From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Fri Feb 24 02:02:01 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["14017" "" "23" "February" "1995" "05:12:47" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "316" "JudgeNet Digest #978 (Feb 23, 1995)" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.2) with X.500 id CAA04423; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 02:01:59 -0500 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.2) with SMTP id CAA04418; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 02:01:58 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA10713 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Fri, 24 Feb 95 02:01:53 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA27098 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 95 07:28:13 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA21778; 23 Feb 95 05:12:47 EST (Thu) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9502230512.AA21778 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #978 (Feb 23, 1995) Date: 23 Feb 95 05:12:47 EST (Thu) JudgeNet Digest #978 Thu 23 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: Dr. Beer vs other approaches (John DeCarlo ) AHA survey for judges (John DeCarlo ) Re: #4(4) JudgeNet Digest #977 (Feb 22, 1995) (BrewsMead) Re: Beast Conflict with NCAA (BrewsMead) Comments on the AHA letter (bickham) Fifth Annual March Mashfest (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 07:32:55 EST From: John DeCarlo Subject: Dr. Beer vs other approaches I agree with Jay and probably just about everyone else. A Dr. Beer approach is not the be-all and end-all, it is another tool to use. Personally, after tasting a beer tampered to taste strongly of diacetyl, for example, it helped me later in identifying diacetyl in "real" beers. But, I also really like tasting fellow brewclub members' beers, just to see if I can identify the off-flavors correctly (besides, I can usually find a better judge/palate at a meeting in case I need help). Most of us are still learning and can use all the help we can get. When Rick Garvin taught a judging class, my memory tells me he tried to bring doctored beers and undoctored beers that had similar flaws. Combining the two can be even more helpful and interesting. Sometimes the undoctored ones have the particular characteristic even more strongly than the doctored ones. John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 07:38:47 EST From: John DeCarlo Subject: AHA survey for judges John Isenhour writes: >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? Who knows? Certainly the letter and survey *sound* good. It's sort of ironic, though, that the AHA (completely resisting deomcratic or representative operation) is interested in doing it for a new judging organization. For me, the key phrases are: AHA writes: >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. Those of us who have been members of the AHA for a long time recognize that having less than total control is not a comfortable situation for the AHA--goes against their culture. On the other hand, I guess I lean towards the "try and be supportive of everything" approach. After all, if I can maintain friendly relations with Jack Schmidling, I guess I can do the same with the AHA. It certainly behooves us to answer the survey. I will be appending a letter (the survey suggests using additional sheets where needed) suggesting that the AHA avoid having an AHA-controlled organization--supporting a completely independent judging program. Will also suggest that they make the survey results available. John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 07:55:11 PST From: BrewsMead at eworld.com Subject: Re: #4(4) JudgeNet Digest #977 (Feb 22, 1995) More notes on the Guild for discussion As expected there are many ways to look at a proposal . Let me clarify some points that may alleviate some of the concerns of the J-net family . We (not I) are fed up with the system as it is now and are moving forward without looking back. We do not intend to be held up by the fatal flaws of the system(s) as they exist or would like to be. Keep your foot in both camps for now and see that we can move this forward. You'll be pleasantly surprised , We are not interested in having everyone perfectly satiated with our proposal and constructive criticism is well received.We do however want to organize this system around the clubs and that is that. We do allow for all strong minded individuals with interest in the concepts of our judging system and hierarchy to participate but you can't vote. Sorry but that's that . Join a club and work with your closest peers , enjoy the camaraderie and travel to competitions with them. Go the extra mile and get involved. It's worth it. We are road warriors and point whores but we truly enjoy the friendly spirit of competition that brings out the best in us , not to mention the diversity of opinion and interesting beers we get to snarf at club events. Martin Stokes is a member of the Sonoma Beerocrats and MALT, but lives 1.5 hrs north of me and I'm an hour or so north of the rest of the club here in Maine. You have to participate in an occasional meeting and attend some comps to see your peers and be a member of a club. By all rights ,he could say that it's too far and he doesn't belong since he only really sees us at comps when judging . What we do is get together and spend some quality time when we have the chance. This makes him a member and a voice in our deliberations . We can phone each other up and bounce ideas off each other if nothing else. I could consider myself a Wort Processor (if I paid my dues) because I see them and revel in the experience regularly. I'm 3.5 hours north of them but so what , we are all really members of a "club". - ---------------------------Onwards Gregg's comments are well worth reviewing and clarifying for the rest of you . The intent of this program is to continue the fun and learning so that we can all become better brewers and judges. Are we really going to be fighting over judging assignments? I think not and when someone is close enough to a plateau to get the extra boost over the top, the coordinator can do the right thing. Betty Ann Sather was at the brink here in Portland at our November competition and was allowed to judge the Best of Show round to get that leg over the edge to Master level. We like to put a range of judges on that