Subject: Digest for the period 11/7/2003 - 11/8/2003 Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 01:00:14 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Competition Email notices (Dion Hollenbeck) 2. guidelines (Gordon Strong) 3. Re: Digest for the period 11/5/2003 - 11/6/2003 (JayAnkeney`at`aol.com) 4. RE: Competition Email Notices (Houseman, David L) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dion Hollenbeck Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 13:04:27 -0800 Subject: Competition Email notices This is a topic which should probably be discussed offline, as it only is slightly related to judging. Please respond directly to me at the Email below. When the BJCP gives us the judge list for a competition, we send Email to judges with Email addresses. After a reasonable amount of time, we send postcards to all judges without Email and those whose Email bounced. I am currently the "competition data guy" but want to train someone else to take over for me. The problem is that I currently do the mailings with Perl scripts on Unix, allowing me to send an individual customized Email to each judge. The reason for this is that so many sites are now filtering out spam and long recipient lists tend to get rejected by spam filters. Are there any of you who have made this process easy to do on Windoze? I would like to make the process available to anybody to take over from me and not too many people have 1) a Unix machine to use and 2) the skill to do the Perl programming which makes it possible for me to do this easily. If we had to cut and paste an Email address into a single Email for each of the 200+ judges in CA, AZ and NV, we would not do it. thanks, dion -- Dion Hollenbeck Email: hollen`at`woodsprite.com Home Page: http://www.woodsprite.com Brewing Page: http://hbd.org/hollen [1359.5,263.7] Rennerian QUAFF - Threepeat Nat'l HB Club of the Year, CAL HB Club of the Year ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gordon Strong Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:04:13 -0500 Subject: guidelines Thanks for the continued comments on the BJCP guidelines. If anyone has any other "pet peeves" with any of the current styles, please feel free to air them (either here or in private email to me). I agree with the issues raised by George de Piro and Rob Paolino on the alt and dubbel styles. Those have already been addressed in the forthcoming guidelines. For those of you who went to MCAB IV in Cleveland, you'll know that I've long had issue with the dubbel style. For those of you who didn't attend, my analysis can be found at http://207.89.201.107/GS_Presentations.html. I would like to give a general overview of the intent of the style review. Hopefully this will give any interested persons a current update. 1. As Dave Houseman said, we've got a style committee running now and are updating the guidelines. There will be a new set of guidelines for 2004. We don't have a release date yet, but the new guidelines will be announced on this forum and on the BJCP web site. 2. We started with (among other things) comments from this forum from over the years. We've added eight new styles based on requests from this forum, plus our own experiences. 3. Everything in the guidelines is fair game. We want them to be accurate and useful to brewers, judges, and competition organizers. We're looking at wording, completeness across categories, style parameters, and commercial examples. 4. We're trying to validate the guidelines with the body of knowledge (published literature), tastings, in-country research, and discussions with experts and enthusiasts. We don't expect everyone to agree on everything. Differences of opinion will always exist. But we're trying to remove factual errors where present. 5. Some styles are broader than others. Some styles have quite different commercial examples. We're trying to get away from styles being defined by a single beer (there are exceptions, of course). When there are valid varying interpretations of a style, we're trying to explain the full range. There's nothing worse than a beer getting a shoddy evaluation because a judge is "zoned-in" on one example and dismisses the beer for stylistic reasons. 6. We're trying to make sure the commercial examples are currently available and represent the style as described. We're expanding the list of examples, including US-made examples of world beer styles where appropriate, to try to make it easier for people to taste and understand the styles. 7. We're expanding the descriptions to try to discuss all aspects of the beer, not just a few main points. 8. We're trying to identify what stylistic elements are required versus optional, and where a range of interpretations are appropriate. 9. Most styles are being described by the way they are currently being brewed, although where brewers are doing a disservice to a classic style we're tending to stick with the classic definition (someone's previous example of English IPAs are the perfect example; this is also supported in the literature by the likes of Protz and Jackson). We realize the style guidelines are always a work in progress. We're trying to make things better. We don't expect perfection. The fact that the 1999 guidelines have been in effect for almost five years is a testament to their great improvement over the 1997 guidelines. But there are some problems with them that need to be corrected (as have been highlighted), and they need a thorough check for validity. Hopefully you'll agree that our final result will meet those goals. Gordon Strong Chairman, BJCP Style Committee strongg at earthlink dot net ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JayAnkeney`at`aol.com Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 13:13:44 EST Subject: Re: Digest for the period 11/5/2003 - 11/6/2003 In a message dated 11/5/03 10:04:51 PM, judge`at`synchro.com writes: << Subject: As long as we're on the topic of style guideline revision... (Dubbel) >> I'd like to take this opportunity to ask a pretty obvious question: Why are the style guidelines not written in the same format as the judging score sheets? There are four general categories (aroma, appearance, flavor, mouthfeel). Could not the style guidelines simply describe what each of these should be for a given type of beer? There is plenty of room for subjective evaluation in the "overall impression" section. Jay Ankeney 220 39th St. Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (310) 545-3983 ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Houseman, David L Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:51:27 -0500 Subject: RE: Competition Email Notices Dion/Michael, Currently the BJCP sends out hard copy labels to competition organizers. Russ has also provided soft copy of lists as well. The BJCP has a move afoot to migrate to a paperless (mostly) organization, relying on email and web presence for most, if not all, activities. Toward that goal, if there is a way to provide shareware software to competitions that will take the soft copy of the judge lists provided to competitions and create emails (and perhaps labels for those without email), this would be of tremendous benefit to the entire competition community. I don't know what the issues are with the BJCP modifying the format of the soft copy of the judge list to help any grass roots efforts to create this capability but it may be something worth exploring if it means that we don't have to mail out hard copy of judge lists and that competitions can rely largely on email rather than much more expensive snail mail to reach judges for competitions. This could be a significant snail mail cost savings I imagine. Dave Houseman MidAtantic Representative, BJCP ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** Subject: Digest for the period 11/7/2003 - 11/8/2003 Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 01:00:14 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Competition Email notices (Dion Hollenbeck) 2. guidelines (Gordon Strong) 3. Re: Digest for the period 11/5/2003 - 11/6/2003 (JayAnkeney`at`aol.com) 4. RE: Competition Email Notices (Houseman, David L) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dion Hollenbeck Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 13:04:27 -0800 Subject: Competition Email notices This is a topic which should probably be discussed offline, as it only is slightly related to judging. Please respond directly to me at the Email below. When the BJCP gives us the judge list for a competition, we send Email to judges with Email addresses. After a reasonable amount of time, we send postcards to all judges without Email and those whose Email bounced. I am currently the "competition data guy" but want to train someone else to take over for me. The problem is that I currently do the mailings with Perl scripts on Unix, allowing me to send an individual customized Email to each judge. The reason for this is that so many sites are now filtering out spam and long recipient lists tend to get rejected by spam filters. Are there any of you who have made this process easy to do on Windoze? I would like to make the process available to anybody to take over from me and not too many people have 1) a Unix machine to use and 2) the skill to do the Perl programming which makes it possible for me to do this easily. If we had to cut and paste an Email address into a single Email for each of the 200+ judges in CA, AZ and NV, we would not do it. thanks, dion -- Dion Hollenbeck Email: hollen`at`woodsprite.com Home Page: http://www.woodsprite.com Brewing Page: http://hbd.org/hollen [1359.5,263.7] Rennerian QUAFF - Threepeat Nat'l HB Club of the Year, CAL HB Club of the Year ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gordon Strong Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:04:13 -0500 Subject: guidelines Thanks for the continued comments on the BJCP guidelines. If anyone has any other "pet peeves" with any of the current styles, please feel free to air them (either here or in private email to me). I agree with the issues raised by George de Piro and Rob Paolino on the alt and dubbel styles. Those have already been addressed in the forthcoming guidelines. For those of you who went to MCAB IV in Cleveland, you'll know that I've long had issue with the dubbel style. For those of you who didn't attend, my analysis can be found at http://207.89.201.107/GS_Presentations.html. I would like to give a general overview of the intent of the style review. Hopefully this will give any interested persons a current update. 