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 KAA27540 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:18:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (0 at redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.36]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA21242 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:18:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with X.500 id KAA11135; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:18:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay2.smtp.psi.net by redheat.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.5/2.2) with ESMTP id KAA11109; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:18:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from uu6.psi.com by relay2.smtp.psi.net (8.8.3/SMI-5.4-PSI) id KAA22240; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:15:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA04894 for vitt at rchland.vnet.ibm.com; Wed, 5 Mar 97 10:14:19 -0500 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05461 for judge-digest-outgoing; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:30:58 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:30:58 -0500 Message-Id: <199703051430.JAA05461 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1397 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk judge-digest Wednesday, 5 March 1997 Volume 01 : Number 1397 ============================================================================ 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: Point Spread score sheets Re: Point Spreads A question: when to put in your .02 Re: AHA BoA Point ranges and fudging WE NEED JUDGES!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Houseman, David L" Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:56:12 -0500 Subject: Point Spread An interesting thread on the point spread on scoring sheets. But does it really matter? Whether the scale is 50 points, 100 points or 10 points, what we're really doing is rank ordering the top three beers and providing useful feedback to all the brewers. Having the scores fall into some range that has a qualitative assessment (GOOD, etc.) is useful but not the real point of the exercise in my opinion. I'd contend that scoring compression will occur no matter what the scale is set at. Take a look at other competitions, such as olympic sporting events that have qualitative merits expressed in quantitative terms. While events like gymnastics may have a 10 point scale, a 9 is a bad score and 9.8 is good. Only a 0.8 point difference but it seems that over the years the judging has moved to the point that only from 9 to 10 is used except in extream circumstances. But it works. It's still a relative figure and the winner has the highest score. Some of the suggestions for changes to the AHA and BJCP forms are certainly worth considering and look good to me, but I for one can live with whatever is there, both as a judge and an entrant, so long as everyone is playing the same game by the same rules. Dave Houseman ------------------------------ From: "Bryan L. Gros" Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 10:15:20 -0600 (CST) Subject: score sheets George De Piro writes: > ... 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! The above refers to, I assume, your experience. Have you not given many scores above 40 because you haven't judged many beers that were very good? I mean, are you trying to argue that the score sheets should be revised because the range of beers in a typical competition all fall within a 10 point range on the current score sheets? Are most of us not using the range 40-50 because we are judging too hard, or is it just that competition brewers aren't brewing and entering excellent beers? - ----- With regards to the AHA revising their beer score sheets and Al's comments on how receptive the AHA is to change: Why should the AHA change their score sheets? They are not interested in beer judging and have left everything to the BJCP. From what I can see, many competitions, especially older ones, are no longer getting sanctioned by AHA but by BJCP. And since the AHA sends money to the BJCP for a list of regional judges (when a competition is sanctioned by AHA), why don't they just get a copy of the current BJCP score sheet while they're at it? - Bryan Gros grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu Music City Brewers - Bryan grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu Nashville, TN ------------------------------ From: jdecarlo at mail04.mitre.org (John A. DeCarlo) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 97 13:02:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Point Spreads Wallinger at kktv.com writes: >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. First of all, let me rant a little. What is so important about using the entire scale? Do teachers complain that they only really give scores in the 50-100 range and never really get to give anyone a 0? If we are still giving scores in each category (A-F, or however you want to think of it--Excellent to Poor is fine, too), who cares whether we use each possible numeric score? >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. *I* think it is important because 99% of the time that judges are that far off, there is a basic disconnect--either a disagreement about the style definitions or a lack of sensing something. Generally once the disconnect is cleared up, there is a clear reason for one or more judges changing a score. While complete agreement between judges is logically impossible, serious disagreements need to be resolved, not *ignored*! >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! That's a good reason for different comments on the scoresheet. I don't necessarily agree it is a good reason for wildly differing scores. >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. The only reason for you to move down is because you were convinced you gave it too high a score. The point of the seven point rule is to get the judges to figure out where one or more of them made a mistake!!!!!!!!!! >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 is a sign of a poorly managed situation, if you ask me. When I see this happen, usually it is only one of us who changes a score. And usually after discussion of the beer, one of us volunteers to change a score. If I am not very sensitive to metallic flavors and the other judges (possibly