Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 07:46:31 -0400
Message-Id: <199605071146.HAA08563 at synchro.com>
From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
To: judge-digest at synchro.com
Subject:   judge-digest V1 #1269
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com
Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk


judge-digest                Tuesday, 7 May 1996        Volume 01 : Number 1269

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

 Re:Compensation for Judging
 BJCP exam(s) in New Orleans
 Good news, bad news
 compensation
 Re: Ed Wolfe's Brewing Techniques Article
 Dennis' kind invitation
 So it's no suprise to anyone

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

From: edm at fox.nstn.ca (EDM)
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 09:01:07 -0300 (ADT)
Subject: Re:Compensation for Judging

Bob Paolino writes:
>
>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,
>

....  ahhh, that was good.  Very much what I needed, thanks for the
suggestion.

I don't think we are actually in disagreement.  My point was that I see no
problem in accepting money for judging beer when there is money being
raised as part of the event, or it is a business.  I agree that soliciting
for business is probably not on, but if someone (not me!) ever wanted to,
we could not stop them as long as they didn't use the BJCP accreditation as
advertising or promotional info.  ie. " BJCP Judge will assess your beer
for $25 a bottle".  There are some people who earn at least part of their
living tasting beer, and they are people I would think we would like to
encourage to become judges.

The beer, T-shirts and sometimes meals I have received are a form of
compensation, however you look at it.

What competitions (homebrew) are going to have a budget for compensation
anyway?

Care to join me in a beer?


Jeff in Halifax


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

From: Scott Bickham <bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil>
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 10:59:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: BJCP exam(s) in New Orleans

I've had a few requests and questions about the BJCP exam(s) that will
be given at the AHA Conference.  The primary exam is scheduled for
Saturday morning, and walk-ins will be allowed, so those attending
the conference can play it by ear.  I would also be willing to give
the exam earlier in the week if there is enough interest.  Possible
times are during either of the judging sessions on Wednesday or on
Friday morning during Papazian's speech.  I'll need to know by Tuesday
night if anyone is interested in these options, and if so, you can leave
a message for me at the Radisson.

Cheers, Scott
- -- 
========================================================================
Naval Research Laboratory, Code 6691	E-mail: bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil
Complex Systems Theory Branch		Home or BJCP: 7507 Swan Point Way
Washington, D.C  20375				      Columbia, MD  21045
(202) 404-8632   FAX: (202) 404-7546		      (410) 290-7721
=========================================================================

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

From: Scott Bickham <bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil>
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 11:29:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Good news, bad news

First the bad news.  I was alarmed to read the comment by an experienced
judge that the quality of homebrews has not kept pace with the quality of
ingredients.   This can only mean that my awards are worthless, since 
either my brews are bad or there is no competition.  Last night, in
hopes of correcting this problem, I gathered together all my homebrew 
ribbons, plaques and medals and built a bonfire in hopes of appeasing the 
God of Good Homebrew.  I even threw in a couple of BJCP exams for
good measure.

Seriously, I don't know how one can justify such a comment.  In the
past four years, I have judged at 35 competitions in ten states and
entered another dozen or so, and I have seen nothing but improvement
in the quality of the homebrews.  Sure, there are a certain number of
problematic beers in any competition, and with an increasing number
of entries, there may be more of these if the percentage remains constant.
But the most noticable improvement has been at the top - it is not
uncommon to judge beers that rank with the best beers in the world.
At the AHA first round in Lancaster a few weeks ago, the to Belgian
beer was an outstanding tripel that is of the same caliber as Westmalle
and Rochefort.  Perhaps the judge who made that derogatory comment
needs to get out and taste beers that are made outside of his little
corner of the world.

Now the good news.  The last seven months have seen 152 judges take the
BJCP exam, and with the schedule booked solid over the next three months,
that number will easily be 250 by the end of summer.  At the end of last
summer, there were approximately 1400 judges in the program, so we have
experienced a growth of nearly 18% during the inaugural year of the
independent BJCP.  Some of these people will have to retake the exam in
order to pass, but fortunately that number is holding steady at about 5%.  
Several 90+ scores have been awarded as well, including two from the 
Denver exam in February and a 95 or 96 to an outstanding Sacramento exam, 
so it's great to see these people to get proper recognition for their 
ability to taste and describe beers and beer flavors.  I thank everyone
who has posted positive comments about the job that Russ, Dennis and I
have been doing, but I personally would like to defer mine to the
scorers who have kept the exams moving through the system.

Cheers, Scott Bickham
- -- 
========================================================================
Naval Research Laboratory, Code 6691	E-mail: bickham at dave.nrl.navy.mil
Complex Systems Theory Branch		Home or BJCP: 7507 Swan Point Way
Washington, D.C  20375				      Columbia, MD  21045
(202) 404-8632   FAX: (202) 404-7546		      (410) 290-7721
=========================================================================

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

From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Date: Mon, 6 May 96 11:59:00 CDT
Subject: compensation

Bob writes:
>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.

I partly agree with Jeff and partly with Bob.  I think that Bob makes a
good point regarding the "spirit" of the law.  I agree with Jeff that
if the word "homebrew" was included, it would allow for judges being
compensated for judging commercial beers.  We wouldn't want to prevent
a BJCP judge from being a professional taster for commercial brewers
or being a brewing consultant, would we?  Couldn't the rules incorporate
both Jeff's and Bob's positions?

Al.


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

From: Sullivan51 at aol.com
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 14:48:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Ed Wolfe's Brewing Techniques Article

For those of the BJCP that have not had a chance to read this article, I for
one believe that it is well worth reading.   I plan to share this article
with our club members who are gearing up to take the BJCP exam this July.  I
do have a question though about how we arrive at determining a winner.

