Adjudication 101: Straight from DCI

[Michael Boo]

I wasn't meaning to trash DCI, or the individuals who wrote this. DCI and its member corps should absolutely dictate their own guidelines for what constitutes achievement. I just find the whole thing silly is all.

I understand, but I hope there are some who will benefit from the article. It's my hope that if they don't fully understand the process, at least they'll grasp that there is a process.http://dilbert.com/strip/1992-10-15

[drumcorpsfever]

Mr. Boo, (or anyone that knows for sure) -

Please reply with answers to the following:

When does a judge turn in his/her score for each corps? Is it:

A. Immediately after each corps performs

B. After a block of corps

C. After the entire show is completed

Is there ever an opportunity for a judge to change his/her score?

Thank you!

PS - I've asked these questions before and have never been able to get a solid answer.

Edited July 28, 2016 by drumcorpsfever

[auldschool]

Wow...seeing some folks running off in the distance with their tails between their legs. Hmmmm:)

Edited July 28, 2016 by auldschool

[whitedawn]

I read this. I am exactly 0% closer to understanding what GE is.

My hypothesis remains: no one actually knows.

[ShortAndFast]

I'm always surprised that DCI doesn't put any real effort into explaining the scoring, beyond how they get all the numbers to add up to 100.0. Obviously this article is some attempt to explain it, but for the life of me, I don't know why I can't go to DCI's website and find:

1. A 1 page explanation of key judging concepts, like the "what" vs. the "how" or the intellectual/emotional/aesthetic triad in effect judging or scoring boxes.

2. All the sheets currently in use this season

3. An example tape/sheet from the prior season for each of the captions, to see what judges focus on in that caption.

4. Some background information on who the judges are, what expertise they typically have and how they are selected, trained and evaluated.

Perhaps this is boring stuff, but I think many would read it and the transparency would help fans to understand where the numbers come from.

[N.E. Brigand]

I'm always surprised that DCI doesn't put any real effort into explaining the scoring, beyond how they get all the numbers to add up to 100.0. Obviously this article is some attempt to explain it, but for the life of me, I don't know why I can't go to DCI's website and find:

1. A 1 page explanation of key judging concepts, like the "what" vs. the "how" or the intellectual/emotional/aesthetic triad in effect judging or scoring boxes.

2. All the sheets currently in use this season

3. An example tape/sheet from the prior season for each of the captions, to see what judges focus on in that caption.

4. Some background information on who the judges are, what expertise they typically have and how they are selected, trained and evaluated.

Perhaps this is boring stuff, but I think many would read it and the transparency would help fans to understand where the numbers come from.

Agreed on all counts.

[FTNK]

I find the writing on the DCI website--and the website itself--to often be embarassing

[jsd]

As "Adjudication 101", this is a pretty poor article, I'm sorry to say. If anything, it seems directed at people who already know pretty well what the judges do.

For instance, take a look at this description:

"The Visual Proficiency judge zooms in and out on performers, but from the periphery of the field. They look at small groups and individuals, but try to not focus on any particular person. This is the judge that used to be referred to as Field Visual, and earlier, Marching and Maneuvering."

This doesn't say what the judge is "zoom[ing] in and out" for. When they "look at small groups and individuals", what is it they want to see?

Only people who've been around the activity long enough to remember "Field Visual" or "Marching and Maneuvering", and thus remember what judges with those titles used to do, could take anything specific away from this passage.

.

Part of the "zooming in and zooming out" is based on the fact that the caption is based on WHAT the performers and doing and HOW well they are doing it. It other words, the GE judge can shift from making commentary on the corps as a whole ("Excellent moment, top to bottom!") and then look at specific pieces that make up the whole ("Okay...sampling the battery now"). M&M is still a large component of that sampling.

When they look at the smaller samples, they are evaluating both the demand (the "what") as well as the execution (the "how"). Both components are equally in play when it comes time to write down a score. That is why you will see groups with an 83 and 83, and see them lose to a group with a 90 and 82. The prior group is achieving their book as best they can, but the latter group has much more demand but is not (as of yet) achieving at the same level of the group that they just beat. The idea is that the group that has higher demand will potentially achieve it when all is said and done.

Now, this backfires from time to time. See: Cadets last year and this year. Their demand was flat out insane (and this comes from a former BD Member/staffer/life-long-fan), and if they could have (or can) achieve their book, they win. Period. Last year and this year, the Cadets had and have all the pieces/parts, but they cannot seem to clean it up. Hence, the placement they finished in last year and the placement they find themselves in right now (and, no, Cadets fans on a different thread...they are not going to make up a two and a half point deficit).

The exception to the previous paragraph is the closer this year, which is performed at breakneck speed and at blastissiomo for FAR too long. They have stubbornly stuck to that "what" for far too long, and how well they clean up the "how" will make no difference.

[RickCogley]

This article does not explain much of anything. No clear examples and not really useful even for a beginner.

I ask myself, why would an organization not want to explain their judging clearly and transparently? In what cases would that be true...

[garfield]

I read this. I am exactly 0% closer to understanding what GE is.

My hypothesis remains: no one actually knows.

It's like porn