Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 01:10:01 -0500
Message-Id: <199603010610.BAA01294 at synchro.com>
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 #1225 (Feb 29, 1996)

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

JudgeNet Digest #1225                              Thu 29 Feb 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:

  Sanctioning Fees                         (Steve Moore)
  0.1 points / beer                        (Mike Lelivelt)
  Re: Point Recordation and the Like       (Tom Leith)
  Re: BJCP fees                            (Steve Casselman)
  Bad scoresheets, my submission           (korz)
  Re: Bad scoresheets                      (Rick Larson)

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

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 22:23:49 -0600
From: Steve Moore <stevem at phoenix.net>
Subject: Sanctioning Fees

Bob Paolino sez:
> 
> Flat rate?  No way!  One problem I saw before with the AHA fee was that it
> _was_ a flat rate.  You paid $40 whether you had 30 entries or 300 entries,
> even though the competition entry fee revenue is ten times as high, given the
> same per entry charge.  For that 30-entry competition and a $4 entry fee,
> sanctioning eats up 1/3 of the revenue, leaving only $80 for postage, copying,
> ribbons, lunch for judges, and everything else.  That same $40 is a tiny
> fraction of the revenue for the 300-entry competition.  Long ago in this forum
> I proposed a graduated scale for sanctioning fees depending on the size
> (number of entries) of the competition.  The buck-a-judge scale may not be
> perfect, but larger competitions do require more judges than smaller ones, so
> it's not a bad approximation.  If you had 190 entries and we had 75 entries,
> you _should_ (and can better afford to) pay more to record the points for 190
> entries' worth of judges.

When I ran a large contest (Dixie Cup '94), I did not find that we benefitted 
from economies of scale. In fact, It's somewhat the opposite. With a 75 or 100 
entry contest, you can just round up all the local judges and get the job done 
in one day. When you've got 400-600+ entries, you need to spend more money on
 promotion and special events in order to attract judges from other cities or 
even out-of-staters. Sure we had more entry revenue, but we were on the hook 
for a large hall in which to hold the thing, a room for the conference, Fred 
Eckhardt's beer tasting, keeping people fed for 2 days, a refridgerated truck 
for several days, and other stuff I'm probably not remembering.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 07:57:38 -0500
From: lelivelt at med.unc.edu (Mike Lelivelt)
Subject: 0.1 points / beer

In JND 1223, Fred Hardy said,

> BTW, he survived the barleywines and went on to sit on the BoS panel.

That he would be me.  I survived but it took a six pack of SN Bigfoot (a
rare find in NC with a 6% law) to recalibrate my palette after 6 or 7
horrible Barleywines & Old Ales.  I thought Fred was trying to punish me.
So since judging bad beers is less enjoyable than good beers, I propose
that we vary the experience points inversely with the score given.  We
could debate whether this should vary on a linear or log scale, else we
could contract for a topologist to define some new distribution.

But seriously, the database people (myself included) can barely keep track
of the point system we have now.  And people are suggesting a more complex
system?  We'd all be bugging Russ daily.  "No Russ, I judged 12 bitters
that day, not 11.  I'm only 0.1 points away from National. I need that
tenth of a point."

While I'm on the box (I don't get on often), a big problem in point
recording occurs when more BoS judges are on a panel then points can be
awarded.  For the good of the competition, I see no problem in having 4 or
5 judges at a 40 entry competition.  However, the organizer needs to inform
the judges who will be awarded points, and that they others should not
expect additional BoS points.  Then six months later, Mr, or Ms. BJCP judge
e mails the db person and says, "I judged BoS there."  This requires
digging up the organizer's report to convince the judge that the
competition was only allowed to give x BoS points away.

