From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Fri Feb 17 08:09:46 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["16232" "" "16" "February" "1995" "18:37:14" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "385" "JudgeNet Digest #971 (Feb 16, 1995)" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.2) with X.500 id IAA26472; Fri, 17 Feb 1995 08:09:43 -0500 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.2) with SMTP id IAA26461; Fri, 17 Feb 1995 08:09:37 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA05023 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Fri, 17 Feb 95 08:09:35 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA02321 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 95 22:52:35 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA10711; 16 Feb 95 18:37:14 EST (Thu) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9502161837.AA10711 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #971 (Feb 16, 1995) Date: 16 Feb 95 18:37:14 EST (Thu) JudgeNet Digest #971 Thu 16 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: Re: JudgeNet Digest #970 (Feb 15, 1995) (Christopher Nemeth) WAR? gad, what is this coming to (John Isenhour) re: What to do? (brewing chemist Mitch) bjcp essay questions ... (Tom Fitzpatrick) No Boycott (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Where the hells my money? ("Richard B. Webb") Dues, fees, structure (Jim Cave) Re: Boycott (Dennis Davison) Apology to Chuck Cox (MR JOHN E DALE) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 08:23:56 -0600 (CST) From: Christopher Nemeth Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #970 (Feb 15, 1995) > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 10:58:55 -0600 (CST) > From: "Allen L. Ford" > Subject: What to do? > > I'd like to toss a question or three out for comment. What do think would > be the effect on the AHA Nationals this year of a boycott by experienced > judges as a show of support for one and only one judges certification > program, the BJCP? How much support among BJCP judges do you think there > time. Just putting out some feelers to see if it would be a viable weapon > in what may well turn into a war between the BJCP and the AHA's new program. > > Whadaya think? > > Allen Allen- Depends on whether you're a Vandal or a Roman. You can do your best to tear things down, or do your best to build for the future. Your choice. One consideration: how many Vandals made our civilization what it is today? --Christopher Nemeth Certified Judge (supporting whatever programs encourage improved knowledge and enjoyment of quality beer) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 09:33:46 -0600 (CST) From: John Isenhour Subject: WAR? gad, what is this coming to "Allen L. Ford" types: > Just putting out some feelers to see if it would be a viable weapon > in what may well turn into a war between the BJCP and the AHA's new program. Its not a WAR, its a JIHAD! Gadzooks man, when there is a dissagreement and a group wants to experiment with different options, why do you want to kill them? Sure the AHA suffers from administrative inefficiencies which make them look foolish every once in a while (well at some interval) but they have done a LOT to promote judging. No one knows what they are going to do, except maybe try to internationalize judging, but before you even suggest starting a war, why dont you see what it is that you are taking up arms against. Lets figure out how to make this a win/win situation. > a show of support for one and only one judges certification > program, the BJCP? Is this a union? Do we get to bust scabs? What would the Japanese and English judges think about The Crusade of the One True Way. You asked what I thought - -- John Isenhour "unix is not your mother" National High Energy Physics Network Management isenhour at hep.net Library & Information Science isenhour at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 09:48:11 -0600 (CST) From: gellym at aviion.persoft.com (brewing chemist Mitch) Subject: re: What to do? In judgenet 970, Allen Ford poses: > I'd like to toss a question or three out for comment. What do think would > be the effect on the AHA Nationals this year of a boycott by experienced > judges as a show of support for one and only one judges certification > program, the BJCP? How much support among BJCP judges do you think there > would be for such a boycott? What might be the long-term repercussions, > both positive and negative, of such action? As pleasing as a boycott of the Nationals may sound to a lot of individuals, I think it would be a very bad idea overall. Sure, it's a great shot at the AHA, but do you think that they will lose all of the entries for the competition as well? The first round is a lot less under their influence than the second to be sure, so they might be killed there, but they could always kludge something together as a sort of 'only-round' in Baltimore. People will still enter their beers, and now will suffer with less than acceptable evaluation of their efforts. There have always been strikebreakers, and the AHA will manage to round up enough apprentice class judges to cover the event. The only people that will be hurt are those same people that most of us became judges for in the first place. Not a good way to go. We should be cordial and judge in their event, but as BJCP judges, now and always. Not as 'new and improved' AHA judges. _That_ will be the best shot at the AHA, not affiliating your judging status with them. Cheers, Mitch - -- | - Mitch Gelly - | Beavis and | |software QA specialist, unix systems administrator, zymurgist,| Butthead | | AHA/HWBTA beer judge, & president of the Madison Homebrewers | are not | | ^^^not for long - gellym at aviion.persoft.com - | role models | ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 11:18:58 CST From: fitz at fasicsv.fnal.gov (Tom Fitzpatrick) Subject: bjcp essay questions ... I'd like to throw out a question for debate among judges and especially exam graders. In studying for the bjcp exam among a group of bjcp hopefuls, a very fundamental question arises that even bjcp judges cannot seem to answer since they are provided no feedback on their exam. Let's take a sample question like: Describe and differentiate the different sub-categories of English Bitter and Scottish Ale. What would constitute a "correct" full points answer to this question? A knowledgeable person could write *pages* for this question. Do we include: - basic differences with reference to OG, IBU, color - taste differences described in "judge" terms - grist specifics for each style - mash specifics for each style - hop variations and usage - commercial examples - history/tradition - yeast selection and fermentation specifics - conditioning specifics - other???? - ALL OF THE ABOVE, which would make for *pages* of writing, since there are six sub-categories for these two styles. Are we supposed to keep the answers concise and to the point or do you get a better grade for a three page rambling, baffle 'em with bull*it answer? Just thought I'd try and liven up the discussions and maybe start some dialog on how to make the bjcp exam taking/grading more objective and less subjective. - Tom Fitzpatrick ------------------------------ Date: 15 Feb 95 10:27:00 -0600 From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: No Boycott Allen writes: >I'd like to toss a question or three out for comment. What do think would >be the effect on the AHA Nationals this year of a boycott by experienced >judges as a show of support for one and only one judges certification >program, the BJCP? How much support among BJCP judges do you think there >would be for such a boycott? What might be the long-term repercussions, >both positive and negative, of such action? I think that the effects of a boycott could only be negative. The AHA Nationals have grown to be a very large and interesting competition and are a focal point for many homebrewer's brewing seasons. To have a large percentage of experienced judges boycott the 1st and 2nd rounds would cause a great many homebrewers to have their beers judged by burned-out judges. Poor comments and sloppy judging would probably be inevitable and it would throw a monkeywrench into what has become (through the work of some hard- working people like Martin Lodahl, Steve Hamburg and Jay Hersh) a very fine competition. I think that a poorly judged competition would not only hurt this year, but also many years into the future. Who would a boycott punish? Firstly, it would immediately punish the poor homebrewer, who shelled out $7 or $8 to have his/her beer judged. Then it would hurt the National Competition in subsequent years. Next, it would hurt other competitions by instilling a lack of trust in competitions among brewers (that's what one pair of bad judges did to me back in 1988 when I first entered the Nationals... it wasn't until 1992 that I began entering competitions again). Finally, it would hurt the judge certification programs. How? What percentage of the people hurt by a boycott would know the whole truth? I would say less than 1%. How would the "truth" be be distributed? I thought I knew most of the truth about the AHA and BJCP politics. Only via some insightful posts here and via some private email is it all beginning to come clear. Frankly, I'm beginning to believe that a true democracy in either the AHA or the BJCP would not be practical. Heck, how much do you really know about a person who you've never met, or only met once, who is running for an office? Furthermore, once we elect ten people who live 1000 miles from each other, how are they going to come to a consensus, especially if they have to represent the wishes of 50-100 different people who have sent them their gripes? What if one constituent says lower the IBUs for IPAs and another says raise them? We have had some positive change in the AHA and the National Competition Style Guidelines over the last 5 years, albeit slowly. I think that change would come even more slowly if everthing had to go through a committee that was spread out through the US (or worse, the world). There are many of us that I'm certain have influence with the AHA -- the ones who have loyally helped to run the first rounds come immediately to mind. Sure, we don't have any true democratic representation, but isn't the real purpose to get the organization to move in the direction we, the members, want it to and I personally feel that this is what has been happening. (I'm willing to wait (a short time longer) for the AHA's explaination letter regarding their pullout from the BJCP to pass judgement on this change.) If indeed two programs are the result of this, I am positive that both will *have* to recognize points gained from judging at a competition sanctioned by the other. Since this is the case, then we as judges will have a choice of which program we belong to -- which ever one suits our needs better. Also, having two certification/sanctioning programs to choose from will keep costs down, both for judges and organizers. Al. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 09:54:16 -0800 From: "Richard B. Webb" Subject: Where the hells my money? I took the BJCP exam in late October. Part of the justification for the $50 entry fee was that some of the money would go towards maintaining my name and statistics in a national database. Well, I haven't even gotten my results back, and the organization has already crumbled around my feet... Now, I hear that one solution towards bringing about the people's revolution would be for me to pay a fee disguised as a 'service charge' for judging at a competition. But I've already paid! I figure that a few cents from each brewer's entry fee could go towards paying this charge. Any problem with that idea? Fodder for discussion stage left, Rich Webb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 11:33:24 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Cave Subject: Dues, fees, structure Just my 2 cents worth: My view is that we are better off charging dues, rather than a fee "to judge" or to record points. Its is hard enough getting experienced judges as it is. Charging for the priviledge, no matter how you try and sell it is somehow, not right. I'd suggest that we charge $35 U.S. or $50 Canadian (for Canadians only) for dues. [Hey the Canadian $ may be worth less than the U.S. $ but it still means $50 to me!!] This would entitle one to join the "Association" which is what we should be forming and encouraging all to join. I don't think we should be bent out of shape trying to retain the moniker BJCP either, particularly if it is to be new and different. And all of the membership would be entitled to vote. And I don't think we should be frightened to ask for sponsorship. Lets go out there and get some money. Perhaps we should call ourselves the International Association of Beer Judges, Stewards and Competition Organizers -- the IABJSCO. Lets go for the All-Beef Patties and the special sauce. By-the-way, there is nothing wrong with discussing this stuff here. We are not doing things behind the backs of non-net judges. We should all be discussing this with those not on the net. We can bang out some sort of a working paper, "straw policy" and get the judges to vote on it and at the same time enclose an application form to join the new order. The BJCP structure would be retained in the interim but the association should be allowed to evolve as necessary. Comments? Jim Cave ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 11:59:53 -0600 From: ddavison at earth.execpc.com (Dennis Davison) Subject: Re: Boycott Allen's idea about a boycott will have little effect on the Nationals. Entries may be down and brewing fools like myself would stand a better chance at taking BOS. For those judges that don't show up at a regional site and if there is a need for apprentice judges, the feedback to the brewers might suffer as well as some inferior beers being past on. What can the AHA do about it? Well, they don't have to give everyone an equal rank in there new Judging Organization for starters. Let's all just wake up and smell the beer. We all got into judging because we love Beer. Judging was a place to learn more about it, and communicate with others that were devoted to it. It wasn't political. And at most competitions it isn't political either. Here on JudgeNet it is. When not even 10% of the judges are connected and out of those connected only 2% have thrown in there 2 cents on this subject, boycott or not, the AHA Nationals will go on, and be successful. - -- Dennis Davison ddavison at earth.execpc.com Milwaukee, WI Judge Director of the 1st Round of The AHA Nationals - Chicago,IL April 28,29,30, 1995 Organizer - Real Ale Fest - Chicago - October 13,14 1995 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 00:04:23 EST From: MDHB07E at prodigy.com (MR JOHN E DALE) Subject: Apology to Chuck Cox John Dale MDHB07E at PRODIGY.COM February 15, 1995 Judgenet judge at synchro.com APOLOGIES TO CHUCK COX In my posting last week I made some unsubstantiated comments regarding Chuck Cox. As the true facts have been revealed, there was no truth to them. Therefore, I FORMALLY AND PUBLICLY OFFER MY APOLOGIES TO CHUCK COX. It has also come to my attention that I was not clear enough in saying that all opinions expressed were my own and not necessarily that of the BJCC or the AHA. I am not the spokesman for either group and never intended to represent my views as such. Sincerely, John Dale, Member BJCC ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************