Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 00:01:04 -0400
Message-Id: <199806290401.AAA27195 at brew.oeonline.com>
To: judge at hbd.org
From: judge-request at hbd.org (Request Address Only - No Articles)
Reply-to: judge at hbd.org (Posting Address Only - No Requests)
Errors-to: judge-request at hbd.org
Precedence: bulk
Subject: Beer Judge Digest #6 (June 29, 1998)
Status: RO


Beer Judge Digest #6		             Mon 29 June 1998


	FORUM ON BEER JUDGING AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Custodian: custodian at hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Beer Judge Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com


Contents:
  Re: BJCP sanction (Bill Slack)
  Re: [BoD] Intercepted post? Ok, I'll play... (Scott Bickham)
  Subscription Restrictions et al (Some Guy)
  Prompt return of judging forms and organizer reports ("Houseman, David L")
  Lancaster Points (pgarofalo)
  Intercepted post? Ok, I'll play... (Some Guy)


Send articles for __publication_only__ to judge at hbd.org
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.) 

If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!

To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
  "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to judge-request at hbd.org. 
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! 
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
  the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!

YOU MUST BE A BEER JUDGE OR BE REFERRED BY ONE TO SUBSCRIBE!!! 
You MUST be a subscriber in order to post articles!!! 

Requests for back issues will be ignored. 

CUSTODIANS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (custodian at hbd.org)

              "Not a publication of the BJCP"


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 06:01:41 -0400
From: Bill Slack <wrs at slack.org>
Subject: Re: BJCP sanction

George De Piro wrote:

> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 11:28:45 -0700
> From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com
> Subject: You've got to be kidding
> 
>      Hi all,
> 
>      Our esteemed janitor, Pat, wrote:
> 
>      "Beer Judge Digest exists without the BJCPs sanction. We asked for it
>      but all but one of the BJCP board members we e-mailed ignored our
>      inquiry. And the one who replied was not in favor of BJD."
> 
>      Huh?  We don't have a regular newsletter (and offers to help produce
>      one were ignored) and we don't have the E-mail forum up and running.
>      How could a board member not want to sanction this digest?  Why did
>      the others ignore Pat's request?  Is this a secret society that even
>      the membership can't know about?

HBD's requests were discussed by the board but not publicly. I sent my
comments to Mark who passed them on to Pat and there was reasonable
communication between us on the subject. I think all but two board
members expressed their agreement with my position, which I passed on to
Pat. The main points were that BJCP wanted to control its own forum and
mailing list which is a reasonable position for any organization to
take. HBD is an independent organization from BJCP. It is not elected to
office or answerable to its constituency as the BJCP is. And it has no
special status or right to take on any BJCP function. Clearly, HBD can
offer this judge forum as a service to the judge community but that
doesn't give it any BJCP sanction. I posted the gist this to this digest
but Pat intercepted the post, answered me privately, and left my
position out of the digest. 

My personal opinion on this digest is that I have no objection to it as
long as it states that it is not a BJCP organ. And it does state that. I
also note that Judgenet is much in arrears in its return and the
community does need a forum. I told Pat and Mark that I wished them well
in this effort and you will notice that I have subscribed to the digest.


> 
>      A lot of AHA bashing goes on amongst homebrewers.  It would be quite
>      sad to see the BJCP become deserving of the same treatment.  I believe
>      it may be a good idea for Pat to post the E-mail addresses of the BJCP
>      Board, this way we can all write in with polite, constructive comments
>      about the direction in which the organization is lead.  Perhaps a few
>      dozen members' comments would get their attention.


The Bjcp webpage http://www.bjcp.org has the generic email addresses of
the elected representatives. George, I am your representative and you
can reach me at ne_rep at bjcp.org or at wrs at slack.org. My phone is
(603)882-3190 and my snail mail is

W. R. Slack
202 Flagstone Drive
Nashua NH 03063

I would be very happy to hear from you on this or any other BJCP/judging
matter. As far as I'm concerned, it only takes one member's comments to
get my attention.

Cheers to all,

Bill Slack
Representative for the NorthEast
BJCP Board of Directors


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 11:28:15 -0600
From: Scott Bickham <bickham at trail.com>
Subject: Re: [BoD] Intercepted post? Ok, I'll play...

