Jump to content

ContraFart

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,305

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ContraFart

  1. ContraFart
    I want consistency to be a goal so that the names on the judging sheet will mean less than the performance on the field.
  2. ContraFart
    My point is that there is wider subjective variance in DCI judging because there are fewer exact technical elements and even multiple correct technical elements i. e. Crowns brass approach vs BDs.
  3. ContraFart
    You take me out of context. I said art moves people, I singled myself out as Crown 2009 being that art.
  4. ContraFart
    Now you are just being an as*hole
  5. ContraFart
    Again way to change the subject to avoid the premise. I dont need the exact wording of the criteria to make the abstract point.
  6. ContraFart
    Again very insightful. The point I am trying to get across is not to eliminate subjectivity, but to recognize that the subjective variance in DCI is much wider than in other subjectively judged sports because more than one set of objective criteria can be correct. (Again I point to the Crown vs BD brass debate) Also in order to create the most honest competitive environment, perception of preference should be mitigated as much as possible. The reason I have such a problem is that nobody with judging experience in the thread seems to want to mitigate the preferences. This also leads to more questions. You say that quality, depth, clarity and direction of design are important factors in determining adjudication. Are those not more in the control of the staff and not the MMs?
  7. ContraFart
    Will reading those rules dismiss my premise? Will it give a detailed technical explanation as to why Crown Brass was Better than BD brass this year?
  8. ContraFart
    Ya that segment really works with the rest of the context.
  9. ContraFart
    Every once in a while there is art that moves people in a way that its imperfections are dismissed. 2009 Crown is that show for me.
  10. ContraFart
    But my argument is that there is far less objective criteria in DCI than in any other subjective scoring sport. There is no perfect model to compare a drum corps show to, in other sports there are textbook definitions of how things are supposed to be done. A triple axle is a triple axle, there is an objective definition. A trained eye can better assess the launch angle, the rotation speed, the foot position, etc, but the naked eye of a layman can at least know it was a triple axle or a triple lutz and know that its a required part of their show. Drum corps fans cannot agree on difficulty content or physical visual demand. For example BD and Crown use almost fundamentally different brass techniques. There is a different sound, a different balance, a different clarity of tone, different technical aspects and neither one is right or wrong, its a matter of preference. This is why I say the difference between the top corps is only a matter of degrees. Where on the sheets will it definitively say that Crowns Brass was better than BDs? I think there can be reasonable cited arguments that can defend either. This is why I keep going back to the fact the the judge assigned to the caption is more important than the performance on the field.
  11. ContraFart
    Why?
  12. ContraFart
    You make some good points. The only difference is that all of these other subjective activities have objective elements that are common among all the competitors. DCI does not. DCI uses the same ingredients, but there is no standard for any element. So DCI is 100% subjective while other subjective activities are maybe 50% subjective 50% objective. This, along with the fact that the rubrics and priorities of that 100% subjective judging change every other year, results in the lay person not knowing why the scores are what they are. 2015 and 2016 the top 3 corps were separated by less than a point. Can the average fan in plain language explain why Bluecoats did not win in 2015 and Crown didn't win in 2016? I don't think so. So when you say variances are allowed and no big deal, it makes no sense to me.
  13. ContraFart
    You are dismissing me and every other person on this board who is not a judge. Is there really that large of a difference between the top 3 corps? Even the scores say no as in 2015 and 2016 the difference between 1 and 3 was less than a point. So why is that an unreasonable statement that is invalidated because I am not a judge? I will humor you....9
  14. ContraFart
    I am trying to square the circle between human differences/preferences/perspectives and an evaluation to a set of standards. You are the one who is touting infallibility by stating that their judgement should not be questioned. My entire point is that conspiracy theories will never die unless there is true integrity in the results, and there is no way of knowing the existence of that integrity unless you can be fairly sure that the results of any given show would be duplicated (in terms of placements and margins) no matter the combination of judges involved.
  15. ContraFart
    If you are going to dismiss my premise because I am not a judge, then why discuss anything at all? Why does this forum exist? But if you actually understand what I am trying to say, then you might see reason.
  16. ContraFart
    No
  17. ContraFart
    BTW DCI judges are not infallible. You allow to wide of an objective margin to be even near that.
  18. ContraFart
