Subject: Digest for the period 2/26/02 - 2/27/02 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:00:29 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC553743950D" --Next_Part_SYNC553743950D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organizer's Fault????? (Bill Wible) Re: Judge's Resposibilities/competitions (blutick`at`juno.com) Awarding Prizes (Ayotte, Roger C) What first place means (Tracy P. Hamilton) Call for Graders (Peter Garofalo) --Next_Part_SYNC553743950D Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC553743950D" --Message_Part_SYNC553743950D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from diskless7.axs2000.net ([209.120.196.45]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5503437C45 for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:58:24 -0500 Received: from [64.80.87.195] (ppp-087-195.verio.axs2000.net [64.80.87.195]) by diskless7.axs2000.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g1PKvGw26583 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:57:16 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:58:17 -0500 Subject: Organizer's Fault????? From: Bill Wible 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 Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Jay Ankeney writes to agree with Jim Layton: >A homebrew competition should be just that--a competition. Let the entrants >put their best efforts forward, and let the judges declare who gets 1st, 2nd >or 3rd. As long as the beers are clean and match the style category, give >them recognition. >The attitude that a beer isn't "good enough" for a competition's standards >belies not only a grinchy arrogance, it is an attempt to cover up the fact >that the organizers had not done their jobs well enough to attract good >brewers. Low scores reflect more about the competition than the beers entered. Am I reading you right? A low score for a bad beer is the competition organizer's fault?? And everybody deserves an award? Where did that come from? Have you judged recently and tasted some of these beers?? Yes, there are categories that very few people enter - have you brewed a Bier De Garde recently? Just because you're one of 3 people brewing and entering a style, that doesn't mean you should automatically get a ribbon, or that it's the organizer's fault that you're the only 3 brewing that style, or if the 3 of you brew it badly. Again, an award is just that - an award. It has to be earned and deserved. We evaluate the beers and score them accordingly - that's the whole point of having a competition. If the beers aren't good, they don't deserve a ribbon. If we give away a ribbon to a bad beer anyway, or if we just go ahead and give everybody who enters a ribbon, then the whole thing is meaningless, so why even evaluate the beers and give out any ribbons or prizes at all? Do you think every athlete who competes in the Olympics should get a gold medal? Why not give everybody one, since they all tried so hard? After all, it's just a medal, right? On one hand, you seem to agree that there needs to be a minimum score for a ribbon - when you say "As long as the beers are clean and match the style category". But on the other hand, you say that if the beers aren't good enough then that's the competition organizer's fault because they didn't do their job. Though I'm still not sure where that's coming from, or what job the competition organizer has that he is supposed to that if he doesn't do makes everybody get a low score. Everybody doesn't get an award. If you aren't winning awards, it's not the competition organizer's fault. It could be that you are brewing good beers and just have great competition going against you, which is usually the case here. There are many great area brewers entering beers in these competitions, many of whom are your fellow beer judges - that's the company you're in. Do you think you're always going to be better than all of these guys? Reminds me of that scene in Top Gun where the Captain asks "Can any of you say for sure that you know you're the best?" And when Tom Cruise says "Yes, Sir!" the captain says "That's pretty arrogant, son, considering the company you're in!" So don't blame the organizer in every competition where you don't win. I just entered 7 beers, 3 of which I thought were great, into a local competition here and didn't get a single award - not even a third place. I'm not blaming the organizer. It was a good and fair competition, and the beers that beat mine were just better, that's all. These other brewers can be tough to beat. One of my favorite quotes , which I'm ashamed to admit comes from Professional Wrestling, also comes into play here - "To BE the man, ya gotta BEAT the man! Whoooo!" Bill -------------------------- Brew By You 3504 Cottman Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19149 215-335-BREW (PA) 215-335-0712 (Fax) www.brewbyyou.net --------------------------- --Message_Part_SYNC553743950D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from r1.jersey.juno.com ([64.136.16.41]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5521438BEF for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:03:04 -0500 Received: from m5.jersey.juno.com (m5.jersey.juno.com [64.136.16.68]) by r1.jersey.juno.com (8.8.6.Beta0/8.8.7/juno-1.2) with ESMTP id IAAAA14444 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:03:51 -0500 (EST) From: blutick`at`juno.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for <"uJiHWT5fQ41kJ23IKgbni3XjLK1gBElbRYMjfCCn/eUB/rVzXaZsnQ=="> Received: (from blutick`at`juno.com) by m5.jersey.juno.com (jqueuemail) id GUKXLHVN; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:02:08 EST To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:05:44 -0600 Subject: Re: Judge's Resposibilities/competitions Message-ID: <20020226.070545.-70465.0.blutick`at`juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.27 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 4-7,10-11,18-19,29-30,32-37 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Bill Wible takes exception to my remarks on awarding 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place awards even though the beers failed to achieve some arbitrary numerical score. That's fine, I don't mind a difference of opinion and enjoy the debate, but it appears that he has jumped to a conclusion and taken off on a tangent: >You've obviously never been involved with organizing a competition. Not correct, I have served as head judge and organizing committee member for the 2000 and 2001 Bluebonnet Brew-Off. This experience has given me some insight into how home brew competitions should be run. Just as valuable has been my experience as a plain old judge and attendee at numerous other competitions. I've been to a competition where awards were withheld in one category because of one judge's belief that the beers weren't worthy. It was not a small flight of beers in a small competition. It was a large flight in a very large competition. I thought it stunk then and I think it will stink the next time it happens, big competition or small. As for entry fees and the cash value of prizes other than the ribbons, trophies, etc., I don't see what that has to do with this discussion. The number of awards and the cash value of the prizes should be planned in advance by the organizer. This plan may need to be adjusted _prior to the judging_ based on the number of entries received in each category. I am certainly not opposed to collapsing categories as needed in a small competition to come up with a reasonable number of beers (I'd say at least 6, you might say 12, whatever) in the flight. If the awards are to come from this flight, then that's the plan. Why should a judge be allowed to change this plan on the spot? Yes, even if the top three beers in that flight are lousy, I say give out the prizes. The entrants won them fair and square. Jim Layton --Message_Part_SYNC553743950D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from pensoiex1.soi.dir.solutia.com ([12.104.183.128]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5521438C5B for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:41:36 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Awarding Prizes Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:41:35 -0600 Message-ID: <2B9F99661874F640B86C12471D55C2CA58F612`at`pensoiex1.soi.dir.solutia.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Awarding Prizes Thread-Index: AcG+1BGDaHVrCCrAEdaWhFbAdwAAAA== From: "Ayotte, Roger C" 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 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I really don't understand all the fuss about this subject. As long as the competition rules have been decided upon AHEAD of time and published (either with the entry form or in some other way) then the competition SURELY has the right to limit prize awards as they have set forth in the competition rules. Period, end of discussion. I personally have no problem whatsoever in not awarding a first prize to a poorly represented group of entries. I mean when categories are combined, isn't that the same thing as not awarding a prize for one of the combined categories? Roger Ayotte --Message_Part_SYNC553743950D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from vera.dpo.uab.edu ([138.26.1.112]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5522438D56 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:59:09 -0500 Received: from hamilton (138.26.72.106) by vera.dpo.uab.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.3A5DA290`at`vera.dpo.uab.edu>; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 9:37:38 -0600 Message-ID: <022801c1bedb$6b0094c0$6a481a8a`at`chem.uab.edu> From: "Tracy P. Hamilton" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest References: Subject: What first place means Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:36:54 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message is just what it says. In a competition one is competing against the others - not *against* a standard. The standards are used as the *basis* for judging. There are standards for characteristics of the style, and standards for what rates as excellent, very good, etc. I have no problem with collapsing styles, and giving a first place in a combined category, as long as the entrants understand that. It will even mean more to them when they get a first. To those who say it is unfair to pair two different styles, isn't that just what the best of show does, in spades? Judges just have to know what they are doing, and not be biased by palate blasters. Tracy P. Hamilton Birmingham Brewmasters --Message_Part_SYNC553743950D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.125]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC553243927C for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:27:49 -0500 Received: from peter (syr-24-92-233-115.twcny.rr.com [24.92.233.115]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with SMTP id g1R1Riu08974 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:27:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <005001c1bf2d$bd93d420$73e95c18`at`peter> From: "Peter Garofalo" 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: Call for Graders Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:26:10 -0500 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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message As incoming Western Exam Director, it's obvious to me that the BJCP is still a growing organization. In particular, the number of exams offered continues to increase. This year, 18 exams are already scheduled through the end of June; only 27 exams were offered in all of 2001! I therefore would like to appeal to the judging community for help in handling the growth of our organization. The heart of the BJCP exam process is the grader/Associate Director/Exam Director chain. Graders get the first crack at assessing performance and offering feedback to the prospective judge, which is every bit as important as the feedback that we all provide when judging a beer. The lead grader, in particular, bears an important burden: that of writing the Report to Participant (RTP) form, which evaluates the exam performance in detail. Next, the Associate Directors review the exams, ensure the accuracy of comments, and re-score if necessary. They pass the exams to the Directors, who give a final review and finalize the scores. As you can tell, the exams are thoroughly reviewed! While the goal is to grade, review, and return exams within 12 weeks, sometimes this is simply not possible, given that all the work is done by volunteers. This brings me to the point: we need volunteers to grade exams in order to keep our organization growing. While we have a solid core of graders, it is becoming obvious that we need more to keep up with the demand. It was necessary to split the Exam Director job a few years ago due to growth of demand for the exam, and it now appears that we need to increase the pool of graders. Here are the perks: 0.1 experience point is granted for each exam graded, doubling to 0.2 point for lead graders. Expenses are reimbursed, and you get the chance to contribute to the BJCP in a concrete way. What more could you ask? Requirements for graders are a National rank (or higher), and active status. If you are interested in helping out, please let me know at exam_director_west`at`bjcp.org. Dan Hall, the other ED, may be contacted at exam_director_east`at`bjcp.org. Either one of us would be happy to hear from prospective graders. One final note: in order to keep the flow of exams more manageable, it is critical that potential exam administrators adhere to our policy of notification four months in advance of the exam. Simply e-mail either of us, and we'll send the appropriate forms. Remember, your exam is not set until approved by the ED, at which time it will be posted on the Web site. We have had to delay some exams in recent weeks, and in order to avoid doing so routinely, we need your help. Cheers, Peter Garofalo Western Exam Director exam_director_west`at`bjcp.org --Message_Part_SYNC553743950D-- --Next_Part_SYNC553743950D-- Subject: Digest for the period 2/26/02 - 2/27/02 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:00:29 -0500 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC553743950D" --Next_Part_SYNC553743950D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organizer's Fault????? (Bill Wible) Re: Judge's Resposibilities/competitions (blutick`at`juno.com) Awarding Prizes (Ayotte, Roger C) What first place means (Tracy P. Hamilton) Call for Graders (Peter Garofalo) --Next_Part_SYNC553743950D Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC553743950D" --Message_Part_SYNC553743950D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from diskless7.axs2000.net ([209.120.196.45]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5503437C45 for judge`at`synchro.com; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:58:24 -0500 Received: from [64.80.87.195] (ppp-087-195.verio.axs2000.net [64.80.87.195]) by diskless7.axs2000.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g1PKvGw26583 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:57:16 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:58:17 -0500 Subject: Organizer's Fault????? From: Bill Wible 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 Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Jay Ankeney writes to agree with Jim Layton: >A homebrew competition should be just that--a competition. Let the entrants >put their best efforts forward, and let the judges declare who gets 1st, 2nd >or 3rd. As long as the beers are clean and match the style category, give >them recognition. >The attitude that a beer isn't "good enough" for a competition's standards >belies not only a grinchy arrogance, it is an attempt to cover up the fact >that the organizers had not done their jobs well enough to attract good >brewers. Low scores reflect more about the competition than the beers entered. Am I reading you right? A low score for a bad beer is the competition organizer's fault?? And everybody deserves an award? Where did that come from? Have you judged recently and tasted some of these beers?? Yes, there are categories that very few people enter - have you brewed a Bier De Garde recently? Just because you're one of 3 people brewing and entering a style, that doesn't mean you should automatically get a ribbon, or that it's the organizer's fault that you're the only 3 brewing that style, or if the 3 of you brew it badly. Again, an award is just that - an award. It has to be earned and deserved. We evaluate the beers and score them accordingly - that's the whole point of having a competition. If the beers aren't good, they don't deserve a ribbon. If we give away a ribbon to a bad beer anyway, or if we just go ahead and give everybody who enters a ribbon, then the whole thing is meaningless, so why even evaluate the beers and give out any ribbons or prizes at all? Do you think every athlete who competes in the Olympics should get a gold medal? Why not give everybody one, since