From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Fri Mar 24 11:50:37 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["11695" "" "24" "March" "1995" "02:17:45" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "270" "JudgeNet Digest #1006 (Mar 24, 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 LAA18170; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 11:50:24 -0500 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.3) with SMTP id LAA17939; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 11:49:55 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA20743 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Fri, 24 Mar 95 11:49:33 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA21436 for ; Fri, 24 Mar 95 03:36:54 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA11516; 24 Mar 95 02:17:45 EST (Fri) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9503240217.AA11516 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1006 (Mar 24, 1995) Date: 24 Mar 95 02:17:45 EST (Fri) JudgeNet Digest #1006 Fri 24 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: Docking Points for No-Shows (Steve Hamburg) BJCC Elections (WALZENBREW) Wanted: FileMaker Pro volunteers (Chuck Cox) Fifth Annual March Mashfest _Results_ Available (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist)) Point Discrepencies (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist)) Minor correction to Clasic Am. Pilsner style (Jeff Renner) RE: points required for awards (uswlsrap) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 95 00:22 CST From: Steve Hamburg Subject: Re: Docking Points for No-Shows Although I'm rarely one to take such a hard-ass position, I actually think docking points is a pretty good idea! When a judge has committed to show up at an event and then doesn't, s/he can create many problems. Those of us who have been organizers and judge directors at competitions certainly understand how much work and difficulty is involved in plan- ning judging schedules and flight breakdowns. Not to mention such seem- ingly mundane matters as catering! For large events (like the AHA Nationals), a couple of no-shows can wreak havoc on the schedule, to the point of overburdening judges with extra flights and even additional days! At the very least, this is rude and selfish. Given the discussion of codes of conduct and quality assurance, I would think that living up to one's commitments is an obvious component. That's why I feel the real issue is not whether to dock points or not, but how such a policy is instituted. Certainly, we should be completely lenient about last-minute illnesses, family emergencies, and the inevitable car problem here and there. As long as a judge has the professionalism and courtesy to inform the organizers -- even if it's soon AFTER the event -- then points shouldn't be deducted. Otherwise, it's fair game. Some have expressed the concern that judges simply wouldn't commit if they thought there was a risk of getting docked. Well, a reasonable notification policy should allay those fears. Ultimately, even the best judges in the world are of little value if they don't show up. +--------------------+----------------------------+------------------+ | Steve Hamburg | Internet: shamburg at mcs.com | "Life is short, | | Chicago, Illinois | Phone: +1.312.878.0177 | and so are some | | USA | Fax: +1.312.878.0177 | brewers." | +--------------------+----------------------------+------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 10:07:50 -0500 From: WALZENBREW at aol.com Subject: BJCC Elections For the New BJCP to retain its integrity and credibility it needs to hold elections as soon as possible. I think most of us are in agreement as to this. However, I don't think that straight at-large elections are the way to go. I, for one, do not want a supposed "democratic" BJCC to wind up dominated by elected members from the east and west coasts. I feel there is a high likelihood that this is what will occur if elections are done on a national level rather than on a regional basis. It would be better to form a regional structure now, and hold elections for regional officers and regional reps to the BJCC at the same time, as has been suggested by some. At the very least, some method to guarantee regional representation must be incorporated into the election structure. I'm afraid that unless some method is made to prevent any one or two areas from gaining dominance, areas like the south and midwest (my area) and Canada will be seriously underrepresented on the BJCP national organization. If this is to be a truly democratic organization, this *must not happen*. If the feeling is to go with national elections, then divide up the country into four districts plus Canada, and say that a guaranteed, same number of BJCC members (one or two from each district) will be elected to serve on the Council. In my opinion (and I'm not alone), I would have little incentive to support a supposed democratic organization dominated by people from the east and west coasts. Greg Walz Pittsburgh PA WALZENBREW at aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 95 12:27:26 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Wanted: FileMaker Pro volunteers Are there any FileMaker Pro "experts" out there who would be willing to provide advice and/or programming assistance with the BJCP database? I have an immediate need to get a geographic summary of the membership (i.e. membership counts by state/province), but don't see how to do that easily. Since it is likely that the database administration chores will soon be distributed geographically, I expect that we will need to develop some scripts to allow database additions and updates to be sent via email. If you can help me with my immediate