From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Mon Mar 6 06:51:51 1995 Status: RO X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["9682" "" " 6" "March" "1995" "05:13:43" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "209" "JudgeNet Digest #989 (Mar 06, 1995)" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.3) with X.500 id GAA19519; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 06:51:49 -0500 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.3) with SMTP id GAA19514; Mon, 6 Mar 1995 06:51:45 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA25418 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Mon, 6 Mar 95 06:50:17 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA28368 for ; Mon, 6 Mar 95 06:31:56 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA03507; 6 Mar 95 05:13:43 EST (Mon) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9503060513.AA03507 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #989 (Mar 06, 1995) Date: 6 Mar 95 05:13:43 EST (Mon) JudgeNet Digest #989 Mon 06 Mar 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: The Guild Points + More on Tom's post (BrewsMead) apology to Al (John Isenhour) divergent opinions on score sheets (Jay Hersh) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 05 Mar 95 06:01:47 PST From: BrewsMead at eworld.com Subject: The Guild Points + More on Tom's post Greg Walz commented that the scoring and administering of this style system would be unwieldy as has Gregg Smith . Some others have commented that the idea is a good one and should be considered in the reform going on in the BJCP program. Well I just wanted to reiterate our basic concept for the masses who have neither agreed nor disagreed in public commentary...... KISS Principle. Just like Judgenet status system. We will give out hard copy , style recorder booklets for all in the BJCP who are on our list . These will be filled out as best possible from memory by each individual and posssibly signed by your peer who judged with you at the time. That way you'll have a basic database to start from. If you are over the Magic Number of styles judged, then you can petition for an upgrade to the Administrator. They can review a fax or mailed copy of your MASTER Recorder and confirm your experience with the AHA/BJCP administrator if needed and also then change your status on the database. Based on some other comments and suggestions made by Gregg et. al., we will probanly require an admonition of experience from a peer who knows your capability and can verify your request to move on.... a sponsor if you will. This will be somewhat tedious but has as its reward the needed interaction among peers and review. There are judges who have experience that do not have a clue about certain things and I would not recommend advancement for those based on my comment sheets from competitions . Then there are others that are wonderful writers and evaluators of sensory details. The bottom line is that there should be a peer review system and this is as simple as it can get. Feel free to disagree but I doubt you'll find a better way. *************************************************************** Tom Ayres makes an eloquent post but as a good republican I cannot let this democratic proposal go unchallenged . The control of the program will be democratic but the ascendency of one program over the others will be at the choice of the people.... by pure capitalism. We cannot intervene thru a government controlled process of forced choices . There are many things about each of these programs that are not good and the people will decide which is better as time goes on. We may even decide that a new alternative is better than either of the old systems. Change is good and I can relate a little story ......... While the Swiss were non aligned for 500 years of peace and prosperity in the 1300-1800's they perfected the Cuckoo clock and the watch. In the same time frame but in only a 50 year span of political turmoil in Italy in the 1400's Michaelangelo formed Venus ,Copernicus deduced the solar systems layout and Da Vinci painted the Sistine Chapel among other inventive thoughts. What I'm saying is that conflict brings about the same changes but in a faster and more brilliant way. Within the year one or more of the existing systems, The Guild included, will wither and die off due to lack of interest and the reasons Tom cited. People will choose! Yes it will be detrimental to some for a while but the greater good will be served. How can we say that the animosity shown has not benefitted many of us to date. Now I know how interesting Pat is and what the financial structure of the BJCP is, not to mention the fact that Chuck is not a puppet. The system has been served ... not pretty , but functional. I think that I can understand Russ's comment that my suggestion to resign didn't seem good for now, however, I believe it will motivate the rest of us to consider the problems inherent in the existing system and provide catalysis for change. Let's realise that the existing structure is doomed to failure and we will need something different to work in the longterm. Even the AHA agrees ,whether it is genuine or not ? I think that their concepts from the survey are well laid out but no independent system will seem to work under the influence of their hierarchy. The program will not be self supporting until the revenue from National Conventions and regional competitions comes into The New System. Whether you call it the Guild or the BJCP or some other name , the independance and freedom from past influences must be started now. I again will call for resignations from the program and allowance for new deliberators to become involved in the formation of the New Order! Tom is right and a National election needs to be done but from a regional perspective and with a truly democratic sense of system. Term limits are included and only one person should maintain position on the Board from Year to year. The Vice Chair can move up and fresh faces from each region will move in to take the system onwards without prejudice each year. I'll nominate Tom Ayres to take a new position on this newly formed BJCC but there must be others nominated from the Central US and the West (since only three are being added now). Do I hear a second from the Eastern US for Tom?How about other nominations rom the Mid Atlantic or Southern sections of the East? Since Pat ,Alberta,Marty and Steve do not vote , they can stay on temporarily to administer the test program but after the system is formed new faces have to take it over to effect change. Do I hear nominations from the Central States and the West? I don't believe that we should have more appointees coming in as the three new faces. Let's use this forum to move the question and start the democratization of the system. I hear a second coming? Bruce P. Stevens-Closet Jeffersonian ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 1995 10:38:47 -0600 (CST) From: John Isenhour Subject: apology to Al I would like to apologize to Al for a breach in net.etiquette. What prompted me to do this is that on and off for the last 2 years I have had people come up to me and insinuate that beer judges are a bunch of elite snobs based on things that are said in contexts like that posted yesterday. I dont know why I am the one that gets this defense of bjcp role, but I'm getting pretty tired of it, and got angry enough to kick it upstairs for some peer review. If someone bills themself in the media as a high ranking beer judge, then they should issue a disclaimer if they are going to act out of character with how most of us think beer judges should behave. I think we might need to have a code-of-ethics section of the bjcp (or whatever its to be called). -john ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 1995 12:53:54 EST From: Jay Hersh Subject: divergent opinions on score sheets Dennis Davison says >Yes, the purpose is to help the brewer not confuss the brewer. I've gotten several score sheets where one judge says good malt and the other judge says it needs more maltiness. This is confussing and contradictory. Who's right when the beer scores 35 points. Is this personal opinion at this point? all too many people expect that judges would agree within some margin on characteristics. having hosted dr. beer seminars for years i find that people's tasting abilities (we're talking physical ability now just like athletic ability) varies widely. i can give out a sample to a room of 40 people half will say it's fine, 1/4 can't taste it at all, 1/4 say too strong. the goals of the score sheet, style categories and competition judging is to reduce variance and subjectivity, however a basic truth is that people's abilities (even when well trained) to detect flavor components vary, from flavor to flavor in a given individual, and from person to person, and at least I for one don't see a way to ever completely eliminate this. education and experience go a way toward reducing this but there will always be variations from judge to judge. wrt how beginners take this perhaps some more explanation regarding the nature of judging (ie it's not monolithic) should be sent out with returned score sheets, but unrealistic expectations of the capabilities of judges (who are after all human and in general very concientious) are not the fsault of the judges, but more of the system and lack of experience of the entrants. until entrants have some understanding that in even the most well designed competition/judge certification system there will always be a natural degree of subjectivity the confusion you c ite will likely persist. JaH - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalts ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************