    Well if you are going to parse my words to get exact meaning, that statement was to make a point about opinions being objective. Would an average fan know the difference between the Fri and Sat performance? Probably not. Is the level of performance between Fri and Sat night measurably different? Not really. But I don't think you are seeing my issue. If no 2 judges will create the same result, then what is there to latch on to? There aren't even objective factors that are easy to follow. All I have to know that Saturday was better than Friday is the opinion of the judge of that night and if another judge would create different outcome from that same performance, then the opinion of any judge cannot be 100% trusted. The criteria gets the corps in the right ballpark. No reasonable judge is going to rate Pioneer over BD or even PC. But when you are talking about minute differences in the sub boxes, every decision has the right to be challenged.
  19. ContraFart
    So instead of addressing my premise, you think its better to discredit me. Just because I don't have the educational or pedagogical background to go into judging at this time in my life, I am far from stupid. Actually I think I might have the vocabulary to judge brass. I am human, but guess what so are all of the judges. Remember the word of the thread being human? You can't say that judges put aside personal biases and only judge what is on the field while at the same time saying that no 2 judges will judge a show the same way. I return to the Fri performance Sat scores example. You can't say that posted scores do not create a confirmation bias when speaking about the shows in retrospect. You also can't say that judges adhere to a strict criteria, but at the same time allow for such wide variances. Dog shows have detailed manuals about specific measurements, tooth size, gum color, coat length and fullness, etc. All a judge has to do is compare the dog in front of them to the detailed description of of the breed. You might have more of a point when deciding best in show among breed groups, but I am sure there is more objective description than most subjective judging. Bull riding is decided by a timer, even you stay on the bull for 8 seconds or you don't. Nothing more objective than that. Ice dancing/figure skating has easily comparable required elements. A triple axle has a specific technique a specific foot placement and any layman can see if it's landed or not. Yes there are artistic elements, but the scoring system is designed to eliminate outliers by not counting the highest and lowest scores. I even watch food TV to defend a chili cook off. I think this is hardest to judge because of the similarities of the flavor profile, but there are still explainable objective differences in technique like knife cuts, temperature, color. If someone has raw beef in their chili, every judge will know and agree its raw beef. Drum corps has none of these. Different corps have different marching techniques, different brass styles doing very different shows. No 2 elements of any 2 shows are the same between any 2 corps. There are no directly comparable elements that those who don't follow the sport can latch onto like there are in the other examples. That means we rely 100% on the opinion of the judges. Since there is no way to quantify those opinions, close calls and odd changes will always be questioned. Hence judging conspiracy theories.
  20. ContraFart
    For the exception of chili cook offs, those sports have an objective element that can be measured, or required elements that each participant has to do so there can be more direct comparison. The only similarity between the top 4 corps this year is that they played brass and drums on a football field. My issue isn't neccesarily with subjective judging. Its the margin of subjectivity allowed that you seem to think is desired.
  21. ContraFart
    Yes I have a personal bias about that year. I don't deny it. Does that invalidate every other word I say?
  22. ContraFart
    Way to change the subject to avoid the premise. The topic is judging conspiracies, not just what you or I think is right or wrong. The only way that my example of the .5 swing was explained was judging perspective and bias. The OP even listed that as a reason for scoring variances. Which means that a different judge or even the same judge looking at a different part of the field can yield a different result and apparently that is ok....even desired. I disagree. I think that in order for the judging to be beyond reproach, you have to be confident that results, at least in terms of placements and spreads, can be duplicated regardless of the panel mix. A corps should not fear for their chances of winning just because a certain name is on the panel. While I think there is no organized plan to make one corps win, the fact that the judging panel itself has more power over the outcome then the performance on the field will always lead to questions about the integrity of the competition.
  23. ContraFart
    Yet the reason for that shift cannot be explained by anyone other than that judge. The premise that you brought said that no 2 judges view a show the same way or even from the same vantage point. So why is it insulting to question objective opinion? If another judge was judging that night, the outcome might have been different. However the recorded number is always going to create a confirmation bias when you the view the show in retrospect. This is why the person judging is more important than the performance on the field. In the hypothetical. If you win a caption in every competition all season except at the shows a particular judge was on that caption and that judge is judging that caption on finals night....what would that corps think their chances would be to win that caption that night? Enough people did so that. Remember the 90s? In would rather try to change minds than let the activity die.
  24. ContraFart
    As stated earlier in the thread. Its the system the top corps agreed on. I don't think Mandarins vote gets the same weight as BD.
  25. ContraFart
    My posts are not about the judges, its about the system allowing variances that could change outcomes if the names on the panel change. You seem to think consistency is a bad thing.
×
×
  • Create New...