Jump to content

Enough Judging Conspiracy Theories


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

19.6 vs 19.55 is an acceptable variance. 19.6 vs 19.1 is not.

Thanks for letting me know what an acceptable variance is :lle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DeusExGreenMachina said:

Depends on the show.  Depends on my caption.  Depends on how much coffee I've had and if people around me are being distracting.

You're a judge.

What do you think?

I think that with all my training, with all my experience, that I am human and cannot see all, hear all, and am far from being omnipresent. I know that while I am looking in one direction, no matter how fast I scan, I will always miss something in the other direction that is going on simultaneously. While I am focused on evaluating this thing over here I am always missing that thing over there. I know that if I am on the field I am missing some great stuff globally, and if I am in the box I know I am missing some great stuff intricately. And every judge who is 'honest' with themselves will agree with all of this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Cappybara said:

Thanks for letting me know what an acceptable variance is :lle:

That is the entire premise of my issue. Where is the integrity of the scores when the difference is .5 point from night to night when almost nothing is changed? I don't think it is fairly explained by saying that judges have different perspectives. If a caption has appropiate content and achievement, then the score should be relatively the same no matter who is judging.

Edited by ContraFart
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

Yes that is the standard argument against, and the same argument was made in tennis, but the end result made tennis better.

 

It may have perfected the calls, but it deminished the excellence of the game. Part of what made tennis excellent was the way players reacted to, and overcame, subjective calls. That aspect was a very important part of the psychology of the sport and it made the depth of the players, along with their playing skill sets of overcoming obstacles, way more interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

That is the entire premise of my issue. Where is the integrity of the scores when the difference is .5 point from night to night when almost nothing is changed? I don't think it is fairly explained by saying that judges have different perspectives. If a caption appropiate content and achievement, then the score should be relatively the same no matter who is judging.

Hence why I became a judge.  This kind of stuff never made sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DeusExGreenMachina said:

Hence why I became a judge.  This kind of stuff never made sense to me.

I wish I could take your advice and become a judge myself, but I am a medical biller. I lack the educational background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ContraFart said:

I wish I could take your advice and become a judge myself, but I am a medical biller. I lack the educational background.

You sound pretty smart to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stu said:

It may have perfected the calls, but it deminished the excellence of the game. Part of what made tennis excellent was the way players reacted to, and overcame, subjective calls. That aspect was a very important part of the psychology of the sport and it made the depth of the players, along with their playing skill sets of overcoming obstacles, way more interesting.

Tennis still remains a game of psychological warfare and stamina

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DeusExGreenMachina said:

You sound pretty smart to me.

That's a first. Someone from DCP says I'm smart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...