From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Thu Mar 16 09:41:15 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["12521" "" "16" "March" "1995" "07:20:44" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "290" "JudgeNet Digest #998 (Mar 16, 1995)" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.2) with X.500 id JAA14791; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 09:41:13 -0500 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.2) with SMTP id JAA14655; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 09:40:30 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA03037 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Thu, 16 Mar 95 09:40:26 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA12237 for ; Thu, 16 Mar 95 09:03:30 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA23026; 16 Mar 95 07:20:44 EST (Thu) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9503160720.AA23026 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #998 (Mar 16, 1995) Date: 16 Mar 95 07:20:44 EST (Thu) JudgeNet Digest #998 Thu 16 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: Re: #1(2) JudgeNet Digest #997 (Mar 15, 1995) (GSMITHBEER) Organizer's Perspective (WALZENBREW) BJCP JUDGE QUALITY CONTROL ("PATRICK N. BAKER") judge exam format (Skip Little) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 06:13:43 PST From: GSMITHBEER at eworld.com Subject: Re: #1(2) JudgeNet Digest #997 (Mar 15, 1995) In reply to the Chuck Beer Judge Program: Finally some humor out of all this. (Say, do you have financing program available?) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 11:07:59 -0500 From: WALZENBREW at aol.com Subject: Organizer's Perspective I'd also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Scott Birdwell, Norman Dickenson, and Steve Stroud on their appointment to the BJCC, and Tom Ayres' appointment as an Associate Director. I also have complete faith that these individuals will do an excellent job in handling the BJCP's transition from a group run by appointment to one run directly by the participants. But I also share Chuck Cox' reservations. For the New BJCP to remain credible, the transition to a democratic organization must begin *immediately*. Yes, Chuck is right in that the only thing we have going for us now over the AHA's proposed program is our credibility and reputation - and both will suffer immensely if the transition to a democratic organization does not occur quickly. But I also have a degree of faith in the new appointees, as well as many (but *definitely* not all) of the existing BJCC directors and committee personnel. I'll wait and see what happens. On another topic: Most of the postings I've seen here are oriented towards and written from the point of view of judges. Well, as this forum is called "JudgeNet Digest" I suppose I can't be too critical, but I feel we're lacking in certain perspectives that I feel will be essential to defining what organizations like the New BJCP should become. I'm particularly referring to the point of view of the competition organizer. While I don't claim to be an expert in organizing competitions, I am fortunate to have done a couple of medium sized regionals, and am now in the process of organizing our fifth annual competition, TRASH V. Looking at the BJCP/AHA situation from this point of view results in a totally different picture from what we've been discussing here. For example, most of you know that I am adamantly opposed to the AHA's running a separate and competing certification/sanctioning program. Yet as a competition organizer this year, particularly as one with a competition scheduled for May 20, I find myself in a peculiar situation. To guarantee that I will have sufficient judges to make my competition a success, I've been forced to sanction both with HWBTA and AHA. This will result in additional expense, and possibly higher entry fees, but I feel that it's essential that anybody willing to help by judging be given the opportunity to have their points recorded in the program of their choice (regardless of my personal feelings). Nobody at this point in time knows what's going to happen. I think its a foregone conclusion at this point in time that the AHA will do whatever the h*ll they want to do, so the only remaining question is whether or not judges judging in competitions sanctioned by one party only will be able to have their points credited in the other party's certification program. Until this one is worked out I see the organizer's job becoming one of covering all the bases - which will result in more work for the competition staff as well as higher entry fees overall. Or risk losing judges (I, for one, will NOT judge in the AHA National this year if my points are not recorded in the BJCP program). One interesting fact is that as an organizer, I've never had any desire to sanction any of the competitions I've organized with the HWBTA. Had the present schism not occurred I never would have even considered sanctioning TRASH V with the HWBTA. The AHA's competition sanctioning program, despite the $40 cost, was by far the better program for the following reasons: * An alacarte program like the HWBTA's is a lot of extra work for the organizer, particularly at the end. Remember - from the organizer's point of view a higher sanctioning cost paid for out of entry fees that results in less work is preferable to a cheaper sanctioning fee and greater work. * If you have a lot of judges the AHA's pay-one-price approach can actually turn out to be cheaper. At $1.00 per judge to register points this can mount up. At one competition we had enough judges that we actually saved money going with the AHA. * An alacarte approach to registering judge points can result in competitions charging their judges to do this, a practice which in my opinion should be banned. * The package of material you get with AHA sanctioning is superior, particularly in that you get prepared, ready to use forms for such things as judge registration, recipes, score sheets, etc. * You have to get an HWBTA shop owner to sign to sanction with HWBTA. This can be a pain if your club isn't associated with a shop. * The AHA's 26-29 beer category/subcategory system is far superior to any I've seen come from the HWBTA. Of course you're going to collapse categories, but starting as fine as possible gives