need or are willing to volunteer to help with possible database automation in the future, please contact me directly at chuck at synchro.com. - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 11:14:54 -0700 (MST) From: walter at lamar.ColoState.EDU (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist)) Subject: Fifth Annual March Mashfest _Results_ Available Howdy, Results from the March Mashfest have been posted to the HBD and MLD. If you don't subscribe to these forums (fora??) just request one from me. Judging sheets will be mailed Friday March 24th, with prizes to follow (for the winners ;). We had 142 entries this year. Just 8 shy of those 2 more organizing points. We'll try harder next year. Thanks for entering and a big thanks for those who helped judge. We actually had too many judges! Going into the Saturday sessions we had 18 BJCP or experienced (mostly BJCP) judges for 6 tables. And then there were the 8 or so apprentices! And you think the program is falling apart ;^> Brian J Walter Chemistry Graduate Student walter at lamar.colostate.edu RUSH Rocks Best Homebrewer & AHA/HWBTA Beer Judge (Whatever that means ;^> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 11:26:51 -0700 (MST) From: walter at lamar.ColoState.EDU (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist)) Subject: Point Discrepencies Howdy, I just posted the results from our competition. Several people have suggested that the scores of the winning beers be posted with the results. I agree with this, in priciple. The reason I didn't do it is as follows: We had several categories large enough for two rounds. We handle this as most competitions do. The beers are split into two flights and judged by separate panels (at the same time). Each panel passes on the top three beers (no need to rank them). A panel consisting of judges from the two first round panels is assembled to determine 1st, 2nd and 3rd from the six beers passed on. No scoresheets are filled out at this time. It's basically a BOS type judging. When different panels of judges judge the same category there is going to be some differences in scoring. A beer that is scored 30 by one panel may have been scored 37 if the other panel judged it. Thus, there is the distinct possibility that the winning beer may not have the highest score. I understand this. You understand this. But many contestants do not. As this did happen in our competition we decided not to post the scores. Has anyone come up with a solution to this problem? I would like to post scores but don't want to answer the questions of 30 brewers saying hey, I got a XX on my beer and ... Good Day, - --bjw Brian J Walter Chemistry Graduate Student walter at lamar.colostate.edu RUSH Rocks Best Homebrewer & AHA/HWBTA Beer Judge (Whatever that means ;^> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 13:51:25 -0500 (EST) From: Jeff Renner Subject: Minor correction to Clasic Am. Pilsner style In my previous post on proposed American Classic Pilsner styles, I said: > I propose two divisions: Pre-prohibition, OG 1.150 - 1.060, 25 - 40 IBU; > post prohibition, OG 1.044-1.049. 20 - 20 IBU. ^^^^^^^^^^^ I meant, 20 - 30 IBU. So how does a new style get adopted, anyway? Especially now, with the AHA/HWBTA split? Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 22:22:08 EST From: uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Subject: RE: points required for awards Before I get to the subject, let me congratulate Tracy Waldon for the quote of the day: "I think you've taken the medieval part of the Guild too far, Bruce." Tom Clifton raises the old thread about minimum scores for various award levels (remember the AHA brown ale thaaang?): I'd certainly feel uneasy about giving a first place ribbon to a beer that didn't get out of the 20's, but I don't think establishing minima above the basic 25 is the way to go. If it's not worthy of a first place, just don't give one--not on the basis of the score, but on what the beer tastes like and how well it resembles the style (I hope the two would be correlated, anyway :-) ). Given that few judges use the entire scale (how often do you give 40+?), 40 would be way too high a standard for a first place. Well, what about 35? Okay, then what do you do about that 33 beer that one judge just didn't agree was quite as good as you thought it was? If you want to use 30 as the standard you have in the back of your mind, fine. Discuss not giving a first place, but consider it VERY carefully before you withhold the award. But don't set a rigid standard that takes that discretion away. That's actually the easier part of the question. Tom also suggests a 30 point minimum for a second place. Suppose you have that one great beer, and the rest are pretty mediocre. Drinkable, exemplifying the style in some respects, et cetera, but still only a 28. I think it seems a lot more awkward to award a 1st and a 3rd, with no 2nd than to do just 2nd and 3rd because you have nothing worthy of a 1st, or just 1st and 2nd because the next one is lower than 25. If you set a rigid standard, you're going to have the inevitable case that makes you want to make an exception. Let the judges, perhaps in conjunction with the organiser, use their discretion. 25 is a reasonable standard for the award/no-award decision--you're saying that the beer has to exemplify the style and be free of extreme faults to receive an award of any kind--but above that, you're looking at a comparisons among beers of varying degrees of acceptability. Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino / Disoriented in Badgerspace / uswlsrap at ibmmail.com - ---THE INTERNET: Hardwiring the neurons of the global brain:--- One geek at a time.... - --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************