From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
To: "Digest Recipients" <judge at synchro.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Digest for the period 02/16/99 - 02/17/99
Message-ID: <SYNC89936394B at synchro.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 01:04:12 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC899363944"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO

--Next_Part_SYNC899363944
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Table of contents
------------------------------------------------------
Email Access to Points DB (John Robinson)
Consolidating Categories (Chuck Bernard)
E-mail access to Points Database (Scott Bickham)
--Next_Part_SYNC899363944
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <robinson at novalistech.com>
Received: from postoffice.harvard.net by synchro.com with POP3 (Mailtraq/1.1.0.1036)
          id SYNC897663860; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:07:25 -0500
Received: (from root at localhost)
	by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id IAA04711
	for postmaster at synchro.com; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:06:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from osprey.mgnet.ca (www.mgnet.ca [198.164.55.1])
	by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA04678
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 08:05:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from novalistech.com by osprey.mgnet.ca id JAA16586; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:15:33 -0400
Received: from chilifang by  novalistech.com (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA27286; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:09:04 -0400 (AST)
Message-Id: <199902161309.JAA27286 at  novalistech.com>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <robinson at dilbert>
From: "John Robinson" <robinson at novalistech.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
Organization: NovaLIS Technologies
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:12:55 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Email Access to Points DB
CC: judge at synchro.com
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54)
Apparently-To: judge at synchro.com
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message
Status: RO


Hi Scott,

>From your comment about email addresses being easily accessible from 
search engines, I think you misunderstood my suggestion.  I suggest 
we set it up so that the following occurs:

1 - BJCP somehow becomes aware of my email address
2 - I request my points, using my name, or judge id number or 
whatever as an ID
3 - I do not need to use a password in the request.
4 - The BJCP answer's the request by emailing my points to my email 
address.

Thus anyone, anywhere, anytime can request to see my points.  They 
just don't get to see the answer.  The answer always gets emailed to 
me!

If the address bounces repeatedly, remove me from the list of people 
who can access it and send a letter to that effect requesting a new 
email address to my last known address.

You could collect email addresses electronically, via paper, or 
whatever for initial setup.

This way, there is no password.  That others know my email address is 
irrelevant.  If you wanted to be really entertaining with it you 
could require that people requesting points enter their email 
address and include that in the body of the message you sent to me.  
Then I could see who was trying to check up on me.

---
John Robinson              "The most basic rule of survival in any situation is:
Technical Architect         Never look like food." - Park Ranger. 
NovaLIS Technologies       
robinson at novalistech.com    
                           

--Next_Part_SYNC899363944
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <bernardch at mindspring.com>
Received: from postoffice.harvard.net by synchro.com with POP3 (Mailtraq/1.1.0.1036)
          id SYNC8978638AF; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:51:22 -0500
Received: (from root at localhost)
	by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id KAA16233
	for postmaster at synchro.com; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:50:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from camel14.mindspring.com (camel14.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64])
	by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA16048
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:49:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from default (user-38lc73c.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.28.108])
	by camel14.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA14015
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:51:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <00a901be59c4$1b000200$e4a745cf at default>
From: "Chuck Bernard" <bernardch at mindspring.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Consolidating Categories
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:39:32 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Apparently-To: judge at synchro.com
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message
Status: RO


Bruce Pitner asks about consolidation of categories. . .
> is there a best way to "consolidate" categories to get a reasonable number
of flights?

> 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

> Are there guidelines published somewhere for doing this. . .

There is no "best" way to consolidate categories, but what we try to do here
in Nashville when it is necessary to consolidate is to try to group beers
with similar taste/aroma/style profiles together.  Combining porters and
stouts is a good example; two styles with similar characteristics.  I feel
that these "logical" consolidations are done more for the palates of the
judges than for the entrants.

Entrants need to realize that their beers are not being judged against other
beers in a flight but are being judged against the style guidelines that
define the "ideal" version of the style.  Much like dog show judging where
every breed is judged against the "standard."  So we as judges need to ask
ourself, "how close does this beer come to meeting the ideal standard for
this style?"  The only time I can ever see two or more beers being directly
compared is if there exists a tie in a flight or during the Best of Show
round.  But again, the question should be, "Is beer A closer to the
definintion of the ideal dry stout than beer B is to the definition of a
robust porter?"

Trying to let the entrants know ahead of time how categories will be
collapsed is a crap shoot at best since as the organizer, you have
absolutely no idea how many of what styles will be received.  You might get
3 stouts or you might unpack 30.  There's just no way of knowing.

In order to clarify our consolidation practices and put potential entrants
minds at ease, when we send out our competition announcement package we put
the following statement in the rules (I'm recalling from memory, but goes
something like this).

"The competition organizers reserve the right to collapse categories should
insufficient entries be received in any style or category.  Likewise the
competition organizers reserve the right to expand categories should
excessive entries be received in any style or category.  The re-assignment
of categories will be made in as a logical manner as possible.     (bold
face)  However, In all cases each beer will be judged against the
appropriate style guidelines for that style and not against other beers in
the category.  (Bold face off)

We also repeat the last sentance in the instructions to judges just before
the competition begins.

I think if all competitions ran something similar in their rules, it would
ease the "fears" of many potential entrants about collapsing categories.

Chuck Bernard              bernardch at mindspring.com
Music City Brewers, Nashville TN


--Next_Part_SYNC899363944
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <srb at t4.lanl.gov>
Received: from postoffice.harvard.net by synchro.com with POP3 (Mailtraq/1.1.0.1036)
          id SYNC8979638BC; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:12:51 -0500
Received: (from root at localhost)
	by airsupply.harvard.net (8.8.8/8.8.7) id LAA21299
	for postmaster at synchro.com; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:09:11 -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 LAA20976
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:08:00 -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 JAA30114;
	Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:10:04 -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 JAA25161;
	Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:10:01 -0700 (MST)
Received: (from srb at localhost)
	by atom.lanl.gov (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA02363;
	Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:09:59 -0700 (MST)
From: Scott Bickham <srb at t4.lanl.gov>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
Message-Id: <199902161609.JAA02363 at atom.lanl.gov>
Subject: E-mail access to Points Database
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:09:59 -0700 (MST)
Cc: robinson at novalistech.com
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


Thanks to John Robinson for clarifying the proposal for
e-mail access.  After re-examining some of the pros and cons
for the different methods discussed here, one aspect that
has not been discussed is that this would require that judges
have e-mail access.  I scanned through the information forms
from the judges that took the BJCP exam in 1998, and this
is true for only about 50% of them.  However all judges have
a judge ID, so assuming they have a friend with internet
access, the e-mail address would not be necessary for
retrieval of their judging record.  Of course, having the
record sent via e-mail could still be an option, but it
shouldn't be the only one.

Finally, I want to announce that the BJCP New Member Guide is
now on the web page.  There is some repetition of information,
but the following should offer a complete summary of the
BJCP:

1.  FAQ list: a quick glimpse into the program
2.  BJCP New Member Guide: sent with exam results
3.  BJCP Guide:  based on the pamphlet that was distributed 
 	prior to 1995.
4.  BJCP By-laws
5.  Regional Reps: for questions that the above does not answer

Good brewing,

Scott Bickham
bickham at trail.com


--Next_Part_SYNC899363944--