Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 00:01:05 -0400
Message-Id: <199806300401.AAA22932 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 #7 (June 30, 1998)


Beer Judge Digest #7		             Tue 30 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: Beer Judge Digest #6 (CLSAXER)
  Re:  Beer Judge Digest #6 (June 29, 1998) (OudBruin)
  Subscribers ("Houseman, David L")
  Organizer performance, etc. (Russ Wigglesworth)
  Current state of the BJCP (Kelly Jones)
  BJCP and the digest ("Bryan L. Gros")
  BJCP vs BJD... Huh?!?!  And did you judge in San Diego on March 7? ("Gregory A. Lorton")
  Re Lancaster points, 1997 (Btalk)


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: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 04:40:48 EDT
From: CLSAXER at aol.com
Subject: Re: Beer Judge Digest #6

It's only Beer Judge Digest #6, and already the major portion of the issue is
sniping and back biting.  This bodes well for where this forum is going.  It
appears it is going to the same place organized homebrewing and homebrew
judging is going; to the land of whining and beer babies!!
It's a hobby.  It's supposed to be fun.  What the hell is going on?
I have stopped judging and participating in homebrew events because I've had
enough of all the egos and the whining.  I still brew because that part is
still fun for my wife and me.  I don't know if I'll go back to participating
in organized homebrew events in the future or not.  I don't like all the ill
will and meanness that has become so prevalent in the hobby these days.
What the hell is going on?
Does anyone else feel this way? 

Carl Saxer


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

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 08:55:14 EDT
From: OudBruin at aol.com
Subject: Re:  Beer Judge Digest #6 (June 29, 1998)

Just a brief sunny note to pat and karl for doing what NO ONE ELSE was willing
or able to do.. give back a voice and bandwidth to us peons who have to drink
and smell baby diapper beer...
A public note to the organisers of the Buzz-Off, with over 500 entrys, you
guys did good. Only thing to kvitch over was the noisy recirc pump for the
glycol system.. all in all a good event..
Now, we can return to our public backbiting and characture assinations...
Bruce Hammell


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

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 10:03:49 -0400
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Subject: Subscribers

Given the last BJD discussion on who should or should not subscribe, how
open the BJD is in fact, and the fact that BJD is a defacto replacement
for the JudgeNet, with or with BJCP official support, I'd suggest
replacing the last lines of the opening banner, "
YOU MUST BE A BEER JUDGE OR BE REFERRED BY ONE TO SUBSCRIBE!!! 
You MUST be a subscriber in order to post articles!!!"  with a statement
of purpose of content that distinguishes BJD from HBD.  I personally
don't care who subscribes (actually I'd like to have Scott Bickham
participate) but I would like to see the types of posting limited to
topics relevant to judging and competitions in at least a remote way and
not turn into another version of HBD.

Dave Houseman


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

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 08:27:27 -0700
From: Russ Wigglesworth <russ.wigglesworth at radiology.ucsf.edu>
Subject: Organizer performance, etc.

>> The BJCP should, by policy, withold organizer points to any
>competition
>> that doesn't get results to entrants within 10 business days!

First of all, we are not the Beer Judge Police. It should not be the
intention of the BJCP or any other organization to rule via an Iron Fist.
This is a hobby and as such must be built on the reliance of volunteers and
well intentioned people.

Secondly, to monitor competitions to such a suggested level would require
much more time and effort than we have available. And, for the majority of
events it isn't necessary.

What we might do is note complaints concerning the performance of a given
competition and create a means of denying future sanctioning.

But, the best way to deal with such inaction is to pursue it locally by
bringing it to the attention of the sponsoring club and local judge
community so that they can act accordingly. No one wants to see their
competition develop a poor reputation.

As for Lancaster '97, we are giving the AHA the chance to work it out prior
to going to the judges and saying "just tell us if you were there". Since
the event was sponsored by the AHA they should have the chance to repair
the damage first. If they fail to do so, then we will offer an alternative
to those who wish to recover the points.

As for the alledged BJCP lack of responsiveness, you must accept that as
volunteers we all have other demands on our time and so it may take us a
while to get a collective response together. Personally, this is the first
BJD that I have seen and I am responding immediately, how's that?

RW...


Russ Wigglesworth - Program Administrator
Beer Judge Certification Program
PO Box 751271 - Petaluma CA 94975
707-769-0425 (h) 415-502-1070 (w)


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

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 08:57:41 -0700
From: Kelly Jones <kejones at ptdcs2.ra.intel.com>
Subject: Current state of the BJCP

Hi,

Just before the original judgenet digest died back in April,  Bill
Giffin posted some comments and questions regarding the state of the
BJCP.  I was waiting to hear some answers or rebuttals from the BJCP
leadership, but none came before the crash.  I hate to post so much
quoted material, but April was a long time ago, so:

>From: Bill Giffin <billg at ctel.net>
>Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 09:32:16 -0500
>Subject: Is the BJCP defunct?

>Top of the morning to yea all,

>The bylaws state:
>5.4.6

>Ballots, biographies and position statements are to be mailed by March 15
>to all Regular Members in good standing residing in the regions in which
>elections are being held.

>Unless the ballots were sent by pony express I have to assume that we are
>again not having an election. Certainly not a legal election.  I seem to
>remember that there wasn't enough interest to have an election last year, I
>could be wrong, but if true we do not have a duly elected board of
>directors.  Nor can we based on our bylaws.  You have to meet the deadlines!

>A bit over two years ago we voted on the ridiculous bylaws that supposedly
>we have been working under.  In those bylaws we stated that we were to be a
>tax-exempt corporation.  Nothing has been filed with the IRS.  The BJCP
>does not even have a legal bank account, as the corporation under the fine
>leadership of Dennis Davidson has not seen fit to file a form SS-4 for a
>Federal Identification Number.  Any idiot can fill out this form as it only
>requires the name and address of the entity and who are the officers, a
>date and a signature.  Really high powered stuff.

>We have missed the dead line for filing the Tax-exempt status forms with
>the IRS.  With extensions there is over two years in which you can file.
>As a result we now have two tax returns that need to be filed, which are
>late.  We can expect penalties and fines from the IRS for failure to file.
>Isn't that just wonderful?  Our lackluster manner won't help the BJCP in
>getting tax-exempt status. 

>I agreed to prepare the tax forms on December 7, 1997.  After waiting for
>three months for any of the information requested to be able to prepare all
>the forms I withdrew my offer as I knew that I had no hope of completing
>the work on a timely manner.  The value of this offer had I charged my
>normal billing rates would have been from a low of $4,000 to a more likely
>amount of $15,000.  See Scott I am willing to put my money where my mouth
>is.  As a C.P.A. with over twenty years of experience I am well qualified
>to prepare the forms and have done so successfully on a number of occasions.

>We were told that we would be kept informed of the workings of the BJCP via
>a newsletter to come out every quarter.  We should have received eight
>newsletters.  We have only received three. 

>Our board of director acts more like a secret society rather then
>representative forum from each region of the country.  We are never
>informed of anything that happens in our board meetings even though there
>is supposed to be a secretary.  Hush, hush burn before reading is the rule
>our board uses.  Keep the membership, as mushrooms I feel the board sees
>that as their most important goal.   If they don't then we will find out
>that over the past two years our board has done absolutely nothing,
>NOTHING.  

>Perhaps it is time to move forward.  Form a new Judging program.  Let the
>officers as they stand pay the fines and penalties to the IRS as they are
>jointly and severely responsible for them. 

>I find it sad that we can not even follow our own by-laws.

>Bill

Here was my response, sent in a week later, which never made it into the
digest:

When Bill Giffen made his post a week ago regarding the state of affairs
of the BJCP, I expected to see a quick and scathing rebuttal directed at
him from the BJCP directors.  Instead, I have seen nothing.  Why the
stony silence?   When can we expect some kind of response?  I'm sure
that there are valid answers or explanations for some of his charges,
however, the lack of response is sure to be interepeted as an admission
that all of Bill's claims are true.  Is the BJCP really in such a state
of disarray? 

Kelly Jones
Hillsboro, OR


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

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 09:54:46 -0700
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com>
Subject: BJCP and the digest

This is a very interesting political debate going on.

As a west coast BJCP member, I hope the BJCP will support a judging
mailing list. Many judges benefited from JudgeNet, and I see that
many judges are excited about the Beer Judge Digest since JudgeNet
is no longer available. 

The "seemingly official" BJCP response is that they too want a
judge mailing list, but they want control.  What kind of control?
Scott seems to want the list open to anyone, and I agree.  But in fact,
the Digest janitorial staff also agrees.  Does the BJCP want
moderation control?  Does the BJCP have the staff to do the 
moderation?

Seems like someone (Pat and Karl) has volunteered to run a list,
which the BJCP wants, but their volunteer efforts are ignored.
The funny thing is, those of us judges who will use this forum will
do so in the same way whether the BJCP sanctions it or not.

  - Bryan

Bryan Gros	gros at bigfoot.com
Oakland, CA
Visit the new Draught Board homebrew website:
http://www.valhallabrewing.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm


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

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 12:37:50 -0700
From: "Gregory A. Lorton" <glorton at cts.com>
Subject: BJCP vs BJD... Huh?!?!  And did you judge in San Diego on March 7?

I'm new to the homebrew internet newsletters and never belonged to
Judgenet.  I only got a home internet account in April.  Up until then I
used internet and e-mail connections at work, and I never felt comfortable
signing up to receive a daily homebrew newsletter (or Judgenet) on a
company computer.  You know... the paranoia about Big Brother or the
company HR person reading about RIMS or HSA or perceiving DMS.  I'm not
really paranoid, because they really are out to get me. #8-)

Since I hadn't been part of Judgenet, and have been on hbd only a month,
when I saw the invite for beer judge digest show up, I thought it was
JudgeNet!!!!  (I had been dutifully checking www.bjcp.org everyday to see
if the status of JudgeNet had changed.  It's still the same message as it
was a month ago!)  I quickly signed up when the BJD invitation showed up on
my electronic doostep.

