Define General Effect

[scheherazadesghost]

47 minutes ago, Sensioto said:

Have been dwelling on this topic for a bit now. I'll make a sports analogy.

In basketball or American football, the technical side of things is your field goal percentage, rebounds, blocks; completion percentage, yards per play, points, etc., but the intangible character, charisma, and "it" factor, is what has potential to make a team special - you have to have intention and tap into it and bring it out, but it's not what you do, it's how you do it.

In essence, drum corps are teams that have technical and physical aspects to meet and perfect, but it's the intangibles that you can draw out of the technical aspects that create General Effect. It's charisma, it's character, it's intention, it's passion.

Respectfully, however, is there any other sport that assigns point value to something intangible? Can't think of one off the top of my head, but I welcome clarification. This is what differentiates sport from art. Most artists I've known and respected don't try to quantify their artmaking in process or product. Or if they do, it's an experiment that feeds the art. DCI's use of quantifying GE is not an experiment. They're committed, and money is tied to the outcome.

In basketball, gymnastics, whatever, there aren't scoring matrices for this intangible quality because as we all know it's a merely subjective, fallible contributing factor. You don't get points for it... you only lose points (or players) when your "it factor" gets out of control, crude, or dangerous.

I've argued herein that this intangible, subjective GE rubric sullies the quantifiable aspects of the judging system. It creates room for fuzz that few, if any other sports judging systems make the space for.

[Grandpa Joe]

2 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Respectfully, however, is there any other sport that assigns point value to something intangible? Can't think of one off the top of my head, but I welcome clarification. This is what differentiates sport from art. Most artists I've known and respected don't try to quantify their artmaking in process or product. Or if they do, it's an experiment that feeds the art. DCI's use of quantifying GE is not an experiment. They're committed, and money is tied to the outcome.

In basketball, gymnastics, whatever, there aren't scoring matrices for this intangible quality because as we all know it's a merely subjective, fallible contributing factor. You don't get points for it... you only lose points (or players) when your "it factor" gets out of control, crude, or dangerous.

I've argued herein that this intangible, subjective GE rubric sullies the quantifiable aspects of the judging system. It creates room for fuzz that few, if any other sports judging systems make the space for.

There's fuzz in sports as well. What one ref might call as a foul another just might ignore. There's more fuzz in the marching arts than in sports, but the fuzz is in anything and everything competitive. Gymnastics is a prime example of a judged sport that has the same subjectiveness as what we call "General Effect". While all captions are based on a person's opinion, GE is essentially "Did I like that show or not?"

I personally think we need to stop calling the caption General Effect and change each one to Music Design and Visual Design, because let's face it, that's exactly what they are, and it would keep people from guessing what General Effect actually is. Separating them again would help immensely in my opinion when it comes to caption bleeding. You simply can't judge two different captions at the same time and give a realistically objective score, and that's essentially what these judges are trying to do.

[Grandpa Joe]

4 minutes ago, Sensioto said:

We keep throwing around "design," myself included. One distinction I wish to draw here is that General Effect *should* come from the corps/MMs, for it is a performance element - not the design team. While the design team should be credited for giving the corps a great vehicle, the performance and execution of that design is what brings it to life and gives it effect.

I don't believe in rewarding the design team on the sheets. You can be given "trash" and make it a treasure, and as they so say, you can be given treasure and perform it like "trash." 

When you get a design team that stays for a while and consistently cranks out GE machines, that's great, but I still maintain that the performance is always paramount.

I completely agree, but from my own personal experience discussing this with judges in multiple high school circuits, GE basically equates to the design and how the marching members are portraying said design. Basically, the content score is the designer, and the achievement score is a combination of performance by the marching members and execution of the design on the staff's part. 

[scheherazadesghost]

9 minutes ago, Grandpa Joe said:

There's fuzz in sports as well. What one ref might call as a foul another just might ignore. There's more fuzz in the marching arts than in sports, but the fuzz is in anything and everything competitive. Gymnastics is a prime example of a judged sport that has the same subjectiveness as what we call "General Effect". While all captions are based on a person's opinion, GE is essentially "Did I like that show or not?"

Glad you latched onto gymnastics. I was a competitive gymnast, 2 levels before elites/Olympic level before I quit. My poor joints.

Anyway, there is extremely limited subjectiveness in gymnastics. Trust me, I could get gyms ROCKIN' to my floor routine, but that was never reflected in the scores because it was counted in the execution score. If any subjectivity sneaks in, it's minimized by the use of multiple judges watching the same thing at the same time, and those scores are averaged. There are point deductions, but mainly just the "difficulty" and "execution" scores. With some apparatuses, the difficult score is predetermined. More here: https://www.nbcolympics.com/news/gymnastics-101-scoring

There is no "I didn't like that routine." Or if there is, it should be justified within the judging paradigm. I could agree to there being some fuzz, but the system minimizes it intentionally. Same with other sports. You don't get extra points for HOW you dunk in basketball because the how already means you got the point. It could be argued that Michael Jordan dunked so well that it fed the audience which, in turn fed him to dunk better and more beautifully, but that's not part of the scoring system until it manifests in more points.

9 minutes ago, Grandpa Joe said:

I personally think we need to stop calling the caption General Effect and change each one to Music Design and Visual Design, because let's face it, that's exactly what they are, and it would keep people from guessing what General Effect actually is. Separating them again would help immensely in my opinion when it comes to caption bleeding. You simply can't judge two different captions at the same time and give a realistically objective score, and that's essentially what these judges are trying to do.

Now that's something I could get behind.

[Grandpa Joe]

5 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Glad you latched onto gymnastics. I was a competitive gymnast, 2 levels before elites/Olympic level before I quit. My poor joints.

Anyway, there is extremely limited subjectiveness in gymnastics. Trust me, I could get gyms ROCKIN' to my floor routine, but that was never reflected in the scores because it was counted in the execution score. If any subjectivity sneaks in, it's minimized by the use of multiple judges watching the same thing at the same time, and those scores are averaged. There are point deductions, but mainly just the "difficulty" and "execution" scores. With some apparatuses, the difficult score is predetermined. More here: https://www.nbcolympics.com/news/gymnastics-101-scoring

There is no "I didn't like that routine." Or if there is, it should be justified within the judging paradigm. I could agree to there being some fuzz, but the system minimizes it intentionally. Same with other sports. You don't get extra points for HOW you dunk in basketball because the how already means you got the point. It could be argued that Michael Jordan dunked so well that it fed the audience which, in turn fed him to dunk better and more beautifully, but that's not part of the scoring system until it manifests in more points.

Now that's something I could get behind.

That's why I specifically mentioned fouls instead of points made. Refs can just not like a basketball franchise and call a foul that another ref might have just let go because it was minute or something, which then allows for the team to gain a couple more points. Sports can be subjective too, even if no one is ready to have that conversation. Lol. 

As for gymnastics, I stand corrected. I had cousins in gymnastics and would have to go to their competitions, and I feel like I had seen some subjectivity in the scoring, but I could be wrong. It does even out with multiple judges watching the same thing, which I believe is why DCI added 2 more judges to GE for Indy, but it still doesn't help the fact that there truly is no distinctive definition for GE other than what equates to "How did that show make you feel? Did you like it? Tell us why."

That's why I would love for the captions to be renamed and given specific definitions as to what they are supposed to be looking for, rather than allowing emotions to get in the way. Allow the audience to be the one with emotions. Your job as a judge is to put the correct group in the correct position, not be all up in your feels. Will there still be judges who could be judging based on favoritism? Yes, but the margin of error would be minimized.

I would also love to see the performance captions hold more weight, but that's never going to happen.

[scheherazadesghost]

48 minutes ago, Grandpa Joe said:

That's why I specifically mentioned fouls instead of points made. Refs can just not like a basketball franchise and call a foul that another ref might have just let go because it was minute or something, which then allows for the team to gain a couple more points. Sports can be subjective too, even if no one is ready to have that conversation. Lol. 