you greater options when the time comes to collapse. The New BJCP should, in my opinion, totally scrap the HWBTA's approach to sanctioning and start fresh, modeling after and improving on the AHA's method of sanctioning. It would definitely be in the BJCP's favor to make organizing a competition as simple and painless as possible. This would give a competitive edge, and greatly increase the number of BJCP sanctioned competitions. This should include: * Maintaining an up-to-date list of, and registering, homebrew clubs. This would eliminate the shop owner involvement, since you would already know the group running the competition. * Making *up-to-date* lists of clubs and judges available to organizers. The date the list was last updated should be included. For a slight additional fee, customized labels of beer clubs and judges (e.g, all judges in PA, OH, MD, WV only) could be made available. The amount of work this eliminates for the organizer would make this a popular option. * A complete package of instructions, and all forms, pre- printed and ready to copy, given to the organizer after paying the sanctioning fee. Forms should include category/subcategory list, category/subcategory written descriptions and guidelines, judge registration, judge point registration and criticism, judge waiver, recipe, bottle, beer judging, and mead judging. * A "pay-one-price" sanctioning fee, payable up front, with no hidden fees, and not tied to the number of judges or number of entries. * A category/subcategory list with fine resolution (like the AHA's). None of this "Light Lager" nonsense. * A phone number with someone who's available during normal working hours *every* weekday to answer questions. * Stand-alone computer software, available for a slight extra fee, for registering entries and preparing lists of winners, labels, etc. This should be available in DOS, Windows and Mac formats. For the New BJCP to be a success it must get into competition sanctioning. To do this means that the BJCP will have to satisfy two customers - judges AND competition organizers. Failure to consider both will greatly hinder the New BJCP's chances of success. Greg Walz (National) Pittsburgh, PA WALZENBREW at aol.com ------------------------------ Date: 15 Mar 95 13:38:11 EST From: "PATRICK N. BAKER" <74443.3040 at compuserve.com> Subject: BJCP JUDGE QUALITY CONTROL Responding to Al Kinchen's 3/14 and John Isenhour's 3/5 posts, judge quality control is indeed important. Action has been taken in the past, and the current situation is this: >From 7/29/93 BJCC Portland Minutes, Agenda Item#7: QUALITY CONTROL FOR JUDGES: The committee agreed that upon receipt by the Administrator of a written complaint about a judge, a copy of the letter will be sent by the Administrator to each Co-Director, and a copy placed in the hard file of the plaintiff and the defendant by the Administrator. The committee also recommended to the AHA and the HWBTA that the score sheets used in the sanctioned competitions of each have a note saying that if the score sheet is unsatisfactory to the brewer, to write to the Administrator, who will forward the comments to the Co-Directors. The annual mailing to all judges will have a similar note to handle complaints about one judge against another. Unfortunately, the AHA did not respond to this request, and the Administrator did not include this policy in the annual mailing. However, the policy is "official." The following is quoted from a letter from me to Jim Homer dated June 3, 1993 defining "BJCP Judge Quality Control Procedure/Policy." It is currently the statement of such policy. "THIS PROCEDURE is intended to handle complaints about the performance or competence of beer judges recognized by the BJCP. ACTION ON RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT: The BJCP Administrator should acknowledge receipt of a complaint, and advise that it will be investigated according to BJCP Judge Quality Control Procedures. He should forward the complaint to one of the Co-Directors. ACTION BY BJCP: The Co-director will investigate the complaint and tentatively prepare an action recommendation and a response to the initiator. This should be reviewed with the other Co-Director, and an official action agreed upon. Should a program judge be found at fault, the Co-Directors may issue a warning. Should the offense be serious enough to consider suspension from the program, or the docking of experience points, the Co-Directors should propose action to the Chairman of the BJCP. Suspension of a Judge from the BJCP for disciplinary reasons will require a majority vote of the BJCC. The communication with the Judge, and the response to the complaint initiator shall be sent to the BJCP Administrator, who will distribute them appropriately and will file copies in the file of the appropriate Judge. NOTICE OF BJCP POLICY: Announcements of homebrew competitions sanctioned or recognized by the AHA or HWBTA should contain a statement that the BJCP Administrator should be contacted should a person have a complaint about the performance or competence of a BJCP judge. A similar statement might appear annually in Zymurgy." Frankly, this procedure works. In the "new" BJCP," we might consider having "Quality Control" administered separately from the Co-Directors, however, this would in effect be the setting up of a "police department," and the building of bureaucracy, both of which I disapprove. Keep threading, guys. Pat Baker, BJCP Co-Director (IWAT) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 14:32:29 -0500 From: little at charlotte.med.nyu.edu (Skip Little) Subject: judge exam format Hello, I am a recent subscriber to Judgenet Digest, but a longer time beer lover. I have been thinking of becoming certified as a beer judge, but I know nothing about the format for the exams. I have seen the location and dates of the exams posted in JND. I am hoping that anyone in the know could provide me with some basic info on exam format (written, a beer tasting evaluated with other judges? how long is it? etc.) via private e-mail is fine. Thanks in advance. Slainte, Skip Alvin (Skip) R. Little Jr. Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine New York University Long Meadow Rd. Tuxedo, NY 10987 Little at charlotte.med.nyu.edu (914) 351-2647 Fax 351-3492 ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************