1. As Dave Houseman said, we've got a style committee running now and are updating the guidelines. There will be a new set of guidelines for 2004. We don't have a release date yet, but the new guidelines will be announced on this forum and on the BJCP web site. 2. We started with (among other things) comments from this forum from over the years. We've added eight new styles based on requests from this forum, plus our own experiences. 3. Everything in the guidelines is fair game. We want them to be accurate and useful to brewers, judges, and competition organizers. We're looking at wording, completeness across categories, style parameters, and commercial examples. 4. We're trying to validate the guidelines with the body of knowledge (published literature), tastings, in-country research, and discussions with experts and enthusiasts. We don't expect everyone to agree on everything. Differences of opinion will always exist. But we're trying to remove factual errors where present. 5. Some styles are broader than others. Some styles have quite different commercial examples. We're trying to get away from styles being defined by a single beer (there are exceptions, of course). When there are valid varying interpretations of a style, we're trying to explain the full range. There's nothing worse than a beer getting a shoddy evaluation because a judge is "zoned-in" on one example and dismisses the beer for stylistic reasons. 6. We're trying to make sure the commercial examples are currently available and represent the style as described. We're expanding the list of examples, including US-made examples of world beer styles where appropriate, to try to make it easier for people to taste and understand the styles. 7. We're expanding the descriptions to try to discuss all aspects of the beer, not just a few main points. 8. We're trying to identify what stylistic elements are required versus optional, and where a range of interpretations are appropriate. 9. Most styles are being described by the way they are currently being brewed, although where brewers are doing a disservice to a classic style we're tending to stick with the classic definition (someone's previous example of English IPAs are the perfect example; this is also supported in the literature by the likes of Protz and Jackson). We realize the style guidelines are always a work in progress. We're trying to make things better. We don't expect perfection. The fact that the 1999 guidelines have been in effect for almost five years is a testament to their great improvement over the 1997 guidelines. But there are some problems with them that need to be corrected (as have been highlighted), and they need a thorough check for validity. Hopefully you'll agree that our final result will meet those goals. Gordon Strong Chairman, BJCP Style Committee strongg at earthlink dot net ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JayAnkeney`at`aol.com Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 13:13:44 EST Subject: Re: Digest for the period 11/5/2003 - 11/6/2003 In a message dated 11/5/03 10:04:51 PM, judge`at`synchro.com writes: << Subject: As long as we're on the topic of style guideline revision... (Dubbel) >> I'd like to take this opportunity to ask a pretty obvious question: Why are the style guidelines not written in the same format as the judging score sheets? There are four general categories (aroma, appearance, flavor, mouthfeel). Could not the style guidelines simply describe what each of these should be for a given type of beer? There is plenty of room for subjective evaluation in the "overall impression" section. Jay Ankeney 220 39th St. Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (310) 545-3983 ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Houseman, David L Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:51:27 -0500 Subject: RE: Competition Email Notices Dion/Michael, Currently the BJCP sends out hard copy labels to competition organizers. Russ has also provided soft copy of lists as well. The BJCP has a move afoot to migrate to a paperless (mostly) organization, relying on email and web presence for most, if not all, activities. Toward that goal, if there is a way to provide shareware software to competitions that will take the soft copy of the judge lists provided to competitions and create emails (and perhaps labels for those without email), this would be of tremendous benefit to the entire competition community. I don't know what the issues are with the BJCP modifying the format of the soft copy of the judge list to help any grass roots efforts to create this capability but it may be something worth exploring if it means that we don't have to mail out hard copy of judge lists and that competitions can rely largely on email rather than much more expensive snail mail to reach judges for competitions. This could be a significant snail mail cost savings I imagine. Dave Houseman MidAtantic Representative, BJCP ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * **********************************************************************