From JudgeNet Thu Oct 1 04:35:45 1992 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Re: Best of Show Thanks for all the messages about the validity of BOS judging. Here is a summary of the responses. Not all responses were clearly pro or con, but I did my best to try to understand the various viewpoints. I should add a disclaimer that I am very strongly in favor of BOS. I realize this sample set is too small to be statistically valid, but the results seem reasonable to me. Total responses: 16 (7 judges, 9 competitors) For BOS: 9 (3 judges, 6 competitors) Against: 4 (3 judges, 1 competitor) Don't Care: 3 (1 judge, 2 competitors) My interpretation: Judges are divided about BOS, but competitors want it. All competitors stated that they were aware of the subjective nature of the judging. Several mentioned the analogy of dog show BOS. An interesting point: one competitor said he didn't like sending an extra bottle for BOS judging. I sympathize with this. I don't enter many competitions anymore because I don't want to waste 3 bottles of excellent beer just to find out if someone else thinks it's good too. I would like to suggest a compromise: make the BOS bottle optional. If the first-place beer in a category didn't include a BOS bottle, that category won't be in BOS. I think most brewers are fairly realistic about their chances of a win, so let them decide whether they want to sacrifice an extra bottle on the chance that they take first. I don't think this would be too much of a burden on organizers. Opinions? My opinions: - If the competitors want BOS, they should get it. - The BOS bottle should be optional. - If certain judges are uncomfortable judging BOS, they should let judges who are comfortable with BOS do it. - Master judges should be competent, informative, and entertaining BOS judges. I really enjoy judging BOS. I think one of the great benefits of being a Master judge is that I get asked to judge BOS quite often. I would be very disappointed if BOS started disappearing from competitions. -- Chuck Cox In de hemel is geen bier, daarom drinken wij het hier. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Oct 1 04:38:55 1992 From: uunet!sstcx1.lanl.gov!reeves at uunet.UU.NET (Geoff Reeves) Subject: Judging Irregularities I think the big question now is whether or not the judges should be allowed to amend their calls based on televised instant replay ;-) Although I think the AHA should apologize to those involved (especially Micah) and should devote some discussion to how to deal with these situations in the future I do not agree that re-revision of the outcome will benefit anyone. Let's keep in mind that the purpose of these competitions is not to see who wins but to encourage everyone to brew better beer and to give people feedback on how to do that. I think it's clear that there were two outstanding meads here. Micah and Byron should both be warmly congratulated and both have cause for pride in their accomplishment. As others have pointed out, it's an inexact art (never a science!). Clearly the variation from one bottle to another was larger than the difference in scores between the two meads. Improper procedure may have been used but I don't think any great crimes were committed. Geoff Reeves Atomic City Ales -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Oct 1 04:59:12 1992 From: uunet!iepubj.att.com!korz at uunet.UU.NET Subject: Consistency/JudgeNet In response to Roger's question obout the "ringers" in the 1st round, I have some data, albeit not numerical. I judged porters in the 1st round -- midwestern region. There were a great number of porters, so we had four flights that went on simultaneously. What later was discovered as a slight error on the part of the bottle distribution, our flight got *both* of the two porter "ringers" that Charlie sent in. They simply were re-capped Sierra Nevada Porters. We judged the bottles in numerical order and thus judged these two "ringers" back-to-back. Both of us judges scored the two beers two points apart (I don't recall the exact numbers, but they were somewhere on the order of 36 and 34 on my scoresheets) and then during the post-judging discussion that ensued, we both said "you know... 103 and 104 were brewed by the same person..." We discussed whether they should be disqualified for breaking the "one entry per subcategory" rule, but then decided to let it slide because it could have been two brewer's using the same recipe in the same household (brothers or husband/wife, etc.). I still had some "103" in the glass, so I compared it to "104" and they tasted slightly different -- I'm sure of it. I don't know if they were from two different batches or whether the changes may have occurred as a result of the re-capping (they were still the SN twist-off bottles and I recall suggesting using non-twist-off bottles in the "bottle inspection" area of the scoresheet). By the way, the two SN Porters came in 2nd and 4th in our flight, only to be disqualified from the "best of style" judging by the organizers (who knew they were "ringers") which determined the three that went to Milwaukee. Al. P.S. Consider the importance of this and the other electronic forums. I feel that the discussion and resolution of the "Mead Controversy" could not have run the course that it has without these forums. We also have the unity to create change -- indeed, the keyboard is mightier than the pen and the sword combined. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Oct 1 05:22:34 1992 From: Subject: are scores increasing? The general consensus is that beers that are entered in competitions are getting better and better. I was wondering if the scores are likewise also increasing. Does the AHA keep scores around from previous years to allow such a longitudinal study? If so, we could find out if the statistical average has been rising. Bob Devine -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Oct 2 21:55:43 1992 From: uunet!techbook.com!doug at uunet.UU.NET (Doug Henderson) Subject: Plain TeX Judge Score Sheet % % Plain TeX macros for generating a Beer Judge Scoring Sheet. % Please feel free to give it to anyone who asks for it. % Created by Doug Henderson for the JudgeNet crowd on 9-30-92. % Update history : % \nopagenumbers \font\tenrm=cmr10 at 10.5pt \parindent=0pt\parskip=10pt \baselineskip=15pt \voffset=-0.25in\vsize=10in \def\makerule{\leaders\hrule\hfill} \def\boxrule#1{\hbox to #1{\makerule}} \def\boxone#1{\hbox to 3in{\hbox to 1in{#1\hss}\hskip\tween\boxrule{1in}}} \def\multibox#1#2{\hbox to \hsize{#1\hfil #2\hskip\tween\boxrule{1in}}} \newdimen\tween\tween=20pt \newdimen\twoinches\twoinches=2in \tenrm \centerline{HOMEBREWER'S\ \ SCORE\ \ SHEET} \vskip24pt \boxone{Entry Number} \hbox to \hsize{\hbox to 1.275in{Round Number\hss}% \boxrule{1in}\hskip\tween Category\ \boxrule{1in}\hskip\tween Style\ \boxrule{1in}} \boxone{Judged By} \vskip20pt \hbox to \hsize{Bottle Inspection: \hskip\tween\makerule} \line{\hskip4.65in Maximum Score\hss} \multibox{BOUQUET/AROMA (as appropriate for style)}{10} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Malt\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Hops\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Other Aromatic Characteristics\hss} \boxrule{\hsize}\boxrule{\hsize}\boxrule{\hsize} \vskip20pt \multibox{APPEARANCE (as appropriate for style)}{10} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Color\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Clarity\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Head Retention\hss} \boxrule{\hsize}\boxrule{\hsize}\boxrule{\hsize} \vskip20pt \multibox{FLAVOR (as appropriate for style)}{10} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Malt\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Hops\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Balance\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Other Flavor Characteristics\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Conditioning\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Aftertaste\hss} \boxrule{\hsize}\boxrule{\hsize}\boxrule{\hsize} \vskip20pt \multibox{BODY (full/thin as appropriate for style)}{5} \boxrule{\hsize} \vskip20pt \multibox{DRINKABILITY \& OVERALL IMPRESSION}{10} \boxrule{\hsize}\boxrule{\hsize}\boxrule{\hsize} \multibox{\hfill TOTAL (50 possible points) :}{} \leftline{Scoring Guide : Excellent 40--50, Very Good 30--39, % Good 25--29, Drinkable 20--24, Problem below 20} \bye -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Oct 2 21:58:20 1992 From: bob at rsi.com (Bob Gorman) Subject: AHA Controversy Geoff Reeves writes: > Although I think the AHA should appologize to those involved (especially > Micha) and should devote some discussion to how to deal with these situations > in the future... Add Al. Korz. writes: > I feel that the discussion and resolution of the "Mead Controversy" > could not have run the course that it has without these forums. We > also have the unity to create change ... Something which we might consider doing is making the AHA create a a way for people to formally submit complaints and a way for them to get a reasonable hearing. For example if someone writes a letter complaining about a rules violation it could be reviewed by a small committee. If the committee decides it's a valid complaint then a larger group of peers would be organized to resolve the dispute in a democratic nature. To be unbiased the "jury" would have to be comprised of individuals from the homebrew community, not 100% AHA staff members. That was just an example. There are many ways in which disputes could be resolved. The important thing is to make a mechanism for people to submit valid complaints, have them be heard and resolved in a democratic nature. Of course if this reorganizes some of the AHA's imperialistic power structure into a more democratic organization then that would be an added bonus. But that's a discussion for another day... :-) -- Bob Gorman -- When is the next AHA election? -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Oct 2 21:59:10 1992 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Re: AHA Controversy Bob Gorman sez... > > Something which we might consider doing is