Jeff Ream Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 8 hours ago, MikeN said: I'd rather see an ordinal system. I think it's less constricting on judges (really, you can tell a 14.8 from a 14.9 in percussion?) and gets rid of a lot of these weird spreads. Mike yes you can tell. often times the sub box numbers tell the story 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappybara Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 This topic comes up every year... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 Still wondering: if Bluecoats from the first week of this year competed in the last week of last year, what would they score? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said: Still wondering: if Bluecoats from the first week of this year competed in the last week of last year, what would they score? Sort of like wondering how Albert Pujols would hit off of Sandy Koufax; ya just will never know. Edited July 12, 2017 by Stu 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 9 hours ago, Jeff Ream said: yes you can tell. often times the sub box numbers tell the story I still defend ordinals. Other musical competitions, and not just marching band, have used them for literally decades with no issue, so I have to respectfully disagree. A .1 spread, whether under a caption or a subcaption, is an ordinal under a different name. Simplifying the DCI system a bit, we have a scoring structure where you cannot measure achievement from year to year, as the scores can't be compared. You can't measure achievement from show to show, because the scores can't be compared. You can't measure achievement from corps to corps unless they're in the same show, because the scores can't be compared, and even then, it depends on which corps are at the show (when there's a greater gap in overall "status", the spreads get compressed - this is no secret). The Finals winner is going to get between a 97-100, because the scoring curve for the champion always does that, no matter what their actual achievement. Doesn't sound to me like an ordinal system is honestly that different. Honestly, this has been one of those long-time itches in my brain. It just seems silly that we devised a scoring system that on the surface seems easy and accessible but in truth is anything but. Don't get me started on 1/100th's of a point. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 21 minutes ago, MikeN said: I still defend ordinals. Other musical competitions, and not just marching band, have used them for literally decades with no issue, so I have to respectfully disagree. A .1 spread, whether under a caption or a subcaption, is an ordinal under a different name. Simplifying the DCI system a bit, we have a scoring structure where you cannot measure achievement from year to year, as the scores can't be compared. You can't measure achievement from show to show, because the scores can't be compared. You can't measure achievement from corps to corps unless they're in the same show, because the scores can't be compared, and even then, it depends on which corps are at the show (when there's a greater gap in overall "status", the spreads get compressed - this is no secret). The Finals winner is going to get between a 97-100, because the scoring curve for the champion always does that, no matter what their actual achievement. Doesn't sound to me like an ordinal system is honestly that different. Honestly, this has been one of those long-time itches in my brain. It just seems silly that we devised a scoring system that on the surface seems easy and accessible but in truth is anything but. Don't get me started on 1/100th's of a point. Mike A .1 difference in a 10 point sub-caption is not that small at all. It is the equivalent of a whole point if rating on a 100 point scale. That isn't that much differentiation if you are judging 20+ corps and fitting them into a 30 point range. Some might even argue it's not enough. The system may not be perfect but replacing it with something worse like ordinals is like replacing cancer drugs with leeches. Why not just use a handful of vapid Hollywood celebrities and a gong? I get that you have an itch but you are scratching it with a chainsaw. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRacer Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, Stu said: Really? I mean Really? For me, I am rather forgiving to someone who is quickly typing in a blog or a chatroom as opposed to constructing a formal contract or academic assignment. Here are a few examples where I would forgive someone posting on DCP: Affect/Effect, Accept/Except, Adviser/Advisor, Affluence/Effluence, Alliterate/Illiterate, All Right/Alright, Altar/Alter, Any One/Anyone, Arrant/ Errant, Bare/Bear, Blonde/Blond, Briton/Brittan, Caramel/Carmel, Censor/Censure, Clench/Clinch, Decent/Descent, Demure/Demur, Discreet/Discrete, Disinterested/Uninterested, Eminent/Imminent/Immanent, Every One/Everyone, Fair/Fare, Faun/Fawn, Flak/Flack, For/Fore/Four, Forego/Forgo, Fowl/Foul, Gibe/Jibe, Good-by/Goodbye, Grey/Gray, Grill/Grille, Grisly/Grizzly, Hangar/Hanger, Incidence/Incidents,….. Need I go on? The alphabet goes to 'Z' and there are a plethora more examples, You forgot ensure/insure and humor/humour. As I read your posts on Page 2 I harked back to another thread in which, after an impressive showing of qualifications in bullet point list format for all to read, a few simple concepts were taken to their nth degree in a carefully crafted, marvelous display of vocabulary and diction. Your posts on a topic in which you have a vast knowledge base are not a quick typing exercise at all; they are how you like to convey your credibility, which works for you. We are both adjudicators and instructors in our other lives. Our subjective opinions and styles are different. I was taught subtlety, humility, and how to win--and lose-- with class (thank you, Mr. Royer), and it works well for me. That said, in my subjective opinion one's credibility and sense of self importance take a huge hit in the face of basic English gaffes. And no, I was not an English or Music major; my grad degrees (plural) are in Finance and Risk Management. Carry on... Edited July 12, 2017 by TRacer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 