Equal Advantage Scoring

[Fred Windish]

With thanks to Kamarag who used the term initially, and to Jeff Ream, who I assume referred to the same in his post, I'd like to know more about this method of DCA judging. Maybe a stand-alone topic that will be of interest to many.

My assumption is, this device was created to make order of performance irrelevant, so that a corps performing first of seven corps, as with the Scranton event is not confined to a moderate number that intentionally allowed room for what could come after. Sounds like a good idea. I just have a few questions how that works in practice. I'll use Scranton for my example in asking for help.

1. Do the judges actually submit a verbal tape evaluation, plus a written down score that is subject to change a little later?

In other words, if the voice on tape concludes by saying "Nicely done, I see many things improved since I last saw you. Tonight's score is 9.1. If so, how is lowering that score later to an 8.6, or raising it to a 9.6 accomplished?

2. With this method, would it have been possible for the Skyliners (who performed first) to have scored a 9.9 in any caption, only to have that number reduced later, rather than forced to give the next 6 corps all a 10.0?

In other words, can an "Oops" like that be corrected, even though the Skyliners really did conquer that caption?

3. Is it fair to assume, judges really DO enter the task of scoring with a preconceived notion of rank first?

In other words, based upon what they expect going in, there is NO way the Skyliners start this all off with anything beginning with the number 9?

____________

I inquire about this judging concept with utmost respect. I do need an education here. Please help me out.

Unbeknown to many American citizens is the practice in our Congress and Senate wherein votes are cast, and then allowed to be changed a few minutes later. Thus, certain elected officials can go back home and claim to have voted whichever way benefits their career most. I don't like that practice. Tell me DCA has more purity than Congress, although that's not too difficult to achieve!

Edited August 17, 2015 by Fred Windish

[BigW]

With thanks to Kamarag who used the term initially, and to Jeff Ream, who I assume referred to the same in his post, I'd like to know more about this method of DCA judging. Maybe a stand-alone topic that will be of interest to many.

My assumption is, this device was created to make order of performance irrelevant, so that a corps performing first of seven corps, as with the Scranton event is not confined to a moderate number that intentionally allowed room for what could come after. Sounds like a good idea. I just have a few questions how that works in practice. I'll use Scranton for my example in asking for help.

1. Do the judges actually submit a verbal tape evaluation, plus a written down score that is subject to change a little later?

In other words, if the voice on tape concludes by saying "Nicely done, I see many things improved since I last saw you. Tonight's score is 9.1. If so, how is lowering that score later to an 8.6, or raising it to a 9.6 accomplished?

2. With this method, would it have been possible for the Skyliners (who performed first) to have scored a 9.9 in any caption, only to have that number reduced later, rather than forced to give the next 6 corps all a 10.0?

In other words, can an "Oops" like that be corrected, even though the Skyliners really did conquer that caption?

3. Is it fair to assume, judges really DO enter the task of scoring with a preconceived notion of rank first?

In other words, based upon what they expect going in, there is NO way the Skyliners start this all off with anything beginning with the number 9?

____________

I inquire about this judging concept with utmost respect. I do need an education here. Please help me out.

Unbeknown to many American citizens is the practice in our Congress and Senate wherein votes are cast, and then allowed to be changed a few minutes later. Thus, certain elected officials can go back home and claim to have voted whichever way benefits their career most. I don't like that practice. Tell me DCA has more purity than Congress, although that's not too difficult to achieve!

1: I'd hope DCA has gone digital with recording by now. I don't know what method they use to do so, there are three methods I'm aware of as to how it's accomplished, DCI's, ToB, and Cavalcade's. All three are quite different. Raw numerical scores aren't mentioned on the sound file. I think the last time I ever heard an actual number mentioned on a recording was during the tick era/very early 80's. There, well you add up the ticks, etc. Totally different. Now, if the adjudicator does their job, what they say and the language they use at certain points should lead the listener to a good idea of the range where the number should be. Just to throw out examples, I haven't seen a recent DCA sheet to see verbage... Basic? Knows? Understands? Fair? Good? Excellent? Outta da park Awesome?

The adjudicator has at least one worksheet on their clipboard or in their briefcase depending on the individual's preferences. Some individuals like having things laid out in a different graphic and layout so they have a better sense of their score relationships and record-keeping. The worksheet is just that. A place where an adjudicator can lay numbers down and make sure they accurately reflect what they've seen during that performance, and can erase, change, agonize over the call sometimes. No one else sees the worksheet. Now- keep in mind one thing. Without EAS, you have a clock ticking on you. You need to get that number down/entered digitally and get it correct in a couple of minutes (Maybe less!) because the show moves on, and you don't have a chance to revisit your decision. When they ask "Are the Judges ready?" I've seen situations where they are clearly NOT, and people just keep moving through the show. Not good. It's pretty much an unwritten rule you'd better BE ready when they ask because of that unless there's some kind of malfunction with the recording device.... There are times you realize later, maybe you should have given or taken a tenth, maybe 2... off or on something to get the relationships correct. And then, you internally beat on yourself.

With EAS- You can revisit the number and correct it to more accurately get how you view the relationships between the teams.

For example, at Scranton- yeah- C2 was on early, your initial number may have been too conservative. You can revisit and adjust the numbers. Maybe a good corps goes on after a weaker one and you over-hype the number. Later on, you can correct the overscore with EAS.

BITD, Larry Hershman had a rule of thumb, Jim Fawber can back me on this- "Going on first is an automatic 2 point penalty." There was real truth to that BITD. Not with EAS.

2. In short- YES. It would save the judge's bacon in a massive way. That being said, there's something called numbers management. If there is a distinct possibility you're seeing 6 dynamite performances, you'd better leave room and not paint yourself into a corner to begin with. Case 2 is very much a novice kind of adjudication error. The DCA cats are way beyond that kind of elementary goof. If they are not... there are enough experienced people on the staffs that would give a pretty harsh and thorough numbers management clinic to the perp.

3. Ties into 2. Numbers management. With EAS- if the first team does the job and the ones after don't, you CAN give a more appropriate number to reflect their performance if you were concerned about boxing yourself in.

Ranking and Rating are the cornerstones of adjudication- That being said, a lot of staffs don't care what the raw numbers are as long as they beat who they thought they should have. The "Shrewd Dudes" (1$ to Jim Prime Sr.) on those staffs will be somewhat less concerned about the ranking and be looking at the way the numbers line up and whether the adjudicator thinks they've peaked out and someone behind them will catch and pass them. DCA is way more about the raw competition than the Scholastic arena- yes, both have providing the "Educational Experience to their memberships" woven into their makeups, but DCA is definitely more hardcore about the placements.

I have a feeling Jeff is thinking... "there are some Band Directors and Parent organizations who put some of the DCA fanatics to shame..." Yeah, there are, and they really should take a very hard look in the mirror and feel some real shame.

Hope this helped. One thing I have an issue with is the perception that adjudication is some kind of black voodoo art and that they all have Harry Potter wands they wave to get a number. I hope I've tried to provide some good answers here in a fun and positive way. Questions? Corrections? Jeff? John? Tom? Dan? Anyone?

[Fred Windish]

BigW -

You have been a tremendous help, as I knew you would. Thank you.

I was reluctant to start this topic because I knew it would require complex answers. As you have seen, it also required a lengthy question. This would be a better topic to kick around during the Winter under normal circumstances. But, as we've seen going into the DCI Championships, corps up and down the potential Finalist group have been scored very tightly throughout the season. So tightly, it was essentially a 4-way tie leading into the big show. Who knows, but could there be a chance a similar situation will be in play Labor Day Weekend?

If we assume scores will be very tight entering Rochester, and not just at highest tier, one common, small number correction after the initial mark could be most critical. Even 1/10 point taken from one, then 1/10 point given to another WILL be huge somewhere within those placements. Certainly, that tiny adjustment might be a justified, big help to some corps who would have otherwise become an unfortunate victim of circumstance. Thinking of the alternative effect of such tiny adjustments is more concerning. Something like, For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Being a judge is challenging, I'm sure. You are 'this' if you do, 'that,' if you don't. EVERY judge is a loser in someone's eyes that night. Bank on it.

Nothing creates more controversy than discovering he/she went back and changed our/or their original number, so . . . . I'd make very sure that tiny note paper with an erasure mark is quickly burned. Because, I plan to offer Glen Johnson $200 to save them for me !

Edited August 17, 2015 by Fred Windish

[BigW]

I also think some people don't realize this- You're asked to judge your caption, not pick the winner.

Sometimes it's obvious, yes, that team should win tonight, but in the caption you're evaluating, someone else is better! The question is how much better.

Regards to Scranton, yes- what if, for instance, the brass judge decided the Bucs were only .3 instead of .4 better than Cabs?

You can't second guess what everyone else will or could do, you have to have an absolute and total trust in the rest of the panel to get their end right. Otherwise, the system gets cracks in it, and you could end up with a real mess.

Tell you what!

WGI seems to be very, very open about everything. I found their Judge's Handbook available at this link. I figure if I can Google this that easily, it's obvious they don't mind.

IMHO, these cats have done more to shape the activity and how it's adjudicated as a whole by being as thoughtful, open and comprehensive as they have been for some time.

http://www.mycgc.org/Directors/2014/2014WGIManual.pdf

[Fran Haring]

This is great stuff, guys!!!

Fred, thanks for bringing up this topic.

I've never been a judge... but I know it can be a thankless task. One corps' "great judge" is another corps' "worst judge ever." It's been that way for as long as I've been involved in the activity. Which is probably way too long. LOL.

Anything like this topic... clarifying what the system is all about... is helpful to all of us, IMO.

[Donny Drum Corps]

It is actually called refinement as I was recently made aware of. You pretty much know what your score and placement is if you manage your numbers and placement. This system allows a judge to make sure they haven't made a mistake in those areas, and be quite sure you have the corps in the order with the correct spread.

[VOReason]

Regards to Scranton, yes- what if, for instance, the brass judge decided the Bucs were only .3 instead of .4 better than Cabs?

http://www.mycgc.org/Directors/2014/2014WGIManual.pdf

A lot of folks would have paid to see a drum corps contest, only to have a bunch of judges tell them they didn't.

[BigW]

A lot of folks would have paid to see a drum corps contest, only to have a bunch of judges tell them they didn't.

The results at Scranton were a bit surprising to me. The thing is- the way the spreads read, there is a serious contest afoot. No real pattern or consistent narrative has emerged at this point from the scoring so far. The only conclusion I can read from it at this point is it may come down to what corps in their performance of their program at Finals rises up and says they want the championship a lot more than the others. That may be how some of this is decided- it's that up in the air right now.

[Jeff Ream]

It is actually called refinement as I was recently made aware of. You pretty much know what your score and placement is if you manage your numbers and placement. This system allows a judge to make sure they haven't made a mistake in those areas, and be quite sure you have the corps in the order with the correct spread.

right......spread in a sub box tells a huge story, especially this late in the season. Now Fred has some pretty drastic swings in scores, and I doubt that's really ever the case. If anything, it's a few tenths at most. remember 1-3 tenths in a subcaption is "on any given saturday ( or sunday)....so if you have someone cramped, you may be sending the wrong message

team one comes out and the judge says 85/82

team 2 comes out and the judge says 83/83

then team 3 comes out and yikes....they have a better book than both, so he has 86 for the top box...but the performer is better than 1, but not as good as 2....so he can give them the 82, and to create some room, he can take 3 up to the 83/84, and maybe even take team one to 85/81. boom, all sub box and bottom line ties avoided, as well as the proper messages sent in each sub box

now in a show like Saturday where you have corps not seeded in performance order, it does create some extra breathing room to start, but say prelims, the ability to tweak here and there can be huge

[Jeff Ream]

The results at Scranton were a bit surprising to me. The thing is- the way the spreads read, there is a serious contest afoot. No real pattern or consistent narrative has emerged at this point from the scoring so far. The only conclusion I can read from it at this point is it may come down to what corps in their performance of their program at Finals rises up and says they want the championship a lot more than the others. That may be how some of this is decided- it's that up in the air right now.

the mantra for any judge at any show is "judge your caption and the show of the day".

as we saw in DCI, that can mean changes happen right up to the end