To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #969 (Feb 14, 1995) JudgeNet Digest #969 Tue 14 Feb 1995 THE BEER JUDGE DIGEST digest submissions: judge at synchro.com administrative requests: judge-request at synchro.com send cancellations & rank updates to the administrative address messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored FTP Archives: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu in /pub/judge WWW Archives: http://guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu/Beer/Judge Gopher Archives: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu Editor: Chuck Cox Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publishers: SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery Contents: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 06:30:37 -0600 (CST) From: Lee Bussy Subject: Dues for Judges On 13 Feb 1995, Scott Bickham wrote> > > into my discretionary funds for the few bucks it might cost. > > can usually be combined with visits to local brewpubs, regional > attractions, etc. which you would pay the same amount of money to > visit without the benefit of being able to garner some judging experience. > > There will still be those who cannot justify this expense, but since > the BJCP will need money to maintain their records and update their > judging points, I suggest that member judges pay $2 or $3 per competition, > while nonmembers pay $5. Do these numbers sound reasonable? No they do not. The fees should be (as they always have) paid by the competition. Nowhere in the world can I think of another place where one would have to pay to help out in a function that is designed to make money, regardles of whether it actually is, not my problem. It does not make sense. I don't mind paying a nominal fee up front once to help with the changeover but the main thing we have going for us is continuity. We ought to strive to make it as if it's business as usual. Some of you can afford $250 per year for a professional organization. I can't. Some travel regularly around the country anyway, I don't. Some go to Europe for vacation and to taste Belgian Beers, I can't afford it. We have several people here with families that are barely making it from week to week. They are excellent judges but can't afford it. We are trying to put together a fund to "sponsor" these people. I don't know. Maybe in everyone elses world there is plenty of money and layoff's aren't even thought about. Not here. Please don't alienate the judges that worked hard for their accreditation but barely scraped together the $50 from their "discressionary funds" to take the test. -Lee Bussy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 07:59:20 -0600 (CST) From: John Isenhour Subject: fees for professional societies > From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu > Subject: Re: No free lunch Dont you really mean no free beer? As I have suggested before, I feel that it is appropriate for those entering beer into competitons to pay a small overhead fee. This would move the cost to the people that are recieving the service, (i.e. getting their beer judged) not those providing the service. There are a lot more beers being entered than there are judges (at least at the events I've been to) and this would spread the expense around to make it smaller. If we are to compare ourselves to professional organizations, then that implies we are professionals. I do not consider myself a professional beer judge as I have never made money judging. At this point I cannot see the BJCP being a true professional society as we'd all starve to death trying to make a living at it. I am a member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the American Association for Advancement of Science and although I do pay a small amout of dues, I get an incredible amount of scientific journals and annals for this (one copy of Science each week from AAAS and a coupla NYAS annals of my choice that retail for hundreds of dollars). We just arn't big enough to do that. Believe me when I tell you that I have spent a *lot* of money collecting my almost 50 points, and I did it because I enjoy it and I think I'm helping somehow. A few months ago I dropped out of the job market to get a PhD and now I realize that I can no longer afford to judge the way I want, in fact judging can no longer rule my life for a while. This has made me very aware that there must be a lot of us who are already taxed financially by the judging we do. Since we are not a professional society, I dont think that type dues fee is in order, when there are untapped sources. I would think that adding service fees and having fund drives for those who can afford to donate would be worth checking out. Lots of educational places have endowments, that analogy seems closer to what we are than anything else. begin :-) mode: If you are really serious about dues, lets form a non profit organization (for tax purposes) and since you wanna be professionally serious, then lets make the dues based on a percent of your gross annual salary! (ok we'll begin small so you dont notice, then) Or how about we begin a religion. We can tith (sp?) the members, make them go door to door spreading the word of the ONE TRUE WAY of the BJCP. Then we can dispise the AHA infidel with zealousness. Jihad! john ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 08:39:07 -0700 From: glo at beta.lanl.gov (Gordon L. Olson) Subject: Thank you, John Dale I want to thank John Dale (and Jim Liddil for the forward) for thoroughly expressing his opinions for what the problems were between the AHA and HWTBA over the BJCP. When Karen B. posted her withdrawl announcement, I was extremely anoyed that "real reasons" were not given. Now we have been given a view of some of the problems going on behind the scenes. I now feel much better about the AHA's decision. I hope that this doesn't turn into a session of bashing Pat Baker. He has devoted a lot of time and effort to promote homebrewing for many years (from before most of us were brewing). He is also a strong individual with strongly held convictions. So is Dave Norton. I can understand that the two of them might conflict. I am very surprised that Dave Norton and Eric McClary were fired as HWBTA representatives to the BJCC. No one had mentioned it yet on this forum. >From my perspective, I always liked the co-sponsorship of the BJCP. Balanced between the interests of the AHA and HWBTA seemed like a good place. Since that didn't work, I like the idea of an indepen- dent organization. The AHA on its own could probly do a good job, but as John Dale points out, they are really geared to beginning and intermediate brewers. Can they deal well with the more serious nature of judges who take judging seriously? (too seriously?) Unfortunately, a truely independent judge organization is extremely difficult to get started, due to financial and administrative limitations. Therefore, at the present time, I am cautiously backing the AHA effort. If they blow it and try to implement something stupid, then I will be actively agitating in this forum and elsewhere for an independent organization. Gordon L. Olson (National BJCP judge) glo at lanl.gov ======================================================= | Gordon L. Olson | U.S. Postal Service: | | e-mail: glo at lanl.gov | Los Alamos National Laboratory | | phone: 505-667-8105 | P.O. Box 1663, MS B226 | | fax: 505-665-5538 | Los Alamos, NM 87545 USA | ======================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 11:17:03 EST From: Jay Hersh Subject: dr beer & moonshine well i tried this myself with wild turkey, which is bourbon, by definition at least 51% corn mash. at varying levels it either was too low to detect, or tasted like wild turkey. not at all what i was expecting. we're gonna try noodling around with adding assorted fruit flavors.... also i tried 12.5ml of liquid from canned corn as experiment alongside the DMS sample. worked ok. comments were bump to 15-20ml and use unsweetened canned corn!! the only over the counter product with phenol init we could find was flavored chloaseptic spray. in mint or cherry either was not acceptable. cepacoldrops here use benzocaine, not phenol. does this differ elsewwhere?? anyone knoww for certain of an unflavored over the counter phenol source?? Dr. Beer ------------------------------ Date: 13 Feb 95 11:11:00 -0600 From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: Fees/Elected committee Scott writes: >There will still be those who cannot justify this expense, but since >the BJCP will need money to maintain their records and update their >judging points, I suggest that member judges pay $2 or $3 per competition, >while nonmembers pay $5. Do these numbers sound reasonable? They sound reasonable, but per-competition fees would tend to discourage participation more than per-year fees (where you pay once and than you judge as much as you are able) --- perhaps both might be good: Some judges can only judge once per year. They would soon drop out of a program that charges $25 per year. Others judge 20 times per year and would rather pay a lump sum, no? Regarding the issue of an elected commitee, I think it was a very good point that a commitee that is spread across the contry (world) would have a tough time coming to a consensus on any issues and would be slow in making decisions/ changes. Someone (sorry) mentioned the idea of electing a single "Commissioner." This sounds like a good idea as long as there were short terms and term limits. This person could put together a local, appointed committee, which would take input from all the members and then make decisions. Does anyone see a problem with this scenario? Al. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 16:37:03 EST From: uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Subject: JudgeNet Digest #967 (Feb 12, 1995) *** Resending note of 02/12/95 07:00 Fred Hardy responds to criticism about proposed fees for judges: f>Whew! Boy, did I blow it by suggesting that judges pay an annual f>fee (dues?) and a recordation fee each time they earned points. f>Please forgive my naivete. I was reminded quickly and often that f>the judges are volunteers who spend considerable amounts of money f>and endure untold hardships travelling great distances to f>contribute their considerable skills to the field of home brewing. - -->Sarcasm is not attractive. I would hope for a more civil discussion of the merits of the issue, and not a flame war. When I made my post, I sent Fred a note saying in advance that I was posting a reply, that I disagreed