Subject: Digest for the period 4/11/2004 - 4/12/2004 Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 01:02:17 -0400 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Call for Judges: Bay Area Brew Off (Bryan L. Gros) 2. Judging the judges (Marvin Edgeworth) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bryan L. Gros Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:21:25 -0700 Subject: Call for Judges: Bay Area Brew Off The Draught Board homebrew club announces the 17th annual Bay Area Brew Off competition, in association with the Alameda County Fair. The competition is AHA/BJCP sanctioned. We need a few more judges. Final judging will be held at the Fairgrounds in Pleasanton, CA on May 15. Lunch and party to follow. Details, entry forms, and judge/stewards signup are at http://www.draughtboard.org/babo/babopage.htm Competition questions can be mailed to babo`at`draughtboard.org Judge signups can be mailed to judges`at`draughtboard.org Stewards signups can be mailed to charlie`at`draughtboard.org Bryan Gros Judge Organizer Bryan Gros bgros`at`aggienetwork.com Oakland, CA Draught Board Homebrew Club http://www.draughtboard.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marvin Edgeworth Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:35:23 -0700 Subject: Judging the judges Rant mode ON! I think most of us would agree that one of the primary purposes of the BJCP is to improve competition judging AND to help the competitors improve their brews. I also sympathize with the competition organizers, who NEVER have as many judges as they need. But I still think we need to tighten up and accept the idea of rejecting some judges. I have no argument with the test as presently administered, and fully agree that a rated judge should demonstrate competency in beer knowledge and beer tasting. But I feel we should go further, and judge the judges on our primary purpose - JUDGING! We all have seen the 'two words per criteria' competition sheets. 'Nice aroma', 'Good color', 'Too hoppy', etc. just doesn't cut it, but we presently do not have any method of discouraging this behavior, or encouraging 'good' behavior. The only way to qualify judging is to JUDGE judging! So how about this - for each competition, require that the organizer return copies of the judging sheets for several randomly chosen categories (hopefully NOT known to the judges!) and then 'score' the returned sheets. I'm not suggesting that we do this like the taste test - ignore the accuracy, and just judge the degree of adherence to proper judging technique. Full descriptions with good suggestions for improvement get good scores, and two-word comments or really inappropriate phraseology get slammed. Now - what do we do about it? This is a little more controversial, but what about adjusting the points based on the judging score? Poor scores get 0 points, mediocre sheets get 'normal' points, and super score sheets get double points. Really bad score sheets from national or above judges would certainly deserve a direct communication warning of rank reduction, and continued poor judging would merit disbarment. About the only thing we can do about non-BJCP judges who perform poorly would be to suggest to the organizer that he (she) should encourage them to improve their judging and possibly give them some instruction on what is expected. Monitor their next competition sheets, and, if there's no improvement, either refuse to allow them to judge OR make sure they're on only 3-judge panels. But for BJCP judges, particularly certified and above, we SHOULD be able to police our own ranks, and actively encourage good judging. Rant mode OFF. Marvin Edgeworth Las Vegas, NV Marvin Edgeworth Las Vegas, NV ********************************************************************** * 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 4/11/2004 - 4/12/2004 Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 01:02:17 -0400 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Call for Judges: Bay Area Brew Off (Bryan L. Gros) 2. Judging the judges (Marvin Edgeworth) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bryan L. Gros Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:21:25 -0700 Subject: Call for Judges: Bay Area Brew Off The Draught Board homebrew club announces the 17th annual Bay Area Brew Off competition, in association with the Alameda County Fair. The competition is AHA/BJCP sanctioned. We need a few more judges. Final judging will be held at the Fairgrounds in Pleasanton, CA on May 15. Lunch and party to follow. Details, entry forms, and judge/stewards signup are at http://www.draughtboard.org/babo/babopage.htm Competition questions can be mailed to babo`at`draughtboard.org Judge signups can be mailed to judges`at`draughtboard.org Stewards signups can be mailed to charlie`at`draughtboard.org Bryan Gros Judge Organizer Bryan Gros bgros`at`aggienetwork.com Oakland, CA Draught Board Homebrew Club http://www.draughtboard.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marvin Edgeworth Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:35:23 -0700 Subject: Judging the judges Rant mode ON! I think most of us would agree that one of the primary purposes of the BJCP is to improve competition judging AND to help the competitors improve their brews. I also sympathize with the competition organizers, who NEVER have as many judges as they need. But I still think we need to tighten up and accept the idea of rejecting some judges. I have no argument with the test as presently administered, and fully agree that a rated judge should demonstrate competency in beer knowledge and beer tasting. But I feel we should go further, and judge the judges on our primary purpose - JUDGING! We all have seen the 'two words per criteria' competition sheets. 'Nice aroma', 'Good color', 'Too hoppy', etc. just doesn't cut it, but we presently do not have any method of discouraging this behavior, or encouraging 'good' behavior. The only way to qualify judging is to JUDGE judging! So how about this - for each competition, require that the organizer return copies of the judging sheets for several randomly chosen categories (hopefully NOT known to the judges!) and then 'score' the returned sheets. I'm not suggesting that we do this like the taste test - ignore the accuracy, and just judge the degree of adherence to proper judging technique. Full descriptions with good suggestions for improvement get good scores, and two-word comments or really inappropriate phraseology get slammed. Now - what do we do about it? This is a little more controversial, but what about adjusting the points based on the judging score? Poor scores get 0 points, mediocre sheets get 'normal' points, and super score sheets get double points. Really bad score sheets from national or above judges would certainly deserve a direct communication warning of rank reduction, and continued poor judging would merit disbarment. About the only thing we can do about non-BJCP judges who perform poorly would be to suggest to the organizer that he (she) should encourage them to improve their judging and possibly give them some instruction on what is expected. Monitor their next competition sheets, and, if there's no improvement, either refuse to allow them to judge OR make sure they're on only 3-judge panels. But for BJCP judges, particularly certified and above, we SHOULD be able to police our own ranks, and actively encourage good judging. Rant mode OFF. Marvin Edgeworth Las Vegas, NV Marvin Edgeworth Las Vegas, NV ********************************************************************** * 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 * **********************************************************************