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 AAA06077 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 00:38:50 -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 AAA10276 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 00:38:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id AAA13975; Sat, 18 May 1996 00:38:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uu6.psi.com by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with SMTP id AAA13970; Sat, 18 May 1996 00:38:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA01132 for ; Fri, 17 May 96 23:51:52 -0400 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27035 for judge-digest-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 23:29:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 23:29:03 -0400 Message-Id: <199605180329.XAA27035 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1279 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Friday, 17 May 1996 Volume 01 : Number 1279 ============================================================================ 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: Oregon Homebrew Competition Results Re: judge-digest V1 #1278 Seeing excellence Quality of Judging more on judge quality ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Taratoot Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 19:43:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Oregon Homebrew Competition Results Someone asked about the results of the Oregon Homebrew Competition. Well, here they are... Thanks to all who offered their time and expertise as a judge, entered beer or mead in the competition, donated time or prizes for the competition and raffle, or just came to enjoy the festive atmosphere. Special thanks to the following for making this festival such a success: Advanced Brewing Scientific, Aycock Cutlery, Avatar Brewing, Brewing Techniques Magazine, Bridgeport Brewing, Chintimini (The Band!), Deschutes Brewery, F.H. Steinbart, Fresh Hops, Full Sail Brewing, Grain Millers, Hair of the Dog Brewing, Hart Brewing, Homebrew Heaven, The Homebrew Shop, Home Fermenter Center, Nicols Garden Nursery, Old World Deli, Oregon State University Food Science and Technology Department, Oregon Trader Brewery, Oregon Trail Brewery, Portland Brewing, Red Hook, Rogue Brewing, Shop and Go, Steelhead Brewery, Willamette Street Homebrewing, Wyeast. The results from the competition have been compiled. BEST OF SHOW was taken by a Honey Basil Ale brewed by William and Patty Pettit of Eugene, Oregon. Congratulations! The top three entries in each category follow. Barley Wine 1 Scott Sanders 2 Ron Hall 3 Stefen Webb & Kathleen Fritton Belgian, French Ales (excluding white and lambic) 1 Bob McCracken 2 Thomas N. Thompson 2 Kenton Cruzan 3 Steve Dempsey Belgian White, Lambic 1 Martin Wilde 2 Douglas Faynor 3 Matthew Lafoon Brown Ale 1 Herky Gottfried 2 Ingmar Saul 2 Mel Greiser 3 Lee Smith English Pale Ale 1 Ted Manahan 2 Nick Bruels 3 Steve Dempsey American Ale, California Common 1 Curt Hausam 2 Guy Harrelson 3 Curt Hausam Scottish Ale 1 Kenton Cruzan 2 John E. Rieks 3 Dean Bautz Porter 1 Adan O'Conner 2 Steve Mueller 3 Mark Norbury Strong Ale 1 Robert Wolff 2 Russ Kazmierczak Stout 1 Pat Mahony 2 Walt Hammond 3 Pat Heveron Helles, Traditional Bock 1 John Sterner 2 Ron Hall 3 Bob Allen Dopplebock 1 Kevin R. Kane 2 Hoppers of the Holy Ale Club 3 Rob Radtke Light and Dark Lager 1 John E. Rieks 2 Mark Norbury 3 Mark Norbury Pilsener 1 Robert Wolff 2 Frank J. Berry 3 Ted Pilkons Vianna/Oktoberfest/Marzen 1 Mark Norbury 2 Matthew Lafoon 3 Dan Ritter German Ale 1 Mark Norbury 2 John Sterner 3 Lee Smith Fruit Beer 1 Ron Thomas 2 Douglas Faynor 3 David Muhl and Jacqueline Boger Herb Beer 1 William, Patty Pettit 2 Cliff Rice 3 Herky Gottfried Specialty 1 Ken Cobb 2 Kenton Cruzan 3 Kenton Cruzan Smoked Beer 1 Ron Hall 2 Steve Dempsey 3 Stefen Webb & Kathleen Fritton German Wheat 1 Randy Reid 2 Rob Radtke 3 Frank J. Berry Mead 1 Lonnie Dvorak 2 Bob Allen 3 Steve Dempsey - -- Mark Taratoot "...though my problems are meaningless, taratoot at peak.org that don't make them go away." -Neil Young ------------------------------ From: Sullivan51 at aol.com Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 07:24:57 -0400 Subject: Re: judge-digest V1 #1278 In a message dated 96-05-17 00:16:47 EDT, you write: Bob Paolino writes about disqualifying a beer from the Big & Huge competition because it wasn't so big and huge. > With no information that the beer was technically ineligible for the competition, the >judges gave it a very respectable score, and it advanced both to the Big Ale round and >from there to the Best of Show round. (No, it wasn't selected BOS.) Now I'm stuck >having to be the "bad guy" to tell him that the beer was disqualified and doesn't >receive the award. :-( I think Bob was right to disqualify this beer. I am curious however, how many organizers check out the entry forms sent to a competition to see if an entry is within guidelines. If we start doing this after the beer has been judged through the various rounds, several questions come to mind. * Would there be a minimum violation threshold or would any erroneous parameter knock the beer out of the contest? * After disqualification, how do you go back and decide which of the also-rans should win? This may be easier in a flight rather than a round like the Best Ale round. * Doesn't the disqualification of beers after analysis of the entry form just encourage participants to lie about the stylistic parameters of their entry? Many do anyway. I know that people who cheat are scumbags, yada yada yada and anybody truly worth their salt would not do this. Is there any workable solution? I don't think so. Thoughts? ------------------------------ From: Kathy Booth Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 07:33:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Seeing excellence I would love th have some of those score sheets considered execellent to be posted so I could see what is expected and desired. Maybe we would have to send $2 or so to cover postage and handling via reg mail rather than via judgenet. Jim Booth, Lansing, Mi PS Although I'm not a huge fan of the Longshot beers by Boston Brewing, The publicity (in the fine print) for the individuals and the organizations and the sport of homebrewing is pretty good for us.I doubt that it is a profitable venture in a big way for Boston Brewing. ------------------------------ From: PGarofal at USCCMAIL.uscc.bms.com Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:35:32 -0500 Subject: Quality of Judging Regarding Steve Stroud's recent posting on Dan Hall's efforts to give feedback to judges, my hat's off to Dan. Imagine, he's found a more thankless task than organizing a competition! ;-) While I applaud Dan's effort, I question the logistical nightmare that might ensue. In our local competition, IMO the strong point was the IMMEDIATE return of scoresheets to entrants. Obviously, a review would add significant lag time to the return of feedback to entrants. A possible compromise would be to copy the scoresheets, but that adds expense... I saw a scoresheet from the Boston competition, and on the bottom was an address to which complaints were directed. As I've mentioned in the past, this is a great idea, and easily implemented. Al K has mentioned the use of a stamp with name, address (e- or s-mail) and a message similar to "how's my judging?". Again, a good idea, and SIMPLE. Fred Hardy has put forth another point of view concerning quality control on this forum in the past. Though we may disagree, Fred raises some excellent points about the perception of criticism (even "constructive" criticism). Let's not turn folks off. The positive aspects of peer review should be emphasized. Finally, Chris Vyhnal raises a good point about basic politeness on this forum. Perhaps the acid tone of many postings (and replies) keeps newer judges from making a contribution. If so, that's a real shame. Peter Garofalo ------------------------------ From: STROUDS at cliffy.polaroid.com Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 19:07:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: more on judge quality continuing on this thread.... Chris V sez: >I am inclined to think that a written warning to subpar judges may be >justified, but that a "period of probation" might be a little severe. I was only suggesting this for someone who collects several (3? 5?) written warnings in their file. Most judges will clean up their act after one letter, it's those that ignore such a letter that are the problem. I agree about judging and being fun and all, but let's face it, brewers pay good money to get their beers judged. They deserve quality work from the judges; judges that constantly do a poor job should be weeded out. The BJCP needs quality control of _some_ kind. I do like Chris' suggestion that some superior evaluation forms be published in the next BJCP newsletter mailing. Who is best positioned to review a judge's work? Clearly it is someone who is objective (i.e., has no entries in the competition and therefore has no axe to grind concerning the scoring of their beer) and who can look at _all_ of the beer evaluation forms at one time and get a feel for how a judge performed in total. This could be the head organizer or one of the assistants. I know that it is a lot of work (I looked at about 1/3 of the BHC forms with Dan), but, gosh, isn't it important if we expect judging to get better? It would be nice, as Al suggested, if more entrants complained when they got lousy scoresheets, though it is sometimes hard for entrants to separate the quality of judging from the score their beer received. Steve ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1279 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.