DCI Scoring methodology

[Tad_MMA]

A fair example of this is Garfield 1986. After 3 (4?) years of very positive judging and a threepeat, they were suddenly holding around 9th place, losing to everyone including Spirit, Madison and Star (eventual 6-8 finishers). I don't know about the opener, but they did remove some of the brass licks in the closer, adding them to the (VERY good) pit. There was no Tour of Champs or anytime where all top corps competed together until Semifinals (no Thursday until 1989). So, they kept at it and very nearly beat the 3rd place Cavies at Finals due to their 2nd place percussion. The point is that performance caught up with design for the most part. There was still an obvious deficiency in marching, even in Finals (the scoring reflected this), but the Brass/Percussion Effect was undeniable. Seeing them in Canton in June, it was like 1983-1985 didn't exist. They couldn't get out of their own way, and Madison beat them by almost 8 points --- a 12-pt swing by Finals.

[C.Holland]

On 7/30/2017 at 9:56 AM, MikeRapp said:

The vast majority of the shows are hardly changing at all the entire season. And yet their difficulty scores will end up being 50% higher than when they started. That is a really bizarre scoring methodology if you ask me!

I would disagree with this.  As you go through a season, and you watch the show develop, and you get comments, you alter things that you didn't like, or didnt have time to fully flesh out.  Maybe things don't look in reality, how you worked them out in your head.  But for early July, at least its on the field, and you can fix/change it later.  I see very few groups that have the exact same show in August that they started with in June.  

But also, as you go and clean, ideas come to the surface.  Now you can tell what forms are and what movements are difficult.  Instead of whatever it looked like before.  So you get credit for that now, where you didn't before. 

[Stu]

On 07/30/2017 at 4:52 PM, Schnitzel said:

 

• Judging DCI, DCA, etc. is not a professional career.  The actual pay is very low (much lower than WGI or BOA, etc.),

So in this 'Major League' the umpires are paid way less than the high school umpires. Yep, that sure is major league alright.

[Stu]

On 07/30/2017 at 11:12 AM, Candid Insight said:

You state: "The previous "tick" system basically scored by adding up achievements throughout a show. This, however, created an environment in which the wining show was nothing more than a series of compulsories."

This statement is inaccurate.  The 'tick' system that was discontinued in the early 80's did not 'add up achievements'.  That system was designed to DECREASE a caption score based on the number of errors a judge detected.  For example, in brass execution every corps started out with 15 points.  For every error the brass execution judge detected one 'tick' or tenth of a point was deducted.  The problem with that system was that a corps who played a less challenging book could score higher by attempting less.  Less exposure could result in a higher execution score.  The Musical Analysis caption (10 points) included consideration for difficulty (to a degree) but it still did not offset the advantage of a corps that played a less challenging book.   You are correct that the current system has created an environment with more compelling performances and that has encouraged more dynamic programs.

 

The real inherent problem with the tic system was in the subjectivity on when did an error become a tic. I guarantee you that in every performance, even finals, there were more than enough errors committed in any caption that a judge could drop it to zero by the ending gunshot. No way were horn angles exact, they were constantly in some sort of error; no way we're intervals exact, they were constantly in some sort of error; no way were the notes in exact pitch nor rhythms in exact timing, they were constantly in some sort of error. It was always at the judges 'subjective discretion' on when to call an error a tic thus deducting a tenth of a point. Therefore tear down tic or build up credit, both systems are completely subjective.

[cowtown]

29 minutes ago, Stu said:

The real inherent problem with the tic system was in the subjectivity on when did an error become a tic. I guarantee you that in every performance, even finals, there were more than enough errors committed in any caption that a judge could drop it to zero by the ending gunshot. No way were horn angles exact, they were constantly in some sort of error; no way we're intervals exact, they were constantly in some sort of error; no way were the notes in exact pitch nor rhythms in exact timing, they were constantly in some sort of error. It was always at the judges 'subjective discretion' on when to call an error a tic thus deducting a tenth of a point. Therefore tear down tic or build up credit, both systems are completely subjective.

I don’t agree with that, I marched under tics and I know what a tic is. I’d say a bigger concern was judge placement with regards to spotting a tic, you know the old version of staging when corps tried to block judges out from tic-prone areas?  Both systems are flawed, I still see and hear shows in tics which can cause a big disconnect with scores

 

My beef with scoring is it pushes trends, it ranks one sort of thing over the other which, is limiting and creates compulsories. DCI designers want more creativity? Then open up the reward system to allow more freedom of design.

[xandandl]

It's a bit to the side of the current flow of the discussion, but may enlighten some.

Last night I came across a handout I used in a judging clinic once upon a time. Today it would be a powerpoint or email. The diagram is a large square with headlines on each side. It's an eval method from well scoring corps who analyze the show the day after and the points they were awarded.

One side says:  Consistency of  this corps' performance

Second side says: Consistency of judge's tapes and scores for this corps

Third side says:  Relative placement of this corps to the corps competing in this specific show

Fourth side says: Show and field conditions (weather and wind, humidity, lighting, conditions of field, access to field, etc.

 

Somewhere in the middle of that square is the truth.  Good instructors and admin log these evals and use for next practice this year and next performance at this contest for future years. Memories otherwise get foggy and edited. .

[snare_guy_83]

At what point is the scoring system re-imagined? The current one has been in place for 18 years now. Programs aren't the same now as they were in 2000. 

[MikeRapp]

1 hour ago, C.Holland said:

I would disagree with this.  As you go through a season, and you watch the show develop, and you get comments, you alter things that you didn't like, or didnt have time to fully flesh out.  Maybe things don't look in reality, how you worked them out in your head.  But for early July, at least its on the field, and you can fix/change it later.  I see very few groups that have the exact same show in August that they started with in June.  

But also, as you go and clean, ideas come to the surface.  Now you can tell what forms are and what movements are difficult.  Instead of whatever it looked like before.  So you get credit for that now, where you didn't before. 

Honest question, because I don't know: is most "content" increasing in difficulty 30-40% over the life of the season, and are all shows getting harder every night? Because to me, it seems judges are looking at what has happened recently, bumping everything up a few points, shifting a couple of corps a little higher than others, and handing in their sheets. I realize that at the end of a season, what you want is the best winning the gold, second best winning silver, etc. How you get there is less important than getting it right. Still, it seems to me that the entire dci scoring system is pretty silly on a granular scale.

[Stu]

2 hours ago, cowtown said:

I don’t agree with that, I marched under tics and I know what a tic is.

Um... I am likely as old if not older than you.  A Tic was an error noted by a judge in which a fraction of a point was deducted, and since neither performers nor judges are perfect super humans many errors were eithet not caught or they were overlooked because the 'percentage of error' did not rise to what the judge deemed as tic level. It was a completely subjective call on the judge's part. But please answer this question:

Are you saying that the Tic definition just mentioned is false, and that the aspect of the judge's observational evaluation, opinion, on what did and did not rise to the level of a Tic was objective not subjective?

[Stu]

3 hours ago, cowtown said:

My beef with scoring is it pushes trends, it ranks one sort of thing over the other which, is limiting and creates compulsories. DCI designers want more creativity? Then open up the reward system to allow more freedom of design.

You want the designers’ aspirations to be creative and free from restrictions on design, then have a GE adjudicator evaluate and rate them.  Okay, you be the GE Music judge in this challenge: Your job is to evaluate the musical creativity and musical content aspects of the following three extremely influential pieces that came out around the same era and rate/rank them in order of 3-2-1. The music of Rodeo by Aaron Copland that influenced all film music for western movies thereafter, the composition Billie’s Bounce which paved the way for the music we call BeBop, and the composition of 4”33” by John Cage which helped propel the Post Modern Artistic movement.  Alrighty, the Music GE judge, you, has concluded that the Bronze goes to….?  The Silver goes to….? And The Gold with the Ring goes to……?