Subject: Digest for the period 4/12/2004 - 4/13/2004 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:00:11 -0400 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Telexhibitionists, imbecells, cellphoniots, et cetera (Bob Paolino) 2. Judging the judges (Steve Casselman) 3. AHA 1st Rnd: Call for Judges - PNW (Alan Hord) 4. Recent Judging Threads (Mike Heniff) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Paolino Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:36:23 -0400 Subject: Telexhibitionists, imbecells, cellphoniots, et cetera Okay, okay, nothing about exams or ranks this time, but judge etiquette. There's not much argument that the mobile phone has contributed significantly to a decline in civility--phones going off at concerts (and people actually answering them!), yakking drivers blowing through stop signs, mindless chatter in the supermarket aisles oblivious to all other people in the vicinity, people standing right in front of a store/P.O./whatever clerk or cashier and answering a call and ignoring the actual live person in front of her/him, et cetera. Well, perhaps I was naive, but I never thought it would hit a beer competition, but, as the expression goes, now I've seen it all. On more than one occasion at a competition last month I saw judges at other tables answer mobile phone calls while they were judging, both while scoring and while discussing a beer with the other judges. We shouldn't have to do it, but perhaps organisers need to tell judges that mobile phones will not be permitted in the judging rooms and that anyone carrying one needs to go out and lock it up. * BTW, I don't take credit for the great mobile phone user descriptors in the subject line. They're from a radio program I heard a few years ago. Check out an abbreviated list at: http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/thismorning/wantedwords/previous_apr.html (scroll down to challenge #25) Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino UWCU members: Please vote this month for your new board. (Hint: Only one candidate mentioned beer.) "Homer, why don't you get one of those hands-free phones? It's the next best thing to paying attention to the road." --Barney, The Simpsons ( ) ASCII ribbon campaign X against HTML e-mail: / \ Friends don't send friends HTML-bloated messages! A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Casselman Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:39:10 -0700 Subject: Judging the judges I have been judging beer since before there was a BJCP and I have always said from the beginning that the BJCP has an open loop problem. What do I mean by that? Well you take the test and if you get a 90% all you have to do is show up and you are a master..?? I think not. Marvin Edgeworth of Las Vegas, NV suggests that we look at the volume of the comments made by judges. While this may be a valid suggestion it is labor intensive. I suggest that we look at the variance of a judges score. People who know a little physics or other physical science will know what I'm talking about but let me give an example. Suppose you judge with someone and for every beer he/she is always above or below you by a large amount you might think "hey it is just me and them." But what if you were to find out that this other judge was _never_ close to the other judges and that they were always a problem? This judge has a large variance in their scoring. And it is easy to find. Since the scores are put in a computer and that data is available then we have a way of finding the people that judge contrary to the community. This would find people who always score low and people who always score high. To me the comments are second to the score. If I get a 20 on a beer that really good I don't care what the person had to say. This would find people who had certain flavor perception problems and we might be able to clue them in. Also we would only have to write a program that would be able to find these judges. Steve ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Hord Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:06:35 -0700 Subject: AHA 1st Rnd: Call for Judges - PNW From: Alan Hord, Organizer for the AHA 1st Round Nationals - Seattle Cascade Brewers Guild, Alan`at`HordsOfFun.Com TO: All Volunteers and Contestants RE: Call for Judges, Reminder of Entry Deadline * Importance: High * Today's Date: April 12th, 2004 Greetings one and all! The AHA 1st Round of the 2004 National Homebrew Competition is upon us. For our region (Pacific Northwest) the competition will be on Saturday April 24th and split between two great brewing cities: Portland and Seattle. Call for Judges: For Seattle, the event will be managed by the Cascade Brewers Guild and held at Pyramid Brewery/Seattle Alehouse just opposite from Safeco Field in Seattle. We request all regional judges top appear promptly and before 9:30 AM as we will have a busy day! We will provide lunch about 12:30 PM. For Portland, the event will be held at Columbia Distributing on Swan Island in Portland. We need all the help we can get! Please register to judge or steward online for the appropriate city below. * SEATTLE: http://www.hordsoffun.com/hbc.rw/judgewiz.aspx?w=03190A302A * PORTLAND: http://www.hordsoffun.com/hbc.rw/judgewiz.aspx?w=0405152E20 Roughly one-half of the 29 AHA styles (which are identical to BJCP in description) will be evaluated in each city. For Seattle, depending on how many entries we get, we may elect to have one evening of judging on Thursday April 22nd. Please contact me directly if you are interested for the Thursday option. Reminder of Entry Deadline: Last day to enter is this Friday April 16th !! Please follow the instructions regarding Entry fees and forms at: http://www.beertown.org/events/nhc/site.html For questions, please feel free to contact me directly. If you received this email more than once, I apologize ~ this is a large event and we have several distribution methods. Hope to see you there! Cheers, Alan Hord Organizer & National Judge ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Heniff Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:34:33 -0500 Subject: Recent Judging Threads Sorry I can't keep up with the threads in a timely fashion, but here is my rant ... As far as scoresheets go, I believe it is the duty of each BJCP judge to set and communicate the standards for judging and filling out scoresheets. Encourage those that you are judging with to elaborate on their comments or even host a session or a set of classes to help