Stu Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, ContraFart said: This might sound weird but go with me here. 6+3=? Edited August 23, 2017 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraFart Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Stu said: I am not dismissing you. That is something you have done for yourself by stating that there is no real measurable difference between the top corps yet you have also admitted that you have no qualifications whatsoever to judge, let alone at the DCI WC level. That is not what you are trying to say; it is what you 'exactly' said. You are dismissing me and every other person on this board who is not a judge. Is there really that large of a difference between the top 3 corps? Even the scores say no as in 2015 and 2016 the difference between 1 and 3 was less than a point. So why is that an unreasonable statement that is invalidated because I am not a judge? 8 minutes ago, Stu said: This might sound weird but go with me here. 6+3=? I will humor you....9 Edited August 23, 2017 by ContraFart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, ContraFart said: I will humor you....9 Nope, Do you know why? Edited August 23, 2017 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraFart Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 23 minutes ago, BDCorno said: Fart, you're making my head hurt. I've judged both dog shows and drum corps, so try and follow along here. Dog breeds do have "manuals" (breed standards) that physically describe the structure of a dog. However, it also talks about temperament, carriage, attitude in the ring and interaction with other dogs, and most importantly, TYPE. This isn't really a whole lot different than the process that you would go through in judging drum corps (or band, or horses, or cats)...The written standards (sheets, criteria, whatever it might be called in what you're judging) are only adequate in that they give you a general and technical idea of what is desirable. Sadly, this is where many people stop...and it's where the "SCV marched and played for 56 seconds at 208 bpm, and BD only marched and played for 44 seconds at 192...how are they still winning" mentality comes from. Judging experience, background and training should yield an evaluator with the ability to look beyond the written standard/sheets/criteria. Most any yokel can say '"well, they checked all the boxes" and still put up the wrong dog/corps/horse/cat. It's the ability to detect, appreciate, and reward QUALITY of design and achievement. Clearly, some of the design quality, depth and less obvious demands that top corps are employing these days goes right over the head of many spectators/fans, as well as the individual performance quality/training in some instances. THAT is where I think you're missing the boat in understanding what's going on here. As I think I've pointed out, a .4 difference in spread isn't an overly significant or out of line scoring variance show to show, even among similarly proficient units with similar content. Corps #1 is up by .2 on Friday, say with a 98/98 to corps #2's 97/97. Next night, corps #2 does a lights out show and go 98/98 to corps #1 who does a flat performance and a 97/97. Judges have to RANK first of all, and .1 is a typical margin. If they decide that there is a more decisive advantage in one subcaption, there is your .5. DON"T FORGET that unless it's GE, the score is halved in the final total, so your .4 or .6 variance is effectively only .2 or .3. It happens. Corps have good and bad nights, judges may or may not have the ability to detect and reward the depth or quality of design or performance (due to background and/or training), or the timing of major flaws impacted the effectiveness of the program (analysis captions). It's hardly simplistic. I find it interesting that you seem to allege preference or bias, yet you clamor for complete consistency of scoring. The complexity of a modern drum corps show, and trying to get 150 to perform as one, does not lend itself to total consistency, though the better groups are usually more consistent night to night than less competent groups. Asking for consistency in scoring night to night, performance be ######, is the ultimate bias and preference. Do you see where this is a contradiction? As a breeder, exhibitor and judge of dogs; and as a musician, teacher and judge of drum corps, winter guards and bands; I subscribe to the proposition that judges need to start and end their evaluation process with type/quality as the main consideration. Are the technical requirements/standards important? Certainly, but not in a vacuum, and definitely not as overriding factors that cancel out or ignore type/quality as the aim of the process. I've seen dogs that "check all the boxes" when you look at their structure in a static position. However, on the move, the movement doesn't validate the structure for a variety of reasons. Conditioning, attitude, poor handling, and other factors can turn a diamond of a canine specimen into a lump of coal. Same with corps. OK, they march and play a lot, do some cool drill moves, high notes, neat drum solo, color guard has nice impact points...but if the show isn't structured well, performers don't have the quality of movement or musicianship (though marching and playing things technically clean), then the check boxes don't validate the quality/type that you're looking for. It's the box 4/box 5 conundrum, and as with dog judges, DCI judges can fall into the pedantic approach, rather than to appreciate intrinsic performance quality as the overriding aim of the process. Can't say I saw any evidence of that during DCI week, at least among the top half of the finals lineup. Seem pretty obvious that you did, but I think it's more a matter of perspective than some type of conspiracy or bias. Oh, and by the way, bull riding is more than staying on for the appointed time. You do realize that the quality of the ride is scored too? Gee whillikers. You make some good points. The only difference is that all of these other subjective activities have objective elements that are common among all the competitors. DCI does not. DCI uses the same ingredients, but there is no standard for any element. So DCI is 100% subjective while other subjective activities are maybe 50% subjective 50% objective. This, along with the fact that the rubrics and priorities of that 100% subjective judging change every other year, results in the lay person not knowing why the scores are what they are. 2015 and 2016 the top 3 corps were separated by less than a point. Can the average fan in plain language explain why Bluecoats did not win in 2015 and Crown didn't win in 2016? I don't think so. So when you say variances are allowed and no big deal, it makes no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraFart Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 11 minutes ago, Stu said: Nope, Do you know why? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, ContraFart said: Why? My answer is 10 not 9. You work in medical billing, I work in math, You were assuming all equations are in base ten, in this case I was using the criteria of base nine where the only numbers available to me in that equation are (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) Therefore I do not have the digit '9' available; so 6+3=10 is correct according to that criteria. And that is within an 'objective' system of math not a subjective observational system like DCI evaluation. So, since you made the wrong 'objective' evaluation in math based on your personal assumptions about the criteria, is it possible that you also made a wrong 'subjective' evaluation about the measurable differences between top WC corps based on your own personal assumptions about the criteria? Edited August 23, 2017 by Stu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby L. Collins Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Stu said: lots of gainsaying for no other reason than to be contrary and argumentative Eristic From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In philosophy and rhetoric, eristic (from Eris, the ancient Greek goddess of chaos, strife, and discord) refers to argument that aims to successfully dispute another's argument, rather than searching for truth. According to T.H. Irwin, "It is characteristic of the eristic to think of some arguments as a way of defeating the other side, by showing that an opponent must assent to the negation of what he initially took himself to believe."[1]Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict, as opposed to resolving conflict.[2] Use in education Eristic was a type of "question-and-answer"[3] teaching method popularized by the Sophists, such as Euthydemos and Dionysodoros. Students learned eristic arguments to "refute their opponent, no matter whether he [said] yes or no in answer to their initial question".[4] Plato contrasted this type of argument with dialectic and other more reasonable and logical methods (e.g., at Republic 454a). In the dialogue Euthydemus, Plato satirizes eristic. It is more than persuasion, and it is more than discourse. It is a combination that wins an argument without regard to truth. Plato believed that the eristic style "did not constitute a method of argument" because to argue eristically is to consciously use fallacious arguments, which therefore weakens one's position.[5] Unlike Plato, Isocrates (often considered a Sophist) did not distinguish eristic from dialectic.[6] He held that both lacked a "'useful application' ... that created responsible citizens",[7] which unscrupulous teachers used for "enriching themselves at the expense of the youth."[8] Philosophical eristic Schopenhauer considers that only logic pursues truth. For him, dialectic, sophistry and eristic have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself because it aims at victory. He names these three last methods as "eristic dialectic (contentious argument)."[9] According to Schopenhauer, Eristic Dialectic is mainly concerned to tabulate and analyze dishonest stratagems,[10] so that they may at once be recognized and defeated, in order to continue with a productive dialectic debate. It is for this very reason that Eristic Dialectic must admittedly take victory, and not objective truth, for its selfish aim and purpose. Edited August 23, 2017 by Bobby L. Collins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 hour ago, BDCorno said: Oh, and by the way, bull riding is more than staying on for the appointed time. You do realize that the quality of the ride is scored too? Gee whillikers. Really? I had no idea. Wow, stay on for 8 seconds and look better doing it than the next rider may let you win on style points? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 hour ago, ContraFart said: If you are going to dismiss my premise because I am not a judge, then why discuss anything at all? Why does this forum exist? But if you actually understand what I am trying to say, then you might see reason. I understand... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappybara Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 (edited) 7 hours 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? Not at all. But the huge difference between your evaluation of that show and the judge's evaluation of that show invalidates your opinion on Crown 2009 for me personally. It gives off a warning sign that there's something really off when your assessment is not even in the same ballpark as the rest of the DCI judges Edited August 23, 2017 by Cappybara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts