corpsband Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Technology is getting cheaper. Perhaps we need to mike every performer, and have cameras attached to the uniform that capture feet, arms, etc. The mikes wouldn't go to the sound board, but instead they and the cameras would all be sending signals to a control center in the press box. Instead of having the judges on the field, running to whatever they want to look at and influenced by the drill, staging, what they're most interested in, etc; instead you sit the field judges in isolation booths in front of a screen with headphones on and a computer randomly controls what they see and/or hear to fairly assess a truly random sample of performers at truly random times. So...in 2014 we see this: http://www.imgbase.info/images/safe-wallpapers/tv_movies/tron_legacy/15533_tron_legacy.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 I han't thought of that, but that certainly sounds reasonable. Alternatively, since these, so called, "tics" would now be objectively obtained, we may be able to simply score in ordinal order, fewest = 1, next = 2, etc. and link some sort of appropriate scale to add to the overall score. This is fun. /> And why not use the computer(s) to assist in the judging itself? Volume, for example, should a fairly straightforward metric. If all the third baris are playing the same note, the computer should be able to tell how consistent their volume is, and can probably help with timing/phasing issues as well. And consistency of pitch. And the speed and complexity of both brass and percussion runs. I don't know whether a computer could measure the quality of brass attacks and releases, though. Still, that's a lot. Execution judges, who needs 'em? On the visual side, GPS (the more accurate versions that are being developed) could in theory be used to tell how far out of line a person is, interval issues, and how fast they are moving. That data could even be applied to the music side, to automatically consider visual difficulty in the music assessment, so we can still have viz effectively counted twice! It could be programmed to detect a fleur-de-lis, and deduct six points. This will all happen someday (except the last one hopefully). Mark my words! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c mor Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 And why not use the computer(s) to assist in the judging itself? ... ...It could be programmed to detect a fleur-de-lis, and deduct six points. This will all happen someday (except the last one hopefully). Mark my words! That is funny Mr. Freedman! Seriously, if the demise of drum corps should be postponed a few more years, I think most fans would be in favor of a judging tool that could provide a more objective evaluation, at least for a portion of a corps total score. Don't you think so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadScout80 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) More than 1 corps makes a fleur de lis this year, though. How will it know which to mark down? Edited July 25, 2013 by MadScout80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 That is funny Mr. Freedman! Seriously, if the demise of drum corps should be postponed a few more years, I think most fans would be in favor of a judging tool that could provide a more objective evaluation, at least for a portion of a corps total score. Don't you think so? Absolutely. On the visual side it could start with smaller groups like drill teams and color guards. Drill teams in particular are still staying in recognizable patterns for most of their shows (I hope) so the GPS stuff could be tried out there. All these techniques would also be a way of checking the accuracy of the human judges, so even if they are only used occasionally, or experimentally, they would still be useful. Expensive, but useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 More than 1 corps makes a fleur de lis this year, though. How will it know which to mark down? Oops: Collateral damage. That'll teach them to make a fleur de lis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Of course, any shape of a physical object could be penalized as being "excessively band-y". Phantom, with a book, a castle, and a sword? One point deduction each. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Of course, any shape of a physical object could be penalized as being "excessively band-y". Phantom, with a book, a castle, and a sword? One point deduction each. What about Crown's rotating three-sided pyramid? Could a computer recognize its utter brilliance? And can the computer see it in 3D? If yes, plus 10 points. :thumbup:/> 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schnitzel Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 We covered all of this last year. If you had taken the time to re-read my post, you will note that I very clearly said that, over time, observer bias used under consistent methodology smooths itself and is irrelevant in the end. However, it still exists. Since you still insist, Deming pp. 442-446 discusses: ""We observed a general tendency for nonblinded assessors to provide more optimistic estimates of the effect. They were also more positive when assessing a new treatment against the old one." Deming went on further to compare nonblinded assessments, showing statistically significant variation from individual trial to trial, but that their p-charts over time landed within consistent ranges to each other. Essentially, subjective observers will not agree and provide even spacing on individual trials, but will tend to come to consensus over time. Therefore, your presented data showing even and consistent spacing over the course of a season - given different judges (observers) during the course of the season - MUST show variation, otherwise they are evidence of an additional common-cause variable further supported by your assessment that current seasons show more "consistency" than those of the past. Does observer bias exist - undoubtedly. Does it matter to the end product - not in the least. Even inconsistencies that might deride from performance order which could be imposed from the result of observer bias have also smoothed themselves into a consistent range when viewed in context of the entire season. Might I suggest a Dale Carnegie course? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamMan Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Or that scores consistently clump around 4 distinct median ranges season after season after season after season - a statistical impossibility unless an additional variable is introduced. Either 25 staffs are in collusion to manipulate the process, or a mechanism is obfuscating randomness, either intended or unintended. Seeing as staffs don't change that dramatically from year to year, why are similar scores so strange? 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.