- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Finland rallies its natural allies, Mexico and India, to promote the fortunes of Kiira Korpi against her rival Miki Ando (equally stunning and a better skater.) It is a close contest, but with fair judging Ando wins on every judge’s card.
Is it easier for the three-person conspiracy to affect the outcome under ordinal judging or under point-total judging?
6.0 There are nine judges. Six judges vote for Ando, three for Korpi. Ando wins.
CoP The conspirators decide to cheat by elevating Korpi’s PCSs by one point and diminishing Ando’s by one point. They also decide to give Korpi one extra GOE point on half of her elements (say, seven out of the thirteen scored elements) and to take away one GOE point from Ando on half of her elements. Under CoP two of the judges’ scores are eliminated by the random draw, then highest and lowest are thrown out, and the remaining five scores are averaged.
Case I. The conspirators have bad luck. Two of them are eliminated in the random draw and the remaining one has all of his scores for both Korpi (highest on the panel) and Ando (lowest on the panel) thrown out. Ando wins.
The probability of this happening is 3/36 = .083.
Case II. The conspirators have medium luck. One of the three is eliminated in the random draw, one set of scores is thrown out for highest/lowest, and one conspirator survives to influence the outcome. Korpi (vis-à-vis Ando) gains an extra 2 points across the board for program components, which translates into an extra 3.2 points in total PCSs.
In GOEs the relative gain in TES is 2.8. This is a total relative gain of 6.0 points between the two skaters (long program only).
The probability of this happening is is 18/36 = .500.
Case III. The conspirators have good luck. All three survive the random draw. One is thrown out for highest/lowest, two conspirators’ votes count. Korpi gets an extra 6.4 points in PCS and an extra 5.6 in TES, for a total of 12 extra points. (Assuming more good luck, she could also pick up an extra 6 points from the SP.)
Probability of this happening: 15/36 = .417.
Is it easier for the three-person conspiracy to affect the outcome under ordinal judging or under point-total judging?
6.0 There are nine judges. Six judges vote for Ando, three for Korpi. Ando wins.
CoP The conspirators decide to cheat by elevating Korpi’s PCSs by one point and diminishing Ando’s by one point. They also decide to give Korpi one extra GOE point on half of her elements (say, seven out of the thirteen scored elements) and to take away one GOE point from Ando on half of her elements. Under CoP two of the judges’ scores are eliminated by the random draw, then highest and lowest are thrown out, and the remaining five scores are averaged.
Case I. The conspirators have bad luck. Two of them are eliminated in the random draw and the remaining one has all of his scores for both Korpi (highest on the panel) and Ando (lowest on the panel) thrown out. Ando wins.
The probability of this happening is 3/36 = .083.
Case II. The conspirators have medium luck. One of the three is eliminated in the random draw, one set of scores is thrown out for highest/lowest, and one conspirator survives to influence the outcome. Korpi (vis-à-vis Ando) gains an extra 2 points across the board for program components, which translates into an extra 3.2 points in total PCSs.
In GOEs the relative gain in TES is 2.8. This is a total relative gain of 6.0 points between the two skaters (long program only).
The probability of this happening is is 18/36 = .500.
Case III. The conspirators have good luck. All three survive the random draw. One is thrown out for highest/lowest, two conspirators’ votes count. Korpi gets an extra 6.4 points in PCS and an extra 5.6 in TES, for a total of 12 extra points. (Assuming more good luck, she could also pick up an extra 6 points from the SP.)
Probability of this happening: 15/36 = .417.
Last edited: