Jump to content

skevinp

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,538

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    62

 Content Type 

Posts posted by skevinp

    What Can/Can’t Be Changed to Help

    in DCI World Class Corps Discussions

    Posted

    5 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

    I was a Computer Science (now called IT 🙄) major and transferred from a community college to a PA state school.

    Computer Science is not “now called IT”.  I say this not to be argumentative but simply to prevent anyone considering school or career choices from being confused.  

    IT may have grown out of CS many years ago and so many of its people came from that major, but they are well distinguished now and you can focus on what you are interested in.  

    Back to your regularly scheduled thread, which was a great question by the OP.

    When one judge calls the show

    in DCI World Class Corps Discussions

    Posted

    3 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

    Two places.

    1.  The real problem here is that the scores are too high.  No judge should EVER have to give a 20.  Period.  

    Every time a judge gives a maximum score, it leaves the rest of us wondering whether the point spreads at the top are accurate, or whether the judge got trapped at their ceiling.  Maximum scores are evidence of a number management failure.

    2.  The real gaslighting starts when someone tries to explain why scores need to be so high.  Scores are merely subjective numbers used to rank and rate performances at the contest of the day.  They are not absolute-value measures of achievement.  That is why we always hear how you cannot compare numbers from one show to another. 

    So why do scores need to be so high that they cause number management issues?

    I agree the problem would be solved if they just just defined scores so as to leave more room at the top. 

    Current scoring creates the illusion that everyone is seeking some perfect accomplishment by the end of the season, a level that can’t be any better.  Does anyone think they wouldn’t keep getting better if the season could be a week longer?

    Most of us accept it because the relative differences among competitors are what matter in a competition, and they have that covered.  And we know you can’t compare shows from panel to panel, let alone from year to year, especially in an activity that has gotten better and better over time.  

    But it is still kind of annoying to play along with the illusion.  And it makes it harder to explain to people new to the activity.  

    If we applied a standard such that a performance that would get a 20 today gets a 19 instead, we wouldn’t run out of room, have to play the game of communicating a facade, confuse new fans, or talk anyone who takes it way too literally off a ledge.

    Maybe they think people would have a problem with final scores going down by 5 points or so but I think most of us would be OK with it.  

    In 1973, SCV took the gold with an 88.65.  Yet DCI has managed to last another 50 years.

    There are bigger problems in the world, though.  And I will keep watching no matter how they are scored as long as they are entertaining.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

    When one judge calls the show

    in DCI World Class Corps Discussions

    Posted

    6 hours ago, ContraFart said:

    Either it's about managing the numbers, or it's about judging the show in front of you. IMO it can't be both. 

    How would you judge the show in front of you?  What is your standard?  What are the criteria?  What makes a show perfect if you are the judge?  

    Let’s hear your solution.  If it’s better maybe DCI will adopt it.  

    When one judge calls the show

    in DCI World Class Corps Discussions

    Posted · Edited by skevinp

    My understanding is that it is the intervals that matter, and the judges have the ability to adjust all the scores if they run out of room at the top.  So if group A is the best so far with a 19.9 and then group B comes along and is .3 better, they can’t get a 20.2 so the judges have to adjust the other scores downward to make room.  So when they make the adjustment, they could move group B down to 20.0 and group A down to 19.7.  

    If that is not how it works (in relevant part) someone please tell me.  

    If it is how it works, though, then it should clearly demonstrate why a 20.0 does not mean the performance was considered perfect or the maximum possible quality or necessarily anywhere near that.  Group B might have been .5 better without the fall if the judge thought is was really important, in which case they could have adjusted the group B score down to 20.0 and the group A score down to 19.5.  

    I suppose they could adjust the top score down to 19.9 if that makes people feel better, but it would require pushing everyone else’s  score down too to maintain the interval, so why push everyone down more than necessary.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...