From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Tue Apr 18 03:50:16 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["30983" "" "18" "April" "1995" "02:18:52" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "730" "JudgeNet Digest #1023 (Apr 18, 1995)" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2) with X.500 id DAA25695; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 03:50:13 -0400 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.12/2.2) with SMTP id DAA25690; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 03:50:10 -0400 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA28860 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Tue, 18 Apr 95 03:49:59 -0400 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA17995 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 95 03:37:58 -0400 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA25793; 18 Apr 95 02:18:52 EST (Tue) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9504180218.AA25793 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1023 (Apr 18, 1995) Date: 18 Apr 95 02:18:52 EST (Tue) JudgeNet Digest #1023 Tue 18 Apr 1995 JudgeNet 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 Anti-Prohibitionists may also be interested in LiBeerty: The Libertarian Beer Digest Subscription info: libeerty-request at synchro.com Contents: Call for Judges - Eastern PA (Terry Terfinko) Regional DB volunteers (Chuck Cox) Big and Huge....more information (uswlsrap) Nomination & Election Rules (Norman Dickenson) BJCP Database (Norman Dickenson) Lost Judges (Chuck Cox) RE: points, points, points (uswlsrap) AHA "paperwork" for points (James Spence) judging for points/ comments on the program ("David Sapsis") BJCP Update/Elections ("Rad Equipment") BJCP Update/Elections Time:8:29 AM Date:4/17/95 country/state breakdown (Chuck Cox) Re: points for judging at the AHA Nationals - no reply yet (STROUDS) Method of determining winners in the upcoming elections, FYI (STROUDS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Apr 95 7:18:22 EDT From: Terry Terfinko Subject: Call for Judges - Eastern PA Call for Judges Eastern PA Competition: Once again it's time for the Moon Madness Beer Competition being held May 20, 1995 at Douglassville Hotel located in Douglassville, Pa. The contest is being sponsored by the Boys From Brew Ha Ha, Ltd. of Fleetwood (formerly Pottstown). We invite you to judge in our annual competition. The judging will begin at 10:00 a.m. Saturday, May 20th. Lunch will be served around noon. We would like to have all judges registered and ready to start by 9:45 a.m. You can register by Email (terfintt at ttown.apci.com) or phone (610-944-0500). When you register, please state your category preference, BJCP status, and contact information. Douglassville Hotel is located 25 miles NW of Philadelphia on Rt 422, 4 miles west of Rt 100. Please call if you need additional directions. We look forward to having you take part in the Madness with us! Brew Ha Ha is also sponsoring a judges exam on Sunday, May 21st. A "Cram Session" will be held Saturday, May 13th around 7:00 p.m. Both the cram course & judge exam will be given at the store in Fleetwood. If you would like to take the exam, please call (610-944-0500) by Saturday, May 6th. Terry Terfinko, Judge Coordinator Randy & Kathy Martin, Contest Coordinators ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 95 10:56:29 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Regional DB volunteers Here is the list of folks who have volunteered to be a regional database administrator. If you volunteered but are not not on the list, let me know. If you are on the list but don't want to be, let me know. Volunteer database administrators must have reliable fax and email access as well as a computer with a database package and a meg or two of free disk space. I expect that the job will involve an hour or two of work per week. If you are listed below but can't commit to volunteer for a year, please let me know. In those regions with multiple volunteers, I will select the adminstrator with the most experience in the BJCP. I expect to select the regional administrators later this week and start delegating responsibilities to them immediately. As you can see, I still need volunteers for the Gulf Coast and West regions. NORTHEAST: Kieran O'Connor, C, NY, koconnor at mailbox.syr.edu MID-ATLANTIC: Mark Stevens, R, MD, stevens at stsci.edu John DeCarlo, C ,VA, jdecarlo at mitre.org GULF COAST: (FL, TX, LA, AR, OK, MS) NONE SOUTHEAST: Mike Lelivelt, C, NC, mjl at uncvx1.oit.unc.edu MIDWEST: Rick Larson, C, MN, rick at adc.com Spencer Thomas, C, MI, spencer at umich.edu Lee Bussy, C, KS, leeb at southwind.net Ed Westemeier, N, OH, hopfen at iac.net Steve Hamburg, N, IL, shamburg at mcs.com MOUNTAIN/NORTHWEST: Brian Walter, C, CO, walter at lamar.colostate.edu Bob Devine, C, WA, rdevine at microsoft.com Darryl Richman, M, WA, darrylri at microsoft.com WEST: (CA, NV, HI) NONE - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 10:53:52 EDT From: uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Subject: Big and Huge....more information For everyone who has asked about Madison's 9th Annual Big and Huge (May 13) the entry packets and judge registration forms went out last week in our monthly bulk mailing. If you requested one individually, you should have it by midweek. If you're in a club, be sure to "badger" the person who picks up your club's mail (all AHA-registered clubs in the midwest, and a sampling of clubs elsewhere receive our mailings). If you're a newsletter editor and the timing works, please include a listing of the event for your readers. Prize sponsors: can't mention names in a non-commercial forum, of course, but prizes will range from the basics (malt, hops) to things that will measure temperature on the side of a fermenter and things that will help you measure the colour of your finished beer. A recent additional sponsor added too late to be mentioned in the entry packet means that one lucky and talented brewer or brewster will receive a 50-pound sack of two-row shipped directly from the maltster to his or her door! There will probably also be a variety of prizes of glassware, t-shirts, and other cool stuff in addition to the ribbons. If you'd like to enter or to judge, drop me a note and we'll get a packet (the paper kind) right out to you. Out-of-town judges will have an opportunity to sample the fermented wonders of the Madison area's many craft brewers! 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.... - --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 08:08:32 -0700 From: Norman Dickenson Subject: Nomination & Election Rules Nomination & Election Rules Scott Bickham asked some good questions on a previous digest issue which deserve an answer. To clarify the nomination rules for the BJCP regional elections, the rules state that 10 signatures from participating judges are required toget on the ballot. The BJCC deliberately did not elaborate with pages and pages of rules so that there would not be obstacles to getting people to run. Thus, your's or anyone else's interpretation of the written rules should be considered valid. MY personal interpretation is that ENDOSEMENTS in the form of a signature are required. They don't have to all be on a single sheet, they can be 10 letters, they can be faxed, they can be a printed e-mail message, or whatever! The current at-large delegates who were recently appointed (myself included) WILL NOT continue on the BJCC after the elections. In MY opinion, since it is not defined in any election rules, any judge can nominate ALL of his/her friends as a candidate for a regional representative. I think the only qualifyer is that a judge can nominate only persons within his/her own region. As with any organization, common courtesy suggests that if you want to nominate someone, you should ask that person if it's OK. It really seems that the onus of responsibilty to get on the ballot belongs to the person who wants to be on the ballot. Norman Dickenson BJCC At-Large Delegate ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 08:43:00 -0700 From: Norman Dickenson Subject: BJCP Database BJCP Database Chuck Cox, who has received a copy of the BJCP Database from the AHA appears willing to begin updating and improving it's data and functionality. He said: This is a good opportunity to remind you folks that if you have moved within the past couple of years, it is a good idea provide notice of your new address. Otherwise, you're not going to hear from the BJCP for a while and won't get a chance to vote. Using several friends of mine in California as samples, I am extrapolating that the data base has not been maintained properly. These judges in question have moved within the past 1 1/2 years and have subsequently judged at several AHA sanctioned competitions. At these competitions, they provided on the official AHA judge registration form their new addresses. You would think that the competition organizers report to the AHA, which lists all of the judges for whom points are to be awarded and which requires that mailing address of each judge, would be used to update the database's mailing addresses. Apparently not, for these persons did not receive either the letter from the AHA withdrawing from the BJCP or the letter from the BJCP announcing the election of a new committee. If you or someone you know didn't receive the two letters mentioned, please contact Chuck, myself, or any other member of the BJCC so you will get the opportunity to vote for the representative of your choice. -norman- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 95 13:19:07 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Lost