HornTeacher Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 'Perfect is a simple concept in DC....it's relative. Just like, on most days you are OOk, but at a moment in time we may see you as perfect.....you're still OOk..... but for THAT moment....you are superOOk (among all the other OOk's)! There, for but one minor word change, lies the secret inspiration the BK's 2014 program. It was all about OOk !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bannedforlife Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Yeah...he was a lawyer and stole about 500-600K from his client trust account. Went into prison sometime last year, I think. d######. Wait WHAT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tad_MMA Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Yeah...he was a lawyer and stole about 500-600K from his client trust account. Went into prison sometime last year, I think. d######. So his talent as an embezzler rivals that of his horn playing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 No. I think you completely misunderstand how the judging and scoring system works. The high scores were there because the judges needed to indicate the high SPREAD between BD and the corps below them. They aren't perfect visually and everyone knows that. It just so happens that a 20 is the roof. And we should never hit that roof. i'm a numbers management hawk, and I have no issues with those numbers But that is precisely the problem here - numbers management. There is no compelling reason why scores need to be so ludicrously high that it begins to interfere with the primary tasks of judging - ranking and rating. Ideally, no one should EVER be getting a 20.0, as it calls into question whether or not the judge had room to award the intended spread. For all of you asking "why does it matter?"... in 2008, Lee Carlson gave Blue Devils a 20.0 in GE visual. What if he really thought BD deserved another tenth or two in spread, but could not award it because he ran out of room? Could Blue Devils have lost that title because of a numbers management problem? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxingfred Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 Congrats to The Blue Devils! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Don-O Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 And we should never hit that roof. But that is precisely the problem here - numbers management. There is no compelling reason why scores need to be so ludicrously high that it begins to interfere with the primary tasks of judging - ranking and rating. Ideally, no one should EVER be getting a 20.0, as it calls into question whether or not the judge had room to award the intended spread. For all of you asking "why does it matter?"... in 2008, Lee Carlson gave Blue Devils a 20.0 in GE visual. What if he really thought BD deserved another tenth or two in spread, but could not award it because he ran out of room? Could Blue Devils have lost that title because of a numbers management problem? I see the point you're trying to make here, but there's no solution with the current scoring system. A judge could award lower scores to the lower ranked corps, thus leaving enough room to always have enough buffer at the top for any spread in achievement, but that puts a large constraint on them when they want to award the improvements made week-to-week by those lower level corps. The only other solution would be to remove any upper limit in scoring. I don't find either of those options very appealing. Personally I'm more of a fan of not discouraging ties in a caption. I think judges are under a lot of pressure to avoid ties, thus inflating the top numbers. If you score corps A an 18.90 and you feel corps B is their equal there's a lot of pressure to make a judgement call and either give them an 18.80 or a 19.00. If there's already a corps with 18.80 then the pressure is to give corps B that 19.00. They could preserve a little room at the top if equal performances were given equal scores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornTeacher Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 And pity the poor band competition judges where appearance orders are determined by blind draw each year...not by pre-determined "qualification scores." You might have a class of 12 or 13 groups...and the ultimate "best" group appears first. You don't think that's a mess??..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) And we should never hit that roof. But that is precisely the problem here - numbers management. There is no compelling reason why scores need to be so ludicrously high that it begins to interfere with the primary tasks of judging - ranking and rating. Ideally, no one should EVER be getting a 20.0, as it calls into question whether or not the judge had room to award the intended spread. For all of you asking "why does it matter?"... in 2008, Lee Carlson gave Blue Devils a 20.0 in GE visual. What if he really thought BD deserved another tenth or two in spread, but could not award it because he ran out of room? Could Blue Devils have lost that title because of a numbers management problem? good points BUT a way to make sure there are more points at the top as you work through corps is to lower the bottom points....maybe bottom scores are way to high in reality, which also means early scores in june may be to high for some. Imagine that though a 8th -13th place corps starting the year with a 50...I know numbers are just numbers and its all relative BUT..If an 8th place corps deserves a high score, so be it BUT if they dont then the bottom number shouldnt have a bottom line then..scary..lol Edited August 11, 2014 by GUARDLING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) And pity the poor band competition judges where appearance orders are determined by blind draw each year...not by pre-determined "qualification scores." You might have a class of 12 or 13 groups...and the ultimate "best" group appears first. You don't think that's a mess??..... With 12 or 13, presumably all first-reads, it is indeed challenging, but not impossible. Jeff Ream and I judge in a very large circuit where there are between 25-35 bands in each class for championships (most of whom can be first-reads). That would be the ultimate nightmare except for the fact that the bands are seeded into performance order based on the bands' scores from the final week of the regular season. It's still not without it's challenges, but it's not impossible. We have no choice but to use sub-box ties (at championships only), and it's not unreasonable to allow bottom-line ties to a point. I personally wouldn't bottom-line tie anything in the top ten or so. Different circuits have different rules. Having a prelims/finals format certainly helps (our circuit does not). The argument about allowing ties is a long one. In a small DCI show (like a non-regional), there's really no reason for a judge to have a sub-box tie, and never a bottom-line tie. At a regional, sub-box ties shouldn't be an issue, but again...no bottom line ties. It's the judges' job to make that call. Edited August 11, 2014 by Kamarag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) Deleted double post. Edited August 11, 2014 by Kamarag 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.