supersop Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 Actually, I'm now ashamed of myself for inferring that Rank and Rate is acceptable in my last post. Comparing scores in a caption between corps is the wrong way to look at this. If she is truly going by box criteria and scored each corps accordingly ........................... Congrats to Madison (and I really do believe they deserve the scores she gave them) Congrats to SCV, Cadets and Coats (for being BOX 5 MONSTERS) My regrets to PR and BAC Further regrets to Surf, Bones, PC, Teal and Mandarins (because Costanza started his numbers WAY too low according to Czapinski) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos001 Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 If they need to improve .1 or .2 per show, then we don't need judges. Just increase their score by a certain amount each show. We can program a computer to do that. that's not what i said. Czapinski8.60 8.50 17.10 Costanza 8.90 8.90 17.80 Final Average = 17.45 They were clearly in Total disagreement. Czapinski boxed herself in when she gave Madison an 8.7 and 8.9 .... or she's the one who is right and thinks Madison is .5 better than BAC and .1 below Phantom (while leaving a spread of 0.8 between PR and SCV). I'm sure this fine lady will be on the finals panel in some capacity or another ... so there it is. please no! If the two judges agreed, would the same people be complaining that there was "DCI politics" or "slotting?"Isn't it a healthy thing that judges disagree with one another? not when it's as predictable as it is...and there's nearly 20 years of evidence proving the fact that she does this. it's plain and simple to see bias. it's always been chicago city girl vs. illinois country corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersop Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 If the two judges agreed, would the same people be complaining that there was "DCI politics" or "slotting?"Isn't it a healthy thing that judges disagree with one another? It's healthy to a degree .. depending on if you're just doing Rank and Rate, then adding or deducting tenths of points without any regards for box criteria for the caption. The disparity in numbers between these two judges, watching the same shows on the same night ....................... it's pretty shocking!!!!! Czapinski is the SR. Judge in this caption. If the other judge sitting next to her is that far off from her numbers based on box criteria and what the sheets expect in order to get a certain number .............. then (insert judges name here) needs to be retrained to meet Czapinski standards. Either that .. or Czapinski is out of the loop. Example: Jersey Surf Czapinski 8.10 7.90 16.00 Costanza 7.40 7.40 14.80 ................... total 15.40???? Pacific Crest Czapinski 8.40 8.20 16.60 Costanza 8.00 7.70 15.70.....................total 16.15??? We've already talked about the gap between PR and SCV .... and the clump with PR, BAC and Madison. It's pretty glaring. There is a deficiency of standards ........ glaring deficiencies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos001 Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 (edited) It's healthy to a degree .. depending on if you're just doing Rank and Rate, then adding or deducting tenths of points without any regards for box criteria for the caption.The disparity in numbers between these two judges, watching the same shows on the same night ....................... it's pretty shocking!!!!! Czapinski is the SR. Judge in this caption. If the other judge sitting next to her is that far off from her numbers based on box criteria and what the sheets expect in order to get a certain number .............. then (insert judges name here) needs to be retrained to meet Czapinski standards. Either that .. or Czapinski is out of the loop. Example: Jersey Surf Czapinski 8.10 7.90 16.00 Costanza 7.40 7.40 14.80 ................... total 15.40???? Pacific Crest Czapinski 8.40 8.20 16.60 Costanza 8.00 7.70 15.70.....................total 16.15??? We've already talked about the gap between PR and SCV .... and the clump with PR, BAC and Madison. It's pretty glaring. There is a deficiency of standards ........ glaring deficiencies. The numbers should be closer together in theory if they're judging the same thing. However, it seems to be that there's either a.) a misunderstanding in how things are supposed to be scored or b.) judges give out whatever score they want. Edited August 8, 2010 by chaos001 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersop Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 The numbers should be closer together in theory if they're judging the same thing. However, it seems to be that there's either a.) a misunderstanding in how things are supposed to be scored or b.) judges give out whatever score they want. A and/or B = retraining and clarity of what the standards are supposed to be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvu80 Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 I almost hate to ask you judge watchers this, but... Can you show the gaps between the judges scores RELATIVE TO THE OTHER CORPS (above or below, your choice) and not relative to the other judge? I think this might convince me of judging bias more than a simple disagreement between judges on tenths of a point relative to each other. Does my question make sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 I almost hate to ask you judge watchers this, but...Can you show the gaps between the judges scores RELATIVE TO THE OTHER CORPS (above or below, your choice) and not relative to the other judge? I think this might convince me of judging bias more than a simple disagreement between judges on tenths of a point relative to each other. Does my question make sense? Basically you're asking if the margins are consistent (is x corps still y points better than z corps, even if their numerical score is different?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geluf Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 no they are getting a bit too much credit for that easy book, don't confuse entertainment with difficulty. Uh...I'm not. Not in the slightest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos001 Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 I almost hate to ask you judge watchers this, but...Can you show the gaps between the judges scores RELATIVE TO THE OTHER CORPS (above or below, your choice) and not relative to the other judge? I think this might convince me of judging bias more than a simple disagreement between judges on tenths of a point relative to each other. Does my question make sense? if they boost some corps scores from the same show relative to slamming another's? i bet it can be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvu80 Posted August 8, 2010 Share Posted August 8, 2010 Basically you're asking if the margins are consistent (is x corps still y points better than z corps, even if their numerical score is different?) Yes. 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.