Im not sure you are all ready for this but it is topical.
In the thread regarding German Summits, General Rule 3.11 has been mentioned several times and it occurs to me there is an anomoly.
In G, we have 3 x 10 pointers out of approx 180 summits, thats about 1.5% (not about 10%). By my reckoning, we should have another 15.
Maybe whilst the discussions about G summits are going on, then should this be reviewed as well.
I wonder what others think.
73 Ian G7KXV
In reply to G7KXV:
Sorry Ian but I think that is a step too far 
As it would mean altering present participant scores in the database. I am only in favour of changes that can be introduced to improve the system AND be implemented so that all changes affect everybody equally.
Roger G4OWG
In reply to all:
I dont want to take part of the German-summit-discussion
as I am not responsible for them.
As regional-manager of Hessen (DM/HE…) I am only
responsible for the DM/HE-summits and I can say all of them
are ok within the rules (150m etc.)
But I think with the actual SOTA-point-system we always
will have discussions!
The only way is to give 1 point for every summit.
But then the next discussion starts…
-why Mont blanc gives the same point as Kinder Scout…
-why a summit climbed on your own gives the same point as
a summit done by cable-car…
-why a qrp-operation gives the same like qro…
-why an 88-years-old-Op. becomes only 1 point whilest
a 22-years-old-Op. got the same…
-why a YL-Op. got the same as a OM…
and, and, and…
but…
-if you have a car-park on the summit, does it says that
the op. was driving by car…
-if they have a cable-car up to Ben Nevis, does it says the
op. was taking the cable-car or did he climbed the peak bye
his own…
Oh,yes I forgot the winter-bonus…next discussion
My english is to poor, but what I want to say is:
Vy73 es CU from the summits
Fritz HB9CSA,DL4FDM
Hi Roger and Fritz,
you both make valid comments.
as I said earlier, other discussions raise points about rules/ guidelines, I only mention it because the rules/ guidelines do not appear to be implemented consistently.
If nothing is done then the rule/ guideline should be removed to eliminate any confusion.
73 Ian
In reply to G7KXV:
Of course if the HUMPS are adopted there are a couple more 10 pointers added!
That said, the 10% is a guideline, not a rule. I assume the height bands were set up for convenient round numbers, changing the height bands to give ~10% 10 pointers could land us with harder to remember numbers, this may not be a great problem since we work from the lists, not the raw numbers, but in view of the point raised above about recalculating all scores (plus only having a few 10 pointers makes them more special!) I think we ought to shelve this one!
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G7KXV:
I would say one thing at a time Ian… hi 
Not sure about adding more summits to the 10 point list but I like to see 1 pointers be included in a winter bonus.
Some 1 pointers are harder to get to that some 6/8/10 pointers!
In reply to 2E0KPO:
I like to see 1 pointers be included in a winter bonus.
Some 1 pointers are harder to get to that some 6/8/10 pointers!
You need to save the easy one point summits for winter Steve and the hard ones for summer, Hi! However, I agree with your comments on some being hard work, but that’s SOTA - the playing field is not level as Fritz points out, neither within a country or between countries.
As for more 10 point summits within G, I am not convinced we actually need them if we have a decent number of 8 and 6 point summits. Are we that much of the “poor cousin” amongst associations?
73, Gerald
P.S. Who let our resident statistian have a holiday in GI?
In reply to G4OIG:
“Are we that much of the “poor cousin” amongst associations?”
Alpine country - Austria - 15246 points
other country - EI - 1660 points
G - 474 points
In reply to G7KXV:
If you want a real tough luck story, try living in Holland.
You can’t argue with geography!
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G8ADD:
I was giving an objective response to a posed question.
I am confused by your references to Holland and geography.
73 Ian
In reply to G7KXV:
I’m sorry my reply was too delphic, Ian, the point I was trying to make is that countries like Holland would be the real poor relations - except, now I come to think of it, they are practical people there and are probably pleased that no valuable land is wasted by housing unproductive mountains!
I want to expand a little on this “arguing with geography” business. All the mountain areas in the UK are the peneplained remnants of old and once great fold mountain chains like the Alps. This is to say that the original mountains were worn down to a low lying plain and in the Cretaceous were covered by the sea and softer deposits laid down on them. In the Tertiary this peneplain was elevated and erosion recommenced, the later soft deposits going first but in the process defining the drainage pattern that was later superimposed on the emerging hard rock peneplain. The result is that the higher summits of our present mountains are all of fairly similar height and are largely defined by harder and more resistant rocks. You can see this on any of the higher summits, it is particularly clear in the LD and WS areas - the horizon is a fairly level line of mountain tops with the very occasional big one projecting because of some geological peculiarity, such as the volcanic calderas of Ben Nevis and Glencoe.
The outcome of this mode of production of our modern mountains is that heights tend to cluster around certain values and any arbitary top division is likely to contain either too few summits or too many unless you choose an odd top number or uneven divisions. Uneven divisions is perhaps not too daft an idea - it goes with the flow in geographical terms.
I’m sorry if this all sounds a little pedantic, but my degree was in geology and I have always had an enthusiasm for the hard rocks, whether climbing them or chipping them with a hammer!
Just out of interest, Ian, how would you like to subdivide the G hills to give more 10 pointers, what would be the defining height for 10 points and what would be the lower divisions?
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G8ADD:
Really interesting Brian and I would love to know more … but this thread is about the implementation of rules and guidelines in SOTA.
In particular, in the General Rules (described as The SOTA Bible …) Rule 3.11 is as follows :-
A scoring system relating to the height of the Summit ASL must be implemented unless this is clearly and demonstrably impractical (see below). Each Summit is worth a certain number of points, dependent upon its height ASL. Six height bands are defined, expressed in
metres ASL and optionally in feet ASL, the values of which are determined on an
Association basis. Height bands for an Association are determined by the Association Manager and must be shown in the Association Reference Manual.
Points are awarded to both Activators and Chasers as follows:
Band 1 1 point
Band 2 2 points
Band 3 4 points
Band 4 6 points
Band 5 8 points
Band 6 10 points
The height banding must be constructed in such a way that it encourages operation from the highest peaks in the Association. Therefore, Band 6 should only apply to a small proportion, say 10%, of Summits. Conversely, a reasonable number of Summits must fall into Band 1 to encourage lower level participation. Again, as a guideline 10% of Summits is acceptable.
The guideline is ‘say 10%’, I made the observation that in G we have 3 in Band 6 which equates to about 1.5%, and very different from other associations, some, for eg. EI have implemented this guideline very accurately. Only in the name of consistency do I make the point and no other reason.
If the consensus is leave it be, I can live with that but I would then urge a change in Rule 3.11 of the General Rules to remove any reference to a guideline.
My reason for raising it at this moment is this, IF the G summits list is reviewed (and maybe changed), it would be better to review all aspects of the G summits table and iron out ALL anomolies rather than do some of it now and some later. I was merely ‘thinking ahead’.
As for how I would subdivide the bands. I’ve never thought that far ahead, I see no point in indulging in solutions before the problem has been agreed upon! However I would say that if the guidelines in Rule 3.11 were implemented then G would have about 18 summits in band 6, you can work it out from that.
73 Ian,
PS and I’m glad you changed your mind on the other thread, well done.
In reply to G7KXV:
“PS and I’m glad you changed your mind on the other thread, well done.”
My instinct is not to tamper with something that is really working pretty well, but honestly, Ian, the thought of more SOTA ridge walks now I am regaining some fitness makes me salivate!
“As for how I would subdivide the bands. I’ve never thought that far ahead, I see no point in indulging in solutions before the problem has been agreed upon! However I would say that if the guidelines in Rule 3.11 were implemented then G would have about 18 summits in band 6, you can work it out from that.”
I think you should come up with a better set of numbers, Ian, and then convince people that there is something to gain by changing to this better set. However, I am taking that as a challenge and looking at the figures myself to see if anything emerges. If I see a better way I will contact you and compare notes.