with him, and that he shouldn't take the disagreement personally. Yes, we are volunteers and we do incur expenses in doing so. I, too, do not consider it a hardship. That doesn't mean I enjoy the idea of being nickel-and-dimed for something that is a competition organiser's responsibility. And as I stated before, it would also be easier for the administrator to record competition data from a single organiser's report than from dozens of individual forms. f>I have never considered it a hardship. I do it because I enjoy the folks I f>meet, the beer I taste, and the points I earn towards advancement in the BJCP - -->I agree with all of the above, although I don't put very much weight on the last item. Maybe someday I'll retake the exam so my "rank" catches up with my points, but I judge for the enjoyment of it and to "give something back" to the hobby. I don't worry a lot about titles or points--I judge in competitions for which I do not receive points as well. And if there were no BJCP, I would still judge. f>So, you see, I had no idea of the sacrifices that my fellow judges seem to be f>making. - -->Again, the sarcasm is unwarranted. I don't think it would be a great breach of electronic etiquette to reveal that Fred's private email response to me was considerably more civil. I also hope he doesn't mind my saying that he said he didn't think that $25-30 (at a recording fee of $5 a shot) for a "serious" judge who does 5-6 competitions a year was asking too much. By my last count, I will have done 6 competitions before the first round NHC--two this month, two or three in March, and one in April....then the NHC. Two of those will be in-state. I'll be organising two competitions and probably judging in a half-dozen more. Let's just say 10, with the assumption that I won't be able to make a couple of them. That's $50, or the price of a first BJCP exam. How many times do you hear complaints about exam fees? What about the fuss raised when someone on the west coast was going to add an extra $5 to the exam fee to cover a facility rental charge? How do you think people will respond do being charged to be volunteers? It's not the extra $5, although, as I demonstrated, it does add up, it's the idea of charging the wrong person. No, there's no free lunch. The competitions and their entrants are getting the services of the judges. I don't mean that to attach any inflated sense of importance to what I do, I'm just stating the fact. Without the competitions there would be no need to certify judges. Nor would competitions go very far without people to judge. But competitions collect entry fees, and the administrative costs for a judging program properly come from a portion of those fees, as I proposed, with larger competitions paying more (and smaller ones paying less). The fact that we enjoy doing it doesn't justify extracting more money from us. Competition organisers (myself included) are grateful to have judges come in from out of town. They've thanked me for making the trip and I've done what I can to make our out-of-town judges welcome and try to be sure that they enjoy themselves while here. To make them pay for the privilege of volunteering when the organisers are the ones collecting the entry fees is absurd. (And I'm not saying that competitions are rolling in money, but we never expect to break even anyway. Large competitions may well show a "profit," but that's another story. Also, I wonder whether you've considered the perverse effects of charging judges on a per-event basis. It means that the ones who make the effort to judge often will be paying more than the judge who judges once every couple years to maintain his status. It sounds ridiculous, but I've encountered people who say they do just that. Why someone would be more concerned about maintaining a title than doing the actual judging is beyond me, but those people are out there. Why should those of us who are doing the work be paying more? Tell me about a "free lunch" again. f>Consider some arithmetic. Let's assume there are 1,200 judges in the BJCP, f>and another 600 names in the data base because they were at the scene of a f>competition and were on an organizer's report. - -->Here we go again. Those people who "were at the scene of a competition" presumably were judging (or there as stewards). It's insulting for you to diminish their importance simply because they're learning or simply haven't chosen to take an exam (or haven't had one offered nearby) to gain entry to the hallowed BJCP. As for the prior commentary on whether to record their experience or to ignore them, let me give you an example. A newer member of our club went with me to the HWBTA to judge earlier this month. He's not in the BJCP, he's stewarded at a couple of our competitions, and was interested in judging--quite enthusiastic about it, in fact. I told him he'd probably apprentice-judge, and would get to sit in and judge but that his scores may not be counted in the scoring. It turned out that he was given a regular judging assignment. He may not have had any prior competition experience (other than as a steward), but has been brewing for a while, is pretty good at it, and knows his beer. He doesn't have an exam yet to make it official, to be raised to that lofty position of BJCP judge, but it's still