From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Mon Feb 27 06:37:39 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["14956" "" "27" "February" "1995" "05:12:57" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "330" "JudgeNet Digest #982 (Feb 27, 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 GAA22214; Mon, 27 Feb 1995 06:37:26 -0500 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.2) with SMTP id GAA22208; Mon, 27 Feb 1995 06:37:25 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA00308 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Mon, 27 Feb 95 06:37:33 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA26767 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 95 06:23:33 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA00080; 27 Feb 95 05:12:57 EST (Mon) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9502270512.AA00080 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #982 (Feb 27, 1995) Date: 27 Feb 95 05:12:57 EST (Mon) JudgeNet Digest #982 Mon 27 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: Some clarications (bickham) BJCP?AHA flap -- News and Comments (Louis K. Bonham) More thoughts on a new BJCP (WALZENBREW) apparent crisis! (Farnsworth) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 09:34:54 -0500 (EST) From: bickham at msc.cornell.edu Subject: Some clarications In my last posting, I mentioned that there was a 4 week turn around from when the AHA received the exams that I administered last August. That was an error on my part - in this case, it was approx. 2 weeks from when the AHA received them from the coordinator here in the East. I apologize for my inaccuracy. Bruce Stevens wrote: > The BJCC has indicated that nominations have been accepted. I for one > nominated no one and I surely didn't get a chance to second or discuss the > motions before this deliberation of appointees is made. I don't know the exact date, but Russ Wigglesworth called for nominations a few weeks ago. While this request was restricted to those on the internet, I relayed the information to the judges in my area. On the Guild - as I mentioned earlier, many of the ideas are good; however the problem I see is that a detailed structure was laid out by Bruce Stevens and MALT without forming a panel representing the rest of us judges and homebrewers. In principle, this is no different than the AHA proposal, since James Spence and Karen Barela are also homebrewers and beer judges who represent the AHA instead of a homebrew club. I feel the future should be decided by the BJCC with it's larger quorum of 7 members, 2 of which represent the AHA, 2 from the HWBTA and 3 representatives from the beer judges. Any decision made by the BJCC would have the support of the HWBTA and hopefully MALT and other homebrew clubs, and although the AHA may decide to go ahead with plans to form a beer judge program under their wing, it would be great if they would accept the new BJCP as well. One common theme which has been suggested in various forms and has promise is to have regional control of most of the activities. Many of the newer beer judges that I know simply want to get into the program and become recognized or certified as they learn the ropes. For this purpose, there would be a regional level exam that would be easier than the current 3 hour essay exam. Once these judges are ready to move to the national or master level, they would need to take a more difficult exam which would be given at national and other large competitions, such as the Dixie Cup. This would greatly simplify the effort it takes to track the activities of 1000+ judges from across the country and Canada. The regions would also elect one of their own to the National BJCC or Advisory Board to represent them in the decisions made at that level. Now I think I'll go have a beer. Scott - -- ======================================================================== Scott Bickham bickham at msc.cornell.edu ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 10:53:27 From: lkbonham at beerlaw.win.net (Louis K. Bonham) Subject: BJCP?AHA flap -- News and Comments News: Des Lundy (HWBTA President) has informed me that there was a conference call yesterday between himself, Karen Barela, and several BJCC members to discuss a number of issues arising from the AHA decision to cease participation in the BJCP. A number of issues were discussed, most of which remain unresolved and will be dealt with in another conference call later this week. However, one matter of particular note and interest to current and prospective BJCP judges was resolved. Specifically, the AHA agreed that the BJCP *would* be allowed to continue conducting its operations under the BJCP name. (The AHA had previously expressed a reluctance to permit this, notwithstanding that the BJCP name is owned by the BJCP -- a joint venture between the AHA and the HWBTA.) This is a very welcome development that should facilitate the continued operation of the BJCP. Comments: Ms. Barela's statements in JudgeNet #979 raise a number of questions: >I would also like to clarify that the AHA was supportive of the "at large" >election of delegates and that we even offered to pay for the elections. The >structure of the BJCP however, did allow for us to contribute in this manner. Huh? I've reviewed all the operative BJCP documents, and find nothing whatsoever in the *structure* of the BJCP that would forbid this. Did the BJCC refuse (for whatever reason) to permit this? If not, specifically what do you claim prohibited the AHA's funding a BJCP election? >It's been brought to my attention that I need to clarify that John Dale's >posting from last week was his opinion only and does not represent the views of >the AHA, AHA staff or BJCC. John is a BJCC member, appointed by the AHA, but >his views are his own. . . >I also want everyone to know that the AHA staff reads Judgenet regularly and we >support having this forum for all of these opinions to be aired. If the AHA reads JudgeNet AND truly disclaims the inflamatory (and potentially tortious) comments of its BJCP representative, why did it take two weeks for the AHA to respond to them? Why did it take a written complaint from Des Lundy to Cathy Ewing (President of the Association of Brewers) before any semblance of a retraction appeared? More to the point, does the AHA agree or disagree with the opinions of its representative, particularly his views that it will be impractical to operate a certification program in a democratic manner? This is particularly important in light of the nondemocratic structure of the AHA. >Further, one of the principal goals for the AHA's new program is to have >elected committee's and/or task forces to work on various parts of our judging >program. I pose the same questions that CP recently demurred from answering (on CompuServe): Let's see if the AHA will answer them here. (1) Given that the AHA has never been democratic, and steadfastly refuses to become so, why should we believe that the AHA bureaucracy will pay anything other than lip service to this proposed elected committee? (2) Why would this arrangement be any different from the current AHA "Board of Advisors" -- "Advisors" who were not consulted -- *or even informed* -- on the AHA decision to abandon the BJCP until after it was announced. (I am informed by at least one long-term BoA member that this is not unusual: the AHA has never seriously solicited any "advice" from the BoA.) (3) Why will the AHA not permit its "members" to elect any of its directors or officers? (Most truly nonprofit organizations permit or require such member involvement.) This is perhaps the most serious question, as it goes to the underlying philosophy of the AHA: is the AHA primarily interested in serving the homebrewing community, or in perpetuating its own existance and the employment of its bureaucracy? Are these hard questions? Of course. Are they unfair? I think not, but I'll let current and prospective beer judges decide. Regards, LKB lkbonham at beerlaw.win.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 17:41:24 -0500 From: WALZENBREW at aol.com Subject: More thoughts on a new BJCP Dear Fellow Judges, Having read and digested Bruce Stevens' comments here are a few of mine: I agree that the New BJCP (or any judge organization) cannot be considered truly democratic if it's run by appointees of the persons currently running it. However, to get the ball rolling in the shortest possible time will probably require that the initial slate of officer/director candidates be nominated by the existing officers/directors. On some other topics: For this thing to work there will have to be a lot more involvement from persons living outside the New England area now, during it's formative stages. Most of the postings I've been reading on the Judgenet discussing the new BJCP recently seem to come from New England and the East Coast. Come on people! Where is the rest of the country? If this thing doesn't start as a national program it simply won't work out. I may be new to the Net, but my feeling is that it would be very helpful if people would list their city and state somewhere in their postings. Another topic: One of the things that's made the BJCP so successful is the proper balance of knowledge and experience. I don't like the ideas I've seen of letting persons who haven't gone through the process of studying for and taking the test become full-fledged members of the BJCP. One of the things I've noticed about the exam is that you pretty much HAVE to be a brewer to pass it. This is how it should be. Do we really want non-brewers judging our beers no matter how good their palates? I for one do not. Also, based on my experience with having commercial brewers as "guest judges" at some competitions that I've organized: I've found that commercial (regional or micro) brewmasters tend to have a "vertical" knowledge of beer with a narrow focus around the styles they make (they know these pretty well). They can become totally lost trying to judge anything else. BJCP judges, based primarily on what you have to study and know to pass the exam, have "horizontal" knowledge and (hopefully) knowledge if not experience of all the styles - even before judging their first competition. My opinion as to the exam and the exam requirement: don't change a good thing; it ain't broke, don't "fix" it. Sanctioning fees: Why not? This covers the BJCP's expenses in registering the points and dealing with processing the paperwork (anyone who's ever organized a competition knows the volume of paper that needs to be reported to the sanctioning organization afterwards). Throw in a few perks like a 1 year subscription to the newsletter, and do it the way the AHA has been doing it - one price covers all. Why should sanctioning be free when the entry fees can cover it and the BJCP will incur expenses to handle it? My only objection would be to charging too much - sanctioning fees should be $35 or under or as low as you can go and still break even in the process. Judges should likewise NEVER have to pay to have their points registered. This should ALWAYS come from the entry fees. I've seen a few competitions that charge judges to register their points unless they enter. While I try to enter competitions that I judge out of courtesy, competitions that REQUIRE this I avoid like the plague. Charging judges to register points should not be possible under the new BJCP. Judges are doing the competition organizers a favor by showing up to judge, particularly out-of-town judges. Why should they be penalized? They're working for YOU, the competition organizer, with their only compensation (besides the fun of doing it) the points they accumulate. Finally: Bruce's "holier than thou" paragraph struck me as particularly interesting. Sure, there are obnoxious individuals out there (I've run across a score of them in my time) that try to bully their way around at competitions. My fix for this as an organizer is to MANDATE that all judging is done in SILENCE until everyone has a point total. Then the discussion begins. This forces more inexperienced judges to defend their positions, rather than going down in lock step with the most experienced (or vocal) judge at the table. My experience is that this method seems to work pretty well at keeping the loudmouths under control. But what do you do when you KNOW that the style descriptions are wrong. Yes, it happens. For years the commonly accepted style descriptions for Bamberg-style Rauchbier, Schwarzbier, and Altbier were nowhere close to what they looked/tasted like in Germany. When I visited Germany in 1990 (and again in 1993) I tasted a lot of Alts and Rauchbiers (in Bamberg) and, when I got home, tried judging these styles according the tastes I encountered in Germany. Naturally I got in trouble, because at the time no alts were imported and everybody's conception of a Rauchbier was that miserable Kaiserdom (which is considerably lighter than most Bamberg rauchbiers). If you're going to penalize judges from trying to apply their beer expertise when judging a style that's not defined correctly, then there has to be some mechanism for that judge to formally challenge the style description. Fortunately, as the beer hobby progresses the styles will become better defined, but this should be considered as a possible mechanism to keep refining the style descriptions and make them more accurate. If the BJCP is going to get into sanctioning, then accurate style descriptions are essential. One final thought: those of us who use computers to run our competitions would greatly like a comprehensive category/subcategory system that doesn't change every year the way some seem to. Some of our programs require major changes if there are changes in the categories; this is needless work. Sure you collapse categories, but we've found that using a 26 or 28 category system for the initial registration enables entrants to more accurately place their entries and the judges to judge them better. Or another thought: develop a standard stand-alone BJCP competition computer program (PC and MAC versions) that enables entries to be registered and bottle labels to be printed out and mailing labels to be generated, that can be given out to competition organizers as part of their sanctioning package. Just some ideas and comments. Greg Walz Pittsburgh PA (WALZENBREW at aol.com) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Feb 95 22:00:18 PST From: Farnsworth at eworld.com Subject: apparent crisis! hey beer people, what is going on here?i've been a charlie beer slave for a decade,national judge, speaker, all that.i've always felt used. i just got the aha propaganda ,is there a revolution afoot? sorry to be a 'newbie',but, like the 2/26 posting ,will someone please give a non hysterical summary of whats going on?thanks paul farnsworth ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************