Now I'm going to go have one of Bob Paolino's beers and move to Madison WI
where there isn't a 6% law.  Sorry Fred, no CCO for me this year, Mike
Lelivelt

=====================================================================
Mike Lelivelt                                    lelivelt at med.unc.edu
Univ of North Carolina at Chapel Hill               919-408-0451 home
Dept of Microbiology & Immunology                 BJCP National Judge
=====================================================================


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

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 07:32:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Tom Leith <trl at wuerl.wustl.edu>
Subject:  Re: Point Recordation and the Like

Spencer Thomas Writes:
 
>How about a point per flight?  This addresses the issue of different
>sized flights (e.g., barleywine vs brown ale), while still recognizing
>the actual experience more proportionately.

I personally like this because experience is a function of both the number
of beers of a single type one critically evaluates AND the number of types
with which one has experience. The point-per-flight scheme addresses both
issues and keeps things simple.

How `bout "other" experience points? For example, I do quite a bit of 
judging at club-only competitions. There is essentially one flight of 
beer every second month to be judged. I'd been on the panel for two or 
three of these each year, so my "official" BJCP points understate my "real" 
experience by some fraction. Suppose the homebrew club played "organizer" 
and sent in the names & point recordation fee? Would this be something to 
consider???

	t

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

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 96 10:25:55 PST
From: sc at vcc.com (Steve Casselman)
Subject: Re: BJCP fees

> 2) The AHA puts out a decent enough packet of materials, but after you've seen
> it once (and can pass it on to a new organiser the next year) why continue to
> pay the $25 when the AHA does not have a judging program?  When they were a
> co-sponsor, it was a different story.  When you sign on with the BJCP,
> however, you're supporting the judge program.  Sanction with both if you think
> it's important to do so, but if you want to avoid the extra $25 or $40, stick
> with the BJCP.

If you run a compitition and you use anything out of the the AHA
package to do it (like the scoresheet) you should pay the AHA fee.
Otherwise this would be plagerism which gets people fired from
universities and other bad things. I look at it as flat out stealing.
But of course I don't count.

Steve Cassselman
(Does not reflect anyones thoughts but my own:)

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

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 96 10:51:20 CST
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com
Subject: Bad scoresheets, my submission


Here's my submission to the worst scoresheet competition:

Old Ale

Bouquet/Aroma: 6/10  Comments: "             <blank>                "
Appearance: 3/6      Comments: "head is tight, clear/light brown could/should
                                have been _darker_ brown"
Flavor: 9/19         Comments: "             <blank>                "
Body:   3/5          Comments: "a bit thin"
Drinkability: 6/10   Comments: "should have been maltier/darker brown   also
                                use hops of a lesser alpha sooner in the boil"

Total: 27/50

This was a Recognized judge at the 1995 AHA SECOND round!  Incidentally,
the hops were all East Kent Goldings and the colour was approximately 14 EBC.

The other judge was a National, scored it a 29/50 and only wrote 51 words,
23 of them in the drikability complaining about the hop variety I used,
how the hop aroma was incorrect for the style.


What's an entrant to do?  I feel something should be officially put in place
to handle this kind of garbage!

Are the Nationals a crap shoot?  I'll say... if you are lucky enough to get
a couple of judges that give a damn, you have a fair chance.  If you don't,
then you might as well save your $10 (don't forget shipping).

There's no doubt that the winners at the Nationals are good beers, but I'm
quite sure they are not always the best beers at the second round.

Al.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 14:42:00 -0600 (CST)
From: rick at adc.com (Rick Larson)
Subject: Re: Bad scoresheets

Do judges talk about each other's written comments per beer?

When I head a table and after we agree within a few points
on a score, I state my comments to the group.  I find this
not only helps me fill in the score sheet but gives the less
experienced judges some examples to use.

If the judge was at my table, I would have suggested to add
more info to the score sheet.  Maybe the head judge at the
table should be responsible for the flight.  "Hey Pete,
I know this one sucks, but suggest a way to make it better."

I have judged at tables where the score was agreed but
who knows what was written down.  Sure the beer scored
a 28 by all four judges but do they all agree?

Diaper-pail aroma and cheesey aroma are not caused by
the same thing.

rick
- -- 
Rick Larson                    rick at adc.com

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

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