Return-Path: owner-judge at synchro.com Received: from srvr12.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr12.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.68]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA22188 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:03:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (0 at judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.37]) by srvr12.engin.umich.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id KAA15059 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:02:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id KAA12748; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:02:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay4.smtp.psi.net by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with ESMTP id KAA12623; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:02:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com by relay4.smtp.psi.net (8.8.3/SMI-5.4-PSI) id JAA00548; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:53:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA12906 for juknalis at ARSERRC.Gov; Fri, 14 Feb 97 09:52:54 -0500 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA01937 for judge-digest-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:12:19 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:12:19 -0500 Message-Id: <199702141412.JAA01937 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1383 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Friday, 14 February 1997 Volume 01 : Number 1383 ============================================================================ 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: BOS panel selection experience points ... Re: BOS panel makeup Re: BOS selection & cups & scoresheets Re: BOS selection BOS advance seating Re: Communication (2) Re: Communication US Open Competition, Charlotte, NC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: korz at xnet.com Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:19:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: BOS panel selection Deborah writes: >Has anyone ever been involved with a competition where individuals were >invited to be on BOS before the actual competition? > >It certainly never happened in my experience on the East Coast, and was >surprised that it happened here in the NW. It is not the full BOS >panel, but some people were invited, primarily because they have >excellent reputations in the community. It may be from the group's lack >of experience, but I vehemently disagreed; regardless of the caliber of >the individuals invited, I've always thought the BOS panel should >represent a cross section of clubs and judge levels present at the >competition. While I agree that it may be "good" or "nice" to invite Certified or Recognized judges to serve on the BOS panel (to give them some experience and/or to reward a hard-working clubmember who happens to not have advanced in the program, for whatever reason), I think that overall, the primary responsibility of the organizer is to make sure that the BOS beers will be judged well. This pretty much means that the judges need to be experienced in judging all the styles. The judges who have this experience usually also have attained higher rank... it stands to reason. What I've noticed (in the 30-something competitions at which I've judged) and the criteria that I used when selecting judges for BOS when I was the organizer were: - - make sure there is at least one very highly experienced judge on the panel, - - invite an experienced judge who has traveled a great distance to judge at your competition, - - if several clubs are represented at the competition, make sure to spread the BOS across the clubs, - - the rest of the panel is usually offered to the highest ranking judges who don't have a 1st place winner, and - - if it's a very large competition (and, therefore, the rules allow for 4 or even 5 BOS judges) invite a skilled, but less-senior- ranking judge (the snag being there could be a shortage of beer). I also think that it really is the responsibility of the organizer to talk privately with all the Master and National judges who were not invited to be on BOS, *especially* if he/she has put a Certified or Recognized judge on the panel. You want to make sure they come to your next competition. Inviting judges to BOS *before* or *during* the competition can be necessary if: 1. the organizer is afraid that there will be no Master or National or highly-experienced Certified/Recognized judges attending the judging, or 2. the organizer is afraid that some judges he/she wants for BOS are likely to simply leave at the end of the second flight. Some judges will say "no... I've done enough BOS... give it to someone else" but I have found that very difficult to say. Frankly, the best 20+ beers in the whole competition are there for the tasting and turning down that opportunity is very difficult. Al. ------------------------------ From: fitz at fasicsv.fnal.gov (Tom Fitzpatrick) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:55:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: experience points ... In JD #1379, John writes: > From: jac at access.usa.net (John A. Carlson, Jr.) > Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:23:59 -0700 (MST) > Subject: Poor Judging > > Yes I agree that there is a lot of poor judging going on out there but how > does one solve