Gotcha. No, I'm being a bit of a contrarian approach here, so apologies. I'm actually the first to argue that sports are subjective as hell. But at least they feign objectivity and work to improve it over time. I'm super ready for that conversation.

48 minutes ago, Grandpa Joe said:

As for gymnastics, I stand corrected. I had cousins in gymnastics and would have to go to their competitions, and I feel like I had seen some subjectivity in the scoring, but I could be wrong. It does even out with multiple judges watching the same thing, which I believe is why DCI added 2 more judges to GE for Indy, but it still doesn't help the fact that there truly is no distinctive definition for GE other than what equates to "How did that show make you feel? Did you like it? Tell us why."

All scoring where creativity is mixed with sport is fuzzy and fallible. Just some more than others. And the subjectivity can be minimized with the right minds who have rubric-making experience. Not just sports experience. That is the work happening in many collegiate arts settings. Even then, they know it's an impossible task and regularly work to improve rubrics year-by-year. It's exhausting but important work.

48 minutes ago, Grandpa Joe said:

That's why I would love for the captions to be renamed and given specific definitions as to what they are supposed to be looking for, rather than allowing emotions to get in the way. Allow the audience to be the one with emotions. Your job as a judge is to put the correct group in the correct position, not be all up in your feels. Will there still be judges who could be judging based on favoritism? Yes, but the margin of error would be minimized.

I would also love to see the performance captions hold more weight, but that's never going to happen.

Including audience reaction, as has been indicated in this thread more than once, is an excellent idea. My thesis was all about fun, amicable audience interaction... it's proven to drive audiences if done well. In the arts anyway...

Edited July 10, 2023 by scheherazadesghost

[Grandpa Joe]

4 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Including audience reaction, as has been indicated in this thread more than once, is an excellent idea. My thesis was all about fun, amicable audience interaction... it's proven to drive audiences if done well. In the arts anyway...

The problem with including audience reaction is how would it be implemented? When I hear someone say "include audience reaction in the judging" I imagine American Idol and voting via text or an app. Lol. Do we have a meter that gauges how loud they cheer? Or does a judge simply away from the sheets and base it off of their opinion on how the audience is reacting? If it's the latter, then we run into the same issue with judges using their opinion rather than any sort of fact.

[scheherazadesghost]

2 minutes ago, Grandpa Joe said:

The problem with including audience reaction is how would it be implemented? When I hear someone say "include audience reaction in the judging" I imagine American Idol and voting via text or an app. Lol. Do we have a meter that gauges how loud they cheer? Or does a judge simply away from the sheets and base it off of their opinion on how the audience is reacting? If it's the latter, then we run into the same issue with judges using their opinion rather than any sort of fact.

This is why I argue to drop the competition aspect all together, but that'll probably get no traction ever forever never ever. At a certain point, the nitpicking kills the creativity and experience for me. Did as a member, does now as an advocate and fan.

[BlueStainGlass]

Audience reaction is the dumbest thing to add to GE sheet and im glad it never has been.  You have competitions over the whole country with fanbases in finite areas.  Then you have the fact that people literally hate BD and would never cheer for them just because.

[valjean]

3 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Same with other sports. You don't get extra points for HOW you dunk in basketball because the how already means you got the point. It could be argued that Michael Jordan dunked so well that it fed the audience which, in turn fed him to dunk better and more beautifully, but that's not part of the scoring system until it manifests in more points.

That's a good point but the difference is there is no room for bias when deciding whether the ball made it through the hoop; it either did or it didn't. 

Say in the case of figure skating, skaters are judged by how well they execute maneuvers. Or something. Could it be possible a judge's appraisal is subject to personal bias? Or perhaps similarly with gymnastics? Perhaps "fuzz" of this sort wouldn't matter in large point spreads but what about in close calls?