New Adjudication System Proposal

[Tsar Nikk]

I'm not here to [insert word meaning "female dog" that has been blocked by this website - fully within their rights - but still an annoying policy when used in a non-profane context...still, as I don't want to be banned, I must not use the word meaning "female dog" that is sometimes used as a synonym for "whining."] about the Cadets' 99.15. On the current sheets, they have earned their score, and from what I have seen and read in reviews, they deserved their championship. It has nothing to do with whether they pleased you or not, because all of our tastes our different. Cadets deserved the title, and they got it.

This post is mostly to sort of add an avenue for all those who will soon flood DCP complaining about the high score.

It's no secret that for years I have been a proponent of change in the adjudication system. I am going to present it again, and hopefully we can generate some lively discussion and some suggestions.

First off...back in the late 80s, DCI went away from using 9 judges because they said it was cost-effective to use only 6. In 1988, DCI instituted a new system that was to reward General Effect more heavily than before, also eliminating the “field” and “ensemble” sub-captions in favour of broad “performance” captions. However, there were no field judges.

GE Brass 20 points

GE Percussion 15 points

GE Visual 20 points

Performance Brass 15 points

Performance Percussion 15 points

Performance Visual 15 points

On these GE-heavy sheets, we saw the highest score ever up to that point, SCV's fabled 98.8, followed by Regiment's second-place 98.4.

After only 2 years, DCI abandoned the system and went back to the 9-man panel for three years. In 1994, DCI began using a 7-man panel. In 2000 they added a color guard judge, bringing the total up to 8. And last year, DCI added a second percussion judge, bringing the total number of judges back up to 9.

One point that has been debated on DCP is the "thinning" or "watering down" of quality judges. This situation might be relieved with fewer judges having to score a corps on any given night, but I have not seriously looked into those numbers.

The adjudication system I propose deals a large blow to the caption of General Effect. I have always held the belief that General Effect should be an amalgam of the entire show, and should not be broken down into specific categories. After all, "specific" is the opposite of "general." But that is what we do currently...we have General Effect Music, and General Effect Visual...but why cannot the two be combined into one General Effect category? The basis for my system is this (borrowed from my adjudication treatise):

General Effect (20 points). General effect should have no sub-captions as it does now, for that is no longer “general” effect, but rather “specific” effect. “General Effect” should take into consideration all the aspects of the show and how they contribute to the finished product. The reason for reducing the caption by 20 points is simple: It is by far the most subjective of any caption. Who does it affect? The judges? The fans? The single biggest problem with the GE caption is that it puts the job of finding some sort of emotional impact in the hands of people who are trained to find mistakes...GE should be about everything: Brass, Percussion, Visual, and Auxiliary. GE is the total package, and should not be split up in two or three different ways. The GE judge would sit in the stands, somewhere in the middle between the top level and the sideline.

Visual (20 points). This category would deal with the formations themselves: Are they straight? Are they crooked? Are they supposed to be that way? Are the members in the form, or are they falling apart and collapsing a form? The ensemble visual judge would sit at the highest vantage point in the stadium. His duty is not to look for people out of step, or poor posture, but simply to focus on the “big picture.” This category would be much like the old Ensemble Visual category, and can also take on some aspects of the former GE Visual category (to appease designers, and let's face it....unfortunately, we are going to have to do that).

Music (20 points). The judge would be in the stands, and he would be responsible for scoring according to the corps' intonation, their balance and blend, and their overall cohesion with each other, as well as their interaction with the percussion section, including the front ensemble. This is basically the old "ensemble" caption given more weight.

Brass (10 points). This caption would focus on individual performances on the field. Intonation, tone colour, attacks and releases, and overall execution of the music…all of these are subjects for the brass judge. This caption could really be done either of two ways, as a build-up caption, or as a “tick” caption, where the judge would tick away one-tenth of a point for each mistake he heard. The brass judge would be on the field.

Percussion (10 points). This caption would focus on individual and ensemble playing, both in the battery and in the front ensemble. This too could be either a build-up caption or a “ticked” one. The judge would also be on the field.

Marching & Maneuvering (10 points). This caption would deal with the “mechanics” of marching, such as proper posture, marching in step, phasing, and intervals. The judge would need to be on the field. Could also be done as a "tick" caption.

Auxiliary (10 points). This judge would be on the field and be looking for correct technique in rifles and flags, as well as number of caught tosses versus dropped ones. Performance is the mainstay of this caption. This caption would probably best be done as half a ticked caption, and half a caption for build-up regarding design and demand.

Of course, this wouldn't solve all problems. For example, I believe DCI needs to look at the "box" system again and tweak so that "Box 5" is not as easy to reach in the later parts of the season by the top 5-6 corps. This might eliminate the need for giving out 10s to best 9.9s and 9.8s already given.

However, it DOES cut the number of judges back down to 7, saving DCI some money.

I do not see why a second percussion judge is needed. I know that the caption is split into two, but...there are maybe 2-3 more brass players out on the field...and I don't believe we need 2-3 brass judges.

I firmly believe that less weight needs to be given to General Effect and swung back into the broad performance captions of Music and Visual. It's clear that the GE caption is a confusing one at best for most fans of corps, even knowledgeable ones...look at how many debates have raged over Regiment's low numbers this year, neither Cavaliers nor Cadets winning GE visual in 2000, Cadets not scoring higher in GE in 2001...the list goes on and on.

Another thing that DCI MUST do...publish the sheets online. Let the fans know what the rules are. Heck, even the NFL publishes its rule book. DCI must do the same. This will remove the "secrecy" that some people feel surround the process.

And, if I may take a page from my old "USDC" pipe dream (My USDC Pipe Dream):

Judges will have to go through seminars, lectures, and evaluations in order to receive DCI status. They will have to redo this every 3-5 years. If at any time, a judge is suspected of pre-assigning or favoritism, the judge will be observed closely and asked to back up all of his numbers. No judge will be allowed to continue judgiung in DCI that does not show fairness and impartiality. The Judge Executor will monitor closely all of the scores of the USDC season, looking for anomalies and problems. Any concerns by corps over a particular judge will be made to a Judge Executor, however, a corps may only submit this concern after the season is over. The Judge Executor will be the adjudicator voted by member corps as the judge most likely to excel in honesty and impartiality.

That way, if there are constant problems such as the ones I have heard this year regarding Debbie Torchia, at least we know there is a way to address those concerns. Why exactly is it so wrong to ask Debbie why she slammed Crown every time she judged them this year? I don't think it's unfair to ask a judge to back up his or her numbers if the concern is raised.

Also...perhaps judges should have to sign a contract that states they will not look at recaps and instead be allowed to give a fresh number reflective of that night's performances.

And I still believe that the Finals judges should be sequestered two weeks prior to Finals (in other words, the week before Finals Week is the only time they would not be allowed to judge or look at scores). I have no idea how they would do this however.

I guess I am just sick of "trend" judging. For example...when was the last time there was a genuine back-and-forth between two or more corps leading into the last few weeks of the season? Either we have an undefeated corps barreling through everyone (Cavies 2002, Cadets 2000, BD 1994) or we have a corps that overtakes another and never looks back (BD 2003, Cadets 2005, Cavaliers 2001). It seems like once a corps beats another corps this late in the season...forget it...it's over. No back and forth anymore, no Corps X tonight and Corps Y tomorrow night and back to Corps X two nights later.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, just tossing stuff out there.

Oh, and hey...if anyone needs a Program Coordinator or just someone to talk to about show ideas, I'm here. :P (Or if some Division II or III corps needs a drill writer or brass arranger, I am here too....heh heh. Gotta support my doctoral studies somehow...)

Edited August 14, 2005 by Tsar Nikk

[Fievel]

I dig the proposal, especially the possibility of mixing a build-up system and a "tic" system. Just throw the word "demand" in as much as you can on those sheets and I'll be happy.

[audiodb]

(double post - !@#$%& AOL!)

Edited August 14, 2005 by audiodb

[audiodb]

Also...perhaps judges should have to sign a contract that states they will not look at recaps and instead be allowed to give a fresh number reflective of that night's performances.

