I spent hours reviewing the thread related to the points systems and combed through all of the results that Glenn posted for each system. Here is what I have come to as a conclusion in a summary format and let the examples of current classes and number crunching to the resident number nerds (Glenn, Chris and Shannon).

FIM:
This system rewards flashes of brilliance much more than consistency at the mid pack (around 4th) all the way down to the lower levels of points. Therefore I feel it highly encourages the win it or bin it mentality all the time or the strategic skipping of classes on various weekends. This also penalizes a rider that races 100% of the rounds but always finishes in the back of the pack. Ex going from 10th to 22nd in this system. This does seem to appropriately address the top 5 or less riders that have bad luck once in the season but ride very well otherwise. Points go down to 15th place

Moham proposal:
This system seems to reward people that finish well but race rarely to still be able to manage a lower top 10 finishing position. (More flashes of brilliance) whereas it penalizes active riders that are consistently finishing and with some points. The affect on the top 6 riders seems ok and logical to reward the faster riders that earn a championship but have rare incidents that cost them to lose points. Points go down to 30th place.

AMA:
The AMA proposal seems to appropriately address champions with one bad weekend to remain a champion. It also supports the mid to lower pack of riders that ride well for their group and also have an off weekend. Again rewarding the faster riders with some leniency for bad luck. Points go down as far as 20th place.

Misc Info:
On the whole regardless of system though it does seem to be that from the mid pack back, many riders skip numerous rounds. Thus no system will 'fix' their position if they ultimately don't attend more rounds.

Also I did spot a possible issue with our 4 hour endurance and how it affects the points. I think we should address it to fix it for coming years. What I found was that in all of the systems, a rider that only races the 4 hour endurance is better rewarded for a local rider that races all 6 normal endurance's and finishes in the mid to back pack. Rather than rewarding 4 hour endurance participants with a 1st place points system. We should give them a single point. This would reward someone that races all 6 normal rounds better than the visitor or local that only does the 4 hour. It also rewards the 6 round person more than someone that races the 4 hour plus a round or two of the normal endurance. Lastly, it also rewards the person that does all 6 in the back and the 4 hour endurance more than the individual that only does the 4 hour. This should 'fix' virtually all issues created by awarding so many points as we do today.

My Personal Opinion:
I am in favor of 3 options. First and foremost I think regardless of which system change we make, that fixing the 4 hour endurance is a must.

I don't see a need to give points down to 30th. Typically the only needs are points are: podiums at each round, Top five or 6 for season plaques, top 5 for graduating out of the Amateur classes, Top 10 for graduating out of Novice classes. Only giving points down to 15th doesn't seem to help the consistent mid to near the back of the pack finisher for still collecting enough points to finish top 10 and graduate. Going as far as 30th seems like an overkill solution that doesn't actually work to the converse of 15 position. Therefore 20 seems like it is a decent compromise.

My first preference, if we really do want to reward a champion over our current system, then I would vote for the AMA version. It seems to carry the least amount of negative effects.

Then second in line would be a very minor tweak to the AMA version (only if needed beyond the current AMA system) to help ensure a winner is the champion by changing the 1st place points only. Maybe 32 instead of 30? Again, this option is only needed if we are still a point or two away from making the change work as intended.

Otherwise my 3rd vote is to keep the system as it is today as it has the next least negative affects if we want to put focus on rewarding consistency, prudence and attendance. As mentioned above, we still need the 4 hour endurance change.

I wanted to ensure I got my summary posted several days before the meeting so that others have a chance to digest the info, research my thoughts and validate or bust my overall outlook on the differences. This way we can all come better prepared to the meeting to hopefully make a better decision for the club and all the members.

I did do my own example for only the AMA number version to help give me an idea if it really did fix the perceived problem.