[Flexmoney]

A shooter is the only shooter in a division.

The shooter eats a few penalties on a speed shoot (40pt cof) and earns a zero hit factor.

The zero hit factor is the highest hit factor for the stage.

Basic math class tells us that zero has a value, it's just not very high.


So, should the shooter get points for winning the stage?





9.2.2.1 A competitor’s score is calculated by adding the highest value
stipulated number of hits per target, minus penalties, divided by
the total time (recorded to two decimal places) taken by the
competitor to complete the course of fire, to arrive at a hit factor.
The overall stage results are factored by awarding the competitor
with the highest hit factor the maximum points available
for the course of fire, with all other competitors ranked relatively
below the stage winner.

9.5.6 The minimum score for a course of fire or string will be zero.

[Chris Keen]

Honestly ? What does it matter? If he is the only shooter in the division, he will still win the division.

[Chris Keen]

But my answer would have to be NO. He didnt win the stage. He "zeroed" the stage. Can you win a stage with zero points?

[Dan Burwell]

The answer is no stage points.

why, because that is what Ez-WinScore says

[steel1212]

If that is what ezwin says I would have to disagree then. He may have zeroed the stage points wise but he won the stage because he was the only shooter in the stage and there fore should get full stage points....in my little world. Like Chris said all its going to do is place him higher in the overall which is nothing but bragging rights.

[MichiganShootist]

You'd have to ask Jeff.

[Chris Keen]

I still say he gets NO POINTS for that stage, because he had more penalties than he did points. You cannot derive something from nothing.

This post has been edited by Chris Keen: 22 October 2009 - 02:13 PM

[Chris Keen]

PS I jusr tried it, and EZWinScore does NOT give the shooter max stage points for this particular situation.

[wide45]

He won the stage in his division, thus he earned the stage points.

If the scoring program is not giving those points, I'd almost like to know why.

[maineshootah]

Leave it to flex to come up with this one..

[Chris Keen]

wide45, on Oct 22 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

If the scoring program is not giving those points, I'd almost like to know why.

Because he didnt win anything.

How can you have a 40 point stage, hit 4 A's, 2 C's, 2 MIKES, and 2 NO-SHOOTS and think that shooter deserves any points for that stage? Logic says that is not possible.

[steel1212]

Chris Keen, on Oct 22 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

wide45, on Oct 22 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

If the scoring program is not giving those points, I'd almost like to know why.

Because he didnt win anything.

How can you have a 40 point stage, hit 4 A's, 2 C's, 2 MIKES, and 2 NO-SHOOTS and think that shooter deserves any points for that stage? Logic says that is not possible.

We aren't talking logic on this one. He is the only shooter in his division that shot that stage. If he didn't win it in his division then who won it in his division? I don't see how you can have a shooter shooting a stage and have no winner on that stage in that division. I'm not saying we are rewarding them anything, I just think that is how it needs to happen.

[Chris Keen]

steel1212, on Oct 22 2009, 05:34 PM, said:

Chris Keen, on Oct 22 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

wide45, on Oct 22 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

If the scoring program is not giving those points, I'd almost like to know why.

Because he didnt win anything.

How can you have a 40 point stage, hit 4 A's, 2 C's, 2 MIKES, and 2 NO-SHOOTS and think that shooter deserves any points for that stage? Logic says that is not possible.

We aren't talking logic on this one. He is the only shooter in his division that shot that stage. If he didn't win it in his division then who won it in his division? I don't see how you can have a shooter shooting a stage and have no winner on that stage in that division. I'm not saying we are rewarding them anything, I just think that is how it needs to happen.

Why does, how many shooters shot that division, change anything regarding logic????? What if there are 10 shooters in the division, and THEY ALL ZEROED that stage? Now who won? Who gets stage points now?

I say a zero is a zero. Basic math says 0.0000 is absolutely ZERO. Nothing. Nada. If 10 marathon runners do not move when the starting gun goes off, who do you give the medal to? If 10 Nobel Peace Prize contestants do nothing ............... wooops bad example.

This post has been edited by Chris Keen: 22 October 2009 - 02:46 PM

[steel1212]

Chris Keen, on Oct 22 2009, 05:40 PM, said:

steel1212, on Oct 22 2009, 05:34 PM, said:

Chris Keen, on Oct 22 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

wide45, on Oct 22 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

If the scoring program is not giving those points, I'd almost like to know why.

Because he didnt win anything.

How can you have a 40 point stage, hit 4 A's, 2 C's, 2 MIKES, and 2 NO-SHOOTS and think that shooter deserves any points for that stage? Logic says that is not possible.

We aren't talking logic on this one. He is the only shooter in his division that shot that stage. If he didn't win it in his division then who won it in his division? I don't see how you can have a shooter shooting a stage and have no winner on that stage in that division. I'm not saying we are rewarding them anything, I just think that is how it needs to happen.

Why does, how many shooters shot that division, change anything regarding logic????? What if there are 10 shooters in the division, and THEY ALL ZEROED that stage? *Now* who won? Who gets stage points *now*?

I say a zero is a zero. Basic math says 0.0000 is absolutely ZERO. Nothing. Nada. If 10 marathon runners do not move when the starting gun goes off, who won?

Well now your screwing up my non-logic by adding more people :-) I guess if you had 10 people and they all zeroed the stage, you would have a tie and they all won Hell I don't know if eziwin says no joy then I guess that is what it is....this is making my head hurt

[Chris Keen]

steel1212, on Oct 22 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

Well now your screwing up my non-logic by adding more people :-) I guess if you had 10 people and they all zeroed the stage, you would have a tie and they all won Hell I don't know if eziwin says no joy then I guess that is what it is....this is making my head hurt

LOL

[BSeevers]

If a tree falls in the forest,

on your head, did you feel it?

[fourtrax]

I think that Flex is somewhere laughing. I also think the guy gets all the points. IMHO

[mpolans]

What difference does it make? If he zeroed it, then everyone zeroed it. Since scoring for everyone would be relative to the stage "winner," everyone would either get 100% and the same points as the stage "winner," or everyone else would zero it and get no points. You could even throw the stage out and it wouldn't affect the match results.

This post has been edited by mpolans: 22 October 2009 - 04:11 PM

[SmittyFL]

As long as he gets a trophy for his Division win, Class win, and a medal for the stage win....that is what matters!

[EatMeerkats]

Flexmoney, on Oct 22 2009, 04:49 PM, said:

So, should the shooter get points for winning the stage?

The way the following rule is written, yes.

Flexmoney, on Oct 22 2009, 04:49 PM, said:

9.2.2.1 A competitor’s score is calculated by adding the highest value
stipulated number of hits per target, minus penalties, divided by
the total time (recorded to two decimal places) taken by the
competitor to complete the course of fire, to arrive at a hit factor.
The overall stage results are factored by awarding the competitor
with the highest hit factor the maximum points available
for the course of fire, with all other competitors ranked relatively
below the stage winner.

9.5.6 The minimum score for a course of fire or string will be zero.

Okay, so the shooter has a hit factor of 0. Does he still have the highest hit factor? Yes. Therefore, he gets the maximum points available for the course of fire. The way the rule is written, it's pretty cut-and-dried.

[boz1911]

The minimum "score" is a zero, therefore zero is a score..........Full stage points!

[North]

This is simply math folks. Lets say that the stage has a possible 60 points. Say the sole competitor had a hit factor of zero.
So HHF (high hitfactor)=max points

So the zero'd stage is worth 60 points.

So in a very simple equation 0 (hit factor)=60 and therefore the opposite is true 60=0.

So both camps are right, the competitor gets max stage points, but when this calculated ezwin computes zero points, because anything multiplied by zero is zero.

[EatMeerkats]

North, on Oct 22 2009, 07:55 PM, said:

This is simply math folks. Lets say that the stage has a possible 60 points. Say the sole competitor had a hit factor of zero.
So HHF (high hitfactor)=max points

So the zero'd stage is worth 60 points.

So in a very simple equation 0 (hit factor)=60 and therefore the opposite is true 60=0.

So both camps are right, the competitor gets max stage points, but when this calculated ezwin computes zero points, because anything multiplied by zero is zero.

The real issue here is: what is the value of 0/0? Normally, your stage points are computed as ((your_HF)/(HHF))*(available_stage_points). In the normal case when the HHF isn't zero, it all works out. But in the case where it IS, you simply can't do this. But, the competitor with the highest hit factor (0) is to be awarded the maximum points available (60), according to the rule Flex quoted.

[Flexmoney]

Chris Keen, on Oct 22 2009, 05:40 PM, said:

Basic math says 0.0000 is absolutely ZERO.

No, it doesn't. Zero is the number that falls between one and negative one.

Zero has a value.


hehe.

[Lee King]

steel1212, on Oct 22 2009, 05:05 PM, said:

If that is what ezwin says I would have to disagree then. He may have zeroed the stage points wise but he won the stage because he was the only shooter in the stage and there fore should get full stage points....in my little world. Like Chris said all its going to do is place him higher in the overall which is nothing but bragging rights.

Actually he wouldn't even be higher in the overall because it's calculated based on % of the highest hit factor of all shooters in all divisions. So unless he was the only shooter at the match.. for overall/combined he would get a 0 because presumably there was a valid HF by someone at the match.