As the keeper of the APEC rules I would say that they work well.
Scoring rules in general are more difficult to administer than rules that
just seek to measure the fastest of several runs. We use a program John
Billingsly wrote in BASIC to manually score the contest and calculate the
results. Making sure that the first touch of the mouse is properly
recorded has proven a problem in the past. I don't think it is a big
problem. Our contest this year was perhaps a little too close for manual
scoring so I hope I have time to address that issue for next year.
We do have a rule requesting mice to stay at least 1 second in the start
square before starting a new run. This is to allow the scoring system
(manual or automatic) time to get ready to time the next run. (Not
everyone does this but we reserved the right to make a scoring mistake if
they don't.) The work around this year at the UK contest was to move the
timing start about 5 squares out.
The rules do not say anything about the wide slot that is in the post of
most mazes today. Probably they should give the designer a heads up. The
mazes in Japan do not have this, using only a narrow slot for a metal
strip. I like the Japanese system but I think mouse designers should
understand that both types exist and be prepared to deal with it.
>I would tend to favour the adoption of the APEC form of the rules if only
>to allow more consistency.
>There are American readers on the list. How well do you feel the APEC