[NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
Ron Van Putte
vanputte at cox.net
Tue Nov 21 18:45:17 AKST 2006
On Nov 21, 2006, at 9:22 PM, Lance Van Nostrand wrote:
> Keith,
> This is a fun hobby. I submit that if you are afraid to give an
> accurate
> score that you witnessed then you are doing a disservice. At a local
> contest you are kidding yourself if you think you have any anonymity.
> Instead of pretending its there, some cool discussion will raise
> the level
> of pilot and judge. One big difference between a local and Nats is
> that at
> a local its highly likely that we will fly in front of the same
> person that
> we'll later judge. If there were some kind of inappropriate
> judging going
> on, this is a natural damper. Since this damper is not in place at
> the
> Nats, that might change the checks and balances.
>
> I don't see anyone joining this discussion. Even JimW has not
> responded. I
> think we are in "no man's land". Thanks for responding.
I was going to stay out of this discussion, but apparently it is at
least implied that the judges at the Nats are anonymous. That is not
the case. Every scoresheet has the judge's number on it. At the
2006 Nats, it was his contestant number. Contest management uses
this judge identification for various purposes. One is to make sure
each pilot who judges more than his required one round is reimbursed
for volunteering to help fill out the judging matrix. Another is to
identify judges whose scoring is strange in some way. I won't say
more than this: one pilot/judge was caught 'low balling" the scores
for pilots he had a "grudge" with. Appropriate steps are being
taken by NSRCA and AMA regarding his actions. Please don't ask for
amplification. You will have a complete explanation in due time.
Ron Van Putte
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Black" <tkeithblack at gmail.com>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 10:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
>
>
>> Lance, you make some very good points. For me this is a tough
>> issue with
>> two
>> very strong arguments on opposite sides.
>>
>> Simply put:
>>
>> Pro> If judges initials score sheets they'll be more
>> conscientious about
>> their judging and less incline to gouge someone they don't like.
>>
>> Con> If judges initial score sheets they may be hesitant to give
>> deserved
>> low scores to big name pilots and may fear retribution when they fly.
>>
>> I think the Con is probably the more persuasive of these two
>> points, at
>> least at the NATS level, because when judges are required to put
>> their
>> judge
>> number they still know they're accountable, but will be
>> comfortable giving
>> deserved low scores without fear of retribution. Also, at NATS if
>> you see
>> Joe Blow's name by some really low scores you receive and you
>> don't know
>> Joe
>> Blow human nature is to develop a bit of a grudge against Joe
>> Blow. We
>> don't
>> need this kind of ill will in our community. I for one tried not
>> to pay
>> attention to who was in the judges' chair at NATS because I didn't
>> want to
>> subconsciously start associating my scores with individuals.
>>
>> At the local contest most people know each other and feel more
>> comfortable
>> discussing things so this is a different story. I initial my
>> scores at
>> local
>> contests (when I remember). However, if a judge feels
>> uncomfortable that
>> Joe
>> Bigshot may grill them if they give a low score I don't think the
>> judge
>> should have to give his initials as long as a judge number is used.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude at comcast.net>
>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 8:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
>>
>>
>>> Del,
>>> This is unfortunate and I've had a similar experience. Still,
>>> arranging
>> our
>>> rules to avoid behavior that we all know is inappropriate is a
>>> disservice.
>>> I would propose that anyone motivated to discuss CHANGING a score
>>> should
>> go
>>> through the CD. But there are other valid motivations:
>>> 1. To learn what downgrades, either specifically or in general
>>> terms,
>>> were
>>> applied
>>> 2. to understand a judges perspective and what they consider very
>> important
>>> (weight heavily)
>>> 3. others...
>>>
>>> This is not to question a score but to both learn what the pilot
>>> can do
>>> to
>>> improve and (of equal importance) to learn how other judges
>>> approach the
>>> evaluation. One thing I've noticed is that the "judgement" part of
>> judging
>>> can influence scores and these flying defects are often just as
>> controllable
>>> as the hard and fast rules. I recently was downgraded by a
>>> judge, whom I
>>> had a very friendly conversation with, because my center manuvers
>>> were
>>> not
>>> at the same altitude. Many may say that this should not have been
>>> downgraded, but this judges point was that the pilot that
>>> controls the
>>> altitude better should get the better score. Don't flame on this
>>> rules
>>> point! My point is that knowing that this is a perspective of some
>> judges,
>>> and it is a thing that I can work on without disadvantaging
>>> myself was
>> very
>>> valuable information.
>>>
>>> We need to remember this is a fun hobby. If we are not disputing a
>>> score,
>>> we need to approach judge feedback with modesty and a sense of
>>> humor. It
>> is
>>> a time of gathering information, not of making a counterpoint. Many
>>> times
>> a
>>> judge just can't remember, but I'm sure that they will remember
>>> more if
>> they
>>> know there will be no negative counterpoint. I would like to see
>>> judge
>>> initials on the bottom of the score sheets, given these guidelines.
>>>
>>> --Lance
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Del K. Rykert" <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 1:31 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Defensive Judging
>>>
>>>
>>>> I still remember the confrontation I experienced by the father of a
>>>> local
>>>> competitor taking me to task on a maneuver that I gigged harshly
>>>> and
>>>> the
>>>> ensuing 30 minute debate with my finally pulling out my rule
>>>> book and
>>>> showing him the paragraph and specific reasons his son received the
>>>> downgrades. Course he didn't agree the wings weren't level and the
>>>> model
>>>> had
>>>> noticeable climb when it should have been minor or no climb before
>>>> entry
>>>> to
>>>> spin. Wind was down the runway. Airplane fell out of spin in
>>>> last 1/4
>>>> of
>>>> spin into spiral.
>>>> Yes I could have reported this to the CD and made a bad
>>>> situation
>>>> worse.
>>>> How does that encourage participation in the sport? It did ruin
>>>> the
>> rest
>>>> of
>>>> my flights as a contestant and left me with taste of why do I
>>>> want to
>>>> subject myself to this kind of abuse.
>>>> Some in the sport are wound to tightly and will use any
>>>> excuse to
>>>> try
>>>> to
>>>> increase their edge. Thankfully it is the smallest of
>>>> minorities but
>>>> it
>>>> does still exist. For this reason I always have my rule book handy
>>>> whenever
>>>> I go to a contest and might be asked to judge. Shame the sport
>>>> has been
>>>> reduced for some of us as defensive judging.
>>>>
>>>> Del
>>>> nsrca - 473
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "george w. kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
>>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 12:57 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
>>>> transparency
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In spite of the fact that when I sit in the chair I ALWAYS
>>>>> initial the
>>>>> score
>>>>> sheet at district events, I can state from experience that it's
>> probably
>>>>> not
>>>>> a good idea and I feel that the reason it's probably not done
>>>>> at the
>> Nats
>>>>> is
>>>>> due to a "been there, done that" previous learning experience.
>>>>> There is just too much competitive passion on the part of
>>>>> individual
>>>>> pilots
>>>>> to avoid personal conflicts escalating into personality wars
>>>>> with long
>>>>> lasting repercussions.
>>>>> Think about it,.........how many times have you heard it expressed
>>>>> that
>> a
>>>>> particular judge has a reputation as a tough or BAD judge?
>>>>> Too much knowledge can generate factional devisiveness which is
>> probably
>>>>> best avoided.
>>>>> G.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Anthony Romano" <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
>>>>> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 9:07 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
>>>>> transparency
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>> Good points. There is an easy way to start this. Every time
>>>>>> you judge
>>>>>> legibly sign or initial your score sheets.
>>>>>> To the conspirists, remember when questioning judges a little
>>>>>> respect
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> courtesy goes a long way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Jim Woodward" <jim.woodward at schroth.com>
>>>>>>> Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>>>> To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
>> transparency
>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:09:31 -0500
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think posting judges names along with the scores is more
>>>>>>> than a
>>>>>>> fair
>>>>>>> idea
>>>>>>> and goes a long way toward increasing the transparency at a
>>>>>>> contest.
>>>>>>> When
>>>>>>> you increase the transparency, the "pilots" have a better
>> understanding
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> good time. When the pilots are happy, they come back to the
>>>>>>> contests
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> maybe bring someone with them. If you notice, after a
>>>>>>> contest when
>> our
>>>>>>> friend who did not makes it calls and asks, ". how was the
>>>>>>> contest,"
>> the
>>>>>>> next question is ". how was the judging." Judging, or
>>>>>>> problems with
>>>>>>> judging, is such an intrinsic part of the pattern experience
>>>>>>> that you
>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>> separate it from the "description" of how the contest went.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. What is interesting is that the "flight" takes place in a
>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>> forum - anyone can see it. As we watch it, more often or not
>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>> watched
>>>>>>> in small groups which include fellow class-competitors, or more
>>>>>>> experienced
>>>>>>> pilots pointing out to younger pilots errors to look out for.
>>>>>>> 2. The judges for the round are public information. IE - you
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> look
>>>>>>> out on the flight line and see who is judging
>>>>>>> 3. The pilot for the round is public information. IE - you
>>>>>>> can look
>>>>>>> out on the flight line and see who is flying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet, "who" and "how" the scores were given remains a small
>>>>>>> mystery.
>>>>>>> A
>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>> of folks do not want to be known as the guy who goes to the
>>>>>>> CD and
>> asks
>>>>>>> questions about the scoring and such. Or, is seen by their
>>>>>>> fellow
>>>>>>> competitors as being the CD hound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Judge Training: Most judge training takes place in practice
>>>>>>> and at
>>>>>>> contests. There is no better forum for judge training than the
>> contest
>>>>>>> environment. When the tear sheets are posted for each round
>>>>>>> with
>> judge
>>>>>>> identification, you can go and ask ". I watched that and
>>>>>>> wondered why
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> gave it xyz score." This is an incredibly valuable moment
>>>>>>> when all
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>> are gathered we do more to get the most out of it. As it
>>>>>>> stands,
>> after
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> round is posted the next comment is, ". well, I guess the judges
>> didn't
>>>>>>> catch that zero.. (and similar comments)." These
>>>>>>> conversations are
>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>> taking place at the contest. Posting the tear sheets for
>>>>>>> everyone
>> would
>>>>>>> bring these conversations into the open as a positive element
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> experience, and not add to the conspiracy theorists
>>>>>>> ammunition (every
>>>>>>> district has a prime person/competitor who is a judging
>>>>>>> conspiracy
>>>>>>> theorists).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Last thing, there are two judges for every 1 pilot, thus,
>>>>>>> there is
>> 100%
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>> judging work taking place than piloting work. We are there
>>>>>>> to fly,
>> but
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> performance of the judges is every bit on display as the
>>>>>>> performance
>> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> pilot. In the US we also tally the judges performance and
>>>>>>> keep track
>> of
>>>>>>> them on the national scene. Posting the tear sheets with judges
>>>>>>> names
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> help this effort, allow for a GREAT training tool to be
>>>>>>> available to
>> the
>>>>>>> CD
>>>>>>> and fellow pilots, and become a "self-correcting-tool" to those
>> persons
>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>> to judge with bias (intentionally or not). As a judge, at
>>>>>>> the end of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> round it would be great to know how my scores compared to the
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> judge.
>>>>>>> Each judge could discuss the round. When the tear sheets are
>>>>>>> posted
>> in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> open, it will "promote" this conversation and I believe, help
>>>>>>> on many
>>>>>>> levels. Also, if you as a judge know the scores and names
>>>>>>> will be
>>>>>>> posted
>>>>>>> after a round, I bet a lot of judge-lazy behavior will go
>>>>>>> away, like
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> they/we have our head down and write scores, thus missing 30%
>>>>>>> or more
>> of
>>>>>>> maneuvers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just some ideas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jim W.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf
>>>>>>> Of Wayne
>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 11:37 PM
>>>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
>> transparency
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fred,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> my point is post them...not leave loose tear sheets on a
>>>>>>> table for
>>>>>>> pilots
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> take away from the table. This has been the practice at the
>>>>>>> NATS.
>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> to be posted in some way. Not just tossed as loose sheets for
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> wind
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> pilots to remove from the public view
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is all my point was. I had a conversation with an FAI
>>>>>>> pilot back
>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>> the NATS and he has been advocating this the past 3 years yet
>>>>>>> still
>> not
>>>>>>> happening.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Fred Huber <mailto:fhhuber at clearwire.net>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 8:13 PM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
>> transparency
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me, "public" can be debated somewhat....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its probably adequate to post them on a table where anyone
>>>>>>> WHO WANTS
>> TO
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> see them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All the Pattern contests I have been to, the scores have been
>>>>>>> taped
>>>>>>> to
>> a
>>>>>>> table where anyone who wanted to look had access. Good enough.
>>>>>>> Don't
>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>> it harder than it has to be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Wayne <mailto:Whinkle1024 at msn.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 8:21 PM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
>> transparency
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Public is not left on a table....Public is posted for the
>>>>>>> world to
>> see.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> check out the awesome job done by the Swiss at the last Euro
>>>>>>> Champs.
>> Too
>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>> we in the USA with more pattern flyers than anywhere else
>>>>>>> can't get
>> with
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> program.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.em06.ch/ranking_preliminary.asp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wayne
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Lance Van <mailto:patterndude at comcast.net> Nostrand
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 6:17 PM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] FAI sporting code on judge
>>>>>>> transparency
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To all rule-meisters,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know there are some on this list that have deep insight
>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>> intent
>>>>>>> and history of the F3A sporting code. I hope to either get a
>>>>>>> solid
>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>> or pointed in the right direction. This is not an idle request.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Part 5.1.8 Marking - last sentence
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The scores given by each judge for each competitor shall be made
>> public
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> the end of each round of competition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What level of transparency is mandated? Is it enough to
>>>>>>> report the
>>>>>>> scores
>>>>>>> from judge 1-4 or is it expected that the identity of the
>>>>>>> judge be
>> known
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> well?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Lance
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>>>> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/537 - Release Date:
>>>>>>> 11/17/2006
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN
>>>>>> Radio
>>>>>> powered
>>>>>> by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list