garfield Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Great comments from you, dyslexic! Certainly things to think about. I hope you actually get some answers to your questions. I just now, this very second, figured out what cixelsyd means. Thanks, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 I just now, this very second, figured out what cixelsyd means. Thanks, I think. You're welcome. I just figured it out today too after being bored and looking at his screen name. Almost a palindrome if you're cixelsyd and your brain works differently than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 You're welcome. I just figured it out today too after being bored and looking at his screen name. Almost a palindrome if you're cixelsyd and your brain works differently than others. And here all this time I thought it was Martian for "Goooooo TROOOOOOP!!!". Silly me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 And here all this time I thought it was Martian for "Goooooo TROOOOOOP!!!". Silly me. Can't it be both? Goooooooo TROOOOP! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 5% of a score can change things drastically...even it were .05..that can change everything... That is impossible. 5% of the score can only change 5 points worth. The way you rant that even 0.05 can change "everything" sounds hysterical. If "everything" to a corps revolves around 0.05 in one show, their perspective and priorities are seriously out of whack. (Most of what I hear from people currently involved in the activity indicates a healthier perspective than that, fortunately.) 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 I have some thoughts on "consistency" that I will go into later. Firstly, there are no audiences that are all Madison fans, or all (name any corps) fans. Crowds are a mix of fans of different corps, fans of all corps, and spectators who are not as rabid followers of the activity. Just as a louder crowd response overstates one aspect of audience engagement vs. the others, a louder response to the home corps overstates the presence of home fans vs. general fans and fans of other corps. Regardless, the manner in which fan input is taken can be set up to dilute the effect of home advantage that concerns you so much. Maybe you are imagining a simple vote where fans pick just one corps, and hometown fans would disproportionately pick the home corps. Take the typical seven-corps show. There, Madison fans would be giving Madison 1, Blue Devils 0, anyone else 0 as well. That would be pointless. If instead, we ask fans to rank all the corps, then that one fan ballot becomes Madison 7, Blue Devils 6, other corps 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. At that point, even if a number of Madison fans do as you fear and vote their corps first no matter what, their votes are far less likely to move the corps into a different placement from where the rest of the fan voters rank them. 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...................... Are you saying that the judges of that day, several of whom still serve as highly respected judges in DCI today, were judging randomly and using the tick system as an "excuse" for it? Not buying it. Also not seeing this 1st one night, 5th the next trend you claim. You might be able to show that scores in the 1970s, for example, showed more variability than today. But how do we know that corps were not more variable in their performance from day to day back then, and the results simply reflect that? 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.. No - you are making mine. There is not much accountability. You have not provided a single example of accountability as applied to DCI judges. It took another poster to provide two examples where judges were so incompetent that they could not begin to explain their marks against the criteria on their sheets. For all the rest, if they can do that much, there is no further accountability. 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 As far as "meeting in the middle", I think that would require a complete change in attitude regarding "consistency". There was a lot of fuss about "consistency" back then from people in the instructional community. Corps wanted to see their score go up every time their show improved. Never mind that different judges are evaluating them on different days. Never mind that they must rank first, then rate. Never mind that, as we all know, you cannot compare scores from different shows. And never mind that in the 35-show tour of today, you are expecting multiple judges to allocate the typical 50 scoring increments your corps climbs through over the course of the season in a way that ensures they steadily ascend with each incremental improvement. For over 30 years, corps staffs have made this obsession with consistency their priority with the judging community. And look what it got us. Scores so "consistent" now that they fail to respond to the performance of the day. Judges using recaps as required reading, and carrying yellow slips of paper to keep track of the recent scores they are expected to increment. And a growing divergence between judges and fans as to what is generally effective. I think we could use a little less "consistency". Now, how to get it? The consistency we have now is the result of a very small pool of judges, trained and conditioned to provide just that. We need a larger, more diverse pool of adjudicators. A fan voting component in the scoring system is one way to provide that. There are others. We could simply recruit and train more judges in the current system. The most practical manner would be to look to related marching arts, where there are many other competent judges already practicing their craft. Maybe that would be your idea of "meeting in the middle". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) ok so if youre saying that I AM SAYING the G7 PUT more butts in seats...Which I didnt say You did say this: SO theres the answer...people ARE there to see the upper corps... Is that not what you meant? but anyway and who do YOU think are putting butts in seats? (Edit: forgot to answer this) I think DCI, their corps, the TEPs and others (even you and I) are all contributing to putting butts in seats. and all you do is argue why SPECTATORS should judge but never address all the reasons i give you why I think it would be a a horrible idea....other than a vote with NO points attached. what would it prove? whos the better corps?...hardly whos a fan fav?....ok so....and no it wouldnt just who happens to be in the stands that night. that people would get what they are exactly judging ( criteria ) without bias?...haha..yeah ok empowerment?...ok...falsely but yes it could do that i suppose please explain...im very ready to listen...as well as others im sure If you were willing to listen, then you would have already gleaned the following from my previous posts: - I do not necessarily want fans to judge... but I do want a wider judging pool for sure. - There is no "better corps". Judging is subjective, so all we have are opinions on who the "better corps" is. The only time we can speak about "the better corps" is when our opinions are in consensus. - With opinions, we might also have bias. That is true of both fans and judges. As for the "fan favorite"... maybe I did not explain this previously. I have no interest in even discussing the possibility of surveying fans not in attendance at an event, and including their favoritism in the scoring system. The opinions of the people who paid admission to that event, however, have a certain value that is worth discussing. Edited March 18, 2014 by cixelsyd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) You did say this: Is that not what you meant? (Edit: forgot to answer this) I think DCI, their corps, the TEPs and others (even you and I) are all contributing to putting butts in seats. If you were willing to listen, then you would have already gleaned the following from my previous posts: - I do not necessarily want fans to judge... but I do want a wider judging pool for sure. - There is no "better corps". Judging is subjective, so all we have are opinions on who the "better corps" is. The only time we can speak about "the better corps" is when our opinions are in consensus. - With opinions, we might also have bias. That is true of both fans and judges. As for the "fan favorite"... maybe I did not explain this previously. I have no interest in even discussing the possibility of surveying fans not in attendance at an event, and including their favoritism in the scoring system. The opinions of the people who paid admission to that event, however, have a certain value that is worth discussing. ok then we agree somewhat..as far as better corps? maybe thats a term some people dont like BUT IMO in life there are things " better or things done better than other things " everything isnt equal although many now a days want them to be ( subjective? ) maybe but lets face it some are better at their jobs than others, there are better tv shows or movies than others, etc etc..subjective? sure to a degree but you have to admit although everything has some value, there are some stinkers out there in every walk of life. Its probably why IMO Im against some HS circuits that everyone gets a trophy to take home,,,what does that teach.....not much as I said IMO Edited March 18, 2014 by GUARDLING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.c5835d2fff8aa6a4dd9650e16024ffd3.jpeg)
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.