Ed describes a judging tendency that he refers to as "drift".   Without the
article in front of me, as I remember "drift" is where beers judged early in
a flight or late in flight are evaluated more leniently or harshly than those
that make up the rest of the flight.  Ed commented that when he perceives
this to be happening, he will resample the beers that have a chance to win
and adjust the scores accordingly.   Is it necessary to go back and adjust
scores in order that the high scoring beer wins?   I had a beer that won
first at the AHA national last year with a score of 37.  There were 3 or 4
other beers that had higher scores.  I asked another experienced judge about
this and was told that more than likely a really competent team of judges
handled that flight because it shows that they went back and reevaluated the
beers that were truly in the running to determine the winner.  However, they
did not adjust the scores.  I can imagine how the person who got the 43 might
have felt when it was noticed that a beer with a 37 won.   Do we need to
educate those entering competitions to the fact that the best beer and not
necessarily the highest scoring beer wins the competition?   I know that
ideally the higher scoring beer wins but there are obviously cases where this
is not true.  

I am curious about what the general concensus is.  Is it necessary to go back
and readjust scores to ensure that the winner has the highest point total?
 Is it not enough that the best beer has been selected by concensus of the
judges?  

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

From: "Jay Hersh aka Dr. Beer (SM)" <drbeer at tiac.net>
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 17:39:10 -0400
Subject: Dennis' kind invitation

At 10:07 PM 5/3/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Jay suggests:
>
>>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.

Dennis replied:
>
>Actually, two ongoing committees will be having personnel changes starting
>June 1 or there about. The Committees are Exam and Competition. There is
>only two rules I follow when it comes to the committees, one rule is that
>they are regionaly diversified, so that a larger cross section of the
>country can be heard, and two, that they have an odd number of people on
>them. So go for it. Leave me your name and the committee you'd like to be
>on. Currently, each of these committees will have one BoD member and the Comp
>or Exam Director, that'll leave at least 5 positions open.
>

Dennis,

while I appreciate your kind offer I am sure that despite the fact that no
public announcement has to date been made of this by yourself or other
members on the board of directors, I am notified by Scott Bickham (and Bob
Gorman) that  Scott's nomination of me to serve as an associate exam
director was approved. I have in fact already begun to serve in that
capacity assisting Scott. It therefore might not be appropriate for me to
seek to serve in an additional position since that would deprive other
interested parties from such an opportunity, and I already have a role to
play in helping the BJCP.  

However should there be a shortage of interested individuals please feel
free to consider me for the exam committee.   You are likely aware of my
qualifications, as I sent you a summary of them last August in regard to
another opening I had heard about through the grapevine at the time.  In
case you might have forgotten I should at least point out here that my
experience grading exams over the last 14 months assisting first Pat and
then Scott  might be useful to the committee ( I would still be willing to
play an advisory role in either event, but as indicated I would rather not
take an opportunity away from another interested party).

I do feel however that despite your kind offer you have missed the gist of
my message. Your posting here is clearly of a reactionary nature.   While
appreciated, it is not at all clear that it signals a change in operating
policy by yourself and/or the board of directors to continue to make open
announcements of volunteer openings which the board may create in the
future. I say this since in addition to the opportunities you do mention I
have reason to believe that there is at least one other position open for
which no public announcement has been made that I am aware of, and for which
I believe nominations are currently under consideration.  Perhaps I have
simply missed such an announcement, or an oversight was made in not openly
announcing this position, so I would appreciate your clarification.

You have addressed your reply directly to me by name, so it is also not
clear to me whether you intend to mean this as an open invitation for others
to reply. although I would assume so by your posting this to the wider
judgenet forum, I would rather clarify than assume since you know what they
say about what happens when you assume something :-).  

I hope that your posting this to the wider forum signals your adoption of a
new third rule, namely that in addition to your other two (which are quite
sensible and fair), you will also always announce the availability of
openings to as wide an audience as possible to try to provide equal access
to volunteer opportunities for all who are potentially interested, and not
solely in a reactionary mode when publicly prompted to do so. Either time,
or at least a clearly stated future intention to do so on your part or that
of the board, will tell.

I also reiterate my call for the board to publish a concrete set of goals
for the period between now and the next elections, and for the board to take
a proactive approach in improving the openness of the process by which they
govern the BJCP.


                          Jay


P.S. while I don't wish to launch into a debate about the merits of
distributing  appointments on a regional basis, I would request that you
bear in mind that some geographic regions have a significantly larger base
of judges (especially higher ranked judges with longer periods of BJCP
experience), and that a strict apportionment of volunteer positions by
geography will preclude the BJCP from taking best advantage of such
experienced members.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ddavison at execpc.com (Dennis Davison)
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 17:11:14 -0400
Subject: So it's no suprise to anyone

Last February, two fellow judges and myself were approached by our local
paper to judge the New Miller beer in a head to head competition with
Budwiser. The paper then wrote our comments complete with pictures of us
while we were judging them. The article mentions the BJCP, and that we were
BJCP judges. All we got for our labors was a sub dinner from the paper.

Last Thursday, we all got phone calls from Miller. Effective next Friday (at
least they hope it'll be Friday), Miller will be publishing an Advitorial in
most major newspapers nationwide. The three of us re-sat to have pictures
taken (since the local paper wouldn't release the originals). Miller plans
on using our comments for the sale of the new Miller beer.

For all of this, we get the Hard Hat tour of Miller, which will include the
labs, and pilot brewery and we are welcomed at a reception that night
inconjunction with the ad. Oh, we also got a Leinie Red Hat, and Celis Polo
shirt.

Dennis Davison                                       ddavison at execpc.com

                           BJCC Midwest Region
                         Chairperson of the BJCP


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

End of judge-digest V1 #1269
****************************

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