Enough Judging Conspiracy Theories

[Cappybara]

5 hours ago, Memphis1980 said:

Agreed - I find that unless its the same panel or a dual panel with high-low averaging, or a change in how soon an active judge can consult a corps (currently one year off from judging) judging will seem to most as on a whim.  Making the tapes public will not help, judges are very aware that tapes are made public.

Example, I was sitting right next to the Judging panel at the 2000 DCI Finals in DC, I wish I could find the judge's name next to me. I heard every word, as for her reaction and statements regarding the Cadets, I assumed she placed them first, not so.  She literally was saying one thing and scoring another.

Finals tapes or late season tapes are the ones that get released to the public for a reason. Judges often have only good things to say with only small nitpicks. So it's not surprising for you to hear a judge gush about the Cadets on that night but not have scores that reflect that level of excitement

[Cappybara]

4 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

agreed. if numbers stayed the same upward path for all, slotting is the war cry. Then when things change, inconsistency is the war cry. You cant win no matter what

This is the single most frustrating thing I see on DCP and elsewhere. Make up your minds people, can't have it both ways!

I bet ya if BD was winning all or nearly all captions every single year, people would say it's rigged or that there's too much slotting going on. 

The tone would've been different had BD been leading by 1-1.5 points the whole season. But seeing SCV come so close gave some hope 

[Vdad76]

6 hours ago, BRASSO said:

 While I hear you, do you know how many times over the years that long time DCI Judges Deb Torchia and Marie Czapinski have been raked over the coals here on DCP for their alleged judge " bias " ? If you are a newbie to DCP you might not be aware of it.  But if you have been on DCP for a few years, you know that these 2 female judges has been publically criticized dozens of times over the years. Hardly a season goes by now that some regular DCP'ers will not single one or the other of them out... by name on here... for this alleged " bias ". So its rather peculiar that suddenly NOW we are being asked not to go public with any OTHER judge names that might have some " Ageism " issues or " judge bias" issues, or other " issues " regarding their judging.

I'm not sure I understand.  If you don't like Marie's or Deb's (I know both of them) names raked over the coals by people, why would you want anyone else's names put out there.   If someone else, whether regular DCP'ers or not, is singling them out, then they need to be told to stop.  The wrong does not correct itself by putting anyone else's name out in the public.  It doesn't matter if I'm a newbie or not, right is right and wrong is wrong.  I have read many of the things you have put out in DCP and believe you to be on the level headed side of things, but this is something that is a right or wrong to me as taught to me by my parents and by the people I admire most in this world who were my mentors and friends.  The other thing that I thing doesn't quite hit the mark here, is the OP, from what it seems by his post, doesn't seem to be someone who would have thrown Marie or Deb under the bus by naming them.  I could see the reasons if it was someone who had named either Marie or Deb before, then suddenly not wanting to put out any other names, for whatever reason they had.  I still would not agree, but if you are going to name a couple of people, then you ought to name them all, but as for the premise of this, it's unseemly, disrespectful, unprofessional or whatever name you would like to place it under the - it's wrong category.   For me Deb and Marie are two of the best and I've had groups judged by them and would value the things they said very much, as most others my groups have been judged by or I've adjudicated contests or festivals with.

[BRASSO]

19 minutes ago, Vdad76 said:

.  If you don't like Marie's or Deb's (I know both of them) names raked over the coals by people, why would you want anyone else's names put out there.   .

 I don't . You misunderstand what I posted. I said above that in fact I am " ok," if the OP ( and others ) do not want us know the names of the  judges that the OP believes some are " too old " to be judging now. I merely added that it seems a rather peculiar request when we have often had the names of both these 2 judges mentioned on here many, many times before and accused of " judge bias ". The sudden concern here on DCP by a couple of posters  with not naming names, seems a new phenomenon, thats all. We've had judges on here charged with bias LOTS of times on DCP... with names provided. But I'm certainly ok, if we are changing course now, and deciding not to name judges who poster or two might believe could be biased for reason or another.

Edited August 22, 2017 by BRASSO

[BRASSO]

24 minutes ago, Vdad76 said:

 I have read many of the things you have put out in DCP and believe you to be on the level headed side of things, but this is something that is a right or wrong to me as taught to me by my parents and by the people I admire most in this world who were my mentors and friends.  .

 Thanks for the compliment. I do agree that not naming of the judges here by the OP that he believes may be " too old " , or " too biased ", can still be made in a persuasive manner, but without the absolute neccessity of their names needing to be made, for the point they are attempting to make for the comments to rise or fall on the merits of their comments alone.

Edited August 22, 2017 by BRASSO

[Bobby L. Collins]

18 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 I don't . You misunderstand what I posted. I said above that in fact I am " ok," if the OP ( and others ) do not want us know the names of the  judges that the OP believes some are " too old " to be judging now. I merely added that it seems a rather peculiar request when we have often had the names of both these 2 judges mentioned on here many, many times before and accused of " judge bias ". The sudden concern here on DCP by a couple of posters  with not naming names, seems a new phenomenon, thats all. We've had judges on here charged with bias LOTS of times on DCP... with names provided. But I'm certainly ok, if we are changing course now, and deciding not to name judges who poster or two might believe could be biased for reason or another.

They're just trying to stir trouble.  That's all they do on here.  They don't have a message, or even an ethos.  They just want to gainsay and countermand anything posted by people they have decided they don't like.  And they always show up in groups of three, it seems.....

[Stu]

8 hours ago, ContraFart said:

But how many would say that Saturday night was not as good as Friday night, unless they had the scores to support their confirmation bias? If people viewed Friday night thinking it was Saturday night and only had the scores from Saturday night, would they disagree with the scores, since the performance on the field in reality yielded a different result than the scores in front of them did?

Contra, are you ‘perfect’?  And if not,  how can you expect, nay demand, two or three other people (judges) to be’ perfect’ in life, the universe, and everything; or at least ‘perfect’ in their observational  DCI evaluation?

[MikeRapp]

6 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

but you see they really dont.

 

What you refuse to get is the sheets changed 3 years ago...largely because oif the uproar over BD's success and the style of shows they were doing. So, BD altered their show design....it's become a lot more fan friendly to fans of all corps, not just the BD faithful. And, it paid off...BD's still getting wins. Just because BD wins 18 times now doesnt mean there's blatant favoirtism with the entire judging community.....it shows their staff knows how to design to whatever the current sheet is, and get their kids to perform to the best levels possible. 

I don't get why people are surprised at the domination of Blue Devils. It seems they march the oldest, most experienced corps in DCI every single season, with the most experienced and likely best paid staff in the marching arts, and by extension the biggest budgets. Indeed, under these circumstances it would not matter what the sheets dictate, they will be the corps most capable of adapting and dominating that criteria.

As one result, they have the biggest voice in how the activity is to evolve, including the designing of the judging criteria and the selection of judges.

In the last 25 years of DCI, I would love to know how many kids left BD to age out elsewhere, vs. the opposite. I would bet it would be laughable how lopsided that ratio is.

Edited August 22, 2017 by MikeRapp

[ContraFart]

2 hours ago, Stu said:

Contra, are you ‘perfect’?  And if not,  how can you expect, nay demand, two or three other people (judges) to be’ perfect’ in life, the universe, and everything; or at least ‘perfect’ in their observational  DCI evaluation?

 

I don't expect absolute perfection, I just want to be able to trust the number that I am seeing is not subject to bias or favoritism. Why are you dead against consistency being a goal, even if absolute consistency is unattainable?

[ContraFart]

2 hours ago, MikeRapp said:

I don't get why people are surprised at the domination of Blue Devils. It seems they march the oldest, most experienced corps in DCI every single season, with the most experienced and likely best paid staff in the marching arts, and by extension the biggest budgets. Indeed, under these circumstances it would not matter what the sheets dictate, they will be the corps most capable of adapting and dominating that criteria.

As one result, they have the biggest voice in how the activity is to evolve, including the designing of the judging criteria and the selection of judges.

In the last 25 years of DCI, I would love to know how many kids left BD to age out elsewhere, vs. the opposite. I would bet it would be laughable how lopsided that ratio is.

Its not surprising, its frustrating. BD has all of the advantages and seems to get all of the benefit of the doubt. In the end it seems that corps that want to win have to work 100 times harder than BD which makes it look like BD doesn't work at all.