Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.26]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA13967 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 01:10:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.144.90]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA07276 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 01:10:46 -0500 (EST) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 02/15/99 - 02/16/99 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 01:04:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC89696348D" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC89696348D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Re: Digest for the period 02/12/99 - 02/13/99 (Jeremy Bergsman) RE: judge records, guidelines, colour guides (Robert Paolino) Re: style guidelines (Bruce Pitner) Style Guidelines (Stephen Johnson) American stouts (Bryan L. Gros) Beta scoresheets, database access (Scott Bickham) Organizers and BOS (Btalk at aol.com) Reliability of exam grading (Scott Bickham) Re: use of style descriptions (Spencer W Thomas) --Next_Part_SYNC89696348D 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 SYNC890063162; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:03:06 -0500 Received: (from root at localhost) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id EAA08116 for postmaster at synchro.com; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp2.Stanford.EDU (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.64.14.23]) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA08056 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 04:01:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from leland.stanford.edu (sunet-s5as02-1-dynamic-215.Stanford.EDU [171.66.164.215]) by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.8.8/8.8.8/L) with ESMTP id BAA02001 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 01:03:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <36C540E3.55B036B6 at leland.stanford.edu> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 01:07:47 -0800 From: Jeremy Bergsman Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Organization: Stanford University X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Re: Digest for the period 02/12/99 - 02/13/99 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Apparently-To: judge at synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Status: RO Randy Paul writes: > I felt the beer deserved a very > good/excellent score. One judge argued that the entry was too light in > color and he proceeded to take out his color scale and showed that it had a > lower SRM than the range permitted. He wanted a 19 because it was out of > style. I feel that this silly argument and the more general question of are the guidelines guidelines or are they rigid rules can both be dismissed with the same argument. Here goes: Beers are not "in style" or "out of style." If the above judge were correct all beers would get either a 19 or a 50 (on the old scoresheet). With the possible exception of clone categories, beer styles describe a range of various characteristics. (This is why so many commercial brewers laugh at us homebrew types--they see lots of individual beers all over the map and us trying to cram them into our own, invented categories; and then we tell them their beers are wrong.) Some of these characteristics are specified (OG, color...) others are implied (balance, finesse, cleanliness...). No beer can perfectly fit any such definition, unless the definition is a copy of that exact beer. When we judge beer we are indicating how close the beer in question is to the ideal of that style (which may be a point or may be a blob in the beer parameter space). If you wanted to program a robot to be a judge you would have to specify many things such as how many points off a given color error would cost the beer. This would be style dependent as stated by Randy. Using his example, it seems OK for a barleywine to be a bit light, but no so good for a pils to be a bit dark. Each style has characteristics that are defining and characteristics that are secondary. Fortunately we are not programming robots. Each judge has to decide based on his/her knowledge of the style how much each "error" costs the beer being judged. Style guidelines help the judge figure out the area of the target, but as far as I've observed most of the guideline conflicts are such that their disagreement shouldn't cause much difference in how to mete out such punishment. For example, the guidelines might want dark barleywines, but you know that even a light barleywine is pretty much a barleywine, so you don't penalize it much. You may notice that the new scoresheet range descriptions do not have a discrete in style/out of style boundary. I would encourage everyone to read them carefully. Well, it's 1 AM, so I hope that makes sense. -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu http://www.stanford.edu/~jeremybb --Next_Part_SYNC89696348D 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 SYNC890763187; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:01:43 -0500 Received: (from root at localhost) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id KAA13239 for postmaster at synchro.com; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:59:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailgw02.execpc.com (mailgw02.execpc.com [169.207.3.78]) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA13132 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:58:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from earth (rpaolino at earth.execpc.com [169.207.16.1]) by mailgw02.execpc.com (8.9.0) id KAA02028 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:00:05 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:00:01 -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 Subject: RE: judge