1 minute ago, TRacer said: You forgot ensure/insure and humor/humour. As I read your posts on Page 2 I harked back to another thread in which, after after an impressive showing of qualifications in bullet point list format for all to read, a few simple concepts were taken to their nth degree in a carefully crafted, marvelous display of vocabulary and diction. Your posts on a topic in which you have a vast knowledge base are not a quick typing exercise at all; it is how you like to convey your credibility, which is terrific. We are both adjudicators and instructors in our other lives. Our subjective opinions and styles are different. I was taught subtlety, humility, and how to win--and lose-- with class (thank you, Mr. Royer), and it works well for me. That said, in my subjective opinion one's credibility and self importance take a huge hit in the face of basic English gaffes. And no, I was not an English or Music major; my grad degrees (plural) are in Finance and Risk Management. Carry on... I was taught that there is a vast difference between formal and informal. I use both, "Nice to see you again sir. How are you this evening?" as well as, "What up Bro? How ya doin'?" Depending on the situational context. And in a formal context I agree with you that the proper use of vocabulary is Paramount; but here on DCP, an informal setting, vocab nazies can, as Flo said on the show Alice,"Kiss my grits". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Precious Roy Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 6 hours ago, MikeN said: Simplifying the DCI system a bit, we have a scoring structure where you cannot measure achievement from year to year, as the scores can't be compared. You can't measure achievement from show to show, because the scores can't be compared. You can't measure achievement from corps to corps unless they're in the same show, because the scores can't be compared, and even then, it depends on which corps are at the show (when there's a greater gap in overall "status", the spreads get compressed - this is no secret). The Finals winner is going to get between a 97-100, because the scoring curve for the champion always does that, no matter what their actual achievement. So, playing devil's advocate here (and this plays into your ordinals idea), why do we even need an absolute scoring system in the first place. If it is apparently completely taboo to compare scores between corps unless it is in the same show (and only sometimes), they why not use a relative scoring system? First corps to perform gets some base number ( 50, for example) in all captions. From there, you rank the other corps within that caption in a relative sense, with no ceiling or floor implied. Pioneer comes on first, gets an automatic 50. Crossmen come on next, and are significantly better than Pioneer in that caption, they get a 65. Blue Knights are marginally better than XMen, they get a 67. Phantom, not quite as good as BK, but still a bit better than Xmen -- 66. SCV blows them all away -- 78. Give the judge one more opportunity to adjust scores after all performances. If you want, you could then normalize everything to 100 points, or do whatever you need to do to add the captions together to get a final score potential of 100. A corps that sweeps all captions would get that 100 score. The scores for the other corps would kind of be a percentage of goodness compared to the winning corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted July 12, 2017 Share Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, MikeN said: I still defend ordinals. Other musical competitions, and not just marching band, have used them for literally decades with no issue, so I have to respectfully disagree. A .1 spread, whether under a caption or a subcaption, is an ordinal under a different name. Simplifying the DCI system a bit, we have a scoring structure where you cannot measure achievement from year to year, as the scores can't be compared. You can't measure achievement from show to show, because the scores can't be compared. You can't measure achievement from corps to corps unless they're in the same show, because the scores can't be compared, and even then, it depends on which corps are at the show (when there's a greater gap in overall "status", the spreads get compressed - this is no secret). The Finals winner is going to get between a 97-100, because the scoring curve for the champion always does that, no matter what their actual achievement. Doesn't sound to me like an ordinal system is honestly that different. Honestly, this has been one of those long-time itches in my brain. It just seems silly that we devised a scoring system that on the surface seems easy and accessible but in truth is anything but. Don't get me started on 1/100th's of a point. Mike Whatever system is used, Subtraction Tic, Addition Achievement, Scoring Based, Ordinal Based, etc .. as long as the system is applied consistently and impartially, will produce just, accurate, and fair results. However, each system will produce different rankings, sometimes with radical differences. More than likely, a drum corps that would finish first under a Subtraction Tic system would finish way lower in an Addition Achievement system; a corps that finishes third under a Scoring Based system may finish first under an Ordinal Based system. But moreover, to say that no issues have arisen within organizations that utilize ordinals is inaccurate. Every subjective competition, no matter the adjudicating system, has had a plethora of issues and complaints connected to human determinations of final ranking outcome. It is just the nature of the subjective beast, no matter the system used. As for measuring achievement year to year, that is impossibility no matter the activity. Could Albert Pujols hit as well as he does now if he was facing Sandy Koufax and Cy Young? Would NASCAR Driver Jimmie Johnson have all of those Championships if Richard Petty was in his prime and driving? Which BD drum corps is of higher quality, BD pre-Y2K or BD post-Y2K? Who knows? None of those can be determined with any accuracy; no matter what criteria are applied. Edited July 12, 2017 by Stu 1 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.