judging experience, and it ought to be recorded to be included when we offer the exam The postage for a once a year mailing to report status is about $560, not counting printing and materials costs and the time required to address and stamp 1,800 letters. Now, if the 1,200 folks in the BJCP paid $25.00 a year for membership, and each participated in an average of 1.5 competitions a year, and sent $5.00 for each competition as a recordation fee, the total take is $37,500 a year. Now let's add $40.00 from the organizers as a sanctioning fee. If we assume March has an average number of competitions, I can use the latest AHA Club News Calendar of events to determine that there are 15 events per month, or 180 per year. This contributes another $7,200 a year to the program. For those of you who suggest that organizer's fees alone will support the program, I propose you quit your job and become a full time administrator for this amount (remember, this is gross before expenses). After combining all receipts there is an annual kitty of around $45,000 a year. Administering this program in a quality fashion is a full time job, so this amount must fund salary, facilities, postage, etc., etc. Without doing a careful cost analysis I suspect this is near rock bottom to support an association. Now if we want this association to lobby for legislative change, engage in promotion, provide a news letter, publish a calendar of events, announce changes in individual judge status and so on, I submit that the price goes up. Hey, it's arithmetic, Folks. I also have read many comments about bashing Charlie P & company for their decision, administration of the program, and so on. Well, IMO, they deserve it. This does not take away from the debt all of us owe to Charlie for his vision and perseverance which have essentially created an industry. That a visionary and crusader might not be the right person to administer a growing program should not come as a surprise. It happens in industry all of the time. Thank you, Charlie! Not only for what you have done for homebrewing, but also for bailing out of the BJCP. Now, Folks, I have not changed my opinion. I want an independent organization for beer judges which will serve our, and consequently, the hobby's, best interest. I am ready to reach into my discretionary funds for the few bucks it might cost. Cheers, Fred ============================================================================== We must invent the future, else it will | happen to us and we will not like it. | [Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"] | email: fcmbh at access.digex.net ------------------------------ Date: 13 Feb 1995 11:25:08 U From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: Mr. Dale's opinions, and mi Subject: Mr. Dale's opinions, and mine. Time:8:52 AM Date:2/13/95 Readers of JudgeNet; It is indeed regrettable that my fellow BJCC member (John Dale) found it necessary to mix his sober and informed observations of group dynamics with some rather rash and slanderous personal opinions. I feel I must state for the record that John Dale does not speak for the majority of the BJCC. My polling of committee members indicates to me that they are interested in seeing the BJCP survive and at the very least make an attempt at forming a representative governing council. John's attacks of Pat Baker and Chuck Cox are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the BJCC. If we are to operate as a democracy we must accept that all are encouraged to voice their opinions. I would hope, however, that such opinions would be limited to the issues and not dip into personality conflicts. I am sure both Pat and Chuck will answer John in their own posts, public or private. Russ Wigglesworth Chair, BJCC ******** Now I am stepping away from my official position as an AHA appointee to the BJCC, and it's current chairperson, to express MY PERSONAL OPINION of what is happening with the BJCP and the AHA. Philosophically I believe that an independent judge certification program, or for that matter a program which is not dependent on AHA funds or support, will have greater credibility within the overall brewing community. The fact that the AHA does not share this opinion with me is, in my mind, unfortunate. This is not to say that I believe that the AHA is malicious or that their motives are anything but what they state: to provide the best service they can for their members. The AHA has an agenda of their own to pursue and they have every right to pursue it. I do not believe it is their desire to destroy the BJCP. They simply wish to put their resources to use to achieve their own goals. Goals which they perceive to be different than the BJCP's. The BJCP is not perfect. There are major changes in the program which I would like to see implemented. It is possible that these changes can be brought about from within, but perhaps not. We won't know unless we try, will we? It is no secret that getting consensus takes time. Democracy does not move quickly but as long as it is moving I believe it should be supported. Who says we have to change things overnight? We're talking about brewing issues here not feeding starving orphans. In the meanwhile, I plan to offer the AHA suggestions and critiques for their program whenever they ask for them. They certainly have the resources to create a viable and worthwhile program. If they allow the intellectual portion of their program to be directed by the participating judges (as they say they intend to do) they may be able to beat the credibility problem. What does it cost any of us to stand back and wait to see what happens? The AHA has stated that all current BJCP participants will be grandfathered into whatever they come up with. There is no need to cast a vote and decide to support one program over another at this time. Certainly if you are a believer in an independent BJCP then this is your chance to help it become a reality. And if you hate the BJCP then this is your chance to build something different with the AHA. For that matter, you can start your own program if you like. But you need not do anything. Competition can be healthy. But competition should not be setting out to beat the other guy down. It should be based on producing the best product or offering the best service. If the creation of either a "democratic" BJCP or an AHA education based program is destined to become a "we're better than them" thing, you can count me out. I'm only interested in getting judges trained and evaluated so that we are able to have reasonably decent and CONSISTENT judging at competitions. Russ Wigglesworth Fence Sitting, Heretic Beer Judge Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 17:56:28 EST From: uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Subject: JudgeNet Digest #967 (Feb 12, 1995) *** Resending note of 02/13/95 15:34 *** Resending note of 02/12/95 07:00 Research Analyst Subject: JudgeNet Digest #967 (Feb 12, 1995) Subject: Free ride for whom? RE: No Free Lunch (Fred Hardy) - -->Here we go again. Those people who "were at the scene of a competition" presumably were judging (or there as stewards). It's insulting for you to diminish their importance simply because they're learning or simply haven't chosen to take an exam (or haven't had one offered nearby) to gain entry to the hallowed BJCP. As for the prior commentary on whether to record their experience or to ignore them, let me give you an example. A newer member of our club went with me to the HWBTA to judge earlier this month. He's not in the BJCP, he's stewarded at a couple of our competitions, and was interested in judging--quite enthusiastic about it, in fact. I told him he'd probably apprentice-judge, and would get to sit in and judge but that his scores may not be counted in the scoring. It turned out that he was given a regular judging assignment. He may not have had any prior competition experience (other than as a steward), but has been brewing for a while, is pretty good at it, and knows his beer. He doesn't have an exam yet to make it official, to be raised to that lofty position of BJCP judge, but it's still judging experience, and it ought to be recorded to be included when we offer the exam and he has the piece of paper suitable for framing that says "judge" f>The postage for a once a year mailing to report status is f>about $560, not counting printing and materials costs and the f>time required to address and stamp 1,800 letters. - -->consider non-profit bulk mail and cut the cost to a third of that. f>Now, if the 1,200 folks in the BJCP paid $25.00 a year for f>membership, and each participated in an average of 1.5 f>competitions a year, and sent $5.00 for each competition as a f>recordation fee, the total take is $37,500 a year. - -->If that's your assumption (1.5 event average), why bother with the recording fee for just the $1800 of that total? And why aren't you including exam fees in the revenue? f>Now let's add $40.00 from the organizers as a sanctioning fee. - -->I proposed a sliding scale of sanctioning fees. Depending on the balance of competition sizes, I'm guessing that the "average" one (75-125 in what I proposed) would indeed pay $40. Smaller ones would pay less. You'd get additional revenues from the ever-increasing number of larger ones. Again, it's not a question of a free lunch, it's who should pay. f>another $7,200 a year to the program. For those of you who f>suggest that organizer's fees alone will support the program, I f>propose you quit your job and become a full time administrator - -->who's talking about a full time administrator? James Spence doesn't do the BJCP fulltime now, and, if I recall a figure cited earlier (if accurate) doesn't get paid very much for BJCP duties f>After combining all receipts there is an annual kitty of around f>$45,000 a year. Administering this program in a quality fashion f>is a full time job, so this amount must fund salary, facilities, f>postage, etc., etc. Without doing a careful cost analysis I f>suspect this is near rock bottom to support an association. Now f>if we want this association to lobby for legislative change, (rest deleted) - -->Now you're talking about something different from someone to record points and administer standards. Now if you're talking about creating a CAMRA-USA (or CAMRA-North America) to have a beer organisation for homebrewers and other beer enthusiasts--including judges--that would do some of the political action and education that the AHA declines to do, then you've got something, and a $20-25 membership for anyone--not just beer judges--is