From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Wed Mar 22 07:26:54 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["17302" "" "22" "March" "1995" "06:18:42" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "375" "JudgeNet Digest #1004 (Mar 22, 1995)" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.10/2.2) with X.500 id HAA29121; Wed, 22 Mar 1995 07:26:52 -0500 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.10/2.2) with SMTP id HAA29107; Wed, 22 Mar 1995 07:26:49 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA03318 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Wed, 22 Mar 95 07:26:44 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA10651 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 95 07:19:31 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA23212; 22 Mar 95 06:18:42 EST (Wed) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9503220618.AA23212 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1004 (Mar 22, 1995) Date: 22 Mar 95 06:18:42 EST (Wed) JudgeNet Digest #1004 Wed 22 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: Point Docking ("Kieran O'Connor") RE: Penalties (Jim Dipalma) No Shows at Competitions (Waldon Tracy ) Minimum scores for awards [meaningful subject line] (Tom Clifton) Not showing up for a competition and not calling (Bill Giffin) from Scott via Jeff to Judgenet (Jeff Greer) "New" BJCP form/response to Greg Walz (jeffg at rice.edu) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 11:00:13 -0500 (EST) From: "Kieran O'Connor" Subject: Point Docking I agree that some judges may not volunteer to judge an event if they are 75% sure they will come. That's actually good from an organizer's perspective--if you know 10 are absoltely comfirmed--they you plan with that constraint. ANyone else who comes is gravy. Overall, not showing is lame. Don't say you are coming unless you are absulotely sure you can. if things change--call. It's that easy. Kieran ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kieran O'Connor E-Mail Address: koconnor at mailbox.syr.edu Syracuse, N.Y. USA In vino veritas; in cervesio felicitas. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 95 10:56:03 EST From: dipalma at sky.com (Jim Dipalma) Subject: RE: Penalties Hi All, In JudgeNet #1003, Al K. writes: >While I feel that judges who do this on a regular basis should be penalized, >I don't agree that there should be any automatic docking of points for >this. Think about it: If you knew that you would get penalized for not >showing and were only about 75% sure that you were going to make it, wouldn't >you be more likely to not register (i.e. confirm)? Even if one is "100%" sure, there is always the possibility of an emergency or something unforeseen at the last minute. Sudden illness or death in the family, car trouble, crisis at work, etc. >I think that the numbers of judges registering (confirming) would drop if >something like this were instituted. I'm in agreement with Al. Personally, if something like this is instituted, I would *NEVER* pre-register again. Why gamble with hard-earned points? I'd just show up on the day of the competition, secure in the knowledge that the organizer is not likely to object to additional judging help. Now, consider what would happen if a lot of other judges did the same thing, and an organizer ended up with few if any pre-registered judges. Assuming the competition did not get cancelled, there would be a lot of scrambling around on the morning of the competition setting up judging panels, filling out paperwork, etc. Seems like this would cause a lot of headaches for organizers, something the new independent BJCP should strive to avoid. In the same issue of the digest, Bruce Stevens addresses the issue in his own inimitable style: >Subject: Dock the lazy shiftless buggers ! >You all know who you are . There is a simple thing known as common courtesy >and there is no way that we should even be discussing this crap. Call the >judge organizer or at least the hotel or compsite ( you know where it is ) >when you change your mind and decide to bag the weekend judge trip. The standard judge registration form contains a statement, something to the effect that signing and returning the form is considered a commitment to appear and judge. IMHO, that is exactly how we should regard it. A responsible person would not simply blow off a commitment once it's made. If something unexpected comes up and you can't make it, use a little common courtesy and contact the organizer ASAP and let them know. If everyone does that, this should become a non-issue. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 11:35:46 -0500 From: Waldon Tracy Subject: No Shows at Competitions I agree with all that confirmed, yet absent judges are a problem. However, I would caution against an excessively punitive system of correcting this problem. (I think you've taken the medieval part of the Guild too far Bruce :-) ) I have to support Al K's proposal about an abusive letter and the possibility of sanctions if the situation continues. We should remember that sometimes we don't want a judge to show up. Like when they have a cold or the flu. If you can't breathe through your nose, you shouldn't be judging beer. If you can't make it because of this or some other situation, a phone call to the competition organizer is necessary. It seems that the absence of a timely notification should trigger the letter from the BJCP administrator. Those people who just aren't sure that they will be available that week should hold