Jeff Ream Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 But we want "show of the day mentality", right? For some reason I'm liking this change. Could you imagine a corps coming from third place and 3+ points behind in the semifinals and winning it all? Some would freak out. I would find it refreshingly awesome. That's what happened in the first DCI championship. And don't compare to last year - BD had a fluke penalty that put them where they were at quarters. posting recaps has nothing to do with show of the day mentality. This past fall I judged the same group 2 days in a row. When show 1 was over, i put my tote away, and went out and judged not caring or remembering what I gave that band the night before. recaps were posted in 08, didnt slow down Phantom. didnt slow down BD coming back last year, or in 97 when SCV tied at semis...and of course Phantom in 96. theres a zillion examples out there of show of the day being applied regardless of recaps being posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfirwin3 Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 posting recaps has nothing to do with show of the day mentality. This past fall I judged the same group 2 days in a row. When show 1 was over, i put my tote away, and went out and judged not caring or remembering what I gave that band the night before. recaps were posted in 08, didnt slow down Phantom. didnt slow down BD coming back last year, or in 97 when SCV tied at semis...and of course Phantom in 96. theres a zillion examples out there of show of the day being applied regardless of recaps being posted. I recall 1988... where the performance order was all jumbled up... I think there was a healthy dose of leapfrogging there as well even with the recaps known. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) I recall 1988... where the performance order was all jumbled up... I think there was a healthy dose of leapfrogging there as well even with the recaps known. 1988 DCI Semi-Finals and Finals Championships 1-12 Results Semis/Finals Semis Score Diff. Finals (Order of Appear.) Score Diff. Corps +/- Score Diff.(Based on Finals finish) Madison 97.8 ---- Madison 97.1 (11) ---- - .7 Blue Devils 96.8 - 1.0 SCV 96.9 (9) - .2 + .6 SCV 96.3 - .5 Blue Devils 96.3 (8) - .6 - .5 Cavaliers 95.6 - .7 Cadets 96.1 (12) - .2 + 1.3 Cadets 94.8 - .8 Cavaliers 95.1 (3) - 1.0 - .5 Phantom 93.6 - 1.2 Phantom 93.5 (10) - 1.6 - .1 Star of Ind. 93.1 - .5 Star of Ind. 92.8 (6) - .7 - .3 Spirit of Atl. 91.9 (Tie) - 1.2 Vel. Knights 90.6 (1) - 2.2 - 1.3 Vel. Knights 91.9 (Tie) Tie Spirit of Atl. 89.3 (4) - 1.3 - 2.6 Suncoast 90.5 - 1.4 Suncoast 89.1 (2) - .2 - 1.4 Bluecoats 88.6 - 1.9 Bluecoats 86.7 (7) - 2.4 - 1.9 Sky Ryders 86.6 - 2.0 Sky Ryders 85.1 (5) - 1.6 - 1.5 * Though the order of appearance was jumbled (for lack of more intellectual terminology) for the Finals, only 2 Corps groups changed positions from their Semi-finals results (Blue Devils/SCV and Cavaliers/Cadets). Oddly enough, this was attributable more to a corps increasing their score (of which there were only 2), and less to the other corps' score reduction. If the corps which dropped (Blue Devils and Cavaliers) had maintained their semi-finals score standing, they still would not have maintained their placement. Other than that, it indicates (at least to me) that there was a rather strong level of agreement between the semi-finals and finals judging panels in terms of corps placement. However, more detailed interpretation of the individual caption results may not totally support this conclusion. * There really was no change between Spirit/Velvet Knights in terms of position, since they tied in Semis. Barring another tie, one of these two corps would have to go up...and the other would have to go down. * 2 Corps scores went up Semis to Finals (SCV and Cadets), which led directly to increasing their finals placement result by one placement. * The remainder of Corps scores went down from Semis to Finals. This, again, would lead me to believe that a panel-to-panel comparison would indicate a generally consistent rendering of "tougher panel/easier panel" basis. ("Tough" and "Easy" are not the best words to use, I know. But I think most will understand what I'm saying -- even if it seems that I am speaking Czech, Latin, or Martian.) As for conjectures of reasoning and meaningful interpretation of the influence of recaps on the actual placement and scoring, I'll leave that up to wiser and more knowledgeable folks. I'm just an idiot, and am simply giving the facts, Ma'ams and Sirs. Simply think of me as Joe Friday on a Tuesday. And please forgive my lack of columnal (yes, there is such a word) consistency. No, I'm not doing