PDA

View Full Version : Wholly Fark is this true!!!


Skip
01-06-2010, 10:50 AM
I am hearing grumblings that there is someone out there trying to put together a judges blacklist if they don't make it to the contest. Is this for real? Anyone else hear about this? I find it hard to believe that someone would think the worst of someone if they weren't able to show up. This is supposed to be a fun thing to do where life can sometimes interfere unfortunately. Does this person really think that a judge would go out of their way to sign up only to back out at the last second? What for? Snots and giggles? Why is it that the first thought is the worst thought. If it weren't for the judges we could all sell our rigs and cook in our backyards....now we want to punish those who unfortunately couldn't fufill their obligations? I find that as nothing more then a deterent to getting judges while also alienating the judging public.

Westexbbq
01-06-2010, 11:15 AM
Have not heard about this but if true, it is a shame.
If a judge signs up to judge and then has to bail for some reason or another, it is only right to notify the organizer by phone or email to let them know; that is the decent thing to do.
Sure, there are probably a few who fail to give any notice and just don't show, but hey, that is just people being people.
I imagine folks that did that consistently would most likely just fade away anyway.

But to organize some sort of blacklist/no-show/no-go is not going to do much other than antagonize many folks and I cannot see any real positive good come out of such an idea; sounds like another case of somebody with too much time and too much inflated sense self-importance.

dos centavos...

Podge
01-06-2010, 11:16 AM
stuff happens and some judges just can't make a contest for one reason or another. I think that's why some organizer hopes to have more judges than teams signed up. I do kind of believe that there should be some sort of attendance report of judges, just in case there are some ones that are consistently no-shows, and KCBS or someone can keep track of those. A black list seems to be way over-kill and unfair.

smoke it if ya got it
01-06-2010, 11:22 AM
Sounds awfully judgemental to me, Chit happens!

KC_Bobby
01-06-2010, 11:28 AM
stuff happens and some judges just can't make a contest for one reason or another. I think that's why some organizer hopes to have more judges than teams signed up. I do kind of believe that there should be some sort of attendance report of judges, just in case there are some ones that are consistently no-shows, and KCBS or someone can keep track of those. A black list seems to be way over-kill and unfair.

I agree with this. The first time I judged, my jaw about hit the table as the organizer was scattering to fill judging seats at the last minute - asking us judges to call anyone they knew would could get there. As a cook, I initially found this discouraging. However, I've judged a handful of times since and that was the only occasion that I noticed this happening.

Plus, based on the CBJ percentages the last few years this event organizer doesn't seem to stress KCBS judging. I judged the event twice and both times it had locals that mostly all seemed to know each other. Many from the same families. I guess that first year maybe a family or two had something come up as the next year didn't provide the scurry to get butts in seats. But I was one of the advanced judges (2-3 comps) and I got to table capt.

So even a blacklist probably wouldn't really have helped the situation outlined above.

Skip
01-06-2010, 11:30 AM
Could someone from th board or a rep please confirm whether or not this is the work of the sanctioning body or the work of, as Wes so eloquently put it, "somebody with too much time and too much inflated sense self-importance."

Any organizers been approached?

Ford
01-06-2010, 11:50 AM
Could someone from th board or a rep please confirm whether or not this is the work of the sanctioning body or the work of, as We so eloquently put it, "somebody with too much time and too much inflated sense self-importance."

Any organizers been approached?
I suggest you contact the Head of the CBJ committee and ask them if something is in the works. And you could also contact the rules committee in case they are being asked to consider a rule to report judges that don't show up and action that can be taken against them. Making posts and asking the KCBS BOD to comment implies that all committee heads are members here and we know they are not.

I think you're living up to your shirt today.

And IMHO judges that say they will attend and just don't show (no call to say sorry) are hurting the organizer. When they are CBJ's it's worse as cooks and the KCBS are asking for 100% CBJ's and that can be tough to get but especially with significant no shows. Some judges say yes months in advance then forget they were ever going to judge or just don't take the time to let them know they can't make it. I know some organizers that keep their own lists and last years no-shows may come the next year and find out there are extra judges and they won't be needed.

dmprantz
01-06-2010, 12:01 PM
I know of one rep who has a blacklist of judges that he feels aren't consistent, and it isn't a secret either.

Coming at it from a different point of view, I think that it is innevitable that some judges are going to miss contests and that is a shame. It does not make them bad people worthy of punishment and torture....HOWEVER, there are two kinds of people in the world: Dependable, and unreliable. When a dependable person says he is going to be there, he is going to be there come hell or high water. He will also do everything in his power to be there on time, and if he can't be there, he will go out of his way to find a replacement. Unreliable people will not show up, be late, and if you're lucky enough to get a call from the person before he is a no-show, he'll do nothing more than say "Good Luck." While these unreliable people aren't necessarily bad people, they should not be counted on, and regardless of the reason, some one hwo has shown to be unreliable as a judge should be moved to the very bottom of a list when looking for judges to fill a contest. Call it a blacklist or backchannel communications, but it is perfectly reasonable for organizers to know whom they can trust. Obviously there are people who fall some where between dependable and unreliable, and the line is not always black and white, but I hope organizers don't have unreliable judges when I compete. What happens if they don't have enough?

Here's another way to look at it: Say you are on a comp team, you're comp team has three full time members, and you plan to compete every three weeks. Now say that every other competition, one of your teamates finds a reason to bail: His kids are sick, he forgot he has to go to his in-laws, he has a soccer game, his car broke down, and one time, you don't even know because he didn't bother to call and tell you. Now he pays his money, but every time he doesn't show up, you and your other teamate are left doing that much more work and getting that much less sleep. How much longer is that inreliable teamate going to stay on your team?

dmp

Ford
01-06-2010, 12:41 PM
What happens if they don't have enough?dmp
Well if they can't round up warm bodies in time then the Rep can do 7 boxes per table. I've seen this done. But the organizers are encouraged to find more judges and I've seen them grab people walking by and say would you like free food. We need judges. Very little time to instruct them and they had not planned on judging so have no idea what this is all about.

Organizers have a tough job getting judges. Now what happens when too many CBJ's show up and they ask some to table captain. I've heard that there can be some major yelling and screaming about not getting hteir food. Not a job I want.

BBQchef33
01-06-2010, 12:42 PM
I know of one rep who has a blacklist of judges that he feels aren't consistent, and it isn't a secret either.

Coming at it from a different point of view, I think that it is innevitable that some judges are going to miss contests and that is a shame. It does not make them bad people worthy of punishment and torture....HOWEVER, there are two kinds of people in the world: Dependable, and unreliable. When a dependable person says he is going to be there, he is going to be there come hell or high water. He will also do everything in his power to be there on time, and if he can't be there, he will go out of his way to find a replacement. Unreliable people will not show up, be late, and if you're lucky enough to get a call from the person before he is a no-show, he'll do nothing more than say "Good Luck." While these unreliable people aren't necessarily bad people, they should not be counted on, and regardless of the reason, some one hwo has shown to be unreliable as a judge should be moved to the very bottom of a list when looking for judges to fill a contest. Call it a blacklist or backchannel communications, but it is perfectly reasonable for organizers to know whom they can trust. Obviously there are people who fall some where between dependable and unreliable, and the line is not always black and white, but I hope organizers don't have unreliable judges when I compete. What happens if they don't have enough?

Here's another way to look at it: Say you are on a comp team, you're comp team has three full time members, and you plan to compete every three weeks. Now say that every other competition, one of your teamates finds a reason to bail: His kids are sick, he forgot he has to go to his in-laws, he has a soccer game, his car broke down, and one time, you don't even know because he didn't bother to call and tell you. Now he pays his money, but every time he doesn't show up, you and your other teamate are left doing that much more work and getting that much less sleep. How much longer is that inreliable teamate going to stay on your team?

dmp


ARGEE! 100%

Never saw one, but have seen them discussed before in several areas.

Makes sense to me. If a judge(or team for that mattter), consistantly is a no show or causes problems at events, I see nothing wrong with letting it be known to other organizers or reps that someone on their roster may be unreliable.

Not saying that someone who has a problem gets blacklisted immediatly, but those who consistantly dont show with no explanation are not doing anything for the sport and leaves the organizers scrambling. I think keeping track of judges, (and even teams) that consistantly have issues would help organizers keep things on track and/or be prepared.

This is similar in concept to FBA(I think its FBA ??), that tracks trending for judges to make sure tables get a fair spread of hard and soft judges.

Skip
01-06-2010, 01:20 PM
Obviously there are people who fall some where between dependable and unreliable, and the line is not always black and white, but I hope organizers don't have unreliable judges when I compete. What happens if they don't have enough?

Who will draw that line? Who has the proper definition. Allowing individuals to make that determination could lead to impropriety. This type of practice could ultimately make it harder to fill the ranks of CBJ's.


Here's another way to look at it: Say you are on a comp team, you're comp team has three full time members, and you plan to compete every three weeks. Now say that every other competition, one of your teamates finds a reason to bail: His kids are sick, he forgot he has to go to his in-laws, he has a soccer game, his car broke down, and one time, you don't even know because he didn't bother to call and tell you. Now he pays his money, but every time he doesn't show up, you and your other teamate are left doing that much more work and getting that much less sleep. How much longer is that inreliable teamate going to stay on your team?

dmp

See life interrupts fun. All those reasons mean little to me. They are a team mate. We have 15 teammates. Some haven't been at a comp in 8 months....they are still teamates. In fact some have said they'd be there and didn't show....they are still teammates.

BBQchef33
01-06-2010, 01:50 PM
LOL... 15 teamates is a whole offensive unit plus 4 second stringers. with one down, YOU may not notice.. but!

I have 3 team mates. If one doesnt show up, it throws off our timing, and causes others to pick up additional responsibility. If someone didnt show up for 8 months they would be sitting in a chair when they came back.. (8 months is a whole season to me, i would have refilled the spot after the second no show). We were down 2 at troy and had to rethink our entire strategy.

Skip
01-06-2010, 02:16 PM
LOL... 15 teamates is a whole offensive unit plus 4 second stringers. with one down, YOU may not notice.. but!

I have 3 team mates. If one doesnt show up, it throws off our timing, and causes others to pick up additional responsibility. If someone didnt show up for 8 months they would be sitting in a chair when they came back.. (8 months is a whole season to me, i would have refilled the spot after the second no show). We were down 2 at troy and had to rethink our entire strategy.


We all have varying degrees of involvement. The main 5, which recently dropped to 4, are the key. Some would say the other 10 were just there to make noise but thats not true even when its late at night. But that would require a visual or a police report because hearsay is just that. You are right those who miss a bunch of time will find themselves sitting but not because they aren't teammates but because they are out of the routine.

How does this relate to judges? A judge who has life interrupt should not be punished or blacklisted. Yes we like 100% CBJ and if your area has had contests that shouldn't be a problem but if its 98% thats great too. We all know that those who haven't learned to be critical are usually great markers. We also know that in any group there are bad examples. From doctors to lawyers and yes even BBQ judges. To make this list about garnering 100% CBJ's seems like the horse pushing the cart. You want to blacklist CBJs so you can get 100% CBJ's.

The biggest problem I see is administering this. Who draws the rules? Who sets the bar? How do we allow rogues to create their own "enemies list" and utilize it without questioning their methods and MO. If I found out any organizer or organizers helper or rep were doing this I would make sure NOT to participate in their event. When all is said and done this is still supposed to be fun and for me the fun is gone when people are excluded for reasons hatched in the brain of one individual.

This Is How We Que It
01-06-2010, 02:49 PM
Just show up when your suppose to....easy.

goodsmokebbq
01-06-2010, 02:53 PM
Blacklist is a bit extreme but there are habitual offenders who sign up and don't show. With something like 25% no call no show at Roc City last year I can understand the organizers frustration.

ique
01-06-2010, 02:59 PM
I am hearing grumblings that there is someone out there trying to put together a judges blacklist if they don't make it to the contest.


Without a phone call I would say good. This leads directly to people being pulled off the street. If you commit, show-up, the cooks deserve it.

dmprantz
01-06-2010, 03:12 PM
Who will draw that line? Who has the proper definition. Allowing individuals to make that determination could lead to impropriety. This type of practice could ultimately make it harder to fill the ranks of CBJ's.

See life interrupts fun. All those reasons mean little to me. They are a team mate. We have 15 teammates. Some haven't been at a comp in 8 months....they are still teamates. In fact some have said they'd be there and didn't show....they are still teammates.

We're probably just going to have to agree to disagree here. There's an old quote: I can't define pornography for you, but I'll know it when I see it, or some such. I think it was an excuse to see lots of pornography, but that's a different issue:) The point is that habbitual no-shows have no right to expect to be offerred jobs, just has habbitual liars shouldn't be trusted. I'm glad your team is so ritch in mates. There's a different between considering some one a "brother" and depending on that brother. If I counted on my real life brother actually calling me, I'd never talk to him...just a fact of life.

dmp

Alexa RnQ
01-06-2010, 03:19 PM
Just show up when your suppose to....easy.

Without a phone call I would say good. This leads directly to people being pulled off the street. If you commit, show-up, the cooks deserve it.

Yup and yup.

Yet another example of how the actions of a few flakes result in rules that govern the majority. Much noise will be made, but for those who performed to spec in the first place it's a no-brainer.

Meat@Slim's
01-06-2010, 03:24 PM
Blacklist is a bit extreme but there are habitual offenders who sign up and don't show. With something like 25% no call no show at Roc City last year I can understand the organizers frustration.

As a competitor in this comp it is also frustrating to hear after traveling 400 miles one way to participate. (Of course certified judges would have probably placed us lower.)

dmprantz
01-06-2010, 03:34 PM
(Of course certified judges would have probably placed us lower.)

