2023 Scores Question

[GUARDLING]

1 hour ago, DudleytheWest said:

That is a huge problem The politics and groupthink. There is way too much consistency in judging from night to night and way too little variance in scores and placements. 

Although BITD the tic system was also subjective and a mess there was no consistency. Some loved the excitement BUT there also was no accountability , A corps could win by 2 points one night and be in 4th the next. Often it had nothing to do with the corps but the whim of a judge. Corps themselves choose the way they are judged or how they sheets are interpreted. Consistency can be a way a corps know what to do next or what to work on. Without some sort of " consistency " corps can be out there lost, especially lower placing corps who maybe need the most help or guidance. Can it go to the extreme, which might be what you are saying..YES, I would agree it could.

Now I am by no means saying things can not flip around a bit BUT being a part of both systems all I can say is " Careful what you ask for"...lol

[IllianaLancerContra]

On 6/22/2023 at 8:38 AM, DudleytheWest said:

Yes, that that's just silly. The numbers should be something. There should be something that quantifies a 9.7 vs a 9.4, but there isn't. There isn't because it's not possible in this activity. 

Thinking about it, other than timing rules, the only quantifiable ticks BITD were 0.1 for dropped equipment.   Yes, it was counted as ‘penalty’ on the bottom of the sheets, but that was so a brass or percussion judge as well as M&M judge could pick it up & give it back.  Whoever gave it back marked the tick as a penalty.  They then added them up & deducted them from total score in their own column, which led to idea that dropped rife led to PR 1978 2nd place, but it was just a tick counted in a different manner.   

[IllianaLancerContra]

31 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:

Although BITD the tic system was also subjective and a mess there was no consistency. Some loved the excitement BUT there also was no accountability , A corps could win by 2 points one night and be in 4th the next. Often it had nothing to do with the corps but the whim of a judge. Corps themselves choose the way they are judged or how they sheets are interpreted. Consistency can be a way a corps know what to do next or what to work on. Without some sort of " consistency " corps can be out there lost, especially lower placing corps who maybe need the most help or guidance. Can it go to the extreme, which might be what you are saying..YES, I would agree it could.

Now I am by no means saying things can not flip around a bit BUT being a part of both systems all I can say is " Careful what you ask for"...lol

It has always been and still is based on ‘the whim of the judge’(s).  

[ContraFart]

I don't want a tick system, but I also don't want a system where you can get the maximum visual even if you fall down. 

[GUARDLING]

1 hour ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

It has always been and still is based on ‘the whim of the judge’(s).  

Yes , youre right, it can be...parameters isn't always a bad thing though,,,then again one has to follow them , so it's back to maybe a whim within guidelines..lol.....no real answer maybe especially when human judging is involved😊

Edited June 24, 2023 by GUARDLING

[GUARDLING]

😁

1 hour ago, ContraFart said:

I don't want a tick system, but I also don't want a system where you can get the maximum visual even if you fall down. 

All maxing out means is better than those ever so close behind. Maxing out now or ever never meant flawless...this again?....lol😁.....JK

Edited June 24, 2023 by GUARDLING

[IllianaLancerContra]

28 minutes ago, GUARDLING said:

😁

All maxing out means is better than those ever so close behind. Maxing out now or ever never meant flawless...this again?....lol😁.....JK

I would suggest that if maximum score possible (perfect) is given to a Corps with an obvious execution error (falling down) just because they were better than the next Corps behind, then maybe the previous scores given were too high.  Numbers management is important.  

[GUARDLING]

45 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

I would suggest that if maximum score possible (perfect) is given to a Corps with an obvious execution error (falling down) just because they were better than the next Corps behind, then maybe the previous scores given were too high.  Numbers management is important.  

the fall although obvious may not equal deficits in other areas of competitors. It's never black or white. Again, even a so-called perfect score never means perfect. Do we actually believe any corps no matter who is a 99 plus? hmmmmmmmm

[ContraFart]

1 hour ago, GUARDLING said:

😁

All maxing out means is better than those ever so close behind. Maxing out now or ever never meant flawless...this again?....lol😁.....JK

Yes this again lol. Either numbers mean something or they don't. 

 

[jjeffeory]

5 hours ago, DudleytheWest said:

That is a huge problem The politics and groupthink. There is way too much consistency in judging from night to night and way too little variance in scores and placements. 

Been complaining about that for decades, but I'm reading the Cavaliers book, and they complain about the lack of consistency in the 50s -70s.

I think consistency is over rated. BOA usnt as consistent from night to night, why should DCI be so? Because they mostly judge the design. 

BOA is now starting to do the same though.