Originally Posted by Smokin' Joe
I'll admit that all the statistics stuff is over my head, but I don't understand how random is better than applying what we know about a judges history? I look at it this way -
1) if it gives me more information about why my stuff scored the way it did, thats a good thing (perfect? no, but I believe more is better).
2) I believe some people arent qualified to be KCBS CBJ's - If this can help indentify them for re-training/elimination, then I support it. This isn't about all judges giving everyone a 9, its about the few judges who consistenly score 3-4 full points under everyone else. There arent millions of them, but they do exist
I understand point 2 might not be popular and could get a little scary with the wrong implemention, but I think its necessary for the continued growth of KCBS.
1. I agree if
the information is valid. If it's just the illusion of information (again think roulette history boards) then acting on it may be detrimental.
2. The KCBS position seems to be that if the check clears that person is qualified to be a judge. Again the age old question - How many people have failed the CBJ class?
What about the few judges that constantly score 2 to 3 points higher
than the rest of the table? Will they be retrained? I can see the future and it's score cards full of 8,8,8.