they all tried so hard? After all, it's just a medal, right? On one hand, you seem to agree that there needs to be a minimum score for a ribbon - when you say "As long as the beers are clean and match the style category". But on the other hand, you say that if the beers aren't good enough then that's the competition organizer's fault because they didn't do their job. Though I'm still not sure where that's coming from, or what job the competition organizer has that he is supposed to that if he doesn't do makes everybody get a low score. Everybody doesn't get an award. If you aren't winning awards, it's not the competition organizer's fault. It could be that you are brewing good beers and just have great competition going against you, which is usually the case here. There are many great area brewers entering beers in these competitions, many of whom are your fellow beer judges - that's the company you're in. Do you think you're always going to be better than all of these guys? Reminds me of that scene in Top Gun where the Captain asks "Can any of you say for sure that you know you're the best?" And when Tom Cruise says "Yes, Sir!" the captain says "That's pretty arrogant, son, considering the company you're in!" So don't blame the organizer in every competition where you don't win. I just entered 7 beers, 3 of which I thought were great, into a local competition here and didn't get a single award - not even a third place. I'm not blaming the organizer. It was a good and fair competition, and the beers that beat mine were just better, that's all. These other brewers can be tough to beat. One of my favorite quotes , which I'm ashamed to admit comes from Professional Wrestling, also comes into play here - "To BE the man, ya gotta BEAT the man! Whoooo!" Bill -------------------------- Brew By You 3504 Cottman Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19149 215-335-BREW (PA) 215-335-0712 (Fax) www.brewbyyou.net --------------------------- --Message_Part_SYNC553743950D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from r1.jersey.juno.com ([64.136.16.41]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5521438BEF for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:03:04 -0500 Received: from m5.jersey.juno.com (m5.jersey.juno.com [64.136.16.68]) by r1.jersey.juno.com (8.8.6.Beta0/8.8.7/juno-1.2) with ESMTP id IAAAA14444 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:03:51 -0500 (EST) From: blutick`at`juno.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com Received: from cookie.juno.com by cookie.juno.com for <"uJiHWT5fQ41kJ23IKgbni3XjLK1gBElbRYMjfCCn/eUB/rVzXaZsnQ=="> Received: (from blutick`at`juno.com) by m5.jersey.juno.com (jqueuemail) id GUKXLHVN; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:02:08 EST To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 07:05:44 -0600 Subject: Re: Judge's Resposibilities/competitions Message-ID: <20020226.070545.-70465.0.blutick`at`juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.27 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 4-7,10-11,18-19,29-30,32-37 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Bill Wible takes exception to my remarks on awarding 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place awards even though the beers failed to achieve some arbitrary numerical score. That's fine, I don't mind a difference of opinion and enjoy the debate, but it appears that he has jumped to a conclusion and taken off on a tangent: >You've obviously never been involved with organizing a competition. Not correct, I have served as head judge and organizing committee member for the 2000 and 2001 Bluebonnet Brew-Off. This experience has given me some insight into how home brew competitions should be run. Just as valuable has been my experience as a plain old judge and attendee at numerous other competitions. I've been to a competition where awards were withheld in one category because of one judge's belief that the beers weren't worthy. It was not a small flight of beers in a small competition. It was a large flight in a very large competition. I thought it stunk then and I think it will stink the next time it happens, big competition or small. As for entry fees and the cash value of prizes other than the ribbons, trophies, etc., I don't see what that has to do with this discussion. The number of awards and the cash value of the prizes should be planned in advance by the organizer. This plan may need to be adjusted _prior to the judging_ based on the number of entries received in each category. I am certainly not opposed to collapsing categories as needed in a small competition to come up with a reasonable number of beers (I'd say at least 6, you might say 12, whatever) in the flight. If the awards are to come from this flight, then that's the plan. Why should a judge be allowed to change this plan on the spot? Yes, even if the top three beers in that flight are lousy, I say give out the prizes. The entrants won them fair and square. Jim Layton --Message_Part_SYNC553743950D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from pensoiex1.soi.dir.solutia.com ([12.104.183.128]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5521438C5B for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:41:36 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Awarding Prizes Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:41:35 -0600 Message-ID: <2B9F99661874F640B86C12471D55C2CA58F612`at`pensoiex1.soi.dir.solutia.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Awarding Prizes Thread-Index: AcG+1BGDaHVrCCrAEdaWhFbAdwAAAA== From: "Ayotte, Roger C" 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 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I really don't understand all the fuss about this subject. As long as the competition rules have been decided upon AHEAD of time and published (either with the entry form or in some other way) then the competition SURELY has the right to limit prize awards as they have set forth in the competition rules. Period, end of discussion. I personally have no problem whatsoever in not awarding a first prize to a poorly represented group of entries. I mean when categories are combined, isn't that the same thing as not awarding a prize for one of the combined categories? Roger Ayotte --Message_Part_SYNC553743950D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from vera.dpo.uab.edu ([138.26.1.112]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC5522438D56 for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 10:59:09 -0500 Received: from hamilton (138.26.72.106) by vera.dpo.uab.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.3A5DA290`at`vera.dpo.uab.edu>; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 9:37:38 -0600 Message-ID: <022801c1bedb$6b0094c0$6a481a8a`at`chem.uab.edu> From: "Tracy P. Hamilton" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner`at`synchro.com Sender: judge`at`synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest References: Subject: What first place means Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:36:54 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message is just what it says. In a competition one is competing against the others - not *against* a standard. The standards are used as the *basis* for judging. There are standards for characteristics of the style, and standards for what rates as excellent, very good, etc. I have no problem with collapsing styles, and giving a first place in a combined category, as long as the entrants understand that. It will even mean more to them when they get a first. To those who say it is unfair to pair two different styles, isn't that just what the best of show does, in spades? Judges just have to know what they are doing, and not be biased by palate blasters. Tracy P. Hamilton Birmingham Brewmasters --Message_Part_SYNC553743950D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.125]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.6.1176) id SYNC553243927C for judge`at`synchro.com; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:27:49 -0500 Received: from peter (syr-24-92-233-115.twcny.rr.com [24.92.233.115]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with SMTP id g1R1Riu08974 for ; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:27:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <005001c1bf2d$bd93d420$73e95c18`at`peter> From: "Peter Garofalo" 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: Call for Graders Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:26:10 -0500 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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message As incoming Western Exam Director, it's obvious to me that the BJCP is still a growing organization. In particular, the number of exams offered continues to increase. This year, 18 exams are already scheduled through the end of June; only 27 exams were offered in all of 2001! I therefore would like to appeal to the judging community for help in handling the growth of our organization. The heart of the BJCP exam process is the grader/Associate Director/Exam Director chain. Graders get the first crack at assessing performance and offering feedback to the prospective judge, which is every bit as important as the feedback that we all provide when judging a beer. The lead grader, in particular, bears an important burden: that of writing the Report to Participant (RTP) form, which evaluates the exam performance in detail. Next, the Associate Directors review the exams, ensure the accuracy of comments, and re-score if necessary. They pass the exams to the Directors, who give a final review and finalize the scores. As you can tell, the exams are thoroughly reviewed! While the goal is to grade, review, and return exams within 12 weeks, sometimes this is simply not possible, given that all the work is done by volunteers. This brings me to the point: we need volunteers to grade exams in order to keep our organization growing. While we have a solid core of graders, it is becoming obvious that we need more to keep up with the demand. It was necessary to split the Exam Director job a few years ago due to growth of demand for the exam, and it now appears that we need to increase the pool of graders. Here are the perks: 0.1 experience point is granted for each exam graded, doubling to 0.2 point for lead graders. Expenses are reimbursed, and you get the chance to contribute to the BJCP in a concrete way. What more could you ask? Requirements for graders are a National rank (or higher), and active status. If you are interested in helping out, please let me know at exam_director_west`at`bjcp.org. Dan Hall, the other ED, may be contacted at exam_director_east`at`bjcp.org. Either one of us would be happy to hear from prospective graders. One final note: in order to keep the flow of exams more manageable, it is critical that potential exam administrators adhere to our policy of notification four months in advance of the exam. Simply e-mail either of us, and we'll send the appropriate forms. Remember, your exam is not set until approved by the ED, at which time it will be posted on the Web site. We have had to delay some exams in recent weeks, and in order to avoid doing so routinely, we need your help. Cheers, Peter Garofalo Western Exam Director exam_director_west`at`bjcp.org --Message_Part_SYNC553743950D-- --Next_Part_SYNC553743950D--