records, guidelines, colour guides 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 On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, JudgeNet - the beer judge digest wrote: > -------------------------------------------------------- > From: Spencer Thomas Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:31:59 -0500 > Subject: Re: Database Online > > But there are others who know your judge ID number -- anyone who has run > a competition in your general area might have it. I knew that someone would point that one out, and it wasn't worth a separate post for me. Thanks, Spencer. > I like the e-mail idea. If the judge database has email addresses, we > could set it up to email you an initial password, which you could then > use for immediate online access. Thus, anyone could request access, but > only you would get the password, and so be able to use it. Or don't even bother with the password. Simply reply to a request by emailing to the email address on the judge's record. If a judge gets a record s/he didn't request, s/he'll know someone was tryiing (unsuccessfully) to snoop. ;-) > From: Randy Paul Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:16:31 -0500 > Subject: Re: use of style descriptions > > good/excellent score. One judge argued that the entry was too light in > color and he proceeded to take out his color scale and showed that it had a > lower SRM than the range permitted. He wanted a 19 because it was out of > style. No way, I thought, since a light color isn't a defining ...or at least is one of the less significant parts of the definition. I think you were right. Appearance is now three points (previously six). For the other judge to drop it down to 19, he'd have to take points off dimensions NOT related to colour--flavour, mouthfeel, aroma... Yeah, he could take a few from overall impression, but it'd be tough to justify docking it all ten of those points just on colour. Not only isn't it the most important characteristic of the style, it also isn't possible to use the scoresheet in the way your judging partner did without abusing the other dimensions. "Colour guides don't kill beers, judges do." (Hi, Dennis) Contrast that with a calbration beer experience I had judging last weekend. My partner questioned how I could give a 29 to what we both agreed was a VERY good pils. We were told to judge it as a German Pils and I explained in some detail what I thought about the malt character, balance, and finish and why I scored it that way. I added that I thought it more characteristic of a Czech pils. My parter asked what I would score it as a Czech pils, and I replied at least 5-6 more points. (Turned out that it was a commercial pils from the Czech Republic :-) ) Unlike the barleywine example, I could score it that way for being "out-of-style" because I was addressing the flavour and mouthfeel, which account for half of the total points. You can't do that solely for a problem with colour--even if it's a black pils ;-) except to the extent that the things that make it black are likely to influence the flavour (and maybe aroma) as well as the colour. > accept a lighter guideline. b) Most judges agreed that if you have two > ranking beers that everyone has scored the same, the official guidelines > can be used to break the tie (i.e. the one that's closer to the guidelines "tie-breaker" (or even scores within a point or two of each other, although some might jump on me for this) makes a lot of sense, and that's the way most of us probably do it in practise. 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_SYNC89696348D 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 SYNC890763194; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:40:55 -0500 Received: (from root at localhost) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id LAA17645 for postmaster at synchro.com; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:40:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from camel8.mindspring.com (camel8.mindspring.com [207.69.200.58]) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA17580 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:39:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from bpitner (user-38ldckj.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.178.147]) by camel8.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA04849 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:41:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990213115738.006c3dbc at pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: bpitner at pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:57:38 -0500 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Bruce Pitner Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: Re: style guidelines In-Reply-To: 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 Regarding Bryan Gros's use of new style guidelines for a competition, I have to agree with the judges. It seems unfair to entrants for beers to be judged by style guidelines other than the ones used to enter beers. As a recent first time judging director for a competition, I encountered a related and probably more common problem for most local and regional competitions: is there a best way to "consolidate" categories to get a reasonable number of flights? This seems to be routinely done at nearly all competitions I've entered and it's usually done to strike a balance between the number of judges who show, the number of beers entered per category, and available time for the event. As an example, frequently fruit, herb, and specialty beers will be grouped together in one "specialty" flight. The consolidation is usually advertised in advance as being done "at the organiser's discretion". Many entrants would like some idea of how this would be done ahead of time to help decide which beers they'll enter and how to best distribute their entries between flights. Are there guidelines published somewhere for doing this? Should a suggested consolidation of categories be presented to entrants before the competition? Any comments on how to handle this would be helpful. -Bruce Pitner TRiangle Unabahed homeBrewers Durham, NC --Next_Part_SYNC89696348D 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 SYNC8909631A8; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:38:49 -0500 Received: (from root at localhost) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id MAA25807 for postmaster at synchro.com; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:55:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailer2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (mailer2.mail.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.1.212]) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA25722 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 12:54:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from susan.vanderbilt.edu (A167163.N1.Vanderbilt.Edu [129.59.167.163]) by mailer2.mail.vanderbilt.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1/VU-3.0.2) with SMTP id LAA10263 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:56:13 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990213115608.007af100 at j.mail.vanderbilt.edu> X-Sender: johnsosm at j.mail.vanderbilt.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 11:56:08 -0600 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: Stephen Johnson Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: Style Guidelines 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 Bryan Gros raises some interesting issues regarding style guidelines. I think that part of the issue may come from differences in how judges, competition organizers, and competition entrants may view them. Although I am a relatively new participant in each one of these roles, I have most recently seen some of these possible differences in trying to coordinate our state's (Tennessee's) homebrewing clubs and their respective competitions in having a statewide homebrewer of the year competition. Bryan has first-hand knowledge of this, as he helped to coordinate the first effort at doing this back in 1997. Members of each of these clubs have very different ideas on how many categories to have, collapsing categories, and judging beers by their own merits "according to style." First, it seems that a competition organizer chooses a certain set of style guidelines to help organize a homebrew competition event as a way of communicating to those who enter what sort of categories will be used to form the structure of the event. In other words, it is an easy way of letting those who enter know how you will organize the actual entries when it comes time to judge them. For most of us who organize competitions, it is much easier to say, "We will be accepting all of the AHA categories from the 1998 style guidelines," or "We will be using the 1998 BJCP style guidelines, so see their webpage for a list of the categories," or "We will be using the 1978 AHA style categories: Light Ales, Dark Ales, and Lagers" (or whatever those early deliniations were...I wasn't brewing back then, and don't have a resource to check on the actual categories). Second, it seems that someone who enters their beers in a competition must ultimately decide which category to enter each beer in. Unless they purposefully brew to a given style, or use a kit that is pretty clear as to what style the beer "should" be, that decision can be a difficult one for some brewers. Invariably when it comes time to getting information out about our annual competition, I get phone calls from both local entrants who are in our club, or from others in the area, or have someone bring a beer to a club meeting and ask, "What kind of beer is this and what category should I enter it in?", or "I tried to brew this as an ESB but it came out kind of small, and I wonder if it would be better in a different category?" Well, I invariably tell them to take a look at the style guidelines that we are using to guide our competition. I tell them this because the style guideline information will be one piece of the judging puzzle that I will provide to each judge who attends our event. Those style guidelines will be the only piece to that puzzle that is consistent across all of the judges who evaluate the beers. If I'm lucky as an organizer, I will also have a fair number of judges who have passed the BJCP exam, which adds another piece of consistency to the picture. However, when one has to also seat a few novice, in-training, or guest judges at various tables, this isn't always a common denominator for all judges and entrants. So, the style guidelines that have been published as a structure for the event (whether as a result of paying "sanctioning" or "registration" fees with the BJCP or AHA, or by some other process) become that common denominator for evaluation. Third, it is a common denominator for the judges, as has been so cogently stated in the most recent Digest for 2/12/99 - 2/12/99 by Randy Paul and Lyle Brown. Obviously, as judges, we each bring a very unique set of standards to the table when we sit down to judge. Some have had the wonderful experiences of traveling abroad that provides the kind of "hands-on training" that you can't quite get from driving up to Bowling Green, KY, to buy some of those nice beers from Belgium that we can't get here in TN! Some have had the wonderful experience of traveling to Chicago to attend the Real Ale Festival and taste some of the finest cask conditioned ales in the world...all under one roof. Others have been able to tend one or another form of sensory evaluation clinic at a Craft Brewers Conference, or GABF festival, or at the Seibel (did I spell it correctly?) Institute. Whatever the experiences, they are all different for every judge, just as each judge has different preferences, or biases, or whatever may ultimately influence how he/she evaluates a given beer. In the final analysis, these written guidelines are just that...guidelines. Along with the score sheets, the guidelines are a concerted effort at making a very subjective thing (evaluating beer) a little bit more of an objective process. The way I see it, the bottom line is that whenver possible, it is important to remember who the competitions are for, and to try to assist all of those involved to have as much of the same information as possible. I would see that as an important first step towards developing a basis of fairness for a given competition. If, on the other hand, there was no mention of which guidelines were to be used for the entrants, then I see no problem with using the beta guidelines that are in the works. However, if the entrants had some particular set to go by, then it may have been OK to distribute to the seated judges both the "published" guidelines along with the beta ones as a way of getting feedback from the judges at that competition and spend some time during orientation highlighting some of those differences before the start of judging. Just my "ten cents" worth. Sorry for the lengthy post if this bothers anyone... I should be working on my dissertation, but I like distractions like this. Steve Johnson, President Music City Brewers Nashville, TN stephen.johnson at vanderbilt.edu --Next_Part_SYNC89696348D 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 SYNC8909631C0; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:41:50 -0500 Received: (from root at localhost) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id NAA00294 for postmaster at synchro.com; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:41:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp1.jps.net (smtp1.jps.net [209.63.224.236]) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA00273 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:41:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from default (209-239-204-157.oak.jps.net [209.239.204.157]) by smtp1.jps.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA08553 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:42:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.19990213103459.00976330 at spectacle.berkeley.edu> X-Sender: bgros at spectacle.berkeley.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 10:37:48 -0800 To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest From: "Bryan L. Gros" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: American stouts 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 Thanks for the feedback on my style guideline questions. Here's another. Are "American Stouts" a separate substyle, or do people consider them with current substyles? I'm thinking of stouts like Sierra Nevada stout and many brewpub stouts, those that are fairly big, creamy, roasty, and with decent bitterness (and often, hop flavor). These beers are obviously not dry stouts, and they don't seem to fit in with sweet stouts, at least they are bigger and more bitter than the english examples of sweet stout that are generally cited. I suppose they could fit in the Foreign-style stouts, but I'm not sure. Bryan Gros gros at bigfoot.com Oakland, CA Organizer, 1999 National Bay Area Brew Off http://www.dnai.com/~thor/dboard/babo99.htm --Next_Part_SYNC89696348D 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 SYNC89546330C; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:51:34 -0500 Received: (from root at localhost) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id KAA15161 for postmaster at synchro.com; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:49:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailhost3.lanl.gov (mailhost3.lanl.gov [128.165.3.9]) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA15099 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:48:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from t4.lanl.gov (t4.lanl.gov [128.165.124.150]) by mailhost3.lanl.gov (8.9.2/8.9.2/(cic-5, 1/3/99)) with ESMTP id IAA22870 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:50:38 -0700 (MST) Received: from atom.lanl.gov (atom.lanl.gov [128.165.124.151]) by t4.lanl.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA21415 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:50:37 -0700 (MST) Received: (from srb at localhost) by atom.lanl.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA01944 for judge at synchro.com; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:50:36 -0700 (MST) From: Scott Bickham Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Message-Id: <199902151550.IAA01944 at atom.lanl.gov> Subject: Beta scoresheets, database access To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:50:36 -0700 (MST) In-Reply-To: from "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" at Feb 13, 99 01:03:24 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Apparently-To: judge at synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Status: RO Lyle asked about the beta scoresheets. It sounds like these are the ones you used last summer at the Spirit of Free Beer and the same ones that the AHA has been sending out. They are still technically beta versions because the BJCP Board has not given official approval, mainly because they wanted to see how they were received. The tax issue is the most important item on their plate now, and once that is resolved, scoresheets and database issues will be discussed. As far as the database goes, Russ and Gordon Strong are teaming up to make this happen. My recommendation is that we forget about the e-mail address access, since that is more easily found using search engines than your judge id number. I would like the default password be your judge id, but that can be changed at your discretion after the initial login. That would simplify the protocol for protecting your privacy (for those who care). Scott bickham at trail.com --Next_Part_SYNC89696348D 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 SYNC895663335; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:10:21 -0500 Received: (from root at localhost) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id MAA29747 for postmaster at synchro.com; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:08:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA29662 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:07:27 -0500 (EST) From: Btalk at aol.