DeusExGreenMachina Posted August 24, 2017 Author Share Posted August 24, 2017 And to clarify, I meant earned a medal, i.e. top 3, not win a championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeRapp Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 1 hour ago, queenanne_1536 said: Yes, but that system is heavily flawed, and there's really no logical defense of it. How would you fix it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeusExGreenMachina Posted August 24, 2017 Author Share Posted August 24, 2017 1 hour ago, ContraFart said: I think judges get it in the ball park, but when 1-3 are separated by less than a point, arent there legitimate questions about the limits of the system? When they are that close, that's when the fun starts. That means they're all really really good--and it's up to the best performing corps to take home the ring. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeRapp Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 1 hour ago, ContraFart said: I think judges get it in the ball park, but when 1-3 are separated by less than a point, arent there legitimate questions about the limits of the system? As for the worrisome part. I totally agree, but I think that is an overall structural problem. There is no way to legislate parody and keep the overall growth of the activity going. The scoring system is literally built to keep all corps within a point or so of the corps ahead and behind them. Even judges will tell you there is a suggestion to "keep it close" all season long, and this is encouraged by stressing both relative first scoring and a box approach to grouped scoring. It is practically impossible to have significant separation between corps, with the relative scoring philosophy dci use. That may not result in the wrong corps winning, but imo it certainly seems to virtually guarantee that whichever corps starts in the top three is very likely to finish there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeusExGreenMachina Posted August 24, 2017 Author Share Posted August 24, 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, MikeRapp said: The scoring system is literally built to keep all corps within a point or so of the corps ahead and behind them. Even judges will tell you there is a suggestion to "keep it close" all season long, and this is encouraged by stressing both relative first scoring and a box approach to grouped scoring. Then why do I see, when looking at the 2017 recaps, that in one particular caption, there is a difference of greater than 1 point between two particular units? Edit: I actually see not one, but five instances of this on finals night. Full point of difference either in one judge's score, or a combined score in a unit's directly ordinated competitor as it pertains to finals overall placements. Heck 4th place to an 8th place unit. This is why we have the system in place. Herd mentality? Hardly. Edited August 24, 2017 by DeusExGreenMachina 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphabetmonkey Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 23 minutes ago, MikeRapp said: The scoring system is literally built to keep all corps within a point or so of the corps ahead and behind them. Even judges will tell you there is a suggestion to "keep it close" all season long, and this is encouraged by stressing both relative first scoring and a box approach to grouped scoring. It is practically impossible to have significant separation between corps, with the relative scoring philosophy dci use. That may not result in the wrong corps winning, but imo it certainly seems to virtually guarantee that whichever corps starts in the top three is very likely to finish there. I wouldn't mind status quo system with the addition of each judge's ordinal ranking of performances at the end of the night, just a simple 1,2,3,4 etc. So you can see the minutia of the scoring but also a "big picture" from each judge. It may not even have to have weight on the final score, but it would be interesting to have the info to digest. Unless this already goes on an I am just being Jane you ignorant --- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 3 hours ago, ContraFart said: You have no interest in having a productive conversation. To show that I am more than willing to be productive with these postings, here is a link. Please go through the process, and if you are serious about your desire to know the intricacies you will do this or something like this. This is my olive branch to you: https://judgesacademy.com/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeusExGreenMachina Posted August 24, 2017 Author Share Posted August 24, 2017 38 minutes ago, alphabetmonkey said: I wouldn't mind status quo system with the addition of each judge's ordinal ranking of performances at the end of the night, just a simple 1,2,3,4 etc. So you can see the minutia of the scoring but also a "big picture" from each judge. It may not even have to have weight on the final score, but it would be interesting to have the info to digest. Unless this already goes on an I am just being Jane you ignorant --- It's there in the recaps. We're trained to focus on our individual caption. Have you checked out finals night or any show's recaps you've had the pleasure of watching? It's interesting if you're into numbers. Otherwise, it may be best to just enjoy the show. People like to get worked up over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeRapp Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 4 minutes ago, DeusExGreenMachina said: It's there in the recaps. We're trained to focus on our individual caption. Have you checked out finals night or any show's recaps you've had the pleasure of watching? It's interesting if you're into numbers. Otherwise, it may be best to just enjoy the show. People like to get worked up over this. I have no issue with focusing on individual captions or any area of minutiae. Elite professionals in anything sweat the details. I would just prefer a scoring system that was a more direct reflection of what is designed and performed, and not mostly a relative scoring system. That said, it's what I would prefer and certainly may not be in the ultimate best interest of dci. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted August 24, 2017 Share Posted August 24, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, alphabetmonkey said: Jane you ignorant --- 27th Lancers, Bridgemen, Oakland Crusaders, Seneca Optimists, Freelancers, and Guardsmen were all in the top 12 the last time that phrase was said live on TV. Edited August 24, 2017 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts