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 OAA12657 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 14:42:27 -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 OAA16475 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 14:42:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id OAA03246; Thu, 16 May 1996 14:42:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uu6.psi.com by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id OAA03195; Thu, 16 May 1996 14:42:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA04263 for ; Thu, 16 May 96 13:18:12 -0400 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18442 for judge-digest-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 08:21:09 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 08:21:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199605161221.IAA18442 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1277 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Thursday, 16 May 1996 Volume 01 : Number 1277 ============================================================================ 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: AHA Second Round, lodging? Sanctioning, So What? Letters to judges Re: Dock Street Competition ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: isenhour at uiuc.edu Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 00:38:42 -0500 (CDT) Subject: AHA Second Round, lodging? I'm trying to find out about lodging near the AHAcon in New Orleans, does anybody know of anyplace nearby (i.e. walking distance or short cab?) tnx! john - -- John Isenhour "unix is not your mother" Brewmaster/National Judge Library & Information Science isenhour at uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: Fred Hardy Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 11:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Sanctioning, So What? Dave Houseman had several interesting observations about the Dock Street HBC. I have also read similar comments about the BBC WHBC. There seems to be a cry for standards which govern such events. Sadly, the AHA does have such standards which are made known to the sponsoring organization when they apply for the sanction. The AHA, and no one else, does an audit to determine if the standards are followed. From both a practical and ethical perspective, I agree with the current system. The AHA (or BJCP) has every reason to expect a sanctioned event to adhere to certain guidelines. I feel they should not have enforcement power. It would be nice to see comments like Dave's forwarded to the AHA and BJCP (maybe posting on JudgeNet does that) who could then verify Dave's observations and file a letter of complaint with the sponsoring organization. End of enforcement responsibility. Dave's comment on not participating as a judge is of value only if his feelings were made known to the sponsors, and the sponsors give a damn. Their performance (as Dave observed it) seems to be pointed toward bringing in customers rather than a "for fun" HBC. Obviously the BBC WHBC was not designed to provide a judging forum for entrants, and that was stated up front. The AHA standards work well when an organizer has the entrant's interests in mind. Maybe we need to consider who the sponsor of an HBC is before we sign up to participate. I will gladly judge in an event sponsored by the AHA or an AHA sanctioned HB club. I'll pass on commercial (including HWBTA) sponsored events. Sponsorship, not sanctioning, is a better indicator of the event's purpose. Anyone with a few bucks can receive sanction. It simply means the horse was led to water. It does not require the horse to drink. Cheers, Fred ============================================================================== We must invent the future, else it will | happen to us and we will not like it. | [Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"] | email: fcmbh at access.digex.net ============================================================================== ------------------------------ From: STROUDS at cliffy.polaroid.com Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 13:39:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Letters to judges This is an item for general discussion and I would encourage any members of the BJCC to join in. I don't think that there is any official BJCP policy on this - - but I believe that there should be. After the Boston Homebrew Competition in February, Dan Hall (competition organizer) sat down and reviewed all of the beer evaluation forms. In particular he was looking for omissions, errors, and lack of comments in order to ascertain whether or not any of the judges had performed poorly enough that a letter of admonishment to them was warranted. Conversely, Dan also took note of judges whose forms were constantly superior and generally personified 'ideal' judging forms. He identifed six judges that he felt submitted numerous 'subpar' evaluation forms and sent each of them a letter, identifying where he felt their judging was inadequate and making suggestions for improvement in the future. Some of the errors were fairly minor (one National judge did not write his name down on the forms many times), others much more serious (a judge who did not complete sentences on five different judging forms, another who made addition mistakes, gave one beer a '7' for body, left areas on forms blank, etc.) Dan also sent letters to four judges whose forms were consistantly 'superior', thanking them for doing an excellent job. Dan and I have discussed whether or not these letters should go any further. My opinion is that they should. If Dan felt strongly enough to go to the trouble of sending a judge a letter, I believe that a copy should also go into the judge's BJCP file (I also think that the 'superior' letters should be included in judges' files). If competition organizers were to uniformly do what Dan did (review all beer evaluation forms after a competition), judges who are a constant problem could be identified and action could be taken. What that action would be is open for debate but should probably include a warning and/or a period of probation. Comments? Steve Stroud ------------------------------ From: Mark Johnston Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 21:51:01 -0400 Subject: Re: Dock Street Competition Dave Houseman posted an opinion on sanctioning rules/guidelines, based on his experience at the Dock Street homebrew competition. It was interesting to hear yet another complaint from a judge about this competition. Dock Street's entire purpose for running it is to get people into the restaurant to spend money. They've even included this tactic as part of the marketing section of their business plan. While this is okay on the surface, they go so far as refusing to send out application/entry forms - you must go there to pick them up. Dave has already discussed the post-competition form return. I missed the first 2 of these events due to prior committments. (I think this was their fourth or fifth.) After I heard how their competition was run, I refused to participate. Quite honestly, I'm not sure that any rules or guidelines for sanctioning will be followed by these mercenaries. ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1277 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.