Return-Path: owner-judge at synchro.com Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.26]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA27916 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:22:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (0 at judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.37]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA20090 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:22:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id KAA17484; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:22:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay1.smtp.psi.net by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with ESMTP id KAA17477; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:22:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com by relay1.smtp.psi.net (8.8.3/SMI-5.4-PSI) id KAA14684; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:21:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA00871 for vitt at rchland.vnet.ibm.com; Tue, 4 Mar 97 10:21:16 -0500 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA01942 for judge-digest-outgoing; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:40:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 09:40:03 -0500 Message-Id: <199703041440.JAA01942 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1396 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Tuesday, 4 March 1997 Volume 01 : Number 1396 ============================================================================ 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 Subscriptions: judge-request at synchro.com Archive: http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge BJCP info: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com ============================================================================ contents: Re: judge-digest V1 #1395 BOS Round / Scoring & Scoresheets Re: AHA scoresheet AHA BoA AHA Re: AHA Score Sheets & Al Point Spreads ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jeff at edm.ca (Jeff Pinhey) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 07:52:34 -0400 Subject: Re: judge-digest V1 #1395 I just need to clarify one of my messages here: Subject: Re: AHA Scoresheet Al Korzonas wrote: > >Oh, by the way, you are unlikely to get any changes made to the AHA >scoresheets, but I know that the BJCP scoresheet authors are receptive >to good ideas. And I didn't cut out enough of his message so, when I replied: >Absolutely. Current thinking on the scoresheet committee is not far >removed from the discussions on Judgenet. I was referring to the scoresheet authors being open to good ideas, not necessarily AHA attitudes, about which I have no knowledge, other than to find it hard to believe that someone like James Spence would not be interested in improving the scoresheet, if it was proposed by the BJCP and supported by AHA members. ####################################################### Jeff Pinhey, Halifax, Nova Scotia ------------------------------ From: John Sullivan Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 05:59:05 -0800 Subject: BOS Round / Scoring & Scoresheets Good threads here recently. On the subject of BOS rounds and a BOS Judge not liking a particular style.... as a beer drinker there are some styles that I like more than others and some that I am not particularly fond of. Should judges who do not like a particular style be excluded from a BOS round? I don't think so. The red flag that was raised by Dennis I think is when a BOS judge professes to not understand a style. This affects the judges ability to evaluate the style in question. Regarding whether someone likes a style or not, well we are called judges right? You don't have to like it but you do have to evaluate it according to the standards and give it a score (or in BOS to pass judgement)and that's all. It doesn't matter whether you like the style or not. We must have some faith in our judges ability to evaluate fairly whether they like a style or not. If we are worried about not liking a style, shouldn't we really be worried about judges who simply like one style more than another? Regarding scoresheets: No matter what guidelines are adopted, I will continue to instruct judges that there is only one score to be given for the bottom rung (range of scores). Whether that is nineteen or five, if you beer is problematic, you can expect to get that score. There is no sense to allowing any judge to give a zero score to someone. If this effectively lowers the actual range of points to 31 or whatever, it should not really matter to the judges. The entrants after all are what really make up a competition. Entrants should not needlessly be made to feel inadequate. After all, it is the comments that are important. Bad beer = 19, read your comments entrant.... it is not important to have a numerical score to understand really how bad the beer was and where you fall in that bottom range. Just use the area for your comments effectively. John Sullivan St. Louis MO ------------------------------ From: "Likovuori Kari" Date: 3 Mar 97 18:02:22 +0200 Subject: Re: AHA scoresheet Greetings from Finnish Homebrewers Association There has been a lot of talking about scoresheets lately. We have had national homebrew contest for three years (well, we started four years ago). In the first year we used AHA 50 points scoresheet but noticed that it's not good for us. Why? - - we thought that some properties got wrong weight - - the sheet is not very clear for a judge not accustomed to it (we have lots of "uneducated" judges) - - division between faulty-fair-good... is not working (Where do the boundaries come anyway? Are there some research done?) So, next year we planned our own scoresheet where basic principles were - - even range from 0 to 10 for every property The use of this kind of range is intuitive (compare to BTI 14 point scale or ) - - the groups of properties (aroma, flavour...) have weight according to its importance - - there must be some space for quick comments after every property evaluated We have used this form for two years and we are quite satisfied. It is very easy to use (well, calculating the scores is easiest to do with a computer anyway) and as you can see the total range is 0-145, so it's very easy to differentiate the samples. I made a quick translation to english and you can take a look from: http://beer.tcm.hut.fi/OluenMaistaminen/Arviointi/FHA96.xls. The sheet is in Excel 4.0 format. I hope this might give some thoughts to the people who are designing the new scoresheets. - -=Kari=- - -- phone:+358 50 525 3608 ** mailto:Kari.Likovuori at mol.fi http://beer.tcm.hut.fi/Likovuori/ .~~. ** Finnish Homebrewers' Association ** |--|] ** The Finnish League of Independent Beer Societies (FINNLIBS) ** |__| ------------------------------ From: "Rad Equipment" Date: 3 Mar 1997 09:35:18 U Subject: AHA BoA Subject: AHA BoA Time:9:13 AM Date:3/3/97 Mike Hall said: >Third, I am a newly elected member of the AHA's Board of Advisors. Hmmm. Elected? By whom? Possibly elected by the remainder of the previous members of the Board of Advisors (four I believe) which is hardly representative of the membership. I am sure that Mike never intended to mislead with his statement and I am very happy to see some new blood on the BoA. However, for the sake of accuracy I believe we should continue to refer to the BoA members as appointed, not elected. Congratulations on your appointment Mike! 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: korz at xnet.com Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 12:07:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: AHA So now I'm the antichrist for suggesting that the AHA will probably be unresponsive to suggestions made here. John writes (quoting me): >>Oh, by the way, you are unlikely to get any changes made to the AHA >>scoresheets, but I know that the BJCP scoresheet authors are receptive >>to good ideas. >I read that as a cheap shot against the AHA and totally non-productive to >the discussion. You can read it how you want, but I simply said "unlikely." This is based upon my seven years of trying to get changes made to the AHA style guidelines. 80% of my suggestions were ignored and the rest were only partially implemented. My comments, based upon the AHA's history of unresponsiveness to suggestions, I feel were justified and not a "cheap shot." When I see the AHA begin to be responsive to their "members" I'll change my opinion. Caroline writes: >Despite Al Korzonas' remark that the AHA would not be receptive to such >changes, we are indeed interested. I'll be forming a committe to make... I'm all in favour of changes at the AHA... historically, it has been very dictatorial (even you must admit, Caroline). Please note that I never wrote "would not be receptive." See above. I hope this new "glastnost" at the AHA continues and *members* suggestions are actually implemented. Al. ------------------------------ From: hall at galt.c3.lanl.gov (Michael L. Hall) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 11:23:25 -0700 Subject: Re: AHA Score Sheets & Al John A. Carlson, Jr. writes: > Query: If the AHA is so non-responsive to change why did they approach Mike > Hall (BJCP National) to help redraft the mead score sheet last year? Why > did James Spence last summer write several mead makers across the country > (Paddy Giffen, Fred Hardy, Byron Burch, myself, and several others) to > solicite comment for a redraft of the mead style guidelines? These > comments were incorporated into the 1997 NHC guidelines. While I agree with the points that John makes, I just wanted to correct a couple of details for the record. - I am not a BJCP National judge. I took the exam early in my brewing/judging career (1990) and was less than stellar. I do, however, have a lot of experience points (around 40, enough for Master level) and have judged lots of comps as a BOS judge. My BJCP ranking is Certified. Guess I should re-exam, huh? - There were several people contacted to redesign the mead score sheet, not just me. I'm pretty sure that the list included Dan McConnell, Ken Schramm, Byron Burch, Gordon Olson, Paddy Giffen and a couple of others. I think that I made the most complete response, but Caroline said many of my comments were echoed by the others. - I was also contacted by James Spence to redo the mead guidelines. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to respond then. All of this is probably unimportant to everyone, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't slandered by being called a National judge :-) Mike Hall President, Los Alamos Atom Mashers Member, AHA Board of Directors The Feynman Problem Solving Algorithm: 1) Write down the problem 2) Think very hard 3) Write down the answer Murray Gell-Mann ------------------------------ From: Wallinger at kktv.com Date: 3 Mar 1997 22:41:08 -0700 Subject: Point Spreads George De Piro said: It is a rule of sorts to never give less than a 19 (I don't give less than 21 unless a beer is so bad that it impairs my palate). It is also next to impossible to score over 45. That means we are scoring on a *26* point scale, not 50. This could be avoided if the point system was made broader, either by increasing the potential total points, or by actually using the full width of our current system. I feel somewhat constrained as the system now stands. To give less than a 30 means that there should be a serious flaw, yet scoring a beer 40 points would put it amongst the best scores I've ever given! There's only a 10 point difference! I too would like to see judges start using the entire point scale we are given. And while the two suggestions given above may help, I think the real problem is the seven-point spread imposed on us. Does anyone like it? I know I never understood the purpose for it. The only reason I can see for it is appearances. Basically, to the brewer who receives the score sheets, it creates the appearance of consensus where none might exist. There have many complaints from brewers in recent postings about the contradictory evaluations they get from judges. I think it's time everyone realized that judges ARE different, with different sensitivies to aromas and flavors, different experiences, and different understandings of styles. That's why we use more than one judge in a flight! I would love to give really good beers a high score. In fact, on several occasions, I have given beers scores as high as 45 when they warranted them. But I was always forced to reduce the score when it came time to discuss our evaluations, because someone else scored it lower than a 38, and we both had to adjust our scores to bring them back within seven points. Of course, what always happens in a case like that is that the high judge comes down a point or two, and the low judge comes up the same number of points and you end up with the same average! Only now, you have forced two judges to give scores they might feel uncomfortable with, plus you may have knocked their scores out of line with their comments. This result really irks me when I give a beer of score of 24 -- the high end of drinkable -- because it doesn't come close to fitting the style guideline but is a clean, well-made beer otherwise. If someone else gives it higher than 31, then I am forced to raise my score into the good category ("exemplifies style satisfactorily") in order to achieve somebody else's idea of consensus, thus giving the brewer the impression that all the judges thought his beer was in style. I recommend that we relax the requirements a bit. Let's try allowing a ten-point spread instead. I don't think it will damage on our credibility or effectiveness in the least, and it will certainly give each of us greater freedom of expression. Todd Wallinger Colorado Springs, CO ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1396 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.