Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.22]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA28561 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:07:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.109]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA18990 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:03:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 06/07/00 - 06/08/00 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 01:02:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC4411B1ED0" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC4411B1ED0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Specified Info (Houseman, David L) --Next_Part_SYNC4411B1ED0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from bbmail1-out.unisys.com ([192.63.108.40]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC4251B17DE for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 09:16:44 -0400 Received: from trsvrbk.tr.unisys.com (trsvrbk.tr.unisys.com [192.63.236.1]) by bbmail1-out.unisys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA20770 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:13:52 GMT Received: from US-TR-EXCH-1.tr.unisys.com by trsvrbk.tr.unisys.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA26259 ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:13:36 GMT Received: by us-tr-exch-1.tr.unisys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:16:48 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Houseman, David L" 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: Specified Info Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:16:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Mark Tumarkin questions how to score entries where the full information isn't provided by the entrant as requested. That's a very good question that may take up some bandwidth to discuss. Several points to consider. First, do we take off for not following the rules? Most competitions say "12 ounce brown bottles" but most competitions are lax in enforcing this. For a local competition, I believe we are and should be lax, within reason. The point is to judge the beers and provide feedback and not get too hung up on technicalities. For a very large competition (like the AHA's NHC) then the rules may have to be enforced more strictly. So the competition itself may be a consideration. The competition organizer should have the final say so that the rules are applied evenly and not just judge by judge. The next thing to consider is how relevant is the information not provided to providing a score and feedback. If the base style weren't specified but it was apparent that it was a Robust Porter, for example, then I would make an assumption, note it and the lack of infomation to the brewer, and judge it as that. I may be wrong but at least there is a set of consistent feedback. A good percentage of judging is perceiving qualities and describing them to the brewer; that you can do without knowing some information. Feedback about relevance to a specific style however requires the additional information. Without that, you can only make assumptions. That and judge the beer overall as how it fits together in balance, overall impression, drinkablity, how well qualitities such as body match other aspects of the beer and the like. This is essentially what we've done for years in judging Speciality beers that could have been specified without a Classic style specified. If a mead were entered as still but were sparkling, there are specific areas to note this and deduct points. If it weren't specified then did the carbonation level add to or detract from the mead's character and drinkability? I've judged one competition that explicitedly had NO STYLES. It was just enter your beer and it will be judged. There was no indication of what the style was or should or shouldn't be. It was like all Specialty beers without Classic style identification. Remarkably however, taking that approach made this difficult job much easier. The entrants hopefully received useful feedback on faults and how well the beers "came together." It was certainly a fun day judging and playing the guessing games. The trick was to remain objective judges and not just use our subjective biases. A good, thought provoking question for JudgeNet, Mark. David Houseman --Next_Part_SYNC4411B1ED0-- Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.22]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA28561 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:07:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.109]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA18990 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 01:03:01 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 06/07/00 - 06/08/00 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 01:02:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC4411B1ED0" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC4411B1ED0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Specified Info (Houseman, David L) --Next_Part_SYNC4411B1ED0 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from bbmail1-out.unisys.com ([192.63.108.40]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC4251B17DE for judge at synchro.com; Wed, 07 Jun 2000 09:16:44 -0400 Received: from trsvrbk.tr.unisys.com (trsvrbk.tr.unisys.com [192.63.236.1]) by bbmail1-out.unisys.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA20770 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:13:52 GMT Received: from US-TR-EXCH-1.tr.unisys.com by trsvrbk.tr.unisys.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA26259 ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 13:13:36 GMT Received: by us-tr-exch-1.tr.unisys.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:16:48 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Houseman, David L" 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: Specified Info Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:16:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Mark Tumarkin questions how to score entries where the full information isn't provided by the entrant as requested. That's a very good question that may take up some bandwidth to discuss. Several points to consider. First, do we take off for not following the rules? Most competitions say "12 ounce brown bottles" but most competitions are lax in enforcing this. For a local competition, I believe we are and should be lax, within reason. The point is to judge the beers and provide feedback and not get too hung up on technicalities. For a very large competition (like the AHA's NHC) then the rules may have to be enforced more strictly. So the competition itself may be a consideration. The competition organizer should have the final say so that the rules are applied evenly and not just judge by judge. The next thing to consider is how relevant is the information not provided to providing a score and feedback. If the base style weren't specified but it was apparent that it was a Robust Porter, for example, then I would make an assumption, note it and the lack of infomation to the brewer, and judge it as that. I may be wrong but at least there is a set of consistent feedback. A good percentage of judging is perceiving qualities and describing them to the brewer; that you can do without knowing some information. Feedback about relevance to a specific style however requires the additional information. Without that, you can only make assumptions. That and judge the beer overall as how it fits together in balance, overall impression, drinkablity, how well qualitities such as body match other aspects of the beer and the like. This is essentially what we've done for years in judging Speciality beers that could have been specified without a Classic style specified. If a mead were entered as still but were sparkling, there are specific areas to note this and deduct points. If it weren't specified then did the carbonation level add to or detract from the mead's character and drinkability? I've judged one competition that explicitedly had NO STYLES. It was just enter your beer and it will be judged. There was no indication of what the style was or should or shouldn't be. It was like all Specialty beers without Classic style identification. Remarkably however, taking that approach made this difficult job much easier. The entrants hopefully received useful feedback on faults and how well the beers "came together." It was certainly a fun day judging and playing the guessing games. The trick was to remain objective judges and not just use our subjective biases. A good, thought provoking question for JudgeNet, Mark. David Houseman --Next_Part_SYNC4411B1ED0--