Return-Path: judge-owner at synchro.com Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.26]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA25474 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:22:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.144.90]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA27688 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:22:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 8/12/98 - 8/13/98 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:00:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Another suggestion to improve judging quality (Jami Chism) -------------------------------------------------------- From: Jami Chism Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:50:28 -0700 Subject: Another suggestion to improve judging quality My comments re: Another suggestion to improve judging quality >From: Shortell, Joanne Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:40:00 -0400 >As a fairly inexperienced judge, I've been in situations where I didn't >feel entirely comfortable judging a particular style of beer to which >I'd been assigned. However, had I known beforehand that I would be >asked to judge that style, I would have come to the contest better >prepared (e.g., try to get some commercial examples or at least do some >reading on those beers and the style in general). I've been in the same situation - judging Porter at Nationals a few years ago. Had I known I would be on a Porter panel I would not have gone. I have this thing about Porter - can't stand it, never have, never will. I know this isn't a good attitude for a judge, but I've only had bad experiences with Porter and have never found one I could stomach. It would have been better off for everyone concerned if I just wasn't there. Unfortunatly, I couldn't turn the opportunity down as the other panel members were Steve Cox and Roger Protz, (Campaign for Real Ale) visiting from Great Britain, so I held my tongue and endured. Fortunatly for me, these two gentlemen were excellent judges and while I can't tell a good porter from a bad one, they assured me that there wasn't a good one in the bunch. >I realize that it would be a bit of a burden to let people know ahead of time which styles >they were most likely to be judging (and it would be unrealistic to >think that last-minute changes would not occur), but I truly believe it >would improve the quality of the judging. Prior to several events I've received a questionare to mail back asking my preferences - I thought this was an excellent way to coordinate who would do what. Of course, these were non-sanctioned. Jami Return-Path: judge-owner at synchro.com Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.26]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA25474 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:22:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.144.90]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA27688 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:22:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 8/12/98 - 8/13/98 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:00:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Another suggestion to improve judging quality (Jami Chism) -------------------------------------------------------- From: Jami Chism Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:50:28 -0700 Subject: Another suggestion to improve judging quality My comments re: Another suggestion to improve judging quality >From: Shortell, Joanne Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:40:00 -0400 >As a fairly inexperienced judge, I've been in situations where I didn't >feel entirely comfortable judging a particular style of beer to which >I'd been assigned. However, had I known beforehand that I would be >asked to judge that style, I would have come to the contest better >prepared (e.g., try to get some commercial examples or at least do some >reading on those beers and the style in general). I've been in the same situation - judging Porter at Nationals a few years ago. Had I known I would be on a Porter panel I would not have gone. I have this thing about Porter - can't stand it, never have, never will. I know this isn't a good attitude for a judge, but I've only had bad experiences with Porter and have never found one I could stomach. It would have been better off for everyone concerned if I just wasn't there. Unfortunatly, I couldn't turn the opportunity down as the other panel members were Steve Cox and Roger Protz, (Campaign for Real Ale) visiting from Great Britain, so I held my tongue and endured. Fortunatly for me, these two gentlemen were excellent judges and while I can't tell a good porter from a bad one, they assured me that there wasn't a good one in the bunch. >I realize that it would be a bit of a burden to let people know ahead of time which styles >they were most likely to be judging (and it would be unrealistic to >think that last-minute changes would not occur), but I truly believe it >would improve the quality of the judging. Prior to several events I've received a questionare to mail back asking my preferences - I thought this was an excellent way to coordinate who would do what. Of course, these were non-sanctioned. Jami