Conversely, perhaps your tables had all CBJs, and the street ppl placed your competitors higher. One would hope that when CBJs aren't 100% that the street ppl are evenly distributed and every team gets the same quantity of turn-ins in front of street people, but that's not always possible.

dmp

FatBoyz
01-06-2010, 03:44 PM
I am starting a black list for every cbj that gives me a 5 ..... i hae a realy big azz list so far...

motoeric
01-06-2010, 03:44 PM
Hi,

I have absolutely no qualms with an organizer maintaining a list of judges who have shown themselves to be unreliable. None.

If a someone signs up to judge and doesn't attend and doesn't contact the organizer to let them know that they have (or had) a problem, than they belong on a list of judges that are not dependable.

If an organizer than uses that information to track how often the judge repeats this behavior and uses it to determine whether or not the judge is welcome to participate at his event, I applaud his actions.

I've been in a position more than once where I have had to either turn prospective judges down or put them on a reserve list for judging due to having enough judges already signed up. Most people won't show up if they are on an alternates list. If irresponsible judges don't show up they have cost those other people (who may be CBJ's) a seat and cost the organizer time and effort.

I've heard stories from Linda and Jerry (KCBS Reps) about judges who sign up for competitions early in the season with the goal of having a seat at a table IF they decide to attend. They sign up for everything remotely close to them and if they have a three day weekend or if they get some free time, they have a seat. If they decide not to attend, no problem, there's another event next week that they signed up for.

Hopefully Linda will comment.

Eric

Meat@Slim's
01-06-2010, 03:53 PM
Conversely, perhaps your tables had all CBJs, and the street ppl placed your competitors higher. One would hope that when CBJs aren't 100% that the street ppl are evenly distributed and every team gets the same quantity of turn-ins in front of street people, but that's not always possible.

dmp

I should have placed a smilie to indicate I was joking.:smile: or:smile:

I am not for blacklisting anyone but I think people should follow through with their commitment. A no-show rate of 1 or 2 percent should be anticipated and a slightly higher percentage (3%) for people who call in within 12 hours or so before an event as well. Twenty five percent no show on a perfect weekend at a perfect location (Roc City) is a problem.

What is the solution?

Meat@Slim's
01-06-2010, 04:05 PM
Hi,

I have absolutely no qualms with an organizer maintaining a list of judges who have shown themselves to be unreliable. None.

If a someone signs up to judge and doesn't attend and doesn't contact the organizer to let them know that they have (or had) a problem, than they belong on a list of judges that are not dependable.

If an organizer than uses that information to track how often the judge repeats this behavior and uses it to determine whether or not the judge is welcome to participate at his event, I applaud his actions.

I've been in a position more than once where I have had to either turn prospective judges down or put them on a reserve list for judging due to having enough judges already signed up. Most people won't show up if they are on an alternates list. If irresponsible judges don't show up they have cost those other people (who may be CBJ's) a seat and cost the organizer time and effort.

I've heard stories from Linda and Jerry (KCBS Reps) about judges who sign up for competitions early in the season with the goal of having a seat at a table IF they decide to attend. They sign up for everything remotely close to them and if they have a three day weekend or if they get some free time, they have a seat. If they decide not to attend, no problem, there's another event next week that they signed up for.

Hopefully Linda will comment.

Eric

Good presentation Eric.

Perhaps a policy. School and work have policies around attendance.

When someone takes a class to become a judge the policy would be presented. (One no show allowed every two years. For example.)

It has been mentioned that what we do is supposed to be fun.

There is a difference between Serious Fun and Casual Fun.

I call this "Serious Fun.":icon_cool

goodsmokebbq
01-06-2010, 04:29 PM
As a competitor in this comp it is also frustrating to hear after traveling 400 miles one way to participate. (Of course certified judges would have probably placed us lower.)

Thanks to the certified course the night before (and some pre-emptive over-booking) we were lucky to have 98% certified. I expect a great turn out this year so it will not be a problem. The majority of judges are very, very dedicated thankfully.

goodsmokebbq
01-06-2010, 04:33 PM
Hi,

I have absolutely no qualms with an organizer maintaining a list of judges who have shown themselves to be unreliable. None.

If a someone signs up to judge and doesn't attend and doesn't contact the organizer to let them know that they have (or had) a problem, than they belong on a list of judges that are not dependable.

If an organizer than uses that information to track how often the judge repeats this behavior and uses it to determine whether or not the judge is welcome to participate at his event, I applaud his actions.

I've been in a position more than once where I have had to either turn prospective judges down or put them on a reserve list for judging due to having enough judges already signed up. Most people won't show up if they are on an alternates list. If irresponsible judges don't show up they have cost those other people (who may be CBJ's) a seat and cost the organizer time and effort.

I've heard stories from Linda and Jerry (KCBS Reps) about judges who sign up for competitions early in the season with the goal of having a seat at a table IF they decide to attend. They sign up for everything remotely close to them and if they have a three day weekend or if they get some free time, they have a seat. If they decide not to attend, no problem, there's another event next week that they signed up for.

Hopefully Linda will comment.

Eric

It is unbelievably frustrating to have to turn a judge down (or place on waiting list) because you think you have enough judges and then people don't show. And it can be unfair to a judge if we overbook and they don't get used. Very tough balancing act.

Meat@Slim's
01-06-2010, 04:57 PM
Please pardon my many rantings. The more I give thought to this thread the more I see a systemic solution. (And know that none of my previous postings have meant to communicate negative vibes.) (Brian, Roc City was great and I was merely expressing that teams share your frustrations.)

KCBS certifies judges.

With that KCBS has the responsibility to communicate to the judge to follow through in a professional manner. This includes following through with a commitment to attend an event or give a very reasonable amount of notice to the event if unable to attend.

This is policy based. If the policy is broken then the judge must resolve with KCBS.

It should not be up to the event organizers to manage and worry about these things. KCBS must manage attendance.

Just as scores are managed after an event and delivered to KCBS the event must submit attendance.

This data is kept by KCBS and is to be given back to event organizers for the next event so that priorities for judges can be determined.

Does this make any sense at all?

mobow
01-06-2010, 06:09 PM
I am not a competition cook but I love to judge the events. I am currently signed up to judge 6 contest into may. I like to plan my time in advance and appreciated the organizers that get back with me quickly. I also travel some distance for several of the contest so want to know that I will judge and not be an alternate. With that said. I feel I owe it to everyone involved to show when I say I will. I would completely understand some type of discussion/penalty if I made it a habit of not showing. On the other end of the spectrum. I know that the organizers of at least some of the events keep track of past judges and they will contact you if they know they are short. keith

MilitantSquatter
01-06-2010, 06:50 PM
What's so bad with a "three strikes and you're out" system ?

Slamdunkpro
01-06-2010, 06:58 PM
....about judges who sign up for competitions early in the season with the goal of having a seat at a table IF they decide to attend. They sign up for everything remotely close to them and if they have a three day weekend or if they get some free time, they have a seat. If they decide not to attend, no problem, there's another event next week that they signed up for.
^^This.^^
I contacted a number of events (early) last year about judging and was told "we're full, we should be OK". I went to several of them and was snagged by the organizer at all but one with a plaintive "can you judge? we're really short". I can see this being frustrating for newer judges who don't know "the system". No show? No call? - No thanks

Skip
01-06-2010, 07:58 PM
One word Byzantine
Many here are speaking of the extreme. But what about the day to day. Each one of you organizers, reps and organizer helpers can rattle off 5 names right now you wouldn't welcome but why? What is the criteria? Who will be responsible? What oversight will be given? It seems a list,made from many little lists, will open up an avenue of impropriety. It reminds me of Nixon's enemies list. Who is on it and why?
A quick scan of last years comps gives you an idea of CBJ percentages. Is a list really necessary.

Rookie'48
01-06-2010, 08:03 PM
It is unbelievably frustrating to have to turn a judge down (or place on waiting list) because you think you have enough judges and then people don't show. And it can be unfair to a judge if we overbook and they don't get used. Very tough balancing act.

What's so bad with a "three strikes and you're out" system ?

If I travel 100+ miles to judge a comp, I want to be sure of judging, not sitting on the sidelines. By the same token if I have made the commitment (promise) to be there, then I'd better damn well either be there or let the organizer know as soon as possible that I won't.

LindaM
01-06-2010, 08:12 PM
Hi,

I have absolutely no qualms with an organizer maintaining a list of judges who have shown themselves to be unreliable. None.

If a someone signs up to judge and doesn't attend and doesn't contact the organizer to let them know that they have (or had) a problem, than they belong on a list of judges that are not dependable.

If an organizer than uses that information to track how often the judge repeats this behavior and uses it to determine whether or not the judge is welcome to participate at his event, I applaud his actions.

I've been in a position more than once where I have had to either turn prospective judges down or put them on a reserve list for judging due to having enough judges already signed up. Most people won't show up if they are on an alternates list. If irresponsible judges don't show up they have cost those other people (who may be CBJ's) a seat and cost the organizer time and effort.

I've heard stories from Linda and Jerry (KCBS Reps) about judges who sign up for competitions early in the season with the goal of having a seat at a table IF they decide to attend. They sign up for everything remotely close to them and if they have a three day weekend or if they get some free time, they have a seat. If they decide not to attend, no problem, there's another event next week that they signed up for.

Hopefully Linda will comment.

Eric

Some contests seem to have more no shows than others. You are correct Eric I have spoken with judges who sign up for every contest nearby regardless of their personal schedule. I do not know if these folks notify the organizers if they are not going to show. I do think if there is a judge who "CONSISTANTLY" is a no show then they should be refused by organizers, and I do not feel it is wrong for Organizers to share that information. We have several contests with as much as 30% no show, I always tell the organizers to overbook, not alt list. If you show, you will judge if you are on a list. The only problem is if the judging tent is too small. Ford said go to 7 samples if needed. I will add a table, 2 or 3 if needed so everyone can judge. If you get 3 or 4 samples so be it.

Yakfishingfool
01-06-2010, 08:15 PM
One word Byzantine
Many here are speaking of the extreme. But what about the day to day. Each one of you organizers, reps and organizer helpers can rattle off 5 names right now you wouldn't welcome but why? What is the criteria? Who will be responsible? What oversight will be given? It seems a list,made from many little lists, will open up an avenue of impropriety. It reminds me of Nixon's enemies list. Who is on it and why?
A quick scan of last years comps gives you an idea of CBJ percentages. Is a list really necessary.

Skip, isn't it the responsibility of the even organizer to ensure a good event? Isn't it their job to secure judges, why ask a judge that has a reputation of no showing. What's the big deal. Are you being excluded from judging because you are unreliable, yeah, maybe, too bad. Maybe you can convince someone to give you another shot and try to do better.

Your nickname isn't Dr Hermele is it??? Local Psychiatrist that has the same shirt you do. :)

Skip
01-06-2010, 08:30 PM
I know of one rep who has a blacklist of judges that he feels aren't consistent, and it isn't a secret either.

Would be interesting to hear their reasoning behind their list.

dmprantz
01-06-2010, 09:20 PM
Would be interesting to hear their reasoning behind their list.

Like I said, it's not a secret. One way to put it, these judges have repeatedly scored too high or too low. It's nothing official, but this rep will get judges declined if he feels the need. You seriously think The Olympics* allow any old yahoo to judge?

dmp

*Not that I hold the least bit of respect for the IOC, but still....

Skip
01-06-2010, 09:50 PM
One way to put it, these judges have repeatedly scored too high or too low.

So you are saying this rep artificially skews the numbers when they feel its right?

Does everyone still want those lists?


It's nothing official

Bully. I ask again do we really want someone constructing lists?


but this rep will get judges declined if he feels the need.

Um...nevermind...

BBQchef33
01-06-2010, 11:12 PM
The more i read about this, the better i like the idea. Its human nature: when your held accountable for your actions, you take them more seriously, conversly, if there will be no repercusstions, then things can be abused. I think this could be a positive tool if used properly.

For instance, if u knew nothing would happen for not showing up, would u go to work eveyday? :twisted: This type of accountability system is not new.

Get too many points on your license? u loose driving privledge. Too many no shows.. u loose judging privledge.

if u dont show up for school enough times, you fail(or get the boot).
if you dont show up for that hot date without calling her(or him), u probablly wont get another chance. Thats life.

Dont show up for a contest, without calling ahead, you got a strike on record. Thats life too. Dont commit if you cant attend.

I dont think this is intended to address an emergency or illness of an otherwise responsible judge who called ahead and did the right thing, but to address those that abuse the system by showing a trend of no show/no notice.

If the judges record starts to show the trend of no shows, then they should be tagged as unreliable/undependable. LET THOSE BE THE ONES ON THE WAITING LIST, nto the dependable ones who drive 100's of miles to make the event work. I see nothing wrong with it. Not to say that its X strikes and your out, or maybe different reps will have different criteria, but in whatever case, for a rep or organizer to have a resource that gives them some insight as to what/whom hes dealing with allows them to plan contingencies.

I kind of like it.

Meat@Slim's
01-06-2010, 11:31 PM
The whole system should be based on data.

The positive to this is that when you are reliable there is a record of the reliability. People are proud of their records.

If there is a blemish then a judge would be aware of that blemish. If s/he were serious about the serious fun of comp cooking then that judge would communicate to the event "I have a blemish but I can assure you that I will be Johnny on the spot for you."

The event occurs. The judge shows. The data goes in. The data is positive. The blemish is smaller/further in the past.

KCBS gets paid when a judge is certified. It is also their responsibility to manage attendance records.

This is called accountability. It has nothing to do with blacklisting. (As far as the topic of attendance is concerned.)

