Wholly Fark is this true!!!

[goodsmokebbq]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

With A, B or C?

Eric

 

[Skip]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

WTF?

Now im getting a headache. :icon_sick

 

[motoeric]

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]

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]

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]

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.