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 CAA02338 for ; Wed, 8 May 1996 02:33:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.37]) by srvr8.engin.umich.edu (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA14959 for ; Wed, 8 May 1996 02:33:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id CAA06063; Wed, 8 May 1996 02:33:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uu6.psi.com by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id CAA06058; Wed, 8 May 1996 02:33:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA10316 for ; Wed, 8 May 96 01:48:10 -0400 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00375 for judge-digest-outgoing; Tue, 7 May 1996 23:27:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 23:27:24 -0400 Message-Id: <199605080327.XAA00375 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1270 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 1270 ============================================================================ 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: RE: Decreasing Quality of Homebrew Entries Distributing information compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pinhey Craig Date: Tue, 07 May 96 17:04:00 DST Subject: RE: Decreasing Quality of Homebrew Entries |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. I have to agree with Scott here. Whoever it was that said that they seldom taste quality homebrew must be judging on another planet. Just what is he comparing the beer to? We would be lucky if the average commercial microbrew was as good as the typical winners in homebrew competitions! I know of at least 5 homebrewers in my area who produce better beer than 99% of the microbrews I've had, and consistently too. Heck, I even make one once in awhile that is better than Molbatt's =;) Craig Pinhey Chair, CABA Judge & Competitions Committee ------------------------------ From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas) Date: Tue, 7 May 96 16:33:25 CDT Subject: Distributing information As we all know, it is very costly to distribute information to every one of the 1600+ BJCP members. Partly in response to Jay's comment: >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 I'd like to offer a possible way to reach beyond JudgeNet BJCP members. I suspect that there is at least one electronically-connected person in more than half of all homebrew clubs. Perhaps clubs could be contacted via paper mail asking for a single electronic point-of-contact for their club. Those clubs that don't have any members with email addresses could possibly get the subsequent information via paper mail. At the meetings of all the clubs to which I belong there is a time for announcments. Status on what's going on with the BJCP, upcoming competitions and announcments such as volunteer opportunities could be distributed much more cost effectively than contacting every member directly. Naturally, not all BJCP members belong to clubs, so periodic direct mailings would still be needed, but if 80% could be contacted via clubs, that would allow a significant increase in the level of communication without the monumental cost of a 1600+ piece mailing. Also, if we used the largest "post card" allowable by the USPS and printed very small, we might be able to distribute the info on computer-printed postcards, no? If we have non-profit status, don't we get a really low rate on mailings? I assume that this is already being pursued, but my addition to this is mainly the idea of contacting as many clubs as possible via an email contact and contacting the rest of the clubs via USPS. Just my tuppence. Al. ------------------------------ From: jfrane at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 16:05:44 -0700 Subject: compensation I knew I should read the digest every day; whenever I get behind, something weird slips by me. >Subject: compensation > >Bob writes: >>Jeff 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. [snip] > Why on earth would we *ever* want to prohibit a judge from getting paid for judging? This year, for the first time, the Oregon State Fair will not be able to offer an honorarium for judges; the Western Washington State Fair offered something like $50 previously and one year, when they had rashly scheduled the competition opposite the Oregon Brewers' Festival, they offered $100. How often does a judge get an offer like that? Granted, I've missed whatever posting explained the logic of this argument, but could someone give me a reason why an organizer shouldn't pay judges something if the money is available? Is there some point to this? The whole thing is ludicrous. If homebrew judges went around charging for their services, they would find themselves home with the television most of the time. But if the money is *there*, and the organizer feels that the judge's service is of value, who the hell are we (well, not "we", maybe "you") to suggest otherwise? Is a judge's experience less worthy if it's rewarded? - --Jeff Frane ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1270 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.