Scoring from the same sheets

[Nex]

You bring up a very good point, but I believe your point is trumped by the idea that corps in the Open division should not be incented towards complexity. The converse is true; World division corps need an incentive to try difficult things - exactly why the tick system disappeared.

If anything, your argument is against having just one Open corps at a World show. Well, the reality is that with regional touring schedules, it's either that, or fewer opportunities to perform. That's not good. Besides, isn't everyone more excited by having to figure things out at finals? Aren't we bombarded with "please don't slot corps" arguments? You seem to be arguing for slotting...

I'm going to have to disagree with you on the first part. The idea that Open Class corps should not be incented toward complexity makes no sense to me. "Hey, we want you to be competitive within your division . . . but if you're good, keep it simple anyway." Does that really make sense? The same sheets aren't an incentive for difficulty, that's the incentive of the judging style we use in general.

And while a side-note to my point is that there should be more than one Open corps at a World show, that's not the argument. Even when there are two Open corps at a show, under the current sheets, those scores will absolutely only apply to those two corps. Instead of the current similarity, but possible differences in the scores from different World shows, it's complete scoring chaos across the board. That's not good. I'll tell you that as far as my corps was concerned, we didn't "worry" about the numbers, but we thought and compared them (with whatever pointless other scores there were. No, we didn't enjoy waiting 'til Finals week. It may make it more exciting for the fans, but when you are on the field working every day, trying to best not only yourself, but everyone you're in competition with, it helps when you know what you're actually in competition with. With useless scores, it's a constant not knowing. It's not at all slotting . . . that seems like it was a bit of a straw man.

Plus, like I said, it will make things easier on the judges and you won't get accusations of them not knowing how to use the sheets . . . or mistakes of some captions being scored on the wrong sheets.

[drumcat]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on the first part. The idea that Open Class corps should not be incented toward complexity makes no sense to me. "Hey, we want you to be competitive within your division . . . but if you're good, keep it simple anyway." Does that really make sense? The same sheets aren't an incentive for difficulty, that's the incentive of the judging style we use in general.

And while a side-note to my point is that there should be more than one Open corps at a World show, that's not the argument. Even when there are two Open corps at a show, under the current sheets, those scores will absolutely only apply to those two corps. Instead of the current similarity, but possible differences in the scores from different World shows, it's complete scoring chaos across the board. That's not good. I'll tell you that as far as my corps was concerned, we didn't "worry" about the numbers, but we thought and compared them (with whatever pointless other scores there were. No, we didn't enjoy waiting 'til Finals week. It may make it more exciting for the fans, but when you are on the field working every day, trying to best not only yourself, but everyone you're in competition with, it helps when you know what you're actually in competition with. With useless scores, it's a constant not knowing. It's not at all slotting . . . that seems like it was a bit of a straw man.

Plus, like I said, it will make things easier on the judges and you won't get accusations of them not knowing how to use the sheets . . . or mistakes of some captions being scored on the wrong sheets.

To your two main points:

1] You're saying that there is no incentive. If I need to clarify, it is that there is more incentive to be clear and clean than dirty and complex. If you write a very demanding passage in World, the judges will give more leeway for the attempt, generally because it's not too bad. If you write a very demanding passage for Open, the judge will more likely say that it's written over the capability of the ensemble, and should be scaled accordingly. In other words, in World, if you write something too hard, and the kids don't perform it, too bad. In Open, it's shame on the staff for misjudging demand.

It's not that there is no complexity; obviously. It's that there is more incentive to write appropriately at that level. The end result is that the focus upon ensemble appropriateness provides a better experience for those ensembles. Period.

2] Your point is that the scores only apply to who is at a show on a given night. That doesn't change anyhow. But if you're looking for the fact that the Open scores are therefore relevant to World corps, you're forgetting that when all the Open corps do get together, the World corps won't be there anyhow. That renders your reference unavailable anyhow, and removes any relevance to the relationship.

[Nex]

To your two main points:

1] You're saying that there is no incentive. If I need to clarify, it is that there is more incentive to be clear and clean than dirty and complex. If you write a very demanding passage in World, the judges will give more leeway for the attempt, generally because it's not too bad. If you write a very demanding passage for Open, the judge will more likely say that it's written over the capability of the ensemble, and should be scaled accordingly. In other words, in World, if you write something too hard, and the kids don't perform it, too bad. In Open, it's shame on the staff for misjudging demand.

It's not that there is no complexity; obviously. It's that there is more incentive to write appropriately at that level. The end result is that the focus upon ensemble appropriateness provides a better experience for those ensembles. Period.

2] Your point is that the scores only apply to who is at a show on a given night. That doesn't change anyhow. But if you're looking for the fact that the Open scores are therefore relevant to World corps, you're forgetting that when all the Open corps do get together, the World corps won't be there anyhow. That renders your reference unavailable anyhow, and removes any relevance to the relationship.

Except that for your first rebuttal, the judges respond the same way to those World corps out of the Top 12 (and in some cases to the lower half of the Top 12) . . . at least that's what I've heard from friends in those organizations.

As for two, like I said, it's all nice in theory that the current system means nothing when you compare scores from different shows, but judges aren't immune from cell phones and discussing their trade. The World scores are comparable for the most part. Open scores are not, because the judges aren't in accord on how to judge from those sheets. The scores should have some comparison built in, otherwise it would be a completely inaccurate system. And it's not that the scores are relevant to World Class that I'm looking for . . . that's just a side-effect. For all I care, use the same sheets and scoring, and assess a undisclosed percentage to be added to the Open scores to keep people from comparing if you want. And when the Open corps come together, they'll still be on the same sheets as each other, so you've still got competition.

Like I said, and no one has yet addressed: it's about how the judges use the sheets. Currently, there is no accord among the judges on judging from Open sheets. Sure, you could spend more time and money teaching the judges to use the Open sheets better, but that's not cost effective. Give them all the same sheets, and you actually save time and money . . . if you just desperately need the difference in scores to make the world a better place (e.g. both World and Open champs to be in the 90s), then throw in the cost of a calculator to add a percentage to the Open scores. With or without the calculator, it's cheaper and just makes more sense :P

[drumcat]

Like I said, and no one has yet addressed: it's about how the judges use the sheets. Currently, there is no accord among the judges on judging from Open sheets. Sure, you could spend more time and money teaching the judges to use the Open sheets better, but that's not cost effective. Give them all the same sheets, and you actually save time and money . . . if you just desperately need the difference in scores to make the world a better place (e.g. both World and Open champs to be in the 90s), then throw in the cost of a calculator to add a percentage to the Open scores. With or without the calculator, it's cheaper and just makes more sense :P

It's not about adding a percentage. The back of the sheet, the criteria themselves, are what's key. And the reason you're not getting the response you want is because you're accusing the entire judging community of ineptitude and collusion. Just like in the "random draw" thread, I'm not going to allow a debate on the scale of stupidity you think judges possess. Your entire argument is based around the assumption that judges aren't capable of using the Open Class sheets, yet the only differences are minor changes in adjectives and scale.

Besides, your statement is a desire for consistency in scores, but you have provided no statistical evidence that the scores you're talking about don't belong where they do. On the other hand, it's quite common to see the conversation every June about how the "West Coast" corps are outscoring the rest of the country, and that there's some big disparity. The reality is that those scores are more accurate than anyone credits, particularly because of the amount of time those corps have been training, moving in around January. It's actually no surprise at all that those corps are better, but the point is that scoring in relative isolation does occur, and people are generally more upset by the uncertainty it provides than the actual score itself.

In other words, you're more concerned that you don't have context. Fear of the unknown is a common trait in us all. And it's also much more likely your cause for concern, rather than your stated belief of judges calling one another to get scores "right" and not knowing how to do their jobs. <**>

[Nex]

It's not about adding a percentage. The back of the sheet, the criteria themselves, are what's key. And the reason you're not getting the response you want is because you're accusing the entire judging community of ineptitude and collusion. Just like in the "random draw" thread, I'm not going to allow a debate on the scale of stupidity you think judges possess. Your entire argument is based around the assumption that judges aren't capable of using the Open Class sheets, yet the only differences are minor changes in adjectives and scale.

Besides, your statement is a desire for consistency in scores, but you have provided no statistical evidence that the scores you're talking about don't belong where they do. On the other hand, it's quite common to see the conversation every June about how the "West Coast" corps are outscoring the rest of the country, and that there's some big disparity. The reality is that those scores are more accurate than anyone credits, particularly because of the amount of time those corps have been training, moving in around January. It's actually no surprise at all that those corps are better, but the point is that scoring in relative isolation does occur, and people are generally more upset by the uncertainty it provides than the actual score itself.

In other words, you're more concerned that you don't have context. Fear of the unknown is a common trait in us all. And it's also much more likely your cause for concern, rather than your stated belief of judges calling one another to get scores "right" and not knowing how to do their jobs. <**>

I'm referring to first-hand experience with judges scoring randomly for Open corps.

http://www.corpsreps.com/scores.cfm?view=c...mp;yearqry=2007

I know you're going to pull the "Well, you performed, you're always going to have your own opinion of what your scores should have been." However, there are some cases where it's just completely ridiculous. The first two scores above 70 were at Open-only shows. While the first may well have been warranted, we were not 3 points better the next night. Likewise, we did not get worse at all when we went back to World shows two days later, let alone fall close to 6 points.

http://www.corpsreps.com/scores.cfm?view=c...orpstype=Junior

Then there's Revolution. In four days (one of which being July 4th), they did get better, but they did not in any way get 12 points better . . . especially since they had at least a partial free day in Chicago (I'm pretty sure . . . we saw their empty buses driving through the city as we headed to Due to eat lunch). Also, you'll notice that after the 76 at the Chippewa show, 11 days later they fell some 5 points. No corps gets 5 points worse when they have time like that to rehearse. Their scores then fell for the next few days before jumping up again 11 pts once they entered Open-only shows.

Corps have bad shows (notice Memphis' Port Huron score . . . that score was actually too high, it was an awful show for us), and scores can reflect that, but scores that fluctuate seemingly at random are ridiculous. You jumped at me for questioning the judges, but they're only human, and they really don't show any consistency at all. Scores go down when corps get better . . . the scores don't stagnate, they get worse. That's just not right, and it's fairly glaring to me that there's a problem with the system. But as long as you're going to sit there and tell me that I should blindly trust the judges, and assume that I'm lying (or that I'm just too stupid to pay attention to my surroundings) about three months of my life, I'm not entirely sure that it matters what I show you.

And you're right, the differences in adjectives would lead one to believe that it shouldn't be a problem . . . yet somehow there is a difference in scoring trends between the classes. Open scores are much more subject to fluctuation when the performances don't fluctuate that much. Plus, I never said the judges were stupid; please don't put words in my mouth. I said they need more training on the Open sheets, or the sheets need to change. There's a difference. Also, as far as calling each other, I didn't say they call each other to get the scores right. I said they are people, and we shouldn't think that they isolate themselves from the rest of the judging community. Why wouldn't, or shouldn't, they discuss their trade with their co-workers? What I'm saying is that it's illogical to think the judges abstain from all forms of discussion about their trade.

Edited October 9, 2007 by Nex

[drumcat]

I'm referring to first-hand experience with judges scoring randomly for Open corps.

http://www.corpsreps.com/scores.cfm?view=c...mp;yearqry=2007

,,,

I said they are people, and we shouldn't think that they isolate themselves from the rest of the judging community. Why wouldn't, or shouldn't, they discuss their trade with their co-workers? What I'm saying is that it's illogical to think the judges abstain from all forms of discussion about their trade.

Fair enough. I don't want the criticism to fall unfairly, but unlike most discussions here, you bring some validation. While I don't really see your scores as too much of an oddity, Revo's scores are statistically drastic. I particularly like the 15+ point jump in 5 days... that's... well, extreme. Compared to a relatively similar schedule, it looks even more silly. So please allow me to pose a question, and postulate a personally-held thought.

First, my point is that I don't believe the differences and the wide swings would have been significantly different had D1 sheets been used for you this year; I think you'd have just seen the swing with smaller digits. That kind of inconsistency deserves some recap study. But my question to you is based around your thoughts in the matter -- the show for Memphis you pointed out, you were alone on July 9 -- do you believe these swings would have been avoided if you had been on the same sheets?