appropriate. But for anything less, $20-25 for judges simply to have their experience recorded is out of line. If the arithmetic still tells you that sanctioning fees won't be sufficient for this limited task, then perhaps a $10 dues charge without the absurd recording fee wouldn't be so objectionable. The problem with the recording fee is that it penalises the people who volunteer to judge more often. One final comment on Scott Bickham's post in #968(?): Let's put to rest this comparison to professional association dues. It's a false analogy. We are not professionals! Most of us earn our livelihood outside the brewing industry. We certainly try to conduct ourselves in a professional manner, but let's not take such a self-important attitude by considering beer-judging activities as a "profession" (I know, and I'm late for work.... says the t-shirt) With one exception (for which I was surprised to learn I would receive a small honorarium and something toward expenses), I have not been paid to judge, nor do I expect to be. If we do not receive income from beer judging, there is no basis for "professional" dues payments. Homebrewing is a hobby, one that some of us take fairly seriously (but let's not take that too far). For some, it IS a business...and the HWBTA exists for them. It's hard to think of hobbies for which "instructors" pay to teach their craft, and if we're doing our jobs as judges, part of what we do for entrants is teaching. If anyone is going to pay, it should be the entrants, not the volunteers. Now go have a beer, ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 15:32:22 TZ From: rdevine at microsoft.com Subject: Re: No free lunch Scott Bickham proposes: > There will still be those who cannot justify this expense, but since > the BJCP will need money to maintain their records and update their > judging points, I suggest that member judges pay $2 or $3 per competition, > while nonmembers pay $5. Do these numbers sound reasonable? I really dislike the idea of requiring judges to pay for their judging. Presumably, a BJCP judge brings something of value to a beer judging competition beyond the value of a person who has not a BJCP ranking. Therefore a competition should be the entity that pays for the privilege of using BJCP judges, not the judges themselves. A more workable arrangement would seem to be that a competition organizer who wishes to use the available BJCP judges must also budget some money to pay for the judging point accounting costs. Bob Devine ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 15:08:53 -0800 (PST) From: malodah at pbgueuze.scrm2700.PacBell.COM (Martin Lodahl) Subject: Charging Judges, and John Dale It's very rarely that I find myself disagreeing with Scott Bickham, but JudgeNet Digest #968 afforded me such an opportunity. Scott suggested: > There will still be those who cannot justify this expense, but since > the BJCP will need money to maintain their records and update their > judging points, I suggest that member judges pay $2 or $3 per competition, > while nonmembers pay $5. Do these numbers sound reasonable? Not really. It's always seemed to me that one of the unstated objectives of the program is to serve contest organizers by providing qualified judges. I can see no other reason for progression through the ranks to be dependent upon "experience points," whose relationship to judging ability is certainly questionable. As Scott has made clear, travel costs already tend to limit the activity of judges, and further per-competition costs, small though they may be, might tend to make staying home seem like a more attractive option. I support an annual membership fee, test fees and sanction fees. Next subject: In JudgeNet 966, John Dale made what may have been the least auspicious net.debut since Cantor & Siegel, and I'm thoroughly surprised to see two issues of JudgeNet go by without anyone so much as mentioning it in passing. It suggests to me that people are thinking, rather than just reacting. Very good; amid all the spewage there were a number of points that I agree have to be seriously considered: This undertaking will be neither simple nor easy, there is a danger of domination by a strong individual or faction, the mechanics of a functioning representative democracy will require careful thought to design and plenty of effort to implement. All sound considerations. I also appreciate the pain he's clearly suffered on our behalf. Frustration and fatigue create a tone of voice like the one in that posting. What I find difficult to understand is the apparent animus toward the idea of an independent BJCP, coming from someone in a position to impact the BJCP's future during the transition period. John Dale's sympathies are clearly entirely with the AHA's program, to a degree I personally feel is incompatible with his role as steward of the BJCP's interests as a member of the BJCC. This situation is more disturbing to me than any other aspect of this transition that I've seen so far. The posting also suggests that the AHA's withdrawal from the BJCP and establishment of its own program is to strike a blow at Patrick Baker. Could that really be? I'm appalled. What a mess. - Martin = Martin Lodahl Systems Analyst, Capacity Planning Pacific*Bell = = malodah at pacbell.com Sacramento, CA USA 