Slamdunkpro
01-06-2010, 11:39 PM
We have several contests with as much as 30% no show
Maybe they didn't show because they forgot their coolers:eek:







*runs*

Meat@Slim's
01-06-2010, 11:45 PM
If the system stays the same event organizers are tasked with this frustrating, time consuming process of making sure the event is staffed. They are islands unto themselves.

KCBS management of the issue will unite the system by adding a constant expectation.

Heck, give out pin-awards to judges for being reliable. Reliability should be recognized.

5 contest a year pin

10 contest a year pin

2 year pin

5 year pin and so on.

JD McGee
01-07-2010, 12:56 AM
LOL... 15 teamates is a whole offensive unit plus 4 second stringers. with one down, YOU may not notice.. but!

I have 3 team mates. If one doesnt show up, it throws off our timing, and causes others to pick up additional responsibility. If someone didnt show up for 8 months they would be sitting in a chair when they came back.. (8 months is a whole season to me, i would have refilled the spot after the second no show). We were down 2 at troy and had to rethink our entire strategy.

If my team mate doesn't show up he's probably dead in a ditch somewhere...:wink:

What's so bad with a "three strikes and you're out" system ?

Absolutely nothing...If a person is a no-show (without good reason) mark him/her down as such. Three no-shows and you're on the bench for the next three games. :cool:

Skip
01-07-2010, 08:47 AM
Again folks this is supposed to be fun. We are attaching criteria we use in life in our fun.
Working provides us with an income...judging does not.
A license provides us with the priviledge of driving ...judging does not.
Proper date etiquette hopefully gets you a goodnight kiss....judging does not.
Judging isn't a job folks. When an organizer or organizer helper puts the time in they get the turn out they expect. If they don't they have a problem. The job is for the organizer not the judge.

Leave the listing up to individuals and their own devices and you will have a problem. Power corrupts when said power is self appointed.

mobow
01-07-2010, 09:06 AM
I don't know.. judging has got me several good night kisses. I judge with my wife but I'm just saying. lol. keith

dmprantz
01-07-2010, 09:08 AM
So you are saying this rep artificially skews the numbers when they feel its right?

I think part of the problem is that we are looking at this from different points of view. I look at it as a cook who wants to be sure that my turn in is judged correctly, fairly, and consistantly, with as little hassle to the organizer and reps. Looks like you may have a judge's point of view, and that's fine, but....

My understanding is that according to the KCBS and most Reps, and entry that is an 8 should be an 8 consistantly. You sould not have one juduge who consistantly gives 5s whenever every one else at the table gives an 8, or vice versa. The rep in question, as is his job, talks to the judges and tries to re-explain the process because there is an obvious inconsistancy. If multiple attempts to speak with the judge fails, he will try to prevent that judge from judging in the future, which only serves to provide conistancy to cooks. Nothing is more furiating than to have one judge screw up your score. I don't think it's a bad practice, and is one of the things which should only be performed by a rep. You probably don't agree, and that's fine, but as a cook, I like it, and I would bet most people here, who are cooks, feel the same way.

dmp

Stoke&Smoke
01-07-2010, 09:13 AM
Sounds like we're talking 2 separate issues here.

The one regarding judges that are scheduled and don't show is one aggravation. And I can see where if it happened often, organizers might not want to deal with that judge

The one about judges consistently judging "too high/too low" sounds more like there should be some additional training given, instead of creating a so called blacklist. JMHO

Alexa RnQ
01-07-2010, 09:15 AM
Judging isn't a job folks.
No, it's not a job, but it *is* a responsibility, and one that is taken on at the discretion of the judge -- nobody assigns them contests without consulting them. A person of integrity doesn't flake on his responsibilities to others without a good reason, without an effort to minimize the impact of his actions, or without expecting consequences to his actions.

Leave the listing up to individuals and their own devices and you will have a problem. Power corrupts when said power is self appointed.
An excellent reason to have KCBS track judges' attendance. Individual reps/organizers simply report whether an absence was accompanied by communication in advance, or not.

dmprantz
01-07-2010, 09:20 AM
if you dont show up for that hot date without calling her(or him), u probablly wont get another chance.

You know, this situation is exactly what I was thinking about when I based my original opinion. Years ago I was reading some article on dating, targeted toward men, and it had rules that were even stricter than yours. It didn't even matter if you got a call, because the rule went like this: If you have a date with a woman and she cancels on you, don't even bother trying to setup a second date. Why not give her a second chance? She's not really interested in dating you. Look at it from your point of view. Do you want to date her? Do you have it in your calendar that you are going to date her? How likely are you to cancel a date on some one you are really interested in dating? If she cancels, there is most likely no interest there, and you should save yourself time and frustration and move on. If this is wrong and she is interested, let her call you and setup the next date.

I've probably explained a lot about me that I was reading an article about about dating, but that's a different story. The point is that the concept of interest transcends beyond dating and I have applied it to several situations in my life. I think competitive BBQ, both as a team member and as a judge is a fine applicaton. Some one doesn't show up, he doesn't have the interest that other people have. Let the most interested folks get the fun jobs.

dmp

Skip
01-07-2010, 09:23 AM
Those who administer a program, like the organizers and their little helpers, should not create the program they administer. Little people shouldn't have big power or corruption can prevail.

Scottie
01-07-2010, 09:24 AM
Sounds like we're talking 2 separate issues here.

The one regarding judges that are scheduled and don't show is one aggravation. And I can see where if it happened often, organizers might not want to deal with that judge

The one about judges consistently judging "too high/too low" sounds more like there should be some additional training given, instead of creating a so called blacklist. JMHO


I agree Dann. I believe in a blacklist. But I do not believe in one for judges that do not judge the same as others. That's why it's called judging... I do believe in one for judges that do not show or cause trouble. But don't blackball them because they dont't all score the same. We'll end up with the same problem with ties and the same scores all over the place again.

Skip
01-07-2010, 09:26 AM
I find it hard to believe that when someone doesn't perform exactly as someone expects that they are horrible horrible people. Why do we always see the worst without having all the information? I guess in BBQ you are guilty until proven innocent.

Skip
01-07-2010, 09:35 AM
I agree Dann. I believe in a blacklist. But I do not believe in one for judges that do not judge the same as others. That's why it's called judging... I do believe in one for judges that do not show or cause trouble. But don't blackball them because they dont't all score the same. We'll end up with the same problem with ties and the same scores all over the place again.

What you explain is the reason that, without oversight, local people creating lists will create problems. Next we'll have people taking issue with those who complain about legitimate issues. Oh I don't like them, oh they made me look bad, oh they always win.....I think I will put them on my list. :lol:

Scottie
01-07-2010, 09:37 AM
What you explain is the reason that, without oversight, local people creating lists will create problems. Next we'll have people taking issue with those who complain about legitimate issues. Oh I don't like them, oh they made me look bad, oh they always win.....I think I will put them on my list. :lol:


I can't argue with you Skip. If anyone works it , it should be a KCBS Rep, but not an organizer.... good point.

dmprantz
01-07-2010, 09:38 AM
I find it hard to believe that when someone doesn't perform exactly as someone expects that they are horrible horrible people. Why do we always see the worst without having all the information? I guess in BBQ you are guilty until proven innocent.

I never said horrible people, I just said not judging to the norm (or something similar). First of all, I'm not the person who does this, but I do kinda like it. It's not that I expect all judges to give me 9s every time, but I expect consistancy. If I turn in a bad product, fine give me a bad score, but don't have some loner who gives me 5s when I get 8s and 9s from every one else. If you can't have consistant judging, why judge at all? Just roll dice to pick the winner.

dmp

Scottie
01-07-2010, 09:44 AM
I never said horrible people, I just said not judging to the norm (or something similar). First of all, I'm not the person who does this, but I do kinda like it. It's not that I expect all judges to give me 9s every time, but I expect consistancy. If I turn in a bad product, fine give me a bad score, but don't have some loner who gives me 5s when I get 8s and 9s from every one else. If you can't have consistant judging, why judge at all? Just roll dice to pick the winner.

dmp


I don't agree at all. Otherwise, why don't we have a 2 point system. Either give it a 9 or a 8 for a score?

I think once teams cook a little more, you start understanding that scores will vary. That's why it's called judging. You can not tell folks how to judge taste or tenderness. You just can't do that. It's all part of comp cooking guys. You can be bitter for it at the moment, but you better get over it real quick, cause it if carries over to next week or the next contest, you are sunk.

As a cook, I don't complain when judges give me a 9 for somethign that I don't deserve. That's the way I look at it after cooking around 75 contests the last 3 years...

Skip
01-07-2010, 09:50 AM
I never said horrible people, I just said not judging to the norm (or something similar). First of all, I'm not the person who does this, but I do kinda like it. It's not that I expect all judges to give me 9s every time, but I expect consistancy. If I turn in a bad product, fine give me a bad score, but don't have some loner who gives me 5s when I get 8s and 9s from every one else. If you can't have consistant judging, why judge at all? Just roll dice to pick the winner.

dmp


DM I wasn't referring to you in particular. Just the overall attitude I feel I am seeing in this whole thread. I actually think a guage on judging style is a good idea. FBA does it and I think their program is very good. It is administered by the sanctioning body though and not the rep, orgainizer or orgainzer helper. I do however think excluding particular judges for their marking history is wrong. We are taught to judge both subjectively and objectively. Allowing a subjective take on the food you are judging allows for a wide variance of scoring. Who likes/dislikes mustard. Who prefers sweet to spicy. Heck a spicy chicken will get a 9 from one and a 4 from the other who ran for the crackers and water. We are also presented with 6 individual portions for the most part. I have had one thigh to the next go from awesome to utter failure. The judges marking history shouldn't be a determination of their judging prowess but rather their judguing style. Someone who consistently marks high or low is not a bad judge but rather a tough or easy judge.

Ford
01-07-2010, 09:50 AM
Leave the listing up to individuals and their own devices and you will have a problem. Power corrupts when said power is self appointed.
Note to Skip: The organizer has total control over selection of judges and can make up any list they like and nobody can do anything about it. The organizer is the owner of the contest and has almost total power. The Rep only ensures that the contest is run according to KCBS rules. The only power the KCBS has in any of this is to withhold sanctioning.

Rule #1: Want to know where the power is? Follow the money trail.

Divemaster
01-07-2010, 09:56 AM
I find it hard to believe that when someone doesn't perform exactly as someone expects that they are horrible horrible people. Why do we always see the worst without having all the information? I guess in BBQ you are guilty until proven innocent.

First of all, no one called any one a "horrible horrible person". Inconsiderate for not notifying either the Rep or Organizer if they have to cancel, yes, but not horrible.

I can't argue with you Skip. If anyone works it , it should be a KCBS Rep, but not an organizer.... good point.
I too agree that an attenance based list should be kept by KCBS and made available to the Organizer.

I agree Dann. I believe in a blacklist. But I do not believe in one for judges that do not judge the same as others. That's why it's called judging... I do believe in one for judges that do not show or cause trouble. But don't blackball them because they dont't all score the same. We'll end up with the same problem with ties and the same scores all over the place again.

I never said horrible people, I just said not judging to the norm (or something similar). First of all, I'm not the person who does this, but I do kinda like it. It's not that I expect all judges to give me 9s every time, but I expect consistancy. If I turn in a bad product, fine give me a bad score, but don't have some loner who gives me 5s when I get 8s and 9s from every one else. If you can't have consistant judging, why judge at all? Just roll dice to pick the winner.

dmp
While I think we all have gotten 'out of line' scores (my favorite was four 9's, one 8 and a 4 on brisket) I agree with Scottie that this should be handled on a case by case basis by the Rep's and not tracked. There is already an 'Advisory' regarding this very situation.

Skip
01-07-2010, 09:59 AM
Note to Skip: The organizer has total control over selection of judges and can make up any list they like and nobody can do anything about it. The organizer is the owner of the contest and has almost total power. The Rep only ensures that the contest is run according to KCBS rules. The only power the KCBS has in any of this is to withhold sanctioning.

Rule #1: Want to know where the power is? Follow the money trail.


Would you not expect the sanctioning body to pull its sanctioning of a event they felt was being biased by the actions of an event organizer or their organizer helper? I would. If an organizer is running around with an unautorized blacklist I would want KCBS to protect me and my fellow competitors from that. By pulling the sanctioning they send a clear message to organizers who would do as they wish rather then how they should.

motoeric
01-07-2010, 10:01 AM
Those who administer a program, like the organizers and their little helpers, should not create the program they administer. Little people shouldn't have big power or corruption can prevail.


Is your problem with the little people keeping a list of judges who don't show and don't communicate with the organizer regarding their attendance

or

Is your problem with the little people keeping a list of judges who they believe don't score properly

or

Is your problem with the little people who do either?


Eric

goodsmokebbq
01-07-2010, 10:10 AM
I am not going to blacklist any judge, who knows why they didn't show and I don't want to punish a judge for some legit reason. Bottom line is I will sign up at least 30% more judges than I need and cross my fingers I have enough, and will have to say sorry if I have too many (I doubt this will be the case, the judging pool is growing but still not that big up here, anyway they will still get a T-Shirt and a couple beers!). The no call, no show judges are hurting the majority.

It is my job as organizor to provide the best set of judges I can for my competitors.

goodsmokebbq
01-07-2010, 10:14 AM
And I think I agree with most that banning a judge because of average scoring tendency is not the way to go and could be a slippery slope.

Skip
01-07-2010, 10:15 AM
First of all, no one called any one a "horrible horrible person". Inconsiderate for not notifying either the Rep or Organizer if they have to cancel, yes, but not horrible.