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Received: from Btalk at aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 0KSKa05506 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:06:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <64ec79c8.36c85410 at aol.com> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:06:24 EST To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Organizers and BOS Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18 Apparently-To: judge at synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Status: RO Jeff Pinhey reminds me... > I seem to recall that Bob Talkewicz once won BOS at a competition he > organized... Yeah it did happen ( though I was asst. organizer). Once I saw where the BOS judging was headed, I anxiously sought input from the others involved in organizing the event as well as from a couple experienced judges who also had organizer experience. I was willing to disqualify myself, but was reminded that I had no influence over the judging so don't worry about it, let the judges do their job. It did feel very awkward, though. I had seen a similar thing happen at another contest. It seemed a little odd, but that what the judges decided. Later, Bob Talkiewicz --Next_Part_SYNC89696348D 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 SYNC895663342; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:13:23 -0500 Received: (from root at localhost) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id MAA00631 for postmaster at synchro.com; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:12:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailman.lanl.gov (mailman.lanl.gov [128.165.5.1]) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA00439 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:11:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from t4.lanl.gov (t4.lanl.gov [128.165.124.150]) by mailman.lanl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3/(cic-5, 2/8/99)) with ESMTP id KAA18688 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:13:23 -0700 Received: from atom.lanl.gov (atom.lanl.gov [128.165.124.151]) by t4.lanl.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA21582 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:13:20 -0700 (MST) Received: (from srb at localhost) by atom.lanl.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA02052 for judge at synchro.com; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:13:21 -0700 (MST) From: Scott Bickham Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Message-Id: <199902151713.KAA02052 at atom.lanl.gov> Subject: Reliability of exam grading To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:13:21 -0700 (MST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Apparently-To: judge at synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Status: RO Bill G. requested some consolation that the BJCP exam program is doing an accurate and reliable job scoring the BJCP exams. A description of the grading process is, in fact, given on the first of two pages received by each examinees and is also summarized in the study guide. Jay and I have also elaborated on specific aspects when requested, but I can provide a synopsis here. In spite of most of the graders having advanced degrees or working in technical fields, we have determined that the best way to grade exams is to throw darts while blindfolded. The exam score is then just 5 times the number hit. In the past, only one dart per exam was thrown, but we have now improved the process by taking an average of three throws. One of the exam graders, Ed Wolfe, is a Professor in the field of psychometrics and testing. He recently recommended that the graders all be given magic 8-balls to add more credibility to the current process, but this is still in the testing stage. Finally, we have also considered giving the exams to a psychic who would then determine if the examinees would be good judges, but we still need to work out the method of payment. It appears that the grand master scoring credit given to the present corps of volunteers is not as highly regarded among the psychic community. I hope that this sufficiently addresses your concerns. Scott Bickham BJCP exam director --Next_Part_SYNC89696348D 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 SYNC896063383; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:21:47 -0500 Received: (from root at localhost) by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id QAA17584 for postmaster at synchro.com; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:19:08 -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 QAA17529 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:18:58 -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 QAA27683 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:20:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199902152120.QAA27683 at hubris.engin.umich.edu> To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: Re: use of style descriptions In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:16:31 EST." Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:20:58 -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 You should dock the beer 1 point for being the wrong color and move on. =S --Next_Part_SYNC89696348D--