Judges Here is a list of active judges for whom we no longer have a valid address. If you know the current address for any of the following judges, please send it to data at bjcp.synchro.com. Thanks. LAST FIRST RANK CITY STATE --------- ------- ---------- ------ -- Barker Fred Recognized Albany NY Biggs Steve Recognized Content Stephen Recognized Harms Don Certified Hawkins Thomas Recognized Holestad Chad N/A Jaben Aaron Recognized MacGuire James Recognized Montreal PQ Marsh Dan Recognized Philip John H. Recognized Pond Joyce N/A Pond Ward Certified Pryor Diane N/A Pzena Jeff Certified Shirkness Richard N/A Singiser James Recognized Sturmer Jeb Certified Wood Paul Recognized Wright Dorothy N/A Yarbrough Claibe Recognized - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 13:14:58 EDT From: uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Subject: RE: points, points, points Greg Walz offers a reasoned defence of his concern about points. I don't agree with _everything_ he says, but what he says about taking judging seriously, indeed, as work, is something that we should all keep in mind. A few remarks in direct response to Greg: GW>Getting to the meat of the issue: Yes, I'd be reluctant to spend $100-$200+ GW>and go out of my way to judge a competition ....[without compensation| - --->I dont think I'd spend $100-200 (excluding any assignment of monetary value to my time, of course) to judge any competition, points or not. Maybe I'm fortunate to live someplace where I can find a competition within a three or four hours' driving radius just about any weekend during the peak season. Others may indeed find that they have to travel at greater expense to find places to judge. It's hard to imagine that Pittsburgh is that isolated, though. I try to keep it down to every _other_ weekend, but do judge frequently (so much, unfortunately, that it's cut into my brewing opportunities this year :-( ), in part because I appreciate when people make the trip to judge our competitions. It's also an opportunity to sharpen evaluation skills and have a good time with people who share a common interest. GW>Judging is WORK, ladies and gentlemen, and should be treated that way. If GW>you're one of the unfortunate few I've seen now and then who treat it as a GW>free all-day drinking session and social event you shouldn't be judging. - --->Fortunately, I haven't encountered any judge who looked upon judging as an all-day drinking session and I agree there's no place for that sort of thing. (I hope he took my "we're here for the beer" remark in context :-) I meant, of course, that we're there because we are promoting our interest in homebrewing. I suspect that it was pretty clear in context.) Frankly, it's hard to imagine anyone who has judged to look at it as a drinking session; we've all had our share of beers that we've wanted to spit out. And when we get them, we need to do our best to attempt to identify the problem and suggest possible remedies. Furthermore, if possible, we need to do what we can to identify good points, hard as it may be in some instances. We fall short of that sometimes, sure, but I don't think anyone who was expecting to drink free beer all afternoon would stick around very long after seeing the unpleasant side. I'm much more concerned about some of the judges I _do_ sometimes encounter who arrogantly insist that they are experts and *uck what anyone else says. GW>Taking the attitude that judging is work means that I will do ....[anything] GW>to guarantee that the entrant gets the best evaluation that he can from me. GW>Any less is cheating the brewer (and ultimately myself). - --->AGREED!! That's why I disagreed with the "I won't judge if I dont get points" post. If experienced judges don't show for the NHC this year, it will be the entrants--most of whom entered with no idea about the AHA-BJCP flap--who suffer if the competition sites end up using, excuse the analogy, "replacement judges." _Next_ year may be another story. If nothing acceptable emerges from the current situation (and that includes the possibility, as much as some people would hate to admit it, that the AHA may indeed come up with a credible program. Their withdrawal certainly places the burden of proof upon themselves to show that they are worthy of our support, but I'm willing to hear them out), and homebrewers have time to get the word that the whole thing might be a sham, THEN a boycott is a defencible argument. If it turns out that the reconstituted BJCP is the only reputable judge program, then we should be thinking about what Bruce says about a contractural arrangement for judging services between the AHA and the BJCP. Greg continues with an endorsement of the certification and point system as a measure of (unpaid) "professionalism," with which I find little disagreement. Probably my only (minor) disagreement is the fact that after a certain point, one does not receive any recognition for additional points (and, more importantly, the information it conveys to an organiser who does not know a particular judge is limited). One ought to be able to advance with some partial substitution of points for exam score. That is, with a given exam score you now move up once you reach a certain number of points but can go no farther regardless of experience. For example, it takes a score of 70 and 5 points to go from R-->C. If you passed with a lower score you can never go above R unless you find an exam offered nearby at a workable time and want to shell out the bucks. Perhaps a 60-70 score and 10 points (instead of 5) should advance a judge. Obviously, there are limits; someone with a score in the 60s or 70s should have to re-test successfully to move on to Master, but below that very high level there ought to be some way to (borrowing Greg's work analogy) substitute experience for formal education. Greg continues and confirms my speculation about part of what he _really_ meant: GW>By the way, my statement about not judging at a non-point competition was GW>framed in frustration with what's happening with the whole judging program GW>and the AHA's attitude in particular. I'd easily judge a non-sanctioned GW>competition if I knew the organizers or felt it was a worthwhile endeavor But then he says.... GW>I enter beers in competitions because I want to win ribbons. GW> Similarly, I judge competitions because I want to earn points. GW> OK, to some of you this may seem a bit backwards, but this is GW>the way I do it and it works just fine for me, thank you. - --->I won't question your motivations and rewards--as you said, if it works, fine.... Sure, I like to win ribbons. But I'll often enter a beer that I _know_ isn't going to win anything, but is an interesting enough beer that I want to get a qualfied blind judging (and hope that I will get qualified judges, and that it is presented properly, et cetera) Points? Sure, if I'm supposed to get points, I want them recorded accurately. But if I go into a competition knowing I won't get points, it doesn't detract from the feeling of accomplishment, well-being, camaraderie, and all the rest. I don't need something to hang on a wall to get that satisfaction and sense of accomplishment. GW>My first 10 points cost an average of $100 a point. Would I GW> have judged these competitions without points? Probably not. - --->I'm sorry to hear that, on both counts. GW>Judging is WORK. Let's not forget this. - --->AGREED! 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.... - --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 11:13:40 -0600 From: James Spence Subject: AHA "paperwork" for points Regarding Steve Stroud's request for a commitment from the AHA to provide the BJCP with the paperwork necessary to record BJCP experience points for judging in the National Homebrew Competition. The AHA will, of course, be happy to provide whatever documentation the BJCP so desires. James ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 95 10:12:46 CST From: "David Sapsis" Subject: judging for points/ comments on the program Greg Walz's recent testimonial in #1022, defending his reasoning for judging, as well as to the robust nature of the BJCP system offers a good outline for my (fwtw) opinions. On a point by point basis made: 1)"Judging is Work". I maintain that judging beers in whatever capacity, but particularly in regard to formal evaluation of homebrew is not work at all. It is play; serious mind you, but play none the less. We are by definition entering ameteur beer, and are not judging for money or other substantive form of compensation as is the case in the common meaning of the word "work". The notion that to be serious and dedicated presumes work is spurious to me. Now if Greg chooses to not spend $100-200 to judge at a competition that doesn't offer what he considers proper compensation (points, whatever) and he chooses to not judge, more power to him. This is personal choice and I believe we are all in favor of it. 2) " Compensation is due". I argue that the only compensation I deserve is the joy I get out it. I can list a number of related features that offer me satisfaction in judging beer, and none of them add up to anything other than stuff that I like to do. I have (suposedly) a lot of experience points, which mean virtually nothing to me. If I was in the program I might feel different -- maybe more like Greg. My fear is that points ae becoming the end justifying the means of judging itself, not solid evaluation of beer. 3)"Points = sanctioning = well run". Well I don't know about you folks, but I have experienced no correlation between sanctioning and how well run (or judged for that matter) a competition is. Running a comp is a lot of work, has lots of constraints, and can be subject to a fair amount of uncertainty. The recent post about problems with serving beers too cold at Nationals speaks to the fact that sactioning does not really influence the quality with which a show is run. Our club recently had a mid-sized regional, and I took it upon myself to deliver beers at consistent and appropriate temperatures for the style. Its easier said than done, but I managed better than most competitions I've judged in. But sanctioning had no part in it -- its people that determine how well something works. 4) "The people who worked out the BJCP system with its points and test scores... geniuses who framed the Constitution". As I said, I fear that human nature is inheirently competitive, and that the point structure tends to deflect motivations away from evaluation of beer. Secondly, and more importantly, I feel that the nature of the BJCP is fundamentally flawed in how it approaches the two sides of the judging picture: what should it taste like, and what does it taste like. I personally feel that the tests are weighted far too heavily toward beer style definitions (that are by their very nature dynamic) and too lightly toward proper perception and cognition of flavors. I know many recently annointed BJCP judges that have serious problems identifying common problems in beers, but have no trouble reciting the style guidelines for Schwarzbier. To me, this strikes me as backwards. Style guidelines can be refreshed -- no need to memorize. Sensory evaluation needs to be fostered through repeated experience until its no longer a guessing game. The recent discussions about good judging requiring lots of helpful insight into problems identified applies here as well. Although I feel it is nice to offer some advice to remedy a given problem, it is, to me anyway, more important to properly identify the problem. There isn't all that much room on a score sheet, and if a person really wants to know what is causing the astringency in his/her beer, then they can persue it. As Jim Busch so correctly pointed out, a judge often offers up suggestions without knowing anything about the brewers set-up or process. Its hard to give solid and pertinent advice without this information. 5) "Someone who treats [judging] as work will admit [their faults] becuase (s)he is a professional and not a show-off". I don't know about this, and apparently neither does Greg. He goes on to cite instances where this in fact works in the opposite direction. In fact, he even proudly lays claim to his "bragging rights" achieved by attaining a given judge status. I have no problem with being proud of one's accomplishments in this game, as long as it is kept in perspective and it does not get in the way of the purpose: fair and accurate evaluation of beer. But does the fact that Greg spent $1000 gaining his first ten experience points somehow make his points more deserving than someone who only spent $300? Is not such as notion likely to lead to a heirarchical presumption that in turn leads one away from non-biased, open minded judging, and toward the intimidation that Greg, I, and presumably everybody else abhores? Remember, intimidation can be a subtle thing: "I've been at this a lot longer than you, so I think you should reevalute your perceptions" or " I've spent a whole lot more money learning to judge than you so you I think you should..." I am not implying that this is the case for Greg, I have no knowledge about how he carries on in judging. I do know, however, that I flatly disagree with the notion of adjusting scores based on round table discussions. To do so not only opens up the possibilty of said intimidation, but also out and out removes the independence of the judge's observations. A better learning model is to use only qualified judges scores count (no adjustments), and apprentice judges learn from discussions without having any material input into the scoring. In summary, I feel that the present system lends itself to deflecting away from the stated purpose of judging beers, and tends to foster the ego side personal interactions. Anything we can do to reinforce the notion that the real purpose of our efforts is "in the glass" and not "in the shoes" will be a step in the right direction. - --Dave Sapsis UC Widland Fire Research Laboratory ------------------------------ Date: 17 Apr 1995 11:12:46 U From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: BJCP Update/Elections Subject: BJCP Update/Elections Time:8:29 AM Date:4/17/95 The BJCC has held the following vote: Regional elections will be determined by simple plurality. The top vote getter in each region will take the seat. For: Steve, Gregg, Rob, John, Scott Against: Russ, Norman - ----- Here's some clarification on the regional nominating proceedure. The 10 signatures do not need to be on a single petition. Ten individual letters of nomination or endorsement