this while enjoying a gentle Bering Sea sojourn aboard Aquapuke Cruise Lines. I just haven't as yet figured out how to accomplish tabbing on a DCP posting board. I'm saving that for something fun to do in my future, yet soon-to-be impending, retirement. Maybe Ghost and I can meet again at the Morgan House, and he can instruct me with a laptop. However, we'd probably end up yapping all afternoon.... Edited June 15, 2016 by HornTeacher 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry7184 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) As long as the staff gets the feedback they need, I think it's a great idea. My biggest problem with judging is it seems more like herd judging mentality rather than performance based judging. The first 2 shows of 2011 illustrate this perfectly. Please refer to the following link: http://www.fromthepressbox.com/2011season.htm The first show's scores were not released until after the 2nd show. Look at the scoring discrepancies between the 1st two shows. That is how it should be. The two shows were judged solely based on what the judges saw at those performances, not prior marks. Now I feel like a judge looks at the previous marks and uses that as a guideline. I hope this move will make judging more fair. Edited June 15, 2016 by henry7184 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 posting recaps has nothing to do with show of the day mentality. I didn't make this change, I'm just reacting to the buzz about it. It appears some others don't share your view on this. Speculation is the change was made to encourage calling as you see it today. I have no way of knowing if that's true or not, but it it's plausible to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 I didn't make this change, I'm just reacting to the buzz about it. It appears some others don't share your view on this. Speculation is the change was made to encourage calling as you see it today. I have no way of knowing if that's true or not, but it it's plausible to me. sadly, in DCI's PR, they all but said their judges do it. and some I know weren't pleased to have that insinuation out there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 sadly, in DCI's PR, they all but said their judges do it. and some I know weren't pleased to have that insinuation out there So sorry if you, or any DCI judges, were offended by the suggestion that the system might be improved in some way. I imagine that some judges also took offense when told they had to mark ticks instead of just giving a score out of the blue. I am sure a few judges were offended at the thought that they would have to write down comments, or dictate them into tape recorders. And certainly, offense was taken when judges were first required to explain themselves to instructors face to face in critiques. But this is the nature of judging art. Since there can be no perfect system, we will always be looking for ways to improve upon its imperfections. Drum corps uses subjective judging. Wherever there is subjectivity involved, human beings are vulnerable to various biases. Judges should not feel insulted to be considered human beings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rd Glasgow BB Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) To make this approach fool proof for the duration of the season... the judges friendships will be temporarily revoked, their fan network subscriptions will be suspended, they will be blocked from Youtube and their cell phones will be confiscated. Edited June 16, 2016 by 3rd Glasgow BB 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mingusmonk Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 To make this approach fool proof for the duration of the season... the judges friendships will be temporarily revoked, their fan network subscriptions will be suspended, they will be blocked from Youtube and their cell phones will be confiscated. Each judge will be sequestered into a Safe House near the appropriate show site and will be driven to the stadium in one of three unmarked black utility vans with no windows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Drum corps uses subjective judging. Wherever there is subjectivity involved, human beings are vulnerable to various biases. Judges should not feel insulted to be considered human beings. Drum corps has ALWAYS used subjective judging. As to judge bias, when any judge is evaluating a performance, they are viewing/listening to that performance through their personal filter of experience and training on the judging methodology being used. So in that sense, yes, no two judges will view the same performance exactly the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.