Change to Judging

[Jeff Ream]

stop baiting Stuie......noone said they were idiots

well, not all of them

[cixelsyd]

Fixed that for ya'. Perspective is important in that discussion.

Oh, and I wish you'd restate this a little clearer. There's a good point in there, I think, but I can't make it out.

Okay - there were several points mixed together. Which one you want clarified?

a. People who believe the theory that G7 corps put more butts in seats (like Guardling) ought to be in favor of fan judging, as it would provide some proof of their theory. Conversely, if those people rage in opposition, maybe it is because they know fan judging would disprove their theory.

b. Since Guardling brought up money - what better way to grow the financial pie than to establish a better connection with the customer base?

[cixelsyd]

you dont leave random placement based or who happens to be in the stands on a given night....tell the kid who was better ( which you dont respond to ) that mommy and daddy..or a pack of maybe my older friends or some band moms ( pick your choice ) showed up , so thats they the other corps won...not because they were better. there's much more at stake for alot of people, than to leave things up to chance.......................

Please explain what exactly is "at stake". Take as an example, a mid-season contest in Wichita, Kansas. How do the results of that contest affect money to the corps? Is there any reason we should expect the audience to be made up of mostly parents or friends of the marchers?

if Im not getting what youre saying ,, please explain and I appologise

Apparently, you are not getting that we are talking about fan voting being 5% of the score... not 100%.

[cixelsyd]

discussion doesnt mean fact at all....I agree some new blood is needed .....is it random? ..i dont think so BUT at least they are heald to some sort of criteria..

But every time we try to fix this "entertainment" issue, we are told that you cannot define criteria for what is "entertaining". That is paradoxical.

If this was any other facet of the evaluation, then sure, qualified and trained judges are warranted. But we are talking about "general effect" and "entertainment" - aspects which we all admit have frequently eluded the system.

and if they suggest anything to a corps then seen again there are ways to hold people accountable..if not to them to a caption head....

Please explain how judges are held accountable in DCI, because I honestly do not know what you are referring to here.

Give examples, because I am not aware of any.

And what is the role of the caption head in providing accountability?

[perc2100]

But every time we try to fix this "entertainment" issue, we are told that you cannot define criteria for what is "entertaining". That is paradoxical.

If this was any other facet of the evaluation, then sure, qualified and trained judges are warranted. But we are talking about "general effect" and "entertainment" - aspects which we all admit have frequently eluded the system.

Please explain how judges are held accountable in DCI, because I honestly do not know what you are referring to here.

Give examples, because I am not aware of any.

And what is the role of the caption head in providing accountability?

1) using the word "entertaining" on its own is paradoxical, and difficult to quantify. Using criteria to DEFINE "entertaining," and then evaluating how groups achieve said criteria would not be so difficult.

The problem, IMO, is that too many fans get hung up on the use of "entertaining" or "audience engagement" verbiage in the criteria or sheets, when that descriptor is but one of several other criteria on the GE sheets. Effect is a HUGE component, one likely more dense than the other captions, and trying to whittle it down to "entertainment" would be difficult due to the subjectivity of philosophical talks of "what is entertaining?"

2) I don't think "general effect" or even "entertainment" have eluded "the system." I think they have eluded some audience members who don't understand the explicit criteria of the general effect sheets. The judges, and the corps designs/staff/directors certainly have a really good understanding of "general effect" as it pertains to ranking/rating. They may disagree, as there will always be inherent bias, but I think there is plenty of understanding of "general effect" within the activity. Maybe not so much by fans, but def. by the people who most need to understand it.

3) Judges are held accountable in DCI. If there are legit complaints about a judge wrongly applying sheets/having a poor understanding of their caption, if a judge's tapes are unclear consistently, if a judge has poor numbers management on a regular basis, etc. that judge won't get called to work, or will have assignments canceled. I can't name specific example, due to me not wanting to call out specific judges, but I know of at least two instances where this happened.

In one case it as a music caption judge who was inconsistent with both their comments & rankings/ratings from night-to-night (i.e. he sees the same corps three shows in a row and his comments & numbers are all over the place). The judge's numbers & comments had a perception of being "wishy washy," as in he would rank corps, go into critique and hear it from staff he upset, and then the next night it would appear he easily caved to said staff and through numbers/placements all over the place (with inconsistent tapes in particular regards to design elements that didn't change at all any of the nights). Corps directors complained to DCI's Caption Head at that time, that Head Judge reviewed the tapes, talked to everyone involved, and came to the conclusion that at the very least the situation did not look good and in the interest of transparency and fair play that judge lost several assignments and did not judge DCI again after that season.

Similar happened to another judge, where DCI assigned the judge a caption he was not comfortable in judging. He voiced his concerns to DCI and DCI 'forced' him to judge. That judge made quite the mess (some think on purpose, to prove his point), and after two nights with that assignment it was clear that judge was not competent to judge that caption (funky note: one of those nights was during World Championships week), and he was pulled from that caption for future shows. I haven't kept track of that judge to see how much they judged for years afterwards, but for at least a season or two after he had minimal assignments, none of which were in that particular caption.

[BigW]

1) using the word "entertaining" on its own is paradoxical, and difficult to quantify. Using criteria to DEFINE "entertaining," and then evaluating how groups achieve said criteria would not be so difficult.

The problem, IMO, is that too many fans get hung up on the use of "entertaining" or "audience engagement" verbiage in the criteria or sheets, when that descriptor is but one of several other criteria on the GE sheets. Effect is a HUGE component, one likely more dense than the other captions, and trying to whittle it down to "entertainment" would be difficult due to the subjectivity of philosophical talks of "what is entertaining?"

BINGO. This had been a battle for decades in DCA with two well-defined factions. One defined "entertainment" as their particular brand of show concept and making the audience scream and stand, the other said- "...hold on a minute- can't one be 'entertained' or emotionally moved by many different types of emotional content as well as other elements? Does it only have to be exciting on one way only to "entertain?" Also, ..."just because people aren't screaming and it can't be measured on a db meter, maybe our ballad is giving them a deep emotional reaction anyway?"

To me, this whole argument sounds like the same battle. Yet some of the people fighting for the banner of the first faction also gripe that the shows are too alike, and I can tell you the proponents of that definition of entertainment really felt they were the only valid and correct way to do the activity.

[cixelsyd]

1) using the word "entertaining" on its own is paradoxical, and difficult to quantify. Using criteria to DEFINE "entertaining," and then evaluating how groups achieve said criteria would not be so difficult.

The problem, IMO, is that too many fans get hung up on the use of "entertaining" or "audience engagement" verbiage in the criteria or sheets, when that descriptor is but one of several other criteria on the GE sheets. Effect is a HUGE component, one likely more dense than the other captions, and trying to whittle it down to "entertainment" would be difficult due to the subjectivity of philosophical talks of "what is entertaining?"

Again, it is also people within DCI who are hung up on using terms like "entertainment". They are proposing and developing the 37th set of changes to the judging system in pursuit of that objective.

2) I don't think "general effect" or even "entertainment" have eluded "the system." I think they have eluded some audience members who don't understand the explicit criteria of the general effect sheets. The judges, and the corps designs/staff/directors certainly have a really good understanding of "general effect" as it pertains to ranking/rating. They may disagree, as there will always be inherent bias, but I think there is plenty of understanding of "general effect" within the activity. Maybe not so much by fans, but def. by the people who most need to understand it.

I would contend that "effect" that is not understood by fans is not so effective after all.

Let me also clarify - I did not say that GE or entertainment have eluded the system entirely. However, there have been too many occasions where the corps everyone inside/outside of the system is talking about afterward as the standout "effect" show of the night turned up on the recap with effect results mirroring those of the performance captions.

3) Judges are held accountable in DCI. If there are legit complaints about a judge wrongly applying sheets/having a poor understanding of their caption, if a judge's tapes are unclear consistently, if a judge has poor numbers management on a regular basis, etc. that judge won't get called to work, or will have assignments canceled. I can't name specific example, due to me not wanting to call out specific judges, but I know of at least two instances where this happened.

In one case it as a music caption judge who was inconsistent with both their comments & rankings/ratings from night-to-night (i.e. he sees the same corps three shows in a row and his comments & numbers are all over the place). The judge's numbers & comments had a perception of being "wishy washy," as in he would rank corps, go into critique and hear it from staff he upset, and then the next night it would appear he easily caved to said staff and through numbers/placements all over the place (with inconsistent tapes in particular regards to design elements that didn't change at all any of the nights). Corps directors complained to DCI's Caption Head at that time, that Head Judge reviewed the tapes, talked to everyone involved, and came to the conclusion that at the very least the situation did not look good and in the interest of transparency and fair play that judge lost several assignments and did not judge DCI again after that season.

Similar happened to another judge, where DCI assigned the judge a caption he was not comfortable in judging. He voiced his concerns to DCI and DCI 'forced' him to judge. That judge made quite the mess (some think on purpose, to prove his point), and after two nights with that assignment it was clear that judge was not competent to judge that caption (funky note: one of those nights was during World Championships week), and he was pulled from that caption for future shows. I haven't kept track of that judge to see how much they judged for years afterwards, but for at least a season or two after he had minimal assignments, none of which were in that particular caption.

Well, thanks for the insight, but my question was addressed to Guardling, and I would still like to hear his/her answer.

[MikeD]

I would contend that "effect" that is not understood by fans is not so effective after all.

Let me also clarify - I did not say that GE or entertainment have eluded the system entirely. However, there have been too many occasions where the corps everyone inside/outside of the system is talking about afterward as the standout "effect" show of the night turned up on the recap with effect results mirroring those of the performance captions.

Just because some people, be they inside or outside the system, think something has "standout" effect doesn't make it so ($1 to Capt Picard).

My own guess is that a lot of the time the people you are talking about are confusing "personal visceral reaction" with "effect".

[GUARDLING]

Please explain what exactly is "at stake". Take as an example, a mid-season contest in Wichita, Kansas. How do the results of that contest affect money to the corps? Is there any reason we should expect the audience to be made up of mostly parents or friends of the marchers?

Apparently, you are not getting that we are talking about fan voting being 5% of the score... not 100%.

5% of a score can change things drastically...even it were .05..that can change everything...you can have a corps 1 night somewhere that are madison fans and their vote is off the charts then the very next night when all the madison fans arent there all of a sudden they arent close ..how does that help in being consistent with the people who are performing, teaching etc etc... We got away from random judging with the tic system when judges only excuse for doing something was " I called it like I saw it " man did that suck and if you look back at scores from that time corps were 1st one night and 5th the next and everything in between...now there are many here who THINK that was exciting competition..oh yeah sure....guessing every night...and knowing how to work off the feedback...yeah it was a hot mess......................as far as accountability...( trying to put it in one post..lol..sorry ) one can contact a caption head and discuss issues if need be...one create a dialog if need be...granted not everyone gets the same attention ( which is wrong ) BUT it is a way at least....is it less than before? maybe, should there be more? probably.................dont know if Im making my point..hope so..I totally get why you think it could be a good thing, Ive look at it from your point..now try to ,look from this point...maybe theres not meeting in the middle other than a fan vote ( like WGI at championships ) which is posted on the web site After but has nothing to do or influence any outcomes

[perc2100]

BINGO. This had been a battle for decades in DCA with two well-defined factions. One defined "entertainment" as their particular brand of show concept and making the audience scream and stand, the other said- "...hold on a minute- can't one be 'entertained' or emotionally moved by many different types of emotional content as well as other elements? Does it only have to be exciting on one way only to "entertain?" Also, ..."just because people aren't screaming and it can't be measured on a db meter, maybe our ballad is giving them a deep emotional reaction anyway?"

To me, this whole argument sounds like the same battle. Yet some of the people fighting for the banner of the first faction also gripe that the shows are too alike, and I can tell you the proponents of that definition of entertainment really felt they were the only valid and correct way to do the activity.

Exactly. As an über movie fan, I often like to think of drum corps in context of the film world. In this context of "entertaining," there are a myriad of ways a movie can entertain. "12 YEARS A SLAVE" was entertaining in engaging to me in maybe the polar opposite way as "GRAVITY" is: I loved both movies almost equally, but they are so different from each other in content, delivery, style, etc (the organic cinematography of 12 YEARS A SLAVE is almost the polar opposite of the almost 100% CGI cinematography of GRAVITY).

Drum corps is the same way, which is why I can love a show like Star 1993 and Madison 1995 the same amounts, but for completely different reasons & ways. The BD Dada show is so fascinating from a philosophical & construction standpoint (plus amazing performance) that is 100% engaging and entertaining to me. The Crown Roch Star show is so much fun, and analyzing how Crown's designers mashed up pop-rock music with classical piano literature, as well as the visual juxtaposition of the two styles, is entertaining in different was as Dada.

I think some fans can get caught up in the "I don't necessarily like show X as much as show Y, so therefor show X is not as entertaining as show Y" which isn't precisely, or at least necessarily, correct, for the same was that saying, "I cheered and laughed more watching AVENGERS than I did while watching ANTICHRIST, so there fore AVENGERS is more entertaining or engaging" isn't necessarily correct (no, I did not cheer at all during ANTICHRIST, and probably cringed several times).