Enough Judging Conspiracy Theories

[ContraFart]

16 minutes ago, Cappybara said:

 

Lemme group those two questions into one answer. 

It depends on the year. For 2015, I felt that it was a toss up and really came down to any given night. I wouldn't have been mad or upset if BD came in 2nd. 2014, that was one of the best corps ever (though not 99.65 worthy, but that's numbers management for ya). 2012 Crown was wayyy too dirty so if the judges had put Crown in front, I'd be asking some questions. Same thing with 2009. 2010 BD was a really proficient and talented corps, but I do think that Mad World had the more solid concept and if they had been put in front, I wouldn't mind that either. 2008 was another one of those really great toss up years where I think any of the top 3 (not just Phantom and BD) could've won and I would've been fine with it (though I have my preference on who). 2007... I think Cadets were the better corps but with the much worse concept. Really came down to GE imo so I wouldn't be upset if the Cadets had won out that year either. 

Does that answer your question?

It answers the second question, not the first. (BTW I think BDs concept in 2010 was so different and well done it needed to win, 2012 Crown had the most difficult drill ever written so it would never be clean, 2014 BD was technically perfect. I really just disagree with 2009 and 2015)

But the point I am trying to make is that a different panel could have given a different result to almost any Saturday night (except maybe 2014) so how is that integrity of competition? 

And if the competition isn't important, then remember that every time BD introduces themselves as the 18 time DCI champions.

[Cappybara]

17 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

It answers the second question, not the first. (BTW I think BDs concept in 2010 was so different and well done it needed to win, 2012 Crown had the most difficult drill ever written so it would never be clean, 2014 BD was technically perfect. I really just disagree with 2009 and 2015)

But the point I am trying to make is that a different panel could have given a different result to almost any Saturday night (except maybe 2014) so how is that integrity of competition? 

And if the competition isn't important, then remember that every time BD introduces themselves as the 18 time DCI champions.

To go more in depth with your first question then, yes, I think the panel in 2015 could've influenced the result. And when corps are a toss up, I have no issues with one winning over the other because of how subjective the activity is. The judges ARE attempting to do the impossible, after all. So when the margins are within .5 a point, you have to think about just how miniscule that is. Imagine, just another .1 from 5 judges (who are all inputting their scores independently). It's simply unreasonable to be complaining about that.

That's why if my theoretical preference doesn't win and it's mostly a toss up, I can live with the result not going my way due to a certain panel's preferences. I don't see that as hurting the integrity of the competition, I see it as an unavoidable reality of a subjective activity like this. 

Think about it this way, if you put programmed robots in and made them the judges, the scores they would give would simply reflect the biases of the people it was programmed by. It's an unavoidable reality, and it is what makes art beautiful and human. 

Also I highly disagree that a different panel would've changed the results for years like 2009 and 2012. No way. It was clear one corps was a big step above the other. 

Edited August 22, 2017 by Cappybara

[ContraFart]

2 minutes ago, Cappybara said:

To go more in depth with your first question then, yes, I think the panel in 2015 could've influenced the result. And when corps are a toss up, I have no issues with one winning over the other because of how subjective the activity is. The judges ARE attempting to do the impossible, after all. So when the margins are within .5 a point, you have to think about just how miniscule that is. Imagine, just another .1 from 5 judges (who are all inputting their scores independently). It's simply unreasonable to be complaining about that.

That's why if my theoretical preference doesn't win and it's mostly a toss up, I can live with the result not going my way due to a certain panel's preferences. I don't see that as hurting the integrity of the competition, I see it as an unavoidable reality of a subjective activity like this. 

Think about it this way, if you put programmed robots in and made them the judges, the scores they would give would simply reflect the biases of the people it was programmed by. It's an unavoidable reality, and it is what makes art beautiful and human. 

Also I highly disagree that a different panel would've changed the results for years like 2009 and 2012. No way. It was clear one corps was a big step above the other. 

But I think its easier for you to accept than me because your theoretical preference wins more often than not.

[Cappybara]

4 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

But I think its easier for you to accept than me because your theoretical preference wins more often than not.

Hmm out of the truly toss up years (2007, 2008, 2011, 2013, 2015), BD won 2 out of those 5 years. I'm not sure where you're getting that they're winning more often than not. A panel switch would not have changed the results of 2009 or 2012 at all. 

[Stu]

2 hours ago, ContraFart said:

But it effects the integrity of the competition and I have an issue with that.

I went back and re-read all of your postings prior to responding to this one.  It is interesting you have no issue at all assailing the integrity and honesty of people (judges) in which you only have an opinion difference with.  And here is the main question that I have had in which you never answered: You stated that the Sat run was better than the Fri run; what makes your observation more valid than the Sat judge?

[Cappybara]

7 minutes ago, Stu said:

 You stated that the Sat run was better than the Fri run; what makes your observation more valid than the Sat judge?

 

Or more valid than the opinions of the members who actually marched Crown 2015

edit: I should clarify I've only talked to two members (not the whole corps), and both were bitter about the loss but acknowledged the deficiencies in their finals night performance 

Edited August 23, 2017 by Cappybara

[ContraFart]

9 minutes ago, Cappybara said:

Hmm out of the truly toss up years (2007, 2008, 2011, 2013, 2015), BD won 2 out of those 5 years. I'm not sure where you're getting that they're winning more often than not. A panel switch would not have changed the results of 2009 or 2012 at all. 

2007 and 2011 were not toss ups. BD and Cadets respectively won all 3 nights of championships and won head to heads prior to finals week. 2013 may be more valid but the scores were following a trajectory. The only year that I think a toss up was really against BD was 2008.

As for 2012, In think you are right. Crown had the most difficult drill ever written so the fact I could not be 100% clean meant a less relatable and easier to clean product could win.

We will have to agree to disagree about 2009. 

[ContraFart]

16 minutes ago, Stu said:

I went back and re-read all of your postings prior to responding to this one.  It is interesting you have no issue at all assailing the integrity and honesty of people (judges) in which you only have an opinion difference with.  And here is the main question that I have had in which you never answered: You stated that the Sat run was better than the Fri run; what makes your observation more valid than the Sat judge?

 

If scores are as volatile to subjective opinion as you say, isn't any opinion valid?

[Cappybara]

15 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

2007 and 2011 were not toss ups. BD and Cadets respectively won all 3 nights of championships and won head to heads prior to finals week. 2013 may be more valid but the scores were following a trajectory. The only year that I think a toss up was really against BD was 2008.

As for 2012, In think you are right. Crown had the most difficult drill ever written so the fact I could not be 100% clean meant a less relatable and easier to clean product could win.

We will have to agree to disagree about 2009. 

Atleast be a little consistent (you love that word, don't you) with your logic and please check scores before making claims. You've been making a lot of mistakes and I'm tired of having to fact check

In 2007, Cadets were beating BD a week before championship week. By your definition of "winning head to heads prior to finals week," 2007 is a toss up. 

In 2011, the Blue Devils were beating the Cadets a week before championship week. By your definition of "winning head to heads prior to finals week." 2011 is a toss up. (Not to mention that the spread was never more than 0.5)

By comparison, in 2009 Crown was down by as much as more than 2.5 points in late July. If you really think you're seeing something from your computer that the judges aren't seeing on the field, I suggest you take @DeusExGreenMachina's advice and sign up to be a judge so you can educate them on how to really judge objectively. 

Edited August 23, 2017 by Cappybara

[Stu]

29 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

If scores are as volatile to subjective opinion as you say, isn't any opinion valid?

Here 'on DCP' all opinions are valid; when it comes to 'DCI Tickets getting sold or going unsold' fans opinions are valid; but in 'DCI Competition, Rankings, and Scoring', only The Judges opinions are valid.  As a fan, if you can overcome your DCP griping enough to enjoy the shows, by all means buy tickets and go to DCI shows.  If you cannot overcome your griping then stop buying tickets to DCI shows. But either way while your opinions certainly are valid here, and they mean something if you buy or do not buy a ticket, they also mean diddly squat nada to the actual scoring and rankings; and the same goes for my opinions.  Oh.... and that is the way it should be!!!!!!!

Edited August 23, 2017 by Stu