From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Wed Feb 22 06:48:55 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["24559" "" "22" "February" "1995" "05:13:11" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "530" "JudgeNet Digest #977 (Feb 22, 1995)" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.3) with X.500 id GAA06714; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 06:48:52 -0500 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.3) with SMTP id GAA06709; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 06:48:51 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA20169 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Wed, 22 Feb 95 06:48:47 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA16006 for ; Wed, 22 Feb 95 05:42:38 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA16096; 22 Feb 95 05:13:11 EST (Wed) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9502220513.AA16096 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #977 (Feb 22, 1995) Date: 22 Feb 95 05:13:11 EST (Wed) JudgeNet Digest #977 Wed 22 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: #2(3) JudgeNet Digest #976 (Feb 21, 1995) (GSMITHBEER) Ed Westemeier's letter (bickham) Re: Independent Judging Guild (bickham) AHA/BJCP (James Spence/AHA/BJCP) dr beer vs flawed beer (Jay Hersh) Re: #2(3) JudgeNet Digest #976 (Feb 21, 1995) (GSMITHBEER) Re: JudgeNet Digest #932 (Dec 20, 1994) (Edmund Busch) AHA survey for judges (John Isenhour) Question: Orgainizing local comp (Jpilhoefer) New Order, as defined by Brews Stevens (Jim Cave) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 06:25:42 PST From: GSMITHBEER at eworld.com Subject: Re: #2(3) JudgeNet Digest #976 (Feb 21, 1995) In reply to the proposed system by Bruce P. Stevens. Master judges are those who know the classic styles of beer and have judged at least twenty five styles in competition with a more experienced peer. That peer will certify your experience points and pass you on thru the program. National+Certified judges will be Journeyman after judging 10 styles , while Apprentices are Recognised and Apprentices as we now know it. A test will also be put together that accurately reflects ones capabilities in this hobby. One problem I see is MALT's proposed judging system is that there will not be enough master judges to go around, how would this be avoided? Who would be the original set of Master judges, would they be appointed arbitrarily? The current National judges (some who already meet these qualifications fo master) may be alienated. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 11:49:10 -0500 (EST) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Ed Westemeier's letter The Ithaca Brewers Union is following the lead of Ed Westemeiers and his homebrew club, the Bloatarian Brewing League, and sending a letter to the AHA c/o Karen Barela and her supervisor, Diane Ewing. Although we're a smaller club with approx. 40-50 members, 12 have taken the BJCP exam and we expect to have 3 National and 1 Master Judge by the end of this season. The text is close to what Ed posted in JudgeNet Digest #675, and generally says that we believe that the future of the BJCP is a democracy, not a program created and run solely by the AHA. Our letter will be faxed and then a hard copy sent through certified mail. I urge other homebrew clubs to do the same - either through letters signed by people at your monthly meetings, or through an e-mail campaign. We have the strength of numbers, but the AHA needs to hear our voices. Scott P.S. Sorry about the multiple posting on Sunday! - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 12:09:16 -0500 (EST) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Re: Independent Judging Guild Brews Stevens and M.A.L.T. announced the formation of an Independant Beer Judge Guild. While I agree conceptually with most of the aspects he proposed, I feel some items may be difficult to determine: (1) Having a style certification, with Masters judging 25 different styles in competition. This has been proposed in different forms, but if you can handle the more complicated judging records, it could work by doing the style certification in competition, instead of through tests. I still like the idea of having certain people receive byes when they have brew award winning beers that demonstate that they have a good grasp of the style, i.e. Eric Warner with his Weizens, Darryl Richman and bocks, and from what I've heard, even Brews himself with meads. One problem that could arise is that the judges who are experts in particular styles will not judge those categories since they are trying to get accredited in other styles, so the homebrews may not be judged quite as accurately. (2) "It (the exam) will include multiple choice questions + essays , as well as a sense related portion that can be accurately analyzed to your capabilities and understanding of the styles involved." Again, this will be difficult to do, not only to have administrators give Dr. Beer type exams, but to come up with enough multiple choice questions. The format should probably be maintained for another year or so until the restructuring is complete. But these issues and others can be discussed at our conclave in Baltimore (and perhaps preliminarily at Beast of the East). Thanks for starting the ball rolling, Brews. Scott ------------------------------ Date: 21 Feb 95 17:34:18 EST From: James Spence/AHA/BJCP <70740.1107 at compuserve.com> Subject: AHA/BJCP If you are involved with the BJCP, you should receive a hard copy of the following in the mail in the next few days (it mailed first class on Friday and today). Accompanying the mailing is a four-page survey, which I have not posted here. As always, please contact us with comments and questions. We hope that this mailing explains things more thoroughly. Cheers, James - ------------------------------------ Dear Beer Judge, This is a special mailing to all BJCP judges from the AHA to tell you about important changes taking place in the beer judging world. For about ten years now, the Beer Judge Certification Program has been jointly sponsored by the AHA and by the Home Wine and Beer Trade Association. At present, this situation is changing. The AHA is discontinuing its sponsorship of the BJCP in order to create a new judge program that will better meet the needs of the rapidly evolving judging community. Of course, this type of change raises many questions. To help answer them, we have prepared the enclosed review of the current program and our plans for the future. Rest assured, however, that your current status and points will be transferred to the new AHA program completely intact. Also, we will continue to recognize judging points for all sanctioned competitions and, for the time being, give credit for exam scores for all exams given under the current BJCP. Also enclosed you will find a survey (along with a postage-paid return envelope) which we hope you will complete and return at your earliest convenience. The answers that you provide to this survey will help us create the new AHA beer judge program. In addition, we intend to establish a board of advisers for the new organization from among those who return the surveys. This board will provide interim judge representation for the program until a mechanism for electing board members can be developed. As always, if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact us directly. Our principal goal is, as it always has been, to provide homebrewers with quality judging of their hand-crafted beverages. You can help us achieve that goal with your continued enthusiasm for beer evaluation. Thank you for your support. Karen Barela, President James Spence, Administrator phone ext. 122 phone ext. 121 CompuServe 75250,1350 CompuServe 70740,1107 Internet email: karen at aob.org Internet email: james at aob.org Dena Nishek, Editor, zymurgy magazine Caroline Duncker, phone ext. 123 Administrative Assistant CompuServe 73252,3571 phone ext. 116 Internet email: dena at aob.org Internet email: caroline at aob.org All costs associated with this mailing were paid for by the AHA. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Formation and Growth of the BJCP and the Separation of the AHA from the BJCP History of the BJCP The BJCP was formed jointly by the AHA and HWBTA in 1985 because both organizations had a mutual interest in promoting the art of beer appreciation and evaluation. The goal of the original agreement between the two organizations was to offer beer judge recognition and certification tests and to recognize and certify levels of beer judge achievement. The BJCP was intended to operate independently of either organization under the direction of the Beer Judge Certification Committee (BJCC). The Committee Structure The BJCP was administered by a committee composed of four voting members (two appointed by each parent organization). In addition, and in accordance with the BJCP bylaws, the Presidents of AHA and HWBTA each appointed a co-director and an associate director, who worked closely with the committee. The BJCC has always been staffed by hard-working and dedicated volunteers, who have accomplished a great deal over the years. Despite this, the committee has out-grown the current needs and demands of the judging community. Those of us at the AHA have tried for a number of years to promote growth and improvement in the program through the current structure. Unfortunately, the agreement founding the BJCP never anticipated the current level of participation in the program or the wide scope of activities that judges might be interested in pursuing. As a result, we believe the only way we can help judges get what they want is to withdraw from the current program and begin formulation of a new program ~ one that can meet the expectations and desires of the beer judging community. The Separation The joint sponsorship of the program, formed in 1985 under an agreement between the American Homebrewers Association and the Home Wine and Beer Trade Association will no longer be in effect as of April 19, 1995. Under the terms of the original agreement, either organization could terminate the joint venture with 90 days written notice to the other organization, thereby dissolving the sponsorship agreement. Karen Barela, AHA President, notified HWBTA President Desmond Lundy in writing on January 18, 1995 that the sponsorship agreement was canceled. Why did we do this? We feel that a beer judging program should be able to grow and to pursue a wider variety of activities. We are dedicated to accomplishing the following objectives with our new program: -Provide judges opportunities to actively participate in policy formation and program reforms. -Provide examinees with adequate and timely feedback on the results of their exams. -Provide examinees with a clear and concise idea of what is expected from them on the exam. -Provide judges continuing educational opportunities. -Provide efficient, cohesive, and straightforward support systems, available 5 days a week. -Make decisions, form policies and move forward with the speed that the expanding homebrewing industry requires, in a timely fashion and at appropriate times. In addition, we felt that: Our contribution as a sponsor of the program was large in terms of staff, public relations and marketing, logistics, providing judging opportunities and competition information, money, judge relations, computer support, finances, etc. As the American Homebrewers Association, we don't believe it is appropriate to continue providing this level of support to a program that falls short of fully meeting the needs of homebrewers. Also, the level of support we provided to the program led many to believe that it was "our" program and that we could, and should, be held accountable for its shortcomings. In fact, our impact on the policies and practices of the program has been rather limited due to its present structure. This was not an easy decision... We are keenly aware of the importance of this decision. It was not made without considering the potential impact on the homebrewing community as a whole. It is our sincere hope that the good will, friendliness, and spirit that homebrewers have engendered over the years will continue through this temporary situation and into the future.~ American Homebrewers Association Building a New Program The new judge program that will be offered by the AHA has not been fully established yet. That is because we want it to be the product of input from a wide selection of active judges and homebrewers. We will help guide the creation process, but we want to know what you see as the key goals and objectives of the program. As a starting point for the new program, we will transfer all current participants, with their point totals, exam scores and ranks to the new program. For the time being, we will continue to recognize points earned under the BJCP system at AHA or HWBTA sanctioned competitions. We will also record and recognize scores earned on exams administered by the BJCP until further notice. Finally, the current system of judge ranks will remain intact until a new system and transition plan can be put together. To help us form the new program, we have included a survey as part of this mailing. Please take a few minutes to complete it. We've provided a postage-paid envelope for returning it. We will review and study the results of the survey to help us guide the creation of the new organization. In addition, we will develop an interim board of advisers for the new organization from among the respondents to the survey. Questions and Directions for the New AHA Judge Program -What shall we call it? Please give us your suggestions for a new name on the enclosed survey. -Build a strong administrative structure. Form a committee, whose goals will be determined by you, via the enclosed survey. For the time being we will appoint a task force, whose names will be chosen from survey respondents. It will be the responsibility of this interim task force to develop a program structure that provides for elections of future committee/task force members and/or board. -Remodel the exam. The enclosed survey will help us determine the format you want. Also, a task force will be formed to address the exam format specifically. -Exam scheduling. Determine a system for incorporating and/or phasing in a new exam. -Exam proctors and graders. Until the new exam is phased in, we need to confirm current proctors and graders who wish to continue as well as add additional people while setting up future procedures. If you are one of these people, we'd like to hear from you with your thoughts on the matter. -Education. Concentrate on educating homebrewers and beer lovers in evaluating beer and beer styles. -Reevaluate judge levels and simplify the experience point system. This could include designing new ranks that, for example, recognize people with excellent tasting abilities, but limited brewing knowledge, or vice versa, those with superb brewing knowledge, but limited tasting ability. -Publish study materials. Providing clear and consistent study materials and methods is a high priority. -Provide continuing education. Keep judges up-to-date on new information, and provide opportunities for judges to expand their brewing horizons. -Link with professional brewers. Integrate the vast knowledge and experience of the commercial brewing industry with the vast knowledge and experience of the beer judging community. -Go international. Form links with international judges and the international beer evaluation community. -Develop and evaluate beer style knowledge. Provide continuing research and opportunities for developing beer styles, and make sure this valuable resource is kept current and up-to-date on an international level. -Other goals. Determined by your answers and suggestions on the enclosed survey. Our Commitment to You The AHA is committed to making this transition a positive one. We have long desired to have and participate in a judge program which is educational, accessible, responsive and international in scope. Because of this philosophy, we have decided to develop and extend a new beer evaluation program, one that represents the wide diversity of competitions and judging in this country and the international community. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 18:05:18 EST From: Jay Hersh Subject: dr beer vs flawed beer iwanted to briefly address roger descgner's comments. the suggestion has merit, but i feel you miss something important. first off i *satrongly* suggest those interested in pursuing judge training read one of Morton Meilegaard's, papers ,mfrom the MBAA technical quarterly (vol 24 pp 79-85 1987 and vol 28 pp 132-141 1991). he covers a lot of ground about perception and cognition. perception is being able to perceive something, particulsarly to perceive characteristic flavors in a mix of flavors 9ie the flavor soup that is beer). cognition is being able yto coorectly attach a name to that flavor. most beginning beer judges are not able to identify (ie perceive) various flavors. simply presenting them a beer that may have a "flaw" (please note i onject to this term as it is style specific, a flaw in one style may be a part of the proper flavor profile in another) does not teach the judge what to perceive. even in a beer where this characteristic is very strong many prospective judges will be confused as to what the correct flavor they should be perceiving is. it is only via contrasting isolation that this perception can be taught, andf cognition developed. i think it is a mistake to assume that a dr. beer session is a complete method of judge training. i have never considered it such nor taught it as such. it is simply one tool in developing and maintaining one's judging palette. i myself have traveled widely, tasted many examples of the different styles and where possible toured breweries and studied the brewing methods. these are all,part of a complete breakfast, er judge training program, but a dr. beer session is, based on feedbbback from the over 200 people i've personally taught so far a very helpful part. in case that isn't sufficient proof it's also come to my attention that Seibel runs a very pricey 2 day program (rolled into mthier longer courses a as wrell) which includes in part exactly the type of dr. beer sessions myself and others have been teaching. while i don't discount roger's comments i think that he is not seeing a bbalanced picture of the role of the dr. beer seminar jay hersh aka dr. beer ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 15:38:42 PST From: GSMITHBEER at eworld.com Subject: Re: #2(3) JudgeNet Digest #976 (Feb 21, 1995) One more thought on the judge program proposed by MALT. In this set up everyone will want to be judging with the top judges. In order to get their "certified" experience. There's two problems with this. First, you'll piss off people who don't get to judge with the more experienced judges because they'll miss getting signed off. Second it top loads all the experience into one category, it'll be tough to get anyone to agree to matchup, say a national (journeyman) with and apprentice (recognized) The national (journeyman) will be too busy trying to team up with a master to get the required number of points. It'll be one ugly scene. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 16:29:32 -0800 From: EJBusch at ix.netcom.com (Edmund Busch) Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #932 (Dec 20, 1994) Isn't there anything more current than 12/20/94? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 19:07:16 -0600 (CST) From: John Isenhour Subject: AHA survey for judges I got the AHA judge survey yesterday, it looks like they are interested in what the judges really want. This might never be answered, but what is different about the changes they suggest and what we, in general, want? If they want to do what they say they are going to do, why the schizm? (I really may be sorry I asked) -john "pink gusher" isenhour - -- 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: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 21:58:28 -0500 From: Jpilhoefer at aol.com Subject: Question: Orgainizing local comp Dennis Davison writes: >Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 21:42:42 -0600 >From: ddavison at earth.execpc.com (Dennis Davison) >Subject: Midwest Homebrewer of The Year >I'd like to congratulate Ray Daniels of the Chicago Beer Society for >being the 1994 Midwest Homebrewer of the Year. Ray accumulated >63 points in last years five competitions. Those competitions >included Kansas City Bier Meisters, Kenosha Bidal Society, >Madison Homebrewer & Tasters Guild Big And Huge, Chicago Beer >Society Spooky Brew, St. Louis Brews Happy Holidays. I have recently been put in charge of the Borderline Brewers (El Paso, TX) monthly beer tasting. Each month we have a selected beer of the month. Everyone in the club is given a chance to brew this style of beer and have it judged by their peers. I would like to honor the clubs top brewers. My question is how are the above competitions (or ones like it) scored? Any help would be appreciated. Please post or e-mail to Jpilhoefer at aol.com Thank you in advance John Pilhoefer ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 21:52:55 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Cave Subject: New Order, as defined by Brews Stevens After reviewing Mr. Brews Stevens missive on his proposed judge program, I regret that I cannot follow it. First, it strikes me as decidedly non-democratic. As an individual, I have no voice. That, I find unacceptable. As a member of a club, I would conceiveably have input, but believe that the strongest members would have undue influence. Further, following the charter or order of another club would be unacceptable, even in the interim. Second, there is much within the BJCP which is worth keeping, most importantly the goodwill and acceptance by brewers that the judges and the program have merit. Recall that the major concern by most of the judges is that they require a voice and I think that is easily rectified--lets vote! However, the real work begins with committment by individuals of time, effort and, not least, money. The infrastructure is initially there with the BJCP. It can and will evolve. Let's not "throw the baby out with the bath-water!" Starting at ground zero is not necessary. Tip-toeing into a more delicate matter now, (and I can appreciate Mr. Stevens impatience here), "Where to from here?" Can we as a group begin to move down some direction towards an independent BJCP? Can we as a group nominate a working group who could draft some proposal that could legitimatly be brought to the judges? Could this proposal include some plan towards a structure, program objectives, guidelines and policy? At such time as a proposal be put to the judges could we recommend some level of dues? Could we at that time put forward a series of candidates for consideration by vote by the membership? Should this be by region or...just how? Should we as a group put forward a motion to proceed? Is there anyone who is willing to second such a motion? John Dale questions whether this group is representative of the judges as a whole. According to my calculations, the membership on judgenet is approximately 10% of the BJCP program. I am almost certain that judgenet is more representative of the judges than the AHA will ever be...unless the AHA has several hundred judges on staff or is willing to put its proposals to a vote(??!!) We have a forum here where everyone can make their voice heard. I suggest that we can use it--not to implement, but to hash out the concepts and move them forward to the group as a whole. Jim Cave, I brew, I taste, I judge, I am...and I saw Brugge on T.V. tonight and I want to go back! ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************