Sorry Jeff maybe I simplified that too much. I meant to portray that much of the attitude wrapped up in many of the responses was far too terrible to use as a blanket sentiment for people who miss contests.

dmprantz
01-07-2010, 10:17 AM
My apologies. I brought up the list of judges who are inconsistant only to illustrate that some lists of less-favourable judges exist. It was meant as an example, but not necessarily as an analagous situation. If people feel it is a problem, we can certainly discuss, but in fairness to those interested in the attendance issue, perhaps it desserves its own thread. One final note though, it is not the rep refusing to allow these judges, but saying to an organizer "Reconsider Person A because...."

dmp

Scottie
01-07-2010, 10:19 AM
Would you not expect the sanctioning body to pull its sanctioning of a event they felt was being biased by the actions of an event organizer or their organizer helper? I would. If an organizer is running around with an unautorized blacklist I would want KCBS to protect me and my fellow competitors from that. By pulling the sanctioning they send a clear message to organizers who would do as they wish rather then how they should.


Skip, I have cooked a contest where all of the judges were VFW members. Some "may have" gone through the CBJ program, but more than likely not. They were the judges, because the VFW put on the event. I thought they judge ribs and pork awesome, but didn't know what they were talking about when it came to chicken and brisket. Although, Butcher BBQ would probably disagree with me... Seeing that he won the contest. but I knew all of this before hand about the judges and had no problem with it. I rolled the dice and came up with a craps...

ique
01-07-2010, 10:21 AM
Oh the drama. Blacklist is one overly dramatic spin on it. Another is simply providing Contest Organizers with INFORMATION. Wouldn't it be nice to know that a someone that signs up to judge has been a no-show at the last three comps? Wouldn't it be nice to give a judge feedback that their scoring is way different than lots of other judges? No one is getting banned in my opinion.

Where the heck is this rumor coming from anyways?

Skip
01-07-2010, 10:22 AM
Is your problem with the little people keeping a list of judges who don't show and don't communicate with the organizer regarding their attendance

or

Is your problem with the little people keeping a list of judges who they believe don't score properly

or

Is your problem with the little people who do either?


Eric

Its not that I HAVE a problem its that I SEE a problem.

motoeric
01-07-2010, 10:25 AM
Its not that I HAVE a problem its that I SEE a problem.


With A, B or C?

Eric

Skip
01-07-2010, 10:27 AM
With A, B or C?

Eric

The thread is 5 pages long. My point is clear. You can read the thread and find your answer. Its unfortunately some don't read the whole thread before entering the conversation.

BBQchef33
01-07-2010, 11:14 AM
This is getting even better. My Tech brain is spinning. First off, Organizing a contest is a huge undertaking and no ONE person can do it alone. Every organizer enlists the help of others and each has responsibilities. Since I have helped organizers at several contests, I consider myself part of the organizers team, I guess to you that makes me a little person, but that does not make my responsibilities towards the success of that contest any less important. I'd appreciate if u drop the 'little person' stigma, its adds nothing to the discussion.

Back to the issue. :)

I would applaud somone who proactivly got together with other organizers(or team members), and combined the judges list into a database to be used as an organizers resource. Over time, this type of database can be used for judging demographic information, NOT only attendance trending, but even ancillary things like the judging saturation in an area. It can be local, regional, maybe even nationwide eventually. It can not only be used for tracking attendance, but for notifying local or regional judges of contests, classes, etc.. The database can be kept online to be updated by organizers all over. I would see abilties such as typing in a zip code of a possible contest venue and it showing me how many judges are within a 100 mile radius. How about this.... expand to include teams..? thats great resource.

A Contest can simply forward their judges roster after the contest is over and have the list updated with new names, and Y/N on attendance. (or update it themselves).

this type of database, can give reps and organizers, or even teams, insight into a judging pool. I know as an organizer, I would appreciate seeing 10 of my 50 judges were no shows at the last 3 events they signed up for. (Again, a NO show is NO SHOW/NO NOTICE, NOT calling in and cancelling) it helps me to plan. On the same course, i'd like to know theres only 10 judges within 200 miles, or i have 15 master judges coming, etc... This sounds pretty cool to me.

Makes no sense why anyone would see this as a bad thing except someone who consistanly doesnt show up and doesnt call in.

PS...think im gonna get started on the programming. :mrgreen:

GREAT IDEA!! GLAD U THOUGHT OF IT.

motoeric
01-07-2010, 11:20 AM
The thread is 5 pages long. My point is clear. You can read the thread and find your answer. Its unfortunately some don't read the whole thread before entering the conversation.


Wow, that was needlessly hostile. I had assumed that your opinion may have been evolving with the give and take of the discussion.

It seems to me that if you are upset over the possibility that an organizer or one of his little helpers might be creating a list of judges that don't show when they have made the commitment to do so, your concerns are much ado about nothing.

Just to be perfectly clear, I regret not having done so yet myself and if I were more diligent I would have absolutely kept a list of judges who didn't show up without communicating. If I'm less lazy in the future I still might.

Eric

Skip
01-07-2010, 11:33 AM
Alchemists once thought you could make gold out of lead too.

I have been part of that team as well. Not being the Big Cheese means you are one of the litle people. It neither detracts or enhances the conversation. How can it be a stigma?

By allowing groups to dictate the dirsction of an event without the oversight necessary will lead to impropiety. Its not if its when. The idea that this issue is of epidemic proportions and requires free thinkers to step in and do something is foolish. This will continue to be nothing more then the normal bumps you see as an event coordinator. If you can't organize without creating an unautorized list of problems then don't organize.
You know we all can do everything right and still fail. Now we want to create another problem to deal with a problem. I hope I am around to use the pandoras box comment. :)

dmprantz
01-07-2010, 11:36 AM
I would applaud somone who proactivly got together with other organizers(or team members), and combined the judges list into a database to be used as an organizers resource.

...

Makes no sense why anyone would see this as a bad thing except someone who consistanly doesnt show up and doesnt call in.

Not a bad idea. One other "bad thing" I've thought of would be judges who don't want their personal information, ranging from name, to address, to phone and eMail, to be searchable by any one. I would think a judge would have to officially "okay" to allow others outside of KCBS and this comp to know his name for searches, and another "okay" to allow unsolicited contact. I don't think they'd have to "okay" scrubbing processes to notify of truant judges, or comps that use it include it in some disclaimer

Some of these features are in the BBQ Competition Management software I've started to write in my spare time, as well as trending of judges and teams across longer periods of time. I'd be glad to add the others whenever I get around to it, but I'm shooting for a January 1, 2011 launch date:) In the mean time, I'd be glad to maintain a database of judges for their location and contact info, sign up for each event, and attendance at each event...presuming every one trusted me. I would not feel comfortable having judges scoring history.

dmp

Ford
01-07-2010, 11:40 AM
Would you not expect the sanctioning body to pull its sanctioning of a event they felt was being biased by the actions of an event organizer or their organizer helper? I would. If an organizer is running around with an unautorized blacklist I would want KCBS to protect me and my fellow competitors from that. By pulling the sanctioning they send a clear message to organizers who would do as they wish rather then how they should.
You miss the point. The organizer is in charge. The KCBS and the cooks need the organizers. Threads like this bitching about organizers may drive them away from the KCBS and suggestions that the KCBS take charge or drop sanctioning are hurting competition BBQ.

I know it's the off season but can you just shut the fark up about "little people" and unauthorized blacklists. There's no such thing as "unauthorized". If the organizer makes a list it's authorized. The KCBS has no say and don't care and they shouldn't at least until the KCBS is able to pony up the 5 million or so going into competition BBQ today.

Rant over but I'm getting tired of seeing this crap in the competition thread. Maybe it does belong in the woodpile.

Skip
01-07-2010, 11:43 AM
Wow, that was needlessly hostile. I had assumed that your opinion may have been evolving with the give and take of the discussion.

It seems to me that if you are upset over the possibility that an organizer or one of his little helpers might be creating a list of judges that don't show when they have made the commitment to do so, your concerns are much ado about nothing.

Just to be perfectly clear, I regret not having done so yet myself and if I were more diligent I would have absolutely kept a list of judges who didn't show up without communicating. If I'm less lazy in the future I still might.

Eric


Not hostile at all although you can read it as you choose.

I have been in other threads and had a similar request asked of me. It was done purely to have me consolidate my thoughts and try to portray 9 posts in one because someone didn't want to bring themselves up to speed. I didn't portray my point exactly as I wanted in that single post and spent pages trying to explain an unnecessary post when the truth was in the 9 that came before it. Not knowing your intentions I pointed you to your answer. The 5 pages that came before.

Are you trying to disrupt the content of my posts by trying to make me look angry? Well if so I can answer that. I am not angry just debating an issue. I've seen something like that before. People who can't speak on facts or have a weak stance try to disrupt the other side by claiming bias or altered state of mind. That wouldn't be your intent now would it?

BBQchef33
01-07-2010, 11:54 AM
WTF?

Now im getting a headache. :icon_sick

motoeric
01-07-2010, 12:02 PM
Are you trying to disrupt the content of my posts by trying to make me look angry? Well if so I can answer that. I am not angry just debating an issue. I've seen something like that before. People who can't speak on facts or have a weak stance try to disrupt the other side by claiming bias or altered state of mind. That wouldn't be your intent now would it?

Paranoid much?

You quite clearly insinuated that I haven't read the thread when you said "My point is clear. You can read the thread and find your answer. Its unfortunately some don't read the whole thread before entering the conversation."

To claim that your statement couldn't be misconstrued as hostile by an objective party is pure sophistry.

I'm not trying to move into the arena of ad hominem. To purport that I may be doing so is perilously close to doing so yourself.

Eric

motoeric
01-07-2010, 12:04 PM
Some of these features are in the BBQ Competition Management software I've started to write in my spare time, as well as trending of judges and teams across longer periods of time. I'd be glad to add the others whenever I get around to it, but I'm shooting for a January 1, 2011 launch date:) In the mean time, I'd be glad to maintain a database of judges for their location and contact info, sign up for each event, and attendance at each event...presuming every one trusted me. I would not feel comfortable having judges scoring history.

dmp

That would be great! How could we help with that?

Eric

Skip
01-07-2010, 12:06 PM
You miss the point. The organizer is in charge. The KCBS and the cooks need the organizers. Threads like this bitching about organizers may drive them away from the KCBS and suggestions that the KCBS take charge or drop sanctioning are hurting competition BBQ.

I know it's the off season but can you just shut the fark up about "little people" and unauthorized blacklists. There's no such thing as "unauthorized". If the organizer makes a list it's authorized. The KCBS has no say and don't care and they shouldn't at least until the KCBS is able to pony up the 5 million or so going into competition BBQ today.

Rant over but I'm getting tired of seeing this crap in the competition thread. Maybe it does belong in the woodpile.


Ford if a person without autority to do so puts you on a list to be distributed to other event organizers how could it be authorized?

KCBS should care when the risk of impropriety at one of their sanctioned events is apparent.

Sorry though i don't just "shut the fark up". 1st ammendment gives me the right to say what I choose, within reason, and the rules of this forum offer the guidelines under which we all are governed. If I speak my opinion without intent to harm and follow the posting rules I can continue to post. Its like the Howard Stern show. If you don't like the content you can change the channel. I'm sorry if you don't care for this debate. I mean you no malice in any way.

dmprantz
01-07-2010, 12:09 PM
That would be great! How could we help with that?

First would be to suggest what you would like tracked from each Judge. Phil has a list in his earlier post, and I have some things I would like to track, but we may have missed something, so let's figure that out.

Next, and more importantly, contact any competition organizers you know. Tell them what we have discussed and what we are trying to do and why. Ask them to send a list to me after their upcoming competitions. I'll provide an eMail address if this gets off the ground. Contact any reps you know too, tell them the same, and ask them to pass it on to any organizers whom you haven't told.

This would only really work if we get participation from the organizers, so informing them and having them participate is what is needed most.

Thanks,

dmp

ps, I have since seen that KCBS lists the names of all currently registered CBJs on their website, so names are no problem, and I don't have a problem with the attendance stat, but due to ethical and potentially legal reasons, I would not publish demographic data of judges beyond that without expressed written consent.

Jacked UP BBQ
01-07-2010, 12:16 PM
Why dont they have a confirmation number to call, five days prior to the contest they have the judges call to confirm with the organizer. $10 for a basic phoneline and a 20 answering machine would take care of this. NO CALL NO JUDGE

Stoke&Smoke
01-07-2010, 12:20 PM
What I meant about the scoring was something to the effect that, a table captain, when collecting the voting sheets, can look at them, and usually tell if one judge is way out from the other 5. For example, he gives a 5 when every one else is a 7or 8. Judges aren't really supposed to look at other judges sheets, so, particularly in the case of a new judge, he might not know he wasn't judging the same as the other judges. But a table captain could at least ask that judge why he judged that way. And possibly point out something that judge might not know. Judges can always improve, same as cookers

On the other hand, I've heard judges say at tables (not while judging was going on) that " you can't judge white meat chicken the same as thighs"

The most important thing to me, both as a judge and as a cooker, is that all the judges are using as close to the same scale possible, so that the judging, good or bad, is more consistent.

We only done a total of 10 contests, but almost all the ones I've been at had some level of scrambling for judges last minute. Seems that problem is pretty common everywhere

Skip
01-07-2010, 12:32 PM
Paranoid much?

Not at all :) But continue to quote comments and interpret as you see fit. If you notice the comment asked whether that was something you were attempting to do. If you do or don't is of no consequence to me but when an easily identifiable tactic seems to appear in a situation where it fits I will determine whether or not it is true.

You quite clearly insinuated that I haven't read the thread when you said "My point is clear. You can read the thread and find your answer. Its unfortunately some don't read the whole thread before entering the conversation."

There was no insinuation. It was a statement. If you had read the thread you would have your answer. I see nothing wrong in stating that nor do i see any problem in stating a fact of all forums. Many people do not read the whole thread and then ask question they do not need to ask if they had read the thread. Or do you disagree? Do you feel everyone reads the threads in full?