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G7KXV:
…" I would say that if the guidelines in Rule 3.11 were implemented then G would have about 18 summits in band 6, you can work it out from that".
Okay I’ll say it - reduce the 900m height to 800m and you get LD-001 to 014 inclusive + NP-001 + SB-001 = 16. The problem then comes with the shuffle further down the list and here I definitely offer no solution!!!
73, Gerald
Later comment: Ooops, forgot about LD-002 being incognito! Only 15.
In reply to G8ADD:
“I think you should come up with a better set of numbers, Ian, and then convince people that there is something to gain by changing to this better set.”
I honestly haven’t thought of ‘a better set of numbers’. I do not have a blue print for a different schedule of hills. I make the point only because the General Rules offer guidance which hasnt been followed in G, thats all, I have no hidden agenda, all I would like to see is consistency. And importantly, if we leave G as it is, then great but change Rule 3.11.
Anyway, glad you are salivating over the ridge walks, I hope to see you up there Brian. Fabulous.
73 Ian
In reply to G7KXV:
Since Gerald has joined in I’ll outline these few thoughts for general consumption.
Taking Geralds suggestion of 800+ metres for 10 points, and sticking to 100 metre bands for simplicity, I find more or less the same number in each except the top and bottom band, which is convenient. This gives us the simplest solution as follows:
up to 399 metres 1 point
400 to 499 metres 2 points
500 to 599 metres 4 points
600 to 699 metres 6 points
700 to 799 metres 8 points
800+ metres 10 points
This is staying with Marilyns, I haven’t looked into HUMPS!
Note I am not advocating this, I merely offer it as another simple solution which addresses the deficiency in 10 point summits. It is up to the activators to decide whether to put this or some other change forward for consideration by the MT; I can see some advantages to it (some of the hardest single point summits become worth two points, for instance) but I also think that the change may not be worth the trouble.
Incidentally, talking percentages, I note the GMs only have 3.23% of two pointers!
73
Brian G8ADD
In reply to G8ADD:
Well Brian, I couldnt help but look at your offering in a little more detail, I think it looks very promising.
My simplistic analysis can be summarised as follows:-
Currently
Band 6 (10) 3 summits - 1.67%
Band 5 (8) 12 summits - 6.67%
Band 4 (6) 18 summits - 10%
Band 3 (4) 23 summits - 12.8%
Band 2 (2) 24 summits - 13.3%
Band 1 (1) 100 summits - 55.6%
Your offering for Marilyns only is:-
Band 6 (10) - 15 summits - 8.3%
Band 5 (8) - 18 summits - 10%
Band 4 (6) - 23 summits - 12.8%
Band 3 (4) - 24 summits - 13.3%
Band 2 (2) - 20 summits - 11.1%
Band 1 (1) - 80 summits - 44.4%
This appears to be a better distribution.
It makes the programme much easier to reach MG so that will hack a few off, me included
It increases the points in G from 474 to 648 points
In reply to G7KXV:
What amazes me Ian is that the MT suggested 10% for Band 6 and then didn’t follow their own suggestion!
In respect of the suggested banding, I think one stumbling block would be having summits below 500m in band 2 (because of our current perception) and, as you say, making MG that much easier to attain. This for me would be a hard pill to swallow even though I am only 1/3rd of the way there. Personally I would prefer to see more summits generally as suggested in the other thread which would allow us to preserve the level of challenge here in the UK.
73, Gerald
In reply to G4OIG:
“What amazes me Ian is that the MT suggested 10% for Band 6 and then didn’t follow their own suggestion!”
Absolutely Gerald, and maybe the solution is to remove the guidance within the rule.
“This for me would be a hard pill to swallow …”
Yes and I agree with you on this also, any change will be ‘a bitter pill’ for me, I have a number of personal goals which will effectively disappear but hey, I take the view that if its an improvement overall then lets bite the bullet and get on with it. I’m just glad its not my decision hi hi.