Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 21:41:22 -0400
Message-Id: <199605030141.VAA21835 at synchro.com>
From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
To: judge-digest at synchro.com
Subject:   judge-digest V1 #1266
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com
Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk


judge-digest                Thursday, 2 May 1996        Volume 01 : Number 1266

 ============================================================================
       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          <chuck at synchro.com>
 Archivist:        Spencer Thomas     <spencer at umich.edu>
 Publisher:        SynchroSystems     <info at synchro.com>

 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:

 Stewards as Judge Police
 Thanks and No Thanks
 Re: Stewards
 Poor Bill
 quality of feedback
 response to Dennis' solicitation of a vote on his performance
 secrecy or sensibility?

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

From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh at access.digex.net>
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 08:03:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Stewards as Judge Police

Andy Thomas <thomaar at texaco.com> wrote:

[big snip]
> 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.

On the surface this sounds like a good idea, however... Stewards are
indeed people, and important in the judging process. They are not people
important in judging to the point that they are, or can be expected to be,
independant experts in judge quality. Checking math is a good idea, and
many competitions ask the stewards to do that. Passing judgement on
judges' work is a very different concept.

On JudgeNet we hear from ex-stewards who became judges, and occasionally
from stewards who are, or are planning to become judges. Many stewards are
significant others, or just friends of the folks involved in the
competition. At several 1st round AHA NHC where I've judged there was at
least one steward who did not even drink beer. These folks are not
followers of the JND, and are not competent to assess the appropriateness
of judges' comments.

There is no evidence that stewards are, on the average, better judges than
the folks they monitor at the Dixie Cup. Maybe they are better than the
judges at the Dixie Cup, but I doubt it. My judge sheets from that
part of the world always came back reflecting reasonable judge quality.

Occasionally a judge lacks all social graces, but that same trait is
probably distributed among stewards in the same proportion as among
judges. Until stewards have demonstrated judging ability which at least
equals that of the judges they are auditing, I feel they should stay out
of the business of evaluating judge quality. What if the judge says the
beer "is pure do-do" and the steward agrees? Who audits the steward's
audit?

The judge's name is on the sheet. If the comments are those of an idiot,
the entrant knows who the idiot is. The score sheet we will use for the
Capitol District Open has my name (I'm the organizer), address, telephone
number and email address printed on the bottom. If an entrant has a 
problem, I want them to contact me so I can take action. I have yet to see
a score sheet which identifies the steward who has final approval over the
judges.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers, Fred
==============================================================================
We must invent the future, else it will  |          <Fred Hardy>
happen to us and we will not like it.    |
[Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"]   |    email: fcmbh at access.digex.net
==============================================================================


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

From: Wolfe at act.org
Date: Thu, 2 May 96 09:41 CST
Subject: Thanks and No Thanks

I want to voice my appreciation of the BJCP Board of Directors.  I know,
from doing similar work at my state and local level, that they are putting
a lot of time and effort into improving the BJCP.  I especially appreciate
the efforts of Dennis Davison to keep the BJCP going and of Scott Bickham
to improve the BJCP exam.  I suspect that most people who have bothered to
talk to either of these individuals personally (rather than indirectly
through public temper tantrums) about ideas or problems concerning the BJCP
would agree that they are doing an excellent job and that they care very
much about the success of the program.

Unfortunately, the most difficult people to ignore are those who make the
most derogatory comments most frequently.  Equally unfortunate is the fact
that these same people seem to lack the intelligence to leave the
program--something I'd do if it caused me as much unhappiness as they lead
us to believe it causes them .  It's too bad that such a small group can be
as destructive and counter-productive to the progress of the BJCP.
Wouldn't it be great if they put as much energy and time into making
constructive contributions as they currently expend complaining and
criticizing?

Ed Wolfe

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

From: hollen at vigra.com
Date: Thu, 2 May 96 08:44:26 PDT
Subject: Re: Stewards

>>>>> "Al" == Alan Folsom <folsom at ix.netcom.com> writes:

>> 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!!

Al> Wow, that's news to me, too.  granted I've only judged 6 times, but 
Al> each time I and the (usually) more experienced judge have poured beer 
Al> for ourselves, and for the steward.  

