To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients)
From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator)
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet)
Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk
Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1199 (Jan 18, 1996)
Date: 18 Jan 96 01:17:32 EST (Thu)
Message-Id: <9601180117.AA19281 at synchro.com>


JudgeNet Digest #1199				   Thu 18 Jan 1996


                               JudgeNet
			 The Beer Judge Digest

                 digest submissions: judge at synchro.com
          administrative requests: judge-request at synchro.com
    send cancellations & rank updates to the administrative address
	  messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored

        WWW Archives: http://www.umich.edu/~spencer/beer/judge

                 Editor: Chuck Cox <chuck at synchro.com>
             Archivist: Spencer Thomas <spencer at umich.edu>

      Publishers: SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery

            Anti-Prohibitionists may also be interested in 
                LiBeerty: The Libertarian Beer Digest
           Subscription info: libeerty-request at synchro.com

     For BJCP General Information contact: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com


Contents:
  Exam Reliability, Validity, & Fairness   (Wolfe)
  Rank Up-Dates                            ("Rad Equipment")
  Rank Up-Dates                         Time:8:29 AM     Date:1/17/96
  Styles of Commercial Beers               (Tom Leith)
  Concerning multiple entries              (Craig Pepin)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Jan 96 08:34 CST
From: Wolfe at act-12-po.act.org
Subject: Exam Reliability, Validity, & Fairness

Thanks to Scott Bickham for his reply on the exam changes.  I do agree that
it is a good idea to offer the two parts of the exam separately.  They
probably measure very different things, and I would not expect this change
of format to have much influence the scores.

I want to clarify a point.  My suggestion was NOT to look at the stability
of scores over retakes.  As Dennis pointed out, we can't be sure what
causes changes in those scores unless we do a pretty detailed study of
studying habits, etc.  And, as I pointed out, test-retest reliability is
probably the least interesting and pertinent type of reliability for this
examination.  It's interesting that both Scott and Dennis reacted to my
suggestion with comments about the score distribution and whether
variability over time is due to the test's reliability or changes in
judges.  Although the distribution is interesting, it doesn't provide much
information about the quality of the scoring, the meaningfulness of the
scores, and the fairness of the certification procedures.

My point is simply this:  unless we have information that can be easily
interpreted by examinees concerning the validity and reliability of their
scores, we simply have to take Dennis' and Scott's word for it that the
test is accurate, predictive, and unbiased.  Nothing against Dennis and
Scott, but that doesn't give me much satisfaction.  I'd be happy to
provide a description of the types of information that would be useful to
document and the amazing simplicity of collecting and analyzing that
information.  Not only would this help strengthen the current exam, but it
would add credibility to the scores and the certification program.

Ed Wolfe
wolfe at act.org

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jan 1996 08:38:05 U
From: "Rad Equipment" <rad_equipment at rad-mac1.ucsf.edu>
Subject: Rank Up-Dates

Subject:  Rank Up-Dates                         Time:8:29 AM     Date:1/17/96

I have not been reading JudgeNet much of late due to my busy work schedule so
I don't know if Scott said anything about Promotions. We have just mailed some
61 promotion letters as a result of the end of the year review. My system at
work is running in a limited means at the moment or I would have included the
names with this post. Perhaps later, I think it is a perfect place for such a
listing.


Judges will be getting copies of their experience point records with the
mailing of the by-laws (scheduled for March) and the data base should be as up
to date as it can be (given the lag time in absorbing organizer reports) at
that time. We may also include another promotion review at that time if we can
squeeze it in, otherwise one will come in April.

Russ Wigglesworth
Program Administrator


Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61)
UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707)
769-0425

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 11:06:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Tom Leith <trl at wuerl.wustl.edu>
Subject: Styles of Commercial Beers

Hi all --

I have three beers I've never heard of before, and I'm hoping someone can 
tell me which 1996 AHA Style Category they'd fall into for juding 
purposes. I have a guess, but I'd sure appreciate some input from judges 
who are familiar with the beers and styles in question. They are:

    Crazy Ed's Amber Ale       American Pale Ale ???
    Market Street Pilsner      Bohemian Pilsner ???
    Harpoon IPA                IPA???

I'm concerned about this last one: maybe a discussion of the following 
question will help -- 

Is Bass Ale (draft), for purposes of competition, more like IPA or more like
ESB?? 

	t


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 16:19:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Craig Pepin <ckp at acpub.duke.edu>
Subject: Concerning multiple entries

On the subject of multiple entries in the same category - I fail to see 
why it is such a problem.  Since I have yet to meet a homebrewer who has 
reached enough consistency that the same recipe from batch to batch 
yields identical beers, I don't object to the practice at all, and we 
have consistently allowed it in our competition.

There are borderline cases, however which I encountered in our last 
comp[etition - someone entering two beers in the same subcategory that 
were essentially a split batch - with only very minor variations (once in 
which the only difference was the yeast used).  This practice 
yielded the top two prizes in a category to one brewer in our competition 
last fall, for what was essentially the same beer, or as close as you are 
going to get without being outright cheating. To cite another example, 
which I did not find at the competition:  A brewer brews a pale ale, 
splits the batch in the secondary and dryhops one but not the other.  
Should he enter both beers as distinct beers?

Personally, I don't like it, but I admit that it is a gray area. 
I would never do it, but it's hard to legislate against in the contest 
guidelines unless you outright disallow multiple entries in a 
subcategory, which I am loathe to do.

I should point out, that I myself frequently do split batches, but the 
differences in the final product are so substantial (addition to the 
secondary ferment of jalapenos, fruit, spices, brettanomyces culture, or 
other variants) as to preclude any chance of them being entered in the same 
category, or even any chance of them being identified as the same beer.  
I was wondering if anybody objects to *this* practice?

Craig Pepin
Triangle Unabashed Homebrewers
Durham, NC

------------------------------


End of JudgeNet Digest
************************