnesses wouldn't be any good, anybody can have numerous email addresses. Couldn't possibly be sure that rower and witness are not one and the same.<br />That leaves the phone. This is a world ranking, I'm sure a witness will appreciate being woken up in the middle of the night by a call from C2 the other side of the world to verify someones erg time.<br />Oh and then there's the language barrier do we have interpreters available at C2?<br />I suppose theres always letters, presuming people understand whats written and reply.

[[old] monkey]

Pauls<br />No, I'm not affected by these rules, the only person I know who might be is Graham Benton but as far as I know he doesn't rank his times anyway.<br />But I might be one day <br /><br />As someone pointed out earlier on this thread, without the 'v' on a top 3 ranked time you may as well but 'b' for bogus. And I don't think the "blustering" on the forum will be coming from the rower, more likely from all the people that doubt the validity of the entry.<br /><br />The real point I'm trying to seriously make here is that the rankings are no more secure against determined bogus entries that they were before. I could easily get a bogus time verified if wanted to and everybody would have to believe it.<br />Perhaps I should under a different user name, then admit it, just to prove the point.

[[old] CAROLE MAC]

Brian....I am........sulks ggg <br />

[[old] monkey]

Sorry Carole I reckon you'll be top 3 this season, you can slap my bum at Evesham <br />Thinking about it there's Roy Brook too if he gets just a little quicker.

[[old] FrankJ]

Dear C2,<br /><br />Today was a perfect example of how I will have a problem with the new ranking system. I joined an online 5K race scheduled for this morning a couple of days ago. Didn't figure I would do anything spectacular but there happened to be a couple of younger rowers that are just about my speed. This leads to some exciting competition and in the heat of battle I rowed an 18:03.3. Not bad for a 59 year old but in 3 months when I'm 60 that would be a top 3 time. Of course since it was unplanned and not on a public machine it is not a verifiable time although the guys I was racing against believed it was real.<br /><br />I guess that I'm somewhat defective. While I am arguably capable of this kind of performance I can't seem to just schedule a date and time and do the performance. For me the right amount of competition is a necessary factor. Kind of disappointing as I've really been looking forward to my 60th birthday. Now my times will be forever suspect by the new rules.<br /><br />How about a category for us online warriors?<br /><br />Frank

[[old] Canoeist]

I was rowing with Frank. He was in a very close race with two other boats for the entire 5K. It was fun to watch.<br /><br />My 30min row on RowPro last Friday was 4 meters than my best last season. Since I was 10th place last season, the row qualifies as a "top 10". I can't get it into the rankings for Mr. Pirate to see until I receive the new ranking code. So, maybe on Tuesday Sir Pirate can see my score. <br /><br />To me, this seems like plenty enough verification for the rankings - RowPro + code. I think Frank should be able to do the same thing when he turns 60. I hope the rankings doesn't automatically exclude his unverified times the way it does now. (My time doesn't show yet.)<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Paul Flack

[[old] NavigationHazard]

Paul, last I looked, you were on the ranking list for 2k with a strapping 9:00.<br /><br />Presumably you paced someone? I figure you can probably do 50 in a row at 9:00 pace <br /><br />Leaving aside RowPro issues, Frank raises an interesting question: how do you know in advance what kinds of times/distances are likely to require prior notification/witnesses/etc., so that you can arrange them?<br /><br />As it stands, you have to consult both last year's rankings and this year's. Maybe the current-season rankings can be tweaked so that the top 3 times from last year occupy [in red or some such] the top 3 spaces in the current lists, unless/until superseded. This wouldn't eliminate the problem, but since I suspect most of us tend to look most often at the current rankings, it might cut down on disappointing surprises. <br /><br /><br />