making the AHA create a > a way for people to formally submit complaints and a way for them to > get a reasonable hearing. > > ... > > Of course if this reorganizes some of the AHA's imperialistic power > structure into a more democratic organization then that would be an > added bonus. But that's a discussion for another day... :-) Here's how we deal with protests in amateur racing: - A competitor files an official protest during the event. - A protest committee is formed at the track from experienced racers and event officials. - They issue a ruling. - The protestor or protestee have the right to file an immediate appeal. - Any appeal goes to the appropriate national board (different boards for different types of racing) for a final ruling. - The various boards are ELECTED BY CLUB MEMBERS. - Protest committee rulings affect only that incident, but board rulings are published and are considered rules clarifications. The result of this process is that minor squabbles are usually settled quickly at the track, but major problems get the full attention of an ELECTED board of representatives, and the published ruling should prevent a recurrence in the future. Why won't this work for the AHA? It should be obvious that an appointed board would not be accountable for their actions, and would simply be another mouthpiece for the AHA. So what can we do? Fortunately, due to the influence of the HWBTA, the BJCP is a little more amenable to democracy. While the AHA would most likely ignore protests, the BJCP could refuse to sanction any competition that didn't follow protest committee rulings. I think appealing to the AHA is useless. They are not accountable to subscribers, and are in no way obligated to follow their own rules. The BJCP seems more likely to listen and perhaps do something useful. So the question is, who do we talk to in the BJCP about judging irregularities at sanctioned competitions? How do we go about creating an official protest procedure? Did the BJCP actually sanction the mead competition in question? As a judge, I am deeply disturbed by the prospect that competitors will view competitions as arbitrary and unsympathetic to their concerns. I feel an obligation to insure fairness and accountability in sanctioned competitions. To this end, I volunteer to help the BJCP work on this issue, if an ELECTED COMMITTEE is at the core of the process, and if their rulings are ENFORCEABLE. Is this within the purview of the existing competition committee, and do they have any real authority? > -- When is the next AHA election? When monkeys fly out of my butt. -- Chuck Cox In de hemel is geen bier, daarom drinken wij het hier. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Oct 2 22:00:49 1992 From: Martin A. Lodahl Subject: Re: are score increasing? Bob Devine mused: > The general consensus is that beers that are entered in competitions > are getting better and better. I was wondering if the scores are > likewise also increasing. Does the AHA keep scores around from > previous years to allow such a longitudinal study? If so, we could > find out if the statistical average has been rising. Just as a guess, I'd say they're probably not rising, because our expectations are. Bob, when you and I (and, of course, a host of others) judged the Renaissance Pleasure Faire contest the last two weeks, you may have noticed that the scores were generally lower in the finals than in the preliminaries. When I judged the Nationals this last year I was pleased with what I met in the first round, and disappointed in the second. In both cases there was a change in expectations due to the assumption that the first round had weeded out all the stinkers. Similarly, I think we just expect to meet better beers than we did a few years ago, so we're perhaps not as generous with our points as we once were. Judging is, after all, largely subjective ... = Martin A. Lodahl Pacific*Bell Systems Analyst = = malodah at pbmoss.Pacbell.COM Sacramento, CA 916.972.4821 = = If it's good for ancient Druids, runnin' nekkid through the wuids, = = Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! 8-) = -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Oct 6 04:30:48 1992 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: Re: Re- AHA Controversy Reply to: RE>Re: AHA Controversy Chuck Cox asks: >Did the BJCP actually sanction the mead competition in question? Well, the BJCP does not actually do the sanctioning. The two parent organizations sanction the events and the BJCP just recognizes such and awards points accordingly. I suppose that the BJCP could add to their by-laws that they have the ability to withhold or recall points when irregularities occur and are brought up after a competition. Certainly worth looking into. I don't have the by-laws in front of me at the moment, but I'll go through them as soon as I can to see how this might fit in. RW... -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Oct 6 04:31:42 1992 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Re: AHA Controversy Rad Equipment (AKA Russ Wigglesworth) sez... > > Well, the BJCP does not