916.972.4821 = = If it's good for ancient Druids runnin' nekkid through the wuids, = = Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! (Unk.) = ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 1:42:21 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Re: John Dale John Dale sez... > I still do not know how > to get on Judgenet so will send this via Email to somebody > who does. I called you over a week ago with the express purpose of inviting you to subscribe to JudgeNet. You never returned my call. > Another major concern of mine is that it appears, from > both reading Judgenet and phone conversations with other > individuals, that Chuck Cox, the Judgenet editor, is a Baker > puppet. Chuck has a lot of influence on what you read and > which opinions get on the net (I think, since I do not > really understand how the net works yet.) If my unedited > letter does not appear on the net, I'll use the address list > and Email it to you directly. This is complete and utter bullshit. Had you taken the simple courtesy of returning my phone call, or communicating with me directly via email, you would know this. Of course it is easier to take a cheap shot at someone if you are unencumbered with facts. Let me state emphatically and for the record: I form my own opinions and JudgeNet is an open forum. Anyone who claims otherwise is full of crap. I demand that you substantiate your claims or retract them immediately. John blames all of the BJCP's problems on Pat Baker. I have received some personal email with a similar theme, blaming this HWBTA official or that AHA official for all of the BJCP's problems. Invariably the person who is blamed is not even on the BJCC. The BJCC is the ultimate authority within the BJCP. If they can't get the job done, they have only themselves to blame. Clearly, the BJCC is mired in AHA vs HWBTA politics, that is why we need 3 member representatives to break the gridlock. All of this childish name-calling and finger-pointing is a complete waste of time and bandwidth. The BJCC as currently constituted has proven to be incapable of making the decisions that need to be made to protect the future of the BJCP. The only thing that matters now is for the BJCC to appoint or elect 3 member representatives immediately, so they can start working toward an independent BJCP. For the good of the BJCP, any BJCC representative who can't or won't work toward this goal should resign immediately. - -- Chuck "Puppet" Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 3:04:10 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Details I have been following the discussions about how to improve the BJCP and would like to present my ideas about some details: DISTRIBUTED ADMINISTRATION: I like the idea of distributing some of the administrative chores. This is quite feasible using email. AUTOMATED ADMINISTRATION: I would like to see the BJCP invest in some basic telecom gear so that many routine tasks (especially database queries) could be handled automatically via email, fax-back, and/or voice-response systems. This could be implemented by slapping a few boards into a decent PC. VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP FEE: I think a voluntary membership fee would be a good compromise, perhaps in the $10-20/year range. Dues-paying judges would receive voting privileges, a newsletter, and perhaps some other perks. If we offered life and/or long-term memberships that would probably bring in enough initial revenue to cover the inevitable startup/transfer expenses (like telecom gear). AUTOMATED COMMUNICATIONS: I think the BJCC could operate far more effectively by taking advantage of modern communications tools. In particular, I think email is an indispensible tool for long-distance committee work. I realize that many good representatives aren't online, but being online significantly improves the effectiveness and efficiency of the committee. I urge the BJCC and the membership to appoint/elect representatives who are online. I would also urge the BJCC to take advantage of JudgeNet and other Internet resources to communicate with the membership. TRANSFER: The AHA will be bailing out of the BJCP at the end of April. At this time I think there is still reason to hope that the BJCP will not only survive, but will flourish as an independent organization. However, in order to function successfully and independently, I think the BJCP needs to accomplish at least two goals prior to the bailout: Transfer all BJCP records and assets from the AHA to the BJCC. This includes the membership database and up-to-date financial records. Appoint or elect 3 member representatives to the BJCC. In order for the transfer to go smoothly, I think this should take place at least a month before the bailout so that the BJCC can get everything in order. If the BJCC fails to meet these goals by the end of March, then the BJCP could be in real trouble, and it may be time to start thinking about starting a whole new organization. As I explained in a fax to the BJCC representatives I could reach, I am available to assist the BJCC in the automation and/or administration of an independent BJCP. I am not seeking a nomination to the committee, but will serve in that capacity if asked. - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------