Subject: Digest for the period 4/19/2004 - 4/20/2004 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 01:01:33 -0400 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BJCP email policy (Pete) 2. New Guidelines (David Craft) 3. When to mass mail (Bev Blackwood II) 4. 1. "average" scores 2. member communication (Bob Paolino) 5. RE: "Unsolicited" BJCP email (Joel Plutchak) 6. Thanks! (Bev Blackwood II) 7. Re: BJCP email policy (Chuck Cox) 8. BJCP email policy, gripe, and kudos (Valerie Oliver) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:45:39 -0400 Subject: BJCP email policy Thanx, Ed, for broaching the topic. I too get 100's of spams / day. However, I know that there are a number of folks who don't subscribe to JudgeNet, or don't have time to read the digests. I think we need to have some mechanism for inviting them to participate in the feedback process too. I think it is important organizational business, and all members of the org need to be invited to contribute. EMail seems to me to be the most cost effective and timely way to accomplish this. (Plus, you get the link Right There - no typing required! Yay, efficiency!) Just my 2˘ ********************************************************************** * 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: David Craft Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:14:32 -0400 Subject: New Guidelines Greetings, I poked around the BJCP site and the Hopmadness site and could not find one link for the entire guidelines? I'd like to print them out at one time and sit on the sofa with a coldy........... Am I missing something? David B. Craft Club Secretary Battleground Brewers Guild Crow Hill Brewery and Meadery Greensboro, NC ********************************************************************** * 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: Bev Blackwood II Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:06:10 -0500 Subject: When to mass mail Ed, For something as major as updated style guidelines, I'd say you're totally justified in sending a mass mailing. -BDB2 Bev D. Blackwood II Co-Competition Coordinator The Foam Rangers http://www.foamrangers.com ********************************************************************** * 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: Bob Paolino Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:35:13 -0400 Subject: 1. "average" scores 2. member communication Alan Hord wrote on Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:05:18 -0700: > could be done as you have described ~ and resolve the issue of adding up the > scores to get the final average score :o) > > On that note: This has been an issue before - the ownership of adding up > scores. Given, this would place a dependency on the data entry person > rather than the lead judge to determine winners. Rhetorically, the I may be missing something, but why would you do this, or even want to? The final score given to an entry is an _assigned_ score, not an _average_ score. The assigned score may be (indeed, if often) the same as the mean of the judges' scoresheets, but it does not have to be. Nor does the high mean score determine the winners. It's not uncommon to have a beer with an average 1/3 or 2/3 (or whatever) of a point lower than another still be the winner if the judges, in retasting the final contending entries, agree on a rank ordering of those entries, the initial scores and averages thereof nothwithstanding. Certainly, you assign the higher ranking beer a higher score, but you don't go back and falsify, I mean, adjust the original component scores. Determining awards solely on average scores is even more inappropriate when you have a large category and the finalists were judged in separate flights by different panels. If you were to take the suggestion to its logical (and ridiculously inappropriate) extension, you wouldn't even need to have a BoS judging--just see which beer had the highest score. Ed Westemeier wrote on Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:59:49 -0400: > As the BJCP Communication Director, I occasionally find a situation > where simply posting information on our website might not be enough. [snip style revision] > I would really like some input on whether this is something that > merits > sending an email to the entire membership. This would amount to nearly > 2,000 emails, based on a quick review of the database. While they're > certainly not commercial in nature, they are definitely unsolicited. [snip] > Is asking people to review and comment on the style drafts important > enough to justify such a mass emailing? Or would it lead us down a > slippery slope to more emails over less important issues? > > I hate spam as much as anyone (I get nearly 200 a day), but I also > recognize the need to communicate with the membership, so I'm really > ambivalent about this. > > I would truly appreciate comments from you folks as to whether you Your concern and respect for our inboxes is admirable, but I wouldn't worry about it so much. It's not Hormel; we're all members of the program, so it's a stretch to say that it's unsolicited. The less active judges can delete if they wish--or an occasional communication might spark new interest (?). Others will appreciate being notified and may or may not follow up on the message. Slippery slope? If it's something you'd include in a bimonthly or quarterly (or whatever frequency) newsletter that you'd mail (expenses for printing and postage permitting), it ought to be okay for a an emailed "newsletter." My concern would instead be that an emailed newsletter wouldn't reach people who (hard as it is to imagine ;-) ) don't use email (or haven't provided an address (or current address) to BJCP. Ed, go forth and communicate! Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino UWCU members: Please vote this month for your new board. (Hint: Only one candidate mentioned beer.) "Homer, why don't you get one of those hands-free phones? It's the next best thing to paying attention to the road." --Barney, The Simpsons ( ) ASCII ribbon campaign X against HTML e-mail: / \ Friends don't send friends HTML-bloated messages! A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? ********************************************************************** * 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: Joel Plutchak Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:47:33 +0000 Subject: RE: "Unsolicited" BJCP email Ed (and everyone else)- Any BJCP judge whose email address you have gave it to the BJCP for its use. The notification of new a proposed non-minor style guideline change once every five years is certainly a valid use of the addresses that were freely given to you. I don't consider that "unsolicited" in the way SPAM/UCE is. (And yes, I hate SPAM with a passion, too.) -- Joel Plutchak >From: Ed Westemeier Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:59:49 -0400 >Subject: BJCP email policy >I would really like some input on whether this is something that >merits >sending an email to the entire membership. This would amount to nearly >2,000 emails, based on a quick review of the database. While they're >certainly not commercial in nature, they are definitely unsolicited. >Is asking people to review and comment on the style drafts important >enough to justify such a mass emailing? Or would it lead us down a >slippery slope to more emails over less important issues? >I would truly appreciate comments from you folks as to whether you >think this would be a good or bad idea. _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfeeŽ Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ********************************************************************** * 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: Bev Blackwood II Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:27:48 -0500 Subject: Thanks! I just wanted to express my admiration & gratitude to the team working on the style guidelines. First, for undertaking such a sweeping task. Second, for getting it done in a reasonable time frame. Last, for opening their work up for comment and (far more likely) criticism via the forums. I think this can only result in stronger guidelines that better represent the styles being brewed, enjoyed and entered. We are looking forward to using the new guidelines (assuming they are official by then) at October's Dixie Cup in Houston, Texas. -BDB2 Bev D. Blackwood II Co-Competition Coordinator The Foam Rangers http://www.foamrangers.com ********************************************************************** * 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: Chuck Cox Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:35:11 -0400 Subject: Re: BJCP email policy At 01:04 AM 4/19/2004, Ed Westemeier wrote: >I would really like some input on whether this is something that merits >sending an email to the entire membership. This would amount to nearly >2,000 emails, based on a quick review of the database. While they're >certainly not commercial in nature, they are definitely unsolicited. I >believe they're justified for something like an election, and we >recently did so for the election in the Northeast region (still >looking for a few more votes there, by the way). Having run a handful of opt-in mailing lists over the years, I'd like to offer my insight on unsolicited bulk email. As others have pointed out, I'm not sure "unsolicited" is an accurate description of official communications from an organization to members who have provided their email address. After all, why else would they provide it if not to receive official communications? I'm not sure I would consider an occasional official announcement any differently than I would elections announcements. Nonetheless, there are some simple things the BJCP can do to make sure there is no problem. First, send a brief bulk mailing right now that explains that the BJCP assumes they are interested in receiving further communications via email and offer a simple method to opt-out of future mailings. Periodically send out an address verification message (like you receive from JudgeNet every month) that offers opt-out instructions. On all forms where you collect email addresses, add a box that the judge can check to opt-out of mailings. Now you have a voluntary opt-in list that you can use as necessary. As long as you include opt-out instructions in every mailing, there should be no complaints. As for getting more votes, it would be nice if there was a simple way to get your ID & password. Many password protected sites let you put your email address in a box and press a button to get your login info via email. As the BJCP matures, more and more of us are going to have a hard time remembering where we put our BJCP paperwork. Soon Bill Slack won't be the only senile beer judge. -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems chuck`at`synchro.com, cccox at fas.harvard.edu, www.synchro.com Bush: less freedom & more spending. Kerry: more spending & less freedom. The choice is obvious. ********************************************************************** * 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: Valerie Oliver Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:58:54 -0700 Subject: BJCP email policy, gripe, and kudos > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Ed Westemeier Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:59:49 -0400 > Subject: BJCP email policy [snip] > I hate spam as much as anyone (I get nearly 200 a day), but I also > recognize the need to communicate with the membership, so I'm really > ambivalent about this. I appreciate Ed Westemeier's concerns over creating spam, but if an organization, that I voluntarily belong to, has pertinent information to give to me, I would hope that they would. There are probably many BJCP members that monitor JudgeNet, but there are probably many that, for whatever reasons, do not. [Please take this as constructive criticism.] That is the one gripe I have about the BJCP - they are not very good at communicating with the membership. Concerns can be addressed if we are informed about what is going on. Issues like delayed exam results and judging points are easier to take when you have an idea what the delay is about and that there are people working on it. Silence leads to speculation and rumor...or worse. That said, I thank and congratulate those that have worked hard to update the online reporting system and posted the many past competition point results. I am sure these upgrades will benefit us all. I never forget that this is a volunteer organization. Just remember to keep us, the members, in the loop. Valerie Oliver Seattle area P.S. to Ed: Get a new email account provider, will ya...200 spam is a problem. ********************************************************************** * 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 4/19/2004 - 4/20/2004 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 01:01:33 -0400 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BJCP email policy (Pete) 2. New Guidelines (David Craft) 3. When to mass mail (Bev Blackwood II) 4. 1. "average" scores 2. member communication (Bob Paolino) 5. RE: "Unsolicited" BJCP email (Joel Plutchak) 6. Thanks! (Bev Blackwood II) 7. Re: BJCP email policy (Chuck Cox) 8. BJCP email policy, gripe, and kudos (Valerie Oliver) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:45:39 -0400 Subject: BJCP email policy Thanx, Ed, for broaching the topic. I too get 100's of spams / day. However, I know that there are a number of folks who don't subscribe to JudgeNet, or don't have time to read the digests. I think we need to have some mechanism for inviting them to participate in the feedback process too. I think it is important organizational business, and all members of the org need to be invited to contribute. EMail seems to me to be the most cost effective and timely way to accomplish this. (Plus, you get the link Right There - no typing required! Yay, efficiency!) Just my 2˘ ********************************************************************** * 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: David Craft Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:14:32 -0400 Subject: New Guidelines Greetings, I poked around the BJCP site and the Hopmadness site and could not find one link for the entire guidelines? I'd like to print them out at one time and sit on the sofa with a coldy........... Am I missing something? David B. Craft Club Secretary Battleground Brewers Guild Crow Hill Brewery and Meadery Greensboro, NC ********************************************************************** * 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: Bev Blackwood II Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:06:10 -0500 Subject: When to mass mail Ed, For something as major as updated style guidelines, I'd say you're totally justified in sending a mass mailing. -BDB2 Bev D. Blackwood II Co-Competition Coordinator The Foam Rangers http://www.foamrangers.com ********************************************************************** * 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: Bob Paolino Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:35:13 -0400 Subject: 1. "average" scores 2. member communication Alan Hord wrote on Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:05:18 -0700: > could be done as you have described ~ and resolve the issue of adding up the > scores to get the final average score :o) > > On that note: This has been an issue before - the ownership of adding up > scores. Given, this would place a dependency on the data entry person > rather than the lead judge to determine winners. Rhetorically, the I may be missing something, but why would you do this, or even want to? The final score given to an entry is an _assigned_ score, not an _average_ score. The assigned score may be (indeed, if often) the same as the mean of the judges' scoresheets, but it does not have to be. Nor does the high mean score determine the winners. It's not uncommon to have a beer with an average 1/3 or 2/3 (or whatever) of a point lower than another still be the winner if the judges, in retasting the final contending entries, agree on a rank ordering of those entries, the initial scores and averages thereof nothwithstanding. Certainly, you assign the higher ranking beer a higher score, but you don't go back and falsify, I mean, adjust the original component scores. Determining awards solely on average scores is even more inappropriate when you have a large category and the finalists were judged in separate flights by different panels. If you were to take the suggestion to its logical (and ridiculously inappropriate) extension, you wouldn't even need to have a BoS judging--just see which beer had the highest score. Ed Westemeier wrote on Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:59:49 -0400: > As the BJCP Communication Director, I occasionally find a situation > where simply posting information on our website might not be enough. [snip style revision] > I would really like some input on whether this is something that > merits > sending an email to the entire membership. This would amount to nearly > 2,000 emails, based on a quick review of the database. While they're > certainly not commercial in nature, they are definitely unsolicited. [snip] > Is asking people to review and comment on the style drafts important > enough to justify such a mass emailing? Or would it lead us down a > slippery slope to more emails over less important issues? > > I hate spam as much as anyone (I get nearly 200 a day), but I also > recognize the need to communicate with the membership, so I'm really > ambivalent about this. > > I would truly appreciate comments from you folks as to whether you Your concern and respect for our inboxes is admirable, but I wouldn't worry about it so much. It's not Hormel; we're all members of the program, so it's a stretch to say that it's unsolicited. The less active judges can delete if they wish--or an occasional communication might spark new interest (?). Others will appreciate being notified and may or may not follow up on the message. Slippery slope? If it's something you'd include in a bimonthly or quarterly (or whatever frequency) newsletter that you'd mail (expenses for printing and postage permitting), it ought to be okay for a an emailed "newsletter." My concern would instead be that an emailed newsletter wouldn't reach people who (hard as it is to imagine ;-) ) don't use email (or haven't provided an address (or current address) to BJCP. Ed, go forth and communicate! Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino UWCU members: Please vote this month for your new board. (Hint: Only one candidate mentioned beer.) "Homer, why don't you get one of those hands-free phones? It's the next best thing to paying attention to the road." --Barney, The Simpsons ( ) ASCII ribbon campaign X against HTML e-mail: / \ Friends don't send friends HTML-bloated messages! A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? ********************************************************************** * 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: Joel Plutchak Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:47:33 +0000 Subject: RE: "Unsolicited" BJCP email Ed (and everyone else)- Any BJCP judge whose email address you have gave it to the BJCP for its use. The notification of new a proposed non-minor style guideline change once every five years is certainly a valid use of the addresses that were freely given to you. I don't consider that "unsolicited" in the way SPAM/UCE is. (And yes, I hate SPAM with a passion, too.) -- Joel Plutchak >From: Ed Westemeier Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:59:49 -0400 >Subject: BJCP email policy >I would really like some input on whether this is something that >merits >sending an email to the entire membership. This would amount to nearly >2,000 emails, based on a quick review of the database. While they're >certainly not commercial in nature, they are definitely unsolicited. >Is asking people to review and comment on the style drafts important >enough to justify such a mass emailing? Or would it lead us down a >slippery slope to more emails over less important issues? >I would truly appreciate comments from you folks as to whether you >think this would be a good or bad idea. _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfeeŽ Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ********************************************************************** * 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: Bev Blackwood II Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:27:48 -0500 Subject: Thanks! I just wanted to express my admiration & gratitude to the team working on the style guidelines. First, for undertaking such a sweeping task. Second, for getting it done in a reasonable time frame. Last, for opening their work up for comment and (far more likely) criticism via the forums. I think this can only result in stronger guidelines that better represent the styles being brewed, enjoyed and entered. We are looking forward to using the new guidelines (assuming they are official by then) at October's Dixie Cup in Houston, Texas. -BDB2 Bev D. Blackwood II Co-Competition Coordinator The Foam Rangers http://www.foamrangers.com ********************************************************************** * 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: Chuck Cox Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:35:11 -0400 Subject: Re: BJCP email policy At 01:04 AM 4/19/2004, Ed Westemeier wrote: >I would really like some input on whether this is something that merits >sending an email to the entire membership. This would amount to nearly >2,000 emails, based on a quick review of the database. While they're >certainly not commercial in nature, they are definitely unsolicited. I >believe they're justified for something like an election, and we >recently did so for the election in the Northeast region (still >looking for a few more votes there, by the way). Having run a handful of opt-in mailing lists over the years, I'd like to offer my insight on unsolicited bulk email. As others have pointed out, I'm not sure "unsolicited" is an accurate description of official communications from an organization to members who have provided their email address. After all, why else would they provide it if not to receive official communications? I'm not sure I would consider an occasional official announcement any differently than I would elections announcements. Nonetheless, there are some simple things the BJCP can do to make sure there is no problem. First, send a brief bulk mailing right now that explains that the BJCP assumes they are interested in receiving further communications via email and offer a simple method to opt-out of future mailings. Periodically send out an address verification message (like you receive from JudgeNet every month) that offers opt-out instructions. On all forms where you collect email addresses, add a box that the judge can check to opt-out of mailings. Now you have a voluntary opt-in list that you can use as necessary. As long as you include opt-out instructions in every mailing, there should be no complaints. As for getting more votes, it would be nice if there was a simple way to get your ID & password. Many password protected sites let you put your email address in a box and press a button to get your login info via email. As the BJCP matures, more and more of us are going to have a hard time remembering where we put our BJCP paperwork. Soon Bill Slack won't be the only senile beer judge. -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems chuck`at`synchro.com, cccox at fas.harvard.edu, www.synchro.com Bush: less freedom & more spending. Kerry: more spending & less freedom. The choice is obvious. ********************************************************************** * 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: Valerie Oliver Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:58:54 -0700 Subject: BJCP email policy, gripe, and kudos > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Ed Westemeier Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:59:49 -0400 > Subject: BJCP email policy [snip] > I hate spam as much as anyone (I get nearly 200 a day), but I also > recognize the need to communicate with the membership, so I'm really > ambivalent about this. I appreciate Ed Westemeier's concerns over creating spam, but if an organization, that I voluntarily belong to, has pertinent information to give to me, I would hope that they would. There are probably many BJCP members that monitor JudgeNet, but there are probably many that, for whatever reasons, do not. [Please take this as constructive criticism.] That is the one gripe I have about the BJCP - they are not very good at communicating with the membership. Concerns can be addressed if we are informed about what is going on. Issues like delayed exam results and judging points are easier to take when you have an idea what the delay is about and that there are people working on it. Silence leads to speculation and rumor...or worse. That said, I thank and congratulate those that have worked hard to update the online reporting system and posted the many past competition point results. I am sure these upgrades will benefit us all. I never forget that this is a volunteer organization. Just remember to keep us, the members, in the loop. Valerie Oliver Seattle area P.S. to Ed: Get a new email account provider, will ya...200 spam is a problem. ********************************************************************** * 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 * **********************************************************************