those that are willing to learn to judge competitions (regardless of their intentions to take the BJCP exam). There are examples of good scoresheets on the BJCP website as an example. I have always taught that if you comment on all of the suggested comment aspects of each section (the small type "comment on ..." at the bottom of each section on the scoresheet) you'll fill every line of each section. I know of many homebrewers that stop entering competitions because of poor judging - this should be some financial emphasis of each club to teach and recruit good judges. I think we all should send our poor scoresheets to our regional reps, but I regret that I haven't in the past and I expect that if we all do, we may overload our currently overloaded program. And as far as the BJCP exam goes, I think it is a very tough exam but the guidelines and study guides are as good as you could ever expect to get for any exam. I am well versed in tough three hour written exams - I got a BS in Chemical Engineering from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign where three hour written exams were the norm (sometimes only two questions in length!). The BJCP exam rivals with some of those exams. I can certainly understand why many are unwilling to take it a second time (especially considering family, travel, and occupational limitations). I just took it a second time (which I promised to be my last time for both family and occupational reasons), but I lucked out and got my 90+. But, I still do support a shortened path for advancement - but with limitations. Many have stated that it is not about ranks but about good/great judges, and I wholeheartedly agree. I realize that there are many good/great judges (judges that currently judge well above their current rank) that are held back by time to study, ability to travel, and to take the exam. Since taking only the tasting portion of the exam may take only a small amount of study and time (considering that palate training and scoresheet writing should be already in practice of those that are deserved of advancement), I would have no problem advancing judges one level above their current level if they can score at least one level higher on the tasting only provided that they can gain a certain amount of experience points above their current BJCP level. For multi-track testing (having multiple tests for multiple levels), I disagree. It would be difficult administratively, and would probably require more people to take the exam more than once, which is already a big problem. Besides, multiple choice or fill-in-the-blank only test a casual knowledge, not an in-depth knowledge (but they do reduce grader subjectiveness). For the issue about recipe access during judging, this is just not practical on any level. Also, recipes only tell a small story in regards to the beer. Anytime that you review a recipe, you need to account for the system and procedures of the brewer in order to fully evaluate the beer. Many times they are not submitted at all even when required; often times they are vague or even fake or incorrect. Mike Heniff BJCP Certified Judge patiently waiting for a promotion www.foamrangers.com ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** Subject: Digest for the period 4/12/2004 - 4/13/2004 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:00:11 -0400 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Telexhibitionists, imbecells, cellphoniots, et cetera (Bob Paolino) 2. Judging the judges (Steve Casselman) 3. AHA 1st Rnd: Call for Judges - PNW (Alan Hord) 4. Recent Judging Threads (Mike Heniff) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Paolino Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:36:23 -0400 Subject: Telexhibitionists, imbecells, cellphoniots, et cetera Okay, okay, nothing about exams or ranks this time, but judge etiquette. There's not much argument that the mobile phone has contributed significantly to a decline in civility--phones going off at concerts (and people actually answering them!), yakking drivers blowing through stop signs, mindless chatter in the supermarket aisles oblivious to all other people in the vicinity, people standing right in front of a store/P.O./whatever clerk or cashier and answering a call and ignoring the actual live person in front of her/him, et cetera. Well, perhaps I was naive, but I never thought it would hit a beer competition, but, as the expression goes, now I've seen it all. On more than one occasion at a competition last month I saw judges at other tables answer mobile phone calls while they were judging, both while scoring and while discussing a beer with the other judges. We shouldn't have to do it, but perhaps organisers need to tell judges that mobile phones will not be permitted in the judging rooms and that anyone carrying one needs to go out and lock it up. * BTW, I don't take credit for the great mobile phone user descriptors in the subject line. They're from a radio program I heard a few years ago. Check out an abbreviated list at: http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/thismorning/wantedwords/previous_apr.html (scroll down to challenge #25) Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino UWCU members: Please vote this month for your new board. (Hint: Only one candidate mentioned beer.) "Homer, why don't you get one of those hands-free phones? It's the next best thing to paying attention to the road." --Barney, The Simpsons ( ) ASCII ribbon campaign X against HTML e-mail: / \ Friends don't send friends HTML-bloated messages! A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Casselman Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:39:10 -0700 Subject: Judging the judges I have been judging beer since before there was a BJCP and I have always said from the beginning that the BJCP has an open loop problem. What do I mean by that? Well you take the test and if you get a 90% all you have to do is show up and you are a master..?? I think not. Marvin Edgeworth of Las Vegas, NV suggests that we look at the volume of the comments made by judges. While this may be a valid suggestion it is labor intensive. I suggest that we look at the variance of a judges score. People who know a little physics or other physical science will know what I'm talking about but let me give an example. Suppose you judge with someone and for every beer he/she is always above or below you by a large amount you might think "hey it is just me and them." But what if you were to find out that this other judge was _never_ close to the other judges and that they were always a problem? This judge has a large variance in their scoring. And it is easy to find. Since the scores are put in a computer and that data is available then we have a way of finding the people that judge contrary to the community. This would find people who always score low and people who always score high. To me the comments are second to the score. If I get a 20 on a beer that really good I don't care what the person had to say. This would find people who had certain flavor perception problems and we might be able to clue them in. Also we would only have to write a program that would be able to find these judges. Steve ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Hord Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:06:35 -0700 Subject: AHA 1st Rnd: Call for Judges - PNW From: Alan Hord, Organizer for the AHA 1st Round Nationals - Seattle Cascade Brewers Guild, Alan`at`HordsOfFun.Com TO: All Volunteers and Contestants RE: Call for Judges, Reminder of Entry Deadline * Importance: High * Today's Date: April 12th, 2004 Greetings one and all! The AHA 1st Round of the 2004 National Homebrew Competition is upon us. For our region (Pacific Northwest) the competition will be on Saturday April 24th and split between two great brewing cities: Portland and Seattle. Call for Judges: For Seattle, the event will be managed by the Cascade Brewers Guild and held at Pyramid Brewery/Seattle Alehouse just opposite from Safeco Field in Seattle. We request all regional judges top appear promptly and before 9:30 AM as we will have a busy day! We will provide lunch about 12:30 PM. For Portland, the event will be held at Columbia Distributing on Swan Island in Portland. We need all the help we can get! Please register to judge or steward online for the appropriate city below. * SEATTLE: http://www.hordsoffun.com/hbc.rw/judgewiz.aspx?w=03190A302A * PORTLAND: http://www.hordsoffun.com/hbc.rw/judgewiz.aspx?w=0405152E20 Roughly one-half of the 29 AHA styles (which are identical to BJCP in description) will be evaluated in each city. For Seattle, depending on how many entries we get, we may elect to have one evening of judging on Thursday April 22nd. Please contact me directly if you are interested for the Thursday option. Reminder of Entry Deadline: Last day to enter is this Friday April 16th !! Please follow the instructions regarding Entry fees and forms at: http://www.beertown.org/events/nhc/site.html For questions, please feel free to contact me directly. If you received this email more than once, I apologize ~ this is a large event and we have several distribution methods. Hope to see you there! Cheers, Alan Hord Organizer & National Judge ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Heniff Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:34:33 -0500 Subject: Recent Judging Threads Sorry I can't keep up with the threads in a timely fashion, but here is my rant ... As far as scoresheets go, I believe it is the duty of each BJCP judge to set and communicate the standards for judging and filling out scoresheets. Encourage those that you are judging with to elaborate on their comments or even host a session or a set of classes to help those that are willing to learn to judge competitions (regardless of their intentions to take the BJCP exam). There are examples of good scoresheets on the BJCP website as an example. I have always taught that if you comment on all of the suggested comment aspects of each section (the small type "comment on ..." at the bottom of each section on the scoresheet) you'll fill every line of each section. I know of many homebrewers that stop entering competitions because of poor judging - this should be some financial emphasis of each club to teach and recruit good judges. I think we all should send our poor scoresheets to our regional reps, but I regret that I haven't in the past and I expect that if we all do, we may overload our currently overloaded program. And as far as the BJCP exam goes, I think it is a very tough exam but the guidelines and study guides are as good as you could ever expect to get for any exam. I am well versed in tough three hour written exams - I got a BS in Chemical Engineering from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign where three hour written exams were the norm (sometimes only two questions in length!). The BJCP exam rivals with some of those exams. I can certainly understand why many are unwilling to take it a second time (especially considering family, travel, and occupational limitations). I just took it a second time (which I promised to be my last time for both family and occupational reasons), but I lucked out and got my 90+. But, I still do support a shortened path for advancement - but with limitations. Many have stated that it is not about ranks but about good/great judges, and I wholeheartedly agree. I realize that there are many good/great judges (judges that currently judge well above their current rank) that are held back by time to study, ability to travel, and to take the exam. Since taking only the tasting portion of the exam may take only a small amount of study and time (considering that palate training and scoresheet writing should be already in practice of those that are deserved of advancement), I would have no problem advancing judges one level above their current level if they can score at least one level higher on the tasting only provided that they can gain a certain amount of experience points above their current BJCP level. For multi-track testing (having multiple tests for multiple levels), I disagree. It would be difficult administratively, and would probably require more people to take the exam more than once, which is already a big problem. Besides, multiple choice or fill-in-the-blank only test a casual knowledge, not an in-depth knowledge (but they do reduce grader subjectiveness). For the issue about recipe access during judging, this is just not practical on any level. Also, recipes only tell a small story in regards to the beer. Anytime that you review a recipe, you need to account for the system and procedures of the brewer in order to fully evaluate the beer. Many times they are not submitted at all even when required; often times they are vague or even fake or incorrect. Mike Heniff BJCP Certified Judge patiently waiting for a promotion www.foamrangers.com ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * **********************************************************************