Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 23:32:22 -0400
Message-Id: <199605090332.XAA05725 at synchro.com>
From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
To: judge-digest at synchro.com
Subject:   judge-digest V1 #1271
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com
Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk


judge-digest               Wednesday, 8 May 1996       Volume 01 : Number 1271

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

 Iowa City Homebrew Classic
 Drift and changing scores
 upside down
 reply to Norman
 Re: Compensation

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

From: Wolfe at act.org
Date: Wed, 08 May 96 09:23:11 CST
Subject: Iowa City Homebrew Classic

If you haven't entered or haven't signed up to judge, we could use more of
both for the 1ST IOWA CITY HOMEBREW CLASSIC to be held May 18th in Iowa
City, Iowa.  This is the third Midwest Homebrewer of the Year Award
competition.

If you have questions or need more information, call Ed Wolfe at
319-643-7354 or email him at wolfe at act.org.


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

From: Wolfe at act.org
Date: Wed, 8 May 96 10:13 CST
Subject: Drift and changing scores

With respect to Sullivan's questions about drift:

I typically retaste most beers that I score above 30 (or that I assign a
high score relative to the remaining beers) when assigning places or
selecting beers to go on to best of category.  I do this regularly because
I can't really tell when I'm beginning to "drift."

One thing that you need to take into consideration, however, is that some
of the characteristics of the beer change as it sits--they lose
carbonation, volatile aromas dissipate, flavor profiles change because the
beer warms, etc.  The beer may begin to taste quite differently after 20
minutes or so.

With respect to rescoring, however, I typically don't redo the scores and
comments that I originally assigned.  Instead, I change scores on the cover
sheets--they contain a line of text that says that the final score is
arrived at through discussion and that it may not necessarily be the
average of the scores assigned by the judges independently.  I also make
sure that the beers that were awarded ribbons or advanced to best of
category are the highest scoring beers (usually adjusting their scores
upward to be higher than the rest of the beers in the category) and that
their scores rank from highest to lowest according to the place they've
been awarded.  I do this to avoid questions and confusion on the part of
the contestant.  It's probably easier to correct our behavior as judges so
that our communication is clear than it is to educate all of the potential
contestants out there.

So, I think that we should make sure that the top three beers get the
highest scores by readjusting the cover sheet (rather than the score
sheets).  I know that this is what was done at the first round in
Chicago--even when multiple teams of judges gathered to select the top
three, we went back to make sure that the top three beers were scored
higher than all of the remaining beers and that their rank order jibed with
the places they were awarded.

Ed Wolfe

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

From: Kathy Booth <kbooth at isd.ingham.k12.mi.us>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 15:42:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: upside down

	Being new at judging  I had always assumed the "top down judging" 
refered to the form used for AHA (50 pts as bliss). "Top-down" I assumed
was where one went down the form and arrived at some total at the bottom.

	"Bottom up judging" was tasting and saying this is a "40 pointer" 
(at the bottom of the page) and them moving up the page filling out the 
components to add up to the required 40.  

	From the interesting Brewing Techniques article on judging 
errors, I apparently had it backwards  

	I would be interested in confirming the usage of these terms 
 Cheers, Jim Booth, Lansing, MI

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

From: "Jay Hersh aka Dr. Beer (SM)" <drbeer at tiac.net>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 19:57:56 -0400
Subject: reply to Norman

I wish to thank Norman for his thoughtful reply. Here are some additional
thoughts I have behind my reasoning.

Norman said:
>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.

  I certainly would not deny that some individuals have conducted themselves
in such a manner that I do not consider civil, and agree that trying to
discuss issues in such a manner is counter productive. I have gone so far as
to try to make them aware that they undermine their goals by conducting
their discussion in such a manner.

On the other hand however, and perhaps this is a misperception on my own
part, in the many months I have followed discussion here I have perceived
that the response of board members has been, for the most part, reactionary
and defensive.  My perception has been that opinions expressed which are
perceived as critical of their conduct, whether presented civilly or
otherwise, are dismissed or attacked.  This presents an attitude of "we're
right, now will you just shut up and let us do our work."  Again this is
just my perception, but I do not believe that the board has to date been
receptive to opinions of those outside a relatively closed circle.

>
>>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. 

I completely agree with you, and am myself actively involved in exam
grading, and have also advised that others step forward to help build the
organization.  Of course without knowledge of the opportunities to do so
this is difficult (I will return to this shortly).

I do however feel that an attitude which holds that only those who have
contributed are capable of having valid opinions or worthwhile ideas is
wrong headed. It narrows the universe of possible ideas and risks missing
them (for instance Al K.'s idea about networking via club newsletters is a
very commendable one).

>
>>...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.
>

The expediency I am aware of mostly stems from failure to utilize an open
process to fill volunteer positions.   Among these positions are the
position of exam director, assistant exam directors, competition committees.
I do not mean to imply that those filling these positions presently are not
qualified, or are not doing a good job.  In fact I believe the opposite.

I do believe however that what is being overlooked in achieving the end, is
that the means is important as well.  Presently the counsel of the board is
held within a relatively small circle of individuals with which they have
direct contact.  By failing to solicit volunteers for advisory positions
from the general membership, and by nominating individuals only from those
names put forward by board members themselves the group from which the board
receives advice and comment is more closed than if all participants (or
again at least as wide as current communication channels will allow) were to
be apprised of service opportunities.

Additionally failing to openly solicit volunteers has the effect of
disenfranchising the membership.  It sends a message to those judges who may
have much to contribute, but aren't networked with those in authority, that
their energy and services really aren't desired.

I strongly believe that the board really needs to reconsider its process
with regard to certain issues, and that its current process is flawed and
creates a bad precedent for future boards. 


                          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: edm at fox.nstn.ca (EDM)
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 21:11:30 -0300 (ADT)
Subject: Re: Compensation

OK, here we go again.  BTW, I get to very few competitions to judge (about
2 a year) and none of them have any money to give to judges.  I guess I
think of this as more of a hobby than a profession.  I am a member of CABA,
as well as the AHA, and the second A in CABA stands for Amateur.  I have
always been under the impression that the BJCP was based on a more
altruistic attitude of providing a benchmark that homebrewers (Amateurs)
could measure up to, plus a means of providing feedback to improve their
brew.  There will always be a minority of people who can make a living from
just about anything, but I can't say I would ever expect to be paid for
judging HOMEbrew.

HOWEVER.  The story related by Dennis Davison on the previous digest
describes something that I believe either the judges who took part, or the
BJCP as a sponsoring organization (by choice or not) should be compensated
for.  As I understood his story, which follows, he and other judges
represented the organization in such a manner as to have Miller Brewing
Company use them and their judging assessments in an ad campaign?  And all
they got was the tour?  Will Miller publish negative comments, as well as
possible favourable ones?  Am I to be considered, by inference, a Miller
Man?

Here is DD's story.....

"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."

I am sorry, but...     Yikes!  Is not Miller using the BJCP reputation
here, not to mention the hale and hearty judges'?

The following is Jeff Frane's position on compensation, which I support -
if people are willing to give honorariums then fine.  No one will make a
living from the sort of thing he describes.  I think of compensation more
in terms of the $100/hr (no it doesn't all go to me...)  type thing I do
for a living.  Not honest gestures of appreciation.

>
>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?

>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?
>

The only thing I can see people getting upset about is if someone sold out
to a brewery and took the BJCP reputation along with them.  It is
surprisingly easy to get tarred with the same brush if you have a
membership card and are on a database.

The Millers of the world pay semi human models four or five hundred dollars
an hour to pose for pictures for beer ads.  They know nothing about beer
and are not credible witnesses to the quality of the beer.  Someone who is
should be worth more.  All you really have in this world is your
reputation.


Jeff in Halifax


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

End of judge-digest V1 #1271
****************************

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