Enough Judging Conspiracy Theories

[Stu]

26 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

Yet the reason for that shift cannot be explained by anyone other than that judge. The premise that you brought said that no 2 judges view a show the same way or even from the same vantage point. So why is it insulting to question objective opinion? If another judge was judging that night, the outcome might have been different. However the recorded number is always going to create a confirmation bias when you the view the show in retrospect.

This is why the person judging is more important than the performance on the field. In the hypothetical. If you win a caption in every competition all season except at the shows a particular judge was on that caption and that judge is judging that caption on finals night....what would that corps think their chances would be to win that caption that night?

Enough people did so that. Remember the 90s? 

In would rather try to change minds than let the activity die.

I hear sports commentators and fans after a NASCAR race ends say things that go something like this: If a team decides to change tires on the last pit stop, and wins, oh that was a great call!!! If a team decides to change tires on the last pit stop, and loses, oh that was a horrible call!!!! When in fact, what the commentorsand fans  say may be interesting to banter about in blogs, but the comments do not matter one iota to the actual competitive results. And 'that' is DCP, we are all commentators and fans.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Stu

[ContraFart]

1 minute ago, Stu said:

Your postings remind me of what I hear from sports commentators during NASCAR races that go something like this: If a team decides to change tires on the last pit stop, and wins, oh that was a great call!!! If a team decides to change tires on the last pit stop, and loses, oh that was a horrible call!!!! When in fact, what the commentors say may be interesting to banter about in blogs, the comments do not matter one iota to the actual completive results. And 'that' is DCP, we are all commentators.

Way to change the subject to avoid the premise.

The topic is judging conspiracies, not just what you or I think is right or wrong.

The only way that my example of the .5 swing was explained was judging perspective and bias. The OP even listed that as a reason for scoring variances. Which means that a different judge or even the same judge looking at a different part of the field can yield a different result and apparently that is ok....even desired. I disagree. I think that in order for the judging to be beyond reproach, you have to be confident that results, at least in terms of placements and spreads, can be duplicated regardless of the panel mix. A corps should not fear for their chances of winning just because a certain name is on the panel.

While I think there is no organized plan to make one corps win, the fact that the judging panel itself has more power over the outcome then the performance on the field will always lead to questions about the integrity of the competition.

[Cappybara]

2 hours ago, ContraFart said:

 In fact it's by far my favorite Crown show and one of my top 5 favorite shows ever. 

Ahh that explains it. 

You have quite the narrow and twisted definition of "toss up"

[ContraFart]

4 minutes ago, Cappybara said:

Ahh that explains it. 

You have quite the narrow and twisted definition of "toss up"

Yes I have a personal bias about that year. I don't deny it. Does that invalidate every other word I say?

[Stu]

1 minute ago, ContraFart said:

While I think there is no organized plan to make one corps win, the fact that the judging panel itself has more power over the outcome then the performance on the field will always lead to questions about the integrity of the competition.

Then you also question the integrity of all of the thousands of subjective competitions from chile cook-offs to dog-shows to bull-riding to ice-dancing. Of course there have been scandals in all of them, there have also been scandals in stick-ball sports, but there is absolutely no way to make any of those thousands of subjective contests have objective outcomes. I am, however, now really starting to understand your screen name.

[ContraFart]

1 minute ago, Stu said:

Then you also question the integrity of all of the thousands of subjective competitions from chile cook-offs to dog-shows to bull-riding to ice-dancing. Of course there have been scandals in all of them, there have also been scandals in stick-ball sports, but there is absolutely no way to make any of those thousands of subjective contests have objective outcomes. I am, however, now really starting to understand your screen name.

For the exception of chili cook offs, those sports have an objective element that can be measured, or required elements that each participant has to do so there can be more direct comparison.

The only similarity between the top 4 corps this year is that they played brass and drums on a football field. My issue isn't neccesarily with subjective judging. Its the margin of subjectivity allowed that you seem to think is desired.

[Stu]

6 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

Yes I have a personal bias about that year. I don't deny it. Does that invalidate every other word I say?

When you say that you cannot sit aside your personal bias, when you say that you do not have the education to be a judge, say that a Sat run is better than a Fri run contradicting a professional judge, that corps have gotten robbed, contradicting othet professionally trained judges, judges also trained to set aside personal bias, yeah, that sort of deminishes things you claim about other things in the realm of adjudication.

[Stu]

27 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

For the exception of chili cook offs, those sports have an objective element that can be measured, or required elements that each participant has to do so there can be more direct comparison.

The only similarity between the top 4 corps this year is that they played brass and drums on a football field. My issue isn't neccesarily with subjective judging. Its the margin of subjectivity allowed that you seem to think is desired.

The sheets on all of these contests, just like in DCI, have written criteria; and the judges are trained on criteria interpretation as well as trained to minimize bias. But I defy you to name one thing that is objective about the subjective observational 'opinions' of dog show judges, bull riding judges, ice dancing judges, etc... $200 + $400 = $600 in medical billing; that is objective. But nothing observed in observational only scoring is objective, nothing!!! That is all subjective opinion; educated opinion; but still completely subjective opinion.

Your claim that the Sat run was better than the Fri run was your subjective opinion, it contradicted the judge's subjective opinion. But that person has been trained in judging, been trained on the sheets, has been trained on minimizing bias; all of which you admitted that you have not received. So who are we to believe on the quality of that Sat run, you or the judge? Don't fixate on the .5, but just answer the question as to why your subjective evaluation on that Sat run is better than the trained judge?

Edited August 23, 2017 by Stu

[ContraFart]

2 minutes ago, Stu said:

When you say that you cannot sit aside your personal bias, when you say that you do not have the education to be a judge, say that a Sat run is better than a Fri run contradicting a professional judge, that corps have gotten robbed, contradicting othet professionally trained judges, judges also trained to set aside personal bias, yeah, that sort of deminishes things you claim about other things in the realm of adjudication.

So instead of addressing my premise, you think its better to discredit me. Just because I don't have the educational or pedagogical background to go into judging at this time in my life, I am far from stupid. Actually I think I might have the vocabulary to judge brass.

I am human, but guess what so are all of the judges. Remember the word of the thread being human? You can't say that judges put aside personal biases and only judge what is on the field while at the same time saying that no 2 judges will judge a show the same way. I return to the Fri performance Sat scores example. You can't say that posted scores do not create a confirmation bias when speaking about the shows in retrospect. You also can't say that judges adhere to a strict criteria, but at the same time allow for such wide variances.

3 minutes ago, Stu said:

The sheets on all of these contests, just like in DCI, have written criteria; and the judges are trained on criteria interpretation as well as trained to minimize bias. But I defy you to name one thing that is objective about the subjective observational 'opinions' of dog show judges, bull riding judges, ice dancing judges, etc... $200 + $400 = $600 in medical billing; that is objective. But nothing observed in observational only scoring is objective, nothing!!! That is all subjective opinion; educated opinion; but still completely subjective opinion.

Dog shows have detailed manuals about specific measurements, tooth size, gum color, coat length and fullness, etc. All a judge has to do is compare the dog in front of them to the detailed description of of the breed. You might have more of a point when deciding best in show among breed groups, but I am sure there is more objective description than most subjective judging.

Bull riding is decided by a timer, even you stay on the bull for 8 seconds or you don't. Nothing more objective than that.

Ice dancing/figure skating has easily comparable required elements. A triple axle has a specific technique a specific foot placement and any layman can see if it's landed or not. Yes there are artistic elements, but the scoring system is designed to eliminate outliers by not counting the highest and lowest scores.

I even watch food TV to defend a chili cook off. I think this is hardest to judge because of the similarities of the flavor profile, but there are still explainable objective differences in technique like knife cuts, temperature, color. If someone has raw beef in their chili, every judge will know and agree its raw beef.

Drum corps has none of these. Different corps have different marching techniques, different brass styles doing very different shows. No 2 elements of any 2 shows are the same between any 2 corps. There are no directly comparable elements that those who don't follow the sport can latch onto like there are in the other examples. That means we rely 100% on the opinion of the judges. Since there is no way to quantify those opinions, close calls and odd changes will always be questioned. Hence judging conspiracy theories.

[Stu]

4 minutes ago, ContraFart said:

So instead of addressing my premise, you think its better to discredit me.

I am not out to discredit you; remember I have stated for the record that here on DCP all opinions are valid.  But you did post this response to DeusExGreenMachina?  " I wish I could take your advice and become a judge myself, but I am a medical biller. I lack the educational background."  I am just wondering why your subjective evaluation of a Sat run is to be considered better than a DCI judge who is a trained professional, trained to interpret the sheets, and trained to minimize personal bias as much as it is humanly possible.