<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7>
<DIV>Matt,</DIV>
<DIV> Thank you for answering my
questions. Believe it or not we may basically agree but I will always prefer a
majority vote :-).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I need to be more clear on my point about Masters vs. FAI. I am
<STRONG>only talking about the judging</STRONG>, not the flying. Specifically
what I am talking about can be divided into two pieces; </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1. The scoring in Masters is out of a base of 20. (Not 20
points but 20 divisions) This is because we use 1/2 points. I believe it to be
relatively easier to make these deductions than when using a base of 10 in
10 divisions as when judging FAI. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2. Familiarity with the current FAI schedules is of extreme value. Being
exposed to, and tested by, the judging the current P-05 and
F-05 schedules is very important. Have you considered having a higher
weighting than the 03 and 01 judging of the schedules. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2a. (Sorry about the count) . Similarly a Team Trials with all the top
contenders may be worth more than a Nationals that does not have the same
attendance/attendees.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>BTW - No implications intended about pulling fast ones etc, but I still
maintain that if the NSRCA is being represented then due diligence, and in
especially in this case MUCH better membership-communications are needed.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Heck!, I keep my ear to the ground and I still finish up ruffling
feathers to find out what is going on. We should be publishing minutes and who
voted for what, and the vote counts. Then my pseudo-conscience-keyboard
would be silent!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Eric.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> ----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Rcmaster199@aol.com
href="mailto:Rcmaster199@aol.com">Rcmaster199@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, December 13, 2004 5:25
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: World Judge selection
process </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV>Eric, Okie Dokie, I'll try not to be preachy but my beliefs are as
follows:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Q1- if I read you correctly, the thinking is that Masters is an American
Top Class, and F3A is an International Top Class, and that F3A judging is
somehow more valid or more qualified than Masters judging is. The implication
is that masters maneuvers are not as tough as F3A and hence are somehow easier
to judge correctly. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I believe that, in general, Masters is just as difficult as F3A is.
I fly both. In fact, I find P05 easier than the new Masters schedule. As far
as judging these, the elements that are judged are not any different. Flying
the Rolling Circle in F05 is the lone exception to my belief, since this one
gives fits to the best in the World, let alone big old me. But I feel judging
this maneuver's elements isn't any different than any other. That is the
mantra of the exceptional judge after all-- judging elements and knowing the
cost of the numerous downgrades.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Q2- The method of choosing Top Judging performance over time should
be the major criterion for sending someone to a WC. Not to belabor the
obvious, that IS basically the reason we send a judge to a WC- to judge.
Should it be the only criterion- perhaps not. But in my opinion, it is the
most important requirement and the one that must carry the largest weight.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>BTW I am not the only one who believes that. Quite a few of us believe
that in this country, it's true. Judging from the requests for our Judge
Eval Program we have fielded from other countries, competitors from all over
the World, (including the FAI/F3A Chair), feel the same. They obviously feel
stung by too many others that are on WC Judge panels, that were placed there
by qualitative means, not quantitative. Hence the terrific interest in our
program.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Q3- Data age is not really that relevant if we are dealing with data from
the latest five years. That is the intent of the system.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Q4- A vote from the membership is terms of what? Whether the program
should be used to choose the judge? Whether the program is valid? Or whether
it is even understood? This implies that the Judge Ranking Committee somehow
tried to pull a fast one on the membership. Nobody did anything of the
sort. The information is open to anyone. It is after all NSRCA property.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The amount of statistics we employed isn't great, and in my opinion is
within the grasp of the general membership. There were no advanced ANOVA
techniques employed. Anyone with some knowledge of Excel Spreadsheet software
could easily follow what was done. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Yet some folks took pot shots at what we came up with anyway, thinking as
you appear to do, that some kind of average scoring stream like a 7 or 8,
produces the highest Rank. That is a false assumption, and if one were to
run real numbers, one would realize quickly to folly in this thinking.
This kind of scoring MIGHT help exactly 50% of the final set of data
we used to determine the final Judge Rank, but really generally hinders the
other 50%. With such scoring habits, the final Judge Rank Score would not be
very high and would tend to be of little value to the Judge</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Having said that, the Board was asked to vote on this program, and it was
approved, earlier this year. I am certain Maureen has the final numbers.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards and happy holidays</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>MattK</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 12/13/2004 4:06:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
pattern4u@comcast.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>Matt,</DIV>
<DIV> I have a copy of all the
files. I saw what was done and responded accordingly. <STRONG>My comments
are not new.</STRONG> I guess nobody ever forwarded them to you. BTW -
They are not intended to be an attack on the work done.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I do not challenge the math or the analysis. I noted the shots across
my bow, in other notes, about not understanding the math or the system. A
bit insulting but I'll not fall for that obvious diversionary trap.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Staying on course, I do challenge you to address the following;</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1. The validity or value of including/using Masters judging
performances to chose an FAI world judge</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2. Only using this as selection criteria.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>3. The age of the data when rules and judging standards change all of
the time.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>4. Doing this without getting a vote from the membership. It is their
society that is being represented in an FAI issue. I believe that we should
have included them in the decision. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,<BR><BR>Eric.</DIV></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>