In fact, at the America's Finest City Competition, we use stewarding
as an introduction to judging and encourage our stewards to sample
both good and bad beers after the judging of them is complete.
Especially if the judge identifies a particular flavor (out of style
or not).  The steward then becomes familiar with that flavor and
should be able to identify it in the future.  Of course, you can throw
a steward off if the judge mis-identifies a flavor, but that is not a
large enough reason not to taste.

dion

- -- 
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164                 Email: hollen at vigra.com
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs  San Diego, California

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

From: Norman Dickenson <norman.dickenson at sonoma.edu>
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 09:40:15 -0700
Subject: Poor Bill

                      Subject:                              Time:  8:47 AM
  OFFICE MEMO         Poor Bill                             Date:  5/2/96

Bored as usual having not stirred any s__t in a week or two,
the village idiot satiates his muckracking urges by once more
demonstrating his total lack of social grace and apparent distain 
for friendly human relations.

>If so then they were filed without any input or approval 
>from the membership.

This is a representative democracy.  Talk to your representative.
If you don't like what he's doing, then elect a new one next
time there's an election.

>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?

Since you don't have time to be courteous to Dennis (or anyone
else for that matter) why don't you quit the BJCP and start
your own little extremist club.  Then you could self flagellate
and post poison e-mail messages to yourself.

Sorry to sink to the level of the lowest common denominator,
I feel that this stupid Dennis and Scott and BOD bashing 
is indicative this persons deeper problems and I guess he
deserves our sympathy for the his bad deal in the card game
of life.  Nevertheless, decent people are being maligned and
because of their position wasting time being diplomatic.  They
deserve the defense of those who who elected them and feel 
they are doing a good job.
I personally am grateful that the new BJCP has such a talented
and dedicated set of inaugural leaders.  They are setting the
stage for a dynamic and well organized volunteer based organization
that will endure for many years.  Dennis, Scott and Russ 
deserve particular accolades for service above and beyond the
call of duty.  Good job, guys.

>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?

Duhh..........  That was rhetorical, right?

>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.

So?  What's your point?  If it's such a chore, don't participate.

- -norman-


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

From: "Jay Hersh aka Dr. Beer (SM)" <drbeer at tiac.net>
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 12:54:18 -0400
Subject: quality of feedback

Andrew Thomas made the following excellent comments:

>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 strongly concur and made a proposal to Scott Bickham several weeks ago
which I requested he present to the board of directors.  I haven't asked
Scott about the status of this proposal lately and I assume it is likely
taking a lower precedence to the articles of incorporation and bylaws at
this point.  

The basic gist of my proposal was that while it is not really easy to
reprimand judges about whether they score a beer appropriately it is pretty
clear cut that judges should always be expected to demonstrate a
professional demeanor, one that reflects their position as a representative
of the BJCP. judges who fail to do so by making significantly inappropriate
comments  (such as those related by Andrew) should receive notification of
their transgression and have such noted in their record. Should this prove
to be a continual pattern for that judge the board would then have a record
of warning notice to the judge, and significant justification for exercising
their power to remove such a person from the program.

While we will probably never make every judge a perfect judge, and the
system as a whole flawless, we can and should expect that judges, in their
role as Representatives of the BJCP, conduct themselves in a appropriate manner.


                          Jay

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalt's

This is a key free document, no keyboards were harmed in its creation.
(The DragonDictate speech recognition system, the CIC handwriting
recognizer, or some combination was used.  Send e-mail to drbeer at tiac.net to
find out more)


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

From: "Jay Hersh aka Dr. Beer (SM)" <drbeer at tiac.net>
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 13:55:58 -0400
Subject: response to Dennis' solicitation of a vote on his performance

while I would not go so far as to vote against Dennis' tenure as president
of the board, I would like to make a few suggestions and hope that they will
be received in the proper spirit (i.e. as constructive criticism), since
while I feel that the current board is doing a very good job under the
circumstances presented them, that there is still a number of things which
might easily be done to better inform and engage the membership.

It has become apparent to me that committees and leadership positions are
being created by the board as is their privilege to do so.  In the spirit of
democracy and openness which I believe the membership favors, I would
request that the creation of such entities be announced at the time of the
decision to create them, and that solicitation of candidates for such
committees or leadership positions be announced to as wide an audience as
possible, rather than names being solicited only among the members of the
board itself and the announcement of these positions being made after the
positions have been filled.  Such an approach will allow a wider range of
candidates to be considered, and will also provide those more critical of
the board's decisions the opportunity to effectively put up (by actually
doing some work) or be seen as arm chair quarterbacks.


I once again repeat my request of January that the board of directors
develop a timetable of goals and publish such.  Any organization typically
sets for itself goals, and deadlines by which they intend to meet them.  It
is obvious that the present board has to itself some concept of what it
seeks to accomplish, and some time table in which it plans to do so.  I
believe that in the interest of openness and oversight that the small amount
of time it would take the board to formalize and publish this to as wide an
audience as possible, would help to allow the membership to more accurately
understand the scope and nature of the work of the board, and that it is
setting and meeting its objectives in a reasonably and timely manner.


Finally it also appears to me that even reasonable differences of opinion
are perceived as attacks on the board and its work.  While I do believe that
some of what has been posted here has on occasion extended beyond the realm
of reasonable discussion, I for the most part feel that much of the
discussion has been a legitimate attempt by members to present their
opinions and some have been unfairly criticized for doing so.  I agree that
as a representative organization the ultimate measure of whether the board
has done their job well will come at the time of election of new
representatives.  However given that *significant* changes in the
organization are presently being made it is certainly understandable that a
high level of anxiety is present among the membership regarding these changes.  

Since elections are far off, the ability of representatives (and the board
itself) to disseminate information rather limited, the ability of BJCP
members to contact their representatives also limited, and the nature of
changes being made rather significant, I suggest that the discussion which
has occurred here to date is a reasonable reflection of these circumstances
and as such represents a legitimate discourse.  I would therefore encourage
the board to not discount discussion which has occurred here (which I
perceive to be the potential outcome of this arguably nonrepresentative vote
of confidence), but rather to treat it as a portion of the spectrum of
feedback they receive, and to actively work towards improving the channels
of communication.

it appears to me that much of the discussion to date hinges on members who
are (commendably) interested in the future of the organization, who seek
more information regarding decisions being made, and who seek to have their
voice heard.  It is easy to spend time reacting to and decrying such
individuals, but doing so misses the real nature of what is occurring.  The
real nature is that democracy is a messy process, and that left to its own
devices even the most trustworthy of duly elected representatives will tend
to act out of expediency.  Rather than to take a defensive position against
criticism I would suggest instead that the board recognize that such
criticism is simply  an inevitable part of the democratic process and move
to address it by spending a little time to improve the openness of the
process they utilize (as per my above recommendations and the many good
ideas I'm sure exist among others as well as the board members themselves).


                          Jay  Hersh

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalt's

This is a key free document, no keyboards were harmed in its creation.
(The DragonDictate speech recognition system, the CIC handwriting
recognizer, or some combination was used.  Send e-mail to drbeer at tiac.net to
find out more)


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

From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at pgh.nauticom.net>
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 21:00:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: secrecy or sensibility?

  One point of contention did come to light here in JND, that is the
question of dues. That one point brought out 2 weeks of debate.
Granted it was nice to do some screaming and get my view heard that we
should not have manditory dues; and pleasantly that is the way the by-laws
are presented. Maybe my bitching and moaning helped, maybe not; but from the
one example if we had debated every section of the proposed by-laws online
we still would not have a working copy at this point. I most certainly will
be paying the optional dues when things are ratified and set up. 
 As to the section regarding accepting compensation for beer evaluation; yes
the wording _could_ be misconstrued as not allowing one to be a taster for a
brewery, but get real, the Program doesn't have the time or money to hunt
someone down cuz they went to work in the industry. If our members did find
employment as professional tasters this would in fact be a testimonial for
our credibility so who could gripe? I for would cheer a judge on if they
could go professional; maybe this would have get more_real_beers on the market.
  So maybe the by-laws aren't letter perfect, I say if you wanna gripe about
the bylaws, first brew a beer that scores a '50'. Then gripe all you want.     

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

End of judge-digest V1 #1266
****************************

 Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com.
 Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.