Some Guy wrote:

> Homebrew Digest wrote:
> >
> > If you receive multiple copies of this message, we apologize profusely:
> >
> > Greetings! In the prolonged absence of JudgeNet, The Home Brew Digest is
> > pleased to announce the launch of the Beer Judge Digest. The Beer Judge
> > Digest is a closed-subscription, e-mail digest system based on the Home
> > Brew Digest. Only those on the subscription list can openly post to the
> > list, and only known BJCP judges or those referred by known BJCP judges
> > will be allowed to subscribe...<snip>

To add more fuel to this debate, this last comment in the invitation
e-mail is the reason I have not, and will not, subscribe to the new judges
forum.  Judgenet has never been closed to those outside of the BJCP, and
in fact, allowing potential judges to lurk has motivated many to take the
BJCP exam.  While I miss Judgenet, I will not subscribe to an elitist
electronic forum unless the offer is open to anyone in the homebrewing
community. 

Best regards,
	Scott Bickham
	BJCP exam director


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 15:32:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock at oeonline.com>
Subject: Subscription Restrictions et al


Thanks for the input, Scott. You make an excellent point regarding 
restricted subscriptions. 

I was under the impression that JudgeNet was judge only. Frankly, all the
years I was considering becoming a BJCP judge, I never once thought I
could subscribe to JudgeNet for this reason.  It was this/my mistaken
perception, I believe, that led to the line in the invitation text you
cite. I apologize to any that may have put off by it. It was also this
perception that caused the "those referred by..." statement to be added as
well. This was intended to allow apprentice/studying judges access as
well, but to prevent a NOKAMAREE from slipping in.

It should be noted that, since the BJCP did not wish to assist in any type
of subscription validation, there is no mechanism by which a subscription
restriction can be enforced. To wit: to date, no one has been refused a
subscription. Serendipity, I guess: you get your wish, Scott.

The moderation mechanism of this Digest, since it is intended for a more
narrowly focused group than the HBD, is designed so that those subscribed
can openly post without intervention. Posts coming from outside the
subscription list must be passed by the Custodians in order to enter the
Digest. This is the firing pin in the anti-troll/spam feature of a
controlled subscription list. In my own mind I had envisioned the
subscription restriction (known judges and those referred by them) also as
a means of protection for the subscribers. It prevents anyone from
"shooting fish in a fishbowl" by having access to a "captive" audience of
fairly uniform interest and vast knowledge. We were not trying to be
elitist with it; just trying to minimize our intervention with the list's
day-to-day functioning and the incursion of those "unwanted" elements of 
Net life.

For those subscribed to the BJD: if you thought you were on an exclusive
list, you aren't. Our apologies, but we simply cannot enforce that at this
time. Whether or not it is instituted by some other means we leave to you,
the subscribers. Further, we leave it to you to set the policies of this
Digest.  Karl says it best: 

"Here is my stand on the BJD: ...in the absence of JudgeNet, judges needed
some sort of home/discussion area.  Through our own work/time we have
provided them the BJD.  We own/run the software but we have GIVEN the BJD
to the Beer Judges of North America. Not just the BJCP judges, but ALL
Beer Judges (really, that should read HOMEBREW Judges).  Therefore, we no
longer own any rights to the BJD itself.  It is it's own living entity and
therefore, it is up to its owners, the subscribers for any decisions from
this point forward." 

In a nutshell, the baby's been born, Uncle and Auntie Beer Judge, now
bring 'er up right. 

******************************
BTW: For those wondering how this email conversation is being posted in one
Digest (someone always asks), we have been cc'ing each other and the BJD
in our replies. 

See ya!

Pat Babcock in SE Michigan         pbabcock at oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor           janitor at hbd.org
HBD Web Site                       http://hbd.org   
The Home Brew Page                 http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
   "Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 19:03:22 -0400
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Subject: Prompt return of judging forms and organizer reports

At Pat's suggestion, here is a suggestion to get competition organizers
to be more prompt in completing their obligations in holding
competitions.   Any thoughts?

Excellent thought! Have you posted this suggestion on the BJD? I think
it 
worthy of discussion!

> The BJCP should, by policy, withold organizer points to any
competition
> that doesn't get results to entrants within 10 business days!  It's
the
> only lever we have.  Surely the MCAB can decide to not have a
> competition be a QE the next year and I'd vote to do so.  Most
> competitions do very well in getting sheets out quickly but others
just
> seem to fall apart after the event.  Maybe a bit of "post coitial
> depression" after all the hard work of preparing for the event.  But
> still no excuss.
> 
> Dave
> 
>----------
>From: 	
>Sent: 	
>To: 	
>Subject: 	mashfest
> 
>So what is happening with the mashfest result. From the hbd:
>
>In Homebrew Digest #2745  Ted Hull writes:
> 
>Subject: mashfest '98
> 
>Hey folks:
> 
>I've been trying to get scoresheets back from this MCAB QE for 6 weeks
>now. 
>My understanding is that awards have been posted on the Web and passed
>out, 
>but that no one has received scoresheets in the mail.  I checked by
>e-mail 
>with Dr. Fix, b/c he won the category I entered.
>
>I know Louis Bonham has been busy with other MCAB issues lately, but
>I've 
>never gotten a response from Scott Mills with the Mash Tongues.
> 
>At least some form of explanation would be wonderful. Yes, I'm peeved
>about 
>taking pains to get my entry there quickly (Fedex) and paying the
>entry
>fee 
>without getting the feedback. But I'm almost to the point of utter 
>hopelessness about seeing these in the mail.
>
> Help!


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 22:39:27 -0400
From: pgarofalo at juno.com
Subject: Lancaster Points

The Lancaster AHA first round has been rather heavily kicked around here,
and I feel compelled to toss in my opinion. First off, it is clear that
fault, if any, is spread among many.

Mark Johnston says:
> I have contacted Russ W. with this information, and have been told that
>they are "considering" what to do. I am sure that no matter what the
>result, someone will be unhappy.

I don't know as I agree. Why not simply take folks' word for their
points? It's not as if we're talking about brain surgery or rocket
science here...only beer judging! I personally will attest to seeing Bob
Talkiewicz and Mark Johnston at Lancaster. There--give them the points. I
was there also, and would like my points, though it's largely academic at
this point.

Finally: nobody intended to impugn Randy and Kathy Martin. Word of the
lack of report originated from the highest echelons of point-tallying
within the BJCP, who BTW are not sanctioning any of this discussion
anyway.

Just what is it that causes large homebrew-oriented organizations to lack
responsiveness? I echo George DePiro's sentiment--Pat, please post the
addresses, with appropriate instructions on how *not* to use them to
contact our elected officials. ;-)

Cheers,

Peter Garofalo
Syracuse, NY (a LONG drive from Lancaster!)

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 23:30:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock at oeonline.com>
Subject: Intercepted post? Ok, I'll play...


Whoa there, sonny!

The following is NOT written in my capacity as BJD Custodian, but as a
somewhat flustered member of the BJCP at the writing of one of the board
members:

The "intercepted" post to the BJD Bill cites read more like a misdirected
note to Karl (Karl, Bill; not Mark) and me than a post to the Beer Judge
Digest. In light of Bill's recent article, and in the interest of
dissuading the perception that we might be trying to hide anything, I
present it below in its entirity. (The BJD digestor, like that of the HBD
keeps any article we reject just in case we were wrong.) Might prevent a
little disinformation along the way as well. 

