nero14 Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 (edited) oh! lol... i saw "I found this post from last year from Nero14....who had some concerns about Curtis. Here is their post from last year:" and i was like "oh thats me!... did i say something bad??" and then i went back and looked at the statement in context and realized that PrfctTimeOfDay was actually agreeing with me!... lol- yeah i did take the time to look back though all of the guard scores last year and see which numbers were given by Costanza and which ones weren't- interesting that the only 2 times the guard scores dropped more than 0.3 from show to show were shows when Costanza was the guard judge (-0.9 and -0.5 respectively)... i'm really gonna keep an eye on this- so far i've failed to see an instance (though i'm sure there is one...) where Costanza has given the bluecoats a higher score in a caption than what another judge had given them in that same caption in the previous competition... didn't happen last year... hasn't happened this year... not sure why thats OK with so many people... (and yes- from Semis to Finals last year he also dropped the coats in guard- i just had to check to make sure...) Edited July 31, 2007 by nero14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guardian Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 What an absolutely ridiculous post set up just to bash a judges reputation because you dont agree with is scoring...Why dont you do the research and find results instead of the witch hunt. Very immature. ~G~ I'm afraid ,on one hand you are correct, yet on the other hand it is my experience that DCI owes it to the paying members of the activity AND it's audience to listen. I've heard this judges name before in regards to other groups and yet ..... DCI aloso owes it to the paying members and fans to make sure that ANY misuse of the judging system not be tolerated. Whether in a particular corps favor or not is NOT the issue.What is at issue here is an HONEST assesment of the different corps performance AND the proper assigning of a number. BY THE WAY anyone who REALLY believes that a corps of 135 members being judged visually and musically on everystep and every note they play can achieve scores of 92 plus is deluded. Think about it statistically it can not happen. 135 people at an average of 160 beats/minute x 11 minutes x visual and music/equip 475,200 potential errors and yet we are made to believe we as an activity have found a way to eliminate all but 20 to 80 of them PLEASE,will somebody wake us up it's time for the next show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMichael1230 Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 (edited) I'm afraid ,on one hand you are correct, yet on the other hand it is my experience that DCI owes it to the paying members of the activity AND it's audience to listen. I've heard this judges name before in regards to other groups and yet ..... DCI aloso owes it to the paying members and fans to make sure that ANY misuse of the judging system not be tolerated. Whether in a particular corps favor or not is NOT the issue.What is at issue here is an HONEST assesment of the different corps performance AND the proper assigning of a number. BY THE WAY anyone who REALLY believes that a corps of 135 members being judged visually and musically on everystep and every note they play can achieve scores of 92 plus is deluded. Think about it statistically it can not happen. 135 people at an average of 160 beats/minute x 11 minutes x visual and music/equip 475,200 potential errors and yet we are made to believe we as an activity have found a way to eliminate all but 20 to 80 of them PLEASE,will somebody wake us up it's time for the next show. Ok, so those interested should take it up with the corps in question DCI, The Judges administration and the BoD. Not set up a bash-fest tarnishing someones reputation, or adding heresay to further suspiscion when in reality, he may have done nothing wrong. There are no trends here, there are no motives here, its all slinging of insults regarding a judges competence...its wrong, its not substantiated, and it makes Bluecoats fans and alumni look petty, sorry, it really does. If you have a real issue , take the right steps, dont lower yourself to ;ublic bashing a defenseless person that is partaking in a subjective field of employment. Where is the proof ?? not the heresay, the proof ?? ~G~ Edited July 31, 2007 by GMichael1230 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimedrummer Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Get over it and just enjoy the show! Tell that to a kid who's worked his A## off all summer only to see some aardvark, grudge holding judge blow his team up and cost them a couple of spots. No, there's no room for biased judging in this activity. (I'm not anti Curtis BTW, because I wasn't in Denver to see it first hand. I'm just speaking in general) Being a judge carries with it a commitment to each and every performer on the field who has worked countless hours to prepare these outstanding shows. It's a privilege to be a judge, and the honor should be treated as such. There's some judges out there who think this is all about them. Watch the judges at big shows who parade through the performance making sure to be seen. I saw it Sat in Indy. I don't care if there are issues between designers and judges, etc, or if there are grudges from long ago, it should always be about the performers and the job they do that night. These dedicated, hard working kids deserve the utmost in integrity and objectivity with regards to adjudication , period. :ramd: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimedrummer Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 BY THE WAY anyone who REALLY believes that a corps of 135 members being judged visually and musically on everystep and every note they play can achieve scores of 92 plus is deluded. Think about it statistically it can not happen. How's that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 ~Puts on FST special hat~ Let's keep discussion about this to scores and spreads, not personal comments about a judge. If you notice a trend in a particular judge's scoring, and you think he/she is being unfair, back it up with numbers. If the insulting nature of the thread continues, we'll be closing it. Thanks, Lance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loudandproud Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Did someone just say proof. Trooper 7/26 visual effect score 15.8 The very next show 7/28 visual effect score 13.7. Thats a 21 tenths deduction show to show. That kind of thing this late in the season just kind of catches my eye. If the Troop are lucky tonight maybe he will give them a couple of extra tenths so they can be back to where they were 20 days ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nero14 Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Where is the proof ?? ~G~ "only 2 times the guard scores dropped more than 0.3 from show to show were shows when Costanza was the guard judge (-0.9 and -0.5 respectively)... .... i've failed to see an instance (though i'm sure there is one...) where Costanza has given the bluecoats a higher score in a caption than what another judge had given them in that same caption in the previous competition... didn't happen last year... hasn't happened this year... " what kind of proof are you looking for, exactly? a signed confession of personal bias? are you treating this like an "all or nothing" scenario? there is 0% subjectivity in that- its looking at numbers- its not wrong, or petty or whatever other charges you're apparently laying down... its all numbers- they don't prove anything- but they are useful in showing trends or correlations- and thats all this is- if i said "in the last 2 years the stock market has dropped 1% every time company X showed disappointing profits in each quarter..." would you say i was insulting, slandering, or bad-mouthing Company X? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimedrummer Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Did someone just say proof. Trooper 7/26 visual effect score 15.8 The very next show 7/28 visual effect score 13.7. Thats a 21 tenths deduction show to show. That kind of thing this late in the season just kind of catches my eye. If the Troop are lucky tonight maybe he will give them a couple of extra tenths so they can be back to where they were 20 days ago. I have to agree, a 13.7 this late in the season is a pretty much a dagger in the back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMichael1230 Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 (edited) Did someone just say proof. Trooper 7/26 visual effect score 15.8 The very next show 7/28 visual effect score 13.7. Thats a 21 tenths deduction show to show. That kind of thing this late in the season just kind of catches my eye. If the Troop are lucky tonight maybe he will give them a couple of extra tenths so they can be back to where they were 20 days ago. Are you actually telling yourself this is proof ? Are you a judge ? Do you know what the judge is looking for ? Do you know what both judges did or didnt see the nights those numbers were assesed ?? How do you know what they saw to give that number ? How ridiculous, this isnt proof, this is sour grapes. You are not happy with the numbers yet werent there seeing what the judge saw, this only makes the accusations more laughable. Please go before the board and submit this as proof there is a bias...LOL LOL LOL People, get real. ~G~ Edited July 31, 2007 by GMichael1230 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.