When one judge calls the show

[Chief Guns]

20 minutes ago, skevinp said:

My understanding is that it is the intervals that matter, and the judges have the ability to adjust all the scores if they run out of room at the top.  So if group A is the best so far with a 19.9 and then group B comes along and is .3 better, they can’t get a 20.2 so the judges have to adjust the other scores downward to make room.  So when they make the adjustment, they could move group B down to 20.0 and group A down to 19.7.  

If that is not how it works (in relevant part) someone please tell me.  

If it is how it works, though, then it should clearly demonstrate why a 20.0 does not mean the performance was considered perfect or the maximum possible quality or necessarily anywhere near that.  Group B might have been .5 better without the fall if the judge thought is was really important, in which case they could have adjusted the group B score down to 20.0 and the group A score down to 19.5.  

I suppose they could adjust the top score down to 19.9 if that makes people feel better, but it would require pushing everyone else’s  score down too to maintain the interval, so why push everyone down more than necessary.

Pretty much spot on how the scoring was explained to me years ago. 

[ironlips]

3 minutes ago, Chief Guns said:

Pretty much spot on how the scoring was explained to me years ago. 

Yes, that is correct.

I might also add that it is not always correct for all the judges to agree on scores and placements across the board, otherwise you'd only need one judge per contest.

The trick is for judges to get a pretty good handle on the value of the tenth within their caption. For instance, a 1-3 tenth spread indicates the groups are competitive and that caption could easily flip tomorrow. More than that indicates a different "neighborhood", at least in the contest in question.

Of course, groups can have different strengths and weaknesses, and to different degrees, which is how a group can win a competition without copping any first-place ordinals.

There is a limit to how many judges is the optimum number. The larger that is, the more likely spreads will shrink, while the likelihood of ties is increased.

Judging 'ain't easy, which is why my advice to designers and performers alike is to make it easier by being obvious in your intent and in your skills demonstration. Don't try to be "clever". Lay it out there.

[ContraFart]

2 hours ago, skevinp said:

My understanding is that it is the intervals that matter, and the judges have the ability to adjust all the scores if they run out of room at the top.  So if group A is the best so far with a 19.9 and then group B comes along and is .3 better, they can’t get a 20.2 so the judges have to adjust the other scores downward to make room.  So when they make the adjustment, they could move group B down to 20.0 and group A down to 19.7.  

If that is not how it works (in relevant part) someone please tell me.  

If it is how it works, though, then it should clearly demonstrate why a 20.0 does not mean the performance was considered perfect or the maximum possible quality or necessarily anywhere near that.  Group B might have been .5 better without the fall if the judge thought is was really important, in which case they could have adjusted the group B score down to 20.0 and the group A score down to 19.5.  

I suppose they could adjust the top score down to 19.9 if that makes people feel better, but it would require pushing everyone else’s  score down too to maintain the interval, so why push everyone down more than necessary.

I understand the concept, but that doesn't make it right. 

By your definition, the final number means nothing but a spread compared to the other group. It makes 99.65 completely irrelevant. It means that scoring is based on numbers management and not adjudicating the show in front of them. If you look at scores, a single judge will rarely if at all give the same number to 2 groups. Does that mean that it's impossible that 2 groups are so close that they can earn the same number? 

You explanation makes sense, but to me it's a wrong philosophy to use to judge.

[resipsaloquitur]

15 hours ago, ContraFart said:

I'm sorry that's a weak position. You are looking at a basketball court not a football field. You are also looking at the most noticeable instrument on the court in a 5 to 10 second incident. Don't tell me a judge sitting in the stands didn't notice. That's BS. 

Also 75% of all DCI performances have a CG drop. Almost none have somebody falling down. You can't compare the two.

 

I think you're missing the forest by looking too closely at the trees. Which could be why you are not a judge. Instead of starting from the top and working down, judges reward what is being done on the floor, from both composition and execution perspectives. Like DCI, WGI scoring is not a tear-down system....which meant one drop, one fall, and there goes a tick....not playing in tune was two or three ticks. The problem was the lack of focus on the achievement of the members and more on mistakes....which is why the judging has evolved over the years.

I think what fries you is there is no "Fallen Down Deduction" or "Didn't Move Feet in Unison Deduction" or "Not Enough Cowbells Deduction". Until those deductions exist, there is no deduction for things that you are wishing for a deduction. These things don't take away from the enjoyment of the show. Nor of the scores. From my understanding, perfect visual score does not mean every single move was perfect, but it means that the proficiency and understanding of each visual aspect from the group itself was perfect. 

Kudos to the performers. Don't let that one errant music judge (or DCP ppl who like to pretend to be a visual judge) ruin an otherwise well-performed, super enjoyable show. 

Edited April 26, 2023 by resipsaloquitur

[resipsaloquitur]

23 hours ago, karuna said:

BTW I'm in no way minimizing how it feels to have a great season,  see wonderful growth in the performers,  have judges recognize the product all season, only to have a single judge call the show at the end.  It sucks.  Terribly.  You feel betrayed by the system and worse you feel like you let your performers get betrayed as well.   It's no fun at all.  But if you've taught them to view things with the right perspective, you do get to see them handle it like pro's  

I'd analogize it to drawing a bad prof, bad boss, bad store manager. 

Edited April 26, 2023 by resipsaloquitur

[resipsaloquitur]

15 hours ago, gbass598 said:

How do you define perfection in an artistic activity where judging is relatively subjective?

Here is the WGI visual sheets in question:

Note this under the Performance subcaption.

Ensemble Cohesiveness: The ability of the ensemble to establish and maintain control and stability, including adaptation

and recovery if necessary.

https://wgi.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2020_WGI_Percussion_Visual-MPE_Scoresheetpdf.pdf

https://wgi.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2020_WGI_Percussion_Effect-Visual-MPE-Scoresheet.pdf

 

THIS

[resipsaloquitur]

14 hours ago, ContraFart said:

So I guess you can get a perfect score by breaking my immersion in a show for 30 seconds because there was a crash and its like it never happened because she recovered? 

I may not be able to define perfection, but I know that when a huge fall happens, it's not perfect. I don't think it's that hard.

It's not so much how many mistakes you make, but your ability to recover from those.....sure, you have those individuals, the judges know that. The sheets literally provide for that and rewards it. Go back and reread the sheets.

[Jeff Ream]

On 4/24/2023 at 11:53 PM, ContraFart said:

Can you really max out a visual sheet if you fall down? 

This isn't the GE visual score, it's the visual performance score.

Is it really that far out to say you can't max out a sheet if you make a major error? 

ask Cavies 2002

[resipsaloquitur]

11 hours ago, ContraFart said:

I'm literally being gaslit here. People are thinking I'm crazy because I don't think a visual judge should give a 20 (the only 20 of the entire competition) to a group where somebody falls down. If they got a 20 in GE or music, this would be a different conversation, but a major mistake such as falling down does not deserve the maximum score in any context, especially when the top of the competition is so tight.

Where am I wrong?

Go back and read the visual sheets. Let's start with that.

[Jeff Ream]

On 4/24/2023 at 11:56 PM, ContraFart said:

So if the judges only work with so many numbers, could it be possible the judge had that 20 on the sheet before RCC took the floor?

I kept on hearing over and over again in 2015 that BD won because they had the better show of the night. Why doesn't it apply with this?

no. when you use Competition Suite, you're able to hold numbers in batches before you "verify" and submit your final numbers. so it's most likely they had numbers down, and when everyone was done, they made any adjustments from there.