View Single Post
Unread 07-18-2013, 02:50 PM   #152
kellym
Found some matches.
 
Join Date: 12-26-08
Location: San Diego, CA
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokin' Joe View Post
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.
You also have the judges that never score under a 7. I actually had a CBJ tell me he gives a 7 just for turning in because he doesn't want to disrespect the team. Fortunately he wasn't judging (and never will) at one of my contests. No amount of discussion would change his mind either.
kellym is offline   Reply With Quote


Thanks from: --->