Now I see that Beer Judge Digest is not a part of BJCP, and the BJCP
powers-that-be want to make sure that they are distanced from it (except
for Bill Slack - an honest thanks to Bill for being a conduit to the
BJCP!!).  Whether it's right or wrong, I kind of share George De Piro's
perceptions.  I've been in the BJCP for a year and a half, and I guess I'm
not completely sure what's really going on.  I look forward to the annual
letter, and the newsletter (is that once a year also?).  I know that the
BJCP powers-that-be are busy.  Can I help out?  I'm dealing with a little
problem related to updating judging points and the America's Finest City
Homebrew Competition (mentioned below).

Anyway, to make a long story short, I'm really interested in joining ANY
Beer Judge internet dialog, after hearing many positive things about
Judgenet over the past few years from other esteemed San Diego judges (Dion
Hollenbeck and Charles Hudak) in the past.  Although www.bjcp.org says
Judgenet will be up in a few weeks (which now means a week or two ago), I
kinda get the feeling that it still may be a while.  I'm sure other judges
feel the same.  Would the BJCP please consider adopting Beer Judge Digest? 
Please!  If not, can we get an update when the real JudgeNet will be ready?

And that leads to a comment made by Pat Babcock in reply to Scott Bickham's
posting.  I also kinda thought the Judgenet was exclusive to BJCP judges. 
Even if it wasn't, I didn't feel qualified to participate until I had taken
and passed the test.  I certainly didn't feel that the BJD invitation was
elitist.  Is UCLA elitist cause they only accept high school students in
the upper eighth of their class (or the ones that can dribble or shoot
well)?  (I didn't go to UCLA!)

****
About the America's Finest City Homebrew Competition in San Diego...

I had the "enviable" task of organizing the 5th Annual America's Finest
City Homebrew Competition (AFCHBC) on March 6 and 7 in San Diego.

If your one of the 35 BJCP judges who judged in San Diego on March 7,
you've probably noticed that you didn't have judge points from the AFCHBC
in the May 15 BJCP letter.  Don't worry!  You should have them by know.  (A
bunch of judges have politely bugged me about it!)  I exchanged e-mails
with Russ W. and he assured me he had received the package.  (What bugged
me is that the May 15 BJCP letter said that the Judging Records should
include all events prior to April '98, and then implied that if the record
didn't, it's probably because of a DELINQUENT organizer.)

Trust me,  I mailed the reports in to the BJCP and the AHA the week after
the contest.  You see, I have a real personal interest in this, since my
organizer points would have pushed me from recognized to certified, and I'm
one of those people who feel that there is a lot a credibility implied as
you move up the BJCP's evolutionary ladder.  I wanted the reports in fast
as much as anyone!!!  Russ told me on May 24 that he had received my
report, but it wasn't till after he started working on the annual letter. 
Talking with Pete Johnson of Santa Barbara this last Saturday, he mentioned
he had talked with Russ and that Russ has now input the points.  Russ'
e-mail went on to say that he'll be doing point updates and promotions more
frequently this year.

Anyway, if you've missed those points and if it kept you from a promotion
in May, believe me, I share your pain!  I'm sorry!  I tried to do my part. 
I would be more than willing to help the BJCP in updating points for all
competitions, but I'm relational database challenged, and it might seem
self-serving for me to help out in updating point totals (because it WOULD
be self-serving).  But I'm still willing to help out.

Also, maybe some others can volunteer to help the www.bjcp.org.  Scott
Bickham does a good job updating the exam schedule, but the competition
schedule is nearly four months old, and apparently the Regional Reps page
must be out of date (if Bill Slack is the NE rep).  Maybe we can help get
information more frequently by sending articles for the newsletter.  (The
letter from Dennis Davison asks for articles!!)

Greg Lorton
Carlsbad, CA
(760) 635-0528
glorton at cts.com

If you were one of the judges at AFCHBC and you want to know how many
points I listed for you send me an e-mail.


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

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 20:44:41 EDT
From: Btalk at aol.com
Subject: Re Lancaster points, 1997

As Pete Garofalo said, my intent in bringing up the where abouts of the points
for Lancaster 1997 was in no way meant as a slam of Randy and Kathy Martin or
their  involvement with that contest. They are great people who put in an
extraordinary effort to run that event.

i must have been absent during previous discussion of this situation.
My point that I should have made more clearly is that since it was an AHA
sanctioned event that they should just go ahead and award the damn points.
It could have an effect on the interest level of judges for judging any other
Nationals regional event.

Later,
Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY


------------------------------
End of Beer Judge Digest #7, 06/30/98
*************************************
-------