After the Florent Amodio post, I got to messing with numbers and figuring out a new GOE system that would seem to correctly reflect the performances that we see, mainly with the scoring of unsuccessful quadruple jumps and other falls in the program.
The basic premise is this:
Gone would be the option of (+3 to -3). I think that's too many options. I'd reduce it to (+2 to -2), which gives a judge 5 different options for an element.
In the United States, think of it like a school grading system:
+2 (A) would be excellent.
+1 (B) would be good.
0 (C) would be the base value, or average.
-1 (D) would be poor.
-2 (F) would be very poor.
Falls are no longer given a reduced GOE from what the element would originally receive. What I mean by that is a skater with a complex entrance into a jump might get a -2 or even -1 as the GOE even with a fall. No more. A fall is a fall, and receives the score in the right-hand column of my chart. There would be no more additional 1.00 deductions for falls on top of that, at least for the jumps.
The chart follows a simple pattern:
The 0 column uses the current ISU-established base values for jumps.
The +1 column increases the base score by 15%.
The +2 column increases the base score by 30%.
The -1 column decreases the base score by 15%.
The -2 column decreases the base score by 30%, and would also be the automatic result of a jump/jump combination in the short program with less than required revolutions.
The FALL column gives 1/3 credit to the base value of the attempted jump (which is more generous than my quick plan in the Amodio article, for what it's worth!)
I would still have to figure in the under-rotation and downgrade calls.
As you see, a total failure (fall) on a quad jump results in less points than any base-value triple jump, but more points than a base-value double Axel. I could live with that.