off pre-registering to judge until their plans are clear. A few extra judges available at the last minute should be welcome by an organizer, as long as it didn't get out of hand. ****************************************** Tracy Waldon twaldon at fcc.gov Just another paranoid anarchist on the ISH ****************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 95 11:15 EST From: Tom Clifton <0002419419 at mcimail.com> Subject: Minimum scores for awards [meaningful subject line] After Dion Hollenbeck posted the AFCHBC results I sent a note about how glad I was to see scores posted along with the rankings. In that manner an entrant could get a feel for how their beer fared with the other entries. This lead to the mention of a minimum score for a beer to be eligible for an award - which sounds like a good idea to me, but I was wondering if there was some feeling as to what that number might be. Much the same as it takes a 70 to receive a C in school, should a beer receive a minimum 25 for a bronze, 30 for silver and 40 for gold - or just be happy with first, second third for any entry over 25? Is there merit in awarding a gold if all the entries came in under 30 in a given category? Tom Clifton St. Louis, MO. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 13:30:46 -0600 From: billg at giffin.iii.net (Bill Giffin) Subject: Not showing up for a competition and not calling The Beast of the East ran very nicely being missing the following people who did not show nor did they have the common courtesy to call to say that they couldn't make it to the competition. There absense created a very difficult time for Tom O'Brien who set up the judges and caused a fairly long delay in getting the competition underway. Chip Jarry Ken Insco Chris Herles Jim Kuhr Reed Antis Gregg Duswalt Rick Mueller Kevin Nagde Those of you who died before you could have called are excused from the list. If you had a death in the family you are excused. The rest of you children who are not responsible enough to call to say you could not make it owe the rest of us a written apology. The judging of the Beast of the East would have been over an hour sooner. The people listed above cut the time we had to drink beer by that hour and we as a group were unable to drink the amount or beer that was available for FREE!! May the wind be always at you back, Bill Bill Giffin 61 Pleasant St. Richmond, ME 04357 (207)-737-2015 All you need is a few good friends and plenty to drink because thirst is a terrible thing! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 14:46:17 -0600 From: jeffg at rice.edu (Jeff Greer) Subject: from Scott via Jeff to Judgenet Here's a message from Scott Birdwell. I didn't have the correct e-mail address at first, so it's a few days late. Scott wrote this message on Friday, March 17. -jeff - --------begin Scott's message----------- Date: Fri 17 Mar 1995 13:05 - 14:00 From: Scott Birdwell (jeffg at rice.edu) Subject: "New" BJCP form/response to Greg Walz WALZENBREW at aol.com First, I would like to thank Greg Walz for his kind words and confidence in Norman Dickenson, Steve Stroud, and myself. Secondly, I agree that it is imperative that we, the "Gang of Three," proceed rapidly toward establishing a directing committee, the BJCC, if you will, that is "of the judges, by the judges, and for the judges." (If you don't mind a little paraphrasing). I haven't heard from Steve, but I have heard from Norman and he agrees that our only goal is the establishment of this new committee. There has been a lot of discussion regarding regional versus national administration of the "new" BJCP, means of its financing , etc. While I, both as an interim committee member and as a judge from the program's inception, have concerns and opinions with regard to these issues, I feel that my only real priority as a BJCC member is the establishment of an elected, representative committee. It will then be the responsibility of those new, elected committee members to tackle the questions of structure, financing, competition recognition, etc. The election date that keeps popping up is July Fourth (appropriately enough, Independence Day!). While this may seem a ways off, look at your calendar: it's only about three and a half months from now. Some time will be required to allow you, the members, to nominate and then elect the new Board/Committee. I hope that you agree with me. I am open to suggestions. One of the most liberating aspects that has come out of this messy breakup is the fact that we can start anew with a tabla rasa. We can now establish our own ground rules as we see fit. We can insure that our new program serves the needs of our constituent members and not be subservient to the commercial demands of the "soon-to-be-gone" sponsors. Having been involved with the BJCP since its inception in 1985 and its subsequent evolution, I can say honestly that I think that we are heading in the right direction. The former structure served its purpose very well (I think that a round of "thank you's" is in order to the folks in the AHA and HWBTA that had the foresight and persistence to see this program to the point that it is now.). We (meaning the member judges) have simply outgrown the present structure, and it is time to move on. An independent organization is the only way that the wants and needs of the individual judges will be met. Frankly, I don't think the HWBTA has the resources or the disposition to run the judge program, and anybody that really thinks the AHA will run a truly demographic program has only to