panel to broaden the scope of their experiences but we made an exception and had 2 Masters that day. The method in which we intend to advance the knowledge of judges by peer pairing is not limited to judging with Masters. The system of points is based on experience in substyles of which there are 75 +/-. You can have an Apprentice peer pass you on IPA's even if you're at a Master level if that individual has more experience than you in the style. You can also have that same peer question your credibility as a Master or J-Man if you don't do a good job of your assignment. Swallow your pride and get with the program people, my ass sits on the bed and one leg goes into the slacks before the other,just like everyone else. We are all capable of similar greatness and should be acknowledged as such. Strive to excel and pass on good judging skills to your peers. Wear your ethics on your sleeve and learn even as you teach other brewers and judges what a great hobby this can be. Point scoring and the database will be handled as follows: Judges will keep their own tabs and will notify the database manager what the changes are to their titles, not every style and experience point.. Just like we do here on J-Net when there's a status change. Simple no? We will keep the database for year one+/- and then turn over the diskette or email it to the following manager. We will put together Official Guild Recorder Booklets for all judges and mail them out with the style layout we all agree to use after Baltimore. We will handle it by region and the financial can either come from minimal fees for "membership" or more likely from % fees at the regional competitions ($0.05-.10 per entry) or some similar set-up like we have here in the NEHBOTY (New England Homebrewer of the Year -$0.20 per entry for awards and prizes). We can find the capital to start this off with loans to the Guild and then pay that seed money back as revenues come in from conventions or special events or membership, whichever form of financing the system takes on. The excess money from any of these future revenues will be used to have better regional conventions , dispense knowledge and attract professionals with similar interests in the wine ,food, cheese, chocolate and affiliated industries from around the globe ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 07:55:21 PST From: BrewsMead at eworld.com Subject: Re: Beast Conflict with NCAA Beast of the East Update A very good friend of mine in Albany tells me that the NCAA regionals are to be held the same weekend as the Beast. The hotel is holding a block of rooms for another week or so and will then open them up to the basketball public. Please call and make your reservations today for what promises to be a fun event . We need to take over the hotel and show up in force or be beaten to a pulp by beer crazed hoop swines. I just made my reservations and found out that the pressure is on to open up the block to hoop hounds so get your confirmation numbers now. I will be bringing several Mainers and other Guild members to provoke discussion of the future of beer judging after the event . See you all there? Brews Stevens ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 11:41:15 -0500 (EST) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Comments on the AHA letter I received my letter from the AHA yesterday, and although on the surface it appears that the AHA is improving on the BJCP, there are a number of items that are a bit murky. (1) Evidently, completing the survey makes you eligible to be on the board of advisors. Does this mean a lottery will be used to select those lucky individuals who will help shape the future of the AHA's new and improved BJCP? (2) Under "The Committe Structure", the letter mentions that "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." Would a representative of the AHA please give specific examples of changes they tried to introduce. (3) Under "Why did we do this?", they mention that judges will have the opportunity to actively participate in policy formation and program reforms. Obviously the AHA does not agree that the BJCP should be run entirely by elected representatives from the judging community. My opinion is that if there is an advisory board for the new AHA, it will have very little power when faced with the big veto stamp of the AHA. (4) In the next sentence, the letter mentions the examinees will be provided adequete and timely feedback on the results of the exam. My question to them relates to a BJCP exam I administered on August 28th. The exams were scored by both graders, approved by Steve Stroud and mailed to the AHA in a time frame of 7 weeks. Why did it take an additional 5 weeks to get the results back to the examinees, especially considering that 7 of the 8 test takers were already in the data base? The problem here seems to be with the AHA, not with the graders, so please do not let the AHA convince you otherwise. (5) On page 2, they mention that they provided the BJCP with money and finances, among other things. Perhaps they should check out the financial statement and note that the BJCP has been self sustaining and has not needed capital infusions from the AHA. (6) On page 4, they mention that they plan to develop and evaluate beer style knowledge. All I can add here is that the inaccurate descriptions that are currently used in competitions are the AHA Style Guidelines, not the BJCP Style Guidelines. If anyone has answers to any of my questions, or can refute some of my obseravtions, please respond via private e-mail. As it stands, I cannot take the AHA proposal seriously. Scott Bickham BJCP National Beer Judge - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 11:35:58 -0700 (MST) From: walter at lamar.ColoState.EDU (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist)) Subject: Fifth Annual March Mashfest Second (and last) Request for Entries and Judges For The Fifth Annual March Mashfest An AHA Sanctioned Homebrewed Beer and Mead Competition Run By The Mash Tonuges of Fort Collins, CO Entries Due: 27 February to 10 March 1995 Judging: Friday 17 March and Saturday 18 March 1995 If you would like more info please contact: Brian J Walter 618 Tyler Street Fort Collins, CO 80521-3122 303.493.2586 walter at lamar.colostate.edu Send USMail address for formatted copy of entry packet, or email address for ascii version ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************