Stu Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 I loves to watch them squirm when they've been caught. "score management" = predetermined outcomes = fixing. Good job Rocky. When I got too close they tried to light a smoke bomb about some West Point grad. They should be ashamed they were caught hiding behind the flag. They can't handle the truth! Wouldn't it just be easier to let people who paid their hard earned cash for tickets cast a vote for who ENTERTAINED them the most? We don't need no stinkin' judges. This is not to say there shouldn't be SOME rules, but PLEASE explain what is wrong with the majority walking away happy? Isn't that how we elect our leaders? a) You are using the fallacy of equivocation. Score Management is 'not' predetermining outcomes or fixing scores; Score Management is a way of adjusting scoring within a framework of subjective opinion to keep ranking mistakes from occurring due to scoring an earlier unit too high or too low. A prime example is the one used by Whitedawn which yielded a 10 being given when a unit did better than a previous unit which received too high of a score (9.9). The 10, through Score Management, yielded the correct ranking based on their performance; but that 10, as well as their ranking, was not predetermined nor fixed 'prior' to their performance. b) No, it would not be 'easier' to let let people who paid their hard earned cash for tickets cast a vote. It would be a logistical nightmare to make sure the votes were cast by only those with tickets at the show, and would also have a high probability of fraud. c) Again, No; Majority vote is 'not' the way we elect our leader. The majority in each State vote for State Electors equal to the number of Congressional Representatives of that State who in turn cast a vote at the National Convention for the leader; and by the way, those Electors do not have to abide by the majority vote; the Electors can vote their own conscience. d) This makes you 0 for three; great batting average! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) double post Edited August 5, 2012 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 When I got too close they tried to light a smoke bomb about some West Point grad. They should be ashamed they were caught hiding behind the flag. I am trying real hard to keep you from looking foolish here but you keep stepping in it; you have no clue who are slamming or even know that person's credentials. I will chalk your comment here as baiting, and leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyGranite Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 Yes; I would defend that person. Why? Because score management (as in oops, I scored the first group too low or too high and now I have to manage all scores to even out that situation) is necessary in all forms of subjective judging systems; even in a barbeque tasting contest. But that is a far cry from accusing that person of "predetermining outcomes" or worse "fixing" a contest. In the case of the Allentown shows, at least, score management is not a factor of "oops, I screwed up...", it's a factor of "crap, I've got one corps tonight and a slew of corps tomorrow...sorry SoA...you did ###### good, but I've got to make room for tomorrow so you don't get the 8.6 I think you deserve...I'm gonna give you an 8.3. Sorry bout that, SoA, but that's the way it goes" I think that is patently unfair and if the system can't function without that mechanism, there is something wrong with the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyGranite Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 I loves to watch them squirm when they've been caught. "score management" = predetermined outcomes = fixing. Good job Rocky. When I got too close they tried to light a smoke bomb about some West Point grad. They should be ashamed they were caught hiding behind the flag. I disagree with you. I don't know if there is "fixing" involved, though I have my suspicions about "slotting". But my point about "score management" is quite different from what you make it out to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariq.shah Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 The fact is, as long as there are fans, these conversations will happen. Its just more public now in the internet age. The fact that those conversations keep happening is not evidence that there is anything wrong with the judging community, it is instead simply evidence that there are people who are passionate about the activity. The fact is, there are ways in which the judges are held accountable to the corps and to DCI. They publish tapes that are distributed to the corps staff. There are often critiques at which staff and judges can meet face to face to discuss commentary. In many ways, DCI judges are MORE accountable than the officials in other activities. The fact that it doesn't show up on ESPN doesn't change that. Frankly, as a staff member, I wouldn't want judge commentary or explanations to be distributed to the public. I think that commentary is between the judge and the corps and staff. There's a reason its not posted online. Unfortunately, the reality TV/google/wikipedia phenomenon has kind of bred this culture where every bit of information is immediately available to the public, and thus the public thinks all information should be public domain. That is not the case. We don't need to know why Spirit beat Phantom's percussion section. We need, instead, to trust the system that DCI has put in place. If we want to better understand the process, there are already resources out there, without having to hear anything from the judges themselves. Its not hard to find the judging sheets. They are very clear what the criteria are. The recaps outline the numbers to the micro detail. You can see every number that a judge puts down. Simply going through that much research will make a lot of sense out of the recaps. Other sports have added things like instant replay, and referee challenges because the teams and executives within that league agreed that it was what was best for the sport. Public opinion had very little to do with it. The other major difference is that the things that instant replay deal with are OBJECTIVE judgements. Either a player kept his foot inbounds, or he didn't. Either the ball was foul or it was fair. Drum corps is subjective, and as such, no amount of instant replay or "accountability" will ever contribute to an overturned decision. When was the last time you saw a judge for Olympic gymnastics explain his decision to anyone other than the IOC? Hey Atucker, here are the things over which I think we disagree: 1. "The fact is, as long as there are fans, these conversations will happen." -Well, no. There are innumerable conversations and rants the public could be having right now but aren't because the system works fine and people don't have beef with it. 2. "The fact that those conversations keep happening is not evidence that there is anything wrong with the judging community, it is instead simply evidence that there are people who are passionate about the activity." -This may be so, but it is evidence that there is a large perception of a problem. And please keep in mind I haven't suggested changing the judging itself, per se (though that might be something that should happen), but how the judging community & DCI relate to the public. The fact that people have been talking about it for years is evidence that someone should at least try to better address it. 3. "There's a reason it's not posted online." -Sure, I'll grant that as well. But judges tapes are not scripture. I think it could provide great insight to the public, and to future fans and participants, if, perhaps, finals tapes were posted after the season ended. This way staff get their cover throughout the season, and when it's all over people can go back and better understand why things happened the way they did. 4. "We don't need to know why Spirit beat Phantom's percussion section. We need, instead, to trust the system that DCI has put in place." -And I think these statements get to the heart of our disagreement. I think many people believe we DO need to know why corps X beats corps Y. And I think it's stupid to "just trust" anything. I don't want to see the judging community burnt at the stake. Just trusting things to work out is foolhardy. I hate to get polemical but see: the Iraq War, the 2008 stock market collapse, CIA drone killings, The Penn State child abuse scandal, even the entire child abuse scandal(s) scourging the entirety of the Catholic Church. I don't want to blow this thing out of proportion and get grandiose, but it is simply bad policy to just trust any one person or system to do the job correctly. And even if we did just trust the judging community, judges come and go. If I grant that we should just trust the judging community, what about when those judges retire? Am I also to believe not only that this year's judging staff can be trusted, but by extension all judges, forever? Look I trust the judges. But many people don't. I don't think it's a problem with the internet disproportionately magnifying the perceived size of the problem either. 5. "The recaps outline the numbers to the micro-detail." -That they do. And they're great. I'm of the opinion that the activity would be better served if there were a way for people to better understand, as specifically as we can fashion, why those scores were given. It may be so that ice dancing judges are less accountable than DCI judges. But every time I've ever watched ice dancing, there've always been a couple broadcasters explaining what's happening, what the judges are looking for, what a good jump and a bad jump is, how a given skater's performance will probably be seen in the eyes of the judging panel. And it totally helps, and actually makes the activity a little more interesting. I appreciated that on the 2003 DVDs, judge commentary was an included option. I thought it was great, not only because I got to hear better audio of the drumline, but I also understood that, for example, the judge was listening to the pit quad lick X was being played that I really loved and thought earned the line a 2nd place rank instead of a 3rd. And who knows? Maybe judges would be into it? No likes going to a job they are constantly vilified for doing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 In the case of the Allentown shows, at least, score management is not a factor of "oops, I screwed up...", it's a factor of "crap, I've got one corps tonight and a slew of corps tomorrow...sorry SoA...you did ###### good, but I've got to make room for tomorrow so you don't get the 8.6 I think you deserve...I'm gonna give you an 8.3. Sorry bout that, SoA, but that's the way it goes" I think that is patently unfair and if the system can't function without that mechanism, there is something wrong with the system. All, and I mean all (from cattle/pig contests to Olympic Gymnastics), all are purely subjective opinion outcome contests; and by that very fact they will inherently have a scoring management mechanism which is a mechanism to adjust for occasional human error; there is no way around it as a needed mechanism due to the purely subjective opinion nature of the system and the nature of occasional human error. If you have not already done so, I suggest that you personally judge a contest which consists 45 - 50 units from 8am - 6pm prelims as well as a secondary judging for some groups at 7pm - 10pm finals, and see if you can get through the day without adjusting 'something' later in the day due to a slight miscalculation of giving too high or too low of a score to a unit earlier in the day (which, by the way, is called score management and the needed mechanism to adjust out human error). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyGranite Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 All, and I mean all (from cattle/pig contests to Olympic Gymnastics), all are purely subjective opinion outcome contests; and by that very fact they will inherently have a scoring management mechanism which is a mechanism to adjust for occasional human error; there is no way around it as a needed mechanism due to the purely subjective opinion nature of the system and the nature of occasional human error. If you have not already done so, I suggest that you personally judge a contest which consists 45 - 50 units from 8am - 6pm prelims as well as a secondary judging for some groups at 7pm - 10pm finals, and see if you can get through the day without adjusting 'something' later in the day due to a slight miscalculation of giving too high or too low of a score to a unit earlier in the day (which, by the way, is called score management and the needed mechanism to adjust out human error). Did you even read my post? What you've written above doesn't address my point in the slightest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) Did you even read my post? What you've written above doesn't address my point in the slightest. Yes I did read your post(s). One main issue you have is the duel Friday/Saturday situation; and what I am saying is that within ANY purely subjective judging system a scoring management mechanism has to inherently be built in so as to create wiggle room for occasional human error in judgement. Did you read my reply? If you yourself were faced with purely subjectively judging 45 - 50 units over the course of a 12-hour day, or over the course of a two-day event, there is no way you could avoid the mechanism even if you wanted to; and if you have ever judged in that type of situation you would see that it is both necessary and unavoidable. Edited August 5, 2012 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 (edited) double post, again! Edited August 5, 2012 by Stu 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.