13strokeroll Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) That's quite impressive. Congratulations. So you're an engineer. And that's why you are using terms like 'regulated process' in a discussion about bias in sports. Do you believe being an engineer confers upon you the ability to draw conclusions on a data set in the social sciences without conducting actual research? Keep in mind, the only reason I asked your expertise was your specific assertions that assumed knowledge on the subject, such as the definition of "tampering". Maybe in your company you can accuse someone of tampering without implying intent, but that's not what it means anywhere else. You didn't respond to any of my other points, including the evidence I provided that essentially similar data (with the same features you call slotting) result from unbiased computer "judges" which consider only 1. the actual merit of each corps, 2. a random error for the judge, and 3. a random "bump" factor for that judge (which affects all corps equally). Do you accuse my processor of slotting? Zzzzzzz... Edited July 24, 2013 by 13strokeroll 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 I think it is pretty amazing how the corps with the highest score ALWAYS comes in first, while the corps with the lowest ALWAYS comes in last. You would think that at least once in a while the lowest score would place first or something. I totally agree with this. Whatever it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 That's quite impressive. Congratulations. So you're an engineer. And that's why you are using terms like 'regulated process' in a discussion about bias in sports. Do you believe being an engineer confers upon you the ability to draw conclusions on a data set in the social sciences without conducting actual research? Also, things get 'dangerous' (and IMO flat out naive, inept, and wrong), to make assertions and broad accusations/theories based on nothing more than numbers that were awarded by humans for 150 humans' performance. It is fun to analyze recaps, score trends, etc: and there are some conclusions that can be made based on that analysis. But making an argument based SOLELY on just looking at numbers on a recap is a VERY incomplete analysis, let alone an invalid process to form an informed conclusion. Not only are scores given by judges who all bring their unique experience, tastes, and interpretation of the criteria to the field, but also scores are based on the performance qualities of a large group of amateur performers: fairly young ones, at that! There are so many variables that go into ranking and rating a corps (which have been documented and discussed ad nauseam here over the years. Of course, it's always amusing to sit on the sidelines of these "debates" and read people write their pseudo-condesending babble filled with fancy jargon, and continually demonstrate that while they might have incredible expertise in one field they certainly are naive about others that might seem related to a great degree in their minds, but not so much in reality. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Every night, looking at the scores & recaps this season, I kinda think the "slotting" argument doesn't hold up. I honestly can't remember a season where victories were traded constantly, even from one night to the next. This is the first season in a LONG time where it really feels like any of the Top 3 can win on any given night! Can anyone remember a season as dramatic as this one?! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
13strokeroll Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) Also, things get 'dangerous' (and IMO flat out naive, inept, and wrong), to make assertions and broad accusations/theories based on nothing more than numbers that were awarded by humans for 150 humans' performance. It is fun to analyze recaps, score trends, etc: and there are some conclusions that can be made based on that analysis. But making an argument based SOLELY on just looking at numbers on a recap is a VERY incomplete analysis, let alone an invalid process to form an informed conclusion. Not only are scores given by judges who all bring their unique experience, tastes, and interpretation of the criteria to the field, but also scores are based on the performance qualities of a large group of amateur performers: fairly young ones, at that! There are so many variables that go into ranking and rating a corps (which have been documented and discussed ad nauseam here over the years. Of course, it's always amusing to sit on the sidelines of these "debates" and read people write their pseudo-condesending babble filled with fancy jargon, and continually demonstrate that while they might have incredible expertise in one field they certainly are naive about others that might seem related to a great degree in their minds, but not so much in reality. Sounds like you just described Observer Bias and validated the conditions that started the discussion. Remember slotting does not mean pegging a corps in a certain spot, it means understanding the ranges and spreads. Also, it might not have been clear in this thread; but, the principle does not look at the values of a single recap sheet, but how those recaps relate to themselves over time, within the corps as well as comparatively to others. That gives more validity to the excitement around 1,2, and 3 this year. As far as an invalid process, it's valid, repeatable, and applies completely. Otherwise multibillion dollar corporations all have it wrong when utilized for the past 70 years in congruent circumstances. Edited July 24, 2013 by 13strokeroll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 I think it is pretty amazing how the corps with the highest score ALWAYS comes in first, while the corps with the lowest ALWAYS comes in last. You would think that at least once in a while the lowest score would place first or something. That's why they should get out and play golf once in a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 As far as an invalid process, it's valid, repeatable, and applies completely. Otherwise multibillion dollar corporations all have it wrong when utilized for the past 70 years in congruent circumstances. I honestly don't really follow what exact point is being argued about, but I will just point out that fully subjective numbers assigned by humans are not the same kind of dataset as objective measurements of physical properties in which errors can be detected. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 I honestly don't really follow what exact point is being argued about, but I will just point out that fully subjective numbers assigned by humans are not the same kind of dataset as objective measurements of physical properties in which errors can be detected. And isn't it impossible, and maybe wrong to try, to measure art scientifically? We all like order and structure in our lives, but is this really possible when applied to judging drum corps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 Every night, looking at the scores & recaps this season, I kinda think the "slotting" argument doesn't hold up. I honestly can't remember a season where victories were traded constantly, even from one night to the next. This is the first season in a LONG time where it really feels like any of the Top 3 can win on any given night! Can anyone remember a season as dramatic as this one?! This is a great season. It really is just like any other sport in terms of the drama leading up to finals. And then you remember, oh, yeah, thousands of young people are getting a superb performing arts education out of it as well. It's the combination that makes it magical for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 And isn't it impossible, and maybe wrong to try, to measure art scientifically? We all like order and structure in our lives, but is this really possible when applied to judging drum corps? It's funny because it's so irrelevant in the end. But it motivates them so freaking much to excel. I had an idea that every five years there would be no judging. Exhibition years. Then the corps could produce less frenetic shows and just enjoy the summer. Either that, or the judging in those years could be completely subjecting assessments made by celebrity performing arts guests at regionals. Basically American Idol style. They would also respond on video immediately after the show (like American Idol) and have that evaluation as part of the FN video. Basically infuse the activity with an actual performing arts perspective every five years. Throw in audience response as well. But no traditional judging during the year. Let the shows evolve in a different direction completely. I don't necessarily support these ideas, but they're interesting. 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.