Edited October 9, 2007 by drumcat

[audiodb]

You're kidding, right? A test in school is a pass or a fail. There are standards for moving on to the next grade and if you FAIL to meet those standards, you don't move on. Are you suggesting that we split the class into the achievers and the non-achievers, but give them all 90's so they feel good, even though a 90 in the non-achiever group is really only a 60 in the achiever group?

No - I'm with you. But what you describe is precisely the rationale used in developing the separate scoring system over 20 years ago.

At one point (1984) there was talk that the criteria for division II was intended to be different from the criteria for division I. It was said that corps were rewarded for different things in division II, and thus would expect a different placement order in that scoring system due to varying emphasis on complexity, entertainment value, execution level, and so on. I haven't heard anything like that since 1984.

Today, the "criteria" for judging different divisions are the same, just shifted one box over on the sheets. As such, what you quoted is really the only remaining reason for having a separate scoring system.

[Nex]

Fair enough. I don't want the criticism to fall unfairly, but unlike most discussions here, you bring some validation. While I don't really see your scores as too much of an oddity, Revo's scores are statistically drastic. I particularly like the 15+ point jump in 5 days... that's... well, extreme. Compared to a relatively similar schedule, it looks even more silly. So please allow me to pose a question, and postulate a personally-held thought.

First, my point is that I don't believe the differences and the wide swings would have been significantly different had D1 sheets been used for you this year; I think you'd have just seen the swing with smaller digits. That kind of inconsistency deserves some recap study. But my question to you is based around your thoughts in the matter -- the show for Memphis you pointed out, you were alone on July 9 -- do you believe these swings would have been avoided if you had been on the same sheets?

I'd honestly have to say they would be avoided. After all, when the scores change like that (especially going between Open and World shows), the judges have different things they see for the rest of the night. It could be a conscious or unconscious thing, but generally when you head into a World Class show, you expect one thing. Seeing an Open corps in that venue often won't match up with what you see (or expect to see) for the rest of the night. The comments on tapes and sheets are still just as valid, and often follow what you get from show to show, but the scores jump randomly. Because of that, I think using the same sheets just brings everything to a more level playing field. No longer do you have to worry about different criteria on different sheets, even though your mind is always going to compare what you see, regardless of division.

I've heard some people argue (though I haven't completely decided on this myself) that the judges are just doing what everyone says they do anyway. Score low at the beginning of the night. Yeah, it's a different division, but how many fans really know what the different scoring systems are like or mean. As long as the Open corps are scored a little low, it leaves room for the lower-tier World corps to make the same or higher score without fans being confused by the division difference. Had our score not changed from the 7th to the 9th, an undiscerning (or simply un-knowing) fan might have thought that we'd 3 or 4-pointed Southwind, which simply wasn't true. If this is the case . . . which like I said, I haven't completely made up my own mind on, then the same sheets would absolutely fix the problem.

To me it just seems that the whole KISS acronym makes perfect sense. Why does the Open champion have to score in the '90s? What does having two different systems really accomplish? The Open finalists all know that their scores are completely different from (and judged more leniently than) the World scores. So why keep up the charade of the high numbers. Everyone in my corps, and many of the corps we competed with simply felt that the lenient scoring was meaningless. It truly did make the numbers worthless to us. "Yay, we broke 90!" or "Finally, we made Box 5!" doesn't mean anything when you know that your 90 would really be closer to a 77, and your Box 5 is really only Box 4 in World. World sheets would take away this pointlessness, and if an Open corps did break Box 5, it would be a real achievement. It would also make Box 4 more meaningful to the Open kids. I guess it just makes more sense to use one set of sheets from the view of a member . . . maybe not to the fans, but that's not going to be my deal for another year yet. So, I guess I'll worry about it when I have to :P

Edited October 9, 2007 by Nex

[drumcat]

I'd honestly have to say they would be avoided. After all, when the scores change like that (especially going between Open and World shows), the judges have different things they see for the rest of the night. It could be a conscious or unconscious thing, but generally when you head into a World Class show, you expect one thing. Seeing an Open corps in that venue often won't match up with what you see (or expect to see) for the rest of the night. The comments on tapes and sheets are still just as valid, and often follow what you get from show to show, but the scores jump randomly. Because of that, I think using the same sheets just brings everything to a more level playing field. No longer do you have to worry about different criteria on different sheets, even though your mind is always going to compare what you see, regardless of division.

