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

[Pete Freedman]

No. The judges's first job is to rank - she must make a decision which of the competing units is better. If she assesses two units as both being an 18.0 in the reference criteria in her head, she still needs to give one of them a 17.9 or an 18.1. This is explicitly in the text of every sheet DCI uses. The judge is failing her job if she ties the units.

No it isn't. Here are the sheets:

http://www.dci.org/n...8d-78c928fdd00a

The closest it comes is the phrase, "How do each of these factors, collectively and individually, compare to each of the other units in the competition?"

In no way do they require judges to bump scores to prevent ties. "Equally good" is a perfectly valid comparison. The sheets don't in any way imply what you are saying, and apparently the judges don't do it, according to the OP.

[ShortAndFast]

No it isn't. Here are the sheets:

http://www.dci.org/n...8d-78c928fdd00a

The closest it comes is the phrase, "How do each of these factors, collectively and individually, compare to each of the other units in the competition?"

In no way do they require judges to bump scores to prevent ties. "Equally good" is a perfectly valid comparison. The sheets don't in any way imply what you are saying, and apparently the judges don't do it, according to the OP.

That's exactly the language I'm referring to. The judge needs to rank the units at the show, not pretend that "You have seen no other units that day, and you will see no more later." as you said.

In practice, DCI judges will tie at the subcaption level (as Jeff pointed out in the OP) but basically never tie at the caption level.

[cowtown]

Considering all the experts on DCP I’m a bit baffled as to why now it’s so difficult to make the call

[Pete Freedman]

The problem is not knowing what scores as disparate as 100, 90, 80, 70, etc look like. It is knowing what a 100, 99.9, 99.8, etc look like.

They should be able to make that assessment, if they are judging at that level. But I do think that's why they don't go into into deeper decimals; it's less accurate than a seven day forecast.

Reference clips do not really help all that much, because there are various criteria within a caption and sub-caption that have to be considered, and how each corps stacks up in the sub-captions can vary corps-to-corps. The stated criteria is not really a checklist; it is givng the judge items to consider in creating an overall evaluation. One corps might be heavily weighted in criteria 'A' while another is strong in 'B' while a third is not up to either in 'A' or 'B', but has a good mix of both.

Sure, there's a variety of factors in each caption. But they are listable, understandable, and ultimately judgeable. The judge might even want to use their own sub-sub-caption sheet for clarity, I suppose. For example in brass, factors like attacks, releases, tone quality, volume, as well as the range of volumes, legato vs. staccato, etc. all factor in. But ultimately the judge should be saying, "That's what a 99.6 sounds like to me." Of if you prefer, "That's what a 99.7 tone quality sounds like, 99.8 attacks, 99.4 releases, and 99.5 complexity. I'd say it gels at 99.6"

My point is that it shouldn't matter whether it's early or late in the season, or what other units are present.

[Pete Freedman]

That's exactly the language I'm referring to. The judge needs to rank the units at the show, not pretend that "You have seen no other units that day, and you will see no more later." as you said.

In practice, DCI judges will tie at the subcaption level (as Jeff pointed out in the OP) but basically never tie at the caption level.

You're right that it refers to comparison, but I would say that's a reference to the process itself, which is inherently comparative. Of course the judge is giving some units a higher score than others. That's comparative.

You said the sheets require them to alter the score to avoid ties. (Which is the topic of this thread). They clearly don't mention that.

[cixelsyd]

I'm not telling you how it should or shouldn't be, I'm simply telling you how it *is*.

Way to miss the point. I don't judge DCI precisely because of this. I hate it. It drives me nuts.

I know not to assume anything when judging bands. A band strong in one area can walk into championships and completely implode. The very next band, who may have been a train wreck all season, could give you the performance of a lifetime. Heck, I've seen it many, many times over the years. You have to consider that possibility before the first band hits the field.

Sadly, they do not do this in DCI or DCA. I can understand why, but I don't...and you don't...have to like it.

So sorry for misunderstanding. I completely missed your hatred for the practice when you said the judge "did nothing even remotely wrong". My irony meter must be on the fritz.

[Kamarag]

You're right that it refers to comparison, but I would say that's a reference to the process itself, which is inherently comparative. Of course the judge is giving some units a higher score than others. That's comparative.

You said the sheets require them to alter the score to avoid ties. (Which is the topic of this thread). They clearly don't mention that.

The reason the sheets don't explicitly say it is because there are rare occasions where sub box ties have to be allowed (World Class prelims, as the chief example). Generally the chief judge will tell the panel, "Remember, no sub-box ties" before the show.

All of this discussion has been very interesting. One of the reasons Jeff and I have piqued in so much is because our circuit uses a system based on the DCI sheets. Our box structure is different (four instead of five) and so is the linear, but in the end there's not a ton of practical difference. Box integrity is paramount (until the championships show, which routinely has 25+ bands per class), and the value of a tenth is very important.

Where it gets interesting is in those circuits where they have a predefined scoring range that slides based on the week...

[Kamarag]

So sorry for misunderstanding. I completely missed your hatred for the practice when you said the judge "did nothing even remotely wrong". My irony meter must be on the fritz.

He didn't do anything wrong within the established system. That certainly didn't mean I approve or disapprove. I had to live with DCI judging for many years when I was teaching, so we got to know the realities pretty well.

[Jeff Ream]

What? Sorry, but explain to us all how any judge can "assume" that the corps who placed 4th in a caption on Friday cannot possibly advance one spot in that caption Saturday... and how that assumption would not constitute slotting (or something worse). If we "knew" such things in advance, we would not need judges. Your phrase "done their homework" sounds like the definition of slotting to me. Glad you are not judging in DCI, and hope your local band circuit gets better judge training soon.

doing homework isn't slotting. You can watch and listen and not be slotting. You can be looking for things maybe you didn't catch last time youjudged them, see safer paths through the drill.....all of that without pre-determining anything. and if you look at the numbers, he had a place to go with Crown had they gotten better. Edited August 13, 2013 by Jeff Ream

[c mor]

It seems to me the constraining factor is the language defining the "boxes"

100 points is enough to use for judging.