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 BAA15757 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:04:45 -0400 (EDT) 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 BAA24371 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:04:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 06/15/99 - 06/16/99 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:01:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC184978AEA" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC184978AEA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ best of round judging (Bryan L. Gros) Re: BJCP information...please (fwd) (Robert Paolino) Re: Digest for the period 06/14/99 - 06/15/99 (Joel Plutchak) --Next_Part_SYNC184978AEA Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from smtp6.jps.net ([209.63.224.103]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.3.1060) id SYNC182577D74 for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:32:28 -0400 Received: from default (209-239-210-184.oak.jps.net [209.239.210.184]) by smtp6.jps.net (8.9.0/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA09682 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:32:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.1.19990614222949.00958100 at jps.net> X-Sender: bgros at jps.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:32:14 -0700 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: best of round judging Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I have always been wary about these mini BOS rounds used to select a category winner from the results of two or more panels, mostly for the reasons stated by Gary. I'll offer my experiences as suggestions, similar to Steve Johnson's. At the competitions I have been involved with, we structure the judging so as to only have one panel per category for the final judging round. (These competitions have had between 100 and 160 entries in 8 categories.) In order to achieve this goal, we have preliminary judging flights in the days preceding the final judging. For example, if we have 25 pale ale entries, we'll get three judges together to evaluate the entries and select the best 8-12 for the final round judging. No, these guys aren't scoring 25 beers. Basically, with each entry you take a sip or two and quickly "evaluate" the beer--is it a good clean beer that has a chance at winning, or is it obviosly flawed and should not get to the finals? Is it in between? >From these 3 groups (good, bad, maybe), it is usually easy to come up with a flight of 8 to 12. The remaining beers that didn't get selected to go on to the finals are then scored and standard score sheets are filled out for the brewers. So the panel may end up scoring 14 "bad" beers, but the best 11 beers are sent on. With more than 25 entries in a category, then this preliminary judging can be divided into 2 panels with each panel choosing 4 to 6 "good" beers. It is pretty easy to pick out the best beers without having to decide which is actually the best--that is the job of the final juding panel. It is also a good, informal setting for helping apprentice judges. But it is also a demanding job, since the preliminary judges are scoring the problem beers and it is important to offer as much help to the brewers as possible. - Bryan Bryan Gros Oakland CA --Next_Part_SYNC184978AEA Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from mailgw00.execpc.com ([169.207.1.78]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.3.1060) id SYNC183277F64 for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:20:07 -0400 Received: from earth (earth.execpc.com [169.207.16.1]) by mailgw00.execpc.com (8.9.1) id HAA19200 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:20:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:20:18 -0500 (CDT) 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: BJCP information...please (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:10:21 -0500 (CDT) From: "Stephen T. McKenna" To: rpaolino at EXECPC.COM Subject: Re: BJCP information...please > As for competition reports, are all of the ones I cited AHA-sanctioned > rather than BCJP? The notes I received on the BUZZ suggest that the > problem might be communication between AHA and BJCP as the problem here. Exactly...all AHA-sanctioned, or double-sanctioned with organizer report sent only to the AHA (the case with BUZZ). --Next_Part_SYNC184978AEA Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from ex1.ncsa.uiuc.edu ([141.142.2.9]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.3.1060) id SYNC183378019 for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:57:34 -0400 Received: from mx1.ncsa.uiuc.edu (mx1.ncsa.uiuc.edu [141.142.2.8]) by ex1.ncsa.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06926 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:57:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pecos.ncsa.uiuc.edu (pecos.ncsa.uiuc.edu [141.142.4.6]) by mx1.ncsa.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA29232 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:57:44 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:57:44 -0500 (CDT) From: Joel Plutchak 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: Digest for the period 06/14/99 - 06/15/99 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-md5sum: 84c91b9a2bfdd816c8922900fdfc92eb X-md5sum-Origin: mx1.ncsa.uiuc.edu X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message What concerns me is not that points were lost/delayed, but that there doesn't seem to be an effort to make sure this doesn't continue to happen. I say this due to the specific wording of the notification from the BJCP that "competitions ... have never filed Organizer Reports." Given that there were approximately 70 competitions on that list, I find it *incredibly* hard to believe that there are 70 lazy organizers (or 70 incompetent postal workers). Is it not much more possible that there are one or two unorganized AHA or BJCP people, and the reports are almost all sitting on somebody's desk under a pile of other stuff? I'm not trying to point any fingers at individuals (if you saw my desk you'd understand :-), but have both personal and organizational reasons for wanting to see the current snafu fixed and have any gaping holes in the process plugged in the future. -- Joel Plutchak (BUZZ once and future officer/organizer) In the previous Digest, Roger & Steve wrote: > From: Roger Deschner Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:07:37 CDT > > "Stephen T. McKenna" said: > > > > We heard at BUZZ this weekend that the missing competition reports are > > not because the organizers failed to submit them. They were properly > > sent to the AHA and got lost somewhere between there and the BJCP. > > (Even the 1998 AHA 2nd Round got lost!) Nevertheless the competition > > organizers now need to resubmit their reports to the BJCP. BUZZ has > > already done this for their 1998 competition. > As the organizer of AHA/Chicago 1998, I am simultaneously puzzled, > embarrassed, and short some points myself. But it will be taken care > of - fast. ... > I hope BJCP can make progress on their plans to make this information > available sooner - for the benefit of us organizers so we can tell > whether or not the reports from our competitions have been received and > tabulated. We will tell by simply looking for our own Organizer Points to > show up. That way, we can check and fix snafus at any step in the process > before they become embarrassments like this. --Next_Part_SYNC184978AEA-- 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 BAA15757 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:04:45 -0400 (EDT) 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 BAA24371 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:04:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 06/15/99 - 06/16/99 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:01:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC184978AEA" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC184978AEA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ best of round judging (Bryan L. Gros) Re: BJCP information...please (fwd) (Robert Paolino) Re: Digest for the period 06/14/99 - 06/15/99 (Joel Plutchak) --Next_Part_SYNC184978AEA Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from smtp6.jps.net ([209.63.224.103]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.3.1060) id SYNC182577D74 for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:32:28 -0400 Received: from default (209-239-210-184.oak.jps.net [209.239.210.184]) by smtp6.jps.net (8.9.0/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA09682 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:32:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.1.19990614222949.00958100 at jps.net> X-Sender: bgros at jps.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:32:14 -0700 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: best of round judging Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I have always been wary about these mini BOS rounds used to select a category winner from the results of two or more panels, mostly for the reasons stated by Gary. I'll offer my experiences as suggestions, similar to Steve Johnson's. At the competitions I have been involved with, we structure the judging so as to only have one panel per category for the final judging round. (These competitions have had between 100 and 160 entries in 8 categories.) In order to achieve this goal, we have preliminary judging flights in the days preceding the final judging. For example, if we have 25 pale ale entries, we'll get three judges together to evaluate the entries and select the best 8-12 for the final round judging. No, these guys aren't scoring 25 beers. Basically, with each entry you take a sip or two and quickly "evaluate" the beer--is it a good clean beer that has a chance at winning, or is it obviosly flawed and should not get to the finals? Is it in between? >From these 3 groups (good, bad, maybe), it is usually easy to come up with a flight of 8 to 12. The remaining beers that didn't get selected to go on to the finals are then scored and standard score sheets are filled out for the brewers. So the panel may end up scoring 14 "bad" beers, but the best 11 beers are sent on. With more than 25 entries in a category, then this preliminary judging can be divided into 2 panels with each panel choosing 4 to 6 "good" beers. It is pretty easy to pick out the best beers without having to decide which is actually the best--that is the job of the final juding panel. It is also a good, informal setting for helping apprentice judges. But it is also a demanding job, since the preliminary judges are scoring the problem beers and it is important to offer as much help to the brewers as possible. - Bryan Bryan Gros Oakland CA --Next_Part_SYNC184978AEA Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from mailgw00.execpc.com ([169.207.1.78]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.3.1060) id SYNC183277F64 for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:20:07 -0400 Received: from earth (earth.execpc.com [169.207.16.1]) by mailgw00.execpc.com (8.9.1) id HAA19200 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:20:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:20:18 -0500 (CDT) 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: BJCP information...please (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:10:21 -0500 (CDT) From: "Stephen T. McKenna" To: rpaolino at EXECPC.COM Subject: Re: BJCP information...please > As for competition reports, are all of the ones I cited AHA-sanctioned > rather than BCJP? The notes I received on the BUZZ suggest that the > problem might be communication between AHA and BJCP as the problem here. Exactly...all AHA-sanctioned, or double-sanctioned with organizer report sent only to the AHA (the case with BUZZ). --Next_Part_SYNC184978AEA Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from ex1.ncsa.uiuc.edu ([141.142.2.9]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.3.1060) id SYNC183378019 for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:57:34 -0400 Received: from mx1.ncsa.uiuc.edu (mx1.ncsa.uiuc.edu [141.142.2.8]) by ex1.ncsa.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA06926 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:57:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from pecos.ncsa.uiuc.edu (pecos.ncsa.uiuc.edu [141.142.4.6]) by mx1.ncsa.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA29232 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:57:44 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:57:44 -0500 (CDT) From: Joel Plutchak 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: Digest for the period 06/14/99 - 06/15/99 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-md5sum: 84c91b9a2bfdd816c8922900fdfc92eb X-md5sum-Origin: mx1.ncsa.uiuc.edu X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message What concerns me is not that points were lost/delayed, but that there doesn't seem to be an effort to make sure this doesn't continue to happen. I say this due to the specific wording of the notification from the BJCP that "competitions ... have never filed Organizer Reports." Given that there were approximately 70 competitions on that list, I find it *incredibly* hard to believe that there are 70 lazy organizers (or 70 incompetent postal workers). Is it not much more possible that there are one or two unorganized AHA or BJCP people, and the reports are almost all sitting on somebody's desk under a pile of other stuff? I'm not trying to point any fingers at individuals (if you saw my desk you'd understand :-), but have both personal and organizational reasons for wanting to see the current snafu fixed and have any gaping holes in the process plugged in the future. -- Joel Plutchak (BUZZ once and future officer/organizer) In the previous Digest, Roger & Steve wrote: > From: Roger Deschner Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:07:37 CDT > > "Stephen T. McKenna" said: > > > > We heard at BUZZ this weekend that the missing competition reports are > > not because the organizers failed to submit them. They were properly > > sent to the AHA and got lost somewhere between there and the BJCP. > > (Even the 1998 AHA 2nd Round got lost!) Nevertheless the competition > > organizers now need to resubmit their reports to the BJCP. BUZZ has > > already done this for their 1998 competition. > As the organizer of AHA/Chicago 1998, I am simultaneously puzzled, > embarrassed, and short some points myself. But it will be taken care > of - fast. ... > I hope BJCP can make progress on their plans to make this information > available sooner - for the benefit of us organizers so we can tell > whether or not the reports from our competitions have been received and > tabulated. We will tell by simply looking for our own Organizer Points to > show up. That way, we can check and fix snafus at any step in the process > before they become embarrassments like this. --Next_Part_SYNC184978AEA--