also getting advice from the organizer) convince me it is there, I will lower my score appropriately. >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. This is reprehensible. If the beer isn't in style, you can't give it higher than 24. Period. That kind of disagreement has to be resolved and resolved completely, hopefully early on in the judging. If I think that a German Weizen entry is out of style because it has *zero* clove, banana, bubble gum, etc., and another judge disagrees with me--that has to be hammered out. I have been in situations where we couldn't agree among ourselves and went to the organizer or judge coordinator to make a ruling--which we lived with. I can't emphasize enough how important this is for all the judges on a panel to be in agreement on whether each beer is in style or not. Thanks, Todd, for the interesting points. John DeCarlo jdecarlo at juno.com http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/1113 ------------------------------ From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 13:20:13 -0800 Subject: A question: when to put in your .02 Hi all, Pretend that you are judging beer at a competition. The judges at the next table say, "This is the best beer today, I really like it" and offer you a taste. You and two other judges accept the offering. All 3 of you look at each other in a way that conveys the message, "This beer sucks. It's seriously flawed. Are those other judges out of their minds?" What do you do? Do you try to tactfully (or not) point out the flaws in the beer? Do you keep your mouth shut? Do you gag and spit it out, thus conveying your opinions involuntarily? This is purely hypothetical, of course. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) ------------------------------ From: hall at galt.c3.lanl.gov (Michael L. Hall) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 14:10:52 -0700 Subject: Re: AHA BoA Russ Wigglesworth writes: > 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. Here's what I was told by Karen Barela wrt the new advisors. A new board was going to be elected. Four of the members of the old board would remain (I thought it was to provide continuity. From Russ's remarks, it sounds like only four were remaining.) and eight new members would be elected. Someone (I don't know who) selected 44 people to invite to be on the board, and 44 letters of invitation were sent out. Out of those, 33 responded favorably that they would like to be considered. The old board then voted (you were right, Russ) on which of the 33 should be on the new board. Due to ties, they decided to keep 11 out of the 33, instead of 8, so that the new board has 15 members. People were elected based on geography, an essay they submitted, and brewing knowledge / experience. The new members of the AHA BoA are listed in the masthead of the most recent Zymurgy, and there was a short article in the black & white pamplet which accompanied the Zymurgy mailing. I've also been told that the "term of office" will be a couple of years, with a possibility of serving multiple terms. I imagine there will be people kept on for continuity. After writing the above, I found the Bylaws of the AHA BoA on the web at: http://www.beertown.org/aha/bylaws.htm. Take a look at it. Al "Antichrist" Korzonas writes: :-) > I hope this new "glastnost" at the AHA continues and *members* > suggestions are actually implemented. I think you're probably right, Al, about a new era at the AHA. At least I hope so. I don't know a lot about the past behavior of the AHA, but I'm going into this wide-eyed and optimistic about the future. I'm going to be listening to members a lot, especially vocal ones with good ideas, like you. - -Mike +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael L. Hall, Ph.D. | | President, Los Alamos Atom Mashers | | Member, AHA Board of Advisors | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ And Kira stood by a window, her hand on the dark, cold glass, and her body felt young, cold and hard as the glass, and she thought that one could stand a lot, and forget a lot, if one kept clear and firm on final aim and cause. Ayn Rand, in _We the Living_ ------------------------------ From: gaskell at borg.com (Tom Gaskell) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 18:42:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Point ranges and fudging As probably the newest recognized judge on the Judgenet subscription list (received results two weeks ago), I wanted to make my opinion public on the current scoresheet discussion. I frequently find that when I sum the subsection scores on a score sheet, I end up with a number that falls outside the range of scores as suggested on the bottom of the sheet. Most judges with whom I have judged, have felt that falling into the proper range is very important, and I often find myself fudging the scores of a few subsections just to force the sum into the appropriate range. I feel that this represents a flaw in the judging process, and hurts a judge's credibility as seen by the entrant. My suggestion is to retain overall descriptors (ie. excellent, good, etc.), but resist the temptation to force a score into a predefined range. Perhaps a series of check boxes could be marked to indicate whether the beer is excellent, very good, good, drinkable, out of style, or flawed; instead of relying on a set range of scores. I think that this would reduce fudging in the numerical scoring section, force evaluations to be more honest, and make score sheets more valuable to the entrant. Maybe we should just score a beer by summing up its grade according to descriptions of its characteristics (without regard for a range), and simply indicate via a 1 or 0 if the beer is in style, outstanding, etc. Cheers, Tom Gaskell Clayville, NY BJCP Recognized ------------------------------ From: "Mark S. Johnston" Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 21:01:26 -0500 Subject: WE NEED JUDGES!! The 1997 Moon Madness Competition is still in need of BJCP judges. We have received 249 entries and currently have only 34 judges signed up. The competition will be held on March 8, 1997 at Market House Pub & Pretzel City Brewing Co. in Reading, PA. If you are BJCP Recognized or higher and wish to participate, please Email Mark Johnston at msjohnst at talon.net with the pertinant data. Thank you. ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1397 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.