To claim that your statement couldn't be misconstrued as hostile by an objective party is pure sophistry.

i didn't say it couldn't be construed that way. I said it wasn't written that way. I gave you the option to accept it as you so see fit. Thats your right. Its the wrong determination but you have every right to believe as you choose. But to scoff at me and say you know what I meant better then I is presumptuous


I'm not trying to move into the arena of ad hominem. To purport that I may be doing so is perilously close to doing so yourself.

Eric

To assume I am attacking your character instead of answering a question is again awfully presumptuous. What would be my motivation?

ique
01-07-2010, 12:48 PM
Sorry though i don't just "shut the fark up". 1st ammendment gives me the right to say what I choose, within reason, and the rules of this forum offer the guidelines under which we all are governed. If I speak my opinion without intent to harm and follow the posting rules I can continue to post. Its like the Howard Stern show. If you don't like the content you can change the channel. I'm sorry if you don't care for this debate. I mean you no malice in any way.

There is a difference between the rules and good etiquette though Skip. Posting your same point over and over again is not good forum etiquette.

I completely understand your points... no further clarification is needed! :lol:

Boss Hog Wild
01-07-2010, 12:54 PM
I am an organizer... and a judge, so I will answer this carefully. And I don't assume that I speak here from a position of having a lot of experience.

As an organizer over time you get to know who has cancelled in the past, who has been a no show..etc. You usually don't need a list because you remember their names. You recognize them when they come in the mail. Every year there are cancellations.... crap happens... Every year there is usually a no show...just like everything else in life. As an organizer you have to plan for that by the use of local people who can fill the gap. They may not be a CBJ... but they can judge. Most of the people who have had to cancel do so responsibly, and as timely as they can. For us, located where there are not a lot of CBJ's, we have to rely on people traveling some distance. We are always grateful for those who show, and judge, and do so with conviction. We couldn't do our event without them.

As a judge, I feel a responsibility when I fill out that application. And I can understand the problems faced by an organizer. For some large events in big BBQ areas.... getting judges can be a matter of having to select them from a lottery because you have so many applications. In other areas, you have to pray you can get enough CBJ's to do the job.

If a list was going to be created and made available, I would prefer it to be a list of judges that you can market to. Then again, I live in an area where they are not falling out of trees. I don't think a black list is ever needed, or desireable. It goes against the core concept of the trust factor that needs to be built into every bbq event.

I do like the idea of the 800 confirmation line......... That one deserves some thought.. :roll:

SmokinOkie
01-07-2010, 12:56 PM
What I meant about the scoring was something to the effect that, a table captain, when collecting the voting sheets, can look at them, and usually tell if one judge is way out from the other 5. For example, he gives a 5 when every one else is a 7or 8. Judges aren't really supposed to look at other judges sheets, so, particularly in the case of a new judge, he might not know he wasn't judging the same as the other judges. But a table captain could at least ask that judge why he judged that way. And possibly point out something that judge might not know. Judges can always improve, same as cookers



That's already supposed to happen. When I TC, one of the instructions is they ask us to monitor the scores, however, if we see a wide discrepancy in numbers, then we bring it up to the Rep to discuss with the judge.

For software, I'd like to be able to track that somehow. How can you track a judge who historically scores say 2 or more points below the table average (let the math/statistics guys sort it out).

Personally it gets back to the credibility of judges and tracking them and monitoring them (like professional judges are monitored) after they've taken a class, but that's a whole different thread.

Skip
01-07-2010, 01:10 PM
There is a difference between the rules and good etiquette though Skip. Posting your same point over and over again is not good forum etiquette.

I completely understand your points... no further clarification is needed! :lol:


I hadn't thought I was repeating myself. Thats the reason I asked one person to read the thread so I didn't have to restate my point again. Thank you though for pointing out what you feel is a problem in my posting habits. I will definitely consider it when posting as I have respect for your opinions Chris. :lol:

Skip
01-07-2010, 01:12 PM
I don't see how a judge who marks two points below another judge is bad or needs advisement. How can that be? Especially with categories like ribs and chicken where its possible and probable that the pieces of meat came from different animals.

dmprantz
01-07-2010, 01:24 PM
I don't see how a judge who marks two points below another judge is bad or needs advisement. How can that be? Especially with categories like ribs and chicken where its possible and probable that the pieces of meat came from different animals.

Again, I'm sorry for the divergence of topic, but here's my thoughts on the matter: For one, the threshold is 3 points to me, not 2, and second, it isn't something that is done one time: It's about trending and noticing that a particular judge does it consistently. Again, this does not make the judge a bad person, or even a bad judge, but it is unfair to cooks (IMHO) who work hard to produce Q "that judges like to see and eat" rather than the best Q they can make get a ding on their scores because one judge is consistently lower (or higher) than his peers. That's my opinion, but my opinion usually stands alone. So be it.

Taking this back to my competitive sports comparison, if the judge from China constantly scored all gymnasts 2 full points below the other four judges, I think there would be a problem, and people wouldn't just say "That judge has higher standards." It would be even worse if only 25% of the gymnasts were scored by that judge and the rest were scored by five judges using the same criteria.

dmp

Skip
01-07-2010, 01:37 PM
Again, I'm sorry for the divergence of topic, but here's my thoughts on the matter: For one, the threshold is 3 points to me, not 2, and second, it isn't something that is done one time: It's about trending and noticing that a particular judge does it consistently. Again, this does not make the judge a bad person, or even a bad judge, but it is unfair to cooks (IMHO) who work hard to produce Q "that judges like to see and eat" rather than the best Q they can make get a ding on their scores because one judge is consistently lower (or higher) than his peers. That's my opinion, but my opinion usually stands alone. So be it.

Taking this back to my competitive sports comparison, if the judge from China constantly scored all gymnasts 2 full points below the other four judges, I think there would be a problem, and people wouldn't just say "That judge has higher standards." It would be even worse if only 25% of the gymnasts were scored by that judge and the rest were scored by five judges using the same criteria.

dmp

DM I was not speaking to you personally. You thoughts are mirrored by others and when addressing the thoughts i am address everyone not just singling you out. :lol:

That said I would like to address your current post. Consistently lower or higher scoring is still consistent scoring. To assume a problem due to someones subjective opinion is not a proper course of action.

The judges of competative sports have a list of faults and expectations. If one judge sees something another doesn't they are not wrong or the bearer of high standards. It could be that a particular demerit is overlooked or not realized by the others. So many things can lead to a consistently low or high scoring judge and many are not problems with their technique.

swamprb
01-07-2010, 01:44 PM
I've judged two KCBS comps in the Northwest, one was 15 minutes from my home and the other was an 8 hours drive to Oregon.

I had communicated with the KCBS reps that I would be there, showed up on Saturday morning to volunteer to help in any way, judged the Seafood and Dessert categories and hung out with some teams and got know some fellow judges.

Sunday morning I showed up, checked in and there were CBJ's that just showed up out of the woodwork and expected to judge!
The reps had to clear people out, determine who had committed to attend, check their KCBS status and seat the tables.

I'm pretty sure it was 100% CBJ's at the event, but I sure was nervous and would really have been pi$$ed off if they had chosen the more experienced CBJ's that just "showed up for a day trip" over me!

On my third planned KCBS judging attempt, I drove 5 hours from home booked a room overnight, showed up to say Hi! and got wrangled into cooking with another guy to make the event a 25 team State qualifier! ( a couple teams cancelled at the last minute) So much for that!
That's my experience with KCBS, there just are few if any sanctioned events around here for me to attend.

So we cook and judge PNWBA sanctioned competitions. And there are obviously the same problems with non committal people that don't show up on Sundays and the ogranizers/Reps have to drag "celebrity" judges off the street or load the ones that do show up with 7 or 8 boxes. We have a Judges Roll Call and Events threads in the PNWBA forum and as cooks we can see who may be attending and the organizers usually have to plead for CBJ's to sign up! There was even some talk of providing $20 gas cards or other incentives. Its a shame, especially when there have been some great events (and more in the future) with large $$ payouts and teams really travelling some miles to attend.

This leads me to wonder if its not just a KCBS problem and organizations like the FBA, NEBS, MABA or other non kcbs sanctioned events have the same problem? If so how do they deal with them? I kind of like the idea of tracking judges-but around here we already know who they are!

BBQchef33
01-07-2010, 01:56 PM
ps, I have since seen that KCBS lists the names of all currently registered CBJs on their website, so names are no problem, and I don't have a problem with the attendance stat, but due to ethical and potentially legal reasons, I would not publish demographic data of judges beyond that without expressed written consent.

I was thinking zip codes ONLY.

Divemaster
01-07-2010, 01:57 PM
I don't see how a judge who marks two points below another judge is bad or needs advisement. How can that be? Especially with categories like ribs and chicken where its possible and probable that the pieces of meat came from different animals.

Again, I'm sorry for the divergence of topic, but here's my thoughts on the matter: For one, the threshold is 3 points to me, not 2, and second, it isn't something that is done one time: It's about trending and noticing that a particular judge does it consistently. Again, this does not make the judge a bad person, or even a bad judge, but it is unfair to cooks (IMHO) who work hard to produce Q "that judges like to see and eat" rather than the best Q they can make get a ding on their scores because one judge is consistently lower (or higher) than his peers. That's my opinion, but my opinion usually stands alone. So be it.

Taking this back to my competitive sports comparison, if the judge from China constantly scored all gymnasts 2 full points below the other four judges, I think there would be a problem, and people wouldn't just say "That judge has higher standards." It would be even worse if only 25% of the gymnasts were scored by that judge and the rest were scored by five judges using the same criteria.

dmp

DM I was not speaking to you personally. You thoughts are mirrored by others and when addressing the thoughts i am address everyone not just singling you out. :lol:

That said I would like to address your current post. Consistently lower or higher scoring is still consistent scoring. To assume a problem due to someones subjective opinion is not a proper course of action.

The judges of competative sports have a list of faults and expectations. If one judge sees something another doesn't they are not wrong or the bearer of high standards. It could be that a particular demerit is overlooked or not realized by the others. So many things can lead to a consistently low or high scoring judge and many are not problems with their technique.
Skip,

This has obviously been a problem in the past. I say this because of the Advisories published by the BOD and available to any member (read Member/Judge/Rep).

For example:

6.45 Subject: Scoring Too High/Low
Question: Occasionally, you will find a judge who is scoring too high or too low. How do you deal with that judge?

Opinion: Don’t wait for the problem to fix itself.

Too Low Scoring—Pull the judge aside and ask them to explain the KCBS scoring system to you. If they cannot communicate the scoring system correctly, they probably just need to be reminded. You should point out that they are scoring “out of sync” with the other judges and should be scoring higher.

Too High Scoring—The Board of Directors has approved the following statement, which should be read to the judge. This is a reminder, “if you feel like you can only judge a 987, you may artificially skew the results of this contest. Please excuse yourself from the table and we will replace you at this time.”

Any judge who is reluctant to follow your directions should be replaced immediately. Any KCBS Certified Judge not following directions should be reported to CBJ Chairperson of the Board of Directors. February 17, 2006

6.46 Subject: Removing Judges
Question: On what grounds can a KCBS Rep remove a judge?

Opinion: Each and every KCBS Rep has the authority to remove a judge at any time. Grounds for removal include, but are not limited to the following:
1. Not following the rules after being warned
2. Talking during the judging process
3. Sickness
4. Disruptive child
5. Under the age of 16
6. Intoxicated, or under the influence of controlled substance
7. Advising other judges on how to score
8. Scoring too low or too high
February 17, 2006

BBQchef33
01-07-2010, 02:07 PM
a few points...

1 - can we keep this thread on the attendance issue/tracking database. if we want to discuss tracking scoring trends, then maybe we start a seperate thread.. and like i said previously, i THINK FBA does something along those lines.


2 I too dont like the idea of a "blacklist". However an overall informational database is a good resource. So lets pretend that the orignall intent was NOT a blacklist, but an overal database of at judge information. Good, bad, and ugly. Then when that information is extrapolated it will be factual and accurate. IMO, its then up to the organizer of a contest to use it how he sees fit.


and on that note, im taking tylenol.

Divemaster
01-07-2010, 02:11 PM
a few points...

1 - can we keep this thread on the attendance issue/tracking database. if we want to discuss tracking scoring trends, then maybe we start a seperate thread.. and like i said previously, i THINK FBA does something along those lines.


2 I too dont like the idea of a "blacklist". However an overall informational database is a good resource. So lets pretend that the orignall intent was NOT a blacklist, but an overal database of at judge information. Good, bad, and ugly. Then when that information is extrapolated it will be factual and accurate. IMO, its then up to the organizer of a contest to use it how he sees fit.


and on that note, im taking tylenol.
I agree on both points.

Please make mine asprin....

Skip
01-07-2010, 02:23 PM
Skip,

This has obviously been a problem in the past. I say this because of the Advisories published by the BOD and available to any member (read Member/Judge/Rep).

For example:

6.45 Subject: Scoring Too High/Low
Question: Occasionally, you will find a judge who is scoring too high or too low. How do you deal with that judge?

Opinion: Don’t wait for the problem to fix itself.

Too Low Scoring—Pull the judge aside and ask them to explain the KCBS scoring system to you. If they cannot communicate the scoring system correctly, they probably just need to be reminded. You should point out that they are scoring “out of sync” with the other judges and should be scoring higher.

Too High Scoring—The Board of Directors has approved the following statement, which should be read to the judge. This is a reminder, “if you feel like you can only judge a 987, you may artificially skew the results of this contest. Please excuse yourself from the table and we will replace you at this time.”