I've heard some people argue (though I haven't completely decided on this myself) that the judges are just doing what everyone says they do anyway. Score low at the beginning of the night. Yeah, it's a different division, but how many fans really know what the different scoring systems are like or mean. As long as the Open corps are scored a little low, it leaves room for the lower-tier World corps to make the same or higher score without fans being confused by the division difference. Had our score not changed from the 7th to the 9th, an undiscerning (or simply un-knowing) fan might have thought that we'd 3 or 4-pointed Southwind, which simply wasn't true. If this is the case . . . which like I said, I haven't completely made up my own mind on, then the same sheets would absolutely fix the problem.

To me it just seems that the whole KISS acronym makes perfect sense. Why does the Open champion have to score in the '90s? What does having two different systems really accomplish? The Open finalists all know that their scores are completely different from (and judged more leniently than) the World scores. So why keep up the charade of the high numbers. Everyone in my corps, and many of the corps we competed with simply felt that the lenient scoring was meaningless. It truly did make the numbers worthless to us. "Yay, we broke 90!" or "Finally, we made Box 5!" doesn't mean anything when you know that your 90 would really be closer to a 77, and your Box 5 is really only Box 4 in World. World sheets would take away this pointlessness, and if an Open corps did break Box 5, it would be a real achievement. It would also make Box 4 more meaningful to the Open kids. I guess it just makes more sense to use one set of sheets from the view of a member . . . maybe not to the fans, but that's not going to be my deal for another year yet. So, I guess I'll worry about it when I have to :P

OK, so I'm guessing you wouldn't be interested in ordinals, huh...

Anyhow, I do see your point, and clearly. Maybe the jumps might not have been so drastic, so there would be some value in it. That said, I think you're going to have to live in that "parallel universe" by which Box 5 is defined by the Open Division in and of itself. Fair or not, I think you'll never see Open scored the same as World simply because they've intentionally put up such a big wall that they don't want any comparisons, even if they might be useful in some ways.

In fact, if I were to guess, I'd guess that in the near future, they'll in some way move you off the 100-point scale, or be a different scale in some way so there are no comparisons. I'm not sure what I think, but I'd have to believe that in some way, this will have to be addressed.

For that matter, you can also look at the esoteric properties of the progressive scale, and how that's more applied than earned anyhow. In other words, is the 85 that Blue Devils earned in June really the same as the 85 that Spirit gets at finals? Are you saying that if you compared the two shows that Spirit actually has a chance? Or is it an "August 85", which is entirely different than a "June 85"? My guess is that's what happened more with Revo; they realized that they should be at about a ## since it's July XX.

[Liam]

For that matter, you can also look at the esoteric properties of the progressive scale, and how that's more applied than earned anyhow. In other words, is the 85 that Blue Devils earned in June really the same as the 85 that Spirit gets at finals? Are you saying that if you compared the two shows that Spirit actually has a chance? Or is it an "August 85", which is entirely different than a "June 85"? My guess is that's what happened more with Revo; they realized that they should be at about a ## since it's July XX.

This is a good point. Also an 85 one year doesn't compare to an 85 the next. It's all relative to an expected barrier of, say, 80 in mid-June, 90 in mid-July, and 100 in mid-August (examples). The numbers are, and always have been meaningless. It's the placement and the spread that is (or at should be) more meaningful.

As for the comment about going to a totally different scale for Open class -- there will always be a "conversion" factor out there, correct or not, that will be used to compare corps (e.g., "how does Dutch Boy's grade of B+ on the Open grading scale compare to Blue Stars 85.6 on the World scale?"). So we may as well put them on the same sheets, imo.

Either that, or if, as you say, they are not interested in promoting comparisons, then they need to drastically change the method of judging -- not just the scale, but what is judged -- and be explicit about it. Go to the tic system for example. I'm not advocating this but merely pointing out that simply changeing the scale will not end comparisons between Open and World. Only changing the very method of judging will be able to do that. But now you're also changeing the approach that corps take with their design and teaching making it all the harder for them to grow and switch from Open to World.

Best solution, imo, is still to put them on the same sheets, get used to new targets, and be done with it.

Edited October 9, 2007 by Liam