Re: [bbshop] Re: Bakersfield, another C&J failure
- In a message dated 11/1/04 8:57:21 AM, mjbarkl@... writes:
<< 1) How many formal scoring complaints are filed with the C&J community
Certainly less than ten, usually less than five, often only one or two. Most
performing groups handle any issues during their evals, and apparently receive
a satisfactory answer. If they don't, then they have the option of contacting
the Category Specialist.
I handled about five of those during my three-year tenure. Virtually all
revolved around the communication at the eval rather than the validity of the
Just for perspective, at no point did I receive a complaint from a group that
they had been grossly overscored, btw.
>>>>2) How many of these have EVER produced an upwards adjustment of scores
>>You're right, none. We don't do that, any more than the Olympic Committee
took away Paul Hamm's medal. The judgement on site stands. A formal scoring
complaint could result in retraining for a judge if something egregious had o
ccurred, but more often the situation simply stands as a learning experience for all
-- the judge, and the group as well, since it has never been true in my
experience with C&J that there was NO basis for the score, simply disagreements
over the appropriate calibration of the performance elements.
immediate Past Music Category Specialist
- 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