Any judge who is reluctant to follow your directions should be replaced immediately. Any KCBS Certified Judge not following directions should be reported to CBJ Chairperson of the Board of Directors. February 17, 2006

6.46 Subject: Removing Judges
Question: On what grounds can a KCBS Rep remove a judge?

Opinion: Each and every KCBS Rep has the authority to remove a judge at any time. Grounds for removal include, but are not limited to the following:
1. Not following the rules after being warned
2. Talking during the judging process
3. Sickness
4. Disruptive child
5. Under the age of 16
6. Intoxicated, or under the influence of controlled substance
7. Advising other judges on how to score
8. Scoring too low or too high
February 17, 2006



Thanks for the info Jeff. Now I fear even more. Could the reference "scoring too low or too high" be anymore vague? I know its not your responsibility but wouldn't it be nice to first know there is a criteria behind that and second to know what it is. The question would be does a rep make that determination willy nilly or is there a guideline?

This statement is a bit scary too. "You should point out that they are scoring “out of sync” with the other judges and should be scoring higher."

Now we are instructing judges to change their vote?

Skip
01-07-2010, 02:38 PM
2 I too dont like the idea of a "blacklist". However an overall informational database is a good resource. So lets pretend that the orignall intent was NOT a blacklist, but an overal database of at judge information. Good, bad, and ugly. Then when that information is extrapolated it will be factual and accurate. IMO, its then up to the organizer of a contest to use it how he sees fit.

The question still remains who administers it? Who can contribute to it? What checks and balances are put in place to protect those on it or being put on it? And finally the real question. Why? I hope any further developments on this are actually made available to the people they affect rather then being some behind the scenes thing we aren't supposed to know. I also would expect that organizers and their helpers would reveal to their prospective judges and teams that this event uses a cataloging system on participants. I, for one, would make sure I didn't do events that used such a tactic and would actively encourage others not to either. What are we the Soviet Union? We need dossiers to organize a contest? Wow its amazing we've been able to have them this long. :lol:

Divemaster
01-07-2010, 02:39 PM
Thanks for the info Jeff. Now I fear even more. Could the reference "scoring too low or too high" be anymore vague? I know its not your responsibility but wouldn't it be nice to first know there is a criteria behind that and second to know what it is. The question would be does a rep make that determination willy nilly or is there a guideline?

This statement is a bit scary too. "You should point out that they are scoring “out of sync” with the other judges and should be scoring higher."

Now we are instructing judges to change their vote?
Sorry Skip, you're not going to drag me into that one... lol

To be honest, I would like to think (and do think) that the Reps have enough experiance to make that judgment call. That's what they are paid for. The simple fact that the BOD had to create an 'Advisory' tells me that there was enough problems and that it should be handled and not ignored.

Skip
01-07-2010, 02:54 PM
Sorry Skip, you're not going to drag me into that one... lol.

Heh not my intention buddy. You know the wife would destroy me if I eff'ed with her next husband hahaha

The simple fact that the BOD had to create an 'Advisory' tells me that there was enough problems and that it should be handled and not ignored.

A lot of truth there but the question is....Is this the right way to deal with it? Is telling a judge to change their scoring the right thing to do or is that biasing a result. I work in quality control and R&D. There are many ways to do something but only one proper way. I've helped at a bunch of judges classes and never heard any talk of marking outside the norm. In fact I have seen it at every class I was at. Some people you wonder if they like food. But if they are allowed to stand and recite the pledge and get their certificate why are we then trying to change them at contests? These people don't just pop up one day inside a normally average judge. They are there from the beginning and have the personality to be this way. I would like to be a fly on the wall when someone tries to tell that person to change what they do. Hahaha

BigJimsBBQ
01-07-2010, 02:56 PM
I vote that thiere is a DB for Judging attendance that shows by Sanction Body (FBA, KCBS, etc.) by Judge Title (Master, Certified, etc.) by Judges last & first name and Postal Code (ZIP). That is a DB with 6 fields as follows:
-Sanction Body: (LOV/Drop Down List - 10 alpha Numeric Characters)
-Judge Title: (LOV/Drop Down List - 10 alpha Numeric Characters)
-Last Name: (20 Alpha Characters)
-First Name: (20 Alpha Characters)
-Postal Code: (Zip) (5 Numeric Characters)
-Event(s) No Show (Not Including Proper Cancelations): (Intiger Numeric 2 Characters)

I am now going to take my asprin with a half bottle of Gentlemen Jack.

dmprantz
01-07-2010, 03:26 PM
I vote that thiere is a DB for Judging attendance that shows by Sanction Body (FBA, KCBS, etc.) by Judge Title (Master, Certified, etc.) by Judges last & first name and Postal Code (ZIP). That is a DB with 6 fields as follows:
-Sanction Body: (LOV/Drop Down List - 10 alpha Numeric Characters)
-Judge Title: (LOV/Drop Down List - 10 alpha Numeric Characters)
-Last Name: (20 Alpha Characters)
-First Name: (20 Alpha Characters)
-Postal Code: (Zip) (5 Numeric Characters)
-Event(s) No Show (Not Including Proper Cancelations): (Intiger Numeric 2 Characters)


The software I am writing is designed to be generic enough to be used by any sanctioning body, with any criteria, any scoring system, and any type of competition really. It would be a bit more complex than what you list as it would have the complete address, phone, mailing address, some form of CBJ number.

To make it work across organizations, should some one want to track that would not be super difficult, but each entity (cook, team, judge) would then be assigned a unique identifier and a cross reference implemented so that a judge in one organization could be found in others. If people want me to move ahead with what I discussed earlier, I'll accept lists of judges form any sanctioning body and store them accordingly. Every one is welcomed to suggest fields to attach to those judges, and we'll go from there. This can feed into the larger comp management software really.

Also, I would love to track scoring for trending, but just don't think *I* am the person who should be entering that data and able to view it. If any one can come up with a way to allow that to happen where I am not "The Man" with access to all judges' scoring history, I'd love to have it...sorry, wrong thread. Maybe we need a web page so that organizers and reps can upload files, but I'd still have the database on my computers. :(

dmp

Skip
01-07-2010, 03:31 PM
<~~~Is calling KCBS to have his name removed from the database of judges. Also asking how my info can be protected so that unautorized use can be minimized.

EDIT: SCORE!!! Anyone else looking to stay off this list just needs to ask the KCBS to remove their name from the website. Easy peasy and I can still judge. They will explain how. Better yet I won't be on the list.

Divemaster
01-07-2010, 03:32 PM
Heh not my intention buddy. You know the wife would destroy me if I eff'ed with her next husband hahaha
So she finally told you about us... LOL

A lot of truth there but the question is....Is this the right way to deal with it? Is telling a judge to change their scoring the right thing to do or is that biasing a result.
You know, there are times that I swear that you are trying to hijack your own thread...

Is it the right way? I don't know, but it's the only direction the Reps have.

I work in quality control and R&D. There are many ways to do something but only one proper way.
Normally, I would agree with you, the problem is that you are not talking about some defined, systematic, approch to judging. There is always going to be some (remember the word 'some') subjective reflection in the scoring. Now if a judge stretches that 'some subjective reflection' of scoring to an extrema (listen to the words... extrema) where the table gives a score of 9-9-9-9-9-3. Yes, I would say that someone needs to talk to the judge that scored it low and find out why.

I guess what I'm saying is that there needs to be some flexibility. Not every thing fits into a 'Parted/Un-Parted' world. (Oh Lord, now I've done it!!! LOL)

I've helped at a bunch of judges classes and never heard any talk of marking outside the norm. In fact I have seen it at every class I was at. Some people you wonder if they like food. But if they are allowed to stand and recite the pledge and get their certificate why are we then trying to change them at contests? These people don't just pop up one day inside a normally average judge.
In the last judging class, we were all asked to stand and give our scores. If your score was out of line, you were asked to defend why you gave that score.

They are there from the beginning and have the personality to be this way. I would like to be a fly on the wall when someone tries to tell that person to change what they do. Hahaha
If they don't like it, they can be referred to my previous post and be walked out of the judging tent.


I vote that thiere is a DB for Judging attendance that shows by Sanction Body (FBA, KCBS, etc.) by Judge Title (Master, Certified, etc.) by Judges last & first name and Postal Code (ZIP). That is a DB with 6 fields as follows:
-Sanction Body: (LOV/Drop Down List - 10 alpha Numeric Characters)
-Judge Title: (LOV/Drop Down List - 10 alpha Numeric Characters)
-Last Name: (20 Alpha Characters)
-First Name: (20 Alpha Characters)
-Postal Code: (Zip) (5 Numeric Characters)
-Event(s) No Show (Not Including Proper Cancelations): (Intiger Numeric 2 Characters)

I am now going to take my asprin with a half bottle of Gentlemen Jack.
Can I have some?????

BigJimsBBQ
01-07-2010, 03:40 PM
Can I have some?????

Big Jim passes Jeff the half bottle of Gentlemen Jack :cool:

Divemaster
01-07-2010, 03:43 PM
Big Jim passes Jeff the half bottle of Gentlemen Jack :cool:
You're a good man... Look behind you, there should be a bottle of Single Barrel for later...

Skip
01-07-2010, 03:57 PM
Normally, I would agree with you, the problem is that you are not talking about some defined, systematic, approch to judging. There is always going to be some (remember the word 'some') subjective reflection in the scoring. Now if a judge stretches that 'some subjective reflection' of scoring to an extrema (listen to the words... extrema) where the table gives a score of 9-9-9-9-9-3. Yes, I would say that someone needs to talk to the judge that scored it low and find out why.

Talk and ask why sure but direct them to change their vote? Whats to say they didn't get a gland, grizzle or just a plain ol' bad piece. With that advisory what is the reps next move?

Skip
01-07-2010, 03:59 PM
You're a good man... Look behind you, there should be a bottle of Single Barrel for later...


Single barrel anejo tequila?

dmprantz
01-07-2010, 04:03 PM
First off, let me say that I am doing this publically in part because I have limmited PM space, and in part because I think it is an issue which should be discussed. I am not doing it to call any one out.

Next, I would like to point out that I am not a lawyer, but I like to think I have a relatively good grasp on the American legal system, and if need be, I can and will hire a lawyer.

This is a PM I received this afternoon in response to the proposal that I maintain a database of past judges. With the exception of name and signature, I am not editing it in any way:

This is going to sound bad

Please don't take it that way. I am making it known to you that I do not autorize you, or those who may work with you, to place me on a list of CBJ or subsequent lists for teams or other databases related to BBQ and KCBS affiliation.

Thanks buddy. I hope there are no hard feelings.My understanding of the law is any individual has certain rights in this country. You have the right to privacy, so that you can prohibit people from contacting you or knowing anything about you asside from publically available information. You have the right to protect yourself from defamation, so that people cannot make false claims about you and hurt your character or reputation. You also have the right to free speech, and as long you are speaking the truth, no one is allowed to censor what you say. (Limmited exceptions apply, mostly involving the government and pornography).

As such, my intention is that if this database proceeds, since it will only be reporting factual data receieved from third persons, claims such as these will be ignored. If I am required to remove those who wish to be removed, I will not proceed to create a bad product. This only works if the facts are known, and your participation in a contest is a fact. Again, contact information is protected.

Additionally, I would like to point out that since I would only be publishing data provided by a third party, I would direct you to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 which immunizes Internet publishers from claims pertaining to data posted by third parties. Any person who wishes to remove his name should take it up with a contest organizer. I am of the opinion that any contest organizer who honors such requests should be banned from using the system.

dmp

Ford
01-07-2010, 04:19 PM
REALITY CHECK TIME.
1. There is no national organization to monitor a database of judges. There is no need for a judge to be certified. There is no need for a judge to give an organizer anything more than their name, if they are a CBJ and contact info. The organizer should not share that info with anybody including the KCBS.

2. Judging is subjective and taste is very personal and subjective. Say what you want, a person that does not like hot will probably start at 6 and score down for other imperfections on taste. Same for not liking sweet. Under the old system they started at 9 and scored down to 8 or maybe 7 at worst for being too hot. We have judging system that will always have flaws. Having said that I trust Reps to watch scores after each category and if a judge is way out of line trust they will check with the judge. But like it or not that's the way it is. Tracking people for scoring of variance from others isn't going to happen.

3. If you are not a competition cook you have no right to comment on scores and judges. Shut the Fark up.

4. Did you see that 2 major long term contests have been cancelled this year. Keep pissing off organizers and there will be more.

5. Tonight is the title game. Can't stand Saban so hard to cheer for Bama and can't forgive Texas for beating MSU in bball so guess I'll pop the tabs on a few brews, warm up some chili and cornbread and vote for Idaho for national champion. Watch pitmasters tomorrow morning before I get on this Forum to read about all the language.

Skip
01-07-2010, 04:36 PM
As such, my intention is that if this database proceeds, since it will only be reporting factual data receieved from third persons

Not to deviate as I think your post needs its own thread but does show that it may not be just me who has a problem with it but you can not assure that information received from third party sources is factual...can you?

Your reference to the safety of the internet publishing doesn't wash if you receive any of that info from fax phone or mail.

Wow guy I would be a little upset if you posted my PM in the forums. Are you limited by the day or do you not wish to delete any?

HoDeDo
01-07-2010, 04:36 PM
First off, let me say that I am doing this publically in part because I have limmited PM space, and in part because I think it is an issue which should be discussed. I am not doing it to call any one out.

Next, I would like to point out that I am not a lawyer, but I like to think I have a relatively good grasp on the American legal system, and if need be, I can and will hire a lawyer.

This is a PM I received this afternoon in response to the proposal that I maintain a database of past judges. With the exception of name and signature, I am not editing it in any way:

My understanding of the law is any individual has certain rights in this country. You have the right to privacy, so that you can prohibit people from contacting you or knowing anything about you asside from publically available information. You have the right to protect yourself from defamation, so that people cannot make false claims about you and hurt your character or reputation. You also have the right to free speech, and as long you are speaking the truth, no one is allowed to censor what you say. (Limmited exceptions apply, mostly involving the government and pornography).