***************************


>From hbd at brew.oeonline.com  Mon Jun 22 14:38:36 1998
Received: from mercury.mv.net (root at mercury.mv.net [199.125.85.40])
          by brew.oeonline.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id OAA14829 for <judge at hbd.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:38:13 -0400
Received: from slack.slack.org192 (slack.org [199.125.107.152]) 
          by mercury.mv.net (8.8.8/mem-971025) with SMTP id OAA00980; 
          Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:35:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <358EA48F.249E at slack.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 14:38:07 -0400
From: Bill Slack <wrs at slack.org>
Reply-To: wrs at slack.org
Organization: W. R. Slack
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Homebrew Digest <hbd at brew.oeonline.com>
CC: judge at hbd.org
Subject: Re: Announcing: Beer Judge Digest
References: <199806220247.WAA26055 at brew.oeonline.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Homebrew Digest wrote:
> 
> If you receive multiple copies of this message, we apologize profusely:
> 
> Greetings! In the prolonged absence of JudgeNet, The Home Brew Digest is
> pleased to announce the launch of the Beer Judge Digest. The Beer Judge
> Digest is a closed-subscription, e-mail digest system based on the Home
> Brew Digest. Only those on the subscription list can openly post to the
> list, and only known BJCP judges or those referred by known BJCP judges
> will be allowed to subscribe. Any post received from a source who is not
> subscribed, will be forwarded to the Beer Judge Digest custodians to be
> determine if the post should be permitted or not.  As a known BJCP judge,
> you are being invited to subscribe by sending the word "subscribe" to
> judge-request at hbd.org. Please join us in restarting the necessary flow
> of information between BJCP judges in differing regions.
> 
> Information:
> 
>      Subscription related requests should be sent to judge-request at hbd.org
>      Articles for posting should be sent to judge at hbd.org
>      All others should be sent to custodian at hbd.org
> 
> Thank you. We look forward to your participation on the Beer Judge Digest.

Hi Guys -

I'm curious to know where you got the list of judges and their email
addresses. As far as I know, the BJCP has only released regional lists
to competition organizers looking for judges in their area. If you have
an unauthorized copy of the BJCP list (and I don't know that you do) I
don't think you have permission to use it. Assuming your mailing list is
from an open source, could you tell us where it came from? Not looking
for difficulty here, just a clarification.

Also, you should make it clear that your Judge Digest is independent of
and unauthorized/unendorsed by the BJCP.

All of that notwithstanding, I wish you well with the effort.

Cheers,

Bill Slack
BJCP Representative for thr NorthEast

***************************

(We answered this in that the addresses were taken from the JudgeNet 
archives, and we put the "Not a publication of the BJCP" in the header. 
All of this, you already know.)

My apologies for the omission. As I stated, it reads more as a request for
information requiring a human response and direction than it does a 
position posting. Note that we complied with nary a peep. We are not 
interested as the BJD to "do battle" with the BJCP; just interested in 
providing service to the judge community.

In terms of Bill's assertion that the BJCP wishes to have control over the
mailing list, I must add that Karl had offered Chuck space on our server -
not a substitute Digest run by us, but space on the server in which to run
JudgeNet on his own without our intervention - until he got Synchro up and
running again. Perhaps Chuck's e-mail went down with the rest of synchro
(we received no SMTP error messages to that effect), but that _repeated_
offer was also ignored. Our next offer to run the BJD for the BJCP came 
with a request for either the mailing list *or* someone to check 
subscription requests with to ensure they were judges in good standing. I 
think the latter option would have left the e-mail list in BJCP control. 
Perhaps I have the wrong impression of the extent of control the BJCP 
exerted over JudgeNet.

Also, for clarification, you replied to us BEFORE discussion with the
remainder of the board (not that we didn't appreciate the reply). You
stated so yourself in your reply to Karl's request for elaboration on the
original, terse reply. It wasn't until later that you stated that you had
talked with some of the others and they concurred. 

No, I won't be the dropcloth in an attempt to whitewash George's
complaints away. His point is that we, as judges, know very little about
what the BJCP board is doing. As one of the constituency you cite in your
post, that bugs the hell out of me, too: aside from your communications
the board was wholly unresponsive to this situation. Even now, with the
emergence of this Digest, you remain the only BJCP board member anyone
officially hears from. It seems odd that this situation should appear to
be being handled by the "BJCP Representative for the NorthEast". (By the
way:  the BJD and both of its Custodians are in the midwest.) The apparent
disinterest demonstrated by the board is disconcerting.  Such behavior is
not unforgivable, but can be described in exactly the terms that George
puts forth in his message. 

For the record, it is not my purpose to bash the BJCP, not to be the
catalyst for the same. Simply put, the BJD exists because I, as a BJCP
judge did not agree with your opinion and assumptions as the BJCP board.
Of course, Karl helped to ;-)

------------------------------
End of Beer Judge Digest #6, 06/29/98
*************************************
-------