[NSRCA-discussion] Judging by committee?
Mark Atwood
atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
Fri Feb 1 09:04:12 AKST 2008
I have to strongly agree with Del on this one. Dropping scores in this
manner just isn¹t statistically valuable. You almost always just throw out
an entire judge.
I think those that favor this approach do so because of the stray ³0² that
they¹ve received sometime in their pattern career, and see dropping highs
(no one REALLY wants to throw out their high scores) and lows as a way to
get rid of the Zero awarded by the local Snap Nazi. It¹s just the wrong
approach.
Maybe with 30 judges it would have some relevance, but not with 5 or even
10. AND...more often than not, I¹ve been MUCH more annoyed at the judge who
MISSED a zero, than one that maybe awarded one unjustifiably.
I¹d rather go the route of having a ³Zero² judge, who¹s sole job is to
determine that the correct maneuver was flown and that a Snap was a snap and
a spin a spin. The other judges simply judge what was flown... If a
maneuver was missed or out of sequence, the zero judge overrides those
scores. Ok...there¹s issues with that too (missing a point on a point roll
for example would be an issue)...just thinking as I type.
Anyhow...dropping highs and lows isn¹t the solution. (IMHO)
-Mark
On 2/1/08 11:40 AM, "Del Rykert" <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> I have always felt that throwing away a high and a low score not only insults
> the judges but encourages judges to be number generators in the middle of the
> road as they question giving a zero when they feel it was earned but knowing
> it will be tossed if others didn't see the error.
>
> To punish a judge that does a better job is always going to be the wrong
> approach. I have repeatedly seen where the judge giving the lower score as
> being the problem. I can't ever recall personally seeing Santa clausing while
> at a contest. If judging is a bad as some seem to think they why not have
> judges certified yearly for all contests. At least then you will be using
> people that have proven they knew the rules when they took their
> certification.
>
> Del
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <seefo at san.rr.com <mailto:seefo at san.rr.com> >
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging by committee?
>
>> > For as long as I've been competing there has always been the problem of
>> judging being uninformed, inaccurate, etc. Not pointing fingers, it just is
>> what it is whenever you have volunteer judging.
>> >
>> > Personally I think the efforts made by Jason and the Tangerine people
>> should be applauded, REGARDLESS of whether or not the outcome is deemed
>> valid. The fact is they tried something new to solve a problem. If it works,
>> cool. If not, that's ok too. It just eliminates another incorrect choice at
>> solving the problem. This sort of outside-the-box thinking should be
>> encouraged.
>> >
>> > Having sat through MANY competitions where every one of my peers sees
>> errors that few, if any judges on the line catch (a certain TOC pilot's wrong
>> direction snap that only Peter Wessels caught comes to mind), I think the
>> idea of peer judging has a great deal of merit, even if only as a case study
>> comparison to standard judging methods. Who better to know what to look for
>> in a flight than the people flying it? So long as there is a certain amount
>> of normalization (such as dropping high & low scores) to reduce bias, I
>> honestly can't think of a reason not to try it.
>> >
>> > To a person, I trust everyone I know at this level of competition to judge
>> accurately and fairly, regardless of them being my competitor or not.
>> >
>> > -Doug Cronkhite
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---- Ken Thompson <kthompson at stx.rr.com <mailto:kthompson at stx.rr.com> >
>> wrote:
>>> >> I'm sorry Jason,
>>> >>
>>> >> But my comments have little to do with my respect for you, which I
>>> obviously have, it's more that I have a much different opinion with respect
>>> with the comments by Cameron Smith.
>>> >> Cameron...your reputation precedes you...if you would like to take this
>>> off line, I'd be happy to do so. You are opinionated, that's no problem, I
>>> am also, but to call someone out in our forum, that's not right...So to
>>> quote you...I'm here to say things honestly!!!
>>> >> Let's both say what's on our mind...to quote you..."nice to see someone
>>> with a set" I have mine, how 'bout you?
>>> >>
>>> >> Ken Thompson
>>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> From: JShulman
>>> >> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>> >> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:12 PM
>>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judging by committee?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Hey guys, I don't mind Cameron's comments. I haven't exactly had much
>>> sleep today, or I should say this morning, so I might have come off a bit
>>> different than usual. I accept his opinion as being his, and welcome his
>>> comments on how to help to improve judging. Not just for FAI, but for all of
>>> pattern.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >> Jason
>>> >> www.jasonshulman.com <http://www.jasonshulman.com>
>>> >> www.shulmanaviation.com <http://www.shulmanaviation.com>
>>> >> www.composite-arf.com <http://www.composite-arf.com>
>>> >>
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ken Thompson
>>> >> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:06 PM
>>> >> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judgeing by commitee?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> This has got to me a freakin' joke...I haven't been posting much, but
>>> things like this will make me come back to life!!!
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't believe the majority would want me to get back on the band
>>> wagon with my opinions...this kind of post is pushing me in that
>>> direction...
>>> >>
>>> >> Ken Thompson
>>> >> NSRCA 3646
>>> >> AMA 685343
>>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> From: C. Smith
>>> >> To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
>>> >> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:48 PM
>>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judgeing by commitee?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Jim,
>>> >>
>>> >> I just got home, Sat down to eat my dinner & read the emails...
>>> >>
>>> >> When you read this to me this afternoon it did not make the
>>> impression it did when I read it.....
>>> >>
>>> >> I am not trying to blow smoke up your skirt please believe me...
>>> >>
>>> >> It is refreshing to see someone say things honestly & in such a
>>> way.... Too few say what needs to be said.....
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Jason's response came across as self serving damage control.. I
>>> do not think he comes across as a sincere person. As a matter of fact he
>>> seems very insecure......
>>> >>
>>> >> He came back at you by saying 3 of the 4 believe it WILL work..
>>> But I could have sworn you showed me emails from Ryan disagreeing with the
>>> practice..... I would bet you Joe & Ryan in public would agree with Jason
>>> just to associate them selves with him.. I call this by many names....Weak,
>>> Intellectually Dishonest & self serving..
>>> >>
>>> >> Oh well I just want you to know Good job-- Nice to see someone
>>> with a set.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Woodward, Jim
>>> >> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:47 PM
>>> >> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Judgeing by commitee?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Hey Anthony,
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> **** Attempting a 50 words or less approach without too much regard
>>> for political correctness *****
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't think peer judging works. I don't think it sends the right
>>> message about problem solving or achieving a more accurate score per
>>> maneuver for each pilot. Psychology 101 would predict that it does not
>>> foster the right mindset or circumstances for a competitive environment
>>> (Reality TV shows like Survivor are based on one form or another of peer
>>> judging).
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> The #1 component that must be correct for it to work is that all
>>> pilot/judges see and subtract about the exact same number of points per
>>> maneuver see the same downgrades. The situation doesn't compute if one
>>> judge is off from the others or uses impression judging. A bunch of stuff
>>> should probably be in place for this to work like: large number of judges,
>>> drop high score, drop low score, etc. The highest caliber of honor,
>>> integrity, and judge-education is required by all competitors to make this
>>> work.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> I witnessed this as a Masters pilot watching the FAI contest. I
>>> watched the flying and this scenario VERY close. My opinion is that I would
>>> chose not to compete in FAI in a peer judging scenario.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >>
>>> >> Jim W.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any
>>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
>>> contain confidential and proprietary information. Any unauthorized review,
>>> use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
>>> recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
>>> copies of the original message.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>
>>> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us>
>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us] On Behalf Of Anthony Romano
>>> >> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:44 PM
>>> >> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us
>>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.f3a.us>
>>> >> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Judgeing by commitee?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Finally got a chance to read the current K-factor and saw a note on
>>> the Tangerine contest. The article mentioned FAI was judged by a commity of
>>> the FAI pilots. Could someone please provide details. Do you think you could
>>> keep your objectivity? For those that were there how did it work out? Sound
>>> interesting because you would finally be judged by pilots who know the FAI
>>> rules and the sequence.
>>> >> Could this be a solution for the oversized Masters class? Obvious
>>> drawbacks too, but trying to inspire some thought.
>>> >>
>>> >> Anthony
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>
>>> >> Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You
>>> IM, we give. Learn more.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> <http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>> <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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080201/80956b20/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list