From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Thu Apr 13 03:37:19 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["12494" "" "13" "April" "1995" "02:17:26" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "284" "JudgeNet Digest #1020 (Apr 13, 1995)" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2) with X.500 id DAA11035; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 03:37:17 -0400 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2) with SMTP id DAA11030; Thu, 13 Apr 1995 03:37:16 -0400 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA25767 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Thu, 13 Apr 95 03:37:12 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA05557 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 95 03:33:18 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA27729; 13 Apr 95 02:17:26 EST (Thu) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9504130217.AA27729 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1020 (Apr 13, 1995) Date: 13 Apr 95 02:17:26 EST (Thu) JudgeNet Digest #1020 Thu 13 Apr 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: Being Obstructionist (McKee Smith) Re: 1st Round - Chicago - 2nd Call (spencer) judging for points (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Judging Points (Rob Reed) AHA Bashing (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 11:03:27 -0500 (EST) From: McKee Smith Subject: Being Obstructionist <> Chuck, Don't you think you are being a bit extreme here? I have served on a lot of committees with a number of different organizations and simply voting "no" is not obstructionist. Even voting "no" on a subject you feel is "constructive" is not necessarily obstructionist - -- the person could either a.) have a different, and potentially better, idea on how to do something, or b.) might not want to be "constructive" in the same direction. In either case, it is simply wrong to throw out these "proactive," "neutral" and "obstructionist" labels without knowing what the discussion was leading up to the vote and EXACTLY what is was they were voting on! While they probably should be better in reporting back to the BJCP membership, I doubt any of the volunteer committee members intended to spend their time writing email to defend every vote! Let's allow them the flexibility to set-up the very basic structure needed to hold the first election. Then the elected members can represent us in putting together a more responsive BJCP. McKee Smith - ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 95 11:21:38 EDT From: spencer at med.umich.edu Subject: Re: 1st Round - Chicago - 2nd Call Dennis Davison wrote about 1st Round - Chicago - 2nd Call: > April 28th & 29th. Midwest Invitational Brew-Off. Lot's O Beer and Lot's O > Fun. A friend received his brew-off kit recently. Looks like a fun one. About 8 lbs of assorted grain, 3 different kinds of hops (one at 16%AA!). The brewer can add another lb of grain of his/her own choice, and *must* add *one box of breakfast cereal*!!! The choice of yeast is also up to the brewer. I forsee some interesting combinations. How about Count Chocula Porter Fruit Loops Lambic (well, not really time for this, but...) Breakfast of Champions Weizen I can't wait! =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 95 09:49:00 -0500 From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: judging for points Regarding the issue of judging only for points, I'd like to offer my opinion on the value of points/titles/rank. Two years ago, I was judging in the 1st round of the Nationals and at that time, I had the rank of Certified. I was paired with a National rank judge and an Apprentice judge. The National judge naturally was the head judge and ran the show. He proclaimed that our most important task was to find the top three beers and that the best way to do this was to first open and pour all 12 beers, tasting them just to find the best three. After that, we would assign scores to the top three beers and then fill out all the forms to make the numbers work out right. I did not feel that this was right, but did not have the guts to question this method of judging. Afterwords, when I thought about what I had done and been a part of, I was ashamed that I had not called over the organizer to mediate this situation. I did not even put up any opposition! As a result of this incident, I pledged to do four things: 1. always put the judging of the beer 1st -- it is far worse to misjudge a brewer's beer than to mis-assign a ribbon, 2. never underestimate the opinions of less-senior judges -- i.e. don't fall into the trap of thinking that rank guarantees superior judging skills, 3. be wary of the possibility that my rank might intimidate a less-senior judge -- make less-senior judges feel comfortable about speaking their opinions, and 4. have more points than that one National judge next time we judge together -- okay, so I'm not proud of this last pledge, but what the heck... I'm only human. Well, this last Sunday, at the 7th Evanston 1st Competition (not a typo), I got the opportunity to follow-up on pledges 2 and 3 (I have followed pledge #1 every time I've judged). I was judging with an Apprentice judge and we had some divergent opinions. So I initiated a dicussion about the style, talked about some commercial examples we had both tried and found common ground from which to work. From there, we completed the flight with far less variation in scores. When we tallied the scores my 1 and 2 beers had scores of 37 and 35 and the Apprentice's scores on these two beers were 34 and 36, respectively. I was tempted to pull rank, but resisted. This judge was rather unconfident and would not have put up a fight. Although there was very little left in the bottles, I poured a little more for each of us and we compared the two beers, side-by-side. In the end, I agreed with the Apprentice and adjusted my scores to reverse the ranking of the beers. I feel that as judges we should all try to follow these pledges (well, 1 through 3 anyway) and be a good example to less-senior judges. While I could have just as easily taken a similar attitude to that one National judge, I in stead, chose to take the opposite and I think that the brewers of the beers I've judged have benefitted because of it. Al. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 16:07:18 -0400 (CDT) From: Rob Reed Subject: Judging Points Bill Giffin writes: > Point or not the purpose of the program is to help our > friends judge competitions and to try to improve the homebrewed beer by > giving good feedback to the brewers as well as have a good time in the process. > You can't define the purpose of the program for other judges. There are a myriad of reasons people judge in competitions: many enjoy honing their tasting skills, or enhancing their knowledge of beer styles and brewing defects, talking about beer, hanging out with other brewers, etc. Certainly the reasons you state are noble, but all individuals don't necessarily share your vision on the motivations for judging. > I think that if you are in this hobby only for the points and > nothing else matters to you as seemed to be the case for one of our fellow > judges perhaps you should stay away from all competitions. If you are only > chasing points I don't know if I would even want you to come judge any > competition I have entered or organized!!! Is it realistic to assume that because a judge inquires about points that he is merely *chasing points* and nothing else matters? Are you suggesting that if a judges' beliefs and expectations are different than yours, that he should not offer his services for competitions? Rob Reed ------------------------------ Date: 12 Apr 95 10:20:00 -0500 From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: AHA Bashing Before I begin, I'd like to point out that I'm a volunteer worker for the AHA -- I'm a technical editor for Zymurgy, so you may feel that I'm biased in favor of the AHA. Perhaps, but I do try to be objective as much as I can. Read on. Bill writes: > What is the AHA going to do for us? Did the AHA give a clear and >precise reason for their withdrawing from the program? Do you trust the >AHA? Who is the AHA more concerned about its "members" or the >advertisers who provide them with the nice large bottom line? Their bottom line is zero, I'm afraid. After all the salaries are paid, the organization has nothing left -- they are indeed, non profit. If you are expecting member services like the AMA or IEEE or ADA then you had better be prepared to pay $100+ per year, not the $29 (or $33) that the AHA is asking for. >example the classic beer series books are sold to the members now at the >retail price with no discount. I as a homebrew supply shop can buy >these same books from my wholesalers for $6.50 or $7.00; are you as a >member being ripped off I think so. And then you turn around and sell them for what, $6.75... $7.25. Of course not. You, of all people, should know the costs involved in running a business. I've spoken to Elizabeth Gold, the head of Brewer's Publications regarding book prices and she says that they would rather not do direct sales at all -- that part of their business is a money loser. They actually make a little profit only on the wholesale distribution side. It is a matter of paying someone to take orders, someone to box one or two books, pay for the box, handle the billing, etc. I believe that less than 20% of their books are sold direct. > The AHA did not give a very good reason for dropping out of the >program. If they want out OK but don't give us a lot chuck and jive. >The rumor has it that the real reason that the AHA dropped out was that >Karen hated one of the members of the BJCC guts. I don't believe that I >think they are only in it for the money! If the AHA is the only game in >town I see fees going up with out any more services. I don't think it is money, but power rather, that is their driving force on this issue. (Well, so much for me being labeled an appologist for the AHA). I don't think they handled the BJCP pullout well and agree that they don't do enough to poll and follow the wishes of their membership. >If they really cared about the members >they would do a better job editing the magazine. I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Indeed, in the past, the error count in Zymurgy was sickening, but that's why I volunteered to help out. I feel that since I've started helping out, the error count has dropped to below five per issue. If you have not read Zymurgy since 1993, then you have not read Zymurgy. If you still believe that the editing is lacking please contact me off-line and we can discuss this in further detail. The real bottom line is that nobody is getting rich at the AHA desipte a great deal of work by volunteers. Frankly, I don't think that AHA is a member-focused organization and have often argued with the leadership over points that would make it more member-driven. If you have a better general-purpose homebrewing organization to offer, then send me some information, till then, you tell me what possible benefit your spleen-venting can do other than clog JudgeNet with negative attitudes. Bill then writes: >representatives has been announced and we are moving forward. WE DO NOT >NEED MORE THEN ONE JUDGE ORGANIZATION IN THE COUNTRY!! If the BJCP falls >rest assure that the Guild will be there for all the judges. and: > I support the BJCP with its faults way above the AHA with its >tree hugging approach to every thing. I do at this time agree with CP >and this is about the only time Relax don't worry have a homebrew, in >this time of MADD a pretty stupid slogan, and wait for the BJCP to get >its act together because I believe they will and they are the only ones >other then the Guild that give a damn about you as a judge. May the >wind be always at you back, If you support the BJCP and believe we do not need more than one judge organization in this country, then why are you advertizing the Guild? I have and will continue to support the BJCP and was in support of the Guild, but after your post Bill, I'm very skeptical about it. Al. ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************