ask any of us that has served on their Board of Advisors. Other than the "Recognition Award," there is no voting, and the only "advising" that takes place is when the AHA staff "advises" the BOA what it is doing. The "membership" (or "subscribers," if you will) have never been invited to vote on anything. I have no doubt whatsoever that the interests of any new judge program established by the AHA (or AOB or whatever) will be made subservient to the interests of the AOB. I spent a good forty five minutes on the phone with Karen Barela regarding this mess. The subject that she kept bringing up was how the AHA had arrived at its current decision based up the needs of their "business." The expression "our (meaning the AHA's) business" came up more times than I can count on both hands. Now, being the homebrew shop trade myself, I certainly have no qualms about the commerial aspects of this hobby, but I thought that the AHA was supposedly a non-profit organization devoted to serving the needs of its members. At least that's what I read for years in the masthead of Zymurgy. Funny, I don't recall the expression "to better serve our membership" ever coming up in my conversation with Karen . . . only the need of the AHA staff to better conduct their "business." But I digress! I didn't intend for this to be an AHA-bashing post. They do, indeed, have their "business" to run, and I have confidence they will do so very competently. I simply wish to warn any of the more naive judges of what I feel is in store with the two new programs that will come out of the current one. Greg, your points regarding the perspective on competition organizers are well taken. Having been intimately associated with the organization of the Dixie Cup over the past eleven years, I must say several of your points hit home! 1) I, too, have resigned myself to the fact that the Dixie Cup will most likely have to receive both AHA and HWBTA/BJCP sanctioning, at least for this year's competition until all the smoke clears and policies are more clearly defined. Yes, I know that this is an extra financial burden on the competition, but I don't think that the dollars really add up to that much compared to the overall expenses of running a competition, especially a medium to large sized regional. We have been double sanctioning the Dixie Cup for years in order to get the word out through as many different channels as possible. And while, yes, there is more paperwork, much of it is duplication. 2) I agree that, if the "new" BJCP does get into the competition recognition business, we should endeavor to provide an "AHA" style package complete with forms, judge registration, score sheets, etc. We have been working up a similar one in the HWBTA in recent years, (ask Pat Baker!) I see no reason why the "new" BJCP cannot "borrow" the best aspects of both packets, modifying them where they better suit our needs. 3) As far as the category/subcategory systems go, feel free to check out the one that we use at the Dixie Cup. With over 600 entries, we have a need for a relatively comprehensive system, and with a few modifications, I believe you can make ours fit your needs. In fact a number of the AHA categories/subcategories were "borrowed" from the Dixie Cup system. 4) I agree that the idea of maintaining an up-to-date list of clubs and judges by region is a great idea! But don't leave out the homebrew owners! How about including in that up-to-date list a roster of homebrew suppliers in the region. They can be a great source of judges, stewards, and volunteer workers as well as entries. We can be a vital clearinghouse of information regarding upcoming competitions. Hey, it doesn't have to be "either/or!" 5) Stand-alone software idea is another good one. Surely with all these computer "groupies" we can come up with something workable. I know that we have one from the Dixie Cup that we would be willing to share. 6) As far as financing, the $1 per update issue has been a thorny one for a number of years between the AHA and HWBTA. An important question that we need to address is, "How are we going to finance this new independent program?" I don't believe that we can successfully operate and promote the BJCP with funding solely from new exam fees (along with those few "re-takes") and the nominal sanctioning fee from competition recognition. The "buck-per-experience-point-update" is just one, but certainly not the only, means of providing operating expenses for the program. The Dixie Cup ends up using over 100 judges, stewards, organizers, etc. and this "buck-a-pop" approach seems very expensive to us, too. On the other hand, however, it doesn't seem fair for the Dixie Cup to get off for the same sanctioning fee as a small regional competition with 75 - 100 entries and 15 or 20 judges and stewards, either! The amount of time for data entry for the Dixie Cup would be several times that required for that small regional competition. Perhaps a compromise would be in order. How about a graduated scale of sanctioning fees depending upon the size of the competition (number of entries and/or judges and stewards)? These are just a few ideas that I've been kicking about lately. I would more than welcome your input, especially with regard to the upcoming election. If you wish to email me, use jeffg at rice.edu for the time being. (At least until I get my own internet account set up!) Thanks for letting me bend your ear. Scott Birdwell Houston TX - ----------end Scott's message---------- ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************