Return-Path: owner-judge at synchro.com Received: from srvr8.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr8.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.81]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA02788 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 00:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.36]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA10346 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 00:27:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id AAA12190; Thu, 2 May 1996 00:27:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uu6.psi.com by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id AAA12184; Thu, 2 May 1996 00:27:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA21773 for ; Wed, 1 May 96 23:37:13 -0400 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16715 for judge-digest-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 23:10:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 23:10:01 -0400 Message-Id: <199605020310.XAA16715 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1265 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Wednesday, 1 May 1996 Volume 01 : Number 1265 ============================================================================ J u d g e N e t - t h e b e e r j u d g e d i g e s t ============================================================================ Moderator: Chuck Cox Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publisher: SynchroSystems Submissions: judge at synchro.com Administration: judge-request at synchro.com Archive: http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge BJCP info: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com ============================================================================ contents: thoughts about exam questions Re: Nitwit judges BJCP Realism Stewards Here's My Vote second guessing recipes Blame Re: Articles of Incorporation Ariticles of Incorporation Re: judge-digest V1 #1263 judge courtesy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Paolino Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 22:23:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: thoughts about exam questions I just read HBD this evening for the first time in quite a while, and I replied to someone who had questions about a beer he just brewed. Maybe I went overboard in replying, but it's been so long since I have, maybe it was just all building up. But doing that made me think about the BJCP exam. I've commented before on my scepticism about watering down the exam with multiple choice questions and the like. The response from the other side is that "essay" questions can be a problem for people who don't do well on exams. (Call 'em essays or not, but judging _does_ involve communicating to people _in writing_, not by checkmarks.) But the _kind_ of written question does make a difference, and maybe that's where we need to look. Many of the questions on the exam tend to reward people who can memorise and dump lots of information. But what if the some (or all?) questions were designed differently. We shouldn't be substituting multiple choice for written questions simply because of the unwarranted assumption that people who "don't test well" (and to some extent I'm probably one of them, albeit not to an extreme) also can't write. What if the questions sought responses to practical, problem- solving situations? The same person who has trouble memorising and regurgitating or who has test anxiety (who doesn't?) may do quite well responding to a practical problem. There were a number of issues in that brewer's HBD inquiry that may not have been immediately obvious even to the brewer who wrote it, but someone who identifies the issues and responds to them is displaying knowledge about brewing just as well as (or better than) someone who can memorise and dump. If you ask the question that way, many of those people who "don't test well" will have no problem with it if they possess the knowledge and can apply it. Comments? (I don't know when my HBD post will appear, but it was a response to the question about a barley wine. So, how would I score if that was an exam question and that was my answer? :-) Okay, so I'd lose points for excessive length ;-), but besides that.... Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino Madison rpaolino at earth.execpc.com You may now go back to your regularly-scheduled beer ------------------------------ From: Scott Bickham Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 06:39:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Nitwit judges John DeCarlo writes: > Let me just say that if Joanne was the steward for Fruit Beers on Sunday, > she helped considerably and gave us food for thought on occasion. I hope > she considers judging. I hope I wasn't rude when I disagreed in our > discussions. I don't know if Joanne was your steward, but she has already passed the BJCP exam and probably scored better than the "judges" who called her a steward. My impression was that she is still a little self-conscious about having the brewer read her comments, so at least in the large competitions, she opts to steward. Of course incidents like this don't help, but if I could get the names of the judges, I'd be happy to whip off a letter to them. Cheers, Scott ------------------------------ From: Fred Hardy Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:56:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: BJCP Realism I enjoyed Dennis' post because it was good news and some refreshing realism. The good news is that the BJCP and AHA are developing a working relationship. An argument could be made that neither one really needs the other, but that would overlook the realities of the matter. The realism is that the BJCP is a volunteer organization. I love the arguments of children that it is a democratic organization. Democracy cost, folks. It ain't for free. If you have a problem with how it's going, you must admit it's not coming out of your pocket. Whenever I have advocated dues I've been reminded of all you devoted judges who travel thousands of miles at your own expense solely to benefit the homebrewing community. OK, but quit complaining about the job done by folks like Dennis who really do commit their time and money for the benefit of all us hobbyist. The hairshirted judges are doing a job that is optional for them, and is fun. The BJCP directors are doing a job that is probably fun sometimes, and a lot of work all the time. I would urge Dennis to back off of the offer to resign if 51% of JudgeNet weenies want him to. This is a fairly small segment of the BJCP community. The fact that we are vocal, often ill mannered, and apparently accustomed to getting something for nothing, should not have any direct bearing on the real work being done by the volunteers who are trying to keep this unwieldy ship afloat. Personally, I simply want to say, thanks, Dennis. PS: I'm delighted to hear that the Homebrew Digest is being picked up by the Association of Brewers. Thanks, Charlie. Cheers, Fred ============================================================================== We must invent the future, else it will | happen to us and we will not like it. | [Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"] | email: fcmbh at access.digex.net ============================================================================== ------------------------------ From: folsom at ix.netcom.com (Alan Folsom) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 05:30:27 -0700 Subject: Stewards Bob Talkiewicz makes good points about judges. He relates this story: >Donna Bersani makes a point about judges dissing stewards. >I'm sorry you got stuck with a nit wit. > A few years ago, a friend and I went to steward at a sanctioned >contest in Ithaca, NY to see what it was all about. >A judge at the table my friend was working with told him that stewards >aren't allowed to taste the beer!! Wow, that's news to me, too. granted I've only judged 6 times, but each time I and the (usually) more experienced judge have poured beer for ourselves, and for the steward. In fact, I ask the steward for input, requesting only that he or she wait until I've been through the beer myself. This was a little difficult at the 1st round nationals when we had to hoard the beer in the bottle, but otherwise that seems to be SOP. I've had a friend steward and get a snooty judge, but for the most part what I just said seems to be the most common. Is that everyone else's procedure also? Al Folsom ------------------------------ From: PGarofal at USCCMAIL.uscc.bms.com Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 08:27:10 -0500 Subject: Here's My Vote FWIW, I happen to think that the BoD has done a great job so far. And, before I get started: thanks! Now, does anybody wonder why these guys seem so crabby when subjected to (often personal) criticism? Like most organizations, the few do the work for the many; that's what they are doing for us. It's really easy to sit back and throw rocks, but what good does that do for the BJCP? Not half as much as the "secret" bunch on the BoD. ;-) I am pretty confident that I'm in the majority here. We (relatively) silent ones shouldn't allow the bullying of a few nearsighted members force our elected leaders to resign. We've got a solid organization here, with a dedicated (and VOLUNTEER) leadership. If it doesn't suit you, why not volunteer your time and talent? I know the tiny contributions that I make pale in comparison to the time and energy committed by the BoD members, at least the ones that I know well. I think that the groundwork for a dynamic and effective organization has been laid. The cooperative spirit between the BJCP and AHA is certainly a relief to most judges, many of whom are still uninformed and wondering what's next. Let's keep the ball rolling! OK, off my soapbox. Maybe now we can discuss some REAL issues... Peter Garofalo ------------------------------ From: Btalk at aol.com Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 09:24:12 -0400 Subject: second guessing recipes This is regarding second guessing recipes when writing comments on the score sheet. Perhaps this should be called another reason not to do it! Last week a guy in a basic homebrew class I was teaching brought in a sample of his first or second batch. He thought it had a funny taste... It had a wierd diacetyl component along some other odd flavor that I couldn't define (not that I know it all), but otherwise not bad. His recipe and procedure sounded okay, although the four inches of trub in the secondary had me a bit stumped. Anyhow, the conversation got around to Irish Moss when he says 'That's all you're supposed to use?? I used the whole ounce package!' It sure was clear, though;) Later, Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY ------------------------------ From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas) Date: Wed, 1 May 96 10:24:52 CDT Subject: Blame Personally, I think that all the BJCP elected officials are doing a great job and is seems to me that most of the detractors are simply nit-picking. In volunteer organizations it is difficult for things to move quickly, *especially* when the people involved are distributed across the whole continent. I've personally known a lot of "leaders" in volunteer organizations and I must say that the BJCP officials seem (to me, at least) to be the least interested in fame&power and are genuinely committed to making the BJCP the best it can be for all of us. I