jjeffeory Posted June 27, 2023 Share Posted June 27, 2023 3 hours ago, ContraFart said: I'm coming from the perspective of the fact that the talent of and the execution of the top 4 groups are extraordinary close. So the question that should be asked is what causes one of those groups to win 50% of the championships? Nobody is engaging with that question, they are just telling me that I'm wrong for asking it. We need a mathematician or statistician to analyze the data to determine bias, which I know is possible, but I don't know how to do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraFart Posted June 27, 2023 Share Posted June 27, 2023 (edited) 28 minutes ago, GUARDLING said: 100% incorrect.....again you look at 1 things verses the entire package. You don't just judge by one moment. No, you do not judge an entire product by one moment. I agree, however when you give a 20 visual score to a group where someone falls down, it would appear to any reasonable person that the fall was not factored into the score. You can tell me over and over again that everything else was so good that they scored more than a 20, but I see that as the fundamental problem with the system, especially when another group who executed just as well, did not get that 20 score. I think we are coming at this from 2 different perspectives. You are seeing adjudication as a teaching tool. A way to comment on the show to allow for the most growth. I am coming at this from the competition perspective, where the scores are as a precise as possible measurement to the competitive outcome, and I am failing to see how the system achieves that. Edited June 27, 2023 by ContraFart 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted June 27, 2023 Share Posted June 27, 2023 5 minutes ago, ContraFart said: No, you do not judge an entire product by one moment. I agree, however when you give a 20 visual score to a group where someone falls down, it would appear to any reasonable person that the fall was not factored into the score. You can tell me over and over again that everything else was so good that they scored more than a 20, but I see that as the fundamental problem with the system, especially when another group who executed just as well, did not get that 20 score. I think we are coming at this from 2 different perspectives. You are seeing adjudication as a teaching tool. A way to comment on the show to allow for the most growth. I am coming at this from the competition perspective, where the scores are as a precise as possible measurement to the competitive outcome, and I am failing to see how the system achieves that. I cant explain it any better, others have also tried. Its something you are dug in on and won't accept it. So time to move on I think. I am not devaluing your opinion but many have offered their opinions on why and it is your choice to accept or not . As far as the numbers, the 20 could be 50 and still have those same issues. You also said the other group executed as well, well that would be your opinion, obviously the judge felt different. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneWhoKnows Posted June 27, 2023 Share Posted June 27, 2023 21 minutes ago, ContraFart said: No, you do not judge an entire product by one moment. I agree, however when you give a 20 visual score to a group where someone falls down, it would appear to any reasonable person that the fall was not factored into the score. You can tell me over and over again that everything else was so good that they scored more than a 20, but I see that as the fundamental problem with the system, especially when another group who executed just as well, did not get that 20 score. I think we are coming at this from 2 different perspectives. You are seeing adjudication as a teaching tool. A way to comment on the show to allow for the most growth. I am coming at this from the competition perspective, where the scores are as a precise as possible measurement to the competitive outcome, and I am failing to see how the system achieves that. Let’s make this very simple. If the judge genuinely did not see the fall, which is possible, do they deserve the 20? I went back and watched the performance and it was one hell of a visual performance from RCC. Or are you just upset your group didn’t get the 20? Maybe it’s just your bias showing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraFart Posted June 27, 2023 Share Posted June 27, 2023 7 minutes ago, GUARDLING said: I cant explain it any better, others have also tried. Its something you are dug in on and won't accept it. So time to move on I think. I am not devaluing your opinion but many have offered their opinions on why and it is your choice to accept or not . As far as the numbers, the 20 could be 50 and still have those same issues. You also said the other group executed as well, well that would be your opinion, obviously the judge felt different. What exactly am I dug in on? I have pointed out 3 things about how the numbers are determined which I think are the main flaws of the system and the only thing the people keep pointing to is the fallibility of the judges. You may think I am fixated on the perfect score, but I'm really not. I just see that as the perfect example of how the actual number is meaningless in this activity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraFart Posted June 27, 2023 Share Posted June 27, 2023 3 minutes ago, TheOneWhoKnows said: Let’s make this very simple. If the judge genuinely did not see the fall, which is possible, do they deserve the 20? I went back and watched the performance and it was one hell of a visual performance from RCC. Or are you just upset your group didn’t get the 20? Maybe it’s just your bias showing. I actually did not care until RCC people started complaining about the music judge and how one judge can change a competition. I then pointed out that they got a 20 in visual even though a bass drummer fell and I have been flamed on that remark ever since. RCC did not even win and the top 3 were so tight that any one of them deserved it. However looking at that discrepancy made me take a deeper look on how "numbers management" works and I disagreed with it. It makes the accusations of "slotting" all the more plausible and it reduces the actual score to a spread based on the ordinals. So if your score only reflective of the relative numbers of the other corps in that competition, then the same show in a different year can have a completely different score. The number itself means nothing. So it begs the question, is BD 2014 the best corps of all time, or just a result of bad numbers management? If the visual performance judge missed the fall, then is that not an issue for the sanctity of the competition? Isn't that why DCI has double panels for championships? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted June 27, 2023 Share Posted June 27, 2023 (edited) 43 minutes ago, ContraFart said: What exactly am I dug in on? I have pointed out 3 things about how the numbers are determined which I think are the main flaws of the sye clearly upset and dug in on the " fall " from WGIstem and the only thing the people keep pointing to is the fallibility of the judges. You may think I am fixated on the perfect score, but I'm really not. I just see that as the perfect example of how the actual number is meaningless in this activity. you are clearly dug in on and upset over the WGI fall but refuse to take into consideration that when a judge comes up with a number it isnt 1 thing that determines that AND the fact we are only working with a certain amount of numbers. If you think numbers don't mean anything thats ok, you are entitled but those of us who do or understand how determination can be made are also entitled. Agree to disagree I guess and move forward. I guess until the next example comes up....and it will..lol Maybe to some degree you are right, numbers arent the end all but getting the right group in the right place does which is how the numbers are used. That make more sense? Edited June 27, 2023 by GUARDLING 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraFart Posted June 27, 2023 Share Posted June 27, 2023 17 minutes ago, GUARDLING said: you are clearly dug in on and upset over the WGI fall but refuse to take into consideration that when a judge comes up with a number it isnt 1 thing that determines that AND the fact we are only working with a certain amount of numbers. If you think numbers don't mean anything thats ok, you are entitled but those of us who do or understand how determination can be made are also entitled. Agree to disagree I guess and move forward. I guess until the next example comes up....and it will..lol Maybe to some degree you are right, numbers arent the end all but getting the right group in the right place does which is how the numbers are used. That make more sense? I think where we diverge is the concept of competition. Single moments change the outcome of sporting and competitive events all the time, and you are telling me in the world of pageantry, it should not. If all we did was comments for individual rating, I would agree with you 100%, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Joe Posted June 27, 2023 Share Posted June 27, 2023 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted June 27, 2023 Share Posted June 27, 2023 10 minutes ago, ContraFart said: I think where we diverge is the concept of competition. Single moments change the outcome of sporting and competitive events all the time, and you are telling me in the world of pageantry, it should not. If all we did was comments for individual rating, I would agree with you 100%, Yes and no, I am saying single moments do not determine and outcome and yet "IF" all things are even they could . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.