Jeff Ream Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Have me declared the Judge Administrator and I'll make sure it happens. I've declared you the judge administrator. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 I've declared you the judge administrator. Thank you. You'll be my first appointment. Name your caption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 exactly. Stu, even in the days of the tic system, everyone;'s tolerance of what a "tic" was differed. There was no written manual of what a tic was and wasn't. In the scoring systems of the day were you had two judges on the same sheet, placements on a single corps could vary wildly. I forget the show now, but one old Al finals had a corps who was 1st in drums on judges sheet, and 9th on the other. Wild stuff like that happened all the time, which is what may have had scoring and placements be so all over the place. Plus, depending on where the show was held and the judges association used, you could see some wild swings from region to region. Not sure what to conclude from this. Are you saying that the tick system contributed to the score variations back in the day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Then you must also admit, unless you choose to be obtuse, since DCI judging is purely subjective competition DCI therefore cannot and will not yield diverse winners such as those found within organizations which have objective competition results. No. I agree that drum corps competition will probably never yield equally diverse winners as major league sports. But the reasons for that are the nature of the activity (less parity to begin with) and the vicious circle of more money - more wins - more money magnifying that disparity. Subjective judging does not cause less diverse winners, in my opinion. Failure of judges to do their job (i.e. slotting), however, can cause that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 quite honestly, I think everyone expected way too much overnight when DCi changed the sheets last year. I think they are smart enough to do some tweaking this year, and continued education, and maybe we will see things shake out. The sheets now are more performer driven, and the problem with that is, fans have their perception of awesome performance, and will disagree.....just as they did on the old sheets that weighed demand and performance more equally. Okay, so the sheets are more performer driven. Has the judging actually reflected that, or not, in your opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 I've declared you the judge administrator. I second that declaration! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Not sure what to conclude from this. Are you saying that the tick system contributed to the score variations back in the day? Yes, I think he is...every judging system contributes to score variations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 No. I agree that drum corps competition will probably never yield equally diverse winners as major league sports. But the reasons for that are the nature of the activity (less parity to begin with) and the vicious circle of more money - more wins - more money magnifying that disparity. Subjective judging does not cause less diverse winners, in my opinion. Failure of judges to do their job (i.e. slotting), however, can cause that. You must think that there are lots of cases where judges as a group ar not placing the corps in the proper order (rank) with the proper spread (rate) to state what you did in your second paragraph. Or...is it that the corps at the top are just the best? They have the most experienced members and very consistent staffs that tend to remain in place over time. That 'vicious cycle is just the best remaining because they are the most successful at attracting the best performers to auditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 You must think that there are lots of cases where judges as a group ar not placing the corps in the proper order (rank) with the proper spread (rate) to state what you did in your second paragraph. Then you should read my first paragraph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Then you should read my first paragraph. Read my second statement. You presented two mutually exclusive statements; either the best are the best and remain so, or judges are cheating and not doing their jobs. 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.