MikeD Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 didn't we just have a tic system conversation like a month ago and how it wouldn't work today? Ed? Jeff? Rich? Groundhog Day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 I should have known the inclusion of the word tic would set peoples hair on fire. This was really about just being surprised at all the machinations a judges evaluation has to go through to be smashed or crammed in to a caption category.The idea that I would rank a corps at a certain level then my score would be multiplied by .375 and then divided by 10 is just kind of wacky. The reason I mentioned the tic system (not to start a debate about bringing it back) was just that the logic was more straightforward. I'm fine with the math. Its the philosophy I dont get. To HornsUp, dont worry man they have computers at the bank for all the tough calculations. The philosophy is to give each judge a simple 200 point sheet and then use the math to figure out how it fits in numerically to the total score. It's better than giving judges sheets with differing numbers of points on them...just use Excel to crunch the numbers however DCA decides they should be crunched. Using 200 and not 20 also avoids the need for assigning tenths...hence the divide by 10 all over the place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scerpella Posted September 5, 2008 Author Share Posted September 5, 2008 The philosophy is to give each judge a simple 200 point sheet and then use the math to figure out how it fits in numerically to the total score. It's better than giving judges sheets with differing numbers of points on them...just use Excel to crunch the numbers however DCA decides they should be crunched. Using 200 and not 20 also avoids the need for assigning tenths...hence the divide by 10 all over the place. Dividing by 10 has to happen at some point in order to fit the score into a 100 point format. Without arguing the merits of tics as true measures of a corps performance, its hard to see how anything could be simpler. You started perfect with 1000 tenths, every "imperfection" deducted one tenth. When you were done your score was whatever was left. The process of weighting scores by nature changes them. It may seem the contrary, I really am not trying to reopen the tic debate. Just never knew how DCA scores were tabulated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornsUp Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Use the old applause meter. Save money on judging.................... Ahhhhhh, the "clap show". Another interesting piece of DCA history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoonHill Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Dividing by 10 has to happen at some point in order to fit the score into a 100 point format. Without arguing the merits of tics as true measures of a corps performance, its hard to see how anything could be simpler. Or more prone to error and subjectivity. Simple doesn't equate to better, by any stretch of the imagination. And as for wackiness, consider the simply fact that multiple judges could all count the same error as a tick, and that with enough ticks a score could, theoretically, go into the negatives. What's the sense in that? And why is the 10 factor a part of your initial complaint, when you, yourself, acknowledge its purpose right here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabalumnidrummer Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 "The philosophy is nothing more or less than just normalizing and weighting scores. That's about it, really." Exactly. It would seem to me that this system also eliminates the effect of any one judge's scores on the final outcome. The more points assigned to captions initially, and the more math involved to arrive at a final score based on 100 points, would suggest to me that the impact of any one caption score that is significantly 'out of line' with others is diminished. I don't know if that was part of the rationale behind the design of this system, but it makes sense to me. All judging is subjective. It's the nature of the task. The judges are human beings with likes and dislikes that have to affect their judgment. That's human nature. As Tom said, the system works (but just not to everyone's liking, apparently). Of course the winners will always feel it works better than the runners-up do. That will always be true, no matter what system is used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Dividing by 10 has to happen at some point in order to fit the score into a 100 point format. Without arguing the merits of tics as true measures of a corps performance, its hard to see how anything could be simpler. You started perfect with 1000 tenths, every "imperfection" deducted one tenth. When you were done your score was whatever was left. The process of weighting scores by nature changes them.It may seem the contrary, I really am not trying to reopen the tic debate. Just never knew how DCA scores were tabulated. Right, the sheets need to be divided, hence that is why they are. The rest? since there are differing numbers of judges per overall caption, their sheets require a different division factor in order to fit isode the 20 points allocated. I don't see it as very complex, I guess. BTW, the tick era was not as simplistic as you made it seem. An execution sheet, for instance, had some number of points allocated to the ticks, and some allocated to 'demand', at least before there were the separate analysis captions. You also had group ticks, which assigned multiple ticks (= tenths) to a particular error situation. In addition, GE was always a build up caption; the number of possible points was variable depending on the sheets being used...10 points at VFW Nats....30 at the WO. Once the analysis sheets were added, you then had another set of buildup sheets with their own points allocated (based on when, as it changed around). Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AverageJoe Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 i still want to know where the mystery .4 is. If you do the math the system has a phantom .4 built in. Its kind of like the steps that are lost between the hashes. And the socks in the dryer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 didn't we just have a tic system conversation like a month ago and how it wouldn't work today? Ed? Jeff? Rich? don't we have one every month? i mean really, at times, we talk less about narration and woodwinds and Scranton cops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingsman1 Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 bottom linecurrent system works old system DID NOT work and before you argue with me... put up those credentials... I used the tick system... I taught the tick system... I evaluated the success of the tick system... I helped eliminate the tick system... it was loaded with pitfalls and problems... and generally led to incompetence and errors Tom,with over 40 years in drum corps you pretty much know my credentials. Having marched under the Tic system,the subjective system of today and maybe you remember when bruni wanted to use the applause meter for the ge scores I used to really let it get me mad at the outcome of the shows I competed in. I finally resolved to the fact that for me it didn"t matter what the final score was but if the croud in attendance thought we got hosed and should have won it made the ride home for me easier. Jerry 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.