the problem. Many times an organizer is forced to take any > warm body available to judge (BJCP program member or not) because of the > volume of entries and the lack of qualified individuals. > > My concern with the recent relaxation of the experience point system is two > pronged. > On one hand, offering more points may attract more people to judge. This > is good. > On the other hand, allowing people to advance faster in the system may lead > to promoting people to higher rank when they lack the kind of experience > that can only come with time. This is bad. > - --John Carlson > National > Boulder, CO John, I think you need to take a closer look at the "relaxation of the experience point system". For most judges, the new system will mean LESS experience points overall. There are very few competitions with less than 75 entries these days, so relatively few will benefit from the 1 point minimum for a day's judging. The BOS points (which REALLY rack up points quickly) schedule has been reduced to a half point across the board. You will no longer get 3 points for judging two or three flights at the AHA nationals. Organizers no longer have the incentive to hoard all the points for running a competition. The only situation where points have been expanded is for the competitions that have preliminary rounds days or weeks before the main competition day. But here the extra points are deserved because more flights have been judged. I think judges are advancing faster in the program because of the shear number of opportunities to judge, especially in metropolitan areas. I looked at my judging record and used the new experience point schedule to calculate where I'd be had the new schedule been in place since I started judging, and I came up with ~25% LESS points with the new schedule. This is largely due to the reduction in BOS points and removing the BIG competition bias. So please look at the numbers before you complain about policies ... - -Tom Fitzpatrick BJCP Competition Director ------------------------------ From: GSMITHBEER at aol.com Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:11:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: BOS panel makeup D. Robinson writes <> Actually Deb, I've seen BOS panels jockey'ed in that way all over the US (even the New York City Homebrewers Guild has done this on occasion when a high ranking judge(s) pressured the organizers to "load up" the panel.) Under the former competition guidelines (omission of the topic) I've even seen some very self-serving organizers award themselves a spot on the panel. I've also seen a club hold the BOS during a different week, thus, effectively eliminating any chance of an out-of-town'er appearing on the BOS panel. In general I disagree with these practices and prefer drawing by random ballot from those judges who do not have a beer in the BOS round. (the one exception would be as you mentioned - in an area with a low level of judge experience - I cna understand, but don't endorse it there.) To my knowledge, only the issue of the organizer judging BOS has ever been addressed (recently), but I could be wrong on that one (corrections anyone?) But the remainder of methods I've experienced, and metioned here, seem to be totaly at the discretion of the organizer(s) even though a lot of it seems unfair. Of course I do expect quite a few responses saying - 'well, what's wrong with it.' Personally, I've never flaunted my national rank or GABF judging experience to gain advantage in getting on a BOS panel (even in a club where my wife [also national rank] and I were the only experienced judges.) To me it would be unseemly to do so, but as I said, I don't expect everyone to share that opinion. And after all, with no guidelines it's just that....opinion. :-) Gregg Smith ------------------------------ From: Spencer W Thomas Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:18:47 -0500 Subject: Re: BOS selection & cups & scoresheets On cups: A couple of years ago we bought three cases (72 each) of "lowball" glasses. These usually suffice for a single day's judging. Sometimes we have to run them through a dishwasher, or supplement with plastic cups. My rule of thumb is that you need 2.2 cups per entry. This allows for the occasional table with more than 2 judges, and for water glasses. On BOS selection: I strongly believe that ALL first place beers should go to the BOS round. On scoresheets: Make more than you need (3 per entry is probably about right). Use the extras for your judge training / practice sessions. (And if you're not running judge training & practice sessions, you probably should be. :-) =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) ------------------------------ From: hollen at vigra.com Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 09:25:12 PST Subject: Re: BOS selection >> Spencer W Thomas writes: SWT> On BOS selection: SWT> I strongly believe that ALL first place beers should go to the BOS SWT> round. So now Spencer is the second person to tell me this same opinion. While I totally agree with it from an Organizer standpoint, how in the world can I expect my BOS panel to sample yet another 28 beers!!! This seems cruel to them. I realize that not every category will be entered and have a beer worthy of going on to BOS, but the potential is there. dion Organizer America's Finest City Homebrew Competition March 8, 1997 Quality Ale and Fermentation Fraternity, Sponsor