Wholly Fark is this true!!!

[Meat@Slim's]

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]

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.

 

[Skip]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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