From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Wed Mar 8 15:44:42 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["40239" "" " 8" "March" "1995" "07:23:21" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "898" "JudgeNet Digest #991 (Mar 08, 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 PAA09534; Wed, 8 Mar 1995 15:44:39 -0500 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.3) with SMTP id PAA09477; Wed, 8 Mar 1995 15:44:21 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA04421 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Wed, 8 Mar 95 15:41:48 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA16490 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 95 13:02:24 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA25214; 8 Mar 95 07:23:21 EST (Wed) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9503080723.AA25214 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #991 (Mar 08, 1995) Date: 8 Mar 95 07:23:21 EST (Wed) JudgeNet Digest #991 Wed 08 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: Recognized Judge's perceptions. (roy klein) New Recognized Judge's Reflections Re: Reason for Judging (John DeCarlo ) AHA Database (Mike Fertsch) John's post (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) (RMoore9011) CLUB ADDRESS UPDATES--Is ZYMURGY listing correct for your club? (uswlsrap) 4th Central ILL HBC Results (Tony McCauley) Call for Judges - Oregon Homebrew Festival (Ted_Manahan) Re: JudgeNet Digest #990 (Mar 07, 1995) (Jay Hersh) Database Format (Chuck Cox) BJCP Participant Count (Chuck Cox) Bylaws (Chuck Cox) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 07 Mar 95 08:45:51 EST From: roy klein <72456.2530 at compuserve.com> Subject: Recognized Judge's perceptions. DATE: March 7, 1995 From:72456.2530 at compuserve.com (Roy Klein) Subject: New Recognized Judge's Reflections I am a new participant of the BJCP. I have been quietly watching the current controversy (electronic), and have waited until now to comment. First I state my experience with the current BJCP: I took my exam on October 10 at O'Niells in Brattleboro, VT. It was proctored by Pat Baker. He was cordial, the exam was difficult. I studied intensly in the weeks before the exam. I think I did well on the written part with the exception of the question on the BJCP program. I got acceptable to weak as a grade in those areas. I had never evaluated a beer on an AHA 50 point sheet before, and made assumptions that the beer being served for tasting was O'Niells and did extremely poorly on that part of the exam. I did not know the answer to the BJCP question as I had only scanned the brochure and that was two months prior. In retrospect the grade I received (a 64) was undoubtably fair, although I would have preferred a 70 and thought my style knowledge would have achieved that. That said, I received word of my exam by phone in the beginning of January from Pat. I received the paperwork near the end of the same month. The paper I got back from the AHA stated what I stated above. Why was the exam not returned with the grader's remarks (or a copy). The real sin, however, was that the score sheets for the beers that I rated were not returned (or copies) along with the proctors so I could understand the way it should be done! >From what I have read about the AHA's position and the general concensus of the judges represented on Judgenet and my personal experience with the BJCP is that the critical remarks concerning timliness, and lack of proper feedback are correct. The fact that they have not yet been corrected adds crecidence to the AHA's position. I have no stake in either program, know that the existing program did not work properly, and look forward to the future. I plan to continue actively in whatever program(s) develop (I have already returned my AHA survey). I do agree that an independant organization would be best, but I am not sure democracy will or can ever work. If I were to design a program, It would be one where a prospective judge took a multiple choice true/false exam. Passing that test would qualify the individual for the judging program at the lowest (recognized) rank. The results would come immediately. Once passed, this portion of the exam would never have to be re-taken. After that a seperate tasting exam could be given using standard commercial beers who's quality are generally known, along with a bad quality commercial example. It's easy to skunk a beer, or choose a sample with high diacetyl which is not true to style, or just ask the participant to score the good commercial beer in an improper style. The examinee would not know what beers he was given. A reasonable amount of time would be allowed for the return of the score, with copies of scoresheets returned (1 month?) and the evaluated samples named. By using commercial beers, the examinee could sample the beer while reading the judges evaluation and get some idea of what is to be expected. This portion of the exam would be retaken to achieve higher scores allowing for similar plateaus in judging rank as to now. Finally, it appears that there are two points of view on the topic of feedback. Some judges feel it is their responsibility only to taste the beer and comment on it's taste characteristics. Others feel that feedback to the home brewer is important. Perhaps this coincides with two types of judged communities. The home brewer would prefer feedback with how to improve his brew, probably the professional brewer would find these comments insulting, feeling that he knows how to alter the process as he sees fit, just rate the beer please. As a home brewer, I prefer to receive the feedback and will try hard to give it. I, for one, eagerly anticipate the future. Roy Klein, Recognized BJCP Judge ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 09:59:18 EST From: John DeCarlo Subject: Re: Reason for Judging Let me just add a few more comments to this thread. 1) Competitions have as the main purpose the determining of the best beer to style. 2) Helping a brewer improve his/her beer requires lots more information than you are *allowed* to have at a competition. That extra information could affect how a judge perceives the beer ("oog, I don't like extract beers", or "if they used dry yeast, they must not be good brewers", etc.)--so you aren't allowed to have it. 3) I *like* (nay, even *prefer*) helping brewers with their brewing. This can be done fairly easily in a different setting, such as a brewclub meeting. 4) I believe I have heard others propose similar things to: a) Hold a "feedback judging" instead of a "competition". Let people send in beers, with careful attention to process and ingredient info, and get a judging sheet with helpful comments. Not a prize. Judges would have all the info on each beer and give it a score breakdown, but concentrate on the process/ingredients as well when giving feedback. Would need some education and a different form for brewers to fill out (sanitation, yeast handling, brew times, ingredients and their condition/storage, fermentation times and temperatures, S.G. readings, equipment used, etc.). b) Have a "feedback judging" category at a competition. I would volunteer to judge such a flight. I have seen competitions that had something similar, such as a "homebrew" category, for those who don't know what they brewed, etc. John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 10:50:46 EST From: mferts at taec.com (Mike Fertsch) Subject: AHA Database David Klein talks about "Subject: A factoid about the AHA's Database" > I am in charge of our clubs first competition. When registering with the > AHA, we opted to pay the $5 to get a list of local judges printed on > mailing labels. > I guess that became more of a tantrum than a factoid, but my basic point > is this: the database is not in good shape. If judges and the BJCC are > paying the AHA for "administrative support" where the hell is it? We sent a mailing out to New England judges in late December. There were a few duplicatons, and more than a few omissions, but what got me going was the many incorrect addresses! Many NE judges have been in the program for years, have moved, and the list just isn't kept up. Even judgenet coordinator (and interium database administrator) Chuck Cox has an old address in the database! I crossreferenced the list to that of Boston Wort Processor members (we have about 20 members in the program, including 6+ Masters, one failed Master, and 7+ Nationals), corrected what we could. We received about 5-10 mailings back - 'forwarding adress has expired'. Use the BJCP database with caution. Mike Fertsch ------------------------------ Date: 7 Mar 95 10:31:00 -0600 From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: John's post John-- I'm disappointed in you. You know me better than to put me in with those judges who think they are "holier than thou." My expertise was hard fought -- lots of reading, lots of brewing. We've judged together and how many times have we disagreed? None, I believe. I'm less upset about your posting my private email than your calling me a "self-proclaimed" expert. My assumption that my HBD posts are appreciated comes from the private email I get every week from brewers who have had their questions answered on the HBD. My heart is in the right place: I love beer, I'm passionate about brewing, I judge because I want to help other brewers and because I enjoy the variety of interpretations that we find at competitions, and I post to the digests because I want to help brewers. I am strongly opposed to people who spread misinformation, be they a book author or a homebrew suppy store owner. I believe that those who ignore the fact that their brewing knowledge is limited and forge ahead with their books for nothing other than money and ego should be run out of town on a rail. That's why I sometimes sound like a zealot. I'm not surprised when people who don't know me think I may be on a high horse (a little private email usually reassures them I'm not), but you know me, John... and you know better. Now let's forget this whole incident. Sorry for the use of bandwidth. Al. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 14:16:46 -0500 From: RMoore9011 at aol.com Subject: Seems like a lot of you folks are on the east coast. Anybody in the SFV or Santa Clarita areas of Los Angeles out there? Give me a reply if you want to discuss our situation here. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 1995 16:57:23 EST From: uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Subject: CLUB ADDRESS UPDATES--Is ZYMURGY listing correct for your club? We'd like to be able to update our mailing/newsletter-exchange list. If your present club address is NOT the same as the most recent AHA/ZYMURGY club list, please let me know. Although I'm sure we're not the only ones interested in such information, out of consideration for digest bw, make it private email. I suppose if you're posting something anyway, another line for an address correction wouldn't hurt, but certainly don't post to the digest just to give an address correction. And while you're writing to me, let me know if you want to designate a club email contact. Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino / Disoriented in Badgerspace / uswlsrap at ibmmail.com "If I could see...if I could See all the symbols, unlock what they mean, Maybe I could, maybe I could, maybe I Could meet the artists, and get to know them personally."-Those crazy WPG boys ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 16:06:14 -0600 (CST) From: afmccaul at rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Tony McCauley) Subject: 4th Central ILL HBC Results The ABNormal Brewers hosted the 4th Annual Central Illinois Homebrew Competition on March 4, 1995. The competition drew 98 entries in 14 flights. Congratulations to all of the winners. Brown Ale - 7 entries 1st -- Dave Lubertozzi - Brewers of South Suburbia 2nd -- Ed Wolfe & Carol Ligouri - THIRSTY 3rd -- Ed Wolfe & Carol Ligouri - THIRSTY English Pale Ale - 5 entries 1st -- Roger Meridith - Central Illinois Brewers Assoc 2nd -- Tom Fitzpatrick - Chicago Beer Society 3rd -- John Griffiths - Fayettesvill Lovers of Pure Suds American Pale Ale - 10 entries 1st -- Mark Kellums - Central Illinois Brewers Assoc 2nd -- Steve Stacy - Missouri Assoc. of Serious Homebrewers 3rd -- Eddie Brian - THIRSTY English Bitters & Scottish Ales - 6 entries 1st -- Mike Hansen - THIRSTY 2nd -- J.D. Eichman - Inland Empire Brewers 3rd -- Ed Wolfe & Carol Ligouri - THIRSTY Porter - 5 entries 1st -- Bob DeVries - not affiliated 2nd -- Roger Meridith - Central Illinois Brewers Assoc 3rd -- Steven Solick - not affiliated Barley Wine, English and Scotch Strong Ale & Imperial Stout - 8 entries 1st -- Dennis Davison - Chicago Beer Society 2nd -- Dennis Davison - Chicago Beer Society 3rd -- John Yoder - ABNormal Brewers Stout - 8 entries 1st -- Mark Soboleski - Beer Brewers of Central Connecticut 2nd -- Dennis Flaherty - not affiliated 3rd -- Dave Beedle - ABNormal Brewers German Lager & Classic Pilsener - 9 entries 1st -- Tim Artz - Brewers United for Real Potables 2nd -- Bob DeVries - not affiliated 3rd -- Steven Solick - not affiliated Bock, Bavarian Dark & Vienna, Marzen/Oktoberfest - 5 entries 1st -- John Griffiths - Fayettesvill Lovers of Pure Suds 2nd -- Dave Lubertozzi - Brewers of South Suburbia 3rd -- Micheal Garcia-Gualdoni - not affiliated American Lager & California Common - 7 entries 1st -- J.D. Eichman - Inland Empire Brewers 2nd -- Mike Riddle - Marin Society of Homebrewers 3rd -- Ed Wolfe & Carol Ligouri - THIRSTY German Ale - 5 entries 1st -- Tom McDaniel - THIRSTY 2nd -- Thomas Grant - Merrimack Valley Brewers 3rd -- Dave Holsclaw - ABNormal Brewers German Wheat & American Wheat - 7 entries 1st -- Dennis Davison - Chicago Beer Society 2nd -- J.D. Eichman - Inland Empire Brewers 3rd -- Ed Wolfe & Carol Ligouri - THIRSTY Belgian Beers, Fruit Beers, Herb Beers & Speciality Beers - 9 entries 1st -- Eddie Brian - THIRSTY 2nd -- Tim Artz - Brewers United for Real Potables 3rd -- Jay McNiel - not affiliated Traditional Mead & Fruit Mead 1st -- Dennis Davison - Chicago Beer Society 2nd -- Alan Carder - ABNormal Brewers 3rd -- Dave Holsclaw - ABNormal Brewers Best of Show -- Dennis Davison -- Berliner Weisse 2nd BOS -- Dennis Davison -- Still Cranberry Mead 3rd BOS -- Roger Meridith -- English Pale Ale The BOS judges quickly cut the field to 4 beers before the tough negotiating started. The first beer to get cut was Dennis Davison's Imperial Stout. Dennis came very close to a sweep of the BOS round. Needless to say, Dennis was gloating. Congratulations on the fine showing, Dennis. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 12:47:37 -0800 From: Ted_Manahan Subject: Call for Judges - Oregon Homebrew Festival CALL FOR JUDGES THE 13th ANNUAL OREGON HOMEBREW COMPETITION AND FESTIVAL On Saturday, May 13, 1995 Benton County Fairgrounds - 110 SW 53rd Street, Corvallis, Oregon. Judge registration: 10:00 AM Sponsored by Heart of the Valley Homebrewers. Sanctioned by AHA and HWBTA With Special Guests Fred Eckhardt and Daryll Richman We will be recognizing all 24 AHA categories and combining them into groups if needed. Flights will be limited to 11 beers or fewer. Judging will be in two flights. Large categories (such as American pale ales, etc.) will be split up into smaller groups, and a taste off will be held to determine category winner. Due to the large number of beers to be judged, and the "real time" nature of a combined competition and festival, we will need lots of judges! Apprentice judges are welcome. We will have a minimum of one BJCP judge at each flight. Please pre-register for preliminary category assignment. Contact Ted Manahan at 503/926-6228 (H) 503/715-2856 (O) tedm at cv.hp.com 1440 N. Albany Rd. NW Albnay, OR 97321 We will be organizing a "beds for judges" program; contact Ted if you are interested. Schedule: Judge registration : 10:00 Judge Orientation : 10:30 Judging of 1st flight: 11:00 Break : 12:30 Judging of 2nd round : 1:00 (including taste off for large categories) Best of Show judging : 3:00 Announce winners : 4:00 JUDGE REGISTRATION FORM Please treat this registration as a commitment of your time and effort. We will depend on you to appear and judge at our cometition! Name: Street address: City: State: Zip: Phone (H) Phone (W) If BJCP: _Recognized _Certified _National _Master Please answer the questions below to help us making judging assignments: How long have you been brewing?________________________ Approximately how many batches have you brewed?________ How many competitions have you judged in?______________ Which category are you best qualified to judge?________ What would be your second choice?______________________ What would be your third choice?_______________________ Other comments:________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Mar 1995 00:19:00 EST From: Jay Hersh Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #990 (Mar 07, 1995) Bobb says > However the point I >feel she is trying to make is that high scores in a contest isn't the >end all be all of brewing. The system is not infallable, many people >complain that style guidelines are not uniform, my own experience backs >this statement. I agree with you here, and as I said i think this is a matter of entrant expectations. you mention past experiences regarding docking of points when a beer is inappropriate for style. It is unfortunate but yes this does occur. Sometimes it is a matter of judges who don't know the style well. Other times a good beer may very well be scored down since it doesn't meet the style guidelines. One thing I've noticed in myself and others is that the better judges know which styles their beers will do well in and when a beer that may be a good beer just won't do well in a competition. I myself often think twice and save the $$ since while I may like the beer a lot I know that it may not fit the styles offered well enough to win a ribbon. The following is an excerpt of something I posted onto rec.crafts.brewing 2 years ago. I think it is a good summary explanation of the goal of competition judging. Perhaps it should be included as an informational statement in competition entry forms.... (this was really about presence/absence of off flavors and what an off flavor is, but some comments are pertinent to this discussion) ** excerpt atrts here Homebrewing is a hobby/art/science whereby a brewer tries to create a product that expresses themselves, pleases their taste (and their friends tastes), and possibly also to create an existing recipe/style. If a particular brewer considers the presence of a certain flavor as desirable that others may find offensive, that is OK. The brewer is suiting their taste. It has been said that there are as many styles as there are beers being brewed and in a sense that is true. But that also makes it impossible to try to impose any objectivity on the judging process, a process that by its very nature is subjective. In order to have any means for comparison that tries to impose some level of objectivity, the concept of styles has arisen. This concept is not unique to beer. Wine has this concept as well and this concept also serves marketing purposes in that it can promote (as well as confuse, i.e. Cranberry Lambic sic....) competition by presenting a brewer's offerings to be in a range of flavor characteristics that includes that brewers competitors. Styles exist as a mark by which those seeking competition can judge themselves. An old friend used to offer up beers to me for my advice on his recipe concoction. He would ask me what to do to his recipe. I would ask him what style he was trying for, or at least in his mind what he wanted the beer to taste like. He would get a little irritated since he previously was adamant about styles not mattering. I then posed the parable to him that he was like a lost person asking directions without knowing where he was trying to go. To finally beat this point to death I'd use a cooking comparison. If you wanted to make chocolate chip cookies you'd want a recipe. While there is variation among this style of cookie from household to household, and manufacturer to manufacturer, people can still tell chocolate chip cookies from sugar cookies, etc. If you were to set out to make them you'd want some guidelines as to what the recipe might include and what the final product should taste like. ** end excerpt so the point is that while there are many good beers brewed out there the competition entrant must learn to understand that the judging must be limited to some set of objective standards in order to be practicable and meaningful. This doesn't mean a person's beer is bad, just not "appropriate for style" Perhaps this is what Karen really meant to bring out, but entrants must understand that while their beer may be very good to them it often doesn't stand up among others, especially when an objective criteria (which are clearly stated in the competition style guidelines) is used as the standard of comparison. JaH PS I've never given a drinkable beer under a 20 :-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 95 1:53:30 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Database Format Thanks to all of you who responded to my question about the BJCP database format. Interestingly, the majority of responses were willing to handle any format. Of those who expressed an opinion on the format, FileMaker Pro was mentioned often. Since this is the format of the existing BJCP database, it seems reasonable to keep it that way. FileMaker Pro is DOS and Mac compatible, but I don't know about Unix. I'll look into the retail cost of the software. If any potential regional database administrator objects to FileMaker Pro, please contact me directly. - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 95 2:01:27 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: BJCP Participant Count Here is the most recent membership data that I have received. I don't know what 'BJCC Emeritus' means. I presume 'N/A' refers to judges who took the exam but didn't pass. BJCP Particpant Count Current 7/16/93 JUDGING LEVEL NUMBER BJCC Emeritus 3 Honorary Master Judge 8 Master Judge 7 National Judge 40 Certified Judge 305 Recognized Judge 571 N/A 151 TOTAL BJCP PARTICIPANTS 1085 - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 95 2:59:34 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Bylaws Here are the most recent BJCP bylaws I have. I know the bylaws have changed, but I think the basic structure remains. Any errors are probably the fault of my OCR software. THE BEER JUDGE AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAM COMMITTEE RULES Approved June 1989/Revised July 29, 1993 PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY: The American Homebrewers Association, Inc., (AHA) and the Home Wine and Beer Trade Association. Inc., (HWBTA) have agreed to establish the National Beer Judge Certification Program (NBJCP). A. The Purposes of this Program are to: 1. Recognize and promote beer appreciation and evaluation, through educational activities which may include but not be limited to: publications, events, competitions, and examinations. 2. Recognize and promote socially responsible use of beer as an alcoholic beverage. 3. Set standards for program participants. B. The authority granted to this program are: 1. The National Beer Judge Certification Program shall be governed by the National Beer Judge Certification Program Committee. 2. The Presidents of the AHA and HWBTA shall appoint an equal number of members from their respective organizations to serve on the Committee. 3. The Presidents of these organizations shall serve as ex- officio members of the Committee. 4. The NBJCP Committee shall adopt, review, revise, and approve by-laws to fulfill the mission statement of the NBJCP. 5. The NBJCP committee shall be responsible for the financial and strategic planning of the Program. II. National Beer Judge Certification Program Committee: A. The National Beer Judge Program Committee (Committee) shall select a Committee member to chair the Committee, a member to serve as Secretary, and a member to serve as Treasurer. The Chair will be assumed for a period of one year from July I through June 30. B. The Committed shall meet at least once a year and such meetings shall be in person, by telephone or other telecommunication, or by mail. C. In all matters of procedure not otherwise herein provided for, "Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised" shall prevail in all meetings of the Committee. D. Decisions of the Committee shall require a majority vote of the Committee membership. E. Records: 1. Records of meetings and actions of the Committee shall be maintained and communicated to both parent organizations. 2. Permanent records of meetings shall be maintained in the offices of the AHA. F. Program Staff: 1. Administration of the NBJCP shall be carried out by Program Co-Directors, one representing each parent organization, Program Associate Directors, an equal number from each parent organization, and by a Program Administrator. The Co-directors, Associate Directors, and Administrator shall be appointed by the Committee upon recommendation of the Presidents of each respective parent organization. 2. The Co-Directors, Associate Directors, and Administrator shall be ex-officio members of the Committee. 3. The Administrator may be an employee of either parent organization. G. The Program Directors and Associate Directors may not be members of the BJCC. H. A member of the Committee will be appointed Secretary for each meeting. Minutes will be provided to the membership promptly for their review and correction/acceptance. III. Staff Responsibilities: A. Program Directors: 1. Conduct and/or authorize beer judge and beer appreciation and educational events, including - examinations. 2. Tests will be scored by the Co-director who schedules the test, the other Co-director shall either confirm the scores or designate an associate Director to do so. Disagreements between a Co-director and Associate director may be referred to the other Co-director. Once scores are agreed to, they shall be forwarded to the Program Administrator. 3. The Directors shall thereupon grant or deny recognition or certification status to the applicant. - 4. The Directors shall prepare standards of conduct for Judges and judging procedures. 5. The Directors shall define the requirements for and levels of achievement for recognition and certification. 6. The Directors shall carry out such other responsibilities as are designated by the Committee to fulfill the Mission Statement and Program purpose. B. Program Administrator: 1. Maintain records of competitions and examinations. 2. Notify examinees of test results. 3. Maintain the Program financial records. 4. Receive requests for examinations and other events and notify the Directors thereof. 5. Receive complaints/grievances against competition organizers, judges and stewards and notify the Directors. 6. Coordinate NBJCP publicity efforts. 7. Carry out such other responsibilities as directed by the Committee or the Program Co-Directors. C. Associate Directors: 1. Assist in the scoring of exams as detailed in III A 2. 2. Carry out other responsibilities as directed by the Committee or the Program Co-directors. IV. Recognition and Personnel; A. The voting members of the Committee, Co-directors, Associate Directors, and Program Administrator may not increase their level of recognition under the Program while active in any of the above official capacities. B. During the term of service to the Program, the Personnel shall continue to accumulate experience points. C. The Personnel shall be recognized as "Honorary Master Judges." V. Status Publication: The name, status, city, and state of residence of program participants may be published by either parent organizations. Other information about participants may not be published. VI. Requirements for Recognition and Certification of Beer Judges: A. LEVELS OF BEER JUDGES: An individual's level of certification is determined by two factors: exam score and experience points earned through sanctioned competitions. 1. RECOGNIZED BEER JUDGE: A person who has scored a minimum of 60% on the judge certification examination, but who has not completed the other requirements for certification. 2. CERTIFIED BEER JUDGE: A person who has scored a minimum of 70% on the judge certification examination and has accumulated five experience points. 3. NATIONAL BEER JUDGE: A person who has scored a minimum of 60% on the judge certification examination and has accumulated 20 experience points. 4. MASTER BEER JUDGE: A person who has scored a minimum of 90% on the judge certification examination and has accumulated 40 experience points. 4. GRAND MASTER JUDGE - FIRST DEGREE: A person who has scored a minimum of 90% on the judge certification examination add has accumulated 100 experience points and who has performed a period of service for the BJCP to be determined by the Co- directors on an individual basis. a. Additional degrees, second, third, etc., can be earned in 100 experience point increments with additional service requirements to be determined by the Co-directors on an individual basis. b. Master Judges are automatically eligible to fulfill the service requirements at any time. Other judges may fulfill the service requirement at the discretion of the Co-directors. 6. HONORARY MASTER JUDGE: A temporary designation by the Beer Judge Committee of a person whose skills in the appreciation and evaluation of beers are widely acknowledged. B. EXPERIENCE POINTS: Candidates for recognition or certification as a beer judge will receive and accumulate experience points according to the following schedule: 1. A Steward will receive one experience point at the national competitions, one-half point at large regional competitions having 75 or more entries, and zero points at recognized small regional competitions having less than 75 entries. 2. A Judge will receive two experience points at national competitions, one point at recognized large regional competitions having 75 or more entries, and one-half point at recognized small regional competitions having less than 75 entries. 3. A Best-of-Show Judge will receive five experience points at the national competitions, two points at recognized large regional competitions having 75 or more entries, and one point at recognized small regional events having less than 75 entries. Best of Show points may be awarded only in competitions which receive at least six entries in each of at least five different classes or styles of beer. A competition organizer may not submit experience points for more than one best-of-show judge for every 25 entries, with a limit of four best-of-show judges. 4. A minimum of one-half of the experience points for judge certification must be judging experience points. 5. The organizer of a national or regional competition shall receive experience points according with the following schedule: ENTRIES POINTS 500 or more 10 300 or more 7 150 or more 5 75 or more 3 Less than 75 2 The organizer may allocate his experience points to members of his competition staff, in increments of 0.5 points. 6. For any one competition, only one point category will be allowed for an individual--steward, judge, or organizer. a. Effective January 1, 1990, a Steward, Judge or Best-of Show Judge may receive up to one experience point allocated by the organizer, as provided in section V. B. 5. b. Effective September 1, 1990, a Steward, Judge or Best- of-Show Judge may receive up to one experience point as an assistant organizer, as provided in section V. 8. 10. 7. Competitions must be recognized by one of the sponsoring organizations. 8. A test administrator shall receive one-half point for exams with 4-6 test takers, one point for 7-11 takers, and two points for exams with greater than 11 test takers. Effective for exams given since April 1, 1969 the administrator may allocate experience points to those who help proctor the exam, in increments of 0.5 points. a. Administrator points may be docked or not allowed by the Co-Directors if the administrator does not score the tests and get them to the directors within two weeks of giving the exams. b. Program directors may not earn administering points. c. Exams given prior to June 1, 1988 shall receive points according to the above schedule. d. Effective for exams given since April 1, 1989 the administrator may allocate experience points to those who help proctor the exam, in increments of 0.5 points. 9. Effective July 1, 1989, Judges and Best-of-Show Judges at a National Competition having judging sessions that take place on different calendar days will receive experience points according to the following schedule: a. Judges at national competitions will receive two experience points for judging one session and one-half experience point for additional sessions up to a limit of three total points for one event. b. Best-of-Show Judges at national competitions will receive five experience points for judging the best-of-show session and one-half experience point for additional sessions up to a limit of six total points for one event. 10. Effective September 1, 1990, the assistant organizer 0 a national or regional competition shall receive experience points according to the following schedule: ENTRIES POINTS 500 or more 5 300 to 499 3 150 to 299 1 Assistant organizer points may be allocated between different assistants in 0.5 point increments. 11. National Competitions: a. Each parent organization may submit best-of-show experience points for only one National Competition per calendar year. b. Each parent organization may submit National experience points for any number of events providing each event is part of a single competition culminating in the best-of-show described in VI B 11 a. Each event must be differentiated from the others by registration, either by mailing address, or registration of one event must start after all judging at the same location has finished. 12. Effective July 29, 1993 Judges at extra-large regional competitions having 500 or more entries will receive 0.5 experience point per judging session, but not less than 1 experience point for the event. In any case, a maximum of 1 point per calendar day of judging and a maximum of 2 experience points for the event shall apply. C. JUDGE ACTIVITY: If no experience points have been earned at the end of the two-year period, the judge will be put on an inactive judge list until experience points are earned. After two years on the inactive list, he will be terminated from the program. D. JUDGE RECERTIFICATION: A judge whose Recognition or Certification has lapsed may re-apply for Recognition or Certification to the Beer Judge Certification Committee. E. It is not intended that program participants derive economic benefit from their participation status by charging fees for their services as judges, or in any other way. VII. "Trademark": No participant in the program shall allow the Program logo, the names BJCP, B. J. 0. P., or Beer Judge Certification Program to be used in any way without the consent of the committee. VIII. Committee Discipline: The Administrator or either Co-director may bring to the attention of the committee any complaint regarding the conduct of any participant. The committee may, by majority vote, reprimand or remove from the program any Judge who demonstrates conduct that is contrary to the goals of the program. - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************