As such, my intention is that if this database proceeds, since it will only be reporting factual data receieved from third persons, claims such as these will be ignored. If I am required to remove those who wish to be removed, I will not proceed to create a bad product. This only works if the facts are known, and your participation in a contest is a fact. Again, contact information is protected.

Additionally, I would like to point out that since I would only be publishing data provided by a third party, I would direct you to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 which immunizes Internet publishers from claims pertaining to data posted by third parties. Any person who wishes to remove his name should take it up with a contest organizer. I am of the opinion that any contest organizer who honors such requests should be banned from using the system.

dmp

I believe that pertains to anonomized data... Unless I have opted into allow you to use my info ( which is easy enough to get, upon membership renewal) -- normally the defacto... you have to "opt out" as Skip has done with KCBS.... I would think you have to strip all personally identifable data prior to sharing.... you could look at trends - drops in a region, judges in area x, and publish that.... but only with anonomized data, no CPNI/personally identifyable stuff... Even within our organization, we have "chinese walls" to keep the identifable data siloed.... between sales and care, for example....

BBQchef33
01-07-2010, 04:47 PM
anyone want some? Theres plenty.

http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=3&pictureid=1830

Skip
01-07-2010, 04:48 PM
anyone want some? Theres plenty.

http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=3&pictureid=1830

What do I do with the little red x now that you are willing to offer one?

EDIT: Oooo popcorn!!!

G$
01-07-2010, 04:58 PM
anyone want some? Theres plenty.



Yeah, let me grab my snuggie and I'll settle in.

BBQchef33
01-07-2010, 05:02 PM
Yeah, let me grab my snuggie and I'll settle in.

snuggie huh? ok... (bad visual there).

btw, someone call the dog.. (I like having someone around to blame).

G$
01-07-2010, 05:11 PM
snuggie huh? ok... (bad visual there).

btw, someone call the dog.. (I like having someone around to blame).

It's like these jokes write themselves:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YNQm_k9jPdM/SqFKvy3zfvI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/dlLlyE-t_30/s400/dogsnuggie-hmedium.jpg

Scottie
01-07-2010, 05:25 PM
anyone want some? Theres plenty.

http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=3&pictureid=1830



Man, I am not even getting mixed up in this stuff. If you can believe it, my boots aren't high enough... ;). Jorge would be so proud.

I'm with Ford, getting some chili and beers and watch the game. Also watch Pitmasters.

dmprantz
01-07-2010, 05:51 PM
1. There is no national organization to monitor a database of judges.


Sure there is, it's called the KCBS Judges List. Do you not believe they are national or that they monitor a database of judges? True there is no body which encompasses all judges from all sanctioning bodies, but I don't think there really needs to be one.


There is no need for a judge to give an organizer anything more than their name, if they are a CBJ and contact info


I don't think any one has suggested anything else besides CBJ number, but AFAIK, organizers can ask for whatever they want in order to allow judges to participate.


The organizer should not share that info with anybody including the KCBS.


You and I disagree on a lot of things, and this is one of them. I think KCBS has the responsibillity to expect the names of judges used in santioned contests, and I think that organizers have the right to report factual data whenever they want.


you can not assure that information received from third party sources is factual...can you?


I will only accept data from contest organizers.


Your reference to the safety of the internet publishing doesn't wash if you receive any of that info from fax phone or mail.


I refuse to accept data from FAX or USPS. I only acept digital data, as anything else implies that I am transcribing - which I don't do.

I believe that pertains to anonomized data...

There are a couple of issues here, and it largely depends on use and purpose. Selling PII for profit is largely frowned upon and forbidden after opt out. Since this won't be for profit, I think it's okay. This is more closely related to publishing issues where factual data is being reported for free. Also, while a name is considered to be PII, it's not really in the same realm as an eMail address. Fortunately, I work for a company which specializes in PII protection and FCRA compliance, so I think I'll get the appropriate advice when the time comes.

dmp

Skip
01-07-2010, 06:39 PM
I will only accept data from contest organizers.



That still doesn't assure factual information.

Its PII unless it is made available to the public by a branch of government. Last I check there was no Secretary of BBQ. So someone wishing to opt out has every right.

Meat@Slim's
01-07-2010, 07:02 PM
anyone want some? Theres plenty.

http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=3&pictureid=1830

I actually own a pair of these bowls.

And you are right (sniffle) this has been a special thread.

Contracted Cookers
01-07-2010, 08:12 PM
3 strikes and you are out

MilitantSquatter
01-07-2010, 08:20 PM
What's so bad with a "three strikes and you're out" system ?

3 strikes and you are out


Great minds think alike as they say !!! :wink:

BBQchef33
01-07-2010, 08:22 PM
so how'd you come up with it.?

:)

Sawdustguy
01-07-2010, 08:27 PM
Hey Phil, will ya loan me a quarter so I can call someone who gives a chit?

BBQchef33
01-07-2010, 08:30 PM
Hey Phil, will ya loan me a quarter so I can call someone who gives a chit?

Cant,

spent it on popcorn.
:biggrin:

MilitantSquatter
01-07-2010, 08:31 PM
Skip - Excuse my ignorance, but I re-read your first initial post that started this thread to see if I can better understand your points made.

I am not privy to the information you may have as to where this originated...

I just don't get where you are coming from on this topic beyond the judge who had the one time legit excuse.. :confused:

As I re-read all of the posts, to bring it back full circle, it seems there are two general areas for judges who do not show :

1) Judge has legit reason why they couldn't show... If they don't call in advance, would it be unreasonable for the organizer to inquire after the contest as to why ? If they are given a BS answer, should this organizer be required to blindly accept their application to a future event held and risk a repeat ?

Kind of the "fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame om me" scenario...I think

2) Judge has no legit reason.. and apparently does this often. As noted by another poster, some judges sign up for many contests and then go and judge the ones they want. In this case, do you really believe this is fair to the other KCBS Judges that pay a membership fee to retain their certified status and not get the opportunity to judge events that are closest to them ? Is this fair to the teams who want certified judges ? Is this fair to KCBS repuation who gives these judges their credibility ?

I understand Ford's point in full about it being the organizers responsibility to put on a great event and he is absolutely right that they should be able to determine who judges their contest.

I also think that if KCBS provides the sanctioning and goes to the extent of being the ones who certify judges, they should have some bare minimal mechanism to ensure that the judges whom they have "certified" are upholding at least the bare minimum of showing up on that day and not wasting organizers time and making their job harder at the last minute.

Rookie'48
01-07-2010, 08:41 PM
From one of the contests that I helped to judge this year, I recieved an e-mail a couple of weeks before the comp that went something like this:
"Dear BBQ Judge - we are saving your seat at our comp. If you can not make it here PLEASE let us know so that we can replace you. Last year we had a few Judges not show up or call. If you are recieving this e-mail you were not one of those Judges."
I am in favor of that line of thinking.

BBQ Grail
01-07-2010, 09:17 PM
I've got a question...

What if a judge doesn't show up for a popcorn eating contest?

http://www.radiopacific.com/bigshow/sonyathomas_popcorn.jpg

SaucyWench
01-07-2010, 09:27 PM
From one of the contests that I helped to judge this year, I recieved an e-mail a couple of weeks before the comp that went something like this:
"Dear BBQ Judge - we are saving your seat at our comp. If you can not make it here PLEASE let us know so that we can replace you. Last year we had a few Judges not show up or call. If you are recieving this e-mail you were not one of those Judges."
I am in favor of that line of thinking.

I'd be in favor of something like that too. The only time I've been a "no show" was when we moved across country, and I did let the organizer know in a timely manner.

More than often, I've sent in my judge application and not received a confirmation or a "sorry, we're full." Most times, I've gone anyway and found that I got lost in the shuffle, but was on the judges list. Other times, I've been heartily welcomed even though I wasn't on the list, because of some miscommunications between the judge coordinator and the contact listed in the Bullsheet and they were worrying that they wouldn't have enough judges. In new comps or or older comps with new organizers, understandably, these things can happen.

However, if the organizer hasn't sent a confirmation, how am I to know I'm on the list? If I somehow got on the list without receiving confirmation, and I decided on that particular weekend not to expend the gas and hotel money since it appeared from their silence that I wasn't needed, should that be a strike against me?

MilitantSquatter
01-07-2010, 09:37 PM
I'd be in favor of something like that too. The only time I've been a "no show" was when we moved across country, and I did let the organizer know in a timely manner.

More than often, I've sent in my judge application and not received a confirmation or a "sorry, we're full." Most times, I've gone anyway and found that I got lost in the shuffle, but was on the judges list. Other times, I've been heartily welcomed even though I wasn't on the list, because of some miscommunications between the judge coordinator and the contact listed in the Bullsheet and they were worrying that they wouldn't have enough judges. In new comps or or older comps with new organizers, understandably, these things can happen.

However, if the organizer hasn't sent a confirmation, how am I to know I'm on the list? If I somehow got on the list without receiving confirmation, and I decided on that particular weekend not to expend the gas and hotel money since it appeared from their silence that I wasn't needed, should that be a strike against me?

That's a good point...

Should organizers be responsible for confirming back they received and accepted the judges application or should judge be responsible to reach out to confirm their application was received and accepted ??

BBQchef33
01-07-2010, 09:41 PM
everytime i judged, i recieved a letter from the opganizers with last minute details or instructions. I would consider that a confirmation. But nothing at all.. i think there should be at least a final communication before the contest.

MilitantSquatter
01-07-2010, 09:43 PM
everytime i judged, i recieved a letter from the opganizers with last minute details or instructions. I would consider that confirmation.


which decade was that ?? :wink:

BBQchef33
01-07-2010, 09:45 PM
1990.. i judged a beauty pagent for little girls.


you won.

dmprantz
01-07-2010, 11:05 PM
if the organizer hasn't sent a confirmation, how am I to know I'm on the list? If I somehow got on the list without receiving confirmation, and I decided on that particular weekend not to expend the gas and hotel money since it appeared from their silence that I wasn't needed, should that be a strike against me?

Good question. The first part of my response is that it most likely won't count against you. Keep in mind that we are talking about judges who repeatedly don't show. What is the statistical probabillity that mulitple times a person would not receive notification and not show even when the person was approved? More importantly what is the statistical probabillity that a person who has missed multiple contests due to lack of communication is going to miss one when he does? I would say fairly high. Keep reading for the reason why.

Another way to look at it, though I can already feel the backlash, and I mean no disrespect, but if you simply send an eMail or send a letter to volunteer and travel very far at your expense without receiving confirmation of that that you are asked, that's bad follow through. From the same token, if you cancel without confirming that you were in fact canceling, that's bad follow through as well.

And here's the reason, beyond statistical variances and beyond follow through: It all comes down to interest, just like I explained re: dating before. If you are interested in judging a contest, then IMHO you will follow through and confirm. If you don't do that, then you are not really interested and might back out even if you are confirmed. That's my point of view, but more importantly than anything else, if you show a statistical liklihood that you will cancel, there's a reason for that, and it's not magic pixie dust.

dmp

Skip
01-07-2010, 11:19 PM
That's a good point...

Should organizers be responsible for confirming back they received and accepted the judges application or should judge be responsible to reach out to confirm their application was received and accepted ??


No and No. Requiring actions like this is tedious and all hinged on the need for lists. Drop the list you drop the issue.

MilitantSquatter
01-07-2010, 11:21 PM
No and No. Requiring actions like this is tedious and all hinged on the need for lists. Drop the list you drop the issue.


What Lists ????

I'm talking about a simple e-mail or phone call confirmation.

You don't like confirmations on any reservation you make or invitiation you send ?

Should 150 judges send in applications, with a need for only 50 and all the others show up and get sent home and waste 50% of their weekend ?

Skip
01-07-2010, 11:31 PM
just like I explained re: dating before. If you are interested in judging a contest, then IMHO you will follow through and confirm.

Thats not actually a good comparison to your dating analogy. In your dating analogy you said if you missed...no matter what....you weren't interested. So if you use that logic here you would say that if you missed a contest....no matter what....you weren't interested.

Thats extreme.

Skip
01-07-2010, 11:47 PM
What Lists ????

I'm talking about a simple e-mail or phone call confirmation.

You don't like confirmations on any reservation you make or invitiation you send ?

Should 150 judges send in applications, with a need for only 50 and all the others show up and get sent home and waste 50% of their weekend ?

I had assumed there was more to your query then which person should confirm. Its been my experience that organizers confirm with the judge. In fact I have never heard an organizer requiring the judge to apply and then confirm their application.

BBQ Grail
01-07-2010, 11:51 PM
In fact I have never heard an organizer requiring the judge to apply and then confirm their application.


I have!

NotleyQue
01-08-2010, 01:48 AM
<~~~Is calling KCBS to have his name removed from the database of judges. Also asking how my info can be protected so that unautorized use can be minimized.

EDIT: SCORE!!! Anyone else looking to stay off this list just needs to ask the KCBS to remove their name from the website. Easy peasy and I can still judge. They will explain how. Better yet I won't be on the list.


Dude you are on the internet. It's to late.

Skip
01-08-2010, 09:01 AM
Dude you are on the internet. It's to late.


Nah not true. I have been diligent about keeping tabs on my info. I don't shop online nor do I release info readily. My memberships to websites such as this are protected as best as possible. Barring a hack and subsequent dissemination of info I am pretty well protected. My email addresses and screennames vary widely and do not contain first name or surname. I do not give credit agencies, credit card companies, retail companies, or any other group who would ask my email address so that name and email address are not linked unnecessarily. I rarely give a phone number. If they don't need it why give it? Heck I have cordless phones in the house and make the many different customer service people come up with a better way to identify me other then my SS number. Even the last four over the line is a problem and I will not do so. If thats their only way to identify me I say goodbye. Heck most of the places who ask "Where do you live?" get "Planet Earth" instead of the town. :lol:

If you are diligent about it you can minimize your exposure. But you need to be proactive or, as the lazy people who willingly give up have said to me, paranoid. That is why I called the KCBS immediately when I found out my name was available on their website. Minimize the risk.

Skip
01-08-2010, 09:07 AM
I have!


Wow thats ballsy. So you have to apply for a spot and then follow up to see if you got the spot? Does this person have mechanisms in place to facilitate the self confirmation process? Are you forced to contact them and hope they pick up only to wait for an eternity while they search their list to see if you are on it? I wonder what percentage of CBJ's that get.

Bigdog
01-08-2010, 09:52 AM
1990.. i judged a beauty pagent for little girls.


you won.

OMG that is funny. You two are killing me. I'm setting here in class laughing my arse off and I can't tell my students why? :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

Nice one too Larry.

Skip
01-08-2010, 10:18 AM
Hey Phil, will ya loan me a quarter so I can call someone who gives a chit?


I got a quarter for you. :grin::grin::grin:

I also can give you my phone number if you'd like. :lol::lol::lol:

Jorge
01-08-2010, 10:20 AM
Man, I am not even getting mixed up in this stuff. If you can believe it, my boots aren't high enough... ;). Jorge would be so proud.

I'm with Ford, getting some chili and beers and watch the game. Also watch Pitmasters.

Who are you, and what have you done with Scottie?!!!!

Scottie
01-08-2010, 10:34 AM
Who are you, and what have you done with Scottie?!!!!


It's the new me. I am focusing my attention on other more ridiculous topics....

Skip
01-08-2010, 10:35 AM
I just read this whole thread.

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?

Nope :lol: Oh wait that was rhetorical. :mrgreen:


I had no idea that Ice Station Zebra had so many people trapped inside!

And Ernest Borgnine just farted.:eek::eek::eek: Get us out of here!!!

As of today I think I'll increase my annual donation to this site, in the hopes that we can obtain a time share in the Bahamas, in order to give those that require it some time to quit climbing walls.

Will it be available to pot stirrers too? :wink:

NotleyQue
01-08-2010, 10:35 AM
Nah not true. I have been diligent about keeping tabs on my info. I don't shop online nor do I release info readily. My memberships to websites such as this are protected as best as possible. Barring a hack and subsequent dissemination of info I am pretty well protected. My email addresses and screennames vary widely and do not contain first name or surname. I do not give credit agencies, credit card companies, retail companies, or any other group who would ask my email address so that name and email address are not linked unnecessarily. I rarely give a phone number. If they don't need it why give it? Heck I have cordless phones in the house and make the many different customer service people come up with a better way to identify me other then my SS number. Even the last four over the line is a problem and I will not do so. If thats their only way to identify me I say goodbye. Heck most of the places who ask "Where do you live?" get "Planet Earth" instead of the town. :lol:

If you are diligent about it you can minimize your exposure. But you need to be proactive or, as the lazy people who willingly give up have said to me, paranoid. That is why I called the KCBS immediately when I found out my name was available on their website. Minimize the risk.

Im glad you sleep at night believing what you just wrote. I will say it again. Dude, you are online, and you also have an email address. Like it or not, believe it or not...your info is out there just like everyone elses to be harvested if someone wants to.

You just admitted that your email address was on a list that was on a website. Well the internet has a funny way of remembering things like that. And even though you think its gone, its not.

Skip
01-08-2010, 10:48 AM
It's the new me. I am focusing my attention on other more ridiculous topics....


Cool I can't wait to check your posting history. The derisive responses here are a bit much. :lol::lol::lol:

Scottie
01-08-2010, 10:54 AM
Cool I can't wait to check your posting history. The derisive responses here are a bit much. :lol::lol::lol:


I moderated myself and deleted them.... :icon_shy

Skip
01-08-2010, 11:02 AM
Im glad you sleep at night believing what you just wrote. I will say it again. Dude, you are online, and you also have an email address. Like it or not, believe it or not...your info is out there just like everyone elses to be harvested if someone wants to.

You just admitted that your email address was on a list that was on a website. Well the internet has a funny way of remembering things like that. And even though you think its gone, its not.

Didn't say it wasn't there just said it was not readily available to the general public. My info isn't out there just like everyone elses. I make sure not to drop my email on every site I go to I refrain from becoming part of lists. I make up names and use throwaway emails for gaming sites and the like. My main email address is actually under another persons account which further distances me from it, even if it weren't the company that controls it would need to be hacked, the info taken and then distributed to someone who could compile it and spit it back out on the net. If I worried about that I'd worry about getting on a plane without passing through a scanner. I use a nickname outside of work so linking the two names would be necessary to put together a full picture. To say my info is as easily available as someone who has public profiles like facebook and the like is false. I'm not denying that somewhere in the bowels of the internet my information is just waiting to be consolidated into a profile but for now it would require a lot of due diligence to compile.

Jorge
01-08-2010, 11:18 AM
Dsm iv

Meat@Slim's
01-08-2010, 11:48 AM
Dsm iv

That is the magic post I was looking for.

I work in SPED. Our copy is the DSMIII. You know there is a V now?

Skip
01-08-2010, 11:54 AM
Dsm iv


Is this a riddle?

BBQchef33
01-08-2010, 12:05 PM
dsm iv

297.1-3/301.0

smoke showin'
01-08-2010, 02:18 PM
I found as an organizer overbook because people will forget and double book or if they have nothing invested not show up . I know as a competitor I was furious one time at a contest when at 845 an announcement was made that we need 6 volunteers to judge being at the time a backyard competitor I knew where they would be placed.

Rookie'48
01-08-2010, 11:42 PM
..... In fact I have never heard an organizer requiring the judge to apply and then confirm their application.

I have had it happen like that & I kinda like it, it shows that the organizer is trying to stay on top of things. I have also sent in an app to judge a couple of months beforehand, heard nothing back, called the contact person and heard "Huh? I don't see your name here, you must not be judging." Good thing that I didn't drive 150 miles or so before I found out!

BBQ Grail
01-09-2010, 10:39 AM
What about keeping a list of organizers who keep lists of judges?

G$
01-09-2010, 11:13 AM
What about keeping a list of organizers who keep lists of judges?

I am keeping a list of people who are keeping lists of list keepers.

EDIT: I am also checking it twice.

BBQchef33
01-09-2010, 11:33 AM
Uh-OH. (http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/memberlist.php)

Trouble abound in our own backyard.

BigJimsBBQ
01-09-2010, 11:41 AM
I am keeping a list of people who are keeping lists of list keepers.

EDIT: I am also checking it twice.

Santa - Need SPK 1000 Trailer Mounted next year please:grin:

QansasjayhawQ
01-09-2010, 09:19 PM
Well if they can't round up warm bodies in time then the Rep can do 7 boxes per table. I've seen this done. But the organizers are encouraged to find more judges and I've seen them grab people walking by and say would you like free food. We need judges. Very little time to instruct them and they had not planned on judging so have no idea what this is all about.

Organizers have a tough job getting judges. Now what happens when too many CBJ's show up and they ask some to table captain. I've heard that there can be some major yelling and screaming about not getting hteir food. Not a job I want.
I've judged 22 events over the last two seasons and I've never ever seen anyone yelling and screaming about not getting their food.

Plowboy
01-17-2010, 10:45 PM
It seems that when you aren't on THE LIST, you don't get behind the velvet rope.

Don Skip

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj201/plowboysbbq/BBQ/KCBS2010Banquet012.jpg

Merl
01-17-2010, 11:12 PM
Good thing that Sled was on the A list side of the rope. Who are those wantabees behing that rope anyway?
Merl

Plowboy
01-18-2010, 08:18 AM
Good thing that Sled was on the A list side of the rope. Who are those wantabees behing that rope anyway?
Merl

Skip (left)
Yakfishingfool (right)


Security
Muzzlebrake (left)
BBQChef33 (right)

BBQ Grail
01-18-2010, 08:24 AM
Is this picture before or after Yak gagged Phil?

bbqpitstop
01-18-2010, 08:02 PM
Well I read through this whole thread, would this be a bad time to mention that my village wants me to organize a cookoff and I am petrified to let them know that while sanctioning can bring in the serious competitors, that it can also become a royal pain in the ass ?

I don't know anyone as of yet in this bbq game that doesn't have good intentions.

Cooks have their perspectives on what judges should be doing or how they should be trained, monitored or "listed".

Promoters have their perspectives on how kcbs involvement should be limited, or how much paperwork should be required to get sanctioning.

kcbs has their perspective on how cooks should realize that if you require more and more accountability, input or control over judges you are taking away some of the "fun" that they like to try and preserve with these contests.

The divide while not insurmountable is illustrated in Myron's rants due to the fact that he's made this his living and "depends" on accountability in judging to make the big bucks. Some "depend" on accountability to get the bragging rights.

I just hope everyone realizes that there are many different perspectives but ultimately I have to educate my village on "just how serious" of a cookoff do you want to have ? How much time, effort and energy do you want to expend ?

Thank god there are still unsanctioned cookoffs and even some "serious" competitors willing to cook in them. Thank god there are kcbs reps still willing to stay involved with a low paying but "fun" sport. Thank god there are promoters that are still willing to raise the funds, sponsors, teams and judges and still put up with the huge amount of work going into sanctioning.

Lots of good ideas here though, so it's been productive. I thought we'd start as simple as possible and try to go unsanctioned. If I knew there was a database and how many judges were around my area it might tilt my decision to dive into the more complicated effort to sanction the event from the beginning. Let me know how this progresses.

I sooo agree with Ford, keep up the complaining and there will be a lot less contests out there. If we have to complain we should try to always have constructive solutions attached to those complaints and try to wear the other persons shoes before we complain.

We know up front that we might drive miles, might win or lose, might get uncertified or certified judges, might get drunk and have fun, might stay sober and end up losing a transmission and having an all around tough weekend. That's the breaks even when you're a serious competitor at this point. All in all it's still a wonderful bbq world.

BBQchef33
01-19-2010, 12:45 AM
If we have to complain we should try to always have constructive solutions attached to those complaints and try to wear the other persons shoes before we complain.



I would really like to append that to the stone tablets brought down by Moses.

:biggrin::eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap

butt head
01-19-2010, 06:43 PM
just finnished reading thru this:eek:, Phil do you have any asprin left:eusa_clap

BBQchef33
01-19-2010, 09:22 PM
No aspirin left... there was a run on it lately.


One thing to add to this thread. At the CBJ meeting at the KCBS banquet, Board member and the head of the CBJ's, Ed Roth encouraged organizers to keep list of the judges in their areas to keep track of trends. The conversation was more towards scoring, similar to how they do in FBA.... but in the closing minutes of the meeting in summarizing, he DID encourage organizers to "keep track of their judging pool".


just sayin.. :)

I nearly fell out of my chair.

butt head
01-20-2010, 04:04 PM
I nearly fell out of my chair.
__________________
sure that was'nt a cheese steak shifting:biggrin:

The Giggler
01-21-2010, 09:41 AM
Good to see you over here Shelly! Some perspectives from a second year KCBS Organizer:

Promoters have their perspectives on how kcbs involvement should be limited, or how much paperwork should be required to get sanctioning. Honestly, the paperwork for KCBS Sanctioning is pretty easy. You fillout the form, mail your deposit check, then you get assigned Reps who help you every step of the way. There's nothing hard about it, but there is an expense.

I just hope everyone realizes that there are many different perspectives but ultimately I have to educate my village on "just how serious" of a cookoff do you want to have ? How much time, effort and energy do you want to expend? You've got my number. :-D Any time you want to talk with the Village, I'm willing to come along for the ride.

Thank god there are promoters that are still willing to raise the funds, sponsors, teams and judges and still put up with the huge amount of work going into sanctioning. Again, I don't follow you on this. You fill out a form, send in your deposit, and get to it. My experience was very good, and the information and timelines are there. So is the advertising to Teams and Judges on the website. The correspondence with Teams and Judges is what takes the largest amount of work. And once the Contest is underway, the Sanctioning Body oversees the integrity of the competition, enforces the rules for Teams and Judges, then tabulates and prints the scoresheets. I wouldn't dream of having a contest without KCBS Sanctioning. The framework they provide, and the work they do at a contest far outweighs the cost. Plus its tried, true, and trusted by cooks.

I'm considering a contest right now that is unsanctioned. In terms of prize money and invitationals, there's a lot at stake for the winner. So far, the whole affair seems rather disjointed and unorganized, and I can see that trending into the competition and judging itself. I inquired for an info packet with complete rules in early December, and haven't seen it yet. I'm 50/50 on whether I will spend the $1000+ to compete. At this point, I don't have confidence in what my experience has been so far. All I'm saying is if it were KCBS Sanctioned, it would be a no-brainer.

I thought we'd start as simple as possible and try to go unsanctioned. If I knew there was a database and how many judges were around my area it might tilt my decision to dive into the more complicated effort to sanction the event from the beginning. IMO, going unsanctioned means even more work, especially once you know how the whole thing works. You'll start from scratch, and build the wheel from the ground up. KCBS does offer Licensing for first year contests. Check it out - you've got nothing to loose by looking into it.

cbagby64
01-21-2010, 08:58 PM
I can see both sides to this discussion but I think that if you sign up to judge and can't make it YOU are responsible for finding a CBJ as a replacement.

The Giggler
01-22-2010, 09:49 AM
I can see both sides to this discussion but I think that if you sign up to judge and can't make it YOU are responsible for finding a CBJ as a replacement.

In a perfect world.... :wink: