Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.35]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA09884 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:07:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.144.90]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA06118 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:07:58 -0500 (EST) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 02/10/99 - 02/11/99 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:02:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC884962602" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC884962602 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ 1. organisers entering 2. newsletters 3. Big and Huge (Robert Paolino) Database online? (Spencer W Thomas) Re: Judging/Organizing/Entering (Jeffrey Pinhey) --Next_Part_SYNC884962602 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from postoffice.harvard.net by synchro.com with POP3 (Mailtraq/1.1.0.1036) id SYNC8824620F4; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:03:00 -0500 Received: (from root at localhost) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id AAA13905 for postmaster at synchro.com; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:01:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgw00.execpc.com (sendmail at mailgw00.execpc.com [169.207.1.78]) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA13854 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:00:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from earth (rpaolino at earth.execpc.com [169.207.16.1]) by mailgw00.execpc.com (8.9.1) id XAA12369; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 23:02:31 -0600 Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 23:02:31 -0600 (CST) From: Robert Paolino Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com X-Sender: rpaolino at earth To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest cc: Wingra Engineering - Steve Klafka Subject: 1. organisers entering 2. newsletters 3. Big and Huge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Apparently-To: judge at synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Status: RO Stephen Johnson wrote on Sat, 06 Feb 1999 12:00:58 -0600 > Subject: Organizers entering their own > > levels of running competitions. Do whatever you can as an organizer and > club to avoid any possibility that anyone could question the integrity of > the competition. That involves managing an event in as professional a Absolutely, and I do not think that this requires that organisers and assistants refrain from entering. Our rule on who can't enter is simple. If you've had any access at all to information that would enable you to tie entrants to entries, you don't JUDGE. Years ago when I got roped into organising a long string of what were then our semi-annual competitions (we've gone to annual for lack of interest in the autumn event), I had never been able to judge in my own club's competition, but that's what it took to maintain the integrity of the judging and to avoid even the possibility of the appearance of something not quite right. I don't see how that extends to entering. Sure, if you had an absolutely wonderful and expensive prize for BOS (like that trip to Hawai'i or a luxury custom designed home brewhouse), you might want to impose a prohibition to avoid any suspicious appearances in the event that s/he won BOS, but most BOS prizes are rather more modest. > manner as possible. In my short time as a BJCP judge (2 years), I have > seen examples of slight lapses in organizing that might lead an entrant to > question the integrity of an event. I even managed to unknowingly judge > one of my own beers at one event (don't worry, it didn't ribbon!)... It was Indeed. At a competition elsewhere in the state last year, the judge director slipped and put a judge with a first place beer on the BOS panel (it didn't go very far in BOS). Embarassing, but it can happen. I don't know whether that judge recognised his beer and discouraged any discussion of it--or even actively sought to eliminate it from consideration (?)-- or if he didn't notice. If anything, it's unfair to that judge more than to anyone else, because it's clear that if it did get selected by the others on BOS that it wouldn't get the award. > the second flight in a long day and I actually had forgotten that I had > entered that category! [snip] > When many volunteer individuals from a club are involved in putting > together a competition, it is difficult to ask any who might have some bit > of "private" knowledge to refrain from entering, because the competition is > as much for the members of the host club as it is for any who have entered > from out-of-town. If we were to eliminate even a handful of our members > from entering, it would have a significant impact on the total number of Again, quite true. But it's judging rather than entering that presents the potential problems. We deal with that by whenever possible having non-judges handle the administrative tasks. Those folks are still available as stewards, but we're not disqualifying any of our local judging pool. Chuck Bernard wrote on Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:35:05 -0600 > >But when I volunteered > >for the job, I also accepted the responsibilty to get a newsletter out EVERY > >MONTH in time for the next meeting. It's something we promise our > >memerbship; I knew that when I accepted > >the job, volunteer or otherwise. It's a responsibilty I accepted and > >members EXPECT to get a newsletter. Yes and no. I got volunteered into doing our newsletter some time ago when our newsletter editor moved elsewhere. (The task has rotated a bot for brief periods, but no one else seems to be willing to do it for very long.) I don't mind doing it (as long as I have some help with getting it to and from the printer and stamped and mailed), and I've been told I have some talent for writing and editing (even if it might just be flattery to assure that I keep doing it). We've had this discussion in our club and there are some who say that you get it out every month no matter what and others who are content with less frequent newsletters (and some even with none at all). My perspective is that I'm not going to put out crap and it's not going to be my monologue. I can write plenty to fill space in a newsletter, even if it means rehashing pieces of the bimonthly column I write for the Great Lakes Region's beer paper. To me, filling the space isn't the point. If it's going to be the voice of the club and part of its educational mission, it's going to have contributions from more than just the self-"editor." I do not presume to be THE voice of the club. The newsletter is either going to represent a wide range of voices or it's not going to go out except when absolutely necessary. One person (and one with whom I'm usually in agreement on club business) went so far as to say I was holding the newsletter "hostage" to getting other contributions (he didn't volunteer to write anything). We find other ways to communicate the essentials, sometimes well and sometimes not so well. The bottom line is whether it's a homebrew club or the BJCP, the members MUST accept some responsibility for helping out or they shouldn't complain when things aren't done exactly the way they want. [Off soapbox.] COMPETITION ANNOUNCEMENT! The (something more than a decade old, I'll have to check)th Annual Big and Huge Homebrew Competition is a little earlier this year--Sunday, 28 March 1999. Steve Klafka is organiser and can provide details and entry forms in WordPerfect format--sklafka at execpc.com Watch for a more formal announcement soon, but the Big and Huge, for those of you not familiar with the legend, is a competition for BIG and HUGE beers, but one that doesn't really eliminate that many styles. Minimum OG for "Big" is 1.050 (max 1.060) and Huge starts as low as 1.060. Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino rpaolino at earth.execpc.com Madison I can taste my beer. Can you? Bland Beer is the Worst Sort of Tyranny! Don't drink bland industrial swill; it only encourages them to make more. --Next_Part_SYNC884962602 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from postoffice.harvard.net by synchro.com with POP3 (Mailtraq/1.1.0.1036) id SYNC8825623B9; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:48:37 -0500 Received: (from root at localhost) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id BAA27603 for postmaster at synchro.com; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:48:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from hubris.engin.umich.edu (root at hubris.engin.umich.edu [207.75.146.24]) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA27579 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:47:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (spencer at localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hubris.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA17537 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:49:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902100649.BAA17537 at hubris.engin.umich.edu> To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Database online? Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:49:47 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Apparently-To: judge at synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Status: RO Phil Doersam writes: Phil> How about setting it up so each member's information is Phil> private unless they choose (by clicking a box or something) Phil> to make it viewable by everyone. The basic problem here is that the BJCP web site has no way of knowing that you are you. In order to prevent someone else from masquerading as you, the BJCP database must contain some information about you that is known only to you (and the BJCP). This is not currently the case. Or is it? Here's an idea: The first time you "log in" to the BJCP database, you provide your judge ID number and your most recent BJCP exam score. Sure, someone could guess your exam score, but this minimizes the chance that someone else can get into your record. Once you've done this, you would then select a PIN (password), which you would use to identify yourself to the BJCP database from that time forward. The only other alternative that I can think of is to send a "form" out with the newsletter. You could fill in the form (which should have your name & judge number preprinted on it to avoid fraud) with a PIN and send it back to "the BJCP." Once the PIN is entered into the database, you could then view your record online. One significant difference between these two schemes (besides the fact that the second requires passing a lot of paper back and forth) is that the second scheme permits online access only by those members how have positively asserted (by returning the form) that they want online access. It's thus better from a privacy standpoint. I'll even put my time where my mouth is, and volunteer to enter data from the returned forms, if it is ever decided to implement this scheme. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) --Next_Part_SYNC884962602 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from postoffice.harvard.net by synchro.com with POP3 (Mailtraq/1.1.0.1036) id SYNC88326241F; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:20:15 -0500 Received: (from root at localhost) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id IAA15278 for postmaster at synchro.com; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:18:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from gov.ns.ca (ns.gov.ns.ca [198.166.215.2]) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA15096 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:17:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from gov.ns.ca ([198.166.84.8]) by igate1.gov.ns.ca with SMTP id <17181>; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:17:22 -0400 Received: from NSGT-Message_Server by gov.ns.ca with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:20:06 -0400 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:18:49 -0400 From: "Jeffrey Pinhey" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Re: Judging/Organizing/Entering Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by airsupply.harvard.net id IAA15096 Apparently-To: judge at synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Status: RO I recently did all three. In judging other categories than those I have entered, it would NEVER even cross my mind to send on a beer because it might be less than mine when it came to BOS rounds. That would be assuming that mine would win its category! I guess I am not that vain or confident. I love the experience of finding "that beer" - the best one, to praise and send on to its just reward(s). That is one of the best things about judging. I still vividly remember judging the final round for wheat beer at the AHA in Milwaukee and getting what was obviously the best one - all five judges agreed . Even though all the beers were very good, having that experience of one standing out as a clear winner, is, to me, incorruptible. (the beer was made by Eric Warner, I later found out) In organizing the competition, I simply left the work of sorting out which beer was whose to another non-judge volunteer, and he managed all the "confidential" stuff. He also announced the winners in front of an assembled conference end of the day meal, while I handed out medals and prizes. I suppose it might have been a bit awkward had I won BOS, although I would have been more surprised than anyone.... but no one moaned when I put the bronze medal in pale ales around my own neck. I seem to recall that Bob Talkewicz once won BOS at a competition he organized.... I suppose competitions where there is a valuable (money) prize might create a temptation for some people, but I consider myself an "amateur" in the true old fashioned sense of the word. I do this for fun and enjoyment - a "consuming hobby", as I tell those who ask about it. --Next_Part_SYNC884962602--