BRASSO Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) This seems like an incredibly semantic argument to be having. And honestly, if they told judges to minimize spreads and keep scores lower so there's more room for growth and pushes groupings together, I have no problem with this. As long as they're still ranking and rating consistently within the season, it's fine. Mike I don't know about this however, MikeN. I am of the opinion that judges should score the Corps as they see them. Period. The instruction to judges that there should be a need to keep the scores slotted to enable closeness in competition, seems to introduce a measure of artificiality into the mix to me. That'd can't be good, imo. Will the slotted scores meant to keep closer competition through much of the season, release itself into more realistic evaluations as we get to Championships ? How do Corps know if the score they receive on any given nite into the end of July is real, in terms of real separation from others around them, or is a mere artificial number to" keep the competition close " ? For context, this newly revealed info of judges being asked to slot the scores tighter to enable closer competition is on a thread about increased attendance in DCI. Garfield did state above that the fact that these instructions to the judges is leading to selling more seats is a bit unsettling. Its great that we have a season where the scores are so tight and position placements are changing... and as a result, attendance is up. It would be far better however in my view if the reasons for the unprecedented closeness of the scores did not come with judges instructions. It would be far better if they were not artificially produced. It would make me feel better if the scores were the result of mere happenstance... not judges instructions. But I've lived through changes before, so I'm sure I can get used to what appears to be artificially created scores not based upon the real separation between Corps, but rather a compelling need to" keep the slotted scores tighter to keep the competition close".. Edited July 30, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 It does make you wonder who DCP's "untouchables" are. No. I don't wonder about these things. As a matter of fact, I have no idea what this means, nor what it has to do with what we have been discussing on here. Oh well, it won't be the first time we've read something here on DCP, and it makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 Why, when the DCP poster BRASSO is in the middle of a conversation with multiple people on DCP, would he go to the trouble of identifying one of them as "the DCP poster garfield". Is there another garfield that the DCP poster BRASSO thinks other DCP posters might confuse the DCP poster garfield with? Pppfffttt Lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 I'm sorry. I meant neither to cast aspersions, nor to disperse the castes. Brahmins to the left, Vaisyas to the right! It does make you wonder who DCP's "untouchables" are. And if it's no concern of mine, or of anyone else reading this thread, why did you mention it here? But let's get back on point: OK, "outrage" was a bit of deliberate (and I thought obvious) hyperbole on my part, as indeed was the entire last sentence of my post. But what about the rest? You know, the substantive part? Garfield says "slotting" might not mean what many people think it does. I've offered a guess as to what it could really mean. Do you think I'm on the mark, or off? If my hypothesis were true, would that be less disturbing? I can't stand it. This is hilarious! Brasso, dude, two other posters here (the DCP poster MikeN and the DCP poster N.E. Brigand) have come forward in relative understanding of the concept that I was expressing. I've tried to be clear from the beginning - slotting, in the understanding of the judging community, may not always agree with the way the term is used here on DCP. MikeN is exactly correct, and it's the point that I, apparently, failed to express. Slotting is not, necessarily, placement or position, or even position based on historic performance. It also can mean the compression of spreads between the participants. Surely you see that, if spreads are closer, there is a higher probability that the corps scores will cross one another and for positions to change each week during the season. Not always, of course. The spreads between corps is what creates weekly competition. The tighter the spreads - higher or lower, doesn't matter - the tighter spreads allows the .001 scoring system to be used to the advantage of promoting the competition and drawing fans to shows for that additional excitement. Again, it's not nefarious, and so far, as it was expressed to me, it has been a huge success. If it's contributed to the excitement and sold more tickets for DCI and the corps, there's nothing really nefarious to be concerned about, is there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) . I've tried to be clear from the beginning - slotting, in the understanding of the judging community, may not always agree with the way the term is used here on DCP. Slotting has multiple definitions... some benign, some malicious... some performance order.... some, something else. I said as much above But thanks for repeating it one more time for those that perhaps did not catch me initially mentioning this very same thing above. But of course none of your parroting of what I said on these multiple definitions of the term ",slotting " has a thing at all to do with your sources in the room telling us that this season " judges have been asked to slot the scores tighter to create close competition ". So here, in clear, unambiguous terms, we have the principal reason why we have unprecedented, unusually close competition this season, up and down the World Class Division. We've heard from you what your sources told you that were in the room. And so thats that. There is no remaining residual confusion here on this on what they told you. Thus, its time to move on from this now, it would seem to me. I'm prepared to now, anyway. Edited July 31, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 I don't know about this however, MikeN. I am of the opinion that judges should score the Corps as they see them. Period. The instruction to judges that there should be a need to keep the scores slotted to enable closeness in competition, seems to introduce a measure of artificiality into the mix to me. That'd can't be good, imo. Will the slotted scores meant to keep closer competition through much of the season, release itself into more realistic evaluations as we get to Championships ? How do Corps know if the score they receive on any given nite into the end of July is real, in terms of real separation from others around them, or is a mere artificial number to" keep the competition close " ? For context, this newly revealed info of judges being asked to slot the scores tighter to enable closer competition is on a thread about increased attendance in DCI. Garfield did state above that the fact that these instructions to the judges is leading to selling more seats is a bit unsettling. Its great that we have a season where the scores are so tight and position placements are changing... and as a result, attendance is up. It would be far better however in my view if the reasons for the unprecedented closeness of the scores did not come with judges instructions. It would be far better if they were not artificially produced. It would make me feel better if the scores were the result of mere happenstance... not judges instructions. But I've lived through changes before, so I'm sure I can get used to what appears to be artificially created scores not based upon the real separation between Corps, but rather a compelling need to" keep the slotted scores tighter to keep the competition close".. I said this? I did? I thought I was OK with this concept. In fact, I'm sure I'm in favor of it because it appears to contribute to DCI selling more tickets, and is a lot more fun for me personally to see the scores and placements move throughout the season instead of being stuck and "slotted" after San Antonio. Brasso, you make the contention here that you'd like for judging to stay without influence from the judges. You mention "artificiality" and the judges being able to judge them as they see them. I wonder, based on what do you want judges to score "as they see it"? Based on what rubric, what metric, do they call it as they see it? Is it not the judging scheme created by the panel of experts that constitute the judging rules committee? It's not surprising that those who manage the judging system of our completely subjective "competition" would utilize that scoring system to benefit the activity as well as rank, rate, and reward all the corps on the same basis. I sure would, wouldn't you? If DCI's scoring system went from 0 to 10 and all corps were packed in that spread, would you also feel that compression of scores is artificial? Think of it this way: There are 100 points in the scoring system, but there are also 3 digits to the right of the decimal. There are +/- 20 WC corps. How do spread them among over such a potentially wide point spread and still keep the "competition" exciting? Compress the spreads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 Slotting has multiple definitions... some benign, some malicious... some performance order.... some, something else. I said as much above But thanks for repeating it one more time for those that perhaps did not catch me initially mentioning this very same thing above. But of course none of your parroting of what I said on these multiple definitions of the term ",slotting " has a thing at all to do with your sources in the room telling us that this season " judges have been asked to slot the scores tighter to create close competition ". So here, in clear, unambiguous terms, we have the principal reason why we have unprecedented, unusually close competition this season, up and down the World Class Division. And so thats that. And so there is no confusion here on this. Thus, its time to move on from this now, it would seem to me. I'm prepared to, anyway. Umm, it's hardly "unprecedented". Scoring a subjective activity with human beings requires periodic adjustments. Simple as that. Again, hardly nefarious or malicious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 Now, HOW ABOUT THAT ATTENDANCE, EH? There have been about 4 shows since we began this debate, so let's hear from those who attended those shows about the attendance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Brasso, you make the contention here that you'd like for judging to stay without influence from the judges. You mention "artificiality" and the judges being able to judge them as they see them. I wonder, based on what do you want judges to score "as they see it"? . I guess my preference is not as complicated as you might think. I'd prefer that judges were not asked in the first place to keep the scores tight. I think its perfectly fine for judges to receive instruction on the criteria to be utilized in their judging, and a fleshing out of the subcaptions with the judges so its clear what the criteria is. But asking the judges to slot the scores tighter to keep the competition close ? No, I'm not in favor of such requests. That seems like an out of order request to me. Its a request that should never be made in the first place in my opinion. Thats my opinion. Others here are entitled to disagree with it. Thats fine. But you asked my opinion, and so there it is. And so now, hopefully we move on, as this thread is primarily about the attendance increases, and the reasons put forth for it, and you gave your reasons for it above ( and one of the reasons for the attendance increase you cited above were these requests to the judges to slot the scores tighter this summer.) Edited July 31, 2015 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 If Arthur's new palace isn't willing to continue to host the event, I'd like to see it go to Bobby Dodd or maybe even see if they could do it at Sanford Stadium in Athens. I can hear Keith Jackson now... "Drum corps between the hedges!!!" 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.