guess when you are named Dennis, you get blamed for more than your share... Al. ------------------------------ From: "Paul Demmert" Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 11:39:31 CST Subject: Re: Articles of Incorporation >From: Dennis Davison >I will make myself accountable. So much so, that I will resign as >Chair/President of the BJCP if 51% of the judges on Judgenet so >wish it. Dennis, I won't waste bandwidth by repeating your entire post, but I agree with you completely. Please count my vote with those who are not only satisfied with the way the BJCP Board is moving, but also appreciative of all the hard work and dedication of the volunteer Board members. Keep up the good work and don't let the bastards grind you down. (By the way, great job at the 1st Round in Chicago!) (stepping up on the virtual soapbox) I am tired of seeing judgenet members posting their bitches and bellyaches and then personally attacking the Board members' integrity and intentions. If you have a constructive suggestion, phrase it that way and leave out the personalities. And finally, does anyone really believe that the volunteer Board members are in collusion to subvert the BJCP--for what sinister purpose? Aren't we all basically interested in good beer, brewing techniques, and judging? If you really need a taste of conspiracy in your life, don't look for it in the BJCP, try watching the X-Files or Oliver Stone movies. (stepping down from the virtual soapbox and feeling better....) Paul Demmert SAIC 619 W. Hwy 50 Email: pauld at aristotle.saic.com O'Fallon, IL 62269 ------------------------------ From: Bill Giffin Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 01:40:47 -0500 Subject: Ariticles of Incorporation Top of the morning to ye all, > >From: ddavison at execpc.com (Dennis Davison) >Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 16:28:45 -0500 >Subject: Articles of Incorportation > >The inital intent was that judges would not receive compensation from the >organization. This was my mistake. We had opted to drop mention of >compensation altogether, I relayed that to our attorney, to drop that >section. When I posted the Articles, I thought I had done the old cut to >article #5, but apparently did not. I am sorry for the confusion. Please post a corrected copy of the articles of incorportation. >Secretly? They were written by the ONLY attorney that stepped up and offered >HELP. This helped kill two birds with one stone. One was to get someone to >do it, and the other was the pure fact that we could have argued for 6 >months as to what State to Incorporate in. Have they been filed with the State of New York? If so then they were filed without any input or approval from the membership. Granted that each area had representation from our represtative for what ever that is worth. Bob Gorman has not provided the membership of our region with any informatition what so ever. Further more it would have been well worth the investment to hire an attorney with the exeperience to properly handle the by-laws and the articles of incorporation. With what we got for nothing we will be correcting the by-laws and the articles of incorporation for some time to come. Chuck said: >>I urge the Board to clarify the above Article of Incorporation >>and to start operating in a more open and accountable manner. > I feel that it is nothing more then a power thing going here. Each of the BOD wanted to have their own way and nothing got done. We all need more information to properly evaluate what the Hell is going on. > Trying to work out something with the AHA over future point >awards, Boston Beer Company World Homebrew from last year and this year >(July/Aug), Why do we have to work anything out with the AHA over point awards? Can't we figure out for ourselves how point should be awarded? Instead of getting on with the business that required the priority of the BOD, the forming of By-laws and forming a corporate structure our BOD got side tracked with a lot of make work that has very little importance until we have structure. > >I will make myself accountable. So much so, that I will resign as >Chair/President of the BJCP if 51% of the judges on Judgenet so wish it. >Lets face it guys, this isn't a judging organization, it's a brewing >organization. When the test you take deals more with brewing than judging, >and when you get bucked every which way when you want to make changes >hopefully for the better, it's not worth it. Sure some of the changes may >not work. None of this is set in stone, and can be changed if they don't. > It is a judging organization with a poor exam. It is not nor should it be a brewing organization. Why wait for 51% of the judges to vote you out, it is obvious Dennis that you do not have the time to devote to the BOD AND THE BJCP! Why not QUIT? >The Board had two major responibilities to handle, the major one was to keep >the BJCP alive. Had you left it alone it would have run as it has for the past 10 years. The BJCP would have done fine while the BOD paid attention to the by-laws and the articles of incorporation. Perhaps then we would have had a better set of both. > We have done this with the support all of the BJCP judges out >there. How do you know? have you polled the judges? > We are working on something with the AHA. When it's worked out, >you will be informed. Secret, secret burn before reading. Make the agreement and then inform us that we have no input into the matter. Is it so delicate that we can't have input into it? What if we don't agree with the BOD? Will we have to wait until we can elect enough folks to put aside the agreement? >... have some wonderful beers that you may never have again. Just think about all of those wonderful beers you'll be missing. I'm glad because it'll just leave more for me. Over the past five years that I have been judging most of the beers are not wonderful. Most that win are out of style. Mediocre would sum up most of the homebrewed beer that makes it to a competiton. The BJCP nor the AHA have not improved the quality of homebrew in the past five years as much the available ingrediantes have improved. Bill ------------------------------ From: edm at fox.nstn.ca (EDM) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 17:05:41 -0300 (ADT) Subject: Re: judge-digest V1 #1263 >judge-digest Tuesday, 30 April 1996 Volume 01 : Number 1263 > > ============================================================================ > >From: Chuck Cox >Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 08:12:42 -0400 >Subject: Articles of Incorporation > >Upon review of the recently disclosed Articles of >Incorporation, I found the following item: > >> 5. All individuals who are certified as beer judges by the >> Corporation shall become members of the Corporation. No >> member of the Corporation shall accept compensation for >> evaluating beer, but may be reimbursed for any reasonable >> expenses incurred as a result of doing so. > >While I suspect the intent was to prohibit compensation >for judging sanctioned competitions, the article as >written does technically preclude most brewery professionals, >especially tasters from membership. Further, I feel it is >inappropriate for the BJCP to attempt such broad control our >activities outside of sanctioned competitions. > >In addition, I am disturbed at the secretive manner in which >the Articles were written and approved. They were only >disclosed after it came up on JudgeNet, and I doubt that the >email impared judges are even aware of their existence. >Unfortunately, the Articles are not up for a vote by the >membership. > >I urge the Board to clarify the above Article of Incorporation >and to start operating in a more open and accountable manner. > >- - Chuck > I agree. A simple edit like, no judge shall accept compensation for judging homebrew would be more in keeping with the spirit of the thing. Who is to say one can't accept payment for helping a commercial brewery evaluate their products? One might restrict the use of the BJCP credentials to support commercial products... Jeff Pinhey in Halifax ------------------------------ From: "Andrew R Thomas" Date: 01 May 1996 18:21:18 GMT Subject: judge courtesy - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- THIS MAIL MESSAGE IS FROM THE INTERNET AND MAY HAVE BEEN READ, COPIED, OR MODIFIED BY USERS OTHER THAN INTENDED RECIPIENTS. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As long as we are on the subject of judge courtesy, I thought I would throw in my two cents. As a past organizer of several competitions and a 675 entry Dixie Cup, I have had to clean up after all kinds of judges writing all kinds of stupid comments. Of course, no one calls the judge, they call the organizer for some unknown reason, just like we proof them before they go out or something. I would like to share some of these with you, and then tell you how we tried to fix it: "This beer made me gag." "This beer smells like an old road whore." (Apologies to any who I offended here, but I'm merely repeating it.) " Green bottle make skunky beer! " The judge then chose to score this one a zero. Crazy problems ensue because judges get this "hey, I'm anonymous" complex going. They start to say crazy things after judging a few, and brewers arent there to defend themselves. The "gag" comment was delivered back to a dear friend of mine, a fine Oregonian, who called me on the phone. I couldnt believe it. I called the experienced judge who sat with this inexperienced person and should have headed that comment off. Suffice to say, there was a weird personality thing going on, and the comment stuck. I called the inexperienced judge (who has not been seen or heard from since) who initially tried to defend his comment. Then after about 30 minutes, he started waffling on this that and the other thing. I tried to impress two things on him: 1) You sign your name, and people will remember jerks (I still remember a "professional" brewer who judged one of mine at an AHA second round in 1986. I still think his beer sucks, too). 2) Write the comment as if the brewer is sitting with you at the table. This always causes people to pause and be tactful. People reading the comments later understand what is happening if you give the beer a 19 and you say "recipe formulation was good, but sanitation needs work." Those people enter beers again. I also have a rule of thumb about scoring a zero. If a brewer forgot to put beer in the bottle and there is just air in there, it is a zero. Otherwise, it is a 19. People get to save some face if it is a 19, but the message is conveyed. Anyway, at Dixie Cups we now empower the stewards with another task. They are supposed to pick up the judgeing sheets right after the beer is done, check the math, check that comments have been written, and check that the comments are appropriate. The stewards have the power to refuse to "accept" a score sheet, and if a judge gets uppity they are supposed to find the organizer to kick some judge butt. When the steward is satisfied that everything is cool with the sheet, a box is checked or initialed and the sheet is returned to the judge for use in reconciling final beers or whatever. Basically, the stewards are not (and never have been) second class citizens. They are an important part of the judging process....and independant observer of the judge quality. And they definitely get to drink the beer. Andy Thomas, thomaar at texaco.com ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1265 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.