ContraFart Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, Stu said: Those who jump from one extreme view to the opposite extreme view to further their point make me chuckle. Either the numbers mean something or they don't. You can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappybara Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 Just now, ContraFart said: But this thread is making competing arguments. 1. That judges are trained and judge to the sheets in a way that is accurate. 2. That there is fluctuation in scores due to relative viewings and a half point shift from one night to the next should be acceptable. It can't be both. Not to be snarky, but nuance is a thing. It does not have to be one or the other. Once you come to accept the reality that the activity is subjective, no matter how objective judges try to be, then the system becomes easier to stomach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraFart Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 Just now, Cappybara said: Not to be snarky, but nuance is a thing. It does not have to be one or the other. Once you come to accept the reality that the activity is subjective, no matter how objective judges try to be, then the system becomes easier to stomach. Not when you haven't agreed with the results for the most part in nearly a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappybara Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 1 minute ago, ContraFart said: Not when you haven't agreed with the results for the most part in nearly a decade. I thought you said you don't have judging experience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraFart Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Cappybara said: I thought you said you don't have judging experience? You don't need to be a judge to have an opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeusExGreenMachina Posted August 21, 2017 Author Share Posted August 21, 2017 10 minutes ago, Cappybara said: Do you though? There is plenty evidence that a corps' score shifts dramatically (and I'm not talking the tiny spread that ContraFart is complaining about) night to night depending on what corps are also participating in that same competition. Me, I'm a bit of an analytical person and that type of pattern suggests the opposite of what you are saying. Do you have an explanation for that? Sure. As I said in my original post: "...when panels change, numbers will change as you have probably experienced in the past. It's absolutely unavoidable." Glad to hear you're analytical and I am not asking for evidence of corps' score shifts mostly because I have seen plenty of this on my own. My original post mentions that even within captions, scores will unavoidably shift due to changes in the panel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 Just now, ContraFart said: Either the numbers mean something or they don't. You can't have it both ways. The numbers have depth of meaning, they are not 'random', they are just subjective based on profesdional observation. Sort of like how master bakers can judge pie contests and come up with 'slight' variations in scores and placements. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeusExGreenMachina Posted August 21, 2017 Author Share Posted August 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, Cappybara said: Once you come to accept the reality that the activity is subjective, no matter how objective judges try to be, then the system becomes easier to stomach. The larger the pool of judges, the better. The activity, within and without the DCI world, is replete with folks who are set in their ways. We could really use some new eyes and ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, ContraFart said: Not when you haven't agreed with the results for the most part in nearly a decade. That is likely the most honest response you have posted in this entire thread!!! 'You' haven't agreed with the results. That says volumes!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraFart Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Stu said: The numbers have depth of meaning, they are not 'random', they are just subjective based on profesdional observation. Sort of like how master bakers can judge pie contests and come up with 'slight' variations in scores and placements. But I cannot see the meaning in those numbers when they unreasonably shift in a somewhat controlled environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts