Wholly Fark is this true!!!

I am starting a black list for every cbj that gives me a 5 ..... i hae a realy big azz list so far...
 
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
 
dmprantz said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
motoeric said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
Meat@Slim's said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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.
 
motoeric said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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
 
motoeric said:
....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.
Click to expand...
^^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
 
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.
 
goodsmokebbq said:
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.
Click to expand...

MilitantSquatter said:
What's so bad with a "three strikes and you're out" system ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
motoeric said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Skip said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
Would be interesting to hear their reasoning behind their list.
Click to expand...

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....
 
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.
 
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.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

troy64
is this true?
Replies
7
Views
637
16Adams
16Adams
J
What is a first cut brisket?
Replies
7
Views
1K
smoke ninja
smoke ninja
SmokinAussie
This may cause serious harm, but I'm up for it!
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
creek bottom
creek bottom
Gore
Houston update
Replies
4
Views
533
LYU370
LYU370
S
Garlic Bombs! :)
2
Replies
21
Views
865
Smoked&Baked
S
Back
Top