To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients)
From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator)
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet)
Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk
Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1196 (Jan 15, 1996)
Date: 15 Jan 96 01:17:14 EST (Mon)
Message-Id: <9601150117.AA02968 at synchro.com>


JudgeNet Digest #1196				   Mon 15 Jan 1996


                               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

        WWW Archives: http://www.umich.edu/~spencer/beer/judge

                 Editor: Chuck Cox <chuck at synchro.com>
             Archivist: Spencer Thomas <spencer at umich.edu>

      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

     For BJCP General Information contact: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com


Contents:
  ENTRY GUIDELINES PER SUBCATEGORY         (BrewsMead)
  Newsletter & Exams                       (Wolfe)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 06:48:14 -0800
From: BrewsMead at eworld.com
Subject: ENTRY GUIDELINES PER SUBCATEGORY


- ----------------------------- Begin Original Text
- -----------------------------

Brewers may enter more than one beer per
category, but only one beer per sub-category is allowed,

- ----------------------------- End Original Text -----------------------------


 GENTLEMAN ....... AND LADIES

Do we really have to limit brewers from sending different examples of their
chosen style into our competitions by this rule.   

I picked this up in Dan Halls ' post for the Boston HBC and wanted to keep
this discussion to us in NE at first but then decided it was more of a big
picture issue than our regional comps( which BTW ,I thought we had agreed to
allow more than 1 per substyle into)???

Dan can comment ,  as could Steve Stroud on our local agreements and refresh
my memory .....as I'm in a weakened state from heavy pharmaceuticals  but as
to my intent , it's open season on the concept. Is there a good reason why we
don't allow Jim Bob to enter the 6 different versions of his bitters recipe
for evaluation? ? ?

The phone lines are open and batteries are not included. Prices may vary and
all that jibberish!!!

With warm wet memories of that last gusher.......... BREWS 


------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 96 08:57:09 CST
From: Wolfe at act.org
Subject: Newsletter & Exams

I received a BJCP newsletter in the mail yesterday, and I'm glad to see
this addition to the communications.  It's a feature that was never offered
prior to the BJCP being independently administrated.  Thanks and
congratulations to the new administration.

There is one thing, however, that I want to bring up as an issue.  Of
course, it has to do with the Exam Format Changes article.  The article
states that making people retake both sections of the exam "means we don't
trust the validity and reliability of our exam."

I believe that "trust" is not what we want when talking about validity and
reliability of the exam--We should have "evidence" of its validity and
reliability.  Unfortunately, I suspect that there is NO evidence of the
test's validity and that there is only scanty evidence of its reliability.
If there is, then I this information should be made public so that the
members can evaluate it themselves.

I propose that the BJCP, like any other certification program, should make
an effort to evaluate the reliability, validity, and fairness of the BJCP
exam and to make this information available to BJCP members.  This
information will, in no way, jeapordize the security of the test, and it
can be produced fairly inexpensively.  No other certification group that I
know of requires an examination for membership but does not make this
information available to its members.

I would be happy to work with the exam director and to do donate my time to
collect the data and perform the analyses for such a project.

Ed Wolfe
wolfe at act.org


------------------------------


End of JudgeNet Digest
************************