Quote Originally Posted by Pokemon Trainer Sarah View Post
I don't think 100 points is that hard to distribute. You can still use a rubric. The points you give out don't have to match the rubric points, but you could do it that way with a bit of maths if you wanted.

A gets 15/20 on the rubric
B gets 5/20
C gets 15/20
D gets 16/20
E gets 16/20
F gets 20/20
G gets 12/20

Max total of rubric = 7 x 20 = 140
A got 15/140 = 10.7%. 10.7% of 100 = 10.7 points awarded.
B got 5/140 = 3.5%. 3.5% of 100 = 3.5 points awarded.
Etc.

Each judge can decide how to awards their points. The simplest way is to award 1st, 2nd, 3rd a set amount of points and then divide the rest equally between the rest. Or any variation of that. It only has to be as complicated as the judge wants to make it.

Your idea of each participant getting x/20 points for each event is pretty good too but I can see issues with teams dominating a single event and getting more points than teams participating in every event, as there is then no maximum points per event. The 100 points means teams have to join in most if not all events to win. Still worth discussing though. :)
Yes, but in your example that's distributing a rubric of 140. By doing this it isn't exactly a rubric system since you're limited on the amount of points you can give each person...just seems kinds off. Plus my rubric systems tend to go like this:

Person 1
-Score A:
-Score B:
-Score C:
-Total:

This way people can receive specific feedback on specific points of interest. The 100 points outright system seems to limit this by putting a limit on how well you can score someone, basically, no matter if they and another person do equally as well (as a hypothetical example)

I get that we're trying to encourage participation. However, why not just limit each person to say 50 points or something each? As a cap, anyway. That way no one gets cheated out on points. I don't see how doing so encourages people to submit crappy entries...if they do well, they get more points. There could be a minimum for participation or something, but I doubt someone is going to do so badly they get 0 points out of 50.

It just seems odd to have the point distribution depend solely on how many people are participating in a category. And unnecessary complex when it could be a little simpler

Maybe it's just me. :/ I don't know.

Edit: actually I'm thinking about it and I can see this working. It's starting to make a little more sense. I can kinda see how dividing points would make it so that people all have a more even playing field. I think I could work with this.