A fine idea, but it's not enough.

And I still believe that the Finals judges should be sequestered two weeks prior to Finals (in other words, the week before Finals Week is the only time they would not be allowed to judge or look at scores).  I have no idea how they would do this however.

Neither do I, but we need suggestions, so keep 'em coming.

How about putting the division I finals judges on the II/III tour leading up to championship week, and vice-versa? That might at least freshen their perspective a bit.

I guess I am just sick of "trend" judging.  For example...when was the last time there was a genuine back-and-forth between two or more corps leading into the last few weeks of the season?  Either we have an undefeated corps barreling through everyone (Cavies 2002, Cadets 2000, BD 1994) or we have a corps that overtakes another and never looks back (BD 2003, Cadets 2005, Cavaliers 2001).  It seems like once a corps beats another corps this late in the season...forget it...it's over.  No back and forth anymore, no Corps X tonight and Corps Y tomorrow night and back to Corps X two nights later.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Division II/III is just as bad. There, you actually have corps flip-flopping positions all season, yet once they all get together for championships, hardly anything changes from the prelim order despite a whole new panel of judges.

What does Bands of America do differently from DCI? They have prelim/final events all the time, and you never see the finals panel parroting the prelim results. Maybe they're onto something....

[drmcornut]

Another thing that DCI MUST do...publish the sheets online.  Let the fans know what the rules are.  Heck, even the NFL publishes its rule book.  DCI must do the same.  This will remove the "secrecy" that some people feel surround the process.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I asked about this in another thread and got no reply.

So, how could I see the sheets right now? Would I have to get hired on staff of a corps or train to be a judge? (both highly unlikely :P )

I like your judging system. It looks well balanced.

kat

-wishing there were a spellcheck for posts

[jonnyboy]

I like some of these ideas. I was talking to my old caption head a few weeks ago about the state of the activity. He was really into the idea of a set of judges coming in "fresh" for the last two weeks of the season. How impartial can you be when you see a show 10-30 times (not sure how many reads judges get) and have a critique with the staff that many times. Personal biases are formed etc etc.

Maybe, after showing years of judging prowess, DCI could promote a few teams of judges to Senior level, who would do the last two weeks of tour with fresh perspectives. This might even work out on a personal level, as judges would only "work" a few weeks each summer, allowing more to keep judging...or better yet take up judging!

I also like the idea of DCI publishing the judging sheets and rule book. I think the "boxes" on the back of the sheet should be published in major show guides. The DCI rules could be on the web site, so we can all read up on them, just like the NFL and Little League.

[ShortAndFast]

I completely agree that DCI should publish its sheets online. There is absolutely no reason why the scoring should not be as transparent as possible to fans.

The GE captions are the most inscrutable, IMO, and I think you're right to say that their current effect on score is too high. GE Music is especially counterintuitive as visual demand is taken into account in the "music" number. When I read a list of, say, brass scores after a show I've attended, I can usually figure out why the judge put the groups in that order, even if I didn't completely agree. But despite nearly two decades of attending shows, I'm still often left scratching my head by the GE rankings.

[RobRoy]

Many of the same thoughts I've had for years, only much more thought out and better presented than I could have done.

Put the bulk of the score back in the hands of the performers and instructors and less in the hands of designers.

[ScribeToo]

I asked about this in another thread and got no reply.

So, how could I see the sheets right now? Would I have to get hired on staff of a corps or train to be a judge? (both highly unlikely :P  )

I like your judging system. It looks well balanced.

kat

-wishing there were a spellcheck for posts

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know if the sheets are included but you can purchase a rule book from DCI. Just call the office (probably next week since they'll probably be sleeping for about 8 days straight starting tonight) and ask how you can get one.. It's been a while since I asked about it but they were happy to quote me a price for it when I called.

Stef

[dmfootworks]

Put the bulk of the score back in the hands of the performers and instructors and less in the hands of designers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ditto on that. And I would somehow try to get 15 points to marching and maneuvering on Nikk's proposal. I miss the crisp look and the mystique it brought to the activity and I would hope we can get back to that. Great proposal, really good thinking overall.