actually do the sanctioning. The two parent > organizations sanction the events and the BJCP just recognizes such and awards > points accordingly. Ahh, that makes more sense. > I suppose that the BJCP could add to their by-laws that > they have the ability to withhold or recall points when irregularities occur > and are brought up after a competition. Certainly worth looking into. I don't > have the by-laws in front of me at the moment, but I'll go through them as soon > as I can to see how this might fit in. Not a bad idea, even though I would suggest that we only withhold points from the specific individuals who knowingly violated the competition rules. It would also be effective to not award ANY points the NEXT time they run the competition if the violations are not satisfactorily resolved. If the BJCP does not want to get involved with managing/reviewing the protest process and penalties (and in retrospect I'm not sure they should), perhaps we need an independent sanctioning/approval body. A very simple organization could be created for the purpose of issuing competition approvals and acting as an independent arbiter for disputes. Any competitor, organizer, judge, or steward could be a member. We would elect a protest committee who could settle disputes and withhold approval from unacceptable competitions. Assuming everyone is a volunteer, such an organization could be supported by minimal member dues and/or competition approval fees. I can dream can't I? Ultimately, all certified judges must accept personal responsibility for understanding and following competition rules. I don't know how I would have reacted if I had been one of the mead BOS judges, but I know that in the future I will be more aware of competition rules and will refuse to participate in what I consider violations. -- Chuck Cox In de hemel is geen bier, daarom drinken wij het hier. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Tue Oct 6 04:53:51 1992 From: uunet!cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov!mlh at uunet.UU.NET (Michael L. Hall) Subject: Re: Plain TeX Judge Score Sheet The TeX scoresheet (in TeX and PostScript versions) has been put in the JudgeNet Archives (128.165.144.121 or cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov). Thanks to Doug Henderson for making the TeX version. Mike Hall ArchiveMaster :^) -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Wed Oct 7 04:28:38 1992 From: uunet!CHERRY.llnl.gov!ALTENBACH at uunet.UU.NET Subject: MORE JUDGING IRRGULARITIES Since the conduct of judging competitions is being discussed I'd like to pass along another experience I've had recently. I was judging in a small but AHA sanctioned event, in which the person who ran the competition, unpacked the entries, assigned the judges, etc. also had an entry in the competition. Furthermore, this person's wife was in charge of tallying the scores and awarding the prizes. It turned out that his entry was awarded 1st place. There was also a best of show judging in which this same organizer was one of the judges, presumably judging his own beer which had won one of the categories. His beer was not however awarded best of show. I'm not attacking the worthiness of the beer or the honesty of the judges/ organizers of this event. However, I feel it is unethical to be entered in a competition, no matter how small, when that brewer is in a position of competition site director with access to entry names, numbers, and scores. I haven't checked the BJCP rules on this, but if there isn't a rule against it, there should be. I would suggest for those organizers who want to have their beer judged, to enter their beers for judges' calibration scoring only and be ineligible for prizes. This would help increase judging consistancy and raise the credibility of the overall competition. Tom Altenbach -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Oct 8 04:41:47 1992 From: uunet!techbook.com!doug at uunet.UU.NET (Doug Henderson) Subject: well i'll be dipped in snot My apologies for this this quick post and modify, but my cut pasted me and I botched the appearance, flavor, and body scores in my original posting of the TeX macros for the Beer Judge Scoring Sheet. Take a breath Doug. Here in modified glory is the latest. Please help me eradicate any old copies with the erroneous score subtotals. Thanks. Doug Henderson % % Plain TeX macros for generating a Beer Judge Scoring Sheet. % Please feel free to give it to anyone who asks for it. % Created by Doug Henderson for the JudgeNet crowd on 9-30-92. % Update history : % oops.001 - modified score values for Appearance, Flavor, and Body. % 10-6-92 - dh % \nopagenumbers \font\tenrm=cmr10 at 10.5pt \parindent=0pt\parskip=10pt \baselineskip=15pt \voffset=-0.25in\vsize=10in \def\makerule{\leaders\hrule\hfill} \def\boxrule#1{\hbox to #1{\makerule}} \def\boxone#1{\hbox to 3in{\hbox to 1in{#1\hss}\hskip\tween\boxrule{1in}}} \def\multibox#1#2{\hbox to \hsize{#1\hfil #2\hskip\tween\boxrule{1in}}} \newdimen\tween\tween=20pt \newdimen\twoinches\twoinches=2in \tenrm \centerline{HOMEBREWER'S\ \ SCORE\ \ SHEET} \vskip24pt \boxone{Entry Number} \hbox to \hsize{\hbox to 1.275in{Round Number\hss}% \boxrule{1in}\hskip\tween Category\ % \boxrule{1in}\hskip\tween Style\ \boxrule{1in}} \boxone{Judged By} \vskip20pt \hbox to \hsize{Bottle Inspection: \hskip\tween\makerule} \line{\hskip4.65in Maximum Score\hss} \multibox{BOUQUET/AROMA (as appropriate for style)}{10} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Malt\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Hops\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Other Aromatic Characteristics\hss} \boxrule{\hsize}\boxrule{\hsize}\boxrule{\hsize} \vskip20pt \multibox{APPEARANCE (as appropriate for style)}{6} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Color\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Clarity\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Head Retention\hss} \boxrule{\hsize}\boxrule{\hsize}\boxrule{\hsize} \vskip20pt \multibox{FLAVOR (as appropriate for style)}{19} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Malt\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Hops\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Balance\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Other Flavor Characteristics\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Conditioning\hss} \moveright36pt\hbox to \twoinches{Aftertaste\hss} \boxrule{\hsize}\boxrule{\hsize}\boxrule{\hsize} \vskip20pt \multibox{BODY (full/thin as appropriate for style)}{5} \boxrule{\hsize} \vskip20pt \multibox{DRINKABILITY \& OVERALL IMPRESSION}{10} \boxrule{\hsize}\boxrule{\hsize}\boxrule{\hsize} \multibox{\hfill TOTAL (50 possible points) :}{} \leftline{Scoring Guide : Excellent 40--50, Very Good 30--39, % Good 25--29, Drinkable 20--24, Problem below 20} \bye -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Oct 8 05:01:49 1992 From: uunet!tso.uc.EDU!homebrew at uunet.UU.NET (Ed Westemeier) Subject: RE: More judging irregularities Tom Altenbach's description of the AHA-sanctioned competition where the organizer had his own entry and also served as a judge sounds like one of the most blatantly unethical actions I've heard of yet. I won't say it wasn't perfectly innocent, and in fact it may have been completely above board. However, in this kind of competition I feel it's vital to avoid not only impropriety, but also any APPEARANCE of POSSIBLE impropriety. Let's hope someone has at least a quiet word with that organizer to avoid a repeat performance. Ed Westemeier --- Cincinnati, OH -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Oct 8 05:21:53 1992 From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: autopilot I will be leaving for my annual Texas trip soon, and will be very busy in the meantime. Synchro and JudgeNet will be on their own until I return 10/20. Hopefully everything will run smoothly, however Synchro won't reboot if there is a power failure*. See y'all at the Dixie Cup. -- Chuck Cox In de hemel is geen bier, daarom drinken wij het hier. * The IBM BIOS doesn't like Xenix formatted hard disk drives. Yeah, I'll get a UPS someday. -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Oct 8 05:43:56 1992 From: uunet!techbook.com!gummitch at uunet.UU.NET (Jeff Frane) Subject: Re: MORE JUDGING IRRGULARITIES > > Since the conduct of judging competitions is being discussed I'd like to > pass along another experience I've had recently. I was judging in a small > but AHA sanctioned event, in which the person who ran the competition, > unpacked the entries, assigned the judges, etc. also had an entry in the > competition. Furthermore, this person's wife was in charge of tallying the > scores and awarding the prizes. It turned out that his entry was awarded > 1st place. There was also a best of show judging in which this same > organizer was one of the judges, presumably judging his own beer which had > won one of the categories. His beer was not however awarded best of show. > I'm not attacking the worthiness of the beer or the honesty of the judges/ > organizers of this event. However, I feel it is unethical to be entered in > a competition, no matter how small, when that brewer is in a position of > competition site director with access to entry names, numbers, and scores. > I haven't checked the BJCP rules on this, but if there isn't a rule against > it, there should be. I would suggest for those organizers who want to have > their beer judged, to enter their beers for judges' calibration scoring only > and be ineligible for prizes. This would help increase judging consistancy > and raise the credibility of the overall competition. > > Tom Altenbach > I don't know if this is a violation of AHA rules or not, but as Tom says, it certainly *should be*. If nothing else, it shows an astonishing lack of judgment on the part of the organizer. He should be strongly cautioned by the BJCP staff. In his position, I'd be embarrassed to accept an award, although I might consider entering one of my own beers -- as a non-qualifying entry -- simply for evaluation. Jeff Frane -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Oct 8 06:02:03 1992 From: Steve Dempsey