Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 00:05:49 -0400
Message-Id: <199605060405.AAA01909 at synchro.com>
From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
To: judge-digest at synchro.com
Subject:   judge-digest V1 #1268
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com
Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk


judge-digest                 Monday, 6 May 1996         Volume 01 : Number 1268

 ============================================================================
       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:

 Hyperbole
 bill and bylaws: structure over content? /other stuff/ compensation
 Stewards 'n stuff

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

From: Norman Dickenson <norman.dickenson at sonoma.edu>
Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 09:21:01 -0700
Subject: Hyperbole

                      Subject:                              Time:  8:24 AM
  OFFICE MEMO         Hyperbole                             Date:  5/3/96

Jay Hersch said in JD #1266:

>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.  

While I agree wholeheartedly these  rational and sincere suggestions
that the BOD "advertise" the existence of new positions before making
an appointment, and that the ultimate measure of how well the BOD
members are doing their jobs will be determined at election time,
I strongly challenge the statement that there is a high level of
anxiety amongst the membership regarding changes.  This strikes me
as being an opinion substantiated only by the public rantings of a 
very few irrational and disgruntled individuals.  I think most folks
are pretty laid back and more concerned with whether their beer is
the right temperature, the glass is clean and some good tunes are on.
To suggest that more than a third of the membership gives a rats rear
about what is the BOD does is hyperbole! 

>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.

No argument here.  Right on!  Perhaps, though, those individuals who
are interested in the proceedings and the policy outcomes could 
develop a better feeling for the kind of personal committment which
has been and continues to be made by the key leaders of the BJCP. 
How many of those individuals are willing to spend 2-3 hours every
day in volunteer service.  Well, to get done what needs to get done
requires that level of committment, and even then, progress is a 
slow and tedious affair as anyone who ever worked in a committee or
on a group concensus building project would readily know.  If the
leadership is sensitive about criticism, I don't blame them.  And
I, for one, would rather have thin-skinned and sincere individuals
representing and leading me than self puffed up blowhards whose first
love is the sound of their own voices.  Don't get me wrong, though.
I will agree that yer average BJCP judge is pretty much in a void
as far as knowing what the heck is going on.  More frequent and 
detailed communication is needed, especially for the Net impaired.
Given the lack of money to publish and mail frequent newsletters or
a magazine without charging dues leaves the BOD in a quandry.  I'm
sure they are exploring the issue.  Of course the Net is free.

>...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.

My observations, which are from a pretty good vantage point, are 
that the BOD, the key office holders and the appointed committees
are acting in a very sober, deliberate and thorough manner.  I have 
not noticed this tendency.

>....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).

Hear! Hear!  But perhaps those who wish to provide constructive
criticism should consider that even if their ideas have merit, they
will be discounted if delivered in the form of a personal attack.
It is only human nature to defend oneself.

- -norman-
  

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

From: Robert Paolino <rpaolino at execpc.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 18:45:49 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: bill and bylaws: structure over content? /other stuff/ compensation

Bill wrote:

>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 

Can you say "money"?  It is a volunteer organisation, and one that needs to
watch its money.  Bill has a point to the extent that it is worth spending the
money if it's need to have something done right.  But the fact that we got the
work "for nothing" is not the same thing is saying that "we got what we paid
for"?  Is there any reason to call the volunteer attorney's competence into
question?  Is there any guarantee that a paid attorney would have gotten
everything 100% "right" the first time?

Bill asks:
>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?

I think it's more a matter of setting something up to assure that we get the
_information_ from AHA-but-not-BJCP sanctioned competitions.  How we decided
to award points (if we were to decide to do something differently from before)
once we have the information is up to us, but we have to be sure that it will
be communicated on a regular basis.

>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

These things are important, indeed, but I would argue that perhaps
_substantive_ matters (to keep the day-to-day _functions_ of the organisation
going along smoothly) are more important than organisational structure.  There
was an interim set of bylaws to provide enough structure to keep things
moving.  It wouldn't do us much good to spend time creating the "perfect" by-
laws if the organisation went down the tubes while we neglected judging,
exams, and competitions--the reason for the organisation's existence.  What
good is structure without content?

>side tracked with a lot of make work that has very little importance until
>we have structure.

"Make work"?  Such as??

Dennis wrote:
>>The Board had two major responibilities to handle, the major one was to keep
>>the BJCP alive.
Bill replied:
>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

It would not have run as it had the preceding ten years, because the AHA had
pulled out.  The continuation of the organisation _was_ indeed a big concern.
Again, what's the big hang-up with the by-laws and articles of incorporation
above all.  Yes, Bill, you are correct that they're important, but not to the
exclusion of what the BJCP is all about.  There was a working structure to get
us through the beginning.  It wasn't perfect, but we kept operating.

Dennis:
>> We are working on something with the AHA. When it's worked out,
>>you will be informed.
Bill:
>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

Bill's right here.  We need to have an open discussion about what kind of a
relationship we want to have with the AHA.  Will it be simply a matter of
conveying information about competitions or will the scope be broader?  But,
Bill, regardless of whatever may be occurring "in secret," and whether we
agree that it should or shouldn't be conducted that way, _we_ can still have
that discussion whether the board is a formal part or it or not.  If they are
acting as our elected representatives, I hope they'll take seriously their
responsibilities to take into account our concerns about the nature of that
relationship with the AHA.  I don't like the "decide first, inform the members
later" approach either.  But if we are concerned, we need to take the
initiative to start talking constructively about it!  Don't bash the board for
the members' failure to give them any guidance.

>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

If not sure that lack of "wonderful"ness and "out of style" are the same
thing.  Yes, beers that win awards ought to resemble the styles, but where is
the evidence for the idea that "most" winning beers are out of style?  To the
extent that some winners are different from the style guidelines (and we've
encountered instances of that), you simply have to work with the entries you
have in a competition, and it may be that the technical flaws of otherwise "in
style" beers (can something still be considered in style if it is seriously
flawed?) are more serious than the reasons that place another entry "out-of-
style"  Remember, "drinkability," without reference to style, is 20% of the
score.  If those are the rules we use for scoring, it may be quite legitimate
to give an award to an entry that misses the mark on some style criteria if
the other entries suffer in drinkability.

There will always be beginners (at least if we're doing our part to promote
the craft) and many (most) of them are going to start out by making mediocre
beer.  But that doesn't mean that the best homebrew isn't improving.  I don't
know what to say about the proportional comparison of improvement of beer
relative to improvement of ingredients.  I suppose those beginners are going
to pull down the average ;-).  But let he who was never a beginner hurl the
first stone.  Those first batches will always be there.  Our challenge is to
help those brewers improve the _subsequent_ batches if they've gone to the
trouble and expense of entering, in hopes of having a third party evaluate the
beer and make suggestions for improvement.

Jeff <edm at fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
>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.

I disagree.  The previous guideline was that judges should not _solicit_
compensation, not that they could not accept it if offered.  That idea should
remain.  There's nothing wrong with _accepting_ token compensation if offered,
as long as you don't go out _charging_ for your services.  With the finances
of most competitions, it's not going to be offered anyway, except as in-kind
"compensation" (lunch, a t-shirt, a complimentary beer tasting, a free party
admission, whatever).  In the time I've judged, I've received an honorarium
only once, and that came as a complete surprise to me.


Now go have a beer,


Bob Paolino                                     
Madison                                    rpaolino at earth.execpc.com
You may now go back to your regularly-scheduled beer


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

From: Steve Moore <stevem at phoenix.net>
Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 22:09:08 -0500
Subject: Stewards 'n stuff

Danger, heavy editing going on.
 
Andy Thomas sez:
>> 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

Snip

Fred sez:
>>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?

more snip.

>>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.

I suceeded Andy as Dixie Cup honcho in '94 and agree with what he is saying. As
he pointed out in an earlier posting, what we're talking about is not stewards
disagreeing with judges on fine points. The steward, however, should be
able to raise a red flag when the judge is flagrantly dis'n an entrant. If 
someone pays their 5 bucks or whatever, they deserve better than the "pure
doo-doo" comment even if the beer really is pure doo-doo. The steward does 
not get final comment, but he/she should tap the organizer or judge coordinator 
on the shoulder if necessary.

Yes, some judges may well be idiots and they are identified, but they may
not get any better without feedback. In the meantime, a bad comment may cure
a novice brewer of entering contests or even brewing.  Believe me, when the
judge coordinator calls a judge on a "this beer sucks" type comment, it gets 
the point across.

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

End of judge-digest V1 #1268
****************************

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