2015 Predictions

[THeShadeOfNight]

.001.and that is to say I have ONLY seen a quarter of their show announcement "The...".

So I cannot say I would have them in the top slot at this point because I have no idea what they're doing.

Put that to 0% since "Kinetic Noise" has a sum total of zero "the"s in it.

[tesmusic]

Can predictions just be fun without the need to get into any hair-splitting conversations?

Not on DCP

[THeShadeOfNight]

Not on DCP

[ranintothedoor]

hey! is this from sonic the hedgehog animated series???

i used to love that show!

[N.E. Brigand]

Can predictions just be fun without the need to get into any hair-splitting conversations?

Well, splitting hairs may be fun for some people.

(And others may not see themselves as doing so.)

[xandandl]

Well, splitting hairs may be fun for some people.

(And others may not see themselves as doing so.)

might explain the baldness of some posters.

[Cappybara]

First of all, I do understand how the judging system works. I understand that a judge gives a score based on comparing them to others.

1st corps to go on the field might get 8.5 in brass. Next corps goes on, if they are x amount better, will get 8.5 + x and so on and so forth.

What my problem is, is that what does 8.5 actually mean? It means nothing in particular. Sure they might go by the judging sheets, but aside from that, 8.0 to 8.9 could all be the same.

You also state your premise that "its impossible to determine which is 'better'". And you go on to mention multiple judges scoring differently in the same caption.

First of all, it is not impossible to decide which is better. "Better" is clear-cut obvious. Your brass misses more notes than the last, you're not better. Your tone is worse, slightly less in-tune, someone holds a note over, you drop more flags, your flags aren't as in tandem, a box formation is off by so many steps, someone's feet get slightly out of step, etc etc etc. Is it judged like that? Mostly no, it isn't. If it were, it would be easier for judges to score objectively.

5 different judges on the same caption on the same corps on the same night all giving different scores? In any other kind of event in the world, that wouldn't happen except in the Olympics. Both happen to be non-profit, btw. I'd bet that if DCI were a for-profit venture, we wouldn't be seeing this kind of insane judging system. (Ok, we probably wouldn't have DCI at all if that were the case, but still to make my point.)

I would like to see a computer system devised that would be able to judge cleanliness of drill, feet, guard, certain aspects of brass and percussion. Assume the computer is perfectly able to do its job.

It would be able to see a curve, a box, a line, and calculate how far off from perfect that formation is, whether moving or not. In fact, it would be able to "see" the entire program, start to finish, and calculate a score based on 0-100 how far or close to perfect their performance was.

This way, the computer won't take the 1st corps to perform, give them an arbitrary score, then try to place everyone else after them.

Because of the system in place now, this is how a judge has to think:

"Well I gave the first corps an 8.6 in brass, and this next corps was a little better, so I'll give them.....hmmm....I'll just give them an 8.8 just in case the next one is worse than this one, but better than the first one. Hmm...if I keep doing this I might run out of room at the top...better go and change the first one to an 8.5. Oops, can't do that. I'll just give this corps an 8.6 and hope the next corps isn't inbetween the two - and if they are, I'll just decide who they tie with. Oh, and look at this next corps! Their brass is a lot better than the last one - should I give them a 9.4? 9.5? I don't know...if I give them too high, then I'll end up giving 3 corps a 20. Can't do that! Better just give this corps a 9.1 and hope nobody complains enough that I get in trouble." After the night is over "Hmm...I should have given that corps a 9.5 after all. Oh well!"

The scores literally do not mean anything in particular. They are just a means of trying to organize a ranking with numbers that the fans like.

This is also why they refuse to draw the order of performance at complete random. Groups of 3's are risky but judges can normally work with it. But at complete random, no way. This is also why at Finals weekend they have a lot more judges - not to get the scores right, or to limit bias, but to limit complaints - they just hope that having more judges will end up "averaging" the scores enough so that the amount of complaints by the fans and corps are limited. It's quality control. That's all it is.

They could improve the scoring system if they wanted, but they would rather just make it more and more subjective so that people will have less of a legitimate complaint. Smoke and mirrors.

Did the Blue Devils really have a performance that was 99.65% accurate? No, of course not. In reality it may have only been 89.65% accurate on average from all captions. Does that mean I think the 1st place corps should get an 89.65 ? No, and I wouldn't really have a beef if they called an 89.65 a 99.65 - as long as it's equal and accurate across the board.

I also understand that judging a corps performance is a difficult task, and they probably aren't paid as much as they deserve - but the entire approach to the judging system needs to be seriously looked at. There's no reason why scores need to be based on comparison, at least for the more objective-based captions.

So what you're asking for is the tick system. You could've easily just said that in a couple sentences without convoluting it as much as possible.

Thank goodness we don't use the tick system anymore. I don't think we'd be getting "Power of X" from the Cadets this year if the tick system was still used.

[xandandl]

So what you're asking for is the tick system. You could've easily just said that in a couple sentences without convoluting it as much as possible.

Thank goodness we don't use the tick system anymore. I don't think we'd be getting "Power of X" from the Cadets this year if the tick system was still used.

and why not?

Explain yourself rather than just throwing Molotov cocktails and slinking away?

Edited June 3, 2015 by xandandl

[Kamarag]

So what you're asking for is the tick system. You could've easily just said that in a couple sentences without convoluting it as much as possible.

Thank goodness we don't use the tick system anymore. I don't think we'd be getting "Power of X" from the Cadets this year if the tick system was still used.

He says in the first sentence that he understands the judging system. The twelve paragraphs that follow clearly indicate that he doesn't. Given the number of times over the last few years that it's been explained, in detail, it's clear the old adage applies: "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink."

The only thing BoyWonder1911 understands about the current system is that he doesn't like it. That's totally fine. Heck, there's things about it I don't like either. But he shouldn't claim he understands it when there's a posting history that shows he doesn't.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Kamarag

[N.E. Brigand]

First of all, it is not impossible to decide which is better. "Better" is clear-cut obvious. Your brass misses more notes than the last corps, you're not better. Your tone is worse, slightly less in-tune, someone holds a note over, you drop more flags, your flags aren't as in tandem, a box formation is off by so many steps, someone's feet get slightly out of step, etc etc etc. Is it judged like that? Mostly no, it isn't. If it were, it would be easier for judges to score objectively.

[...]

I would like to see a computer system devised that would be able to judge cleanliness of drill, feet, guard, certain aspects of brass and percussion. Assume the computer is perfectly able to do its job.

"Better" is subjective. Your very example undercuts itself. Take just brass as an example, and this perfectly reasonable scenario: Corps A misses three notes while Corps B misses four notes. But Corps B has slightly better tone quality. But Corps A plays more difficult music. But Corps B plays more brass music (fewer percussion breaks). And so on and so on. Somebody has to tell the computer how to rank all those elements.

Add to that the fact that standards are always changing as one point of view wins out over another. I remember seeing some PBS broadcast in which an older professional French horn player performed a bit of Richard Strauss's tone poem, Til Elenspiegel's Merry Pranks. That, he said, was how the part was played when he joined the orchestra (I don't remember which ensemble, but it was an important orchestra, like Chicago). Now, he said, if you performed it like that in audition, you'd never be hired, because the modern expectation was ... and he then played it in a completely different way.

What's more, while some cases may be clearer than others to most listeners, even something as supposedly obvious as a missed note may not always be what it seems. Maybe that "missed" note was a deliberate choice meant to surprise the listener. A computer, like a human judge, will have to make a decision about such cases.

Finally, even if everybody agrees to every last detail--every twenty seconds of additional playing time is worth one missed note, and you have to provide the computer with a musical score from which you may not deviate during the performance, etc.--whatever the standard is will favor some corps over others. Which is true now, too, of course.

And just as is the case now, some of the audience is going to disagree with the very standards. The point is: you can't escape subjectivity.