byline Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Well, scores are in for the Scouts in Fairfax, VA.........Improved, but still cant make up any ground towards that magical 12th place slot. The Men of Madison are still holding at a consistent 2.5-3 points (Sure miss the days of the tick system where you were relatively assured of the fact that if you did the job, you got the mark!......Unfortunately, todays judging system cant and wont allow that.......and that stinketh) Even though I prefer the tick system, I am pretty certain, based my own personal experience, that slotting was going on back then, too. It was just a little easier to mask within the system, and also because there were so many more corps. But I believe it was happening then, as now. Edited July 30, 2009 by byline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad75 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Even though I prefer the tick system, I am pretty certain, based my own personal experience, that slotting was going on back then, too. It was just a little easier to mask within the system, and also because there were so many more corps. But I believe it was happening then, as now. I wont dispute your claims of slotting during the "tick era", all be it a periodic phenomenon. Furthermore, neither was I heralding the tick system as being flawless. But in a comparative sense, when it comes to the issue of slotting, anyone who understands both systems can only conclude that the current system is built upon the back of slotting......there's simply no comparison to what we have now and the tick system in that regard. To say slotting also happened pre- current system is akin to comparing an ant hill to Pikes Peak. Sure, it maybe happened, but come on, the differences are staggering! Today you've got the lazy-mans version of adjudication..........Hmmmm, I cant give corps X to high a score since they're on pretty early in the evening and I've got to leave room on my sheet for corps Y because they're on latter........To much subjectivity......To much of the human factor. And that's the rub........do you want very little subjectivity?..........or do you like it running the whole shootin match??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lnavis Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Don and I were talking the other day about the fact that there aren't many (if any) corps that have one section that scores a lot higher/lower than the other sections in the captions. Are the corps that balanced across sections or is it just a side effect of the style of judging. "Back in the day" the corps would average in a range, say 6th place, but they might have one section that would consistently be in 2nd place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vferrera Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 under the tick system, the judge had to identify specific errors - what the error was and when it happened. They could be held accountable for their score in critique. Now, there is less accountability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMadMan Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Although I never marched under the tick system, I've always felt it was more wide open...more workable. In theory, the build-up system we have today should be more forgiving...more fair, but it also leaves open room for TOO MUCH subjectivity and therefore, is able to award whatever they feel like awarding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byline Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 I agree with the conditions you all have posed, re: the tick system vs. the current buildup-only system, but I could also cite plenty of complaints about "slotting" existing back in the day of the tick system. I don't think it's worth taking up space in this thread with that particular tangent, though. And I do agree that the potential for slotting is higher with a buildup-only system that allows a lot more room for subjectivity. By the same token, the tick system wasn't as objective as we like to make it out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NR_Ohiobando Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Anyone know if they're still looking for that "male character performer"? If they still want one while they pass by Toledo I might as well try for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMadMan Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Can't hurt to call the office and ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Fleurdelis Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 I don't think it's worth taking up space in this thread with that particular tangent, though. Heh, heh. That topic would probably generate a 90 page thread all its own -- and if I recall correctly there have been numerous lengthy and contentious threads on the topic. But I'll get my two cents in before we leave the tangent alone. :) I think both judging philosophies have their strengths and weaknesses. I also think that in the end, each approach has tended over the years to place the competing corps in generally the correct order. So to all the "hue and cry", I usually just shrug my shoulders. It is what it is, but the smart response is to deeply understand the scoring system and create a performance vehicle to maximize potential for higher scores. (And in the case of the Scouts in particular though by no means exclusively to the Scouts, to create a performance vehicle to maximize audience response and membership experience.) I do believe that an unintended consequence of the buildup approach is that it rewards design more than execution. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that poor execution will result in poor general effect scores. However, I don't believe it works so much so in reverse. In other words, a perfectly executed show will not by itself result in a good general effect score. If you don't have a good design, you can't clean your way to greatness. In my day, because of the tick system, you could (at least to some extent). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimedrummer Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 It's mind boggling to think that in 2009 there are still people out there that think the tick system was a better instrument for measuring achievement than our current system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts