The End of "Napkin Math": Why Even Friendly Contests Deserve Professional Scoring

A Guide for RC Contest Directors & Club Officers

1. The "Friendly" Competition Trap

We’ve all been there. It’s the day of your event, the energy is high, the competition is spectacular, and the crowd is eager to see who wins. Then comes the awards ceremony. A volunteer with a clipboard creates a bottleneck. There’s a frantic search for a calculator. Someone notices that Judge Bob gave everyone a 20 out of 20 on "Creativity," rendering that standard useless. A competitor asks why they got second place, and the only answer is, "I think the math worked out that way?"

Here is the hard truth: There is no such thing as a "friendly" scoring error.

Even in low-stakes events, contestants pour hours of time and effort into their craft. When the scoring is sloppy, it devalues that effort. A sensible, transparent rubric doesn't make an event "too serious"—it makes it fair. It honors the contestant's dedication by ensuring the results actually reflect what happened in competition. This is why we created LiveJudge. LiveJudge takes your scoring criteria and transforms it into a simple, intuitive scoring interface that judges can bring up on their own devices; one that instantly computes and publishes (if you want) the results in a transparent and mathematically sound manner.

2. The Paper Trap: Why "Scales" Are Failing You

For as long as they've been held, contests have been run on paper scorecards that look like complex tax forms. They typically rely on variable scales to create importance. Here is an example from a model flying event:

• Takeoff: Scored 1-10
• Flight Realism: Scored 1-30
• Landing: Scored 1-5

The Problem: This forces the judge to do mental gymnastics. When a judge looks at a landing, their brain naturally thinks, "That was pretty good, maybe an 80%." But then they have to translate that: "Wait, the landing is out of 5... so is 80% a 3 or a 4?" This cognitive load leads to what is called scale compression. Judges get scared of the math, so they just give everyone a "safe" middle number (like 3 out of 5), and the scores bunch up.

3. The LiveJudge™ Shift: The "Volume Knob" Method

Modern digital scoring systems (like LiveJudge) flip the script. Instead of changing the scale (1-10 vs 1-30), we change the weight. In this system, every single slider is 1-10. Assume there are only three judging factors:

• Takeoff: Judge slides the "score" slider to 8/10.
• Flight Realism: Judge slides the "score" slider to 8/10.
• Landing: Judge slides the "score" slider to 9/10.
• The Magic: The software handles the "Volume" knob for each judging factor.
  • You tell the software that Takeoff is worth 10% of the score.
  • You tell the software that Realism is worth 50% of the score.

The judge doesn’t need to know that Realism is "more important." They just judge the quality of the maneuver. If the Realism was an 8/10, they enter 8. The software automatically amplifies that score because it has a "louder volume" (higher weight).

Why this wins:

• Speed: Judges develop muscle memory. 10 is always perfect, 1 is always a crash.
• Accuracy: A judge can easily differentiate between an 8.5 and a 9.0. It is much harder to differentiate between a 3.5 and a 4.0 on a smaller scale.

Even More: Giving Judges a Roadmap (Multiple standards per judging factor)

On paper, you might have a single judging element that encompasses multiple elements (like "landing" in our example).  Let's say the pilot flies a great approach but bounces on the landing. The judge stares at the box. "Uh... 7?" Digital rubrics allow you to break that single "factor" into multiple "standards" without creating extra work.

Factor: Landing

• Standard 1: Turn to Base (1-10)
• Standard 2: Final Approach (1-10)
• Standard 3: Touchdown (1-10)

This gives the judge a roadmap. They don't have to guess the total value; they just rate the three elements they saw.

The Contestant Benefit:

Instead of seeing "Landing: 7.5/10," the contestant gets much greater detail: "Turn to base (9/10), final approach (9/10), but you bounced the landing (5/10)." That is actionable feedback they can use to improve their flying. The math gets computed instantly so in this case, out of a possible 30 points (10 max per standard), the pilot received a 23. That equates to a 76.6% (same score, better detail). Having this level of transparency cuts off protests and disgruntled competitors while giving spectators a realtime look at what is happening (like the Olympics). 

5. The Difficulty Dial: Rewarding the Risk/Challenge

In one scoresheet I saw, every contestant was given the same "K-Factor" (difficulty) score for each element. The event director was trying to "weight" the elements, but mathematically, giving everyone the same factor  rendered the difficulty multiplier meaningless because everyone got the same multiplier. A K-Factor (or difficulty multiplier) is a bonus multiplier designed to reward contestants who perform more complex variations on elements or completely optional elements. In our model air example:

• Pilot A flies a slow, gentle circle. It is technically "perfect."
• Pilot B attempts a wildly complex 3D maneuver but has a slight wing wobble on exit.

If you only judge execution, Pilot A wins. But Pilot B had to apply much more skill and should be rewarded, even though his execution was not perfect. This is where difficulty multipliers come in.

In LiveJudge, the Head Judge assigns a multiplier to the maneuver.

• Pilot A: Execution = 10, multiplied by the difficulty factor of 1.0 = 10.0 Pts
• Pilot B: Execution = 8, multiplied by the difficulty factor of 1.5 = 12.0 Pts

This mathematical lever ensures that a "perfect easy" performance doesn't automatically beat a "good hard" performance. It encourages contestants to push the envelope, knowing the system respects the challenge and risk.

6. Conclusion: Put the Calculator Away

We run our events because we love the sport, not because we love data entry. Moving your contest’s rubric into a digital environment isn’t about being "fancy"—it’s about respect. It respects the judges by giving them a simple, consistent 1-10 toolset. It respects the contestants by giving them fair, weighted scores with detailed feedback. And most importantly, it respects the organizer by eliminating the hours of manual tabulation. Stop scoring on napkins. Let the software do the math so you can get back to doing all of the other things your event demands.