Jump to content

2018 Rules proposals


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

I was in total agreement with you about evaluating and performing being different skill sets.  But fresh input from people with that skill set would be priceless.

Yes, I agree with this as something that would be interesting and valuable at some point in the season. Stu mentioned having these people dropped in to judge DCI finals, which IMO totally without merit. IMO the corps primarily slot themselves during the season by the shows they present and the ability of members and staffs to perform those shows.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2017 at 7:25 AM, MikeD said:

Where did I say that? Being an amazing performer and being able to look at a group of ensembles and give them a worthwhile evaluation are not the same skillsets.

In drum corps terms, add to the mix the different types of shows being presented and it greatly increases the difficulty for someone to just walk in and be expected to give a fair and accurate evaluation of the groups.

Add to that the written criteria for judging the captions that has been created by the member corps, and IMO it becomes an impossible task for a virtuoso performer with no background in DCI and/or evaluating other groups in general to accomplish.

Well said, Mike.

When I was a member of a local Toastmasters club (public speaking) I judged several local/regional contests.

We had strict guidelines/criteria to follow when evaluating a speech, and were trained to evaluate based on those guidelines. There were times when Contestant 1 gave a great talk,  but I had to score him or her lower than Contestant 2 because Contestant 1 didn't quite meet the criteria of that particular speech contest.

Even if, say, a world-class public speaker like Zig Ziglar were to judge a Toastmasters contest, that person would have to be trained as to what the criteria were. They couldn't just show up and evaluate someone without any regard to, or knowledge of,  the guidelines.  That wouldn't make that person "incompetent"... just not trained to be a Toastmasters contest judge!!!
 

Edited by Fran Haring
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

I think he was saying the opposite - that "numbers management" contributes to the slotting phenomena.

not really. The judge is to rank and rate that day, based on what they see. As the season goes on and numbers raise higher, there's only so much room to work with. Sure, say PC could make great progress from their season opening 62. But so could BD from their season opening 77. you get slotting when the results are similar accross the board regardless of sheet. Well...let's be realistic here.....if you're at the top of the heap, you're going to be there or darn close to it on every sheet. Crown being what....6th in drums that year and winning is the exception, not the norm. Even back in the day, corps at the top where pretty close to the top on all of the sheets...and that was the supposed non subjective tic system....which was even more subjective than now.

 

Good is good. and great is great, and it runs across the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MikeD said:

Yes, I agree with this as something that would be interesting and valuable at some point in the season. Stu mentioned having these people dropped in to judge DCI finals, which IMO totally without merit. IMO the corps primarily slot themselves during the season by the shows they present and the ability of members and staffs to perform those shows.  

USBands did this a few years ago didn't they? From what I heard the results ended up where everyone expected anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

not really. The judge is to rank and rate that day, based on what they see. As the season goes on and numbers raise higher, there's only so much room to work with. Sure, say PC could make great progress from their season opening 62. But so could BD from their season opening 77. you get slotting when the results are similar accross the board regardless of sheet. Well...let's be realistic here.....if you're at the top of the heap, you're going to be there or darn close to it on every sheet. Crown being what....6th in drums that year and winning is the exception, not the norm. Even back in the day, corps at the top where pretty close to the top on all of the sheets...and that was the supposed non subjective tic system....which was even more subjective than now.

 

Good is good. and great is great, and it runs across the table.

I'd like to argue that the very top corps are WAY underscored in the beginning of the season...and that their scores are artificial scores that are not even scored within reality...arbitrarily scored low just so it shows they made progress...the progression each season is very predictable every season by certain dates and/or major events within the season as well...

Edited by Liahona
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

not really. The judge is to rank and rate that day, based on what they see. As the season goes on and numbers raise higher, there's only so much room to work with. Sure, say PC could make great progress from their season opening 62. But so could BD from their season opening 77. you get slotting when the results are similar accross the board regardless of sheet. Well...let's be realistic here.....if you're at the top of the heap, you're going to be there or darn close to it on every sheet. Crown being what....6th in drums that year and winning is the exception, not the norm. Even back in the day, corps at the top where pretty close to the top on all of the sheets...and that was the supposed non subjective tic system....which was even more subjective than now.

 

Good is good. and great is great, and it runs across the table.

I am only relating how I read what Stu posted.  Maybe he will elaborate.

Quote

you get slotting when the results are similar accross the board regardless of sheet. Well...let's be realistic here.....if you're at the top of the heap, you're going to be there or darn close to it on every sheet. Crown being what....6th in drums that year and winning is the exception, not the norm. Even back in the day, corps at the top where pretty close to the top on all of the sheets...and that was the supposed non subjective tic system....which was even more subjective than now.

 

Good is good. and great is great, and it runs across the table.

Unless you consider 9th "pretty close to the top", caption balance was quite different BITD.  Title contenders sometimes had weak captions, and caption winners could come from down in the pack, or even among the prelim cuts (i.e. 1977 Oakland Crusaders).

Nowadays, where a larger pool of staff talent consolidate among a smaller pool of corps in a richer economic climate, caption imbalances like that rarely ever occur in the first place.  However, that offers no explanation for when one of those normally balanced corps gives an uncharacteristically bad performance one day and scores as if nothing is amiss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

not really. The judge is to rank and rate that day, based on what they see. As the season goes on and numbers raise higher, there's only so much room to work with. Sure, say PC could make great progress from their season opening 62. But so could BD from their season opening 77. you get slotting when the results are similar accross the board regardless of sheet. Well...let's be realistic here.....if you're at the top of the heap, you're going to be there or darn close to it on every sheet. Crown being what....6th in drums that year and winning is the exception, not the norm. Even back in the day, corps at the top where pretty close to the top on all of the sheets...and that was the supposed non subjective tic system....which was even more subjective than now.

Good is good. and great is great, and it runs across the table.

 

2 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

I am only relating how I read what Stu posted.  Maybe he will elaborate.

Both the tic system of yester-year and the build-up system of today are subjective systems; there is nothing objective about opinion evaluation. That said there is more ambiguity with identifying what is great (ie who is better, Chicago Symphony or Boston Symphony), as opposed to what is error (ie who made more mistakes between those two).

So to gain consistency within a build-up scoring system you train judges for cookie-cutter evaluation within subjective opinion scoring and ranking; not only to the sheets but to each other as judges (part of the evaluation to become a DCI judge is how close you score and rank to current judges).

With that you also end up with a form of slotting. Why? Because quite frankly while the Chicago Symphony and the Boston have different sound they are equally great; and neither should have to give up their own unique sound for the sake of score and rank. However, the judges are trained to place the sound of Chicago as being the better of the two, which forces Boston to either change their sound or get whacked; and then if any judge dares to say, "Nope, the Boston sound is better" that judge gets axed for upsetting the adjudicating apple-cart).

Edited by Stu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Liahona said:

I'd like to argue that the very top corps are WAY underscored in the beginning of the season...and that their scores are artificial scores that are not even scored within reality...arbitrarily scored low just so it shows they made progress...the progression each season is very predictable every season by certain dates and/or major events within the season as well...

I'll disagree to a point. if you come out June 20th and you're popping 9's in the sub boxes, you're going to peak in, oh 3 weeks. So then what?Someone stays at a 90 or above all season because the performer is out performing the book. You look at a BD in June and then at finals, and you can see the growth in the performer, and how it allows the clarity of the design to show through. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

I am only relating how I read what Stu posted.  Maybe he will elaborate.

Unless you consider 9th "pretty close to the top", caption balance was quite different BITD.  Title contenders sometimes had weak captions, and caption winners could come from down in the pack, or even among the prelim cuts (i.e. 1977 Oakland Crusaders).

Nowadays, where a larger pool of staff talent consolidate among a smaller pool of corps in a richer economic climate, caption imbalances like that rarely ever occur in the first place.  However, that offers no explanation for when one of those normally balanced corps gives an uncharacteristically bad performance one day and scores as if nothing is amiss.

your first sentence....he will trust us. 

 

you have always had one offs. Crowns percussion woes for a few years. Bayonne in drums. Phantom winning drums from 6th place in 2010. But BITD, you rarely had top corps coming in 7th in a caption, or corps winning a caption from 6th place. I've seen enough recaps to know that ( thanks Jodeen Popp books!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...