<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><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></FONT></BODY></HTML>