Subject: Re: MORE JUDGING IRREGULARITIES Tom Altenbach writes: > I feel it is unethical to be entered in > a competition, no matter how small, when that brewer is in a position of > competition site director with access to entry names, numbers, and scores. > I haven't checked the BJCP rules on this, but if there isn't a rule against > it, there should be. The AHA sanctioning rules do specify that the competition organizer and judge director may not compete, and that no entrant may participate in judging where s/he has submitted an entry. Though not explicitly stated, this should be extended to the BOS round, where first place entries must be screened to exclude judges as needed. I've seen one competition where a judge was allowed to participate in BOS after having won a first place, and ended up judging his own beer. The judge in question did not take obvious advantage of the situation, but neither did he disqualify himself during discussion of his entry. Avoidance of such conflicts are the responsibility of the competition organizer. Having organized a large regional and judged/stewarded in many varied competitions, I can say that most organizers take this responsibility seriously. It's disappointing to hear about competitions where insiders compete and win. Such incidents should be reported to the sanctioning organization so future problems can be avoided, and sanctioning can be withheld from biased competitions. ================================ Engineering Network Services Steve Dempsey Colorado State University steved at longs.lance.colostate.edu Fort Collins, CO 80523 ================================ +1 303 491 0630 -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Oct 8 06:27:45 1992 From: "Rad Equipment" Subject: Re: MORE JUDGING IRRGULARITI Reply to: RE>MORE JUDGING IRRGULARITIES As to Tom Altenbach's observations as to Sanctioning and Organizers/Registrars entering their own comps: I believe that the AHA sanctioning form prohibits such entries. The BJCP does not have any say in it. The sanctioning organization decides on the criteria for sanctioning and the BJCP just awards experience points. I'll check this against a form and confirm (unless James Spence or Jim Homer chime in first). Beyond the rules, I agree with Tom that it should be the norm. If only for appearance sake I don't think the people with access to the data ought to be able to enter. I'm not saying thet anyone would take advantage of their positition, but I think to insure against anyone raising an issue these folks would excuse themselves from competing. RW... -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Oct 9 04:21:18 1992 From: uunet!sstcx1.lanl.gov!reeves at uunet.UU.NET (Geoff Reeves) Subject: judging irregularities Steve Dempsey writes: I've seen one competition where a judge was allowed to participate in BOS after having won a first place, and ended up judging his own beer. The judge in question did not take obvious advantage of the situation, but neither did he disqualify himself during discussion of his entry. Disqualifying oneself from the discussion is not sufficient. I participated as a non-voting judge in a best of show competition here in New Mexico and one of the judges excused himself from all discussion of a particular beer. It was obvious to everyone that it was his beer. That makes people alter their comments in one way or another. Some will be unduely critical others too cautious about saying anything offensive. Screening beforehand is best. Judges should not be allowed to participate in a session in which they have a beer entered. Of course the judge doesn't know unless the organizer tells them. If such screening isn't practical then a judge who recognizes his/her own beer should not be present when the beer is discussed and should probably excuse themselves from voting. Geoff Reeves Atomic City Ales Los Alamos New Mexico -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Fri Oct 9 08:19:32 1992 From: uunet!cygnus.ta52.lanl.gov!mlh at uunet.UU.NET (Michael L. Hall) Subject: Judging Irregularities I have two stories to relate: I entered one of my meads in the Mazer's Mead Cup competition this year. When I received the results of the competition in the mail I glanced at the recipes for the winners. I was shocked to notice that the winner in the traditional mead category had a recipe which contained 2 lbs. of tea and "small amounts" of several spices. I was ticked off enough about this (after all, my mead was a *real* traditional mead :-) to give the conference organizer a call. I forget his name, but he was very knowledgable about mead and quite understanding of my concern. It seems that what had happened was they didn't look at the recipes until *after* the judging, and it was then that they discovered that two entries in the traditional mead category, brewed by the same person, had small amounts of other ingredients (spices). Furthermore, these meads had placed first and second in the category! Obviously, they had a problem. What they decided to do was to disqualify one of the meads because they didn't think that it was fair to the other meads in the category, leaving the non-traditional mead in the first place only. Of course, a lesson was learned in the process...next year they are going to check the recipes first. My second story is related to the "entering your own competition" thread. I entered five beers in a small local competition, and also judged at the competition. The organization of the competition was not exemplary, and as judges we were told to pick a table with some beers that we would like to judge. The list of categories at each table was fairly long, about 4-6 different but related categories, as it was a small competition. I picked a table that I thought contained none of the beers I had entered. I was surprised to find out, when I got my judging sheets back, that I had judged one of my own entries! As it turns out, I am really glad that it happened, because the one that I judged was a beer that had serious problems that I had not quite been able to identify by myself in a social setting. I had entered the beer to get feedback on what the problems were and it had no chance of winning anything (which may be why I didn't realize or remember that I had an entry in that category). Anyway, looking over my own judging form, I was able to tell the brewer that his beer was very phenolic, add some tips about improving his process, and give him a generous, but low, score. In a way, it was a good way for me to check my own judging abilities, and to get feedback on my brewing problems from someone whose opinion I trusted :^). My opinion on all these judging irregularities is that people are human, even judges. There are bound to be things that happen that shouldn't happen in an ideal world. It is the responsibility of the judges to be as fair and equitable as the situation allows and to make sure that avoidable mistakes or breaches of the rules are not repeated at the next judging. I think that one of the primary services that this forum (JudgeNet) could provide is a sort of fine tuning of the rules how to judge in a more fair manner in the future. I think that the lessons to be learned (and applied to future events) from the above stories are as follows: 1. Check recipes before the competition for obvious errors (especially applicable for traditional meads). 2. Check to make sure that judges aren't judging their own entries (in BOS as well) because judges may forget which categories they entered. Mike Hall hall at lanl.gov -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Oct 15 02:22:32 1992 From: uunet!garlic.LCS.MIT.EDU!gdt at uunet.UU.NET (Greg Troxel) Subject: spiced meads in traditional categories - mistake made? It is not clear to me that a mead with spices cannot be properly entered in and win a 'traditional mead' category, unless the rules specifically prohibit this. If an 'untraditional' mead appears to the judges to be the best 'traditional' mead when tasted, then why can it not win? Of course, if it has detectable spice flavors it should be penalized in scoring, as this is untraditional. However, if spicy flavors induced from fermentation are considered desirable/good in a traditional mead, then use of spices may be 'cheating'. It may be considered unfair/etc. anyway. I really don't know anything about mead, and my reaction comes from thinking about beer. If one were to use 5% rice in making a pale ale, should one be disqualified because rice doesn't belong in pale ale, even though according to the judges the pale ale made with rice is closest in sensory profile to style. So, a new question: are there generally restrictions on ingredients in competition? Does this make sense? Is there really any way to enforce this if they are not detectable by the judges? Greg Troxel -------------------------------------- From JudgeNet Thu Oct 15 04:18:45 1992 From: Steve Dempsey Subject: Re: spiced meads in traditional categories - mistake made? Greg Troxel writes: > > So, a new question: are there generally restrictions on ingredients in > competition? Does this make sense? Is there really any way to > enforce this if they are not detectable by the judges? My feeling is that I should be able to enter anything I want into any category. It's then up to the judges to evaluate my entry on its own merits and determine if it satisfies the style criteria. If I brewed a stout that was not really stout enough but I thought it tasted enough like a porter, I'll enter it in porters. If I brewed a metheglin or melomel and the fruit/spice flavor is not as strong as I think it should be, I would enter it in the traditional category. If after the judging, it's revealed that my recipe included any artificial or other flavorings, so what? As long as I brewed the base beer or mead using grains, extracts, or honey, and fermented it with yeast, it should qualify as homebrew and therefore be allowed in the competition. ================================ Engineering Network Services Steve Dempsey Colorado State University steved at longs.lance.colostate.edu Fort Collins, CO 80523 ================================ +1 303 491 0630 --------------------------------------