Rank and Rate...managing numbers...Kind of?

[cixelsyd]

If one caption is killing you, it'll show in the ordinals as well.

If everybody else is there, yes. But again, I invite you to look at other shows, like those at the end of June:

Crown

BD

Pacific Crest

Mandarins

Here, for one caption in the Crown-BD battle to receive any greater weight than the others, it has to rise to the severity of a title contender losing the caption to a non-finalist.

[cixelsyd]

It does seem like there should be a performing arts adjudication association with representatives from all these disparate fields that can work together on these issues. Is there any such organization?

Yes - DCI.

(No, really. One reason DCI was formed was to administer the selection and training of judges. There were several judging organizations pre-DCI, but the corps were not completely happy with any one of them, and even less happy having to deal with several of them instead of one "standard".)

[cixelsyd]

Being a relative newby to DCP (although not to competition, whether as a combined 36-year participant and director of participating groups in music competitions), I would ask that some semblance of understanding be kindly granted. Please.

While extending a current scoring system from ascertaining (between 2 or more groups) tenths of points between groups to hundredths might seem to, on the surface, alleviate the ever-present "tie," how long will it be before we are seeking "thousandth of a point" differentiation?

A long time, I think. Just going to 0.05 granularity ought to ease the situation. Full-fledged hundredths (0.01) would provide five times the precision we need.

But your question does point out the possibility that if we had many more corps in the future - or if the box system changed such that all corps are crammed into the 90s - it is still possible to create a number management challenge even with more numbers to choose from.

[Jeff Ream]

You don't get out much then. Corps members, staff, admin and other judges HATE bottom line ties. And tons of fans do too. Seriously. I think it's really crappy judging. You're paid to make a decision. Make one.

many staff hate sub box ties as well

[perc2100]

many staff hate sub box ties as well

I think more people hate sub-box ties more than overall caption ties. At least if a caption ties w/out subs tying, that's not necessarily a judge not making a call it's just the way the math worked out. With sub-caption ties, that's a judge not doing their job of ranking (IMO). Don't get me wrong, ties aren't exactly popular either. But I know head judges and staffers can understand if a caption ties in the end when a judge doesn't tie subs, but tying subs is usually not cool.

[MikeD]

A long time, I think. Just going to 0.05 granularity ought to ease the situation. Full-fledged hundredths (0.01) would provide five times the precision we need.

But your question does point out the possibility that if we had many more corps in the future - or if the box system changed such that all corps are crammed into the 90s - it is still possible to create a number management challenge even with more numbers to choose from.

At what point does the allocation of fractional points become an exercise in "dart-throwing"...is it truly possible to determine the ranking difference at the 0.01 level? Or is this saying the two corps are in real terms equal, but the 0.01 is being used as sort of a tie-breaker. Personally, I'd prefer the tie in such a situation, though as often, I'm sure others will disagree.

[Jeff Ream]

I think more people hate sub-box ties more than overall caption ties. At least if a caption ties w/out subs tying, that's not necessarily a judge not making a call it's just the way the math worked out. With sub-caption ties, that's a judge not doing their job of ranking (IMO). Don't get me wrong, ties aren't exactly popular either. But I know head judges and staffers can understand if a caption ties in the end when a judge doesn't tie subs, but tying subs is usually not cool.

exactly. I once saw a band recap where team a was up in book, team b in performer, and the math worked out to a tie. Both were semi cool with it because at least they knew what part of the sheet was the issues.

But I've also seen where one sub tied, but the bottom line didn't, and it drove people into a frenzy

[HornTeacher]

At what point does the allocation of fractional points become an exercise in "dart-throwing"...is it truly possible to determine the ranking difference at the 0.01 level? Or is this saying the two corps are in real terms equal, but the 0.01 is being used as sort of a tie-breaker. Personally, I'd prefer the tie in such a situation, though as often, I'm sure others will disagree.

That was my point in my original posting, Mike. And being new to this site, I was trying to be somewhat sarcastic without coming right out and being sarcastic. However, I do believe that we can become too number crazy (if we haven't arrived there already).

[Pete Freedman]

You don't get out much then. Corps members, staff, admin and other judges HATE bottom line ties. And tons of fans do too. Seriously. I think it's really crappy judging. You're paid to make a decision. Make one.

Corps members: I marched six years in three different circuits (DCI only one show, though). I never once heard a corps member even discuss a caption or sub-caption score except as a response to comments by instructors about that day's show. That's a bit embarrassing, since we all should have been more interested in that aspect of the activity, but we left it up to the grownups. I doubt it's that different today; they may get the recaps on their iphones, but I'd like evidence please that corps members complain about caption or sub-caption ties. Even if they did, who cares? "You were within a tenth of the competition. Suck it up and get back in line, kid."

Staff: This is all about the staff. And judges only seeing that person, and therefore meeting that person's needs and concerns.

Admin: Everyone involved complains about their score being too low, but the idea that corps directors complain that their unit tied in a caption or sub-caption? I'm sure it happens, but directors are administrators who wouldn't have a basis to object anyway.

Other judges: They are the employees, not customers. Who cares what they think?

And you left out a trivial group; the audience. There are a few of them around as well. Caption scores are not typically given out at shows, but if the audience is complaining about the scrupulous insistence on the accuracy of the overall score, rather than giving inaccurate caption scores just to break ties, then they haven't done in within my earshot. It's hard to speak for thousands of people, but in my limited experience they want to know which drum corps wins and what order they come in overall, and what their relative scores are overall.

[Pete Freedman]

At what point does the allocation of fractional points become an exercise in "dart-throwing"...is it truly possible to determine the ranking difference at the 0.01 level? Or is this saying the two corps are in real terms equal, but the 0.01 is being used as sort of a tie-breaker. Personally, I'd prefer the tie in such a situation, though as often, I'm sure others will disagree.

Well, it's really 0.1 for the individual judge.

It's about either the judge assessing Corps A at 97 and Corps B at 97 and then saying, "Hmm, I'm gonna get yelled at by staff," and actually giving a #### what staff think about it, but giving in and saying, "Ok, Corps A was slightly better within 97, so I'll lie and say they got a 98 even though without the other corps present I would have given them a 97", thus throwing off the overall score.

Or...

The judge saying Corps A got a 97.8, and Corps B got a 97.3. (Which then gets pushed over to the hundredths digit in the overall score.)

I'm not a judge, but it does seem like an experienced one can detect that kind of difference between two close corps, if not necessarily for one corps in isolation. See what I mean?

Note: Actually I would recommend using values that round to the initial integer assessed, rather than between that on and the next one. So, in the above case it would be more like Corps A at 97.4 and Corps B at 96.8. That minimizes the impact on the overall score, and would be more accurate.