http://www.vigra.com/~hollen/AFCHBC.html - --- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen at vigra.com http://www.vigra.com/~hollen Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California ------------------------------ From: "Rad Equipment" Date: 13 Feb 1997 10:09:42 U Subject: BOS advance seating Subject: BOS advance seating Time:9:50 AM Date:2/13/97 Deborah Robinson asks: >Has anyone ever been involved with a competition where individuals were >invited to be on BOS before the actual competition? Many times. As long as there is no chance that a BOS judge will have an entry at the table I would think it an advantage to staff the panel in advance. It is one less thing to have to figure out during the frenzy of the competition. I always try to assign all my judges in advance of the actual judging session. I believe the AHA NHC BOS is decided, at least partially, in advance. >I've always thought the BOS panel should represent a cross section of clubs >and judge levels present at the competition. Does that mean that that you put a Novice judge on a BOS panel just to equal out the representation? I thought the purpose of the BOS was to select the best First Place entry. Doesn't that task require the most experienced and well rounded judges? Judges who are familiar with all of the styles so that they can determine if the top alt is better than the top wheat or lambic? I wonder if this is another example of regionalism in competition practices? RW... Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - RussWig at aol.com) UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425 ------------------------------ From: jdecarlo at juno.com (John A DeCarlo) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:08:58 EST Subject: Re: Communication (2) Spencer W Thomas writes: > * If you really cannot agree, call in a (neutral) third party. > > * If you revise a score sheet significantly, start over on a new one. I forgot to mention that my previous comments were meant to say that I feel this rarely happens on just one beer, as it tends to be either different style concerns or different scoring tendencies. John DeCarlo, jdecarlo at juno.com, Arlington, VA http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/1113 ------------------------------ From: jdecarlo at juno.com (John A DeCarlo) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:08:58 EST Subject: Re: Communication Spencer W Thomas writes: >In this case, some gentle guidance from the more experienced judge could >have prevented at least the erasures. Whether the inexperienced judge >would have then written independent comments is still a question. Well, first of all I don't see exactly what the complaint is that a judge has erased scores or comments. Do entrants prefer erroneous comments stay on the sheet? What help is that? Second, I often find it helpful to discuss the *style* of beer being judged, to see if all the judges understand what they are looking for and agree on it. This should happen *before* judging any of the entrants' beers, but can certainly happen after the first beer where one judge seems to be far from another. I always encourage judges to have their own opinions. I may consider myself a pretty good judge of lambics, though I find it very instructive to judge with the likes of a CR Saikley or a Jim Liddil. I keep reminding myself that I am an independent judge who can *learn* from the experience, though I shouldn't parrot anything. OTOH, if I am judging with someone who thinks it is OK for a Belgian Dubbel to be light in color and very dry (because, after all, it is simply a Tripel with a lower starting gravity), then I will first try sweet reason, then appeal to the competition organizer. OYAH, if I am judging German Light Lagers for the very first time, I will initiate style discussion in a learning mode with a more experienced judge, so that I am starting in the same area as the other judges. Perhaps my comments end up closer to another judge's this way, but I also try and watch out for that. Third, people score differently, even when they make the same remarks about the sensory perception and style flaws. I am not entirely sure in my own mind what to do about this. I often discuss it with fellow judges after the calibration beer. It is worth discussing, even if you don't want to lower all your scores or make the other judge raise all his/hers. John DeCarlo, jdecarlo at juno.com, Arlington, VA http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/1113 ------------------------------ From: John Mitchell Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 07:04:38 -0500 Subject: US Open Competition, Charlotte, NC 1997 U.S.OPEN AHA Recognized Homebrew Competition Sponsored by the Carolina BrewMasters CALL FOR ENTRIES!!! April 26th, 1997 Charlotte, NC For more information, contact us at: Web http://dezines.com/ at your.service/cbm/ site contains printable entry forms, etc. Comp. c/o Ed Gaston Organizer 4124 Johnston Oehler Rd. Charlotte, NC 28269 Comp. Co- Keith Royster Organizer email: keith.royster at pex.net phone: (704) 663-1098 (evenings) Interested in Judging, or stewarding? Contact: Bruno Wichnoski email: bruhaus at uncc.campus.mci.net phone (day): 704.375.9112 phone (eve): 704.597.5782 OR Roman Davis email: zymurgist at aol.com phone (day): 704.375.9112 phone (eve): 704.362.1688 ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1383 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.