Re: Bakersfield, another C&J failure
- On Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:52 pm
Tom Condon wrote,
With all due respect, yeah, that's what I used to think.
Even so, although I doubt I'll ever see a public answer to these few
pertinent questions, I still ask them:
1) How many formal scoring complaints are filed with the C&J community
2) How many of these have EVER produced an upwards adjustment of scores
Zero? Zip? Nada? Zilch? That's some jim-dandy complaint system ya got
there, you betcha!
Tom repeats the C&J policy that minimizes public discussion of C&J
problems. Most every organization that I'm a member of that allows me
a vote or collects money from me cannot maintain that kind of
"information firewall" that allows it to work in secret. It's part
of the disease that infects SPEBSQSA. If the USA government were like
SPEBSQSA it would run something like the following:
--We are allowed to vote for our local mayor and board, from a panel of
candidates proposed by the village elders. Outside candidates are
allowed but discouraged.
--The local mayors, combined with existing state governor & cabinet plus
all the past governors, become the state legislature and may then vote on
the new state governor and cabinet from a panel of candidates proposed by
the current state governor and cabinet and past governors - "go along
to get along" is a prerequisite for nomination. Outside candidates are
allowed but have a snowball's chance in ...
--The President and his Cabinet and Congress would be elected by (ratified
by, actually) the state legislatures from all states, but nominees are only
those proposed by the current President and his Cabinet and Congress -
"go along to get along" is a prerequisite for selection. Outside
candidates are not permitted. The political word for it is "politburo".
No wonder they like working in secret.
- - -
Yes, singing better was always the best option, at least up until a few
But to see how far this malignancy goes, I tried an end-run on the
scoring problem with multiple contests, only to be ambushed at the last
minute by some sort of SoCal / District Management coalition hiding in the
tall grass until the last minute at the HOD. Oh well.
And I tried it head on. Y'all have an awesome "sensory-impaired" C&J
cheering section out there. While few will have carried objections as far
as I have, I suspect all get shouted down or run out of the Society, or
both. In this way you maintain the integrity/insularity of the C&J system.
And dwindling membership rolls? Suit yourselves.
btw, a friend of mine used to be a C&J judge. He says the political
nonsense within the C&J system is as bad as, if not worse than, that
outside of it and he took it quite a bit longer than he could stand it before
bailing. There is no accountability to the membership whatsoever.
Circles within circles.
Many have written me that the right way to effect change in the Society is
to remain a member and work from the inside. No, I don't think change
is possible. It's too calcified, the unlimited fealty too strong, the
levels of management too distant from the membership and too entrenched,
and the method of electing Society governance morally indefensible. Others
have written me that the Society is better off without me and please go
away and stay away. They have a point.
All the best,
--Mike Barkley, former SPEBSQSA member
- Kevin wrote:
> From: "Kevin Keller" <kkbari@w...>. . .
> Date: Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:15 pm
> Subject: C&J issues
> I'm really trying to put together the whole enchilada. According to Mike,Not exactly.
> it seems that the C&J program should:
> a. Fix scores after the contest is over
> b. Fire any judge who doesn't get it rightNo. Not ever.
> c. Fix scores during the contestNot exactly.
> d. Have all judges be perfect in their scoringNo. Not necessary. Rather, allow for the opposite.
> e. Spend their lives watching and calibratingNo. Not necessary.
> f. Allow competitors as many chances to make a cut [sic]Not exactly.
What I am seeking is:
1) improve competition opportunities for quartets at the Division level.
2) provide additional competition opportunities for Division level quartets
that missed the District cut for *any* reason.
3) install on-site real-time scoring adjustments for across-the-board
scoring anomalies that exceed a tolerable threshold
4) directly elect all District and International officials and board members,
and limit voting in the House of Delegates to chapter delegates.
#1 & #2 are easily accomplished, and they work in LOL. The votes against
it ranged from puzzling to silly.
#3 can be a simple spread-sheet function. It can be accomplished in a number
of ways. Here's two:
a) Suggested from time to time on the Harmonet, although this is the
first time by me: for when there is more than a single-judge panel,
throw out the lowest and highest score and replace them with an average
of the remaining scores in that category, or if no scores remain in that
category, replace them with the combined average score from all the other
--From now on, when penalty points are assessed, the total of them would
be placed on the Official Score Sheet with the name of the contestant
being scored (as in "scores shown include a penalty assessment totaling
--Upon applying for a contest, a contestant would submit its latest
contest percentage score after adding back any penalty points, and the
name of the contest where it was earned - this is an auditable honor
system; a new contestant would so indicate.
--Upon completion of the contest the spreadsheet would exclude contestants
with the largest positive and the largest negative variance from the
previous scores and exclude new contestants before the final step,
--If more than 5 contestants remain, the spreadsheet would compute the
average variances for all remaining contestants excluding current penalty
points, and if it were more than 1% positive or 2% negative, the
inverse of that average would be applied across the board to all final
scores before subtracting any penalty points. A copy of the calculation
would be furnished to all who ask.
Both of these methods could be used together, and would tend to smooth
out anomalous, larger variances while leaving minor ones alone.
- - -
#4 is tangentially relevant to Kevin's point about responsibility:
(Kevin also states:)
> As for Mike's lost efforts in Bakersfield, it is not a C&J issue. It is aThis understates both the power and the responsibility of C&J management.
> District Policy issue. If LOL has the policy, then C&J supports the policy.
The vote in Louisville was 15 to 1 against the policy. It was given great
weight in Chuck Hunter's memo to the FWD HOD. If it had been 15 to 1
*in favor*, the measure would have passed. Your position was not neutral,
it was critically persuasive.
The National Board and Management (including C&J management) is not
accountable to the membership. That should be changed.
> I don't appreciate the inflexibility on Mike's part, but I think itsI'm inflexible? You're the one defending the status quo, not me.
> ok to challenge the system.
- - -
As things stand, Bakersfield will be the last contest where I am familiar
with the field, and thus someone else will have to carry any reform baton
after this year. It won't die, it will probably retreat into the usual
beaten, whimper mode. Make no mistake, if you think there's no problem,
then you haven't been listening to all those other people out there who
have timidly raised their hand about it shortly before the mob of you
took 'em out and hung 'em.
--Mike, former SPEBSQSA member