may be hand delivered or mailed on behalf of a nominee. As long as they are in hand or postmarked by the close of nominations they will be considered. Both the Regional Election Volunteers and the BJCC will accept nomination material. If 10 people individually nominate the same person for election the BJCC will confirm the nominee's eligability and willingness to serve prior to including him or her on the ballot. There have been several requests from judges for an extension to the close of nominations. Since the BJCC has voted to accept a plurality vote to determine the elected delegate from each region, the odds of a run off election being necessary are greatly reduced. This gives us a little more time to accept nominations. The BJCC has yet to agree on an extension date but will announce it shortly. Meanwhile get nominations to us or to your regional election volunteer. The Regional Election Volunteers are as follows: Northeast - Charlie Olchowski et al (Valley Fermenters, Greenfield, MA) MidAtlantic - Rick Garvin Gulf Coast - Scott Birdwell (or designee) Southeast - Rick Lubrant Mountain - Gregg Smith West - Russ Wigglesworth/Norman Dickenson Midwest - (still working this one, probably Lee Bussey or Steve Hamburg) Steve Stroud is coordinating these volunteers. Endorsements/nominations can only come from judges within the same region as the nominee. All of the seven voting positions on the BJCC will be filled by elected delegates. Those currently serving as appointed delegates (including the newer at-large delegates) may decide to run for their regional seat. None of the current voting BJCC will be carrying over in their positions after the election unless they are voted in by their region. Continuity will be provided to the BJCC by the fact that I expect the appointed operatives of the program (Co-directors, Associate directors, etc) will remain in place to some extent and some of the appointed delegates will run (and no doubt gain election) in their regions. Also, those of us who have served previously but are not running will be available to serve on sub-committees, consult on historical issues and whatnot. - ----- I urge all of you to participate in the AHA First Round. I am sure there will be lots of discussion of the future of the various judging programs and BJCP regional nominees seeking endorsement. RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 95 17:41:33 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: country/state breakdown Here is a breakdown of active BJCP judges by country & state: COUNTRY STATE COUNT USA ?? 21 AK 12 AL 2 AZ 12 CA 178 CO 60 CT 15 FL 35 GA 24 HI 2 IA 6 ID 16 IL 40 IN 8 KS 30 KY 3 LA 10 MA 45 MD 20 ME 18 MI 20 MN 22 MO 27 MS 1 MT 1 NC 22 ND 12 NH 16 NJ 14 NM 12 NV 25 NY 122 OH 25 OK 2 OR 35 PA 60 RI 1 SC 4 SD 1 TN 19 TX 53 VA 31 VT 25 WA 45 WI 23 WV 1 Canada AB 24 BC 18 NS 3 ON 30 PQ 6 Antigua 1 England 2 Germany 1 Netherlands 1 TOTAL 1262 - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 18:41:59 -0400 (EDT) From: STROUDS at cliffy.polaroid.com Subject: Re: points for judging at the AHA Nationals - no reply yet You may remember my post from last Thursday in JudgeNEt # 1021. I reitereated the BJCP position that the BJCP would give experience points to judges who participate in the AHA Nationals this year _if_ the AHA submits paperwork to the BJCP Administrator in a timely and efficient manner, even if no filing fees for recording the points are paid. I also cc:ed Karen Barela and asked that she respond to JudgeNet directly, confirming that the AHA will commit to providing the BJCP with the appropriate paperwork to credit the participating judges. To date, I have seen not seen a response from Karen or anyone in the AHA in regards to this issue. Those of you who are planning on judging in the AHA Nationals and for whom the earning of points is important might want to inquire directly with Karen since she hasn't responded to my request for information on this issue. Perhaps she is on vacation. :-) Steve Stroud Ind. BJCC rep. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 18:48:10 -0400 (EDT) From: STROUDS at cliffy.polaroid.com Subject: Method of determining winners in the upcoming elections, FYI For your information, a vote was taken by the BJCC and it has been decided that the upcoming elections to select the new regional BJCC representatives will be determined by plurality, not majority. In other words, the top vote-getter in each region wins, regardless of whether or not that person garners more than 50% of the vote. An important argument in this decision is that a plurality election will allow a single vote. A required majority would probably have necessitated a run-off election in some (if not all) of the regions, adding significant $$ to the process. Steve Stroud Ind. BJCC rep. ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************